Eternal Damnation, Conditional Immortality, or Universal Reconciliation: A CF poll

[Hmm]

Are you fit to judge God?

Oh dear.

Where emotion is a part f the text, it is appropriate to incorporate but must be drawn from the text not our emotions overlayed over the text.

What does this mean? Emotions are never part of the text but always something that we bring to the text.

It is God's self-revelation, every bit of it shows how God wants us to think of Him. Including the bits about smashing babies on rocks.

God doesn't do that. The far more plausible explanation is that you are misreading this piece of text by taking it literally.

Do you take everything in the Bible literally btw?

Sure, but our sense of goodness and morality is corrupt beyond measure and requires God's correction.

I forget now, are you a Calvinist and so subscribe to the "we are all snow-covered dunghills" theory?

 

[Saint Steven]

Romans 5:18-19 NIV
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

It does hang on Christ, but you run into the same problem. "Justification and life FOR all people." Not "Justification and life TO all people." Why does this matter? Because it is AVAILABLE TO all people, but not all people will be justified and have life.

I think you missed the word RESULTED (2 times) in verse 18. The word FOR is of no consequence.

Also, "many" does not mean "ALL." For "many" were sinners, but there is ONE who is not a sinner. In the same way, "many" will be made righteous, but it does not say all.

It doesn't say MANY, it says THE MANY. And the same THE MANY for being made righteous.

 

[Fervent]

Oh dear.



What does this mean? Emotions are never part of the text but always something that we bring to the text.

Emotions absolutely can be embedded in the text, in poetry and other expressive texts. You even basically said so yourself in appealing to poetic segments.

God doesn't do that. The far more plausible explanation is that you are misreading this piece of text by taking it literally.

And you are basing this on...what? How did you determine what God does and does not do?

Do you take everything in the Bible literally btw?

Depends how you mean "literal." If you mean do I take every text at its most direct meaning when accounting for literature type, then yes. Anything less is eisegesis.

I forget now, are you a Calvinist and so subscribe to the "we are all snow-covered dunghills" theory?

No, not Calvinist.

 

[All Becomes New]

every knee shall bow and tongue confess jesus is lord - Phippians 2
And "no man can say jesus is lord but by the holy spirit"- I cor 12:3.

jesus will draw ALL men unto him - john 12:32
and they will be confessing he is lord.

Yes, every knee will bow. Does that mean all will be saved? Not necessarily. For God appoints men to die and then the judgment. They bow because they see He is worthy. It does not say they will bow to the end of getting in the NHNE.

And plenty of people say Jesus is Lord, but not all do. When Christ comes to renew creation, it is not by the HS that people say Jesus is Lord, but by SEEING He is worthy.

Jesus drawing men does not mean that they receive Christ. It just means Christ tells them to repent, which some do and some don't.

 

[All Becomes New]

drip, drip . . "And all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee". Psalm 22:27

The Psalms are not meant to be taken literally since they are poetry.

 

[All Becomes New]

Romans 5:18-19 NIV
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

I think you missed the word RESULTED (2 times) in verse 18. The word FOR is of no consequence.

It doesn't say MANY, it says THE MANY. And the same THE MANY for being made righteous.

You're not dealing with my argument. You just say, "Here is a word. What do you make of it?" The point remains that salvation is FOR all people and not TO all people. Please deal with that. Result just means the result is that salvation is "FOR" all people.

 

[Saint Steven]

Yes, every knee will bow. Does that mean all will be saved? Not necessarily.

Here's what I know about that. Note the definition of "acknowledge".

Anyone who has knees to bow and a tongue to speak, in heaven and on earth and under the earth (in the realm of the dead), will whole-heartedly, and without reservation, acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord. No one can say that “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” you will be saved. Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. (the reason for the bodily resurrection) Scriptural support below.

Philippians 2:10-11
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

1 Corinthians 12:3
Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart
that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 14:9
For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that
he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

Note on "acknowledge" in Philippians 2:11 from Strong's Concordance
S1843 eksomologéō (from 1537 /ek, "wholly out from," intensifying 3670 /homologéō, "say the same thing about") – properly, fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly (whole-heartedly); hence, to confess ("openly declare"), without reservation (no holding back).

Further reading: (Isaiah 45:23, Romans 14:11, Philippians 2:10, Revelation 15:4)

 

[Saint Steven]

You're not dealing with my argument. You just say, "Here is a word. What do you make of it?" The point remains that salvation is FOR all people and not TO all people. Please deal with that. Result just means the result is that salvation is "FOR" all people.

Sounds like hairsplitting to me. FOR or To? ???
Here you go.

Romans 5:15-16
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.

 

[All Becomes New]

...

You are mixing the second coming with what we do on earth. They are not the same thing. In the second coming all will SEE and so do not confess Christ is Lord by the HS. For what is faith if it is not the substance of what is HOPED for? There is no indication that the person needs to HOPE that Christ is Lord in the second coming.

 

[All Becomes New]

Sounds like hairsplitting to me. FOR or To? ???
Here you go.

Romans 5:15-16
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.

"The many" does not mean all. For just as Christ has ransomed a people of every people to Himself, this does not mean all people, only those who profess Christ is Lord on earth by the HS. Else, the HS's work on earth is superfluous.

 

[Hmm]

Emotions absolutely can be embedded in the text, in poetry and other expressive texts.

