Question about eternal damnation

ClementofA · Dec 15, 2018

Sapiens said:
So it isn't all that bad to not follow Jesus.

It's bad. The wicked will go to the lake of fire.

Sapiens said:
No one is ultimately rejected by God.

Does God's love have an expiry date?

Sapiens said:
Everyone is reformed.

Everyone will be saved.

Sapiens said:
Do you really feel like that's what scriptures are teaching as a whole?

The Bible teaches universal salvation.

Sapiens said:
Why does God hate sin so much and can't bear those who do it?

Sin separates the God created man from fellowship & relationship with Love Omnipotent.

Sapiens said:
There is a wall between him and sin and between him and sinners. And where does it say that all people will ultimately enter in his presence?

Even Satan entered His presence according to Job 2, but that didn't save him. Yet all will be eventually saved.

Rom 5:18 Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for ALL MANKIND for condemnation, thus also it is through one just act for ALL MANKIND for life's justifying."
Rom 5:19 For even as, through the disobedience of the one man, THE MANY were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One, THE MANY shall be constituted just."

Paul makes a parallel between "the many" who were condemned & sinners and those who will be justified & constituted just.

“In Romans 5, the justification is co-extensive with the condemnation. Since all share in one, all share in the other. If only a certain portion of the human race had partaken of the sin of Adam, only a certain portion would partake of the justification of Christ. But St. Paul affirms all to have been involved in one, and all to be included in the other.”
Therefore there is salvation after death. And corrective punishment.

Jesus shall see of the travail of His soul & be satisfied. Not satisfied a little bit, but the vast majority fried alive forever.

"He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." (Isa.53:11).

For how "many" (not few) did He "bear their iniquities"? All.

"Paul declares, however, that the effects of Christ's obedience are far greater for mankind than the effect of Adam's fall. For the third (5:15) and fourth (5:17) times in this chapter he makes explicit use of the 'qal wahomer' ("from minor to major") form of argument that is commonly used in rabbinic literature, expressed by "much more"...cf. earlier use at 5:9,10...And as in the case of the typology previously used (5:14), here, too, the form of the argument is antithetical. The grace of God extended to humanity in the event of Christ's death has abounded "for the many" (5:15b), which corresponds to the "all" of 5:12,18. The free gift given by God in Christ more than matches the sin of Adam and its effects; it exceeds it..."

"Contrasts are also seen in the results of the work of each. Adam's trespass or disobedience has brought condemnation (κατάκριμα, 5:18); through his act many were made sinners (5:19). Christ's "act of righteousness" results in "justification of life" (δικαίωσιν ζωῆς) for all (5:18). The term δικαίωσιν can be translated as "justification" (NIV, NRSV; but RSV has "acquittal") - the opposite of "condemnation". The word ζωῆς ("of life") is a genitive of result, providing the outcome of justification, so that the phrase may be rendered "justification resulting in life". 108

108. BDAG 250 (δικαίωσιν): "acquittal that brings life". The construction is variously called a "genitive of apposition", an "epexegetical genitive" or "genitive of purpose". Cf. BDF 92 (S166). The meaning is the same in each case: justification which brings life."

"The universality of grace in Christ is shown to surpass the universality of sin. Christ's "act of righteousness" is the opposite of Adam's "tresspass" and equivalent to Christ's "obedience", which was fulfilled in his being obedient unto death (Phil 2:8). The results of Christ's righteous action and obedience are "justification resulting in life for all persons"...5:18...and "righteousness" for "many" (5:19). The term "many" in 5:19 is equivalent to "all persons", and that is so for four reasons: (1) the parallel in 5:18 speaks in its favor; (2) even as within 5:19 itself, "many were made sinners" applies to all mankind, so "many will be made righteous" applies to all; (3) the same parallelism appears in 5:15, at which "many" refers to "all"; and (4) the phrase "for many" is a Semitism which means "all", as in Deutero-Isaiah 52:14; 53:11-12; Mark...10:45; 14:24; Heb.12:15. The background for Paul's expression is set forth in Deutero-Isaiah, where it is said that "the righteous one"...the Lord's servant, shall make "many" to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their sins ...Isa.53:11..."

