U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-20-2009, 03:28 AM
 
Location: Germany
1,647 posts, read 1,706,819 times
Reputation: 842

Advertisements

Iíve had a look recently in a theological book on eschatological matters; on the subject of universalism was written: some verses may, but need not interpreted in an universalist sense, so we are not allowed to interpret them in an universalist sense.

I failed to see any logic in this statement, it works in the opposite direction alike, some verses may be interpreted in favor for endless misery, but need not interpreted that way.

While universalists need not explain away any verse; traditionalists need to explain away and twist verses that appear very plain, at least to me.

I give a few examples:

Fear him who is able to slay body and soul in the valley of Hinnom (Mt. 10:28) does not contradict universalism, cause the Lord killeth and maketh alive, he bringeth down to hell, and bringeth back again. (1Sam. 2:6, Douay-Rheims Bible)

Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire (Mt. 7:19) does not contradict universalism, for there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease (Job 14:17).

And these shall go away into aeonian chastening, but the righteous into aeonian life (Mt. 25:46), this verse does also not contradict universalism, only because both fates are called with the same word, it does not follow that aeonian chastening, or correction lasts for the same time as aeonian life, in Romans 16:25 we have passed by aeonian times, and the aeonian God, see also here (Link); even if aiŰnios would mean eternal, eternal correction would be pretty much different from eternal torment.

Verses like 1 Timothy 4:10 on the other hand are so plain, that they can only me explained away or be twisted by tradionalists to make them not say, what they obviously do say:

Faithful is the Word and worthy of all acceptance; for to this we also labor and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Savior of all men, especially of believers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-20-2009, 01:09 PM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
8,435 posts, read 8,384,960 times
Reputation: 1690
Quote:
Originally Posted by svenM View Post
Iíve had a look recently in a theological book on eschatological matters; on the subject of universalism was written: some verses may, but need not interpreted in an universalist sense, so we are not allowed to interpret them in an universalist sense.

I failed to see any logic in this statement, it works in the opposite direction alike, some verses may be interpreted in favor for endless misery, but need not interpreted that way.

While universalists need not explain away any verse; traditionalists need to explain away and twist verses that appear very plain, at least to me.

I give a few examples:

Fear him who is able to slay body and soul in the valley of Hinnom (Mt. 10:28) does not contradict universalism, cause the Lord killeth and maketh alive, he bringeth down to hell, and bringeth back again. (1Sam. 2:6, Douay-Rheims Bible)

Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire (Mt. 7:19) does not contradict universalism, for there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease (Job 14:17).

And these shall go away into aeonian chastening, but the righteous into aeonian life (Mt. 25:46), this verse does also not contradict universalism, only because both fates are called with the same word, it does not follow that aeonian chastening, or correction lasts for the same time as aeonian life, in Romans 16:25 we have passed by aeonian times, and the aeonian God, see also here (Link); even if aiŰnios would mean eternal, eternal correction would be pretty much different from eternal torment.

Verses like 1 Timothy 4:10 on the other hand are so plain, that they can only me explained away or be twisted by tradionalists to make them not say, what they obviously do say:

Faithful is the Word and worthy of all acceptance; for to this we also labor and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Savior of all men, especially of believers.
I agree. It is these questions, that upon reading the bible, come up and then the explanation turns us away from our original thought.

A new believer may take this to mean Universalism, but when they ask their church leader... it is given to them that it is not UR but ET. Rather than go search it out, the new believer takes the leader's word for it.

That is called indoctrination. Yet it is clearly said:

Jeremiah 31:33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
Hebrews 8:10,11 "FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. "AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN, AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,' FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM.

It's clear that in the new covenant there is no need for indoctrination, "all will know me."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2009, 09:07 AM
 
8,989 posts, read 12,448,301 times
Reputation: 746
Quote:
(1 Timothy 4:10)
Faithful is the Word and worthy of all acceptance; for to this we also labor and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Savior of all men, especially of believers
No one twists anything and please I plead with you to stop being disingenuous by saying we twist scripture, same can be said for your interpretation as well. Why didn't they just say, saviour of all men and end it...why add "especially of believers". Why the redundancy? I could use that argument but I wouldn't because the bible is not a 20th century book written by a 20th century American author. We "tradionalists" as you like to call us use CONTEXT in our interpretation....Who was talking? Where was the place? The culture at the time? Who was the target audience?

Yes God is the saviour of all men but in a temporal sense, while of believers is an eternal sense (not immortality). Paul's point is while God graciously deliver's believers from sin's condemnation and penalty because He was their substitute, ALL people experience some earthly benefits from the goodness of God.

Temporal Senses

Common grace- in that He sends rain and sun upon the righteous and the unrighteous

Compassion-that God shows His love of pity for the unregenerate, wicked, God hating sinner.

Admonition to repent- God constantly warns sinners of their fate demonstrating the love God has for us because He takes no pleasure in death of the wicked.

Gospel invitation- Salvation in Christ is indiscrinately offered to ALL. God is by nature a saving God. His saving character is revealed in how He deals with those who will NEVER believe.

Last edited by Fundamentalist; 09-21-2009 at 09:25 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2009, 09:59 AM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
8,435 posts, read 8,384,960 times
Reputation: 1690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fundamentalist View Post
No one twists anything and please I plead with you to stop being disingenuous by saying we twist scripture, same can be said for your interpretation as well. Why didn't they just say, saviour of all men and end it...why add "especially of believers". Why the redundancy? I could use that argument but I wouldn't because the bible is not a 20th century book written by a 20th century American author. We "tradionalists" as you like to call us use CONTEXT in our interpretation....Who was talking? Where was the place? The culture at the time? Who was the target audience?

