For Whom did Christ die?

oworm said:

Why then, are all men not free from the punishment due because of their sins?

Click to expand...

We are only saved by Grace , through faith which is in Jesus. He was our sacrifice for sin and his blood covers us. All men are saved but they have to repent and accept God's gift of salvation. If they reject the Son they reject the Father and are still under God's wrath, very simple...

nhislove said:

We are only saved by Grace , through faith which is in Jesus. He was our sacrifice for sin and his blood covers us. All men are saved but they have to repent and accept God's gift of salvation. If they reject the Son they reject the Father and are still under God's wrath, very simple...

Click to expand...

Yes we are saved by grace; nothing about being saved by our "OWN" freewill; if God does not call you do not have the ability or will to come on your own. All carnal people reject the son until God's grace gives them the will and ability to hear; then and only then can they repent and accept salvation.

Did you know the word wrath in the Greek means desire; amazing the negative interpretation that Baby-lon has mistranslated God's Word to scare people; God is not the author of fear.



wrath: Strong’s 3709 orge (or-gay'); from 3713; properly, desire
(as a reaching forth or excitement of the mind), i.e. (by analogy,)
violent passion (ire, or [justifiable] abhorrence); by implication punishment:
Notice how King James changes God’s desire into anger: KJV-- anger, indignation, vengeance, wrath.

chaela,

Now you're starting to sound like the prodigal son's "righteous" older brother, who resented his father's throwing a party for the rebellious son upon the latter's return. I'm beginning to see why you resent the omission of hell so much. All those who you feel "deserve" heaven will be rubbing elbows with those you self-righteously feel don't "deserve" it

Click to expand...

But you are the one who is denying the existance of hell. I'm just explaining revelation as it has been given to man. God and I would rejoice in the lost returning. But God has also provided a judgement and consequence for those that do not love Him or return to Him.
No one deserves either place but man has been given a choice to acquire either based on his own desires.
Might I remind you that you have not given any scripture to begin to show evidence of your view, that there is an equal consequence between believers and unbelievers. Or that hell just does not exist.
the point is you have not said anything postive regarding your view. You are simply making assertions of what I have stated but no evidence to show the opposite.

Ormly said:

Any of them that would cause you to draw your conclusion about him.

Click to expand...

Just read any of my posts responding to his and they'll provide the answer.

Rightglory said:

Might I remind you that you have not given any scripture to begin to show evidence of your view, that there is an equal consequence between believers and unbelievers. Or that hell just does not exist.

Click to expand...

Actually, I did provide a link to a whole list of verses, back in post #76 of this thread.

chaela,

Actually, I did provide a link to a whole list of verses, back in post #76 of this thread.

Click to expand...

But not a single one deals with hell or that hell does not exist. It is just the opposite. It is BECAUSE Christ gave life to the world, saved the world from death, that both heaven and hell can exist. Without that justification to life, or restitution of all things, there is no need for either heaven or hell.
So, you are back to square one, where in the Bible does it say that a hell, or any variation of the word you wish to use, indicates that all men will live eternally WITH Christ.

Rightglory said:

chaela, But not a single one deals with hell or that hell does not exist. It is just the opposite. It is BECAUSE Christ gave life to the world, saved the world from death, that both heaven and hell can exist. Without that justification to life, or restitution of all things, there is no need for either heaven or hell.

So, you are back to square one, where in the Bible does it say that a hell, or any variation of the word you wish to use, indicates that all men will live eternally WITH Christ.

Click to expand...

You're making less and less sense (to me) as the discussion goes on. I'm just going to give you a little break, 'kay? Thank you for all your input.


.

.

Chaela,

You're making less and less sense (to me) as the discussion goes on. I'm just going to give you a little break, 'kay? Thank you for all your input.

Click to expand...

Take your time. Your view does not make sense in light of scripture which is why you don't understand what I am explaining.

This is a terrible poll, since technically there are four main views apart from universalism as far the atonement is concerned, namely, (1) Limited Redemption/Limited Atonement, (2) Limited Redemption/Unlimited Atonement, (3) Unlimited Redemption/Unlimited Atonement and (4) Arminianism.

