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 an interpretation, that is simply stating what the verse says.
Specifically, what does He mean when He says—
Revelation 22:17-19
King James Version
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
I am out of time, but will address this post before I go. I may have to come back to this at a later time, but I would like to know how you interpret this as a universalist.
God bless.
A curse for those who add to the Scriptures, but a worse curse for those who take away...but are you fishing for something deeper?
Yes, lol, that is why I emboldened part of the text.
Here it is again:
Revelation 22:19
King James Version
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
I also removed vv.17-18.
What does it mean that He is going to take away one's part from the Book of Life, and out of the Holy City, and from the things which are written in this book?
Have to get going, but I appreciate the responses and have enjoyed it.
God bless.
I'm not an apologist for universalism. I'm familiar with it in general, but I've never rolled up my sleeves and dove in. As for the scripture you provided, anyone who holds to doctrine A can apply it to someone who holds to doctrine B if they're so inclined. Calvinist against Arminian and so on.So feel free to provide one of these "answers," lol.
I have shown how the verses quoted were quoted out of context. Show where I am wrong.
Just because their "answers" sound good to you doesn't mean they are legitimate. But I don't expect you to address the posts simply because you cannot. Not trying to be rude, it's just a fact. If you'd like to prove me wrong and show my error, then please do so, rather than simply providing opinion.
You can start by interpreting this:
Revelation 22:17-19
King James Version
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
God bless.
He also likes to use the Word of God out of context for his own purposes.
Colossians 2:12-16
King James Version
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
There is quite a bit you have to leave out in order to make your doctrine palatable.
You use these prooftexts randomly and out of context, ignoring that the benefits of the Cross are for those who are in Christ, and that they are made distinct from those who are still dead in their sins.
Satan gives false hope to people who are still dead and very likely limiting their chances to be made alive in Christ, teaching them how to create their own religion out of the Word of God. It is very easy, prooftext what you want to believe and ignore anything that interferes with your doctrine. He tells them to read books about the Bible instead of reading the books of the Bible. Tells them it's okay to understand that even though Scripture states something clearly—it doesn't have to be heeded.
Christ did conquer death and sin but the fact is that people are still born out of relationship with God, they are born without the Life of God, and they still need to trust in Christ and be made alive in Him in order to benefit from the victory Christ has accomplished.
There is a reason why people need to believe in Jesus Christ and undermining the Word of God is going to help no one.
But isn't that the argument of everyone regarding a doctrine they hold to but others don't?Well it's simple Pilgrim . Your taking things out of context. Lol. It doesn't mean what it says. Lol..
I'm joking
But isn't that the argument of everyone regarding a doctrine they hold to but others don't?
I haven't read all the posts in this thread. But I'm not sure if I've ever seen anyone on CF refute universalism, who seemed to actually understand the doctrine. So they end up making incorrect and untrue statements about it. It doesn't make any sense to me to argue against a doctrine with an insufficient understanding of it.An easy cop out. If someone views scripture differently automatically they are of the devil. Try again.
1.The entity who enjoys limiting God is Satan himself.
2.Universalism does not limit God in anyway.
3.Your complaint that God will only save the righteous is refuted by Christ Himself.
But don't you say the same to those who hold to a doctrine that you don't? It's usually a two way street.True . I say that God created the heavens and the earth. I use Genesis 1:1. But then they tell me that I'm "taking things out of context". Lol
But don't you say the same to those who hold to a doctrine that you don't? It's usually a two way street.
I hardly ever tell a Bible BELIEVER that they are taking things out of context. All these passages people provide I don't disagree with.
Some might say that Jesus CANNOT be fully God and Fully human at the same time. But that's not what the Bible teaches. God CANNOT be 3 persons in 1 being . But that's what the Bible teaches.
Yes the Bible teaches that you cannot loose your salvation. But then it also says you can loose your salvation. I believe both. And so does this Pastor.
Nonsense. One example does NOT determine the meaning of a word. I have repeatedly posted 24 vss. which define/describe "aionios" as "eternal'. To my knowledge that list has not been addressed and certainly not refuted.Nothing in Matt 25:46 refutes Universalism.
A word used twice in the same passage of Scripture can have two different durations.
