Why hasn't Christian universalism ever gone away?

[wendykvw]

And that doesn't conflict with Eternal Punishment, because when the Goats are judged at Christ's Return they go into Hades.

And that will be for an Age, the Millennial Kingdom.

And when that Age ends they go into the Lake of Fire.

It is still everlasting punishment.

There was no succor for the Rich Man in Hades.




And only one group is correct in their interpretation.

Eternal Punishment and universal Salvation cannot both be true.

The fact that most Greek Scholars come to the same conclusion may not "prove" anything, but it should, at the very least—get your attention. And cause you to question coming to an out of context conclusion.



If I read the Bible with presuppositions would I have taken on a view that men were not born again prior to Pentecost?

Would I view Martin Luther as lacking in his understanding of Justification, as well as most people today?

You are assuming that it is up to the Bible Student to understand Scripture on thier own, and ignores that it is the Comforter that teaches us Spiritual Truth.

Sure, babes "read with presuppositions," this is natural. They follow the teaching of their spiritual leaders.

Until they begin to mature and allow God to teach them.

But what is obvious is that despite the fact you say this, you don't seem to take your own teaching seriously. If you are reading the Bible with presuppositions, you admit what people have been telling you all along: you are simply proof-texting what you want to believe.


Continue...

Everyone has presuppositions. If you deny such you are either deceived or naive.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, you have already admitted not being able to understand the concept of those who are dead being "alive" without having Eternal Life,

Matthew 10:28
King James Version

28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

This means the soul while it is not killed in the first death and still exists - yet it is what Paul calls "asleep in Jesus" as we see in 1 Thess 4:13-18 as stated repeatedly.

Quote me if you want to attribute something to me.

I have quoted you many times. .

Just not on the statement I raised in the post you just responded to. Details matter.

 

[wendykvw]

Thanks for sharing your unwillingness to be honest about what was said.

No presupposition, and passages that are not really that hard to interpret.

God bless.

Interpreted by the view you hold to that I did as well is not a challenge. My apologies. And your welcome.

 

[P1LGR1M]

I already did -- I point out that on the same topic - the point remains... your efforts to spin it away from that topic failed.

(though you would help your own case by not flooding the thread with dozens of posts to the same person trying find a response to one post)

Want to see that again?

======================



IN Matt 10:28 the text does not say "destroy" means to keep alive. Rather it presents a progression from merely "kill" to "destroy". A body may be killed but not destroyed. But a body cannot be destroyed without killing it also. It is a progression of concept. Obviously.

Matthew 10:28
King James Version

28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.


Rev 20:9 “Fire DEVOURED the wicked”
9 And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them.

Rev 11:18 “Destroy those who Destroy the earth”

2Thess 1:9 The wicked pay the “penalty of eternal Destruction”

Ps 21:8-10 “devoured” – “Destroyed”

"Destroy" by "reducing them to ashes..

=====================
The idea that "destroy" means - "gets eternal life and exists forever" is not once a claim in scripture.

Your argument above is for the wicked having both immortal bodies and immortal souls that even God himself is not able to destroy as in "kill". That is quite a stretch!! It is sticking a big "NOT!" in front of Christ's statement rather than allowing the "progression of concept" Christ presents where he goes BEYOND kill to outright destroy.

To kill a body and go beyond that to also DESTROY the body is not even remotely "so of course would not kill the body". That statement of Christ has not logical way to spin back around on itself the way you suggest.

=================

No wonder the "final end of the wicked" is expressed this way in scripture..

Destruction: Matt 10:28
Which is what we find in Luke 17 regarding Sodom
Luke 17:29
but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. (destroy - Apollumi )

Which is why it is so instructive to see in 2 Peter 2 "destroyed by reducing them to ashes" that we see in 2 Peter 2

2 Peter 2:6
6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes,


"cease to be" - Satan - the covering cherub... reduced to ashes as well.

Ezek 28: 14
You were on the holy mountain of God;
You walked in the midst of the stones of fire.
15 You were blameless in your ways
From the day you were created
Until unrighteousness was found in you.
16 By the abundance of your trade
You were internally filled with violence,
And you sinned;
Therefore I have cast you as profane
From the mountain of God.
And I have destroyed you, you covering cherub,
From the midst of the stones of fire.
17 Your heart was haughty because of your beauty;
You corrupted your wisdom by reason of your splendor.
I threw you to the ground;
I put you before kings,
That they may see you.
18 By the multitude of your wrongdoings,
In the unrighteousness of your trade
You profaned your sanctuaries.
Therefore I have brought fire from the midst of you;
It has consumed you,
And I have turned you to ashes on the earth
In the eyes of all who see you.
19 All who know you among the peoples
Are appalled at you;
You have become terrified
And you will cease to be forever.”’”

The wicked ... consumed/devoured... Rev 20
7 When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison, 8 and will come out to deceive the nations which are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore. 9 And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them.

lol

God bless.

 

[BobRyan]

So why do you reject His teaching?

Why do you reject His rejection of annihilation? That is what the Sadducees believed.

because I don't do that. you are not answering any point made at all by simply making up things for me to believe. Post something substantive.

Right, they were destroyed physically that day, and await judgment:

2 Peter 2:5-6
King James Version

5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

You keep shooting your own argument in the foot every time you list the cities above as still existing even though the destroyed - when clearly those cities no longer exist nor is God going to build 4000 year old cities at any time in the future.