ALL of these views assert that in the end, Christ's blood is only effectual unto those who believe (the elect). Therefore, in one sense, all believe that Christ died for only the elect. But in another sense, three of the four views believe that Christ died for all humanity, in that His death was sufficient to save them but was never intended to do so. In light of this, I cannot answer this question because it assumes there is an either/or answer, when I whole-heartedly believe it is both.

I hold to the view of Lewis Sperry Chafer that Christ death was sufficient for all, but effecatious only unto the elect.

Rightglory said:

Chaela,

Take your time. Your view does not make sense in light of scripture which is why you don't understand what I am explaining.

Click to expand...

What you're trying to explain (very patiently, I should add! ) and what scripture says are not necessarily one and the same thing as you imply, but again, thank you for your contributions to the discussion. It's all good!

chaela said:

Actually, I did provide a link to a whole list of verses, back in post #76 of this thread.

Click to expand...

Chaela,

First of all, I read through each of the verses posted on that page. It is quite odd that half of the verses were taken horribly out of context. I can give examples of a couple.

Gen 12:3 - And in you [Abraham] all the families of the earth will be blessed.

Here we have the Abrahamic covenant. This covenant was made by God directly with Abraham, not with anyone else. Here is the full passage-

Gen 12:1 Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go forth from your country, And from your relatives And from your father's house, To the land which I will show you;
Gen 12:2 And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing;
Gen 12:3 And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed."

Certainly this was a personal covenant, not made with Israel, not made with the Church, but with Abraham. Now how are all of the families blessed through Abraham?

Gen 17:15 Then God said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah {shall be} her name.
Gen 17:16 "I will bless her, and indeed I will give you a son by her. Then I will bless her, and she shall be {a mother of} nations; kings of peoples will come from her."

The son was Isaac. Isaac was the one whom the promises would be fulfilled through. Isaac had Jacob who was.... ISRAEL. Israel became a great nation in which the messiah came out of. This is how all families of the earth are blessed through Abraham. His seed led to Jesus who would save ANYONE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM.

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.

Notice you must belong to Christ in order to be considered one of Abraham's descendants. It is conditional.

Another example of a verse taken out of context -

Jn 12:32 - And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.

Context.

Jhn 12:20 Now there were some Greeks among those who were going up to worship at the feast;

Jesus was speaking to Gentiles at the feast. When He says "all men", in context He is definitely saying that He will draw all "types" of men, Jew or Gentile.

I would like to ask you, sticking with Universalism, what you think of Revelation 20?


Rev 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it {is} called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war.
Rev 19:12 His eyes {are} a flame of fire, and on His head {are} many diadems; and He has a name written {on Him} which no one knows except Himself.
Rev 19:13 {He is} clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
Rev 19:14 And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white {and} clean, were following Him on white horses.
Rev 19:15 From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty.
Rev 19:16 And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS."
Rev 19:17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and he cried out with a loud voice, saying to all the birds which fly in midheaven, "Come, assemble for the great supper of God,
Rev 19:18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of commanders and the flesh of mighty men and the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them and the flesh of all men, both free men and slaves, and small and great."
Rev 19:19 And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies assembled to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army.
Rev 19:20 And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone.
Rev 19:21 And the rest were killed with the sword which came from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse, and all the birds were filled with their flesh.


Wow. Sounds like Universalism, doesn't it? Everyone gets saved when Christ comes and destroys them, and then they are eaten by birds. Hmmm.

Not to mention the beast and false prophet are clearly human beings (As per Rev 13). If Universalism is true, then why are they tormented day and night forever and ever???

