Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And what snide remarks do you have for the many theologians who are well versed in the Greek language and can exegete from the Greek, and yet they hold that the Bible teaches eternal condemnation?
Some folks cannot give up the erroneous theology they have already learned, even when they develop the tools to see the errors. But the issue is not whether some choose to embrace the erroneous teaching of ET, but whether the church taught UR. Clearly it did. The early church had 4 schools that taught UR. If UR was not part of church doctrine, why did 4 out of 6 schools of Christian theology teach it?
Quote:
Refute? I quoted Augustine direct from the ''The Enchiridion,'' in post #151. But he was referring to believers of his time (the 4th and 5th centuries).
What you keep failing to acknowledge is that you are taking the remarks of church fathers from the 4th - 6th centuries and are trying to superimpose them on the 2nd century church. It has been made clear by Irenaeus that Universalism was not a dominant belief of the 2nd century church. I already posted what he said in post #140. The church in the 2nd century was closer to the apostolic teachings then the church was in the 4th century and later.
It hasn't been made clear by you or any church father you quote that ET and not UR was the dominant theory of salvation. You are the one in the position of trying to explain away words from two different ET apologists that admit the church as a majority tended towards the UR theology. You are the one having to explain why so many church fathers supported UR if it were a heresy , or not an important teaching of the early church. And you are the one having to explain why the greatest of the early fathers taught universal reconciliation if it were a heresy.
You are the one with a lot of explaining away to do, not me.
Quote:
No, the Bible does not conflict itself as a result of its teaching of eternal condemnation. Nor does eternal condemnation impugn God's character.
Explain these verses then.
Colossians 1:15-20
(15) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over ALL creation.
(16) For by him ALL things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities;ALL things were created by him and for him.
(17) He is before ALL things, and in him ALL things hold together.
(18) And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
(19) For God was pleased to have ALL his fullness dwell in him,
(20) and through him to reconcile to himself ALL things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the Cross. (NIV)
Quote:
Jesus' redemptive work on the cross made salvation possible for all men, and eternal salvation is offered to all men, but everyone is responsible for responding to the offer though faith in Christ Jesus. Man's volition is the most basic issue in the spiritual warfare which rages throughout human history. And God hold's man responsible for his volitional choices, including his attitude toward the gospel message.
And that last remark of yours about having to cherry pick to get around parts of the Bible that the reader doesn't like can just as easily be made concerning those who hold to the belief in Universalism.
Not at all. Universalists take the Bible as a whole. Christ redeemed ALL men. No " well, but, but ,but....".
In the theology of eternal torment, God desires the salvation of all men, sacrifices his Son so that may happen, lays out a plan for it to occur , and THEN WOW! .......um........well......... about 1/3 to 1/4 of all humanity end up reconciled to God per his plan. But that's OK , those Hindus and Buddhists and Australian aborigines and everyone else , um , well, in the words of an evangelist from my Baptist church , that's just their tough luck. We're not quite sure what went wrong.
In the theology of UR, the omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God formulates a plan to save ALL men, sends his son to accomplish this, lays out a plan for how it will happen, and then accomplishes exactly what he sat out to do. Save ALL men, per his own expressed desire. And he even manages to bring Satan back into the fold. Now THATS a powerful and forgiving God.
If I were you I would trade up to the proper theology of the God powerful and forgiving enough to do all that. You seem to have settled for less.
Last edited by wallflash; 04-07-2016 at 07:18 PM..
So it's maybe now? Is there a crack in the translation formula now? Why isn't aiōnion used to describe Satan's existence? Going to have to do better than maybe.
Lets compare some scriptures.
Rev 5:13 "And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and underneath the earth and on the sea, and all the things in them, saying: “To the One sitting on the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever.”
Rev 20:10 "And the Devil who was misleading them was hurled into the lake of fire and sulfur, where both the wild beast and the false prophet already were; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever."
