Hell is not permanent.

[Soul Searcher]

See this is why it has been so hard to walk away. You just had to say that your right and I am wrong. I love people more than you could know but you say that my belief could not be because it lacks the Love element. I trust God completely(Iknow, you do too) to do the right thing, judgement is the Lord's.
I know my questions were hypothetical. SS and KC and Hav seem to love those kind of questions, I would be interested in anyones thoughts.
Back to work,
timlamb

In answer to your previous question.. I can not honestly say what I would do in such a situtation. I would like to think that I would stand up for what I believe but fear and the desire to live is a strong motivator. It is very possible that I could be forced to lie but God knows the heart and I have to believe that he would understand and forgive if such a thing were to happen.

btw, don't you have a book to write?
Now get to work

 

[red77]

I agree that GOd has more compassion for the lost than a desire to eternally condemn. Matter of fact, He has NO desire to eternally condemn.

Yet again, you make wrong assumptions about me, and others simply because we believe what God has said about hell is truth and definately part of the gospel.

Why don't you open another thread and we'll explore the multitudes of Scripture that shows that God desires all to come to repentance through the beloved Son?


Otherwise, this is a discussion and debate forum.

In all honesty i dont make wrong assumptions about you....I'm sure you hope that noone goes to hell, the LOF or whatever........my point is that you believe in a God that will eternally condemn his creations if they dont make a choice within this lifespan....so therefore i believe in a more merciful God because I dont.......

I have family/friends/loved ones who for this message to be true would rob me of all hope....My parents (short of a road to damascus thing) are likely to die agnostics...as with most of the people i care about, some are atheists.....Not one person i know within my circle is a Christian, and so far there's no likelihood of that changing either.........

And a message without hope is hardly 'good news'.....if i believe in an almighty loving God then i should not have to worry about anything horrific happening to the people i care about....and nor should anyone else, and thankfully i dont worry about it because i'm not bound by the fear that 'hell' LOF instills anymore......

 

[red77]

See this is why it has been so hard to walk away. You just had to say that your right and I am wrong. I love people more than you could know but you say that my belief could not be because it lacks the Love element. I trust God completely(Iknow, you do too) to do the right thing, judgement is the Lord's.
I know my questions were hypothetical. SS and KC and Hav seem to love those kind of questions, I would be interested in anyones thoughts.
Back to work,
timlamb

I wasnt trying to be confrontational in my reply there....i thought it was interesting to bring up the 'what would we do' in that situation as well, i dont think any of us would know really until we were faced with it........

and i wasnt trying to say 'i was right, u were wrong'....within me as much as i say i can know anything i do believe an eternal hell to not exist......i cant proove it obviously but its something i utterly feel inwardly and have done since being surrounded by the doctrine of eternal punishment, it just took away hope......

At the end of the day all of this is up to God, one way or another everything will tie in with his plan.......

 

[Jipsah]

If we were all arested for being Christians in Afghanistan, and they used this thread as evidence, how many of us do you think they could convict?

Only those who believe in Eternal Torment, of course!

Another oddity; I have watched the group of Universalists, who all believe something very different

Could be because we're not all universalists. That's just a handy box to put us in. Although I will say in honesty that I thin the universalists are nearer the rights of things than are the ETs.

 

[timlamb]

In answer to your previous question.. I can not honestly say what I would do in such a situtation. I would like to think that I would stand up for what I believe but fear and the desire to live is a strong motivator. It is very possible that I could be forced to lie but God knows the heart and I have to believe that he would understand and forgive if such a thing were to happen.

btw, don't you have a book to write?
Now get to work

YES SIR!

 

[KCDAD]

Timlamb asked: If we were all arested for being Christians in Afghanistan, and they used this thread as evidence, how many of us do you think they could convict?
And if they put guns to our heads, how many of us believe in our position here so strongly we would die for it?
And if we were killed, which ones would have been martyred for Christ?

I also thought you were being rhetorical.


