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.
Why tell me this? I'm not the one who holds to the principle that unless a doctrine is stated verbatim in a text, it shouldn't be bothered with. That was your standard, clearly expressed in another thread. Therefore, it is you who should not bother with the Philippians text, since it doesn't meet your standard of explicitly mentioning verbatim what you are claiming it teaches.
Quote:
I point out what I believe and make few if any declarations of clarity or proof. You declared the matter proven.
Do you ever declare a doctrinal matter proven using Scripture?
Quote:
One instance I did such a thing was to make a point, the point is that any time someone declares something proven, you will always find evidence to the contrary.
But you essentially did the same in this thread when you used the Philippians passage to make your case. If you didn't think the text proved your point, you wouldn't have used it--unless you were uncertain about it and only used it tentatively. The tone of your posts, though, did not seem uncertain at all.
Quote:
What is ironic is that you have shown your own words to be false, you declare something proven and cannot stand on that proof because the evidence suggests it is not as cut and dry as you declared that it was.
You've never shown how the evidence suggests it is not as cut and dry as I declared it, as you say. This is just another assertion of yours. I invited you several times in another thread to explain why my points were mere "speculation," but you consistently refused to do so. Now you're just making more assertions.
Quote:
My beliefs are based on the matter that God does not confuse. The issue of eternal damnation is one of the most convoluted doctrines you will find in religion.
When you say "the matter that God does not confuse," I'm not sure what you mean. If you are implying that UR is not convoluted, you are most mistaken. The doctrine is fraught with problems--inconsistency with many Scriptures being one of them. Another one is that many of its adherents consistently refuse to examine their supposed proof-texts in context, engage in linguistic fallacy, and have an unbalanced emphasis on God's love.
Quote:
You can believe as you like, Gods power rules and love never fails, all mankind will be saved and there is total assurance and no question about it.
Careful, Phazelwood. That last phrase sounds a lot like a declaration of proof, which would not square very well with your earlier words, "any time someone declares something proven, you will always find evidence to the contrary."
Quote:
So you can all take your confusion and argue amongst yourselves about it. I know where humanity stands.
Another statement of certainty. Again it sounds like you have proven something, so there must be evidence to the contrary, according to your own reasoning.
Why tell me this? I'm not the one who holds to the principle that unless a doctrine is stated verbatim in a text, it shouldn't be bothered with. That was your standard, clearly expressed in another thread. Therefore, it is you who should not bother with the Philippians text, since it doesn't meet your standard of explicitly mentioning verbatim what you are claiming it teaches.
Do you ever declare a doctrinal matter proven using Scripture?
But you essentially did the same in this thread when you used the Philippians passage to make your case. If you didn't think the text proved your point, you wouldn't have used it--unless you were uncertain about it and only used it tentatively. The tone of your posts, though, did not seem uncertain at all.
You've never shown how the evidence suggests it is not as cut and dry as I declared it, as you say. This is just another assertion of yours. I invited you several times in another thread to explain why my points were mere "speculation," but you consistently refused to do so. Now you're just making more assertions.
When you say "the matter that God does not confuse," I'm not sure what you mean. If you are implying that UR is not convoluted, you are most mistaken. The doctrine is fraught with problems--inconsistency with many Scriptures being one of them. Another one is that many of its adherents consistently refuse to examine their supposed proof-texts in context, engage in linguistic fallacy, and have an unbalanced emphasis on God's love.
Careful, Phazelwood. That last phrase sounds a lot like a declaration of proof, which would not square very well with your earlier words, "any time someone declares something proven, you will always find evidence to the contrary."
Another statement of certainty. Again it sounds like you have proven something, so there must be evidence to the contrary, according to your own reasoning.
Would you like to elaborate on "an unbalanced emphasis on God's love?" God IS love, you know.
I think the point being made about proof, is that faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Phazelwood has faith that all mankind will be saved. The statement of “total assurance and no question about it,” is faith-based, not proof-based. The scriptures can be interpreted different ways, which is undeniable since there are over 30,000 different denominations in Christianity. Therefore, when someone says they have proof, really all they have is their faith based on their interpretation of the scriptures. So, if one wants to say they can prove hell is a literal fire, for example, they cannot prove it, they can only truthfully state that they have faith that it is true. I also have faith than all mankind will be saved.