Which one is not really forever? Because both use the same Greek wording forever and ever. But according to your translation formula Rev 20:10 is incorrect. If Rev 20:10 is wrong then so is Rev 5:13.
Satan will not have eonian life because he will be in the abyss during the 1000 year eon. And he won't have eonian live because he will be in the lake of fire during the New Earth eon. There, is that better?
(CLV) And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and underneath the earth and on the sea, and all in them, I hear also saying, "To Him Who is sitting on the throne-To the Lambkin-Be blessing and honor and glory and might For the eons of the eons!"
(Darby) And every creature which is in the heaven and upon the earth and under the earth, and those that are upon the sea, and all things in them, heard I saying, To him that sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb, blessing, and honour, and glory, and might, to the ages of ages.
(GNT-V) και παν κτισμα ο Bεστιν TSεστιν εν τω ουρανω και BAεπι TSεν BAτης TSτη BAγης TSγη και υποκατω της γης και επι της θαλασσης Bεστι TSα TSεστιν και τα εν αυτοις Bπαντας TSAπαντα ηκουσα λεγοντας τω καθημενω επι Aτω TSBτου Aθρονω TSBθρονου και τω αρνιω η ευλογια και η τιμη και η δοξα και το κρατος εις τους αιωνας των αιωνωνBαμην
(WNT) And as for every created thing in Heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and everything that was in any of these, I heard them say, "To Him who is seated on the throne, And to the Lamb, Be ascribed all blessing and honor And glory and might, Until the Ages of the Ages!"
(YLT) and every creature that is in the heaven, and in the earth, and under the earth, and the things that are upon the sea, and the all things in them, heard I saying, `To Him who is sitting upon the throne, and to the Lamb, is the blessing, and the honour, and the glory, and the might--to the ages of the ages!'
εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων can't mean "for ever and ever" simply because αιωνας and αιωνων are both plural and the phrase is in the genitive form showing possession. A genitive is like "King of kings" or "Son of God" which can be written "king's King" or "God's Son." So we have "eons of the eons" in that the final two eons are the eon's eons or the greatest eons out of all the eons which went before.
If they were to translate αιωνας and αιωνων using "ever" it should be "for the evers of the evers." Which would be the greatest evers of all the evers which went before.
Besides, Satan can't be tormented for ever and ever as if to mean "eternally" since one day he too will be reconciled to God per Colossians 1:20. Every being in the universe who is at enmity to God will one day drop their enmity and have a peaceful co-existence with God. That should be something to rejoice in but those who have an evil heart find something bad about it.
If the fire isn't eternal then the life of the righteous can't be eternal because in Matt 25:46 the same Greek word for eternal is used for both how long the fire will last and how long the righteous will live. If what you say is the truth, that the translation doesn't really mean eternal, this is going to change more words than just that scripture found at Matthew 25:46. If you're going to jump off the proverbial cliff you should know what is at the bottom of that cliff.
What you are saying assumes that the appropriate age for life must equal the appropriate age for judgment and consequences.
Your rule of same word = same duration doesn't work on this verse:
Hab 3:6 He stood and surveyed the earth;
He looked and startled the nations.
Yes, the perpetual mountains were shattered,
The ancient [olam] hills collapsed.
His ways are everlasting [olam].
God is olam. The hills are olam. Yet the hills collapse.
Last edited by Thy Kingdom Come; 04-07-2016 at 09:51 PM..
All right. You Universalists, and this thread have taken up enough of my time. The majority of people who get sucked into the heresy of Universalism remain in that belief no matter what. And it's clear that you aren't going to listen to me.
Taken up enough of your time! Lol
And there was me thinking literalists had forever.
Satan will not have eonian life because he will be in the abyss during the 1000 year eon. And he won't have eonian live because he will be in the lake of fire during the New Earth eon. There, is that better?
If that is the case then Rev 5:13 is not forever either.