"It is significant, and even astounding, that justification is here said to be world-embracing. Nothing is said about faith as a prerequisite for justification to be effective, nor about faith's accepting it."

(Paul's Letter To The Romans: A Commentary, Arland J. Hultgren, Eerdmans, 2011, 804 pg, p.227, 229)

Lazarus Short · Dec 15, 2018

Der Alter said:
There is not one single verse in the Bible which says anyone or anything dies a second time.

Um...the Second Death, in the Revelation 20:14?

ClementofA · Dec 15, 2018

Lazarus Short said:
Um...the Second Death, in the Revelation 20:14?

Jude 1:12 "twice dead".

Did Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from the dead, not die a second time? Or is he still alive some 1900 plus years later, lol

FineLinen · Dec 16, 2018

Lazarus Short said:
Um...the Second Death, in the Revelation 20:14?

Yup!

"The current Evangelical Theology involves in its system belief in the deathlessness of sin, the indestructibility of error, and permanence of evil. That though there was a time in the history of the universe when sin in any shape or form did not exist, when no cry of pain or sense of guilt darkened the all-extensive bliss and holiness of creation, yet since sin has once effected an entrance into such a scene, it has come in never to go out again, indestructible, unconquerable, ineradicable, endless. Absolute happiness and sinlessness have forever vanished like the phantom of a dream. The ‘eternal state’ is a universe endlessly finding room for myriads of souls rolling and writhing in the burning agonies of ceaseless flame, eternally sinful, vile and morally hideous. It pictures the 'final perfection' yet to be attained as having room for a vast cesspool of immoral and degraded beings, continually existing in opposition to God." – V. Gelesnoff

Vladimir Michael Gelesnoff Memorial Part Two

Lazarus Short · Dec 16, 2018

FineLinen said:
Yup!

"The current Evangelical Theology involves in its system belief in the deathlessness of sin, the indestructibility of error, and permanence of evil. That though there was a time in the history of the universe when sin in any shape or form did not exist, when no cry of pain or sense of guilt darkened the all-extensive bliss and holiness of creation, yet since sin has once effected an entrance into such a scene, it has come in never to go out again, indestructible, unconquerable, ineradicable, endless. Absolute happiness and sinlessness have forever vanished like the phantom of a dream. The ‘eternal state’ is a universe endlessly finding room for myriads of souls rolling and writhing in the burning agonies of ceaseless flame, eternally sinful, vile and morally hideous. It pictures the 'final perfection' yet to be attained as having room for a vast cesspool of immoral and degraded beings, continually existing in opposition to God." – V. Gelesnoff

Vladimir Michael Gelesnoff Memorial Part Two

I just love it when someone boldly brings up the ultimate logical consequences of bad theology.

FineLinen · Dec 16, 2018

Lazarus Short said:
I just love it when someone boldly brings up the ultimate logical consequences of bad theology.

Dear Laz: This thread demonstrates bad theology with BAD in the beginning middle and end! We are now at take 11 in which the proponents of this ludicrous dogma cannot stand forth & testify.

"The redemption of men from every tribe, tongue, people and race is far from being the whole story of Christ’s work of atonement as John understands it. For he hears the choirs of heaven joined by the voices of the whole creation in a final outburst of praise. This should not be dismissed as mere hyperbole. John knows only too well that there is much on earth and under the earth and in the sea which has no inclination to join in the worship of Christ, and that these hostile elements are represented even in heaven. But such is his confidence in the universality of Christ’s achievement that his vision cannot stop short of universal response. He agrees with Paul that God has already in the Cross reconciled the whole universe to himself (Col 1:20), and that to make His act of amnesty and reconciliation known to the world is the royal and priestly task of the church, the success of which is already anticipated in the heavenly Amen ". – George Bradford Caird, Senior Tutor of Mansfield College, Oxford

Der Alte · Dec 16, 2018

Lazarus Short said:
Um...the Second Death, in the Revelation 20:14?