For me death is gain. My only concern would be for my daughter left behind without me, but I would trust God for his Grace.

 

[Jipsah]

First take your phony, hypocritical, preaching and direct it at those others, you are so adamantly defending. When you get them straightened out, come back and talk, not screech and scream, to me. Think you can handle that? I didn't think so, you can't see any of the faults in those whose views you agree with, only the other guys.

Jipsah's Law - When you have nothing to say, say it with insults.

A hint, though. If you really want to get maximum effect from a post like that you need to invoke Hitler at some point. It's traditional if nothing else.

 

[EchoPneuma]

A hint, though. If you really want to get maximum effect from a post like that you need to invoke Hitler at some point. It's traditional if nothing else.

<snort>

Ah yes, the old "you're Hitler and I'm not" ploy.

Very effective in active debate.

 

[Merzbow]

ROTFLMHO! Hardly a day goes by that some universalist does not claim or imply that something they scribbled completely, totally, utterly, absolutely destroys the Biblical doctrine of UT.

"The ancient Jews thought that the vast majority of sinners would return from Gehenna." Back this up?

The vast majority of ancient Jews believed that the offspring of all gentiles was like that of a beast and that the best of Gentiles deserved hell.
.

Back this up? You quote an article written by a Jew turned Christian who had every reason to distort the teachings of his predecessors. (I got an idea - why don't we start discussing Christian history and theology based on a book written by a Christian turned Muslim?) And yet the most he could come up with is to state that one school of Jewish though claimed that a minority of sinners would go to eternal hell. The Jewish encyclopedia article quoted previously implied that even this view was a minority view. Your own quotes contradict your own argument, Der Alter!

 

[Merzbow]

Note all the citations supporting the definitions are highlighted. Unlike your cut/paste from hellmakers.

"eternal . . .in regards to the nature of the divine" Please document this from any credible source other than hellmakers?

Liddell-Scott-Jones A Greek Lexicon

[SIZE=+1]&#945;&#953;&#969;&#957;[/SIZE] aion onos, ho, Ion. and Ep. also he, as in Pi.P.4.186, E.Ph.1484: apocop. acc. aio like Poseido, restored by Ahrens (from AB363) in A.Ch.350: (properly aiWon, cf. aevum, v. aiei):--period of existence (to telos to periechon ton tes hekastou zoes chronon . . aion hekastou kekletai Arist.Cael.279a25 ):

I. lifetime, life, psuche te kai aion Il.16.453 ; ek d' ai. pephatai Il.19.27 ; mede toi ai. phthineto Od.5.160 ; leipei tina Il.5.685 ; ap' aionos neos oleo (Zenod. neon) 24.725; teleutan ton aiôna Hdt.1.32 , etc.; aionos sterein tina A.Pr.862 ; aiona dioichnein Id.Eu.315 ; sundiatribein Cratin. 1 ; ai. Aiakidan, periphr. for the Aeacidae, S.Aj.645 s. v. l.; apepneusen aiona E.Fr.801 ; emon kat' aiona A.Th.219 .

2. age, generation, ai. es triton ib.744; ho mellon aion posterity, D.18.199, cf. Pl.Ax.370c.

3. one's life, destiny, lot, S.Tr.34, E.Andr.1215, Fr.30, etc.

II. long space of time, age, aion gignetai 'tis an age, Men.536.5; esp. with Preps., ap' aionos of old, Hes.Th.609, Ev.Luc.1.70; hoi apo tou ai. Rhomaioi D.C. 63.20 ; di' aionos perpetually, A.Ch.26, Eu.563; all one's life long, S. El.1024; di' aionos makrou, apaustou, A.Supp.582,574; ton di' ai. chronon for ever, Id.Ag.554; eis hapanta ton ai. Lycurg.106, Isoc.10.62; eis ton ai. LXX Ge.3.23, al., D.S.21.17, Ev.Jo.8.35, Ps.-Luc. Philopatr.17; eis aiona aionos LXX Ps.131(132).14 ; ex aionos kai heos aionos ib.Je.7.7; ep' ai. ib.Ex.15.18; heos aionos ib.1 Ki.1.22, al.:-- without a Prep., ton hapanta ai. Arist. Cael.279a22; ton aiona Lycurg. 62 , Epicur.Ep.1p.8U.; eternity, opp. chronos, Pl.Ti.37d, cf. Metrod. Fr.37, Ph.1.496,619, Plot.3.7.5, etc.; tous huper tou aionos phobous Epicur.Sent.20 .

