Why hasn't Christian universalism ever gone away?

[wendykvw]

[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.

Eternal does not always mean without end. Even non-universalist scholars recognize this.

 

[wendykvw]

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.

Agreed. Paul is one of the best examples.

 

[Der Alte]

Eternal does not always mean without end. Even non-universalist scholars recognize this.

Thank you for this unsupported opinion. I'm sure good ol' Marvin Vincent says that "aionios" never means "eternal." Can you disprove any of the 25 vss. I quoted?
"Aionios" cannot mean mean "eternal" and "not eternal" at the same time.
Words are often used figuratively in the Bible. For example, foxes actually exist but Herod was not literally a fox when Jesus called him that. Stone actually exists but Simon was not literally a Stone when Jesus named him Petros literally a stone. Thunder actually exists but James and John were not literally sons of thunder when Jesus called them that.
In my review of every occurrence of "aionios" in the N.T. I have not found even one occurrence where "aionios" is described or defined as a period less than eternal.

 

[Hmm]

"Aionios" cannot mean mean "eternal" and "not eternal" at the same time.

Would you agree that the English word "eon" is derived from "aionios"? If so, why would a word that means a long but time-limited duration be derived from a word that means eternal?

 

[Der Alte]

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

Total nonsense! Ah yes the ubiquitous UR claim. All scholars except the ones I quote are biased only the scholars that UR-ites quote are completely unbiased.
The only "scholar" you have quoted so far is Marvin Vincent and he was self taught ergo the most biased of all. No professors to correct him or require him to support his assumptions/presuppositions.
I am probably the most unbiased of any poster here. I first went to Sunday School when FDR was president. The only thing I remember was the red cool aid was really good.
I attended church sporadically for the next 20 years or so. Even attended mass with a Catholic buddy in the Army once. I became a Christian in flight school in my mid-20s next stop Viet Nam. Unlike most people I did not have years of teaching to unlearn. I questioned everything from day one. You didn't.
I have asked before point me to an unbiased Greek grammar and lexicon.
I started learning to speak Greek in the late '50s in Germany ca. 19. I had to supervise civilian workers in what is now known as a dining facility, then it was called a mess hall. I learned German when I was 12. Civilians in Germany. I spoke German to them. One told me one day "You speak good German. We not German we Greek." So teach me some Greek. He pointed at a table and said "Trapeze", pronounced "trahpayzee." I learned more words the same way not knowing that about 2 decades later I would study Greek and Hebrew at the graduate level.

 

[Der Alte]

Would you agree that the English word "eon" is derived from "aionios"? If so, why would a word that means a long but time-limited duration be derived from a word that means eternal?

Wrong question about the wrong thing. Are you familiar with the term "lexical fallacy?" Your question is a "root word fallacy" the assumption that a derived word will always have the exact same meaning as the root word. Let us take for example an English word which means to "comprehend." "Understand" it has absolutely nothing to do with "standing" or being "under" something. It means to "comprehend." Try to explain that to a non-English speaker.
Go back and address the 25 occurrences of "aionios" I posted, Can you refute any of them? I have done the same thing with olam in the OT.

Ecclesiastes 3:14 I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever:[olam] nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.​

And I know that "olam" is used figuratively in the OT.

Exodus 21:6
(6) Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.[olam]​

 

[Hmm]

Wrong question about the wrong thing. Are you familiar with the term "lexical fallacy?" Your question is a "root word fallacy" the assumption that a derived word will always have the exact same meaning as the root word. Let us take for example an English word which means to "comprehend." "Understand" it has absolutely nothing to do with "standing" or being "under" something. It means to "comprehend." Try to explain that to a non-English speaker.
Go back and address the 25 occurrences of "aionios" I posted, Can you refute any of them? I have done the same thing with olam in the OT.

Ecclesiastes 3:14 I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever:[olam] nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.​

And I know that "olam" is used figuratively in the OT.

Exodus 21:6
(6) Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.[olam]​

Let's agree to disagree. My faith isn't built on linguist analysis anyway but on the bigger picture of God we see through the lens of Christ. IMO by insisting on your definition of aionios you risk losing this bigger picture just so you can hold onto the doctrine of an eternal hell.

 

[Fervent]

Let's agree to disagree. My faith isn't built on linguist analysis anyway but on the bigger picture of God we see through the lens of Christ. IMO by insisting on your definition of aionios you risk losing this bigger picture just so you can hold onto the doctrine of an eternal hell.