The lake of fire passages, in context. I address Rev 20:14 about half way down. I marked it with ==>.

Revelation 2:11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.
Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Revelation 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

And 1000 years later, the beast and the false prophet, who is a person, are still in the lake of fire.

Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and they] shall be tormented [plural verb] day and night for ever and ever.
Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

The lake of fire [LOF] is called “the second death” twice in Rev. vss. 20:14 and 21:8. While this is true, Rev. never says that anyone is thrown into the LOF then they die. The terms the “lake of fire” and “ the second death” are interchangeable, “the lake of fire” is “the second death” and the “second death” is “the lake of fire,” thus we can see that it is not synonymous with death or destruction.
…..We also see that being thrown into the LOF is not synonymous with death from Rev 19:20, where the beast and the false prophet, who is a person, are thrown into the LOF and 1000 years later in 20:10 the devil, is thrown into the LOF. Three living beings, are thrown into the LOF but they do not die, they are tormented day and night for ever and ever. There is not one verse in Revelation which says anyone or anything is thrown into the LOF then they/it dies.
==>…..Rev 20:14 says death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. Death is the point in time end of life, it has no physical presence and cannot be literally thrown anywhere. Since neither death nor hell could or have died a first death they can’t die a second death. But there is a scriptural answer which does not involve jumping through hoops mixing literal and figurative in one sentence, there is a death and hell which can be thrown into the LOF.

Revelation 6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

The angel of death and the demon of hell are thrown into the LOF and their power to kill ended.
More verses which show that the LoF is not synonymous with death or destruction. Rev 21:4 says “there shall be no more death” in vs. 5 Jesus said “Behold I make all things new.” “No more death””all things new” but 3 verses later Rev 21:8 says certain groups “shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.” If there is no more death after vs. 4 then those thrown into the lake of fire in vs. 8 do not die.

Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Revelation 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

FineLinen · Dec 17, 2018

"I wanted to put into writing my own journey out of hell.

That is to say my journey out of the doctrine of eternal conscious torment. In a way it is a journey out of a personal hell because this doctrine did in fact torment me for a long time. As a non denominational pastor of 30 years with a full gospel Assembly of God back ground, I was reaching a place of intense inward struggle with all that I knew about Gods grace and love and acceptance, and then having to believe an alarm goes off and He transforms into a merciless judge who hates anyone who for a plethora of reasons did not come into Christ in their short span on earth.

"I fought this for a long time. Of course hell is forever. Its right there in the bible.
The only problem was that this created an ever increasing spiritual dissonance inside of me of which the effect on my life and spirituality and view of the world I did not fully comprehend.

"Could believing in eternal conscience torment make a person more judgmental, less merciful, more prone to anxiety and depression and even make carnal thoughts and temptations harder to resist? Could this undermine the gift of grace a person was promised in Christ and keep them from living in the peace and joy and love that is supposed to accompany those born again?

"I would have never guessed that could be the case. The fact is I struggled in all those things for so long. I knew the standards I was to live by but I just assumed the devil was really concentrating on me because Im a leader and we get more enemy fire.

But when I finally opened my heart and began to read the volumes of online study available from the well researched and well reasoned proponents of Universal Reconciliation, It was like a desert was being filled with streams of living water down inside of me. I began to experience the grace powered life like never before.

"As I look back I realize that my spirit never really bore witness with the doctrine of eternal hell."

-Pastor Mark -

Dear pastor Mark

"As I look back I realize that my spirit never really bore witness with the doctrine of eternal hell."

Nor does John Gavazzoni!

Index Of Writings Of John Gavazzoni

BarWi · Dec 17, 2018

Der Alter said:
Refresh my memory which post was that where all this "lacking" and "ably demonstrated" was going on?

That would be the parts of posts that everyone else understood, and you--as is your usual mode of operation--still pretend to ignore, my friend.

Give me an address and I will send you a few of my medals from Vietnam.

Thank you for your service to our country.

Keep them DA. I don't want or need them.

But if you want to do things on your own and disregard everything but your own opinion, have at it.

