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.
Confess: ἐξομολογήσηται (exomologēsētai) 1843: to agree, confess - Usage: (a) I consent fully, agree out and out, (b) I confess, admit, acknowledge (cf. the early Hellenistic sense of the middle: I acknowledge a debt), (c) I give thanks, praise.
1843 eksomologéō (from 1537 /ek, "wholly out from," intensifying 3670 /homologéō, "say the same thing about") – properly, fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly (whole-heartedly); hence, to confess ("openly declare"), without reservation (no holding back).
I would encourage you to confess your sin if needed but I certainly hope you don't believe in it.
Do you see any acknowledgment in there of Him being Saviour? Let me show you some others who acknowledged Jesus is Lord and what Jesus had to say about them.
Matt.7:21-23 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
There is no redemption for evil only eternal separation.
I removed that after I saw I was basically repeating another post.
Isn't confessing sin believing that it is sin and therefore a matter of repentance? I'm not seeing how confessing/acknowledging and believing are mutually exclusive.
They don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive but they are not the same thing. You can acknowledge a rightful leader but it doesn't always mean you believe in them.
... but do you believe it.
How many of those preached to had never heard the gospel before? Or had no idea who Christ was, or what he had done for them?So what was the reason the gospel was preached to the dead? Go back a few verses. It was so the separation between the life of debauchery that leads to death and the life of godliness that leads to life could be plainly seen even by human standards and they can be judged, not saved. 1Pet.4:6
All things are his. Everything and everyone. (Romans 11:36)You forgot to bold "all who belong to Him."
1Cor.15:23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.
Now you are splitting hairs. How can Jesus be Lord and not be savior?Do you see any acknowledgment in there of Him being Saviour? Let me show you some others who acknowledged Jesus is Lord and what Jesus had to say about them.
Matt.7:21-23 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
If that is universally true, then there is no hope for any of us. Very sad.There is no redemption for evil only eternal separation.
Now you are splitting hairs. How can Jesus be Lord and not be savior?
Those in your citation were not allowed to enter in their current condition. This agrees with UR. No one gets an automatic pass. Jesus said EVERYONE will be salted with fire. (Mark 9:49)
Saint Steven said: ↑
Philippians 2:10-11
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
Hairsplitting again. It does mean that in this definition. Openly, whole-heartedly, without reservation... (get it?)They don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive but they are not the same thing. You can acknowledge a rightful leader but it doesn't always mean you believe in them.
Interesting.Jesus saying "get thee behind me Satan" to Peter just popped into my head.
Interesting that the negative responses seem to all revolve around claims that Universalism is not true. Which completely sidesteps the question. As if to say, "No, I wouldn't prefer it, because it isn't true."So for everyone who isn’t a believer in the universal reconciliation of all things, would you prefer that universalism were true?
A simple yes or no answer to start your response would be great, then the rationale behind why you have picked either yes or no.
Interesting.
Peter's seeming loyal declaration was undermining the acknowledgment of WHO Christ was. Jesus had just asked them, "Who do men say that I am?" (if I remember correctly) Then Peter came back with the right answer. (and Rome crowned him Pope #1) - lol
Saint Steven said: ↑
Now you are splitting hairs. How can Jesus be Lord and not be savior?
Those in your citation were not allowed to enter in their current condition. This agrees with UR. No one gets an automatic pass. Jesus said EVERYONE will be salted with fire. (Mark 9:49)
Saint Steven said: ↑
Philippians 2:10-11
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
It seems that they simply can't fathom the possibility. So complete is the brainwashing of our youth, to not even consider such a "preposterous" idea.
Of course it did not. Jesus was stern and serious but not saying that Peter literally WAS Satan. It was a turn of phrase on his part, just like some of the things we say ourselves.What I was thinking is that even though Jesus spoke so harshly to Peter, calling him Satan, not evil-doer, but Satan himself, it didn't mean Peter was condemned.
But now you're saying that anyone who still doesn't think Universalism to be true has been "brainwashed?"
You might be right, but that's not what was written there, and there's nothing ambiguous about what is there.I believe @Saint Steven was saying the refusal by many even to participate in a hypothetical in which universalism were true shows they’re brainwashed.
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?