Yes God is the saviour of all men but in a temporal sense, while of believers is an eternal sense (not immortality). Paul's point is while God graciously deliver's believers from sin's condemnation and penalty because He was their substitute, ALL people experience some earthly benefits from the goodness of God.

Temporal Senses

Common grace- in that He sends rain and sun upon the righteous and the unrighteous

Compassion-that God shows His love of pity for the unregenerate, wicked, God hating sinner.

Admonition to repent- God constantly warns sinners of their fate demonstrating the love God has for us because He takes no pleasure in death of the wicked.

Gospel invitation- Salvation in Christ is indiscrinately offered to ALL. God is by nature a saving God. His saving character is revealed in how He deals with those who will NEVER believe.
The redundancy leads you to believe there is a difference in the believer and non-believers measure of salvation? God poured his spirit out on all flesh, not just believers right? Oh wait.. did I just say something redundant to clarify my point or did I just say that it is different for believers?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2009, 10:10 AM
 
6,221 posts, read 6,403,926 times
Reputation: 682
(1 Timothy 4:10)
Faithful is the Word and worthy of all acceptance; for to this we also labor and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Savior of all men, especially of believers

There is no redundancy. This is telling us all are saved, but believers are saved in a special way. They will know God in this life. They will have aionios life, which quite simply, is to know God (John 17:3).

To say there are those "who will never believe" is a blatant contradiction with scriptures such as Isaiah 45:23 which says all will swear allegiance to God. Clearly one must believe in the thing you are swearing allegiance to.

Unless you meant to say there are those who will never believe in this life. Then I would agree with you, but I would also ask, does God stop being the savior of all men after a person's death? In what sense is God a "saving God" if He does not save? If God is by nature a "saving God", surely He will continue to save people until all are saved.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2009, 10:10 AM
 
8,989 posts, read 12,448,301 times
Reputation: 746
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj View Post
The redundancy leads you to believe there is a difference in the believer and non-believers measure of salvation? God poured his spirit out on all flesh, not just believers right? Oh wait.. did I just say something redundant to clarify my point or did I just say that it is different for believers?
I was not using that argument which why I said, "I WOULDN'T" merely pointing out how others interpret scripture and that is the wrong way of interpreting scripture so why are you saying, I am doing when I clearly said I WOULDN'T?

The bible is not a 20th century novel written by 20th century American author.

God is the saviour of all men but in a temporal sense, while of believers is an eternal sense

Last edited by Fundamentalist; 09-21-2009 at 10:19 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2009, 10:15 AM
 
8,989 posts, read 12,448,301 times
Reputation: 746
Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
(1 Timothy 4:10)
Faithful is the Word and worthy of all acceptance; for to this we also labor and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Savior of all men, especially of believers

There is no redundancy. This is telling us all are saved, but believers are saved in a special way. They will know God in this life. They will have aionios life, which quite simply, is to know God (John 17:3).

To say there are those "who will never believe" is a blatant contradiction with scriptures such as Isaiah 45:23 which says all will swear allegiance to God. Clearly one must believe in the thing you are swearing allegiance to.

Unless you meant to say there are those who will never believe in this life. Then I would agree with you, but I would also ask, does God stop being the savior of all men after a person's death? In what sense is God a "saving God" if He does not save? If God is by nature a "saving God", surely He will continue to save people until all are saved.

That was not my argument? Please read what I said. I never said, redundancy. I used it to show that is not the way to interpret scripture, second I said nothing of believing before or after death in my argument?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2009, 10:22 AM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
8,435 posts, read 8,384,960 times
Reputation: 1690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fundamentalist View Post
I was not using that argument which why I said, "I WOULDN'T" merely pointing out how others interpret scripture and that is the wrong way of interpreting scripture so why are you saying, I am doing when I clearly said I WOULDN'T?

The bible is not a 20th century novel written by 20th century American author.

God is the saviour of all men but in a temporal sense, while of believers is an eternal sense
And that is what I am pointing out. What part of the scripture tells you that one is temporal and one is eternal? In my redundant sentence I was clarifying that it is not just believers but all. How can you say that there are two different types just from the verse? What do you use to say that in that one verse, there are two subjects: temporal sense and eternal sense. You say you don't use the redundancy as a base of interpretation, so what are you using?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2009, 10:36 AM
 
8,989 posts, read 12,448,301 times
Reputation: 746
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj View Post
And that is what I am pointing out. What part of the scripture tells you that one is temporal and one is eternal? In my redundant sentence I was clarifying that it is not just believers but all. How can you say that there are two different types just from the verse? What do you use to say that in that one verse, there are two subjects: temporal sense and eternal sense. You say you don't use the redundancy as a base of interpretation, so what are you using?
Redundancy?????!!!!!! That is our interpretation of that verse. If you don't agree with it then fine but we are not twisting scripture because from our perspective it is clearly seen that not everyone goes to heaven, that many reject Him so obviously that interprtation contradicts our belief on what we find in the whole council of God's word but then you will accusse us of fitting, twisting interpretation to our "way of thinking" but then the same can be said of you as well when we have verses like.

(Matthew 25:41)

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

(Revelations 20:11-15)

Then I saw a great white throne and him whoAnd I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2009, 10:47 AM
 
Location: Germany
1,647 posts, read 1,706,819 times
Reputation: 842
Quote:
No one twists anything and please I plead with you to stop being disingenuous by saying we twist scripture, same can be said for your interpretation as well.


that is very true, this thread was just a response to the opinion hold in a theological book, every coin has two sides, what I do not like is talking double faced, using different standards like the author of that book did in my opinion.


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top