Tell me: specifically what parts of my theology do you find to be my opinion? Please provide the basis on which you arrive at this conclusion.
[NOTE: Intellectually honest correspondents will make a reasonable effort to answer the questions above. One who is dishonest, point-scoring and game-playing will either not answer or post snide remarks, proving the superficiality of his/her willingness/ability to engage in forward-moving, intellectually honest debate.

ClementofA · Dec 17, 2018

BarWi said:
All the cherished scholarly citations can't lead us to the underlying metaphoric truth of these and many dozens of other passages of Scripture, which is why organized Christianity is incapable of grasping God's plan to save all: it's hidden in plain sight in the beautiful symbolism of His word. Gog and Magog, wheat and tares, sheep and goats are elements within each person. God's enemies aren't individual people, they are elements of badness (falsity) within each soul.

What has led you to these opinions?

Der Alte · Dec 17, 2018

BarWi said:
That would be the parts of posts that everyone else understood, and you--as is your usual mode of operation--still pretend to ignore, my friend.

In other words you can't direct me to any specific post. Just a hint if there are any specific posts you want me to revisit. Right click on the post number in the upper right corner click "Copy link location" then place your cursor in the desired post, right click then click "paste."

BW said:
Thank you for your service to our country.
Keep them DA. I don't want or need them.

You seemed to be reeling off your accomplishments as if you expected some kind of award.

BW said:
Tell me: specifically what parts of my theology do you find to be

BW said:
my opinion? Please provide the basis on which you arrive at this conclusion.

I didn't refer to any specific post but since you were criticizing my thoroughness in consulting and citing scholars with expertise in the field I assumed you did not consult any authorities in the field and relied solely on your opinion.

BW said:
[NOTE: Intellectually honest correspondents will make a reasonable effort to answer the questions above. One who is dishonest, point-scoring and game-playing will either not answer or post snide remarks, proving the superficiality of his/her willingness/ability to engage in forward-moving, intellectually honest debate.

Speaking of intellectual honesty, someone who exhibits such does not post "gotcha" questions for the sole purpose of eliciting a response that they think they can "destroy." So demonstrate a little intellectually honesty, if you want to discuss Moses as a type of Christ please feel free to post your pre-canned arguments and I will discuss your views.

FineLinen · Dec 17, 2018

You do not get it yet D.A.

A mighty man of spirit and life said this>>>

"The purpose of the cross is to do away with you, blessed riddance!" A.W. Tozer-

“He is the Mercy-Seat for our sins, and not for our sins ONLY/ monon/ monos, but for the sins of the whole ungodly multitude."

BarWi · Dec 17, 2018

ClementofA said:
What has led you to these opinions?

My claim to any knowledge of these things lies in my belief that truth in the intellect [to the degree it exists] unites with the truth of God, prescriptive or moral and absolute truth. To just this extent, the intellect possesses capacity for knowledge of God's truth. This holds true imo for every human. I take "enlighten" in Jn 1:9: "There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man."
to be regenerative in nature, as enlightened in the sense of intelligence can theoretically be explained naturally. Jn 1:9 seems obviously to be speaking to spiritual or prescriptive quickening, which only human intellect possesses.

On this basis, I paint what I see. The thing about truth of both kinds (factual and moral) is that because they're the same quality in kind, their corresponding attributes are the same, i.e., truth tests like coherence, congruity, non-contradiction, etc. apply equally to both, each in their own sphere of reality. The point is, if what you, I or anyone else see in Scripture is sufficiently grounded in God's truth, its authority will reveal itself in our presentation of it [if we are able to muster sufficient concision in communicating]. Our theological worldview will provide its own authority to the extent it's true. This seems to be supported in the Lord's teaching that we know the output of others as their "fruit" (Mat 7:16-20).

