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.
All this talk of good luck reminded me of this French short film (under 3 mins). It doesn't relate to the thread topic... or does it?In the movie The Patriot a "French Officer" said Bonne Chance to Mel Gibson. I assumed it meant "good Luck.
My reflection on this from Iranaeus
is that darkness does not have to mean "eternal torture" as I think the poster was trying to push.
Why can't it mean something completely different such as a period of feeling God's absence so that you realise God's worth? Something educational rather than mindless eternal punishment, however controversial it may be to say that about God lol.
Why does every reference to God's displeasure or man's disobedience have to lead to eternal torture? What sort of relationship can you have on that basis?
It doesn't relate to the thread topic... or does it?
Are you trying to point out that people can be spiritually "dead" and then be redeemed?
That a persons faith is a journey may include deaths and redemptions?
??
No, my question about babies was response to the statement, "we are born spiritually dead".
If that was true, then 1 hour/day/week/month old babies who died, as well as any who were still-born, would be forever separated from God.
My comment about Judas was in response to the statement about it being better for him if he had never been born. Judas may well have wished, just before he died, that he had never been born - but that is speculation on my part. I didn't know Judas and wasn't there.
The two posts are not related.
As we did not know Jesus, we were born spiritually dead.
However, God doesn't punish people for ignorance. Our judgment apart from Christ is based on what we knew in life.
We are born not knowing anything.
Spiritual death = spiritual, and eternal, separation from God, which is due to sin.
Adam and Eve DID die that day as God had said. They, or Adam, at least, had known what God wanted and yet deliberately disobeyed.
The fellowship between them and God was broken. They were ashamed of their nakedness, hid from God and were finally led out of the garden. From then on, people had to offer sacrifices for their sin in atonement.
Babies do not, and cannot, wilfully sin against God.
Yes, but I was talking specifically about babies/toddlers/young children who do not know God and do not sin against him. I do not believe babies are born spiritually dead - or Jesus would have been.
Yes, he was God, but he was also fully human; a human baby.
I have a question for you why do you think the New Testament writers used aionios instead of audios which from what I understand means eternal?None of this addresses my post and/or the 26 vss I quoted and discussed in any way. And OBTW posting a different translation/interpretation of a vs or vss. does not in any way show that anything I posted is incorrect. What is required is a grammatical and/or lexical exegesis of a word conclusively showing from scholarly sources that anything I posted is incorrect. Bonne Chance.
I have one question how can death be conquered if it goes on for eternity?I agree and this is what I don't get either. It should be about Christ and only Christ.
Exactly. Common sense alone should tell us that if one is not in the book of life by the time of the final Judgement, you suffer the "second death". And death means death, whether in the Greek or English. I mean why even call it the book of life or the 'second death". If the Lake of Fire was redemptive, it would be clearly laid out in scriptures. But what is laid out in scriptures is the fact that it was prepared for Satan and his angels and that it's called the second death. It's not called a refinery.
And yes, it is God's desire, wish that all would come to repentance but we can see from scriptures they won't. It specifically states anyone not in the book of "life" is thrown into the Lake of Fire. I just don't think the word can be any more clear on the matter.
I have a question for you why do you think the New Testament writers used aionios instead of audios which from what I understand means eternal?
That is exactly the point. Fallen man cannot have a relationship with God. Man is born dead in trespass and sin. Lord Jesus came to give Life. Those who reject God's great salvation stay dead and separated from God. This is not God's doing. God did not kill Adam. Her brought it on himself by his disobedience. God said, "You will surely die". God did not say, "I will kill you."My reflection on this from Iranaeus
is that darkness does not have to mean "eternal torture" as I think the poster was trying to push.
Why can't it mean something completely different such as a period of feeling God's absence so that you realise God's worth? Something educational rather than mindless eternal punishment, however controversial it may be to say that about God lol.
Why does every reference to God's displeasure or man's disobedience have to lead to eternal torture? What sort of relationship can you have on that basis?
I have one question how can death be conquered if it goes on for eternity?
