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.
Dear Shrewd: The staggering revelation of our God who is able to bring to pass His purpose to restore into Himself the all is a fact. He completes what He has begun, this is no half baked Plan of His! The Ending is the Beginning, the Author is the Finisher.
I see wonderful hues of colour in Him today. My God what a sight You are!
Well---clear speech has it own reward with the ability of everyone understanding what is being said. You like to sound as though you are highly spiritual and only sound …….
You are all coming up with verses totally out of context and wanting answers that have nothing to do with what you have quoted---the 2nd death is the 2nd death---not the 2nd life. No one comes out of the Lake of Fire unto life eternal with God---they are ashes and the new earth is remade over those ashes---there will be no more sin--no more sinners. When Jesus comes the 2nd time, He comes only for the saved and takes them to heaven for the 1000 years. After the 1000 years the wicked dead are resurrected to face their judgment and the lake of fire cleanses everything. Simple. In either black and white or technicolor.
If the unsaved are ash and remain so forever, then how can this be: "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." I Timothy 4:10, KJV
Your "The wicked are ashes!" and I Timothy 4:10 cannot both be true, and I Timothy 4:10 is true.
How do you propose to get around the verse I quoted? Since they actually agree, how do you now propose to get around Revelation 21:24?
1Ti 4:6
Jesus came to save all mankind--all. There is one little problem---they have to accept it. He doesn't force it down their throats. Jesus paid the price for all---it is a done deal---but only those that accept it and do as He says will attain it. Those who refuse that salvation, can not attain it.
I read "He comes only for the saved and takes them to heaven for the 1000 years. After the 1000 years the wicked dead are resurrected to face their judgment and the lake of fire cleanses everything." and the light came on. I looked over at your mini-profile, and sure enough, it said "SDA." I was once a "card-carrying" SDA member, but as you can see, I am now non-denominational. I mean no disrespect when I say this, but I see no evidence in the Bible that God takes the saved to Heaven for 1000 years, or to Heaven at all. It is clear to me now that man remains on the Earth/New Earth. I'm not meaning to derail the thread here, just consider it a sidelight, but at the same time consider how our INTERPRETATIONS color how we read and understand the Bible. It should give us ALL pause.
Jesus Christ is not a potential Saviour: He IS Saviour!
His midde Name is Lesous, He saves the "especially", He saves ALL of mankind.
ALL
All that want to be saved. He does not force salvation on anyone.
Jesus Christ is not a potential Saviour: He IS Saviour!
His midde Name is Lesous, He saves the "especially", He saves ALL of mankind.
ALL
He asks you---if you refuse---that is your choice. He has already thrown out the lifeline, the raft, the lifebuoy, and lowered the water level---if you don't want it He won't force you.
He asks you---if you refuse---that is your choice. He has already thrown out the lifeline, the raft, the lifebuoy, and lowered the water level---if you don't want it He won't force you.
1Ti 4:6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
1Ti 4:7 But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.
Jesus came to save all mankind--all. There is one little problem---they have to accept it. He doesn't force it down their throats. Jesus paid the price for all---it is a done deal---but only those that accept it and do as He says will attain it. Those who refuse that salvation, can not attain it.
Joh_1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Act_15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Act_27:25 Wherefore, sirs, be of good cheer: for I believe God, that it shall be even as it was told me.
Rom_3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
IT IS NOT A MATTER OF GETTING AROUND SCRIPTURE---IT IS ABOUT BRINGING ALLL OF IT TOGETHER IN HARMONY.
All those that refuse---will be ashes along with Satan and his angels.
Mat_10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
Mar_16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Luk 13:24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.
Luk 13:25 When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are:
Luk 13:26 Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets.
Luk 13:27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.
Luk 13:28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.
That is one incredibly long stretch to make the Job account mean UR.He also asked Job if anything were too difficult for Him. The obvious implication was NO. The lost will be saved in the fullness of time, even if some can't see it in the here-and-now.
That is one incredibly long stretch to make the Job account mean UR.