Der Alte · Dec 17, 2018

BarWi said:
begin

<BW>My claim to any knowledge of these things lies in my belief that truth in the intellect [to the degree it exists] unites with the truth of God, prescriptive or moral and absolute truth. To just this extent, the intellect possesses capacity for knowledge of God's truth. This holds true imo for every human. I take "enlighten" in Jn 1:9: "There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man."
to be regenerative in nature, as enlightened in the sense of intelligence can theoretically be explained naturally. Jn 1:9 seems obviously to be speaking to spiritual or prescriptive quickening, which only human intellect possesses.
On this basis, I paint what I see. The thing about truth of both kinds (factual and moral) is that because they're the same quality in kind, their corresponding attributes are the same, i.e., truth tests like coherence, congruity, non-contradiction, etc. apply equally to both, each in their own sphere of reality. The point is, if what you, I or anyone else see in Scripture is sufficiently grounded in God's truth, its authority will reveal itself in our presentation of it [if we are able to muster sufficient concision in communicating]. Our theological worldview will provide its own authority to the extent it's true. This seems to be supported in the Lord's teaching that we know the output of others as their "fruit" (Mat 7:16-20).<end>

end

Unfortunately all of this is subjective. One's assumptions/presuppositions will strongly influence the "truth," and maybe even direct, what one sees/understands. There are a bunch of folks around who claim all these thing to be true about their particular belief system; LDS, JW, OP, UPCI, UU, WWCG, INC, etc. They claim that they have done all these things and they know beyond any doubt that their belief system is the only true one and all others are false.
.....Now let me compare what's going on here with an experience of mine. I learned to speak German when I was about 12, simply because I was interested. One teacher who had studied German in college had his books in the classroom. I told him I was interested and he loaned me his books so for about a year I studied, read, wrote, asked questions. Not once did I rely on some esoteric understanding. Fortunately, I was stationed in Germany about 6 years later where I continued to learn from native German speakers. Again not once did I rely on some esoteric understanding.
.....If we rely on the KJV for instance there are 800+ words in the KJV that have changed in meaning or dropped from use altogether. For example; anon, apt, attendance, bewray, bowels, carriage, conclude, ensue.
.....If we rely on king Jimmy there are things which will be misunderstood. So when one guy says "This word 'really means'" one thing and some other guy says "No this word 'really means'" something else. Which guy should I believe? My choice is neither I find the most reliable source I can. Which is not some anonymous person on a discussion forum.

FineLinen · Dec 17, 2018

Der Alter said:
....I find the most reliable source I can. Which is not some anonymous person on a discussion forum.

“To the messenger of the church in Sardis, write:

The one who has God’s seven spirits and the seven stars says: I know what you have done. You are known for being alive, but you are dead. Be alert, and strengthen the things that are left which are about to die. I have found that what you are doing has not been completed in the sight of my God. So remember what you received and heard. Obey, and change the way you think and act. If you’re not alert, I’ll come like a thief. You don’t know when I will come. But you have a few people in Sardis who have kept their clothes clean. They will walk with me in white clothes because they deserve it.

Everyone who wins the victory this way will wear white clothes. I will never erase their names from the Book of Life. I will acknowledge them in the presence of my Father and his angels. Let the person who has ears listen to what the Spirit says to the churches."

BarWi · Dec 17, 2018

Der Alter said:
I didn't refer to any specific post but since you were criticizing my thoroughness in consulting and citing scholars with expertise in the field I assumed you did not consult any authorities in the field and relied solely on your opinion.

So in other words, you have only the slightest notion of what my personal theology consists in, certainly not enough to properly judge whether it's opinion or not. And you assume I do not consult scholars? So in other words, you know little about what I contend for or what kinds of support I provide for those beliefs, yet not knowing you relegate my theology to "opinion" on shallow and unfounded assumptions? Aren't you the guy who assured all in this thread how thorough you are? Perhaps you'd benefit from that old saying, my friend: "It's better to be silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

Speaking of intellectual honesty, someone who exhibits such does not post "gotcha" questions for the sole purpose of eliciting a response that they think they can "destroy."

Oh. You mean like you regularly do?

demonstrate a little intellectually honesty, if you want to discuss Moses as a type of Christ please feel free to post your pre-canned arguments and I will discuss your views.