Rev 20:10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

And just to further make my point -

"torment"

Basavizw trans. Basanizo

1) to test (metals) by the touchstone, which is a black siliceous stone used to test the purity of gold or silver by the colour of the streak produced on it by rubbing it with either metal
2) to question by applying torture
3) to torture
4) to vex with grievous pains (of body or mind), to torment
5) to be harassed, distressed
a) of those who at sea are struggling with a head wind

"day and night"

nmepa kai vux trans. "hemera kai nux"

hemera-

1) the day, used of the natural day, or the interval between sunrise and sunset, as distinguished from and contrasted with the night
a) in the daytime
b) metaph., "the day" is regarded as the time for abstaining from indulgence, vice, crime, because acts of the sort are perpetrated at night and in darkness
2) of the civil day, or the space of twenty four hours (thus including the night)
a) Eastern usage of this term differs from our western usage. Any part of a day is counted as a whole day, hence the expression "three days and three nights" does not mean literally three whole days, but at least one whole day plus part of two other days.
3) of the last day of this present age, the day Christ will return from heaven, raise the dead, hold the final judgment, and perfect his kingdom
4) used of time in general, i.e. the days of his life.

kai-

also, even, etc.

nux-

1) night
2) metaph. the time when work ceases
a) the time of death
b) the time for deeds of sin and shame
c) the time of moral stupidity and darkness
d) the time when the weary and also the drunken give themselves up to slumber

eis aiwv aiwv trans. "eis aion aion"

eis, a proposition

1) into, unto, to, towards, for, among

aion

1) for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity
2) the worlds, universe
3) period of time, age

So literally speaking,

Basanizo hemera kai nux eis aion aion

Tormented, harrassed and distressed during the day and the night forever and ever, for unbroken ages, eternity, ages and ages.

We have torment.

We have day and night, meaning all of the time - a "merism"

We have "ages and ages". Whether you agree that this means "eternity" doesn't matter, the context necessitates it by the previous "day and night". The idea is "all of the time, all day long, always conscious torment". The context is right there. A denial of that is to read your own ideas into it.

Universalism is a false doctrine, easily refuted by Scripture.

Cheala,

What you're trying to explain (very patiently, I should add! ) and what scripture says are not necessarily one and the same thing as you imply, but again, thank you for your contributions to the discussion. It's all good!

Click to expand...

Not necessarily as I could misunderstand the Gospel as it has been taught, believed and practiced for the last 2000 years. But you have not presented any evidence that I have been incorrect so far. As for Universalism, it was specifically condemned by the Church almost 1400 years ago.

Rightglory said:

Cheala,

Not necessarily as I could misunderstand the Gospel as it has been taught, believed and practiced for the last 2000 years.

Click to expand...

Longevity of practice doesn't equate to correct practice. If it did, Buddhism would be more correct than Christianity, since it's been around and practiced even longer than the latter.

But you have not presented any evidence that I have been incorrect so far.

Click to expand...

Presenting evidence and seeing said evidence are two different things.

As for Universalism, it was specifically condemned by the Church almost 1400 years ago.

Click to expand...

Actually, The Church seems to be rethinking that decision: http://www.romancatholicism.org/universal-salvation.htm




.

chaela said:

Then all the families of the earth won't be blessed. Only some of the families of the earth will be blessed. But that isn't what it says, is it? It says that all the families of the earth will be blessed.

Which type of family is closer to what one would call "blessed":

A. The family that has all their loved ones in heaven with them, or

B. The family that has even a single loved one roasting in hell forever and/or totally annihilated from existence
​

Click to expand...

Here is proof of your eisegesis. NOWHERE in the context of this verse does "blessed" equal "saved from hell". This is a totally unwarranted interpretation, conjured up by your preconceived notions that EVERYONE will go to heaven. My original point is that this verse isn't talking about heaven vs. hell. It's talking about who's line the messiah will come from, and how salvation will be made possible for all. This is a blessing of grace, because those who have sinned now have atonement made for them, and if they simply have faith they may be saved. Don't tell me that isn't a blessing. And don't play games as to "what is MORE of a blessing".

chaela said:

Ah yes, the "all types" argument. Been there, done that, LOL!

Click to expand...

And that's it?

Context, context, context. Apparently your theology is built upon a hermeneutic that says "if it sounds like a support, I'll take it!"

chaela said:

The same has been said of Arminianism and Calvinism and any other branch of Partialism floating around out there. The point is... ?

It's really very simple. Most mainstream arguments in favor of the more elitist "the few, the proud, the saved" soteriology hail from either Calvinism or Arminianism. I mean, that's basically what we're dealing with here.

