Hell is not permanent.

[FineLinen]

Just wanted to let you know that I did as I said I would. I took it all to the Lord in much prayer and study, and the Lord changed my mind about universal salvation. I now see that it truly is what the bible teaches.

Remember I was struggling with WANTING to believe it, but I just couldn't see it. Now I can because God has helped me.

Just wanted to share that with you. I remember we had a good conversation and ended on a high note....

Echo: There is only one way the purposes of the Eternal One are made known! The blindness that covers each of our hearts as a veil must be removed by the God of transformation. Today, as it has been for centuries, individuals scratch their heads in the Presence of the Christ and declare "how can these things be?" Jesus Christ in the limitation of a Son declares that no man can come to Me unless the Father draw him. That drawing is what A.W. Tozer refers to as the prevenient grace of God.

We pursue God because, and only because, He has first put an urge within us that spurs us to the pursuit. 'No man can come to Me unless the Father....draw him.' This prevenient drawing takes from us every vestige of credit for the act of coming.

The Lord of hosts shall make unto all people a banquet of rich food, a banquet of matured wine, of rich food full of goodness. And He will destroy the face of the covering cast over all peoples, and the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death in victory and the Lord God will wipe away all tears from off all faces...for the Living Life says!


​

 

[FineLinen]

The Second Death & The Restitution Of All Things -Andrew Jukes-

http://online.sksm.edu/univ/writings/jukes-restitution.html

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/jukes2.html

[move]Through the Son God made the whole universe, and to the Son He has ordained that all creation shall ultimately belong.[/move]

 

[FineLinen]

Tim, a couple of questions for you regarding damnation?

1. Is all damnation equal?

2. Is the elect House of God subject to eternal damnation?

3. Is the greater damnation of the Scribes and Pharisee's the same greater damnation as those described by the Apostle James as "my brothers", specifically teachers?

4. What is damnation?

[move]"Assuredly the Bible is not the story of sin, deepening into eternal ruin, of God's Son worsted in His utmost effort; it is from the opening to the close the story of grace stronger than sin--of life victorious over every form of death--of God triumphing over evil."[/move]





​

Tim: You managed to answer question number 4. With that in mind, can you tell us how the greater krima of the Scribes and Pharisees compares with the greater krima of the brethren of the Apostle James and why damnation begins at the House of God?

This business of eternal meaning only for the age does not wash with me. You universalist types ignore that arguement when it comes to eternal life.

If aionios means without beginning and ending (eternal), can you then tell us what prov aionios cronos means?



​

 

[FineLinen]

What does "prov aionios/aijwvnioß cronos/crovnoß" mean?

Prov= _______________?

aijwvnioß= Everlasting/Eternal/Without beginning or ending?

crovnoß= _______________?

[move]"To go on punishing for ever, simply for punishment's sake, shocks every sentiment of justice. And the case is so much worse when the punishment is really the prolongation of evil, when it is but making evil endless." -Christ Triumphant- [/move]

 

[Merzbow]

Yes, I believe in sola fide, by/through faith are we saved by Christ alone. Versus salvation entirely of works of man to acquire said salvation.

But I don't believe in cheap grace either, and I reckon neither do you.

As it is not by cheap Grace, we are to abide in and follow Christ Jesus. Yet in all that Jesus taught, He said many times what the consequences are of what I term cheap Grace. I can list them if you like, but don't feel I need to.

Paul wrote of this too, as did John.

The clear doctrine of the blasphemy of the HS has a consequence. I've read many papers and opinion regarding this and come to the conclusion it is what it simply says. To blaspheme against the HS.

Regarding Saul/Paul, we have no Scripture showing that he did in any way. Timlamb points out that if one were to blaspheme their hearts could never have a love for God. A love for God is given to us by Him.

As to whether a non-christian could blaspheme the HS I have no knowledge. I don't think anybody else knows either.

More could be said regarding these subjects. another bat-time, another bat channel...

To even make what you're saying plausible, one has to hold that the act of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is defined as an act so horrendously mind and heart-altering to the sinner that it erases any possibility of him ever coming to sincere repentance. It erases his free will. This is certainly only a view compatible with Calvinism, a philosophy which I entirely reject (for many non-soteriological reasons as well). If we don't have free will, and are predestined to have faith or to not have faith then sola fide becomes a moot point anyways, for the exercise of faith is an illusion because it isn't a free choice, it's imposed on the minds of the saved by God (irresistible grace).

 

[EchoPneuma]

To even make what you're saying plausible, one has to hold that the act of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is defined as an act so horrendously mind and heart-altering to the sinner that it erases any possibility of him ever coming to sincere repentance. It erases his free will. This is certainly only a view compatible with Calvinism, a philosophy which I entirely reject (for many non-soteriological reasons as well). If we don't have free will, and are predestined to have faith or to not have faith then sola fide becomes a moot point anyways, for the exercise of faith is an illusion because it isn't a free choice, it's imposed on the minds of the saved by God (irresistible grace).

