- Feb 24, 2002
- 15,559
- 4,834
- 59
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
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 would be the passage in which they are found and their relationship to the rest of the NT.
I make no such claim. I did claim Jesus's understanding was greater than Paul in regard to all the peoples of the whole world.Again, Paul wrote and taught only what he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write and teach.
Is your claims that Jesus' understanding is therefore greater than the Holy Spirit's?
I make no such claim. I did claim Jesus's understanding was greater than Paul in regard to all the peoples of the whole world.
Do you believe all the peoples of the whole world were evangelized in Pauls day?
Mt 24:14 refers to "all the nations."Perfect.
I've more than satisfied that.
I don't need to justify myself in your questions. Its "clear" to me all the peoples of the whole earth were not in Paul's and all the Apostles reach. All the peoples of the whole earth were not evangelized in Paul's day.Paul's words were not His. Paul was the Vessel. The Holy Spirit is the author. Do you not believe this?
I believe Jesus prophesied that once the gospel went out to the Whole world and All Nations of Paul's Day, something you apparently agree was indeed fulfilled, THEN the end would come.
Assumption, tradition and personal bias is all you seem to have to instruct you to interpret Jesus' statement in Matthew 24:14 in polar opposite fashion to Paul's multiple declarations of it's fulfillment.
I am curious though, are there any other Passages of scripture that you claim mean the exact opposite of what they say, or are these the only ones?
Mt 24:14 refers to "all the nations."
In Col 1:5-6, Paul is using hyperbole
Ro 16:25-26 is a broader scope than the Roman empire,
"gospel. . .made known so that all nations might believe," distinguishing it from just the Roman empire,
and in future tense, not present or past as in completion.
.
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come
First, the Greek text words it differently--in the present tense instead of past tense:As Does Romans 16:26!
6 but now has been made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures has been made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith;
Again, Where does scripture teach that Jesus does not mean the same thing as Paul?
And what of Paul's audience? How were they supposed to know Paul was not declaring the fulfillment of Matthew 24:14?
Surely Paul's audience (and the Holy Spirit) would have been aware of Jesus' Proclamation in Matthew 24:14, would they not?
Why would the HS Inspire Paul to write what He KNEW Paul's original audience could have only interpreted as a Fulfillment of Matthew 24:14?
You're position relies on the Notion that not only was Paul, and the Holy Spirit who inspired him, Completely Ignorant that they were proclaiming a falsehood, but it mandates they in turn taught this Falsehood to their Flocks.
Such is Untenable.
As an example of my claim above that for every verse you might provide that is suggestive of a permanent, future separation between humans, a universal verse can be offered as a counter. Here's one: "For this we toil and struggle, because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the savior of all, especially of those who believe" - 1 Tim 4:10. The universalist aspect of the verse is easy enough to see. Jesus of Nazareth is the savior of every single person (all), but "especially" of those who believe. This exercise could go on all day. There is no shortage of universal language in the NT within the context of the salvation of humanity, especially in the writings of St Paul.
And, as I noted above, brilliant folks have come down on all sides of this issue. Humility is always warranted. Neither the scriptures nor the ecumenical councils of the church have definitely settled this matter. Every side that I have seen (with the possible exception of annihilationists) make ready and frequent appeal to the NT to support their beliefs.
And what about the countless billions that have gone to the afterlife with no knowledge of Christ whatsoever?Spirits in prison as mentioned in Peters letter were pre christ and before the light of the gospel message. With the light of the gospel message comes accountability to all. (justice to the nations)
The unrighteous dead now will rise to be condemned.
Death in the sense in which it's tragic at least in the aspect of being a permanent separation of someone whose very identity is intertwined with our own. Whatever may be meant by Death forever being undone, I assume that St Paul has at least this in mind.
Certainty should be tabled by everyone. Let's all rather show humility. So, St Augustine seems certain that Hell will be well-occupied and will be forever and inescapable. By contrast, David Bentley Hart argues as if he's certain that all will be saved in the end. Most of us (hopefully) are in between these two extremes of certainty. This in-between is the most reasonable space to occupy, given the ambiguity of scripture and the finitude of our own minds (and other matters like the nature of God, the nature of love, the nature of humanity, etc).
Properly speaking, God is not actually longsuffering (meaning, Oxford: "having or showing patience in spite of troubles, especially those caused by other people"). Patience necessitates finitude. It's a virtue for humans because we do not know how things will turn out. But for God who is infinite in knowledge and power, patience is not possible. This is anthropomorphic speech.
