Is God a do as I say not as I do God?

HBP · Sunday at 12:00 PM

BelieveItOarKnot said:
IF Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for all people and IF sins are not counted against people, 2 Cor. 5:19, THEN committing people to eternal torture or death for the "SIN" of unbelief was NOT covered by the atonement.

And THEN we have the involvement of the devil, Satan, in all unbelief, per Acts 26:28, 2 Cor. 4:4, Eph. 2:2, so there is another entity class involved other than the "captives" of Satan, who is the "CAPTOR."

Did Jesus come to set a handful of captives free? Or all captives?

I'd say if just a few, then not much of a Savior, but rather a minor case savior, only able to get the job done for those who "helped themselves" in making Him valid. Otherwise it was all for naught

The term I always use for the sort of bumper-sticker theology popular here is "cartoonish." It seems to me it posits a God who is too small and petty to be real. When the bumper-sticker believers refer to the glory, magnificence, etc., etc., of their God it always sounds like whistling past the graveyard because the theology doesn't describe a God who is glorious and magnificent at all. I understand there are many Christians who need this sort of theology and the faux certainty it provides, but they are missing almost all the depth of more mature Christianity.

Maria Billingsley · Sunday at 12:11 PM

Jeff Saunders said:
God has said,1 Cor 12:5-8 love keeps no record of wrongs, Jesus, who is the exact representation of the Father says-Matt 4:44 Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,love tolerates all things,has faith in all things,hopes in all things, endures all things,Love never fails -Jam 2:8 Love your neighbor as yourself-2 Cor 5:19 not counting peoples trespasses against them.
I in scripture this is what we are told to do to others and what God is like and doing.
According to Western Augustin Christianity, once your leave your temporary mortal body, if you miss understand what God has done or you outright reject humans ideas of God, He will burn you eternally or annihilate you.
How is this view of God not make him into a God who says do as I say not as I do?
Please no answers of Gods ways are higher than ours, that's a copout.

First of all, Augustine is not the authority on the final view of hell. This is purely his
"opinion " . Additionally, there is no absolute clear teachings found in scripture. What we do find are three possible views of hell and of course the eternal torment is extremely uncomfortable for all of us. That being said, why focus on this issue and use it as a possible way to prove we have a hypocritical God?

Thanks for sharing!

Be blessed.

Clare73 · Sunday at 12:15 PM

BelieveItOarKnot said:
IF Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for all people and IF sins are not counted against people, 2 Cor. 5:19,

"World" (all people) has two meanings in the NT:
1) all without exception (all mankind),
2) all without distinction (both Jew and Gentile).

In the context of the rest of the NT, the meaning of 2 Co 5:19 is the second one; i.e., all who believe, both Jew and Gentile.

Jeff Saunders · Sunday at 12:18 PM

Maria Billingsley said:
First of all, Augustine is not the authority on the final view of hell. This is purely his
"opinion " . Additionally, there is no absolute clear teachings found in scripture. What we do find are three possible views of hell and of course the eternal torment is extremely uncomfortable for all of us. That being said, why focus on this issue and use it as a possible way to prove we have a hypocritical God?

Thanks for sharing!

Be blessed.

Because God is not hypocritical if you believe the teachings of scripture that say he will reconcile all to himself, but if you believe that he either eternally tortures or annihilates those who do not understand him he would be hypocritical.
The latter is not love no matter how you try to justify it.

Jeff Saunders · Sunday at 12:22 PM

Clare73 said:
"World" (all people) has two meanings in the NT:
1) all without exception (all mankind),
2) all without distinction (both Jew and Gentile).

In the context of the rest of the NT, the meaning of 2 Co 5:19 is the second one; i.e., all who believe, both Jew and Gentile.

Please show me that cosmos, which is the true word used not world, has two meaning. The only people that say that are Calvinists trying to rewrite scripture to fit a false narrative.
Go online and look up the Greek word cosmos and show me one scholar that thinks that cosmos has two definitions, if you can't do that, its just your opinion.

Clare73 · Sunday at 12:53 PM

Jeff Saunders said:
Please show me that cosmos, which is the true word used not world, has two meaning.

"Cosmos" and "world" are the same Greek word (kosmos).

Jeff Saunders said:
The only people that say that are Calvinists trying to rewrite scripture to fit a false narrative.
Go online and look up the Greek word cosmos and show me one scholar that thinks that cosmos has two definitions, if you can't do that, its just your opinion.

