The Bible: God's plan for the redemption of humankind? Or... ???

[Jipsah]

It's two down from Bible 11:19, between "God is sovereign" and "God is three in one."

Help me, if God isn't sovereign, who or what is? And if you don't believe in the Trinity then we have no shared basis for discussion anyway. But let's just agree, shall we, that there is NO Scriptural basis for believing that everyone lives forever, and much explicit Scripture that says in fact they do not.

Damnationism is based on an idea never expressed in Scripture. It is, in fact, extra-biblical, and owes more to pagan beliefs than anything in Holy Writ.

I'm thinkin' I like your rules.

I seriously doubt it. BTW, do you have any clue what "sovereign" means?

 

[Jipsah]

Declare away!

Reminder: Be sure to send God the memo.

He knew it anyway. That's why it isn't in the Bible.

 

[Clare73]

Help me, if God isn't sovereign, who or what is? And if you don't believe in the Trinity then we have no shared basis for discussion anyway. But let's justy agree, shall we, that there is NO Scriptural basis for believing that everyone lives forever, and much explicit Scripture that says in fact they do not.

So we've moved from "specific text" to "Scriptural basis?" That's doable.

Damnationism is based on an idea never expressed in Scripture.

So we're back to specific text, and back to your rules again. . .which means you must first provide a specific text expressing "God is sovereign."

It is, in fact, extra-biblical, and owes more to pagan beliefs than anything in Holy Writ.

I seriousy doubt it. BTW, do you have any clue what "sovereign" means?

It means correct on Monday, Wednesday, Friday; incorrect on Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday; and iffy on Sunday?
Or is it the other way around, incorrect on Monday, Wednesday, Friday; and correct on Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday? I always get them mixed up.

 

[Jipsah]

So we've moved from "specific text" to "Scriptural basis?" That's doable.

Nope, I want specific text. The "God is sovereign" thing is your schtick, and if you want to deny it it's fine by me. As for the Trinity, most Christians believe that as axiomatic, and since there's no Scripture that directly contradicts it I accept it as a matter of Holy Tradition. But in the case of universal immortality, I see no Scriptureat all that supports the idea, and much Scripture that says precisely the opposite, no consensus within the Church that it is true, no Confessions that require any such belief, and in short nothing to back it up at all except that a lot of people believe it. That ain't enough, IMO. I think my basis for rejecting it based on lack of Biblical support is a lot better than the your case for God not being ruler of the universe.

So we're back to specific text, and back to your rules again. . .which means you must first provide a specific text expressing "God is sovereign."

How about this one:
1 Timothy 6:15 "He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords" There are dozens more, probably even in your bible; look 'em up. God rules. Your "unconditional immortality" notion is ridiculous, and with no basis in Scripture. Cling to it if you will, it's as bogus as the SDA's "investigative judgement".

 

[Jipsah]

It means correct on Monday, Wednesday, Friday; incorrect on Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday; and iffy on Sunday?
Or is it the other way around, incorrect on Monday, Wednesday, Friday; and correct on Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday? I always get them mixed up.

You'll find that Mr.Webster (he of dictionary fame) can help you out with that problem.

 

[Clare73]

Nope, I want specific text. The "God is sovereign" thing is your schtick, and if you want to deny it it's fine by me. As for the Trinity, most Christians believe that as axiomatic, and since there's no Scripture that directly contradicts it I accept it as a matter of Holy Tradition. But in the case of universal immortality, I see no Scriptureat all that supports the idea, and much Scripture that says precisely the opposite, no consensus within the Church that it is true, no Confessions that require any such belief, and in short nothing to back it up at all except that a lot of people believe it. That ain't enough, IMO. I think my basis for rejecting it based on lack of Biblical support is a lot better than the your case for God not being ruler of the universe.

How about this one:
1 Timothy 6:15 "He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords" There are dozens more, probably even in your bible; look 'em up. God rules.
Your "unconditional immortality" notion is ridiculous, and with no basis in Scripture. Cling to it if you will, it's as bogus as the SDA's "investigative judgement".

Okay, 1 Tim 6:15 is good enough, and a good effort.

Now what's this "unconditional immortality?" Don't remember ever using those words.

So some are immortal?

Are those sentenced to eternal punishment immortal?

 

[Clare73]

You'll find that Mr.Webster (he of dictionary fame) can help you out with that problem.

He states which three days is which?

 

[Saint Steven]

Question avoidance again? Interesting.

I was commenting on a post you made to Brian @MMXX
If there is question avoidance, it is by you. Here you go.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Before Christ, what did everyone "buy into"? The majority opinion isn't always the best indicator.

 

[renniks]

I was commenting on a post you made to Brian @MMXX
If there is question avoidance, it is by you. Here you go.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Before Christ, what did everyone "buy into"? The majority opinion isn't always the best indicator.

Not sure I understand that question. Who is everyone?

 

[Saint Steven]

Not sure I understand that question. Who is everyone?

You said: "The vast majority of Christiandom doesn't buy into UR."
I said: "Before Christ, what did everyone "buy into"? The majority opinion isn't always the best indicator."

 

[Jipsah]

Okay, 1 Tim 6:15 is good enough, and a good effort.

Now what's this "unconditional immortality?" Don't remember ever using those words.

So some are immortal?

Are those sentenced to eternal punishment immortal?

For damnationism to be true, everyone has to live forever, the blessed alive in eternal happiness, the damned alive in eternal torment. Right?

 

[Jipsah]

Are those sentenced to eternal punishment immortal?

Gotta be alive to be tormented, don't they?