Here is the verse again: "For this we toil and struggle, because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the savior of all, especially of those who believe" - 1 Tim 4:10. You are theologizing this verse because of your prior commitment to the eternal separation of humans in the afterlife. The straightforward reading of the line suggests that God is everyone's actual savior, but God is especially the savior of those who believe.
Attempting to parse it out ("offer of salvation" & "those who have accepted that offer") is theology. I'm not saying that theologizing the scriptures is illegitimate. It's perfectly fine. It's a way to attempt to get the ambiguities of the NT to all fit together in an overall coherent framework. But, let's not pretend that you're simply reading the text for what it's saying. You're inserting your eschatological vision into it and reading it through that lens. St Paul could have easily enough said here what you're saying--that the offer of salvation was given to everyone, but God will only save those who accept that offer. But, he doesn't say that. He says that God "is the savior of all, especially of those who believe."
There is nothing particularly strange about inequality in the outcome of Heaven. In fact, Christ's language would seem to suggest inequality in the hereafter (the last will be first, and the first last). St Paul, in another letter, says, "So then, while we have the opportunity, let us do good to all, but especially to those who belong to the family of the faith." - Gal 6:10. We do good to everyone (and yes, that means every single one) but especially to believers. I fail to see the problem here. You seem to be suggesting that one group of humanity being special is somehow an issue.
I don't know what you mean by this, but there is enough ambiguity within the NT that a great many fathers of the church were open to the possibility of universalism (or were explicit universalists). There is only one place in the gospels when Christ is directly asked if few will be saved (Luke 13:23), and he does not answer this question. If the answer were so clear, as you'd like to believe, stands to reason that his answer would have simply been "yes" followed by whatever other guidance he wanted to give. But, there was no yes in response to that question. There wasn't a "no" either. There was redirection to what we ought to be concerned about--the narrow gate.
Lastly, I'm not countering your suggestions that Matthew 7 and John 3 advocate eternal-separation because I see no reason to. As far as I can tell, you haven't made a case that those verses have anything to do with the topic.
With those numbers you must be speaking post Christ.And what about the countless billions that have gone to the afterlife with no knowledge of Christ whatsoever?
The current population of China is 1.4 billion. How many years should we multiply that by to arrive at a reasonable estimate? (100 years, 5,000 ?) Have you ever met anyone in China?I have never met such a person. So I doubt "billions" is a reasonable number.
I think they have heard of Jesus. The government seems to be closing churches and jailing pastors from what I read??The current population of China is 1.4 billion. How many years should we multiply that by to arrive at a reasonable estimate? (100 years, 5,000 ?) Have you ever met anyone in China?
This confirms the real issue with Damnationism.I think they have heard of Jesus. The government seems to be closing churches and jailing pastors from what I read??
But if one truly has never heard of Jesus then He will make the judgment concerning them. I don't state they are condemned or saved.
Like the first covenant the gospel message has curses and blessings in a manner of speaking as the wrath of God was also spoken of.
I think there are many in the grave today who regret the decisions they made while in the life of the body. Jesus is how God chose to forgive sin. If one rejects Him then the guilt remains and brings death.This confirms the real issue with Damnationism.
Damnationism dogmatically claims that unless a person receives Christ in this lifetime, they are lost, having rejected him by default. (there is no "second chance") But when presented with the possibility that a person did not have the opportunity to receive/reject they make an exception. Which means the dogmatic requirement has been nullified.
The other problem is that this puts salvation in the hands of the person. They are either saved, or lost, by their own doing. How is this measured? Did they do it right?
And was the decision based on fear? (forced confession) Pray this prayer or you will burn. That sounds more like extortion than a salvation experience. Doesn't the parable of the sower apply here? Which soil is that?
And later on they may have doubts. But we assure them that if they prayed the prayer, they're in. (with chapter and verse)
Aren't you claiming that his love DOES fail?Psalm 147
the LORD delights in those who fear him, who put their hope in his unfailing love
Why would you ask that? Jesus told many unless them believed in Him they would die in their sin. They hated Him because He testified that what they did was evil.Aren't you claiming that his love DOES fail?
So, he's happy when we are afraid?Why would you ask that? Jesus told many unless them believed in Him they would die in their sin. They hated Him because He testified that what they did was evil.
the LORD delights in those who fear him, who put their hope in his unfailing love
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?