No, it says that whatever (period) is not from faith is sin. Even though the context is as you say, the statement is a principle.
Upvote
0
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.
That is not what it says. It effectively says that anything which is done in violation of a religiously informed conscience is sinful.
No, it says that whatever (period) is not from faith is sin. Even though the context is as you say, the statement is a principle.
As I lost faith, the Calvinistic God seemed to me to be a monster... wanting to burn people when he could save them instead. That isn't loving, and God is love.
Nobody was holding a gun to Judas's head when he betrayed Jesus. He did it of his own volition, and therefore he was responsible for his actions.
Words mean what they mean. Not what you want them to mean. From the Cambridge Concise Dictionary of New Testament Greek:
Αιωνιος - long ago; without end, eternal, everlasting.
Yes....words do mean what they mean...
A further way of explaining Jesus statement about eternal punishment is by observing the derivation of kolasis. Bruce calls attention to the root of kolasis which is κολάζω (kolazō, mutilate, prune) and concludes that the noun refers to a corrective type of punishment rather than a vindictive one. He notes the possibility of combining that notion with αἰώνιον (aiōnion) which etymologically means agelong, not everlasting. The idea of agelong pruning or discipline leaves open the hope of ultimate salvation. To his credit, however, he notes that the doctrine of future states must rest on more basic considerations than those of etymological derivation. In the present context, the contrast with eternal life establishes that eternal punishment is not a limited period of discipline, but is without limits.
Master's Seminary Journal Volume 9, vnp.9.2.162 (Sun Valley, CA: The Master's Seminary, 1998).
──────────────────
Eternal punishment (κολασιν αἰωνιον [kolasin aiōnion]). The word κολασιν [kolasin] comes from κολαζω [kolazō], to mutilate or prune. Hence those who cling to the larger hope use this phrase to mean age-long pruning that ultimately leads to salvation of the goats, as disciplinary rather than penal. There is such a distinction as Aristotle pointed out between μωρια [mōria] (vengeance) and κολασις [kolasis].
A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol.V c1932, Vol.VI c1933 by Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention., Mt 25:46 (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997).
──────────────────
The incompatibility of love and fear is also evident from the fact that fear is associated with κόλασις. The original Greek understanding of this word is not so much related to punishment as to discipline or physical training. In Hellenism it takes on the meaning of punishment and later becomes a technical term for the eternal punishment that will be imposed at the final judgment..
Age long pruning chastisement, not eternal torture.
Besides which, we know from Josephus that eternal punishment was not an idea unknown to first century Jews.people have to engage in eisegesis to come up with the idea that hell is not eternal. the scripture needs to be read in the spirit in which it was written. Matthew was not an ecumenical universalist. He was a first century Jew writing to Jews. They knew that it was appointed unto men once to die, and then comes the judgment.
people have to engage in eisegesis to come up with the idea that hell is not eternal. the scripture needs to be read in the spirit in which it was written. Matthew was not an ecumenical universalist. He was a first century Jew writing to Jews. They knew that it was appointed unto men once to die, and then comes the judgment.
Also, ancient Jews did not believe in eternal hell. Nor do modern ones.
people have to engage in eisegesis to come up with the idea that hell is not eternal. the scripture needs to be read in the spirit in which it was written. Matthew was not an ecumenical universalist. He was a first century Jew writing to Jews. They knew that it was appointed unto men once to die, and then comes the judgment.
If it didn't have biblical support, Calvinism isn't a theology anybody would be likely to invent, but, for that very reason, it is less likely to be something which somebody has just pulled out of their head.
Also, whether or not you find something agreeable does not determine its truth value. I sometimes wonder what would happen if people did science in the same way they try to do theology.
I'm incredibly skeptical of any theology that idealizes power, sovereignty, omnipotence, things like that. Calvinism is the perfect example of this, and although I think there's nothing wrong with holding omnipotence with God as an inextricable characteristic of him (whatever this characteristic really means to us non-omnipotent creatures), it sounds like pure plain tribalism when we idealize power in this way. Like we're really saying, "MY God will mess YOU up," if you're not down with him (believe or perish), which makes you wonder why a person would have such a value.
Well, I think it's because, to some degree, this person is very sensitive to hurt and vulnerability, and they idealize power as a way to overcompensate for this perceived weakness (when it's anything but). In this sense (and this clearly isn't the only variable here), Calvinism (and associated protestant theologies) is the appearance of hypermasculinity that cloaks a very sensitive soft center.
"But people believe in Calvinism because they think it's true." I can't deny this to some degree; what I'm saying, though, is that you wouldn't be inclined to believe in God's super duper power tripism if you weren't psychologically primed for it beforehand.
People invent immoral ideas... an idea seeming immoral isn't a reason to think it more likely true.
It doesn't matter whether it's agreeable, it matters whether it's loving and moral... two things that people claim God to be.
What you're saying is that people are Calvinists because they're not as balanced and emotionally stable as you? Some might call this ad hominem.
What you're saying is that people are Calvinists because they're not as balanced and emotionally stable as you? Some might call this ad hominem.
Where did I say emotionally unstable?
Are you trying to reinforce the superiority complex of us Europeans re Americans?If it is emotional instability, about half of American males (who want to be gruff and strong and grrrr) are emotionally unstable.
Are you trying to reinforce the superiority complex of us Europeans re Americans?
As I lost faith, the Calvinistic God seemed to me to be a monster... wanting to burn people when he could save them instead. That isn't loving, and God is love.
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?