So, in a nutshell:

Click to expand...

chaela said:

Calvinism teaches that God can save everyone, but won't.

Arminianism, on the other hand, teaches that God wants to save everyone, but can't.

Then there's Universalism, which teaches that God both can and will save everyone.
​

Now, which of the three soteriological views do you think is going to be the most God-glorifying?

Click to expand...

Well, I will play unfair and answer your objection even though you completely glossed over the bulk of my argument, obviously because you have no response to something so plainly proven. Show me where you can overturn my greek translation and maybe I will give your view an ounce of respect.

You assume that God is most glorified when all are saved. Tell me, would God be "most glorified" by not judging those who are still guilty of sin? Would He be just? No, obviously not. Those who believe on His name have their sin imputed to His account, and His righteousness imputed to their's. But the one who does not believe on His name stands as an enemy to God and must be judged.

Col 2:13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,
Col 2:14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Tell me, when were our sins cancelled out by Christ? Was it at the cross? NOOOOO. This verse clearly teaches that at the point of regeneration (made alive), we were forgiven all of our transgressions. The unregenerate man is not forgiven, and therefore is judged.

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is {the book} of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds.

Why are they judged according to their deeds? Because Christ's blood has not been imputed onto their account, and they stand condemned before God.

Rev 20:15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

So this isn't really true?

Mat 25:46 "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Here's a parallel you cannot deny; if eternal punishment isn't real then eternal life isn't either. However, if eternal life is real then eternal punishment must also be real.

If you don't believe the word means "eternal", then you must concede that heaven is not eternal. This verse provides a major problem for universalism.

Answer my quote from Rev.

Jesusfreak5000 said:

Here is proof of your eisegesis. NOWHERE in the context of this verse does "blessed" equal "saved from hell".This is a totally unwarranted interpretation, conjured up by your preconceived notions that EVERYONE will go to heaven. My original point is that this verse isn't talking about heaven vs. hell. It's talking about who's line the messiah will come from, and how salvation will be made possible for all. This is a blessing of grace, because those who have sinned now have atonement made for them, and if they simply have faith they may be saved. Don't tell me that isn't a blessing. And don't play games as to "what is MORE of a blessing".

Click to expand...

Wow, I sure hit a nerve, didn’t I?

And please don’t accuse those with whom you don’t agree of “playing games”. It’s a worn-out cliché that is used all too often around these here parts, usually by partialists who seem to feel backed into a corner of some sort (at least, that’s the impression they give off when they resort to such histrionics).

If your response above is the best you have for that portion of my post, then what I stated previously still stands and it's just a case that you don't particularly like it much.

Well, I will play unfair and answer your objection even though you completely glossed over the bulk of my argument, obviously because you have no response to something so plainly proven.

Click to expand...

I gave you a response. You just don’t accept it. Unfair enough?

You assume that God is most glorified when all are saved. Tell me, would God be "most glorified" by not judging those who are still guilty of sin?

Click to expand...

You assume that God is unable to save the very sorts of people He came to save.

Since when is being judged tantamount to being tossed into a furnace of fire forever?

Who around here isn’t still guilty of sin from time to time?

Col 2:13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,
Col 2:14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Click to expand...

When does the above verse say He made us alive together with Him? Was it when we responded to the “altar call”? When we said the Sinner’s Prayer™ ? When we so kindly gave Him permission to do so by “choosing to believe” in Him? No, the verse cited above says that He made us alive together with Him “when we were dead in our transgressions”. One thing about dead people ... they don't do much on their own.

Tell me, when were our sins cancelled out by Christ? Was it at the cross? NOOOOO. This verse clearly teaches that at the point of regeneration (made alive), we were forgiven all of our transgressions. The unregenerate man is not forgiven, and therefore is judged.

Click to expand...

As 1 Corinthians 15 points out, all who die in Adam are made alive again in Christ. Just as our vote in the matter wasn’t asked of us in the case of the first Adam, it isn’t being asked of us in the case of the Second Adam. There are simply some decisions God can and will make without our input.

And who does the regenerating? God.
So who is responsible if a person remains unregenerated … ?

Here's a parallel you cannot deny; if eternal punishment isn't real then eternal life isn't either.