2PhiloVoid · Sunday at 1:53 PM

BelieveItOarKnot said:
IF Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for all people and IF sins are not counted against people, 2 Cor. 5:19, THEN committing people to eternal torture or death for the "SIN" of unbelief was NOT covered by the atonement.

And THEN we have the involvement of the devil, Satan, in all unbelief, per Acts 26:28, 2 Cor. 4:4, Eph. 2:2, so there is another entity class involved other than the "captives" of Satan, who is the "CAPTOR."

Did Jesus come to set a handful of captives free? Or all captives?

I'd say if just a few, then not much of a Savior, but rather a minor case savior, only able to get the job done for those who "helped themselves" in making Him valid. Otherwise it was all for naught

This is the sort of conclusion that comes about when you let your emotions run your ethical sensibilities. If Universalism is true, (and who knows, maybe it is) it needs to establish itself on other grounds than merely that the idea of "eternal punishment" doesn't fit today's political zeitgeist and the common subscription to an unbounded empathy.

2PhiloVoid · Sunday at 2:03 PM

HBP said:
The term I always use for the sort of bumper-sticker theology popular here is "cartoonish." It seems to me it posits a God who is too small and petty to be real. When the bumper-sticker believers refer to the glory, magnificence, etc., etc., of their God it always sounds like whistling past the graveyard because the theology doesn't describe a God who is glorious and magnificent at all. I understand there are many Christians who need this sort of theology and the faux certainty it provides, but they are missing almost all the depth of more mature Christianity.

What even is a "mature Christianity"? It's interesting to see so many people on multiple sides of the Christian faith pontificating about its supposed "TEH-RUEEEEEE nature."

What a lark.

BelieveItOarKnot · Sunday at 2:05 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
This is the sort of conclusion that comes about when you let your emotions run your ethical sensibilities. If Universalism is true, (and who knows, maybe it is) it needs to establish itself on other grounds than merely that the idea of "eternal punishment" doesn't fit today's political zeitgeist and the common subscription to an unbounded empathy.

Loving our neighbors as ourselves is true Christianity

Additionally your thoughts if what universalism consists of is probably not accurate

2PhiloVoid · Sunday at 2:07 PM

BelieveItOarKnot said:
Loving our neighbors as ourselves is true Christianity

Sure, but loving our neighbors as ourselves doesn't mean letting people off the hook and go scott-free when they've done something wrong. Doing so isn't love and forgiveness; it's negligence.

BelieveItOarKnot said:
Additionally your thoughts if what universalism consists of is probably not accurate

Don't count your chickens until they hatch.

BelieveItOarKnot · Sunday at 4:22 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
letting people off the hook

When were you let off the hook or made sinless?

Jeff Saunders · Sunday at 4:27 PM

Clare73 said:
"Cosmos" and "world" are the same Greek word (kosmos).

Cosmos means the whole universe, world is just this planet, there is a difference. I will ask again, show me in scripture or a dictionary that cosmos has two definitions like you said.

2PhiloVoid · Sunday at 4:41 PM

BelieveItOarKnot said:
When were you let off the hook or made sinless?

I haven't been. But if eternal salvation for "all" is true, it's conceptual structure isn't evidenced by epistemic analogy to "loving our neighbors as ourselves."

Clare73 · Sunday at 4:56 PM

Jeff Saunders said:
Cosmos means the whole universe, world is just this planet, there is a difference. I will ask again, show me in scripture or a dictionary that cosmos has two definitions like you said.

Not in the Greek.

Fervent · Sunday at 5:01 PM

Jeff Saunders said:
Cosmos means the whole universe,

False, Sagan appropriated cosmos because he wanted a word that wasn't theologically loaded like "universe" to describe creation.

Jeff Saunders said:
world is just this planet, there is a difference. I will ask again, show me in scripture or a dictionary that cosmos has two definitions like you said.

World, in Greek, was multifaceted as any good lexicon(not dictionary) will tell you. Sometimes it refers to the physical structures, sometimes its occupants, sometimes a specific subset of the populace. Like most words, its exact meanng depends on context and not on some inherent feature of the word itself(this is known as the word-concept fallacy).

Jeff Saunders · Sunday at 5:50 PM

Clare73 said:
Not in the Greek.

Ok I looked up cosmos in several Greek dictionaries and they said it means the whole universe, but some lexacons do include the world as a possible usage of the word.

Jeff Saunders · Sunday at 6:04 PM

Fervent said:
False, Sagan appropriated cosmos because he wanted a word that wasn't theologically loaded like "universe" to describe creation.

