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.
I know the scripture did. All I did was present it, whether you want to accept it or not, is up to you oand others of the UR paradigm, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit will convict you, or not.
It has convicted me.
There is a purpose in you NOT accepting it. There always is.
Sciota
Ironmaw and Lego have done a great job of refuting you by using the scriptures, the nature and character of God , all it takes now is for you to be open about it .
What you seem to be missing is that many of us believed like you or very similar to you at some point in our lives , apart from the ferverent way you and a choice few defend eternal torment . Of cause you would say we have been deceived or led astray or worse we were never true believers in the first place.
Man's choice(his own ability) , death and eternal torment seem to be the foundation of much that the likes of your good self and miss shawn stand on, those who adhere to universal reconciliation quite the opposite , God's ability to save , his righteousness and eternal life.This in it's self speaks volumes .
It's quite simple actually. The statement Christ makes is a 'better of two bads' kind of statement. It is not saying that people should cut off those who cause them to stumble without a second thought. It is just saying it is better to do that then to miss out on the kingdom.
It sounds like you're still just saying that Christ was teaching that we should cut off other members of the body of Christ who make us stumble, on the basis of the Corinthians passage about the mutual need of the parts of the body for each other. For one thing, those two passages have nothing to do with each other. Paul's writing in the Corinthians text is referring to the interrelationship of the members of the body of Christ and their need for one another (no member of the body is isolated or "an island"), whereas Christ's teaching is about eliminating sin from one's life no matter how dear the thing is to us that is causing us to stumble. Now you could say, "Yes, and the thing that is dear to us is a member of Christ's body," but the problem with that is that Christ does not have the relationship of the members of his body in view in this text. If he did, then I would say that going to the Corinthians passage was correct.
Jesus’ teaching about the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shows irrefutably that not all will be saved. This occurs in three passages:
Matthew 12:31-32: “Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.”
Mark 3:28-29: “Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.”
Luke 12:10: "And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him."
In the passage in Mark, Jesus sharply contrasts pardonable sins with the unpardonable sin—blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The use of the Greek word “de,” meaning “but,” shows this contrast. Christ goes on to say that the one committing this sin is guilty of an “eternal sin.” Once again the word aiwnios is used, this time to modify the noun “sin.” The contrast would make no sense if aiwnios meant merely “temporary,” for then we would end up with this nonsensical translation:
“Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit has forgiveness, but is guilty of a non-eternal sin.”
The Lord’s point here is that the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a sin that falls outside the category of forgivable sins. If it were forgivable, there would be no point in contrasting it with forgivable sins.
As if that were not enough, though, the Lord uses another contrast. It occurs roughly in the second half of the passage, this time using the word “alla,” which also means “but.” It occurs thus: “whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.”
A more literal translation would be, “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit does not have forgiveness to the age (aiwna) but is guilty of an eternal (aiwniou) sin.”
What is so striking about this is that the use of the noun aiwna, which universalists rightly claim can sometimes mean “age,” is directly contrasted with the use of the adjective “eternal” (aiwniou). Some universalists claim that since the noun “aiwn” means age, the adjective derived from it—in this case, aiwniou—must also mean “of an age” or “related to an age,” thus indicating a temporary period of time. For one thing, that is a glaring etymological fallacy, since even in English we see adjectives that have an entirely different meaning from the nouns from which they were derived. For example, “lovely” has nothing to do with “love,” “handy” has nothing to do with “hand,” and “homely” has nothing to do with “home.” Clearly that is also the case with the adjective aiwniou in this text, since it is contrasted with the noun “aiwn.”
Thus, the translation “eternal sin” is correct and necessary. That being the case, it is clear that not all will be saved.
The passage from Luke brings out the same contrast: Forgivable sins are diametrically opposed to the sin that will not be forgiven. "...but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him."
Again, if this sin were to be forgiven at some point in the future, then the contrast in the passage would be completely overturned, and we would then end up with this nonsensical translation: "And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will be forgiven him."
If they are all in the same category, how can there be a contrast?
This shows clearly that the Bible affirms the truth that not all will be saved. It is an unpleasant truth, but its unpleasantness does not make it any less true.
The passage in Matthew is somewhat different but no less interesting. Again there is a clear contrast (using the Greek particle “de,” meaning “but”) between the types of sins that can be forgiven and the type of sin that cannot be forgiven, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. As in the Mark passage, if this sin could one day be forgiven, then the contrast between the two types of sins becomes meaningless.
What is even more illuminating, however, is that Christ goes on to say that this sin will not be forgiven “either in this age or in the age to come.” This has significant impact upon other passages in Scripture that refer to a period of future punishment. If the sin is eternal—and again, the sharp contrast between this sin and pardonable sins shows that it is—then the “age to come,” to which Christ refers, cannot be a temporary one but must indicate an eternal age.
We see the same use of the word “age” in another passage in Mark—chapter 10, verses 29-30:
“Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel’s sake, but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age (aiwni) to come, eternal (aiwnion) life.”
Note what the Lord says the reward will be in the age to come: eternal life. If there is eternal life in this future age, then the age itself must be eternal, outside of time. On the other hand, if that age to come is not eternal but only temporary, then the life that is rewarded to these believers will not be eternal, either. That, however, contradicts the Bible’s many plain affirmations of eternal life.
As appealing as universalism is to many, it never entered the mind of God. Scripture clearly teaches that not all will be saved.
Oh it most certainly matters because I(and neither does anyone on this subforum I would imagine) don't want you to spend one more second than you have to outside of God's Love. Christ came so that we might have life and have it more abundantly. And so that we might have a peace which surpasses all comprehension. And God cannot bless you if you will not let Him. But ultimately neither I nor anyone else on this subforum can help/save you, only God can do that.
If it comforts you to spend possibly an eternity(a long enough time to make the term even remotely applicable) in torment knowing you will eventually be mercifully saved, then so be it, but it must be pretty bad if Jesus Himself says it's better to literally cut off a limb that makes you sin than to experience what awaits. I can tell you that neither I nor anyone on this subfourm nor God Himself would want that for you.
Literalists...The Bible is an "Inspired writting". So what is said is more times than not, not merely applicable to the physical but more in line with the psyche of an individual (read as fertile ground for the Spirit). So all these "offences" are of a metaphysical (mental), esoteric nature though spoken exoterically.
e.g. The woman at the well and
The Parable of the sower.
Double Entendre
Equivocal, ambiguous.
Such is the style of all sacred scripture so that it is potected aginst the profane and the ignorant (multitutes).
"For you it is too know,
For them it is not to know."
Namaste`
Drift.
Last edited by Ocean Drifter; 02-06-2010 at 09:48 AM..
It sounds like you're still just saying that Christ was teaching that we should cut off other members of the body of Christ who make us stumble, on the basis of the Corinthians passage about the mutual need of the parts of the body for each other. For one thing, those two passages have nothing to do with each other. Paul's writing in the Corinthians text is referring to the interrelationship of the members of the body of Christ and their need for one another (no member of the body is isolated or "an island"), whereas Christ's teaching is about eliminating sin from one's life no matter how dear the thing is to us that is causing us to stumble. Now you could say, "Yes, and the thing that is dear to us is a member of Christ's body," but the problem with that is that Christ does not have the relationship of the members of his body in view in this text. If he did, then I would say that going to the Corinthians passage was correct.
So how do explain the language used? Mere coincidence? Sorry I don't go for that. I am teaching that Christ said not to associate with believers that cause you to stumble. I don't see what's wrong with this. Paul isn't conflicting with this as you are trying to protray. He is simply saying we need the other parts of the body. He doesn't say that we should associate with those that cause us to stumble. Put together, the two passages say that we need other believers, but we should not be around those that cause us to stumble. This is why the apostles took great care in not being stumbling blocks to others which is what every believer should do.
So how do explain the language used? Mere coincidence? Sorry I don't go for that.
Certainly not mere coincidence. The language is hyperbole. I think we would both agree that Christ is not saying that we should literally gouge out an eye if it makes us commit sin. Like all hyperbole, it uses exaggeration to make a point. His point is that we should remove from our lives anything that causes us to stumble, no matter how dear or valuable it is to us. Now I would agree that this could refer to someone who claims to be a believer but lives in sin. This could cause a believer to stumble, and in 1 Cor. 5 Paul seems to advocate the removal of such people from the congregation. But it would be going too far to say that this is all that Jesus was referring to. Christ was referring to anything that is a stumbling block. Just because Jesus used parts of the body to make his point, and Paul also used parts of the body to make his point, does not mean that these passages are parallel.
Certainly not mere coincidence. The language is hyperbole. I think we would both agree that Christ is not saying that we should literally gouge out an eye if it makes us commit sin. Like all hyperbole, it uses exaggeration to make a point. His point is that we should remove from our lives anything that causes us to stumble, no matter how dear or valuable it is to us. Now I would agree that this could refer to someone who claims to be a believer but lives in sin. This could cause a believer to stumble, and in 1 Cor. 5 Paul seems to advocate the removal of such people from the congregation. But it would be going too far to say that this is all that Jesus was referring to. Christ was referring to anything that is a stumbling block. Just because Jesus used parts of the body to make his point, and Paul also used parts of the body to make his point, does not mean that these passages are parallel.
I take it the way that I explained: that the words of Christ could be applied to believers who make other believers stumble, but also that the two passages do not inform each other merely because they use similar terminology. You are using the one to inform the other on that basis alone. However, the passage in Corinthians can hardly be used to interpret the words of Christ that you quoted, or vice versa, since both are speaking of entirely different matters and have different aims.
I take it the way that I explained: that the words of Christ could be applied to believers who make other believers stumble, but also that the two passages do not inform each other merely because they use similar terminology. You are using the one to inform the other on that basis alone. However, the passage in Corinthians can hardly be used to interpret the words of Christ that you quoted, or vice versa, since both are speaking of entirely different matters and have different aims.
Alright, well I take it to only mean that, because that is the only way scripture has ever explained it (the body parts to be believers). You can add what you think it means to your beliefs if you want.
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.