Would you like to elaborate on "an unbalanced emphasis on God's love?" God IS love, you know.
What I mean by that is focusing on God's love while also ignoring his wrath, justice and holiness. When people essentially say, "Eternal hell cannot exist because God is love," that is what they are doing. It is choosing which attributes of God one wants to accept and which ones one wants to set aside, or at least shuffle to the back burner.
Quote:
I think the point being made about proof, is that faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Phazelwood has faith that all mankind will be saved. The statement of “
Quote:
total assurance and no question about it,” is faith-based, not proof-based.
I think this is splitting hairs. The phrase "no question about it" is the same as saying "It has been proven." It's saying that the final verdict has come in, and it is indisputable.
Originally Posted by Bright Hope for Tomorrow Someone who desires to sin but is afraid to lose their salvation over those sins, would think like that. Someone who loves God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength, and loves their neighbor as themselves does not think that way at all.
What's your point? Those verses say Paul did not desire to sin, but did anyway. He was human. What my reply was addresssing is that people think if you are saved anyway, you might as well sin. IMO, that thought process comes from the mind of someone who, in their heart, feels they would sin if they could get away with it, not from someone who doesn't desire to sin because they want to live the way God desires.
The point i am making is that for a spiritual babe in Christ that commits sin will be tormented by Satan...telling him that he has messed up one to many times and he might as give it up because he is damned to hell...which makes him ineffective for spreading the Gospel...We have liberty in Christ to do all things, but not all things are benificial...should we use our liberty to sin?...God forbid!...Obviously the reason Paul made this statement is because the truth of the matter is that a believer's sins are all paid for...their account is no longer in the red...it is in the black and shall remain so....Paul is saying just because this is so, do not abuse it by feeling free to sin, because you are a new creation in Christ, no longer in the dark, but in the light...if you commit a sin, Christ has already paid for it, commit it again, Christ has already paid for it...But, why abuse the liberty in Christ?...don't do it!...
Originally Posted by Bright Hope for Tomorrow He didn't lie. Here's what He said about Adam's sin:
1 Corinthians 15: 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
The bible also says the wages of sin are death, not spiritual or eternal death. Do you believe the wages of sin are physical death? If you assume that is spiritual death, why don't you assume that through Christ all will be made alive spiritually?
You missed my point...the point is that i do not believe ALL will be made alive spiritually...it does not indicate one way or the other, but in relation to the other portions of the bible...what is resurrection, but being made alive from the dead...physically...being made alive spiritually is the New Birth...it does say in the bible that the second resurrection is for those that are to be judged at the great white throne judgement...
God destroyed the world through a flood...no one was there to save it...Christ comes and sacrifices Himself...His sacrifice had a temporal salvation for the world because it stayed God's hand of execution like that of the days of Noah for the wickedness of man...His Sacrifice had an Eternal Salvation for the chosen or elected of God...
ok, thanks for clarifying what you believe, however the scriptural account for this point and time as we understand it in philippians does not describe this as you have explained it.
You can interpret it to mean what you said, but I'll stick with the text and go from that point.
i am sure you are taking some verse in Phil. out of context...
Isa 26:9..........for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world willlearn righteousness.
and John the baptist was sadly mistaken when he went around proclaiming that "all flesh shall see the salvation of God"...................................
Just because you learn something or see something does not neccesarily mean it was in time...a promiscuous person may learn and see that AIDS is real and that there are lots infected with it, but, will it be in time to prevent his or her death from it?...
The text simply does not add up to all your saying. When you repeat yourself, you always imply that a bent knee is all there is.
The test describes a point where all will bow, yes, all will bow, it also explains that all will confess JESUS AS LORD.
The very fabric of salvation is confessing Jesus as Lord,
And not only that the text describes that this is done to the GLORY of GOD the FATHER.
Your responce carries a different implucation when you only write "bending knee". What I am saying to you is that I have no reason to believe your intepretation is the word of God because you continually explain things in the different manner than what the text describes in full.
Of course there is judgment and of course we all account for our lives, and there is no teaching from myself that tries to excuse mans actions, but fact remains, the text in philippians paints a different picture when combined with the whole of scripture than what you describe in your own words.
Confession simply means acknowledgement...it still does not indicate that those confessing will be saved on account of that confession in the afterlife....
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.