2. space of time clearly defined and marked out, epoch, age, ho aion houtos this present world, opp. ho mellon, Ev.Matt.13.22, cf. Ep.Rom.12.2; ho nun ai. 1 Ep.Tim.6.17, 2 Ep.Tim.4.10:--hence in pl., the ages, i.e. eternity, Phld.D.3 Fr.84; eis pantas tous ai. LXX To.13.4 ; eis tous ai.ib. Si.45.24, al., Ep.Rom.1.25, etc.; eis tous ai. ton aionon LXX 4 Ma.18.24 , Ep.Phil.4.20, etc.; apo ton ai., pro ton ai., Ep.Eph.3.9, 1Cor.2.7; ta tele ton ai. ib.10.11.
[…]
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/resolveform

[SIZE=+1]&#945;&#953;&#969;&#957;&#953;&#959;&#962;[/SIZE] aionios , on, also a, on Pl. Ti.37d, Ep.Heb.9.12:--lasting for an age (aion 11 ), perpetual, eternal (but dist. fr. aidios, Plot.3.7.3), methe Pl.R. 363d ; anolethron . . all' ouk aionion Id.Lg.904a , cf. Epicur. Sent.28; ai. kata psuchen ochlesis Id.Nat.131 G.; kaka, deina, Phld.Herc. 1251.18, D.1.13; ai. amoibais basanisthesomenoi ib.19; tou ai. theou Ep.Rom. 16.26 , Ti.Locr.96c; ou chronie mounon . . all' aionie Aret.CA1.5 ; ai. diatheke, nomimon, prostagma, LXX Ge.9.16, Ex.27.21, To.1.6; zoe Ev.Matt.25.46 , Porph.Abst.4.20; kolasis Ev.Matt. l.c., Olymp. in Grg.p.278J.; pro chronon ai.2 Ep.Tim. 1.9 : opp. proskairos, 2 Ep.Cor. 4.18.

2. holding an office or title for life,perpetual, gumnasiarchos CPHerm.62 .

3. = Lat. saecularis, Phleg.Macr.4.

4. Adv. -ios eternally, nous akinetos ai. panta ôn Procl.Inst.172 , cf. Simp. in Epict.p.77D.; perpetually, misein Sch.E.Alc.338.

5. aionion, to, = aeizoon to mega, Ps.-Dsc.4.88.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/resolveform
​

Note this is a legitimate, credible, peer reviewed, Greek language resource. Everyone associated with it lists their names, they are not afraid or ashamed to be associated with their work.

Something to think about.

I agree COMPLETELY with the dictionary definitions you posted. Now PLEASE go back and highlight the FIRST definitions meaning LASTING FOR AN AGE instead of the LATER definitions. We're really sick and tired of you pulling this stunt again and again. Der Alter, I'm not going anywhere. Every time you do this I'm going to respond and point out how you once again highlight the non-primary definitions of the word. We can argue again and again in other messages about how Plato and so on used this word. But when you put up dictionary definitions, don't insult our intelligence. We can see just as clearly as you are what the primary definitions are.

 

[Merzbow]

Just what do you think that unforgiveness of sin does imply? A free ticket to paradise? To have a sin that is "never forgiven" means just that, never forgiven, no matter how much you want it not to mean that.

Once again, I'll ask you what this means when you take it literally:

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Lu 12:10 (ESV)[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

[/FONT] Are you a Bible literalist? Do you agree this passage is scripture? Then you agree that 'everyone' who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven. You just denied that faith in Jesus is necessary for the forgiveness of sins.