Click to expand...

Touché! Ya got me, LOL!

But seriously … Not everything in Scripture that’s “forever” was necessarily endless:

Does this mean that an eternal God is not really eternal? No. God is outside of time. He is God of the ages, but He also transcends all of the ages. Scripture also describes Him specifically as being “immortal” or “incorruptible” (aphthartos).

God's Throne is from age to age, but also transcends all the ages and is outside of time itself. Punishment, on the other hand, only lasts for an age because that for which it's used (finite sin) isn't infinite in duration.

Besides, to say that human sin requires eternity to be dealt with appropriately is to elevate it to the same level as the Eternal God Himself, imo.

However, if eternal life is real then eternal punishment must also be real. If you don't believe the word means "eternal", then you must concede that heaven is not eternal. This verse provides a major problem for universalism.

Click to expand...

Not a major problem at all. “Long” business meetings and “long” winter seasons are also real, but this doesn’t mean that the former is equal in duration to the latter.

chaela said:

Wow, I sure hit a nerve, didn’t I?

Click to expand...

No, I am just concise in my wording. This is not personal, but a simple discussion of the facts in which you are wrong.

chaela said:

And please don’t accuse those with whom you don’t agree of “playing games”. It’s a worn-out cliché that is used all too often around these here parts, usually by partialists who seem to feel backed into a corner of some sort (at least, that’s the impression they give off when they resort to such histrionics).

Click to expand...

Well, you are playing games as far as hermeneutics is concerned.

chaela said:

If your response above is the best you have for that portion of my post, then what I stated previously still stands and it's just a case that you don't particularly like it much.

Click to expand...

Well it may stand, in that it continues to be your viewpoint, but it definitely does not stand in light of my argument. You do not understand the nature of the covenant, this is clear.

chaela said:

I gave you a response. You just don’t accept it. Unfair enough?

Click to expand...

However you did NOT give me a response to my Rev exegesis, in which I will conclude you have absolutely no answer and stand proven wrong.

chaela said:

You assume that God is unable to save the very sorts of people He came to save.

Click to expand...

Quoted above is what YOU assume. I never said such a thing. I do not believe God UNABLE to save all. I believe that it is His ultimate will not to, that the elect will recognize still further God's grace unto them and glorify Him to the fullest in light of it.

chaela said:

Since when is being judged tantamount to being tossed into a furnace of fire forever?

Click to expand...

This statement shows your lack of understanding...

How can a finite, fallen man ever fully repay the sin debt, the breaking of God's eternal and perfect law? He can't. Therefore he must suffer God's mitigated wrath for eternity. Christ, however, suffered God's unmitigated wrath when He died on the cross, because he was (1) able to represent the human race as the second Adam and (2) is eternal in nature, meaning His death would eternally satisfy the wrath of God.

This is justice. God is a just God, and He judges justly, so justly that He required His own Son to die. If you think God will simply pardon all people, all sinners who cursed His name, you are quite mistaken. God is just.

chaela said:

Who around here isn’t still guilty of sin from time to time?

Click to expand...

It depends on what you mean. I sin; however,

Rom 8:1 Therefore there is now NO condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Why?

Christ Jesus ... "having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

I am no longer guilty of sin before the court of God.

Rom 8:33 Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies;

chaela said:

When does the above verse say He made us alive together with Him? Was it when we responded to the “altar call”? When we said the Sinner’s Prayer™ ? When we so kindly gave Him permission to do so by “choosing to believe” in Him? No, the verse cited above says that He made us alive together with Him “when we were dead in our transgressions”. One thing about dead people ... they don't do much on their own.

Click to expand...

I do not disagree with your statement... we were made alive (regenerated) prior to our justification. This is a Calvinist teaching, which is odd to see you reciting it. However, your point does nothing to negate my point previously made??? Those who are deemed righteous are those who come to know Christ, who are justified, who were "made alive with Christ". This is not everyone, only the elect.

chaela said:

As 1 Corinthians 15 points out, all who die in Adam are made alive again in Christ. Just as our vote in the matter wasn’t asked of us in the case of the first Adam, it isn’t being asked of us in the case of the Second Adam. There are simply some decisions God can and will make without our input.