Make a compelling case.

The people who died in the flood are still awaiting eternal judgment, even as the people of Sodom are:

Not helping you since in the first death they "kill the body" (so when those wicked cities were destroyed the wicked were killed -- their bodies killed) - but not the soul which is then destroyed along with the body at the lake of fire event according to Matt 10:28 ( as pointed out dozens of times by now in our exchanges)

Matt 10:
'28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

To kill a body and go beyond that to also DESTROY the body is not even remotely "so of course would not kill the body". That statement of Christ has no logical way to spin back around on itself the way you suggest.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Just not on the statement I raised in the post you just responded to. Details matter.

I have addressed this numerous times. You keep raising the same argument, and it was no different in the "one I just responded to."

I do that here...

Sorry, but you have several false premises that have to be dealt with:

1. I have never said God doesn't destroy the wicked, I have simply kept a Biblical usage for the word translated destroy and shown its use regarding those who were still "living" in the sense that they had physical life (Matthew 10:6 and Matthew 15:24);

2. You are at a disadvantage because you have, like most cults do, embraced a trichotomy of man that is not taught in Scripture, rather than the dichotomy that is clearly presented in man's creation. He was given a body and a spirit and became a soul. He did not receive a soul;

3. Even in this post we see that you disregard what Scripture actually says in favor of your imposed definition of Biblical words:

...and here...

If God intended to "kill" those who are cast into Hell it would read "...who hath power to kill both soul and body in Hell," but it doesn't read that way.

Words have meaning, Bob.

And when "everlasting" is used in regards to the punishment and judgment those who are cast into Hell receive it might be a good idea to pay attention to what Scripture is saying.

That is, after all, why God gave us His Word.


Continued...

...and here...

I'm not actually the NOT!head in this discussion.



And I agree, Christ does indeed present where He goes beyond "Kill."

And the Biblical usage for destroy does not mean annihilation.

...and here...

You are forgetting that the "beyond" itself doesn't imply annihilation, it implies ongoing suffering:


Luke 12:4-5
King James Version

4 And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.

5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.


What is it that will be done "after they are killed?"

Do you really not see that there is more that takes place after the "death?"

And it isn't God "killing" the soul (person) and body, it is God "destroying" both soul and body.

The fear that is meant to be generated here is first, Fear of God. Secondly, it is being cast into Hell.

And the simple conclusion drawn (particularly when taken in light of all teachings of Scripture) is that there is more to fear being done to the soul and body when they are cast into Hell.


Continued...

...and here...

So why do you reject His teaching?

Why do you reject His rejection of annihilation? That is what the Sadducees believed.

...and here...

Right, they were destroyed physically that day, and await judgment:


2 Peter 2:5-6
King James Version

5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;


The people who died in the flood are still awaiting eternal judgment, even as the people of Sodom are:


Matthew 10:15
Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.


Your point is dismissed by the teaching of Christ.

You are the one saying "It will NOT be more tolerable for Sodom because they have been destroyed already."

And your position is false. They still await being judged on that Day.

Yet you reiterate this argument after it has been dismissed numerous times as though it will somehow make logical sense this time.

And will universal salvationists step forward and agree? No, because it doesn't suit their own agendas.


Continued...

...and here...

Physical destruction, still awaiting Eternal Judgment.

Pretty easy for most Bible Students to see.

...and here...

Physical destruction, still awaiting Eternal Judgment.

Pretty easy for most Bible Students to see.

Let's look at the flood victims:

2 Peter 2:5
King James Version

5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;



Eternal Judgment?

Not if we keep it in context and include all of what Peter is teaching:


2 Peter 2:5-9
King James Version

5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds

9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:


Peter agrees with Christ, that there is still a day of judgment awaiting the flood victims.

You are the one placing a NOT! in front of their teachings.

Are they killed? Or punished?


Continued...

...and here...

Perhaps if you read your proof texts with a little more attention to detail, you would see once again the futility of your position:


Therefore I have cast you as profane
From the mountain of God.
And I have destroyed you, you covering cherub,
From the midst of the stones of fire.


Notice that Satan is in a state of destruction when he is cast from the mountain of God?

He will remain in a state of destruction when he is cast into the Lake of Fire. Just as the Lost of the Lost Sheep of Israel were in a state of destruction when Christ came to minister to them.

So you can either take the position that Satan was destroyed then, which isn't supported by Scripture (seeing that he continues to walk to and fro), or you can take the position this doesn't mean what it says and Satan will be annihilated when cast into the Lake of Fire, or, you can take the Biblical position and understand that when God said He destroyed Satan in his fall that God meant what He said.


Continued...

...and here...

Again, you try to use a physical context and convince people it is an eternal context.

This is what every cult teaching does, and that has been shown to you over and over.


Revelation 20:7-9
King James Version

7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.


Honestly, what part of "the four quarters of the earth" and "the breadth of the earth" do you NOT! understand?

What would be reasonable is for you to, as a sincere Bible Student and Christian—cede the point.

Will you?

We shall see.


Continued...

...and you have the utter gall to say...

Just not on the statement I raised in the post you just responded to. Details matter.

lol

The Public Record isn't going to change, Bob, I have addressed your doctrine over and over.

This is just from this one thread, and if I am remembering correctly we have exchanged views in at least three threads now.