World, in Greek, was multifaceted as any good lexicon(not dictionary) will tell you. Sometimes it refers to the physical structures, sometimes its occupants, sometimes a specific subset of the populace. Like most words, its exact meanng depends on context and not on some inherent feature of the word itself(this is known as the word-concept fallacy).

I see a dictionary as the standard to find out the definition of a word, a lexicon is the vocabulary of a person,language, or a branch of knowledge.
Lexicons are a groups interpretation of the vocabulary used in a text, verses a dictionary that just tells the definition of a word.
So lexicons have an agenda they tell you what the definitions are by the way they see a word used according to what they believe is true.
A dictionary is simply the definition of words and how they are used, they may have an agenda but its not as prominent.

Jeff Saunders · Sunday at 6:07 PM

Jeff Saunders said:
Fervent said:

False, Sagan appropriated cosmos because he wanted a word that wasn't theologically loaded like "universe" to describe creation.

World, in Greek, was multifaceted as any good lexicon(not dictionary) will tell you. Sometimes it refers to the physical structures, sometimes its occupants, sometimes a specific subset of the populace. Like most words, its exact meanng depends on context and not on some inherent feature of the word itself(this is known as the word-concept fallacy).

Click to expand...

why bring Sagan into this, who cares what he said.

Fervent · Sunday at 6:17 PM

Jeff Saunders said:
I see a dictionary as the standard to find out the definition of a word, a lexicon is the vocabulary of a person,language, or a branch of knowledge.
Lexicons are a groups interpretation of the vocabulary used in a text, verses a dictionary that just tells the definition of a word.
So lexicons have an agenda they tell you what the definitions are by the way they see a word used according to what they believe is true.
A dictionary is simply the definition of words and how they are used, they may have an agenda but its not as prominent.

A dictionary is an impoverished lexicon, as there isn't really "a definition" for words but a range of semantic possibilities. More complete lexicons bring out not only the denotative meaning but also the connotative meaning, with the latter often being more important in regards to translations.

As for bringing up Sagan, it's beccause he's the one who popularized the idea that "cosmos" and "universe" were interchangeable ideas, and his reason for doing so was to promote a secular worldview by coining a term to use in place of what he deemed a theologically loaded one.

Edited note: The principal issue equating "universe" and "cosmos" isn't primarily an issue of its Greek meaning, but the understanding that such things would have held to a Greek mind. To the Greek, the world=the universe, so it's fair to say that cosmos means universe. But that obscures the fact that our modern concept of "universe" would be foreign to the original audience, as the concept has dramatically shifted as our scientific understanding has improved. So Greek dictionaries are likely to flatten the issue rather than provide illumination. Today, "universe" has come to include not only the world but also what would previously have been considered "the heavens" though our understanding of what such things are composed of is markedly different.

Jeff Saunders · Sunday at 7:19 PM

Fervent said:
A dictionary is an impoverished lexicon, as there isn't really "a definition" for words but a range of semantic possibilities. More complete lexicons bring out not only the denotative meaning but also the connotative meaning, with the latter often being more important in regards to translations.

As for bringing up Sagan, it's beccause he's the one who popularized the idea that "cosmos" and "universe" were interchangeable ideas, and his reason for doing so was to promote a secular worldview by coining a term to use in place of what he deemed a theologically loaded one.

Edited note: The principal issue equating "universe" and "cosmos" isn't primarily an issue of its Greek meaning, but the understanding that such things would have held to a Greek mind. To the Greek, the world=the universe, so it's fair to say that cosmos means universe. But that obscures the fact that our modern concept of "universe" would be foreign to the original audience, as the concept has dramatically shifted as our scientific understanding has improved. So Greek dictionaries are likely to flatten the issue rather than provide illumination. Today, "universe" has come to include not only the world but also what would previously have been considered "the heavens" though our understanding of what such things are composed of is markedly different.

Is not the connotative meaning just someone’s opinion on what they or a group thinks something means in the a particular context, but it’s still someone’s opinion and they have an agenda that they are trying to prove. A dictionary is just the agreement of what words mean at the time.

Is God a do as I say not as I do God?

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Critically Recalculating!

Critically Recalculating!

Rom 11:32-God bound everyone to disobedience so...

Critically Recalculating!

Rom 11:32-God bound everyone to disobedience so...

Well-Known Member

Critically Recalculating!

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads