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.
This might be hard for you to swallow, but at the very least it's many and not a few , regardless of what you think about Universal Reconcilation and Paul's use of the word many.
19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
I did check what you wrote. I quoted you exactly! You said it "cannot be anything other than eternal punishment". Check your own post. You are reading into the text.
Legoman, you were probably quoting my post in the other thread about eternal punishment. My more recent post here, though, contends only that not all will be saved.
Quote:
That is your opinion. But your final statement reminds me of this scripture:
Jer 32:35 "They built the high places of Baal that are in the valley of Ben-hinnom to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I had not commanded them nor had it entered My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
That is what has never entered His mind: burning sons & daughters.
Well, since this has nothing to do with eternal punishment but the sinful act of sacrificing children to false gods in idolatry, it has no bearing on what we're talking about.
Quote:
To point blank say Universalism never entered the mind of God, is to seriously misunderstand God's nature.
I don't think so at all.
Quote:
It is this kind of thinking that leads to the cruel & sad belief system of Calvinism and the idea that God would purposely create people to be tortured forever. Please I urge you to re-examine your beliefs and ask where the love of God is in predestined torture.
Come now, Legoman, I can play the emotional rhetoric, too: I beg of you to repent of this false teaching of universalism, since it is the setting up of a false god, a god that does not at all line up with the way God has revealed himself in Scripture, a god that suits your own liking and understanding. I beg of you to turn away from this dangerous teaching that claims that even those who do not believe will be saved, thus indicating another way of salvation in addition to faith in Christ.
This might be hard for you to swallow, but at the very least it's many and not a few , regardless of what you think about Universal Reconcilation and Paul's use of the word many.
19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
So far I have seen only one person take this passage seriously enough to attempt a more detailed exposition of it. I suggest you do the same.
I for one won't even delve into that passage without doing a verse-by-verse explanation of it, as best as I am able. I've been considering doing it, but it would take considerable time. I challenge you to do this: Start with just v. 12. Just Romans 5:12. That verse alone will challenge you.
So far I have seen only one person take this passage seriously enough to attempt a more detailed exposition of it. I suggest you do the same.
I for one won't even delve into that passage without doing a verse-by-verse explanation of it, as best as I am able. I've been considering doing it, but it would take considerable time. I challenge you to do this: Start with just v. 12. Just Romans 5:12. That verse alone will challenge you.
Sin entered the world through one man ?? , how hard is this to grasp that it needs a detailed exposition ?
My point is to you , you said a definite yes to a few to being saved , my rebuttal of that is Romans 5 verse 19 , that clearly states the exact opposite.
To be quite honest long winded detailed expositions bore the ass of me , whether it's from the viewpoint of a calvinist or universalist unless they are painting the Lord's victory at Calvary as a success .
I agree it would take a very long time to explain away the truth of Romans 5 to the point where you have to redefine the words All and Many and turn the marvellous victory of our Lord and Savior at Calvary to a puny attempt to save some , or even worse the dispicable doctrine of he died to save a few and the many who are not were never part of his plan for salvation.
“The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.” (Matthew 26:24, NASB)
The dative pronoun, "for him" is the boldfaced word in the Greek.
Concerning that last part of the verse, this, I think, is a more literal translation, though the word order is awkward: "Good was for him if not was born that man."
The objection has been raised that when Jesus said, "Good for him," the "him" was referring to his own person, so that we would have: "Good for Jesus if not was born that man." The suggestion has been made that what Christ was saying was that if Judas had never been born, he (Christ) would not have had to endure the anguish in Gethsamane and the subsequent agonies of the crucifixion.
In addition to the other problems with this view that have already been mentioned, what also prevents this interpretation is that it would not have mattered to Christ whether Judas was nonexistent or not, since he would have had to endure the cross and undergo redemption no matter what. It was God's will that this should happen. Thus, even if Judas had never been born, God would have definitely used some other means to bring Christ to the anguish and suffering of the cross. This was inevitable, and Christ knew it well. He knew that the very reason for his coming into the world was to give up his life for sinful people:
"The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:28, NASB)
Therefore, he would not have said that Judas' nonexistence would have been good for him. Judas' nonexistence would have been good for Judas, and that because of the "woe" that Christ referred to earlier in the same sentence.
The other suggestion has been made that the "woe" referred merely to Judas' inner anguish over the judgment he would face, or perhaps some other subjective anguish because of his betrayal of the Lord. But that really doesn't even matter and proves nothing, for if universalism were true and Judas would one day be saved, having never been born could not be said to be good--even if he had to endure a horrible judgment before reaching salvation--since such nonexistence would cause him to miss out on eternal life, eternal glory, eternal fellowship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and all the other myriad, indescribable joys of being in heaven forever. Regardless of what pains he might have to endure to get there, it could not be rationally said that nonexistence would have been good for him, given the ineffable, glorious joys that would be his forever.
You obviously haven't even attempted what I suggested.
Lol , why does this need expounding on ?
And how does it support the nonsense you believe about a few being saved ? , when it cleary speaks of many being made righteous in this chapter .
I have news for you , i hope it doesn't stick in your throat, but you are not one of a few but one of many .
The primitive misunderstanding of God runs deep. It astonishes me that humans can reconcile two completely opposing descriptions of God's nature. The primitive interpretations of Jehovah from 2000 to 4000+ years ago in the OT . . . and the unambiguous example of Christ that was supposed to correct those misunderstandings. If there is a devil . . . this has to be his greatest accomplishment. He has completely corrupted Jesus' message of love and redemption by retaining the heinous misrepresentations of God's motives and "mind" in the OT. I cannot understand HOW he could get Christians to actually BELIEVE that our loving Jesus and that evil monster Jehovah are descriptions of the same God . . . talk about deception!!! The straw man argument that is used to perpetuate this deceit is that "God does NOT change." OF COURSE God does not change! But the absurd and ignorant primitive UNDERSTANDING of our savage ancestors MUST change. God has NOT changed but the ONLY evidence we really have for the "mind of God" (motives, goals, etc.) is found in Jesus' presentation of the TRUE NATURE of God . . . NOT those ignorant interpretations of primitives from 2000- 4000+ years ago.
I'm talking about those wicked unbelievers who apparently God must hate if He's going to send them into eternal torment .
Amperage asked you where does it say they cease to exist when the wicked are thrown into the fire ? You said simple , but from what i have read of your reply you do not come up with a scripture that says they cease to exist.
Eternal torment doesn't mean to cease to exist and I never said that they cease. It seems you have a hard time with coming up with things people didn't say. The bible and scripture says where the wicked will be and where the righteous will be. Simple
Of course I didn't because I didn't say that they will ever cease to exist in the Lake of Fire, that is where they will be. It seems you are playing this game again of not answering my questions. LOL
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.