So don't say I haven't addressed this same doctrine over and over. I have, and you keep presenting it without addressing my responses to it.


God bless.

 

[Hmm]

Everyone has presuppositions. If you deny such you are either deceived or naive.

That's true. I think my presupposition about universal restoration is that if God really is all-powerful and desires all to be saved then He will succeed in accomplishing this. And I believe He will do this while respecting our free will because He is powerful enough to attract us all freely. As St. Edith Stein wrote, "Human freedom can be neither broken nor neutralized by divine freedom, but it may well be, so to speak, outwitted". God will outwit, if necessary, even the most recalcitrant of us in order to win us over.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Everyone has presuppositions. If you deny such you are either deceived or naive.

I already addressed this: everyone does indeed start out with presupposition based on the teachings they received when they were completely ignorant.

To say that means there are no sincere Bible Students that do not impose their presuppositions is what I would call deceptive and naive.

It simply isn't truth. It is just one of your presuppositions that explains why you think it's okay for believers to have whatever view it is they want.

Just pick a flavor...

Interpreted by the view you hold to that I did as well is not a challenge.

I don't see you interpreting anything, really. Just posting proof texts, videos of the teachers you have gathered to yourself, and one movie.

My apologies. And your welcome.

Awfully kind of you.




God bless.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, you have already admitted not being able to understand the concept of those who are dead being "alive" without having Eternal Life,

Matthew 10:28
King James Version

28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

This means the soul while it is not killed in the first death and still exists - yet it is what Paul calls "asleep in Jesus" as we see in 1 Thess 4:13-18 as stated repeatedly.

Quote me if you want to attribute something to me.

In other words you have NOTHING from me saying those who kill the body are also at that point killing the soul, causing it to cease to exist...

or that the soul is dead once the body is dead

or that the soul ceases to exist once the body is killed.

And we both know it.

I.e. details matter.

I have quoted you many times. .

Just not on the statement I raised in the post you just responded to. Details matter.

I
...and you have the utter gall to say...

"Quote me if you want to attribute something to me. "

lol The Public Record isn't going to change, Bob,

Not paying attention is not helping in on that exchange above - I have recreated it in total so the readers can see what you just did.

And the Biblical usage for destroy does not mean annihilation.

Repeating a failed argument is not a funny kind of Bible proof of its validity.

Next we see the very usage of DESTROY in the Bible you claim cannot exist --

Address the responses to this argument already given, Bob. .

I already did -- I point out that on the same topic - the point remains... your efforts to spin it away from that topic failed.

(though you would help your own case by not flooding the thread with dozens of posts to the same person trying find a response to one post)

Want to see that again?

======================

1. I have never said God doesn't destroy the wicked, I have simply kept a Biblical usage for the word translated destroy

IN Matt 10:28 the text does not say "destroy" means to keep alive. Rather it presents a progression from merely "kill" to "destroy". A body may be killed but not destroyed. But a body cannot be destroyed without killing it also. It is a progression of concept. Obviously.

Matthew 10:28
King James Version

28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.


Rev 20:9 “Fire DEVOURED the wicked”
9 And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them.

Rev 11:18 “Destroy those who Destroy the earth”

2Thess 1:9 The wicked pay the “penalty of eternal Destruction”

Ps 21:8-10 “devoured” – “Destroyed”

"Destroy" by "reducing them to ashes..

=====================
The idea that "destroy" means - "gets eternal life and exists forever" is not once a claim in scripture.

Your argument above is for the wicked having both immortal bodies and immortal souls that even God himself is not able to destroy as in "kill". That is quite a stretch!! It is sticking a big "NOT!" in front of Christ's statement rather than allowing the "progression of concept" Christ presents where he goes BEYOND kill to outright destroy.

To kill a body and go beyond that to also DESTROY the body is not even remotely "so of course would not kill the body". That statement of Christ has not logical way to spin back around on itself the way you suggest.

=================

No wonder the "final end of the wicked" is expressed this way in scripture..

Destruction: Matt 10:28
Which is what we find in Luke 17 regarding Sodom
Luke 17:29
but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. (destroy - Apollumi )

Which is why it is so instructive to see in 2 Peter 2 "destroyed by reducing them to ashes" that we see in 2 Peter 2

2 Peter 2:6
6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes,


"cease to be" - Satan - the covering cherub... reduced to ashes as well.

Ezek 28: 14
You were on the holy mountain of God;
You walked in the midst of the stones of fire.
15 You were blameless in your ways
From the day you were created
Until unrighteousness was found in you.
16 By the abundance of your trade
You were internally filled with violence,
And you sinned;
Therefore I have cast you as profane
From the mountain of God.
And I have destroyed you, you covering cherub,
From the midst of the stones of fire.
17 Your heart was haughty because of your beauty;
You corrupted your wisdom by reason of your splendor.
I threw you to the ground;
I put you before kings,
That they may see you.
18 By the multitude of your wrongdoings,
In the unrighteousness of your trade
You profaned your sanctuaries.
Therefore I have brought fire from the midst of you;
It has consumed you,
And I have turned you to ashes on the earth
In the eyes of all who see you.
19 All who know you among the peoples
Are appalled at you;
You have become terrified
And you will cease to be forever.”’”

