HELL

[Rescued One]

Romans 8:33
Who will lay charge to God's elect? It is God who justifies.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

God did. Is God the father of rocks and water and gravity and dogs? How does creating Lucifer make God Satan's father?

The belief that God is the Father of every created thing is basically a form of pantheism

Jeff wants God to be the Father of Satan and bro of Jesus, and apparently that also makes God the Father of evil, which is kind of scary if you ask me.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

God did. Is God the father of rocks and water and gravity and dogs? How does creating Lucifer make God Satan's father?

It depends on how you define and use father, Jesus called God Father but Jesus was not a created being, also Jesus said to the Pharisee's they were of their father the devil, and we know the devil is not their father as in he created them.
Scripture also calls God the Father of Israel, Isa 63:16/ Father of spirits, Heb 12:9/ Father of lights, James1:17.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It depends on how you define and use father, Jesus called God Father but Jesus was not a created being, also Jesus said to the Pharisee's they were of their father the devil, and we know the devil is not their father as in he created them.
Scripture also calls God the Father of Israel, Isa 63:16/ Father of spirits, Heb 12:9/ Father of lights, James1:17.

I don't know if you realize it, but you just made my point, and @BelieveItOarKnot 's point in post #422. In one breath you want to say God is the devil's father, for some reason, and in the next you want to say it is qualifiable, and not quite what you were trying to get across in the first. You are playing both sides, in order to convince people of the viability of your first thesis. Equivocation.

I can see why @bling put a "like" rating on it.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

I don't know if you realize it, but you just made my point, and @BelieveItOarKnot 's point in post #422. In one breath you want to say God is the devil's father, for some reason, and in the next you want to say it is qualifiable, and not quite what you were trying to get across in the first. You are playing both sides, in order to convince people of the viability of your first thesis. Equivocation.

I can see why @bling put a "like" rating on it.

Ok so how do you define God as Father?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ok so how do you define God as Father?

He is the REAL Father, and ours are poor representations of that. We are created in his image, which in my opinion comes around to his reason for making the Elect. They are his Children, in a way that the reprobate will never be, and even in a way that the angels are not.

His Fatherhood is one aspect of our position in him, but also, as Jesus' position in relation to the Father, as the Christ is indeed God himself—the Son, in a way that we are not.

Beyond Humanity, and the Elect Angels, he is father to none. Come to think of it, I don't even remember hearing that he is their Father, but only that they are sometimes referred to as sons of God. Note also the rarity in the originals that the word, "son", concerning angels, denotes offspring of God. The only place I know of where it actually means, "offspring", is Genesis 6, which for other reasons I don't take to be referring to angels. Other references are positional, not biological.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

He is the REAL Father, and ours are poor representations of that. We are created in his image, which in my opinion comes around to his reason for making the Elect. They are his Children, in a way that the reprobate will never be, and even in a way that the angels are not.

His Fatherhood is one aspect of our position in him, but also, as Jesus' position in relation to the Father, as the Christ is indeed God himself—the Son, in a way that we are not.

Beyond Humanity, and the Elect Angels, he is father to none. Come to think of it, I don't even remember hearing that he is their Father, but only that they are sometimes referred to as sons of God. Note also the rarity in the originals that the word, "son", concerning angels, denotes offspring of God. The only place I know of where it actually means, "offspring", is Genesis 6, which for other reasons I don't take to be referring to angels. Other references are positional, not biological.

Well I am not a post Augustine Christian so our views are different. All of Gods creation are his, he knew what he was doing when he created the cosmos and his loving character and nature will win and in the end God will be all in all, God does not do abandonment.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Well I am not a post Augustine Christian so our views are different. All of Gods creation are his, he knew what he was doing when he created the cosmos and his loving character and nature will win and in the end God will be all in all, God does not do abandonment.

Well, at least I'm glad you admit he knew what he was doing when he created the cosmos. I do have a question —why bring up abandonment? Are you a universalist?

If he knew what he was doing when he made the cosmos, he knew what would result before he made it. Thus, logically, he intended every detail.

That does not cancel out his loving character and nature. You are right it will win in the end, but I doubt it will look very much like what we think.

 

[Rescued One]

Col 1:16 "

Col 1:16 " For by him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him."
Who said anything about God having sex to create anything, I have no idea where you get that from.

Mormonism.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

Mormonism.

I know what mormons believe and I do not follow that tradition, I follow the pre-Agustian early church tradition.

 

[Rescued One]

i FIGURED THAT OUT! I still disagree with you.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

Well, at least I'm glad you admit he knew what he was doing when he created the cosmos. I do have a question —why bring up abandonment? Are you a universalist?

If he knew what he was doing when he made the cosmos, he knew what would result before he made it. Thus, logically, he intended every detail.

That does not cancel out his loving character and nature. You are right it will win in the end, but I doubt it will look very much like what we think.

You asked if I am a universalist- If by that you mean that I agree with Scripture that it is Gods will that none perish and all to come to the knowledge of him and that God was reconciling the cosmos to himself by Jesus's death and resurrection, and that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord and in the end God will be all in all, then yes I am a Christian Universal redemptionist.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You asked if I am a universalist- If by that you mean that I agree with Scripture that it is Gods will that none perish and all to come to the knowledge of him and that God was reconciling the cosmos to himself by Jesus's death and resurrection, and that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord and in the end God will be all in all, then yes I am a Christian Universal redemptionist.