Of course emotions aren't embedded in text. Text is merely a means of carrying information. The emotions we feel when we read a piece of text are ours. Quick proof: our feelings are different every time we read the same piece of text. If the emotions belonged to the text, they wouldn't be.

I suspect you believe this because you don't want to acknowledge that how we interpret things, including scripture, depends on the entirety of who we are and what our experiences have been. You instead prefer to think that it's all textual analysis because this makes it seem "scientific" and detached from subjectivity. It isn't.

And you are basing this on...what? How did you determine what God does and does not do?

What do you think I'm basing it on? On the person of Jesus who didn't bash babies heads in. And also common sense and basic morality.

Depends how you mean "literal." If you mean do I take every text at its most direct meaning when accounting for literature type, then yes. Anything less is eisegesis.

How about something like the differing accounts of the events that happened during the discovery of the empty tomb? How do you process that?

No, not Calvinist.

Okay, but do you subscribe to the "snow covered dunghill" theory anyway? (the theory that we are "totally depraved")

 

[Saint Steven]

You are mixing the second coming with what we do on earth. They are not the same thing. In the second coming all will SEE and so do not confess Christ is Lord by the HS. For what is faith if it is not the substance of what is HOPED for? There is no indication that the person needs to HOPE that Christ is Lord in the second coming.

No. Read it again. "... in heaven and on earth and under the earth..." (in the realm of the dead)

Philippians 2:10-11
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

 

[All Becomes New]

No. Read it again. "... in heaven and on earth and under the earth..." (in the realm of the dead)

Philippians 2:10-11
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Yes, because they will be resurrected. Not because they proclaim Christ as Lord in Hell.

 

[Saint Steven]

"The many" does not mean all. For just as Christ has ransomed a people of every people to Himself, this does not mean all people, only those who profess Christ is Lord on earth by the HS. Else, the HS's work on earth is superfluous.

Well, "the many" means ALL in this scripture. How many were made sinners? (all)
The same "the many" will be made righteous. (all)

Romans 5:18-19 NIV
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

 

[Fervent]

Of course emotions aren't embedded in text. Text is merely a means of carrying information. The emotions we feel when we read a piece of text are ours. Quick proof: our feelings are different every time we read the same piece of text. If the emotions belonged to the text, they wouldn't be.

I suspect you believe this because you don't want to acknowledge that how we interpret things, including scripture, depends on the entirety of who we are and what our experiences have been. You instead prefer to think that it's all textual analysis because this makes it seem "scientific" and detached from subjectivity. It isn't.

If emotions couldn't be embedded in text, poetry would be useless. We wouldn't have things like laments or imprecatory psalms or any other emotionally charged literature.

I'm not worried about anything being "scientific," but as I said before if someting from in us is determining what the text must mean rather than the text itself holding a true meaning we have ceased interpreting and instead are creating meaning. While such a thing may have some value, calling it an interpretation is farcical at best.

What do you think I'm basing it on? On the person of Jesus who didn't bash babies heads in. And also common sense and basic morality.

The same Jesus who said "these enemies of mine, come and slay them before me"? The same Jesus who said "you have the Scriptures that testify of me"? Where do you get your image of Jesus, and how is it divorced from the God that revealed the text that claims He not only dashes infants against the rocks but is happy about it? How did you determine that what is reveald about Jesus in the Psalms is not true of Jesus?

How about something like the differing accounts of the events that happened during the discovery of the empty tomb? How do you process that?

It's called perspective and literary analysis. Such disagreements are only problematic if we attempt to force these documents into a mold of critical histories rather than the type of literature they are.

Okay, but do you subscribe to the "snow covered dunghill" theory anyway? (the theory that we are "totally depraved")

No, but that doesn't preclude me from recognizing that we are all thoroughly corrupted in our moral sense and feelings.

 

[All Becomes New]

Well, "the many" means ALL in this scripture. How many were made sinners? (all)
The same "the many" will be made righteous. (all)

Romans 5:18-19 NIV
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

We already covered this. Not "All" were sinners. Christ was not a sinner.

 

[All Becomes New]

so the Lord is not literally your shepherd. got it.

He is because Jesus says so, not because the Psalms say so. And besides, shepherd is only anthropomorphic language, not literal language.

 

[All Becomes New]

the name hell comes from norse paganism

Doesn't matter at all. It is used to communicate something about the afterlife.

 

[Saint Steven]

We already covered this. Not "All" were sinners. Christ was not a sinner.

You got me there. - LOL
I guess we are done. We seem to be at an impasse.

Did Jesus die to save us from God?

 

[Hmm]

If emotions couldn't be embedded in text, poetry would be useless. We wouldn't have things like laments or imprecatory psalms or any other emotionally charged literature.

I'm not worried about anything being "scientific," but as I said before if someting from in us is determining what the text must mean rather than the text itself holding a true meaning we have ceased interpreting and instead are creating meaning. While such a thing may have some value, calling it an interpretation is farcical at best.

The same Jesus who said "these enemies of mine, come and slay them before me"? The same Jesus who said "you have the Scriptures that testify of me"? Where do you get your image of Jesus, and how is it divorced from the God that revealed the text that claims He not only dashes infants against the rocks but is happy about it? How did you determine that what is reveald about Jesus in the Psalms is not true of Jesus?

It's called perspective and literary analysis. Such disagreements are only problematic if we attempt to force these documents into a mold of critical histories rather than the type of literature they are.

No, but that doesn't preclude me from recognizing that we are all thoroughly corrupted in our moral sense and feelings.

We have reached an impasse again, thankfully.