The wicked ... consumed/devoured... Rev 20
7 When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison, 8 and will come out to deceive the nations which are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore. 9 And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them.

 

[Der Alte]

1.In regards to kolasis, nobody is saying it doesn’t mean punishment, only that its purpose is remedial and not retributive.
2.You keep saying ‘aionios’ always means eternal. You really need to stop saying that because it simply is not true. Marvin Vincent (who is NOT a universalist), author of the very respected, Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament, disagrees with you when he writes, “The adjective aionios in like manner [to aion] carries the idea of time. Neither the noun [aion] nor the adjective [aionios], in themselves, carry the sense of endless or everlasting…Aionios means enduring through or pertaining to a period of time. Both the noun and the adjective are applied to limited periods.” (Vincent, Marvin, Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol IV, p. 59)
In fact, Vincent addresses Matt. 25:46 specifically and again disagrees with you when he writes, “Kolasis aionios rendered everlasting punishment (Matt. xxv. 46) is the punishment peculiar to an aeon other than that which Christ is speaking.” (ibid., p. 60).
3. Regarding the fact that your Greek scholars translated the word ‘aionios’ as ‘eternal’ and not ‘age’ doesn’t prove anything. Young’s Literal Translation translates ‘aionios’ in Matt. 25:46 with that “silly” expression, ‘age-during’. Who is right? This just proves my point that interpretation is “profoundly” influenced by one’s presuppositions. ... Now, I know what you’re thinking, “But I don’t read the bible with any presuppositions.” If so, you’re deceiving yourself. As Kaiser and Silva wrote, “But we fool ourselves if we think we can approach the text of Scripture with unprejudiced minds.” (Ibid., p. 283). Klein, Hubbard, and Blomberg agree, “But anyone who says that he or she has discarded all presuppositions and will only study the text objectively and inductively is either deceived or naïve.” (William Klein, Robert Hubbard, Craig Blomberg, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, p. 87)
4. We all come to scripture with presuppositions, myself included, and therefore, the best thing to do is recognize this fact rather than pretending it doesn’t exist (Walter Kaiser and Moises Silva, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 306). So please, enough with the childish accusations that everyone who disagrees with you isn’t interpreting scripture correctly or "taking it out of context".
5. We come to the text of Scripture with two very different presuppositions. You assert that God will only be able to save a very small fraction of those that Satan destroyed. I start with the understanding that God will eventually save all that Satan destroyed. Those are two very different starting points which means there are many passages we will never agree on. But I’m comfortable with my presupposition since it teaches that Christ is stronger than Satan because He will be able to save as many as Adam destroyed. Contrast this with your view that Christ is weaker than Satan since He cannot save as many as Adam destroyed.

This is all too much to address in one post so I will address it in pieces.
Let's start with the one guy that UR-ites always go to as the be all, end all authority on Biblical Greek. Marvin Vincent and his "literal translation." What makes it literal? It is only "literal" because Vincent said it was. News flash! Vincent was "self taught" in Greek and other languages. Go look it up!
Would you go to a Dr. or lawyer who was self taught? I wouldn't but a self taught "Greek expert" is who all UR run to. Because he says what they want to hear. See e.g. quoted post.
It does NOT matter how many experts you quote who say that "aionios" never means "eternal." Unless they provide grammatical, lexical, historical evidence their unsupported opinion is no more compelling than the scribbling on a public facility wall.
All those supposed experts you quoted above? Meaningless scribbling absent any lexical, grammatical, historical evidence<period, end of sentence!>
I am retired X3. I have retired from 2 occupations and social security. This is my full time job. See next post re: the meaning of "aionios."

 

[P1LGR1M]

Okay, last post for the day, and possibly for this visit to this forum. Just as a peice of advice to those who may read these posts, I do not recommend setting up camp in one forum, but traveling around to different forums so as not to get stuck in a rut, or, lack exposure to other brethren by which you might be edified.

You need to concise your replies into one. Why did you change your denomination from Baptist. Curious why the change, are you no
longer Baptist?

It doesn't matter if I "concise" my replies into one or do long posts. You have shown that you will not address them all.

And I am sorry to disappoint you in thinking I did what you did, abandon a group I once affiliated with to go on unto a higher plane of understanding, lol.

You have a hard time understanding the most basic facts of psychology.

There's a good reason for that: I am not trying to understand basic facts of psychology, I am trying to teach Basic Bible Principles to those who think psychology is going to help them interepret Scripture.

As far as to how well I understand psychology, well, perhaps if it were possible that you could show why this is even relevant then perhaps your statement might have relevance to these discussions as a whole.

Personally, and this is just my own opinion, I think I do rather well understanding the psychology of liberals and pointing out why they are liberal. Your rethinking of Hell is, as I said, no different than "rethinking gender."

Your concept is false. And again you entirely missed the point.

Because you have such a great grasp on the basics of psychology you can just dismiss all of the work and time that went into that post with a dogmatic conclusion that my concept is false.

Alrighty then.

Again, when I was an arrogant Southern Baptist who lived in a theological bubble everyone was wrong in their interpretations.

Meaning, "You are an arrogant Baptist who lives in a theological bubble who thinks everyone else is wrong in their interpretations."

What was that you were saying about what others believe?

Now, what would a Psychology professor have to say about your statement, eh?

I completely understand how and why you think the way you do.

lol

No, not really.