...<LS>
Total nonsense as I have shown numerous times over several years, in this forum, once in this thread my post [#244] I have been a very good Berean, my post has never been refuted.
You are still stretching you haven't made your point yet.An incredibly long stretch for some, but my mind takes things to ultimate conclusions.
His midde Name is Lesous
What does Lesous mean? And where is it found in the Bible?
Thanks.
Edited to add:
I found the answer by doing a google search. However it is not Lesous it is Iesous.
Jesus was derived from the Greek Iesous.
He IS Saviour
There are three problems I see with this. First, however revered a particular teacher was, this does not mean their "school" in general agreed with every point of doctrine. Not counting the writers of the Bible itself, Augustine was perhaps the single most influential theologian on the Catholic Church (the only other contender for that title is Aquinas), but not all of his ideas were fully accepted by it.
Beecher himself admits and points to several in those schools influenced by Theodore that rejected universalism. And I should note that John Chrysostom, who I will return to again later, was no believer in the doctrine and exerted considerable influence on Eastern churches. So this argument of "this highly esteemed teacher believed this, so the schools they were part of or influenced believed it" comes up wanting for me.
The second is that such individuals can only be counted as representative of their own time. What about before them? What about after them? Irenaeus (who we'll get to), for example, wrote in the last second century. What about Ephesus at other times?
In Chapter 30, he begins with John Chrysostom. He says Chrysostom mentions universalism a few times without criticizing it, and therefore believed in it. For example, he cites Chrysostom's commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:38 (I assume he means 15:28, as a different posting of the work has) and says that Chrysostom "simply says that the doctrine of universal restoration has been inferred from that passage, makes a striking statement of the result, and says nothing to refute the opinion." But having examined Chrysostom's exposition of it here (Homily #39), I do not see what it is talking about. Granted, Chrysostom writes a bunch about that verse in dry language so I could have missed it in all of the text, but I didn't see it.
But the bigger problem is that Beecher completely skips over a writing of Chrysostom that proves, no doubt, that he was not a universalist. Please examine Homily #9 of the same epistle. Chrysostom is as blunt as can be: "This is no small subject of enquiry which we propose, but rather about things which are of the first necessity and which all men enquire about; namely, whether hell fire have any end. For that it has no end Christ indeed declared when he said, “Their fire shall not be quenched, and their worm shall not die.”" His statements immediately after that one reinforce his rejection of universalism further. This therefore leaves me with a question: If Beecher is this astoundingly inaccurate regarding Chrysostom, who was as clear as could be considering his rejection of universalism, how accurate am I to trust him in representing others?
CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 39 on First Corinthians (Chrysostom)
Homily #9 of the same epistle
Unlike you, I don't think he overstates anything. But he obviously didn't adequately prove that position to you. According to the below URL, Beecher's work actually follows on the heels of an even better written source which Beecher's work gives credit to.All that said, while I believe Beecher overstates his case regarding how much universalism was believed in (at least in regards to his "six schools" argument), his arguments that belief in universalism did not seem to be considered a problem (and something reasonable people could disagree about) in the early church were much stronger. One explanation for this could be, however, that universalism was far down the ladder on things to have disputes about. Things like Marcionism and Arianism were much bigger fish to fry, and compared to them, universalism vs. annihilationism vs. damnation was an intellectual curiosity. Only once these much more critical doctrines were settled did something like universalism become something to be critically examined.
THEREFORE, the conclusion of this long, rambling post is that, if Beecher is the source for the argument regarding the different schools, I have to confess I believe he comes up short in his argument. It simply relies too much on claiming a particular influential person believed in the doctrine and that therefore it must have been thought of highly in the areas they influenced (assuming the instances of claimed influence are as grand as was claimed by Beecher), plus a bunch of speculation on his part. One can take his points and put forward an argument that in the early centuries universalism wasn't looked down upon, but as an argument of the predominance of universalism, I feel it--at least in the form of the six schools argument--comes up short.
He also asked Job if anything were too difficult for Him. The obvious implication was NO. The lost will be saved in the fullness of time, even if some can't see it in the here-and-now.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?