Click to expand...

Once again, you're not understanding. You and I are offspring from the first Adam. Only once we become born again and are adopted into the family of God are we made alive. NOT ALL MEN ARE IN CHRIST! ALL MEN ARE IN ADAM! Only those who are in Christ are made alive. Your parallel is from a misunderstanding.

chaela said:

And who does the regenerating? God.

Click to expand...

Yes. How this is an argument I don't know.

chaela said:

So who is responsible if a person remains unregenerated … ?

Click to expand...

They are.

You may object, but-

Rom 9:20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?
Rom 9:21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

Is God so required to regenerate all? Certainly not;

Eph 1:11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,

and

Rom 9:15 For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION."
Rom 9:16 So then it {does} not {depend} on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.


Whatever God so desires He may do.

chaela said:

Touché! Ya got me, LOL!

Click to expand...

Thanks for the acknowledgement, but I didn't really need it to be sure.

chaela said:

But

Click to expand...

chaela said:

seriously … Not everything in Scripture that’s “forever” was necessarily endless:

Click to expand...

Well you ought to go and read my exegesis of Rev 20 (again, for the third time) where I prove that Hell is in fact perpetual and never ending, and the Greek demands it.

chaela said:

Sodom's fiery judgment is "eternal" (Jude 7)--until--God "will restore the fortunes of Sodom" 16:53-55).

Israel's "affliction is incurable" (Jer. 30:12) -- until--the Lord "will restore health" and heal her wounds (Jer. 30:17).

The sin of Samaria "is incurable" (Mic. 1:9) – until – the Lord "will restore ... the fortunes of Samaria." (Ez. 16:53).

Ammon is to become a "wasteland forever" and "rise no more" (Zeph. 2:9, Jer. 25:27 – until – the Lord will "restore the fortunes of the Ammonites" (Jer. 49:6).

An Ammonite or Moabite is forbidden to enter the Lord's congregation "forever"– until – the tenth generation (Deut. 23:3):

Habakkuk tells us of mountains that were "everlasting", that is – until – they "were shattered" Hab. 3 3:6).

The Aaronic Priesthood was to be an "everlasting" priesthood (Ex. 40:15), that is– until – it was superseded by the Melchizedek Priesthood (Hebrews 7:14-18).

Many translations of the Bible inform us that God would dwell in Solomon's Temple "forever" (1 Kings 8:13), that is, – until – the Temple was destroyed.

The Law of Moses was to be an "everlasting covenant" (Leviticus 24:8) yet we read in the New Covenant the first was "done away" and "abolished" (2 Corinthians 3:11,13), and God "made the first old" (Hebrews 8:13).

The fire for Israel's sin offering (of a ram without blemish) is never to be put out. It shall be a "perpetual" – until – Christ, the Lamb of God, dies for our sins. We now have a better covenant established on better promises (Lev. 6:12-13, Heb. 8:6-13).

God's waves of wrath roll over Jonah "forever" – until – the Lord delivers him from the large fish's belly on the third day (Jonah 2:6,10; 1: 17); Egypt and Elam will "rise no more" (Jer. 25:27) – until – the Lord will "restore the fortunes of Egypt" (Ez. 29:14) and "restore the fortunes of Elam" (Jer. 49:39).

"Moab is destroyed" (Jer. 48:4, 42) – until – the Lord "will restore the fortunes of Moab" (Jer. 48:47).

Israel's judgment lasts "forever"– until – the Spirit is poured out and God restores it (Isa. 32:13-15).

The King James Bible, as well as many others, tells us that a bond slave was to serve his master "forever" (Exodus 21:6), that is – until – his death.

All manner of sin will be forgiven in this AGE as well as in the AGE (not eternity) to come, except blasphemy against God's Spirit – until – such blasphemy finds pardon in the fullness of the times (or ages) when God unites all in Christ. For the Lord does not retain His anger forever because He delights in mercy (Matt. 12:32; 18:11,21-22, Eph. 1:9-11, Rev. 4:11; 5:13, Mic. 7:18-20).