The problem with such a statement is the "lens of Christ" depends on our understanding of the text, which depends on linguistic analysis. Altering direct statements made by Christ because they don't fit with your pre-formed image of Christ isn't viewing things through the lens of Christ, because you've altered who Christ is to fit your saccharine ideas about Him.

 

[David's Harp]

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.

Thank you P1LGR1M. You've done well in facing up to some rather challenging, and at times inhospitable comments. We even had one poster effectively calling your comments creepy, which I found rather offensive if I'm honest. You've faced it all with equanimity, highlighting not just the Truth of the Scripture, but also the Spirit by which you are enabled. (I know this fruit)
A credit to the forum, for those with ears to hear.

 

[wendykvw]

Total nonsense! Ah yes the ubiquitous UR claim. All scholars except the ones I quote are biased only the scholars that UR-ites quote are completely unbiased.
The only "scholar" you have quoted so far is Marvin Vincent and he was self taught ergo the most biased of all. No professors to correct him or require him to support his assumptions/presuppositions.
I am probably the most unbiased of any poster here. I first went to Sunday School when FDR was president. The only thing I remember was the red cool aid was really good.
I attended church sporadically for the next 20 years or so. Even attended mass with a Catholic buddy in the Army once. I became a Christian in flight school in my mid-20s next stop Viet Nam. Unlike most people I did not have years of teaching to unlearn. I questioned everything from day one. You didn't.
I have asked before point me to an unbiased Greek grammar and lexicon.
I started learning to speak Greek in the late '50s in Germany ca. 19. I had to supervise civilian workers in what is now known as a dining facility, then it was called a mess hall. I learned German when I was 12. Civilians in Germany. I spoke German to them. One told me one day "You speak good German. We not German we Greek." So teach me some Greek. He pointed at a table and said "Trapeze", pronounced "trahpayzee." I learned more words the same way not knowing that about 2 decades later I would study Greek and Hebrew at the graduate level.

I do not use UR scholars as you continue to falsely claim.


While your life has had some interesting moments your position is ECT, making it your bias. It is humorous that you are unable to be honest about your bias. Thanks

 

[Der Alte]

I do not use UR scholars as you continue to falsely claim.

I think your reading comprehension needs some work. Here is what I said.

"Total nonsense! Ah yes the ubiquitous UR claim. All scholars except the ones I quote are biased only the scholars that UR-ites quote are completely unbiased.
The only "scholar" you have quoted so far is Marvin Vincent and he was self taught ergo the most biased of all. No professors to correct him or require him to support his assumptions/presuppositions."​

 

[Hmm]

The problem with such a statement is the "lens of Christ" depends on our understanding of the text, which depends on linguistic analysis. Altering direct statements made by Christ because they don't fit with your pre-formed image of Christ isn't viewing things through the lens of Christ, because you've altered who Christ is to fit your saccharine ideas about Him.

The fruit of the spirit is love, joy, and peace.... and the Christian life is meant to be filled with these things however. Not fear and worry and anxiety about eternal torture. This has nothing to do with linguistic analysis. The word of God is not the Word of God. It's quite sad that this paints a saccharine picture to you.

 

[Servus]

Thank you P1LGR1M. You've done well in facing up to some rather challenging, and at times inhospitable comments. We even had one poster effectively calling your comments creepy, which I found rather offensive if I'm honest. You've faced it all with equanimity, highlighting not just the Truth of the Scripture, but also the Spirit by which you are enabled. (I know this fruit)
A credit to the forum, for those with ears to hear.

From what I've seen being inhospitable and making derogatory and disparaging comments goes both ways in threads about UR. To claim such behavior is one sided is either inaccurate or disingenuous. The problem with bias is a like will be given to a comment given by someone on the "right side", whereas the same kind of comment made by someone on the "wrong side" will be seen as offensive.

 

[Servus]

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.

I agree. That's why I pick Baptist or similar churches to attend. As for Christian unversalist churches, I'm not aware of any. Most Christians I know of who believe in universalism, prefer conventional conservative churches that teach the kind of orthodox doctrine found in most Baptist (or similar) churches. Unitarian doctrine is a completely different ball of wax from Christian universalism, which is just a secondary side doctrine for most.

 

[Hmm]

Unitarian doctrine is a completely different ball of wax from Christian universalism, which is just a secondary side doctrine for most.

That's the problem. Half the time both sides are talking at cross-purposes on these universalist threads because of the understandable confusion of Christian Universalism with Unitarian Universalism or religious pluralism. A good way to think of the difference is that both agree on our ultimate destination but disagree over how we will get there.

