Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I am sorry my post was confusing, I try hard to not be a wall builder, but a loving example of Jesus, though I fail miserably sometimes.I'm glad you said that because I was just about take a black marker and strike through Galatians 5:15 in my Bible.
Infernalist is inflammatory because it doesn't reflect the full measure of positions that oppose UR. The choice is not binary(or tiniary if we include annihilationism). It isn't either a majority of people burn eternally or none do.
The widespread recognition of hell predates Augustine, it shows up in the writings of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and other major figures in the antenicene period. In fact, there is only one church father that unequivocally supported UR and he was anathematized for it. As for the rest of your argument, you're simply making an appeal to emotion rather than anything resembling a Scriptural argument.
Who said God eternally tortures anyone? Their own consciences condemn them, and it is the effect of being in the presence of God that leads to their pain. What a terrible thing it is to fall into the hands of the living God.
That's a false statement, and confuses desire with will. God permits all that will occur, but to force the man's will is to destroy the man. So while God grieves the wicked, His desire for their salvation does not equate to HIs willful intent.
No where did I imply that God does not intervene, but intervention and forcefully changing a person's will are two different things.
Would a loving parent buy heroin for their child, or let them face the consequences of their action in hopes that their eyes open? Your vision of love is a selfish one that does not reflect the reality of love which respects the autonomy of the loved one even when it hurts
And parables are meant to do what, exactly? Saying its a parable doesn't detract from the lesson.
That belief requires ignoring multiple Scriptural statements about the reality of eternal damnation, in favor of a handful of misunderstood out of context verses. Though as I said in another post, it is one thing to believe/hope for UR; it is another to teach it. The former is a forgiveable bit of sentimentalism, the latter is reckless because if it isn't true you're providing people an excuse.
I have only asked if you if you believe that those who do not know God, Jesus on arriving will inflict vengeance on them, and those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus, and they will suffer the penalty of eternal destruction.
Are you saying that John 1:10, is saying the creation, as in the tress, rocks, sea, etc., did not know Christ?
You read scripture through a different lense. Eternal damnation is no place in the original Greek, the word aion/ aionios is not eternal, that comes from a bad Latin translation that Augustine used, and the western church is based off of Augustine thinking.
"If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing." 1 Cor 13:1-2
Your list is a typical UR misrepresentation of what the church father's taught, built on quote mining and cherry picking rather than on reading the Fathers in context. Only one father is universally recognized as having taught UR, Origen, and he was anathematized for it. There's a strong argument Gregory of Nyssa did, but that argument requires ignoring his writings in On Baptism where he reflected on the fate of the wicked based on Mark's account of the worm that would not die.
Nope, aion isn't eternal but aionios often is depending on the context. Your argument relies on lexical fallacies, and not a true reflection of Greek scholarship.
One involves externally influence, the other requires annihilating what makes the person an individual.
There you go with your emotional arguments.
You ask if I believe in eternal destruction, no not in the way the western church uses it. The Greek words used for destruction is apollumi, its the same word used for the lost sheep and coin in Jesus teaching also the same word for the broken old wineskin that burst, in none of those cases is the thing destroyed as in no more, but are no longer useful for what it was intended for, the sheep and coin actually are returned. The Greek word translated as eternal is aionios which means of the age or pertaining to the age, not eternal.
Not all, there are more UR believers in the eastern church and its growing as more of the early church fathers writing are being translated into to english, the west is lagging behind but is slowly catching up, the absurdity of an eternal hell is finally being exposed for the false doctrine it is.
Yeah according to the scriptures God has not given man the same authority that He has. He is fit to judge because He is all knowing. Are you suggesting that we should have the same authority that God has?
A very small minority in the east have believed in UR by one definition or another, as have some in the western church. You won't find it in any of their church catechisms, however; it's never been even close to the position of the church overall.
I guess it all depends on what Greek scholars you want to point to, you can find " scholars" that teach in both sides of this issue. I follow those who believe aionios is a modifier and the only time it can mean eternal is when what is modified is eternal, God, we know is eternal that is why as christians we get eternal life, because that life is in Jesus and Jesus is eternal, Punishment is not eternal its corrective and therefore has a beginning and and end.
No that’s incorrect because the ability to judge also implies the ability to pass sentence including condemnation.
Yes you are correct it has been the minority view, but it is in good company , how many Jews in Jesus day believed he was the messiah? very few , the majority was correct even though they knew scripture better than most do today, but they still got it wrong. I believe we have a good example that just because the majority believe something that does not make it so.
God specifically stated that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and John 3:16 specifically states that He sent Christ because He loved the world. In Genesis 6 it even says that it grieved Him in His heart that man was so wicked. So perhaps His decision to annihilate or eternally punish those who reject Him isn’t because of a lack of love, perhaps it’s something that He must do because of something He knows that we don’t.
your assuming that the judgement is condemnation but that is not in there.
There isn't a case for it, because the part of speech doesn't change across languages. Those who argue against aionios meaning eternal don't do so on the basis of linguistic evidence but on theological presuppositions, which is a poor way to conduct language studies.
DBH lets his scholarship be driven by his theology rather than by solid academic principles. He's clever, but his scholarship is compromised.
