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.
This is the Evangelical fallacy. That everyone going into the afterlife has had the opportunity to either accept or reject Christ. It just isn't so. Countless billions have never so much as heard the name of Christ.
I agree with your points, but @Basil the Great is not claiming to stand up for the Creed, he is only questioning the aspect of it that requires belief in ECT to be saved. And he is probably right, that is the common understanding of it. (not that he agrees with that)
Well lets look at the verses you sighted...
Rev 20:15 - no repentance there...
Rev 21:8 - none there either...
Rev 21:24-26 - well you omitted 27 which clearly stated this company of people do not include the wicked - they are specifically mentioned as excluded. Only those written in the Lambs Book of Life are included.
Rev 22:2 continues the theme of the company of the righteous not the wicked.
Well that sounds very poetic but the scripture does not seem to support the redemption of every living soul as a long term plan.
Did not Paul himself say...
Rom 9
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
No, my good man. It simply does not. Yet another Evangelical fallacy.Romans 1:20 covers this objection, they will be judged by the response they made to the evidence of Christ in creation.
Again, I agree in principle.Thanks Steve. Basil made a few claims, the ones I found objectionable were (a) the Creed contains ECT and/or (b) ECT was the 'honest' interpretation of those words.
These claims are simply not true.
Athanasian Creed:
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead. At his coming all people will arise bodily and give an accounting of their own deeds. Those who have done good will enter eternal life, and those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.
UR of course accepts 'those who have done evil will enter eternal fire'. As I pointed out, entry into eternal fire is in no way inconsistent with the restoration narrative. I take offence at the insinuation that it's 'dishonest' to say that means anything but ECT, particularly because that would be contradicting the testimony of scripture, which shows us that the nations go into the fire and later return repentant. (Rev 20:15, 21:8, 21:24-26, 22:2)
It's at least intellectually sloppy to conflate eternal fire with eternal destiny, and also disingenuous, disobedient and distrusting, as you'd have to deny the scriptures, the power of God and the total victory of Christ.
That depends on which scriptures you are looking at.Well that sounds very poetic but the scripture does not seem to support the redemption of every living soul as a long term plan.
Well lets look at the verses you sighted...
Rev 20:15 - no repentance there...
Rev 21:8 - none there either...
Rev 21:24-26 - well you omitted 27 which clearly stated this company of people do not include the wicked - they are specifically mentioned as excluded. Only those written in the Lambs Book of Life are included.
Rev 22:2 continues the theme of the company of the righteous not the wicked.
Again, I agree in principle.
However, I think @Basil the Great makes a good point (with his question) and I understand that he doesn't agree with the standard understanding of the Creed. (correct me if I'm wrong)
Consider this point.
If we went to a church that had for its Creed the one in question and asked them what it meant, what do we suppose they would say? I rather doubt they would agree with us.
Therefore, the point is that in churches that have adopted the Creed, it is required that they believe it and their understanding of it overwhelming would be in favor of ECT.
Does that makes sense?
For the third time, I TOTALLY agree with what you are saying about ECT.Sure it's an easy mistake to make, and backed up by centuries of learned dogma. But it's a test of faith and reason. Is it the fire that cleanses for salvation or an endless mass human bbq just for kicks? Really, you're going to opt for the latter cause that's how it looks on the surface? And there's nobody in the church to say 'Hang on, that doesn't seem to fit with the idea that God wins, can we have a closer look please?'
The devil loves conformity and groupthink. What do you say?
For the third time, I TOTALLY agree with what you are saying about ECT.
What I don't agree with is your take on @Basil the Great .
He doesn't agree with the creed. (as understood by those who use it)
I think you mistook his explanations as "claims", which they weren't. As I understand it.
The only fair way to interpret the creed is that eternal fire = eternal stay and eternal punishment. I certainly do not agree with the creed, especially that belief in such is required for salvation, but this is the honest way to interpret the creed, in my view, and I dare say in the view of most here in CF.
I have never met anyone who hasn't heard of Jesus have you? But if such exist they could never be part of such conversations. If such exist I would state they are neither saved or condemned but will come before the one who judges and Jesus will make a judgment concerning them. I would add nothing is hidden from Him.This is the Evangelical fallacy. That everyone going into the afterlife has had the opportunity to either accept or reject Christ. It just isn't so. Countless billions have never so much as heard the name of Christ.
I have never met anyone who hasn't heard of Jesus have you? But if such exist they could never be part of such conversations.
When and where and who?
I think that we need to look at the creed with some context. The Early Church Father Augustine admitted that many in his day did not believe in eternal punishment, despite the teaching in the Scriptures. It would appear that there must have been a big dispute about the subject within a few generations after Augustine and the majority must have felt that the only way to win the day was to force their viewpoint on everyone with a creed that mandated said belief in order to achieve salvation.Again, I agree in principle.
However, I think @Basil the Great makes a good point (with his question) and I understand that he doesn't agree with the standard understanding of the Creed. (correct me if I'm wrong)
Consider this point.
If we went to a church that had for its Creed the one in question and asked them what it meant, what do we suppose they would say? I rather doubt they would agree with us.
Therefore, the point is that in churches that have adopted the Creed, it is required that they believe it and their understanding of it overwhelming would be in favor of ECT.
Does that makes sense?
I have yet to meet such a person who has never heard of Christianity or Jesus.
But as I have stated if such a person existed then I would state they are neither saved nor condemned but will come before the one who judges and Jesus will make a judgment concerning them. Nothing is hidden from Him. I know Christianity is known in India.Randy: I am sure in your wide circle you have never met such a person.
However > > >
Has Everyone Heard? | Joshua Project
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?