Because you are judging what I understand and how I think with what you understand and what you think.

If you want to actually understand all you have to do is pay attention to what I impart as my understanding and why I think the way Ido.

Instead—you think you are going to psycho-analyze me and thus dismiss my doctrine.

Your profile was changed from Baptist to Christian. What type of Baptist are you? Free will Baptist, Reformed Baptist, Westbro Baptist, Southern Baptist? I may have miss other varieties, but please enlighten me of your variety?

And this is relevant how?

No. Do you reject the doctrine of original sin?

And explain your understanding of Original Sin.

We cannot object to what someone says unless we understand what it is they believe and what they base those beliefs on.

My doctrine is not a reiteration of Baptist Doctrine I have learned by sitting in a pew for many years. There are a number of issues I view Baptists to be in error about but I can tell you this—people are going to get a better understanding of Scripture attending a Baptist Church than they will some liberal unitarian or universal fellowship.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Matthew 10:28
King James Version

28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

This means the soul while it is not killed in the first death and still exists - yet it is what Paul calls "asleep in Jesus" as we see in 1 Thess 4:13-18 as stated repeatedly.

Quote me if you want to attribute something to me.

In other words you have NOTHING from me saying those who kill the body are also at that point killing the soul, causing it to cease to exist...

or that the soul is dead once the body is dead

or that the soul ceases to exist once the body is killed.

And we both know it.

I.e. details matter.



Just not on the statement I raised in the post you just responded to. Details matter.



Not paying attention is not helping in on that exchange above - I have recreated it in total so the readers can see what you just did.



Repeating a failed argument is not a funny kind of Bible proof of its validity.

Next we see the very usage of DESTROY in the Bible you claim cannot exist --

Have a good day, Bob. I won't embarrass you any further by pointing out you continually raise the same argument over and over and refuse to address the points that show annihilation is a doctrine of cults that was rejected by Christ and the Apostles.



God bless.

 

[Der Alte]

1.In regards to kolasis, nobody is saying it doesn’t mean punishment, only that its purpose is remedial and not retributive.

Please provide lexical, grammatical or historical evidence that "kolasis" is remedial? IOW grab a credible Greek lexicon, I recommend Bauer, Danker, Arndt, & Gingrich and look up "kolasis" Or a credible Greek Grammar I recommend Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, by Dr. Daniel Wallace who has taught graduate level Greek for 40+ years. which explains why a particular word means what it does.

2.You keep saying ‘aionios’ always means eternal. You really need to stop saying that because it simply is not true. ...

Not only do I say it but I prove it, using scripture only. Since I am retired I reviewed every occurrence of "aionios" in the N.T. and I found 25 vss. where "aionios" is defined/described as "eternal/everlasting/for ever" etc. The following list has only been amateurishly addressed one time but never refuted.
“αιωνιος/aionios” occurs 72x in the N.T.
“aionios” is translated world only 5 times in the N.T. [2%]
“aionios” is correctly translated “eternal” 42 times in the N.T.[52%]
“aionios” is correctly translated “everlasting” 25 times in the N.T.[34.7%]
Jesus used “aionios” twenty eight [28] times, [38.8% of total] Jesus never used “aionios” to refer to something common, ordinary/mundane which was not/could not be “eternal.”
= = = = = = = = = =
In twenty four [24] of the following 26 verses “αιων/aion//αιωνιος/aionios are defined/described as eternal, everlasting, eternity etc, by paralleling or juxtaposition with other adjectives or descriptive phrases.
= = = = = = = = = =
…..Some people claim that “αιων/aion//αιωνιος/aionios never means eternity/eternal” because a few times they refer to things which are not eternal e.g. “world.”
However, neither word is ever defined/described, by adjectives or descriptive phrases, as meaning a period less than eternal, as in the following NT verses.
…..Jesus used “aionios” twenty eight [28] times. Jesus never used “aionios” to refer to anything common, ordinary or mundane that was not/could not be eternal.
…..In the following ten verses Jesus defines/describes “aionios” as “eternal.” Lk 1:33, John 6:58, 10:28, 3:15, 3:16, 5:29, 3:36, 4:14, 6:27, 8:51

[1] Luke 1:33
(33) And he shall reign [basileusei Vb.] over the house of Jacob for ever; [αιωνας/aionas] and of his kingdom [basileias, Nn.] there shall be no end.[telos]​

In this verse the reign/basileusei, the verb form of the word, is "aionas" and of the kingdom/basileias, the noun form of the same word, "there shall be no end.” “Aionas” by definition here means eternal, no end.

[2] John 6:58
(58) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.[aionios] ​

In this verse Jesus juxtaposes “live aionios” with “death.” If “live aionios” is only a finite age, a finite period life is not opposite “death.” Thus “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”

[3] John 10:28
(28) I give them eternal [aionios] life, and they shall never [aion] perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.​

In this verse Jesus parallels “aionios” and “aion” with “[not] snatch them out of my hand”, and “never perish.” If “aion/aionios” means “age(s), a finite age,” that is not the opposite of “[not] snatch them out of my hand’/never perish” “Aionios life” by definition here means “eternal life.”

[4]John 3:15
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [aionion] life.
[5] John 3:16
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [aionion] life. ​

In these two verses Jesus parallels “aionion” with “should not perish,” two times. Believers could eventually perish in a finite age, by definition “aionion life” here means eternal or everlasting never perishing life.