Rev 5:13 "And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and underneath the earth and on the sea, and all the things in them, saying: “To the One sitting on the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever.”
By your reasoning the One sitting on the throne will have honor and glory forever. Your translation fails again. So no it is not better. The way you translate the Bible is taking away glory from God and Jesus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
.
Besides, Satan can't be tormented for ever and ever as if to mean "eternally" since one day he too will be reconciled to God per Colossians 1:20. Every being in the universe who is at enmity to God will one day drop their enmity and have a peaceful co-existence with God. That should be something to rejoice in but those who have an evil heart find something bad about it.
rec·on·cile
(rĕk′ən-sīl′)v.rec·on·ciled, rec·on·cil·ing, rec·on·ciles v.tr.1. To reestablish a close relationship between: reconciled the opposing parties. 2. To settle or resolve: reconciled the dispute. 3. To bring (oneself) to accept: He finally reconciled himself to the change in management. 4. To make compatible, harmonious, or consistent: reconcile my way of thinking with yours. 5. To compare (one financial account) so that it is consistent or compatible with another: reconciled my ledger against my bank statement.
Reconciliation is a choice. Satan is beyond 'bringing himself to accept' God.
I'm guessing you are a person that doesn't believe the complete Word of God or that the Bible is the World of God at all. Otherwise you'd believe the following scripture.
"Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’" - Matt 7:21-23
There are those that will not reconcile or if look at the definition above, be in harmony/compatible/consistent with Jesus or his Father.
If that is the case then Rev 5:13 is not forever either.
Rev 5:13 "And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and underneath the earth and on the sea, and all the things in them, saying: “To the One sitting on the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever.”
By your reasoning the One sitting on the throne will have honor and glory forever. Your translation fails again. So no it is not better. The way you translate the Bible is taking away glory from God and Jesus.
rec·on·cile
(rĕk′ən-sīl′)v.rec·on·ciled, rec·on·cil·ing, rec·on·ciles v.tr.1. To reestablish a close relationship between: reconciled the opposing parties. 2. To settle or resolve: reconciled the dispute. 3. To bring (oneself) to accept: He finally reconciled himself to the change in management. 4. To make compatible, harmonious, or consistent: reconcile my way of thinking with yours. 5. To compare (one financial account) so that it is consistent or compatible with another: reconciled my ledger against my bank statement.
Reconciliation is a choice. Satan is beyond 'bringing himself to accept' God.
I'm guessing you are a person that doesn't believe the complete Word of God or that the Bible is the World of God at all. Otherwise you'd believe the following scripture.
"Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’" - Matt 7:21-23
There are those that will not reconcile or if look at the definition above, be in harmony/compatible/consistent with Jesus or his Father.
Why did you pass over the first two definitions which signify the most popular usage, and highlight the 3rd and only definition that fit your need?
Why did you pass over the first two definitions which signify the most popular usage, and highlight the 3rd and only definition that fit your need?
Cherry pick much ?
They are all correct but I highlighted the one that folks like yourself overlook the most. If I were a cherry-picker I would not have left all definitions in there. But I did because all of them are correct. So they were not passed over. Even the one in bold is correct, the one you don't want to be true. Popularity doesn't make something true or take away other definitions of words. Sorry the truth upsets you and yes it will take acceptance of God's commandments to reconcile with God. To not accept God's commandments is neither harmonious or a close relationship with God. Do you see the importance of the bold text now and why without it, it's not reconciliation? Do you see how they all fit together? I mean I know you will refuse but I still have to ask so that you are on record that you know the truth but reject it. The meaning of Bible words are already being attacked and their definitions changed. Why stop there? Go ahead and change English words too. Soon we will just be grunting at each other because words will mean nothing anymore. It's what workers of lawlessness do. Tear down structure and rules so they can do whatever they want. So sad. If want to know how that will end up all we have to do is look at human history. It never ends will for lawless people.
Last edited by 2Timothy316; 04-08-2016 at 08:14 AM..