Are you still a Bible literalist? Do you want to now agree that one must put these passages in context with the rest of the Bible, leavened with a dose of common sense?

 

[Merzbow]

If we were all arested for being Christians in Afghanistan, and they used this thread as evidence, how many of us do you think they could convict?
And if they put guns to our heads, how many of us believe in our position here so strongly we would die for it?
And if we were killed, which ones would have been martyred for Christ?
These may seem like pointless questions, but I just went back ten pages trying to get a feel for all that has gone on since I went to work, and I had to laugh. If anyone on theis thread still thinks they are going to change someones mind, they must be dilusional. I think some here just like to argue, and others are just to proud to walk away, and to arrogant to let it go.
I think the latter probably fits me best. A while back I nearly begged the moderators to lock up this thing, I really don't think there is anything to be gained from carrying this any farther, but I can't seem to stay away.
Strangely, I have become comfortable here and even developed some unexplainable attatchment for some of you.
Another oddity; I have watched the group of Universalists, who all believe something very different, unite agaiunst a common enemy, eternal hell. And yet my closest ally in the faith we share, has spoken nary a word to me, and did not even respond to a privet message. I couldnt decide whether you guys were tag teaming me or gang tackling some days.
Oh well, spring has sprung, and I have things to do out side. I also have a book I am trying to write but have been neglecting it for this.
I have learned much so it has not been a waste, but I, like you, I am sure, have only become stronger in my beliefs. I think I said something like this about 500 posts ago and it got totally ignored.
I'll check back to see if anyone of you had anything to say worth reading, but if I try to post, tell me to get to work.
see ya
timlamb

Although we may disagree on this issue, I at least appreciate your presence here. I think all of us are fully aware we aren't going to convince the other participants in this thread - but we're playing to an audience of lurkers, many of whom I suspect are on the fence.

 

[katallasso]

I agree COMPLETELY with the dictionary definitions you posted. Now PLEASE go back and highlight the FIRST definitions meaning LASTING FOR AN AGE instead of the LATER definitions. We're really sick and tired of you pulling this stunt again and again. Der Alter, I'm not going anywhere. Every time you do this I'm going to respond and point out how you once again highlight the non-primary definitions of the word. We can argue again and again in other messages about how Plato and so on used this word. But when you put up dictionary definitions, don't insult our intelligence. We can see just as clearly as you are what the primary definitions are.

Me too, Merzbow! Great definitions that prove our stance. Praise God, no eternal hell for the world!!!!

 

[KCDAD]

I sure hope someone notices I got my hair cut and put on my Spring clothes...

 

[EchoPneuma]

I sure hope someone notices I got my hair cut and put on my Spring clothes...

You look dapper ole chap. Nice duds.

BTW...here's an article from someone who doesn't believe in eternal torment, but rather in annihilationism. It's an interesting read and posits some good arguments also.

http://www.presenttruthmag.com/Bible/37.html

 

[Merzbow]

Wrong I take the proven definition from the totality of scripture and the witness of the early church for, at least, the first 200 years including Polycarp, and Ignatius, John's disciples, and Irenaneus, Polycarp's disciple. The only universalist in the first 300 years of the church was Origen who was excommunicated as a heretic.

We have Clement in the 2nd century, who said this:

And, as I think, the Saviour also exerts His might because it is His work to save; which accordingly He also did by drawing to salvation those who became willing, by the preaching [of the Gospel], to believe on Him, wherever they were. If, then, the Lord descended to Hades for no other end but to preach the Gospel, as He did descend; it was either to preach the Gospel to all or to the Hebrews only. If, accordingly, to all, then all who believe shall be saved, although they may be of the Gentiles, on making their profession there; since God's punishments are saving and disciplinary, leading to conversion, and choosing rather the repentance thorn the death of a sinner; and especially since souls, although darkened by passions, when released from their bodies, are able to perceive more clearly, because of their being no longer obstructed by the paltry flesh.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-stromata-book6.html

If this isn't a clear statement of evangelical universalism, then I don't know what is.