A whole lot of assumptions there, as though what the Bible DOES say implies the things you think.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

A whole lot of assumptions there, as thought what the Bible DOES say implies the things you think.

Not assumptions, just reading what those closest to the original disciples taught and reading the letters of the early church fathers, also looking up the Greek words and how they were used 2000 years ago not what they were changed to 1500 years ago, because of a bad Latin translation.
You should try reading books like ON THE INCARNATION, by Athanasius of Alexandria, or the writings of Gregory of Nyssa, Origen, Hilary of Poitiers Gregory Nazianzen , and others, I set out to prove this whole Christian Universal Redemption wrong, but the more I read and studied the Church fathers and others, I found that it was I who was wrong. I was born and raised in the Evangelical Tradition, even went to 4 years of Bible college and never once were the writings of the early church fathers taught, it was alway go strait from Acts to Augustine. I understand why you would think that there is a whole lot of assumption going on but that is because most people never go and read what was written pre Augustine or if they do its always those few that were outliers not the mainstream of the early church, I challenge you to really do a deep dive into the Greek word Apokatastasis, or how the word aionios was used 2000 years ago in seclear writings and in the church.
You never know maybe the tradition you follow has a whole lot of assumptions going on.

 

[truthuprootsevil]

You left out key verses- John 17:2 You gave Him authority over ALL flesh that to all whom you have given Him, He may give eternal life.
John 13:3 The Father had given ALL things into his hands, they come forth from the Father and was going back to the Father.
In John 12:32 The Greek word translated draw is helko and it is better translated as drag, the same word used in Acts 21:30 when Paul was dragged out of the temple-Acts 16:9 Silas dragged from the market place- James 2:6 being dragged into court. Do you think that Paul and Silas , and those dragged into court were going by their own choice or were they forced into what happened to them?
The Trinity Loves us too much to let us destroy what they have made, and will rescue us no matter what the cost, even if we do not want to be rescued. Do you really think that the Trinity is less of a lover of mankind than we are, I had to have my lifeguard training and we were trained to save drowning people even if they were so distressed that they fought us and did not want our help, are lifeguards lovers of humanity more than the very God who created us?
This idea that mans will is greater than Gods will is a lie strait from the enemy himself.

Thank you

 

[Jeff Saunders]

Thank you

It looks like we have read some of the same books.
Thank you for that addition, I also know and agree with what you wrote, I just had to keep things shorter.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Not assumptions, just reading what those closest to the original disciples taught and reading the letters of the early church fathers, also looking up the Greek words and how they were used 2000 years ago not what they were changed to 1500 years ago, because of a bad Latin translation.
You should try reading books like ON THE INCARNATION, by Athanasius of Alexandria, or the writings of Gregory of Nyssa, Origen, Hilary of Poitiers Gregory Nazianzen , and others, I set out to prove this whole Christian Universal Redemption wrong, but the more I read and studied the Church fathers and others, I found that it was I who was wrong. I was born and raised in the Evangelical Tradition, even went to 4 years of Bible college and never once were the writings of the early church fathers taught, it was alway go strait from Acts to Augustine. I understand why you would think that there is a whole lot of assumption going on but that is because most people never go and read what was written pre Augustine or if they do its always those few that were outliers not the mainstream of the early church, I challenge you to really do a deep dive into the Greek word Apokatastasis, or how the word aionios was used 2000 years ago in seclear writings and in the church.
You never know maybe the tradition you follow has a whole lot of assumptions going on.

I'd venture to guess you don't know what "tradition follow".

No doubt we all make a lot of assumptions. But if your reasoning is that what 'aionios' meant 2000 years ago cancels out all possibilities that other takes on the afterlife are better than universalism, and that what some early church fathers wrote (or better, your take on what they wrote) is more accurate to the truth than what others wrote, or even later developments drawn from the whole of the Canon, your reasoning is off. It is the Scriptures from which doctrine is to be drawn, and from which Truth is found, and not from someone else's take on Scripture. Certainly the post-apostolic ECF's are worth reading, as are many, many other theologians, but their statements are all suspect. I don't follow any of them.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

When do sinners leave hell?

When they bend the knee and confess that Jesus is Lord. No different than anyone else.

 

[Mark Quayle]

When they bend the knee and confess that Jesus is Lord. No different than anyone else.

The description, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow to Me, and every tongue will confess to God.”, is generally ascribed to what happens at the beginning of the White Throne judgement, or, at least, certainly before they are cast into the Lake of Fire. It is an acknowledgement only, not Faith, not salvation. They simply can't help but admit to the truth "right there in front of them". In fact, I rather imagine, they would (and so would we), 'die' on the spot but for God keeping them 'alive' for their punishment, the second death.

I see no reason to think anyone is given a second chance. When we enter the afterlife, we will see just who we are —in Christ, or despairing wraiths, neither one deserving of God's grace, and both a result of God's reason for creating.