I believe Daneel is a Calvinist because he does believe that God will send babies who die to hell. It took a while for me to get him to admit it, but he finally did a while back. He reasoned that since everyone is born condemned and spiritually dead, that babies who die in infancy are condemned to eternity in hell because they've never been "born again" by believing in Jesus.

Repugnant I know....but it's what he believes. Only Calvinists believe that....if I'm not mistaken.

 

[gort]

Merzbow quotes:

To even make what you're saying plausible, one has to hold that the act of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is defined as an act so horrendously mind and heart-altering to the sinner that it erases any possibility of him ever coming to sincere repentance. It erases his free will. This is certainly only a view compatible with Calvinism, a philosophy which I entirely reject (for many non-soteriological reasons as well). If we don't have free will, and are predestined to have faith or to not have faith then sola fide becomes a moot point anyways, for the exercise of faith is an illusion because it isn't a free choice, it's imposed on the minds of the saved by God (irresistible grace).

I'm simply amazed that you would come to a conclusion over what I posted about the blasphemy. I'll repost it again and you explain to me how you arrived at your conclusions

daneel quotes:

The clear doctrine of the blasphemy of the HS has a consequence. I've read many papers and opinion regarding this and come to the conclusion it is what it simply says. To blaspheme against the HS.

As to whether a non-christian could blaspheme the HS I have no knowledge. I don't think anybody else knows either.

 

[gort]

EP quotes:

I believe Daneel is a Calvinist because he does believe that God will send babies who die to hell. It took a while for me to get him to admit it, but he finally did a while back. He reasoned that since everyone is born condemned and spiritually dead, that babies who die in infancy are condemned to eternity in hell because they've never been "born again" by believing in Jesus.

Repugnant I know....but it's what he believes. Only Calvinists believe that....if I'm not mistaken.

You need to re-read the thread where we once discussed this, as you certainly are twisting words.

 

[EchoPneuma]

You need to re-read the thread where we once discussed this, as you certainly are twisting words.

No, I'm not. You finally admitted...after much running around in circles.....that you did believe that babies would go to hell in they died. You said that if a person wasn't "born again" that they were condemned and that only those who had faith in Jesus would be saved....and since babies could do neither that they were condemned. I argued that babies WERE NOT spiritually dead and therefore didn't NEED to be "born again" and you argued till the cows came home that EVERYONE was spiritually dead from birth.

Are you now saying that you don't believe that anymore? Are you saying that babies DO go to heaven when they die?

 

[gort]

No, I'm not. You finally admitted...after much running around in circles.....that you did believe that babies would go to hell in they died. You said that if a person wasn't "born again" that they were condemned and that only those who had faith in Jesus would be saved....and since babies could do neither that they were condemned. I argued that babies WERE NOT spiritually dead and therefore didn't NEED to be "born again" and you argued till the cows came home that EVERYONE was spiritually dead from birth.

Are you now saying that you don't believe that anymore? Are you saying that babies DO go to heaven when they die?

I'm afraid you're still twisting. We all are born under condemnation. Even David said he was born in sin. You'll also recall that there is'nt any Scripture regarding children who don't know Jesus and salvation.

You were the one that argued we are not born into sin, citing some passage from Paul.

My position on the subject remains unchanged. We are all born spiritually dead to God.

 

[red77]

No, I'm not. You finally admitted...after much running around in circles.....that you did believe that babies would go to hell in they died. You said that if a person wasn't "born again" that they were condemned and that only those who had faith in Jesus would be saved....and since babies could do neither that they were condemned. I argued that babies WERE NOT spiritually dead and therefore didn't NEED to be "born again" and you argued till the cows came home that EVERYONE was spiritually dead from birth.

Are you now saying that you don't believe that anymore? Are you saying that babies DO go to heaven when they die?

while in the church around 10 years ago there was a story that actually made the sermon...

it was about a woman who lost both her children in a canal......one of them fell in and drowned and in her attempts to save that child the other she was clutching fell in and drowned as well.........

the doctrine of the church was that both children would go to heaven because they were not old enough to know their actions........................
it was even regarded as a tragedy within the church although i remember thinking what about the mother......

was she likely to believe to believe in a God after that....? And that she would be old enough to be justifiably tormented for ever if she didnt repent even after what happened to her.......?

Its weird to me.........i honestly dont understand how anyone who can subscribe to this ET stuff could even contemplate having children anyway to be honest, if i believed in it there's no way I'd hav kids....the thought of thinking they may end up in such a place as 'hell' or the LOF would make me feel wretched........

 

[EchoPneuma]

I agree Red. A friend of mine recently had her only son commit suicide. The son was an unbeliever. I can't imagine the torment of not only having your only child commit suicide, but then believing that the child would then spend an ETERNITY being tormented in hell. He committed suicide because he found out his wife was pregnant by another man....and now she's supposed to believe that he's going to burn for all eternity with no hope of mercy from God.