God's wrath has come upon Israel "to the uttermost" (1 Thess. 2:16) – until – all Israel be saved (Jer. 50:5, Luke 16:19-26, John 12:32, Romans 11:26-29).

So, Christ will say to unrighteous nations, "Depart from Me into 'everlasting' fire." And these nations will go away into "everlasting" (original language: age-lasting) punishment or pruning, that is – until – by God's severe mercy shown in judgment, all nations He has made glorify and worship Him. Thus God will fulfill His covenant with Abraham that in Christ all the families of all the nations will be blessed (Gen. 12:3, Ps. 62:12, 67:4, 86:9, Matt. 25:41,46). For according to Paul (Gal. 3:8), God's covenant with Abraham means that all will be justified and set right with God. So all flesh will bless His name forever and ever (Ps. 145:21).

Therefore, all scriptural references that speak of everlasting fire or judgment must be understood in light of God's (Love's) clearly expressed heart, promise, desire, purpose and will. They are "everlasting"; that is, they are continuous and ongoing– until – God's judgments serve to accomplish His unchanging will and purpose to unite all creation in Christ. (Gen. 12:3, Romans 4:13, Heb. 6:17).

Truly God's judgments are in the earth– until – mercy shall triumph over those judgments. (James 2:13)
​

Does this mean that an eternal God is not really eternal? No. God is outside of time. He is God of the ages, but He also transcends all of the ages. Scripture also describes Him specifically as being “immortal” or “incorruptible” (aphthartos).

God's Throne is from age to age, but also transcends all the ages and is outside of time itself. Punishment, on the other hand, only lasts for an age because that for which it's used (finite sin) isn't infinite in duration.

Click to expand...

I like how these quotes give no attention to the subject at hand, and then go ahead and copy-paste a bunch of stuff from another website. Just shows who I'm dealing with here... First of all, you must already know that there is no single word in Hebrew or in Greek that denotes "eternity", although it can very well be described. So all of these examples (I am not about to address everyone of them) do nothing but show that the english word "everlasting" is given as a figure of speech. HOWEVER, in the Matthew 25 verse we have a direct parallel, in which you have yet to answer. I wonder why?...

chaela said:

Besides, to say that human sin requires eternity to be dealt with appropriately is to elevate it to the same level as the Eternal God Himself, imo.

Click to expand...

No, sin is in obstruction of God's eternal law, therefore it is necessary that one suffer God's unmitigated wrath, which we cannot BECAUSE we are finite. Therefore it is necessary that a sinner must suffer God's mitigated wrath for eternity. This is just.

chaela said:

Not a major problem at all. “Long” business meetings and “long” winter seasons are also real, but this doesn’t mean that the former is equal in duration to the latter.

Click to expand...

What a terrible analogy. Not even close. Jesus PARALLELS the two, which means their duration MUST be equal. As I have been saying, you have no consistent hermeneutic. LEARN HOW TO INTERPRET. GET A BOOK ON HERMENEUTICS.

I think I have demonstrated the totality of your inconsistency. I don't need you to concede. Therefore I am done.

Jesusfreak5000 said:

Therefore I am done.

Click to expand...

I most definitely agree.

Cheala,

Longevity of practice doesn't equate to correct practice. If it did, Buddhism would be more correct than Christianity, since it's been around and practiced even longer than the latter.

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with longevity as you would be correct.
It has to do with the Gospel as it was given, practiced, believed in the beginning which has been consistantly constantly been held the same since the Apostles recieved it. It has been preserved as Christ promised it would be through the work of the Holy Spirit in time.
Either it has been preserved as He states, or it has not been preserved. If it has not been preseved we should have no faith in His word. Whatever we are speaking about is but vanity. It has no import whatsoever.

Presenting evidence and seeing said evidence are two different things.

Click to expand...

Ok, but you have produced none that anyone can see either.

Actually, The Church seems to be rethinking that decision: http://www.romancatholicism.org/universal-salvation.htm

Click to expand...

It would not surprise me at all if they did. They are moving much closer to the operendi of protestantism than they have ever had since they split from the Church almost 1000 years ago. Give the RC another 100 years and you will not be able to tell the difference between RC and any other protestant denomination.