I don't understand, DA, in reading your posts you seem to be reasonably intelligent, yet you post drivel like this. The earlier point had nothing to do with discussing Moses as a type of Christ. You can't be thick enough to miss this. The point--listen closely now--was that no amount of man-made historical-grammatical exegesis can lead to symbolic truths/meanings in Scripture. Discussing Moses as a type of Christ isn't even a remote feature of this point

You would profit by taking time and study the doctrine of truth, DA. I get tired of the ad infinitum nothing debates between Christians who have no inkling that they are arguing POINTS OF DOCTRINE, not truth. Doctrine is attributive truth; we attribute truth to the doctrines we accept. We have degrees of warrant for these beliefs to the extent they line up with actual truth. Actual truth is certainly a part of doctrine, but when we treat doctrine as though it's identical to actual truth, we no longer take part in functioning, forward-moving debate but only beat one another over the head with our pet doctrines.

Likewise, if you accept only those arguments supported by grammatical-historical interpretive methodology, you are using man-made interpretive methods that, as shown (again) above, are wholly unable to reveal or teach symbolic truths of God. You, like the atheist, are only saying, "Come, debate with me! The rules are that we can only use the beliefs of men of my choosing as the criteria of truth. (Atheists use the same circularity: The only things that are real are things found in space and time...now come and tell me all about your God.) Now come, tell me your theology and we'll see if it holds any truth."

This is probably the most common form of intellectual dishonesty, and few who practice it care enough to recognize it and change.

Der Alte · Dec 17, 2018

BarWi said:
So in other words, you have only the slightest notion of what my personal theology consists in, certainly not enough to properly judge whether it's opinion or not. And you assume I do not consult scholars? So in other words, you know little about what I contend for or what kinds of support I provide for those beliefs, yet not knowing you relegate my theology to "opinion" on shallow and unfounded assumptions? Aren't you the guy who assured all in this thread how thorough you are? Perhaps you'd benefit from that old saying, my friend: "It's better to be silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

Please show me where you quoted or referred to any scholars, grammars, lexicons etc. in [post #673] above in particular or any other post in any response to me? Whereas you have criticized me for doing that.

BW said:
Oh. You mean like you regularly do?

Please show me one post where I have posted a "gotcha" type question and repeatedly challenged you to respond.

BW said:
I don't understand, DA, in reading your posts you seem to be reasonably intelligent, yet you post drivel like this. The earlier point had nothing to do with discussing Moses as a type of Christ. You can't be thick enough to miss this. The point--listen closely now--was that no amount of man-made historical-grammatical exegesis can lead to symbolic truths/meanings in Scripture. Discussing Moses as a type of Christ isn't even a remote feature of this point.

Rubbish! "Discussing Moses as a type of Christ isn't even a remote feature of this point." was the "gotcha" question you kept insisting that I respond to. And if we ignore historical-grammatical exegesis we will have scores of people making up their own meaning "What the scriptures really mean." See the doctrine of various groups e.g. LDS, JW, OP, UPCI etc. Read their literature you will see many examples them telling us we are all wrong and "What the scriptures really mean."

BW said:
You would profit by taking time and study the doctrine of truth, DA. I get tired of the ad infinitum nothing debates between Christians who have no inkling that they are arguing POINTS OF DOCTRINE, not truth. Doctrine is attributive truth; we attribute truth to the doctrines we accept. We have degrees of warrant for these beliefs to the extent they line up with

BW said:
actual truth. Actual truth is certainly a part of doctrine, but when we treat doctrine as though it's identical to actual truth, we no longer take part in functioning, forward-moving debate but only beat one another over the head with our pet doctrines.

Criticizing me and others for doing exactly what you are and have been doing.