And also, your '300 years' is a non sequiter. We have Gregory of Nyssa in the 4th century. We also have Didymus. And probably a good deal more before and after 300 AD that I don't have time to look up now.

You dare to lecture me about quoting the early church fathers and speaking for myself,? The only thing you have posted is scatological emesis cut/pasted from hellmakers. Who died and made hellbusters and tentmaker, God?

I wouldn't have to lecture you if you told the truth about things like the above. You either know the truth and are failing to tell it, or you don't really know what you claim to know. First you claim that there were no universalists in the entire early Church. I correct you. Then you claim there were no universalists before 300 AD. Again I correct you. How much more of this do we have to suffer, Der Alter?

And just out of curiousity, how far have you gotten in your career as a Christian preacher/scholar/whatever it is that you do by calling the work of writers like Clement of Alexandria 'scatological emesis'? Thankfully I'm here to put you back on track. Class is in session!

 

[gort]

Once again, I'll ask you what this means when you take it literally:

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Lu 12:10 (ESV)[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

[/FONT] Are you a Bible literalist? Do you agree this passage is scripture? Then you agree that 'everyone' who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven. You just denied that faith in Jesus is necessary for the forgiveness of sins.

Are you still a Bible literalist? Do you want to now agree that one must put these passages in context with the rest of the Bible, leavened with a dose of common sense?

Of course this is Scripture. But I don't prooftext one verse to arrive at a destination.

 

[EchoPneuma]

Of course this is Scripture. But I don't prooftext one verse to arrive at a destination.

Yes you do. That's exactly what you're doing with that ONE verse that you are trumpeting that supposedly says the sin will "never" be forgiven.

IT'S ONE VERSE, but you are building an entire belief on it. Got another one that says some sin will NEVER be forgiven?

NO?? THen you are PROOFTEXTING that ONE scripture to say that there are sins that will NEVER be forgiven.

Why not go with the whole testimony of scripture that talks about all being reconciled, and all being made alive, and all being made righteous and all being drawn to Jesus?

Pot meet kettle.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Jipsah's Law - When you have nothing to say, say it with insults.

A hint, though. If you really want to get maximum effect from a post like that you need to invoke Hitler at some point. It's traditional if nothing else.[/SIZE]

&#50668; &#54840; &#50752; &#44760; &#49436; &#45208; &#44480; &#51077; &#51012; &#50668; &#49884; &#45768;

I like how you ignore all the insults in the post I was responding to.

 

[Merzbow]

Yes you do. That's exactly what you're doing with that ONE verse that you are trumpeting that supposedly says the sin will "never" be forgiven.

IT'S ONE VERSE, but you are building an entire belief on it. Got another one that says some sin will NEVER be forgiven?

NO?? THen you are PROOFTEXTING that ONE scripture to say that there are sins that will NEVER be forgiven.

Why not go with the whole testimony of scripture that talks about all being reconciled, and all being made alive, and all being made righteous and all being drawn to Jesus?

Pot meet kettle.

The most ridiculous thing about the whole 'unforgivable sin' of blasphemy claim is that it flatly contradicts the doctrine of sola fide. You can't be saved by faith in Christ alone, you must have faith in Christ and you must also not have blasphemed the Holy Spirit, not even once in your entire life, even way before you became a Christian. I'm sure this would exclude Paul himself, since I'm sure at one point in his persecution of the followers of Jesus he perhaps once, in a moment of anger, uttered a word against the Holy Spirit.

In fact, the exegetical support for works being necessary for salvation in addition to faith is far greater than that for the fundamentalist reading of the nature of the so-called 'unforgivable sin' (I don't believe works is necessary for salvation myself, I'm just saying this to make a point). Either give up sola fide or give up the unforgivable sin. One can't have it both ways.