If that is the case then Rev 5:13 is not forever either.
Rev 5:13 "And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and underneath the earth and on the sea, and all the things in them, saying: “To the One sitting on the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever.”
By your reasoning the One sitting on the throne will have honor and glory forever. Your translation fails again. So no it is not better. The way you translate the Bible is taking away glory from God and Jesus.
No, it isn't taking away glory from God and Jesus. As long as Jesus is sitting on the throne He will rightfully receive honor, glory and might and it will be for the eons of the eons. That is the timeline given as to how long He sits on the throne. By you making Him sit on the throne eternally is to say He will never succeed in subjecting all the universe to Himself.
Quote:
rec·on·cile
(rĕk′ən-sīl′)v.rec·on·ciled, rec·on·cil·ing, rec·on·ciles v.tr.1. To reestablish a close relationship between: reconciled the opposing parties. 2. To settle or resolve: reconciled the dispute. 3. To bring (oneself) to accept: He finally reconciled himself to the change in management. 4. To make compatible, harmonious, or consistent: reconcile my way of thinking with yours. 5. To compare (one financial account) so that it is consistent or compatible with another: reconciled my ledger against my bank statement.
Reconciliation is a choice. Satan is beyond 'bringing himself to accept' God.
Please provide the verse which states that "Satan is beyond bringing himself to accept God." It is God Who reconciles all in the heavens and all on the earth to Himself. That is what Colossians 1:20 states.
Quote:
I'm guessing you are a person that doesn't believe the complete Word of God or that the Bible is the World of God at all. Otherwise you'd believe the following scripture.
I am the type of person who believes a properly translated Bible is the Word of God.
Quote:
"Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’" - Matt 7:21-23
There are those that will not reconcile or if look at the definition above, be in harmony/compatible/consistent with Jesus or his Father.
That is only during the millennial reign of Christ when He sets up the kingdom in Israel. Those causing stumbling blocks will be cast out of Israel to have to live among the goat nations. It is only for an eon. Then, when that eon ends, if they are not in the book of life they will be re-interred in the 2nd death. But that death will one day be abolished and then they will come forth, be subjected to Christ and God will then be All in all. Don't confuse the intermediate stuff with the goal.
They are all correct but I highlighted the one that folks like yourself overlook the most. If I were a cherry-picker I would not have left all definitions in there. But I did because all of them are correct. So they were not passed over. Even the one in bold is correct, the one you don't want to be true. Popularity doesn't make something true or take away other definitions of words. Sorry the truth upsets you and yes it will take acceptance of God's commandments to reconcile with God. To not accept God's commandments is neither harmonious or a close relationship with God. Do you see the importance of the bold text now and why without it, it's not reconciliation? Do you see how they all fit together? I mean I know you will refuse but I still have to ask so that you are on record that you know the truth but reject it. The meaning of Bible words are already being attacked and their definitions changed. Why stop there? Go ahead and change English words too. Soon we will just be grunting at each other because words will mean nothing anymore. It's what workers of lawlessness do. Tear down structure and rules so they can do whatever they want. So sad. If want to know how that will end up all we have to do is look at human history. It never ends will for lawless people.
Your bolded text makes exact zero sense . It would be a correct usage within the proper context, but you ignore context . The Bible says that GOD is the one doing the reconciling . So which definition makes more sense ? The ones that involve reconciling disputes or separated parties, or the one you used ? Are you claiming that the God of the Universe must reconcile itself to something it doesn't like?
Your post is disingenuous , because you already well know the definition of reconcile you bold makes no sense when used in the scripture I gave, yet you pretend it does anyway to try and deflect a point about universalism made by another . Your desperation at not accepting scripture that shows universal reconciliation is showing . Like I told Mike, those espousing eternal torment can't leave the Bible as is, they must act desperately to try and explain away universalism, as you are not too adequately doing here .
Last edited by wallflash; 04-08-2016 at 09:03 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