As I said the meaning of a word is NOT determined by one occurrence. Especially when that word has been defined/described in 24 vss. as "eternal.""He stood and surveyed the earth; He looked and startled the nations. Yes, the perpetual mountains were shattered, The ancient hills collapsed. His ways are everlasting." (Habakkuk 3:6 )
In this passage, the Septuagint translates ‘ancient’ and ‘everlasting’ using the same Greek word aionios (Strong’s 166) and yet it’s plain to see that the “hills” will not last forever but God’s ways are eternal so the durations are different. This passage is particularly important because the same Greek word aionios that is used twice in Matt 25:46 is used twice in Hab 3:6 and it doesn’t carry the same duration.
That sounded like Lutheran soteriology to me, and then I got a laugh when I looked at your profile and saw you're a Lutheran. Not that I dislike Lutheranism.I hardly ever tell a Bible BELIEVER that they are taking things out of context. All these passages people provide I don't disagree with.
Some might say that Jesus CANNOT be fully God and Fully human at the same time. But that's not what the Bible teaches. God CANNOT be 3 persons in 1 being . But that's what the Bible teaches.
Yes the Bible teaches that you cannot loose your salvation. But then it also says you can loose your salvation. I believe both. And so does this Pastor.
Nonsense. Why can you not understand what the Jews today believe about hell or anything else is irrelevant. It has no effect at all on Christianity.So far you have not provided any evidence that the current view of hell in Judaism being a year long purgatory was any different in Jesus' time, other than dubious apocrypha.
So far all you've shown is that only Enoch and Judith support your claim, and that's pretty weak evidence.Nonsense. Why can you not understand what the Jews today believe about hell or anything else is irrelevant. It has no effect at all on Christianity.
But what the Jews of Jesus days believed and taught had a major effect. That is what Jesus and his disciples were taught in the temple and synagogues for 30 years +/-. When Jesus said "Gehenna" many understood that to be a place of eternal fiery punishment. And Jesus did not tell them any different.
Had you bothered to actually read my post it was more than apocrypha. But your biased opinion on that is irrelevant. The Jews quoted both Judith and Enoch as authoritative and Judith is in the LXX.
Septuagint Old Testament Bilingual (Greek / English) - 1
So once again your biased opinion is irrelevant.
Your assertion that aionios always means eternal is wrong, it has a wide range of meanings.Nonsense. One example does NOT determine the meaning of a word. I have repeatedly posted 24 vss. which define/describe "aionios" as "eternal'. To my knowledge that list has not been addressed and certainly not refuted.
As I said the meaning of a word is NOT determined by one occurrence. Especially when that word has been defined/described in 24 vss. as "eternal."
Also that the word "aionios" occurred twice in one vs. in the OT and appears to have different meanings does not mean that it have 2 different meaning any time it occur twice in one vs.
If the plain sense makes good sense it is nonsense to seek any other sense. The converse is also true. If the plain sense does not make good sense it is imperative to seek another sense.
Have you ever heard of figurative language? Herod was not literally a fox when Jesus called him that. Simon was not literally a stone when Jesus named him "petros." James and john were not actually sons of thunder when Jesus named them that.
Here is a challenge to any UR-ite reading this. Find a verse where "aionios" is described/defined with adjectives/descriptive phrases as a period less than eternal.
You are incorrect. Please show me an accredited Greek grammar or lexicon which supports that? I don't want to know what some "scholar" says unless they support their opinion with grammatical, lexical and/or historical evidence.Your assertion that aionios always means eternal is wrong, it has a wide range of meanings.
Wrong. I have already shared scholars that are not universalist and you disagree with them because you had a few classes in Greek. I will take their expertise over someone who has had a few classes in Greek. Thanks anyway.You are incorrect. Please show me an accredited Greek grammar or lexicon which supports that? I don't want to know what some "scholar" says unless they support their opinion with grammatical, lexical and/or historical evidence.
The NT was written to Christians in different countries whose native language was not Greek. If a word had multiple meanings how would Christians in Egypt e.g. know which was the correct translation of a word written by a Jew in Israel?
Words had specific not disparate meanings.
Here are 2 vss, out of 24, which conclusively shows my conclusion.
John 3:15-16Twice Jesus said "aionios" life means "shall not perish" life! If you are correct then Jesus was either lying or did not know what He was talking about. I'm pretty sure it was not Jesus who did not know what He was talking about.
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal[αἰώνιον] life.
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [αἰώνιον]life.
Do you know what a figure of speech is? Was Herod actually a fox when Jesus called him that? Was Simon actually a stone when Jesus said he was Petros? Were James and John actually "sons of thunder" when Jesus called them that? Figures of speech.
And FYI I have 22 more verses which define/describe "aionios" as eternal/everlasting etc.
There are no, zero, none vss. where "aionios" is defined/described as a period less than eternal.
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?