Christian Universalism is Christo-centric and believes that everyone will ultimately be saved through Christ. It's not a denomination but a minority view (today anyway) that is held by Christians of all denominations. It's a tradition that goes all the way back to the Early Church and to Paul.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Once again you misrepresent my view, and a very simple fact.

I have not misrepresented your view at all, I have simply commented on it:

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.”

As I said before, to believe one cannot study Scripture in a sincere and unbiased fashion is to deny the power of God.

He is the One that leads and guides us to truth.

Not John Gill, not Klein, Hubbard, and Bloomberg.


Continued...

 

[P1LGR1M]

I will repeat and possibly you will comprehend, if not that is your problem.

How can I possibly comprehend if I am naive or deceived?

You have essentially stated no man can learn. You have shown that men need to parrot what others say. You have ignored the very Scripture that Christianity is based on.

And then you show your lack of concern for what other believers believe: "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.

This is true. I actually mentioned that earlier in one of these threads.

Paul refers to spiritual stages as infants or adults; there are those who park-take in spiritual milk or solid food.

And John refers to little children, young men, and fathers.

It is the Writer of Hebrews that gives us a little insight on personal responsibility for seeking after truth:



Hebrews 5:10-6:1
King James Version

10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,


He addresses the Hebrews that he feels are ignorant of the ABCs of the Hebrew Scriptures and rebukes them for their laziness.

And to what does he point them to? Doctrine.

And specifically, the completion found in Jesus Christ concerning the Doctrine of Christ found in the Hebrew Scriptures.


Hebrews 6:12
King James Version

12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.


The idea is that there is no excuse for being lazy in regards to Scripture. Disccernment is the reward of those who have gone on to the completion that is found in New Testament Scripture concerning the ABCs, the first principles of the Doctrine of Christ.

Instead of learning the Doctrine of Christ from people, videos, and movies, we need to first be in the Word of God. Only then can He teach us directly.

We can follow the pattern of living exampled by our brethren, but our doctrine must have its basis in the Basis for Christianity.


Continued...

 

[Receivedgrace]

Christian universalism is a misnomer. There is nothing Christian about a belief system that negates the necessity of Christ. God chose to give a Redeemer before He created man.
Saved by grace not by works. The determinate will of God not blanket immunity. Blanket immunity negates the necessity of Christ on the cross and makes His resurrection of no notice.

 

[P1LGR1M]

I do not judge or condemn people of faith, who read the Bible, who have a different view.

On the contrary, you have judged me to be stuck and steeped in Baptist Doctrine.

Condemnation is judgment.

There is a difference in judging the errors of our brethren and judging people in an eternal context.

This includes Catholics,

I strongly disagree with a number of their teachings but they vary as radically as any other group, ranging from conservative to fanatically charismatic.

A couple of posts of a Catholic here have been very good, dealing with an issue in a reasoned and well-presented fashion.

Orthodox,

Ditto.

or any variety of-the many Protestant denominations.

Ditto.

One thing you need to comprehend is this, you are not one of the 12 disciples.

And what you need to comprehend is that I am a disciple of Christ, and as such I have a responsibility to Christ and my brethren.

Standing around doing nothing when I see false doctrine flourishing is not something I see as reasonable activity for a disciple of Christ.

You are human and fallible.

Have I ever implied I didn't think I was?

I haven't said "I am the authority," I have merely stated and exampled that Scripture is the Authority.


Continued...

 

[P1LGR1M]

Your are not God who is infallible.

And...?

What has that to do with Doctrinal Debate and keeping the debate centered on the very Scripture that is used to build the doctrinal position of the one teaching it?

So your interpretations are just that, fallible, as you are human.

So show me where. Show me how, when I show your out-of-context use of Scripture—I have been fallible.

You said:

2. Confession is linked to Salvation. Rom 10:9

I responded:

According to your limited understanding of Scripture, maybe:


Revelation 6:15-17
King James Version

15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;

16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?


John 2:23-25
King James Version

23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,

25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.


You have four Gospels worth of men "confessing" the name of Christ and yet your definition and teaching is correct?


Continued...

It was an attempt to debate the basis of your assertion.

Where is the response?

Lectures about my person?

How exactly can you take your own belief system seriously as a Christian Belief System if you continuously shun the exhortations and the remonstrance of those that call themselves your brethren?

Then you lecture me "You are not God...?"

Doesn't what the Bible actually say mean anything at all?


God bless.