Egods what a horrible belief. I'm ashamed that I ever believed it. I comforted her with the knowledge that God is merciful and His mercy triumphs over judgement....and that her son would one day be in the arms of Jesus.

It would have driven her insane (I do believe) if some zealous Christian would have told her that her son was doomed to hell for all eternity with no hope....

 

[KCDAD]

We are all born spiritually dead to God.

But death is the wage of sin, so we can't be born dead. We can be born separate from the spiritual father if you look at birth as the "de-spiritualization" of our spirits. Our spirits become souls, so to speak, for a lifetime. So yes we are separate, or in sin, from God at birth... however, death is not the same as punishment. As Paul said, to die is gain. Death will be our reward, for the way to reunite with God has already been plotted for us by Jesus.

 

[red77]

I agree Red. A friend of mine recently had her only son commit suicide. The son was an unbeliever. I can't imagine the torment of not only having your only child commit suicide, but then believing that the child would then spend an ETERNITY being tormented in hell. He committed suicide because he found out his wife was pregnant by another man....and now she's supposed to believe that he's going to burn for all eternity with no hope of mercy from God.

Egods what a horrible belief. I'm ashamed that I ever believed it. I comforted her with the knowledge that God is merciful and His mercy triumphs over judgement....and that her son would one day be in the arms of Jesus.

It would have driven her insane (I do believe) if some zealous Christian would have told her that her son was doomed to hell for all eternity with no hope....

You showed her love and compassion, what any true friend would do under those horrible circumstances.....
and if you as a mere human being could show such compassion, then how much more would God show both your friend and her son.....?

 

[Havahope]

My position on the subject remains unchanged. We are all born spiritually dead to God.

So then when do we become spritually alive so that we can hear God when He speaks to us and tells us that we are doing wrong?

 

[Soul Searcher]

You showed her love and compassion, what any true friend would do under those horrible circumstances.....
and if you as a mere human being could show such compassion, then how much more would God show both your friend and her son.....?

Agreed.. and a good point as well.

 

[Merzbow]

I'm simply amazed that you would come to a conclusion over what I posted about the blasphemy. I'll repost it again and you explain to me how you arrived at your conclusions

You're rewinding the clock back about 30 posts. I stated that one cannot hold the belief that there is an unforgivable sin and yet still believe in sola fide - because by committing the UfS (let's abbreviate this) one irreversibly contrains one's future actions, even so far that one cannot be saved by exercising faith in Christ. This is a contradiction of sola fide. You have yet to respond to this argument.

 

[timlamb]

Tim: You managed to answer question number 4. With that in mind, can you tell us how the greater krima of the Scribes and Pharisees compares with the greater krima of the brethren of the Apostle James and why damnation begins at the House of God?



If aionios means without beginning and ending (eternal), can you then tell us what prov aionios cronos means?



​

I answered question four by looking it up in my dictionary, I don't think those words are in my dictionary.
You continue to make it obvious that this is how you set up fundimentalists so you can twist their words and make out of context statements to further your false doctrine. You have already done it. Because I said eternal, you have ignored the rest of what I said and challenged me.
I find no good in you and I see no good comming from this.
you do not proclaime your doctrine for the glory of God, but to magnify yourself.
If you have something to say, say it but leave me out of it.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]DER ALTER: Back to my original answer. It does not matter. With God all things are possible. If God decrees a thing to happen, it will happen. Body, no body, spiritual, physical, or none of the above.

God decreed that Ninevah would be overthrown... did it happen? Or was it that "God changed his mind"?[/SIZE]

Irrelevant to the question but where did God decree that Ninevah would be overthrown?

Now would you like to address your out-of-context question in light of my answer without irrelevant scripture diversions?

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]You give a PARTIAL quote from the source, giving the impression that who you quote agrees with you. He doesn't, he in fact agrees that Gregory had a strong universalist streak. Now let's look at the FULL quote:[/SIZE]

No what the quote proved is that Gregory did not teach a consistent theology and he also believed in annililationism. Therefore he is not a poster boy for your false doctrine. In Gregory you do not have an early church father that consistently taught UR, End of story, a line or two here and a passage there contradicted by other passages does not support UR.

[SIZE=-1]How do you defend omitting this section of the quote, Der Alter?

Now let's look at your other quotes:[/SIZE]

I don't have to defend anything I provided a link for you to follow up on what I posted. What I omitted is irrelevant. Gregory ws not a consistent UR if he was even one at all.

[SIZE=-1]I agree totally with Gregory here that an everlasting torment is not porportionate to the wickedness of any sinner. Thanks for the support!

That's an argument against ECT if I ever saw one. 'When it shall be that every will rests in God, evil will be reduced to complete annihilation'? And you are posting this in SUPPORT of your position?!?[/SIZE]

I did not post Gregory to support my position but to refute yours. Look at my very first sentence something like Is Gregory a poster boy for universalism? As you have correctly stated Gregory also believed in annihilationism. Once again I point out he did not teach exclusively UR. So he does not prove UR.