BW said:
begin

<BW>Likewise, if you accept only those arguments supported by grammatical-historical interpretive methodology, you are using man-made interpretive methods that, as shown (again) above, are wholly unable to reveal or teach symbolic truths of God. You, like the atheist, are only saying, "Come, debate with me! The rules are that we can only use the beliefs of men of my choosing as the criteria of truth. (Atheists use the same circularity: The only things that are real are things found in space and time...now come and tell me all about your God.) Now come, tell me your theology and we'll see if it holds any truth."
This is probably the most common form of intellectual dishonesty, and few who practice it care enough to recognize it and change.<end>

end

Which is you telling me that everything I say is automatically wrong so I should shut off my reason and logic and simply accept your supposedly superior esoteric understanding of the "symbolic truths of God." Although you cannot offer any kind of evidence or proof that you are correct. That sounds a whole lot like the many groups I have mentioned.
.....With the exception of the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts the NT was written by Jewish Christians to former pagans who had become Christians. But I do not see John, Peter, Paul, Jude, James telling these former pagans to disregard grammatical-historical interpretation but totally rely on some esoteric understanding of the "symbolic truths of God." Question, would Jews and Greeks have the same or a similar understanding of the "symbolic truths of God?"

BarWi · Dec 17, 2018

Der Alter said:
Please show me where you quoted or referred to any scholars, grammars, lexicons etc. in [post #673] above in particular or any other post in any response to me? Whereas you have criticized me for doing that.

Please show me one post where I have posted a "gotcha" type question and repeatedly challenged you to respond.

Rubbish! "Discussing Moses as a type of Christ isn't even a remote feature of this point." was the "gotcha" question you kept insisting that I respond to. And if we ignore historical-grammatical exegesis we will have scores of people making up their own meaning "What the scriptures really mean." See the doctrine of various groups e.g. LDS, JW, OP, UPCI etc. Read their literature you will see many examples them telling us we are all wrong and "What the scriptures really mean."

Criticizing me and others for doing exactly what you are and have been doing.
<BW>Likewise, if you accept only those arguments supported by grammatical-historical interpretive methodology, you are using man-made interpretive methods that, as shown (again) above, are wholly unable to reveal or teach symbolic truths of God. You, like the atheist, are only saying, "Come, debate with me! The rules are that we can only use the beliefs of men of my choosing as the criteria of truth. (Atheists use the same circularity: The only things that are real are things found in space and time...now come and tell me all about your God.) Now come, tell me your theology and we'll see if it holds any truth."
This is probably the most common form of intellectual dishonesty, and few who practice it care enough to recognize it and change.<end>
Which is you telling me that everything I say is automatically wrong so I should shut off my reason and logic and simply accept your supposedly superior esoteric understanding of the "symbolic truths of God." Although you cannot offer any kind of evidence or proof that you are correct. That sounds a whole lot like the many groups I have mentioned.
.....With the exception of the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts the NT was written by Jewish Christians to former pagans who had become Christians. But I do not see John, Peter, Paul, Jude, James telling these former pagans to disregard grammatical-historical interpretation but totally rely on some esoteric understanding of the "symbolic truths of God." Question, would Jews and Greeks have the same or a similar understanding of the "symbolic truths of God?"

Gad! How can you even look at yourself in the mirror after posting embarrassing stuff like this DA? How can you not be ashamed of spewing this stuff for all to see?

Der Alte · Dec 17, 2018

BarWi said:
Gad! How can you even look at yourself in the mirror after posting embarrassing stuff like this DA? How can you not be ashamed of spewing this stuff for all to see?

This cracked me up. I can't remember when or if I have seen anything so embarrassingly humorous in this forum before.

Ronald · Dec 17, 2018

FineLinen said:
Dear Ronald: You evidently do not grasp what the Father of all fathers Plan is.

It is NOT simply being saved (all of us) but the following>>>>>>

Saved/reconciled/ "made righteous"

Are you aware that the identical polus "made sinners" in Adam1 is the polus "made righteous" in the Last?

Further: do you know what "to reconcile" means?

To be reconciled to the Father is the purpose of life. However, for reprobate, it is not. For them, evil is displayed throughout their lives, experienced by the rest of us, cold and unforgiven, so that the rest of us know darkness and hence receive the LIGHT and embrace it. Their purpose when fulfilled is all. Punishment is only for hose who will eventually receive the Light. And God chastises those whom He loves. Destruction awaits the ungodly, unrepented. As fire destroys paper and anything else.

Question about eternal damnation

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Senior Veteran

Active Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Senior Veteran

Active Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Active Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Exhortations

Similar threads