Death has already been defeated, when Lord Jesus rose from the dead. Either people choose life or they continue to remain in death. Japan was defeated in 1945. The last Japanese soldier to surrender was in 1974. He lived in isolation in the jungle, not knowing the benefits of peace that the rest of the Japanese enjoyed. He rejected every attempt to tell him that the war was over. Many refuse to accept that they can have peace with God. They refuse to surrender and accept God's terms. Until they do, they remain at war. The opportunity to be at peace does not last forever. The Japanese soldier may well have died in the jungle. He may never have known peace. As it was, he lived for another 30 years, in peaceful Japan.I have one question how can death be conquered if it goes on for eternity?
The word is "aidios" pronounced "ai" rhymes with "eye" deeohss. Are you aware Paul used "aionios" and "aidios" synonymously in Romans? Here from my study on the word "aionios" which all the UR folks ignore.I have a question for you why do you think the New Testament writers used aionios instead of audios which from what I understand means eternal?
If God wants a fire to burn forever don't you think He can make that happen? I remember reading about a bush that burned but was not consumed also three Jewish slaves were thrown into a furnace but were not harmed. They didn't even have the smell of smoke on them. My God is big enough.As I stated before I don't believe it goes on for an eternity. I believe it will work just as any fire does- when it consumes everything, it will burn out. Ashes will be all that's left. There's no coming back from that which is why it's called the second death.
But as I stated to you, believing it goes on for millions of years is very close to ECT, you don't agree?
Not according to the 9th canon of the 5th ecumenical council.
If God wants a fire to burn forever don't you think He can make that happen?
You ask for more verses I want your opinion on these . Ex 21:6 are you telling me that a slave is a slave forever? Lev 6:18 /Lev 7:36 / Num10:8 each talk about the talking about priest stuff that lasts forever, but is no longer going on. Gen 49:26/Duet 33:15 they talk of the hills and mountains will last forever , but we know that they only last till God makes a new heaven and new earth. Jonah 2:6 Jonah was in the belly of the fish till he wasn’t. 1Kings 9:3 Gods name on temple forever but 2Kings 25:8-9 tells of the temple being burned not lasting forever. Isa 32:14-17 Jerusalem desolate forever till until new life pours into it. This shows that there is precedence for those of us in UR camp you really can’t say that Olam which is used interchangeably with aion must mean forever when scripture clearly shows otherwise.The word is "aidios" pronounced "ai" rhymes with "eye" deeohss. Are you aware Paul used "aionios" and "aidios" synonymously in Romans? Here from my study on the word "aionios" which all the UR folks ignore.
Romans 1:20In Rom 1:20 Paul refers to God’s power and Godhead as “aidios.” Scholars agree “aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, unending etc. In Rom 16:26, Paul, the same writer, in the same writing, refers to God as “aionios.” Paul has used “aidios” synonymous with “aionios.” In this verse by definition “aionios” means eternal, everlasting.
(20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal [aidios] power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Romans 16:26
(26) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting [aionios] God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
Much of this assertion is up for debate according to church historians.
“ The state of opinion on the subject of universal salvation is shown by the fact that through Ignatius, Irenaeus, Hippolytus and others wrote against the prevalent heresies of their times, Universalism is never named among them. Some of the alleged errors of Origen were condemned, but his doctrine of universal salvation, never.”
Did the Fifth Ecumenical Council Condemn Universal Salvation?
First, the council in A.D. 553 was not the first of such meetings and Origen’s universalism had survived all such prior gatherings (i.e. A.D. 325, 381, and 431) without being condemned.
Second, Origen died around A.D. 254, which means even if his universalism was condemned in A.D. 553, this was 300 years after his death!
Third, how can it be said that Origen’s universalism was deemed heretical if Gregory of Nyssa – who held almost the same view of universalism as Origen – and who was given the title, “Father of fathers” was never condemned?
Fourth, there’s no clear indication Origen was ever condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical council in A.D. 553. As Ludlow states, Origen was never mentioned by name in the fifteen anathemas (of the 5th Ecumenical Council in A.D. 553); it was later incorrectly assumed that this council condemned universalism and Origen by name but this was not true.
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?