 

[Saint Steven]

Gotta be alive to be tormented, don't they?

This is one of the ugliest aspects of the ECT doctrine. IMHO

The claim that God would design a means of punishment that uses deadly force (being burned alive) but would not allow the victim to die, thus suspending them in death-inducing torture forever. This would be a crime against humanity unequaled in human history. We can present no despot in our own history to equal the horror that this claims about our loving heavenly Father. Slanderous, to say the least.

Imagine God designing a fire that could burn a human to a crisp and then return them to to new flesh to do it all again. And to trap them in this hopeless repeating state for all eternity. The unspeakable cruelty. This is what we have been sold as God's justice.

 

[Clare73]

Gotta be alive to be tormented, don't they?

So whose immortal, and who isn't? I don't know where you're coming from on this.

I understood you to be denying "universal immortality," immortality of all humans.

I can't address your question until I understand the point which you are disputing, and your counterpoint.

 

[mkgal1]

So whose immortal, and who isn't?

The point I believe that's being made is that Jesus made a distinction between His followers and non believers by using the term "eternal life" to apply to His followers. He didn't suggest that eternal life belongs to everyone.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Gotta be alive to be tormented, don't they?

Eternal conscious torment in Hell just makes no sense. First, you must be dead to go there. But then, you must be alive to suffer the torment...but you're dead...and on, and on.

Possibly the worst thing is that, supposing Hell were real, there you are alive in the fire, but if we think back to how God made man in the beginning, to be alive we needed His breath/spirit to animate us. Do you follow? To be alive and suffering in Hell, you must have the Spirit of Life in you, and that is one of the Seven Spirits of God. So, Damnationism, if you take it to its logical conclusion, must involve God damning little parts of Himself to Hell, to suffer forever. That makes no sense, either, and it's very, very close to blasphemy, IMHO.

 

[Lazarus Short]

So whose immortal, and who isn't? I don't know where you're coming from on this.

I understood you to be denying "universal immortality," immortality of all humans.

I can't address your question until I understand the point which you are disputing, and your counterpoint.

The concept of the Immortality of the Soul comes to us from pagan Greek philosophy, from the likes of Socrates and Plato, NOT FROM THE BIBLE.

 

[Jipsah]

So whose immortal, and who isn't? I don't know where you're coming from on this.

You have to actually read the stuff to understand it.

I understood you to be denying "universal immortality," immortality of all humans.

I deny it. The wages of sin, which we have all earned, is death, while eternal life is a gift of God. (I don't see it in Scripture anywhere, except in the serpent's "ye shall not surely die". Damnationism depends on it, else the damned aren't alive to be tormented.

I can't address your question until I understand the point which you are disputing, and your counterpoint.

The counterpoint is that "dead" in Scripture, means dead, bereft of life, deceased, ceased to be, etc., unless as we use it in a metaphorical sense, i.e., as in "he's dead to me", "he's dead, pull the sheet over his head", "I failed Math, I'm dead".

 

[Clare73]

You have to actually read the stuff to understand it.
I deny it. The wages of sin, which we have all earned, is death, while eternal life is a gift of God. (I don't see it in Scripture anywhere, except in the serpent's "ye shall not surely die". Damnationism depends on it, else the damned aren't alive to be tormented.
The counterpoint is that "dead" in Scripture, means dead, bereft of life, deceased, ceased to be, etc.,

Not according to Paul, who says to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord
(2 Corinthians 5:8).
I see only life (of the spirit) after physical death in the NT, in the redeemed, according to Paul,
as well as in the unredeemed, according to Jesus in Luke 16:22-24, Mark 9:47-48.

So where in Scripture do you find this pattern for annihilation of being, for anyone?

unless as we use it in a metaphorical sense, i.e., as in "he's dead to me", "he's dead, pull the sheet over his head", "I failed Math, I'm dead".

So the damned are not immortal, only the redeemed are immortal, right?

So the damned are raised from the dead in new bodies just long enough to be judged at the final judgment and then annihilated?

I say universal immortality makes more sense than that. . .and then there's the teaching of Jesus and Paul.

 

[Clare73]

Eternal conscious torment in Hell just makes no sense.
First, you must be dead to go there. But then, you must be alive to suffer the torment...but you're dead...and on, and on.

Nice conflaguration. . .

It's not complicated. . .you're raised from the dead to go there, so you're alive when you go there.

See how easy that was?

It is your ignorance of Scripture that complicates it.

Possibly the worst thing is that, supposing Hell were real, there you are alive in the fire, but if we think back to how God made man in the beginning, to be alive we needed His breath/spirit to animate us. Do you follow? To be alive and suffering in Hell, you must have the Spirit of Life in you, and that is one of the Seven Spirits of God.

Uh. . .I'm thinkin' not "possibly" but absolutely, the worst thing is your faulty reading of Genesis. . .Adam lost spiritual life in the fall, the Hebrew reads: "Dying, (spiritually), you will die (physically)." (Genesis 2:17)

So, Damnationism, if you take it to its logical conclusion, must involve God damning little parts of Himself to Hell, to suffer forever. That makes no sense,

You're right about that! . . .since Adam lost the Spirit of eternal life the moment he rebelled, Adam damned himself. . .you can't hang it on God.

If I chose to ignore the warning sign and drive over the failed bridge, only to end up in the water, I can't hang it on the Highway Dept.

It's your own non-sense you are rejecting here. . .as it should be, at least you got that part right.

either, and it's very, very close to blasphemy, IMHO.

And it is your own non-sense that is the blasphemy!