[6]John 5:24
(24) Verily, verily, [Amen, Amen] I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting [aionios] life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.​

In this verse Jesus parallels “aionios” with “shall not come into condemnation” and “passed from death unto life.” “Aionios” does not mean “a finite age,” by definition here it means “eternal,” unless Jesus lets His followers come into condemnation and pass into death.

[7]John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting [aionios] life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.​

In this verse Jesus juxtaposed aionios life with “shall not see life.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall not see life” By definition aionios means eternal.

[8]John 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never [ου μη/ou mé] thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting [aionios] life.​

In this verse Jesus paralleled aionios with “shall [ου μη/ou mé][fn] never thirst.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall never thirst.” By definition aionios means eternal. See footnote [fn] on “ou mé” below.

[9]John 6:27
(27) Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting [aionios] life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.​

In this verse Jesus contrasted “aionios meat” with “meat that perishes.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “meat that perishes.” By definition aionios means eternal.

[10]John 8:51
(51) Very truly [amen amen] I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never [ou mé eis ton aiona][fn] see death."​

In this verse Jesus juxtaposes “unto aion” with “never see death.” By definition “aion” means eternity.

[Character Limit. Continued next post]
And FYI a different interpretation by you or a half dozen dueling "scholars" does NOT disprove anything! You must show credible. verifiable. historical etc. evidence.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Matthew 10:28
King James Version

28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

This means the soul while it is not killed in the first death and still exists - yet it is what Paul calls "asleep in Jesus" as we see in 1 Thess 4:13-18 as stated repeatedly.

Quote me if you want to attribute something to me.

In other words you have NOTHING from me saying those who kill the body are also at that point killing the soul, causing it to cease to exist...

or that the soul is dead once the body is dead

or that the soul ceases to exist once the body is killed.

And we both know it.

I.e. details matter.



Just not on the statement I raised in the post you just responded to. Details matter.



Not paying attention is not helping in on that exchange above - I have recreated it in total so the readers can see what you just did.



Repeating a failed argument is not a funny kind of Bible proof of its validity.

Next we see the very usage of DESTROY in the Bible you claim cannot exist --

As I said...

I have addressed this numerous times. You keep raising the same argument, and it was no different in the "one I just responded to."

I do that here...



...and here...




...and here...



...and here...



...and here...



...and here...



...and here...




...and here...



...and here...



...and here...




...and you have the utter gall to say...





lol

The Public Record isn't going to change, Bob, I have addressed your doctrine over and over.

This is just from this one thread, and if I am remembering correctly we have exchanged views in at least three threads now.

So don't say I haven't addressed this same doctrine over and over. I have, and you keep presenting it without addressing my responses to it.


God bless.

You can address what has already been presented. The link will take you to the post that lists the responses to your doctrine.

Those will take you to the posts they were given in.

God bless.

 

[Der Alte]

[Previous post continued]

Paul used the word “aionios” eighteen [18] times. It is correctly translated “eternal/everlasting” 16 times and world only 2 times. In the following 12 verses Paul defines/describes “aionios” as eternal.

[11]Romans 5:21
(21) That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal [aionios] life by Jesus Christ our Lord.​

In this verse Paul juxtaposes “aionios life” with death. “A finite age life” is not opposite death. “Aionios life” by definition here means ‘eternal life.”

[12]Ephesians 3:21
(21) to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever [tou aionios] and ever! [ton aionion] Amen.​

In this verse Paul parallels “tou aionios ton aionion” with “throughout all generations.” "Age(s)," a finite period, cannot refer to "all generations." By definition “tou aionios ton aionion” means forever and ever.

[13]Romans 1:20
(20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal [aidios] power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
[14]Romans 16:26
(26) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting [aionios] God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:​

In Rom 1:20, above, Paul refers to God’s power and Godhead as “aidios.” Scholars unanimously agree “aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, unending etc. In Rom 16:26, Paul, the same writer, in the same writing, refers to God as “aionios.” Paul has used “aionios” synonymous with “aidios.” In this verse, by definition, “aionios” means eternal, everlasting etc.

[15]2 Corinthians 4:17-18
(17) For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal [aionios] weight of glory;
(18) While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal;[proskairos] but the things which are not seen are eternal [aionios]​

In this passage Paul juxtaposes “aionios” with “for a moment,” vs. 4, and “temporal,” vs. 5. “Age(s)” an indeterminate finite period, it is not the opposite of “for a moment”/”temporal/temporary” “eternal” is. “Aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”

[16]2 Corinthians 5:1
(1) For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal [aionios] in the heavens.​

In this verse Paul juxtaposes “aionios house” with “earthly house which is destroyed.” God is not going to replace our destroyed earthly house with a house which only lasts a little longer and will be destroyed at the end of an indeterminate age. The aionios house is not destroyed, the opposite of “is destroyed.” Thus, “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”

[17]1 Timothy 6:16
(16) Who only hath immortality, [aphthartos] dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting [aionios]​

In this verse Paul paralleled “aionios” with “immortality.” If “aionios” is only a finite age, God cannot be “immortal” and exist only for a finite age at the same time. Thus “aionios” by definition means “eternal.”

[18]Galatians 6:8
(8) For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; [fthora] but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. [aionios]​

In this verse Paul juxtaposes “aionios” with “corruption.” “Fleshly” people reap “corruption” but spiritual people reap “life aionios,” i.e. “not corruption.” “Age(s), a finite period, is not opposite of “corruption.” Thus “aionios life” by definition here means “eternal/everlasting life.”

[19]Romans 2:7
(7) To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, [apftharsia] he will give eternal [aionios] life.​

In this verse Paul parallels “aionios life” with “immortality.” If “aionios” is only a finite period, believers do not seek for “a finite age,” and “immortality” at the same time. But they can seek for “eternal life” and “immortality” at the same time. Thus by definition “aionios life” here means “eternal life.”

[20]1 Timothy 1:17.
(17) Now unto the King eternal, [aion] immortal, [aphthartos] invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever [aion] and ever [aionios]. Amen.​

In this verse Paul parallels “aion” and “aionios” with “immortal.” “Aion”/”aionios” cannot mean “age(s),” a finite age and immortal at the same time. Thus “aion”/”aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”

[21]Romans 5:21
(21) That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal [aionios] life by Jesus Christ our Lord.​

In this verse Paul juxtaposes “aionios life” with death. “A finite ‘age’ life” is not opposite death. “Aionios life” by definition here means ‘eternal life.”

[22]Ephesians 3:21
(21) to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever [tou aionios] and ever! [ton aionion] Amen.​

In this verse Paul parallels “tou aionios/ton aionion” with “throughout all generations.” "Age(s)" a finite period cannot refer to "all generations." By definition “tou aionios ton aionion” means forever and ever.

[23]Hebrews 7:24 but because Jesus lives forever [aion] he has an unchangeable [aparabatos] priesthood.​

In this verse “aion” is parallel with “unchangeable.” If “aion” means “age(s),” Jesus cannot continue for only a “finite age” and simultaneously be “unchangeable.” Thus “aion” by definition here means “eternal.”

[24]1 Peter 1:23
(23) For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, [aphthartos] through the living and enduring word of God. …
1 Peter 1:25
(25) but the word of the Lord endures forever.[aion] " And this is the word that was preached to you.​

In verse 23 Peter parallels “word of God” with “imperishable.” The same writer, Peter, in the same writing 1 Peter, in verse 25 writes the word of God “endures eis ton aiona/unto eternity. ” The word of God is not a finite age long but imperishable. Thus by definition “aion” here means “eternity”

[25]1 Peter 5:10
(10) And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal [aionion] glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, [oligon] will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast.​

In this verse Peter contrasted “aionios” with “little while” Jesus does not give His followers a finite period of glory then they eventually die. Thus “aionios” here, by definition, means “eternal.”

[26]Revelation 14:11
(11) And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever:[eis aionas aionon] and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.​

In this verse “aionas aionon torment” is paralleled with “no rest day or night.” If “aionas, aionon” means “a finite age” at some time they would rest, “Aionas, aionon” by definition here means “forever and forever.”
= = = = = = =
Footnotes ου μη/ou mé
●The double negative [ου μη] signifies in nowise, by no means. Θεωρήσῃ[theōrésé], denoting steady, protracted vision, is purposely used, because the promise contemplates the entire course of the believer's life in Christ. It is not, shall not die forever, but shall live eternally.[Vincent word studies]
● ④οὐ marker of reinforced negation, in combination w. μή, οὐ μή has the effect of strengthening the negation (Kühner-G. II 221–23; Schwyzer II 317; Mlt. 187–92 [a thorough treatment of NT usage]; B-D-F §365; RLudwig: D. prophet. Wort 31 ’37, 272–79; JLee, NovT 27, ’85, 18–23; B-D-F §365.—Pla., Hdt. et al. [Kühner-G. loc. cit.]; SIG 1042, 16; POxy 119, 5, 14f; 903, 16; PGM 5, 279; 13, 321; LXX; TestAbr A 8 p. 85, 11 [Stone p. 46]; JosAs 20:3; GrBar 1:7; ApcEsdr 2:7; Just., D. 141, 2). οὐ μή is the most decisive way of negativing something in the future.
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000)A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian Literature.(3rd Ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
● The combinations with οὐ μή also be noticed as, ουδεν οὐ μή (Lu. 10:19); οὐ μή se σε άνο ουδ ου σε εγκαταιπο (Heb. 13:5); ουκετι οὐ μή (Rev. 18:14). There is no denying the power of this accumulation of negatives. Cf. the English hymn "I'll never, no never, no never forsake."
Grammar Of The Greek New Testament In The Light Of Historical Research
By A. T. Robertson, M.A., D.D., Ll.D., Litt.D. p.1165.

 

[wendykvw]

I already addressed this: everyone does indeed start out with presupposition based on the teachings they received when they were completely ignorant.

To say that means there are no sincere Bible Students that do not impose their presuppositions is what I would call deceptive and naive.

It simply isn't truth. It is just one of your presuppositions that explains why you think it's okay for believers to have whatever view it is they want.

Just pick a flavor...



I don't see you interpreting anything, really. Just posting proof texts, videos of the teachers you have gathered to yourself, and one movie.



Awfully kind of you.




God bless.

Once again you misrepresent my view, and a very simple fact. I will repeat and possibly you will comprehend, if not that is your problem. Every person of faith, in this forum or any other forum you speak with, including Yourself are at a different spiritual stage. Paul refers to spiritual stages as infants or adults; there are those who park-take in spiritual milk or solid food.I do not judge or condemn people of faith, who read the Bible, who have a different view. This includes Catholics, Orthodox, or any variety of-the many Protestant denominations. One thing you need to comprehend is this, you are not one of the 12 disciples. You are human and fallible. Your are not God who is infallible. So your interpretations are just that, fallible, as you are human.

 

[wendykvw]

Have a good day, Bob. I won't embarrass you any further by pointing out you continually raise the same argument over and over and refuse to address the points that show annihilation is a doctrine of cults that was rejected by Christ and the Apostles.



God bless.

Annihilation is not a doctrine of cults, it goes back to the early church. Eternal hell on the other hand is found in pagan religions. Islam teaches unless you follow Allah you will suffer eternal hell.

 

[wendykvw]

Okay, last post for the day, and possibly for this visit to this forum. Just as a peice of advice to those who may read these posts, I do not recommend setting up camp in one forum, but traveling around to different forums so as not to get stuck in a rut, or, lack exposure to other brethren by which you might be edified.




It doesn't matter if I "concise" my replies into one or do long posts. You have shown that you will not address them all.

And I am sorry to disappoint you in thinking I did what you did, abandon a group I once affiliated with to go on unto a higher plane of understanding, lol.




There's a good reason for that: I am not trying to understand basic facts of psychology, I am trying to teach Basic Bible Principles to those who think psychology is going to help them interepret Scripture.

As far as to how well I understand psychology, well, perhaps if it were possible that you could show why this is even relevant then perhaps your statement might have relevance to these discussions as a whole.

Personally, and this is just my own opinion, I think I do rather well understanding the psychology of liberals and pointing out why they are liberal. Your rethinking of Hell is, as I said, no different than "rethinking gender."




Because you have such a great grasp on the basics of psychology you can just dismiss all of the work and time that went into that post with a dogmatic conclusion that my concept is false.

Alrighty then.




Meaning, "You are an arrogant Baptist who lives in a theological bubble who thinks everyone else is wrong in their interpretations."

What was that you were saying about what others believe?

Now, what would a Psychology professor have to say about your statement, eh?




lol

No, not really.

Because you are judging what I understand and how I think with what you understand and what you think.

If you want to actually understand all you have to do is pay attention to what I impart as my understanding and why I think the way Ido.

Instead—you think you are going to psycho-analyze me and thus dismiss my doctrine.



And this is relevant how?



And explain your understanding of Original Sin.

We cannot object to what someone says unless we understand what it is they believe and what they base those beliefs on.

My doctrine is not a reiteration of Baptist Doctrine I have learned by sitting in a pew for many years. There are a number of issues I view Baptists to be in error about but I can tell you this—people are going to get a better understanding of Scripture attending a Baptist Church than they will some liberal unitarian or universal fellowship.


God bless.

Here is some food for thought. Christian’s throughout history have tortured and murdered by their belief in a god who tortures people for all eternity , this view ECT has motivated their actions. John Calvin burned people alive and would have peoples heads cut off if they did not interpret the Bible the way he did.



The problem with the eternal torment view is it gives religious people, a motive to hate other people. For some it leads to tormenting and killing other creatures, and people.

I have a Southern Baptist view of original sin.


Unitarians have very different theology than universalist. If you knew as much as you think you did you would understand the difference. But you lump them both together showing your lack knowledge about their differences.

 

[wendykvw]

This is all too much to address in one post so I will address it in pieces.
Let's start with the one guy that UR-ites always go to as the be all, end all authority on Biblical Greek. Marvin Vincent and his "literal translation." What makes it literal? It is only "literal" because Vincent said it was. News flash! Vincent was "self taught" in Greek and other languages. Go look it up!
Would you go to a Dr. or lawyer who was self taught? I wouldn't but a self taught "Greek expert" is who all UR run to. Because he says what they want to hear. See e.g. quoted post.
It does NOT matter how many experts you quote who say that "aionios" never means "eternal." Unless they provide grammatical, lexical, historical evidence their unsupported opinion is no more compelling than the scribbling on a public facility wall.
All those supposed experts you quoted above? Meaningless scribbling absent any lexical, grammatical, historical evidence<period, end of sentence!>
I am retired X3. I have retired from 2 occupations and social security. This is my full time job. See next post re: the meaning of "aionios."

Awesome. Congratulations.

Your scholars and lexicons all share your same bias. I have shared a non-universalist scholar. Thanks for sharing your biased opinion.

 

[The Liturgist]

There are all sorts of things that cropped up in the early Church that have re-occurred throughout history. See antinomianism for one. Others can include Islam's version of Jesus as found in the Quran.

Indeed, I once read in a book on Eastern Orthodox theology the idea that there have been no truly new heterodox theologies since the Triumph of Orthodoxy in 843 AD, but rather merely regurgitations and variations on earlier errors. I will say I cannot readily think of a contemporary theological error that did not either exist directly in antiquity, like Arianism and Nestorianism, or that can be thought of as permutation or variation of an ancient error, for instance, there exists a fairly strong parallel between the New Thought movement, Docetism and Manichaeanism, especially where the Manichaean religion borrowed from and then blended Buddhism and Gnosticism (and Zoroastrianism, but New Thought cults like Christian Science tend to de-emphasize that).