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.
A lot of debate has been raging about universal reconcilation vs. eternal torment. Personally, I haven't decided one way or the other as I'm still debating it myself, though I lean toward ET. But I would like to throw one question out there for a UR to respond to:
We don't debate whether Jesus is Lord in here. Why? Because the scriptures leave us in absolutely no doubt as to the answer: He is. For such an equally important foundational Christian concept as the truth of universal reconcilation of all man, why doesn't scripture leave us equally in absolutely no doubt that it is? Put another way, why didn't God fill the bible with as much proof of universal reconcilation as He did man's salvation through Jesus' sacrifice?
There's the question. For those who say He did leave as much proof, I would say that's bogus. If that was true we wouldn't even be debating the issue. It'd be as crystal-clear and beyond question as the truth of salvation through Jesus.
We are blessed. Most have never known who Jesus is in this life, have never heard of Him. Maybe you can ask Him when we get there, thrillobyte There are very many things that God hid from many, including who Jesus was. Jesus Himself said that there were many things that the disciples were unable to bear at that time. It was a revealing. God bless.
Shana, no offense, I think that's evasive. Jesus hid many things from the Jews but He never hid His sovereignty from them. It IS possible God closed their eyes to his Lordship, but then we right back at that slippery slope of the unfairness of it--to deliberately do something to man that cripples his ability to accept what will save him. Right?
hmm, read my addition to my first response to you. You got there before me. (hehe) Going to bed now and will be gone most of tomorrow. I will reply when I get back tomorrow evening.
What did you add, thrillobyte? Yes, God deliberately blinds, and hides some things from some people. Most have been in darkness in this life, concerning who Jesus is. God bless.
A lot of debate has been raging about universal reconcilation vs. eternal torment. Personally, I haven't decided one way or the other as I'm still debating it myself, though I lean toward ET. But I would like to throw one question out there for a UR to respond to:
We don't debate whether Jesus is Lord in here. Why? Because the scriptures leave us in absolutely no doubt as to the answer: He is. For such an equally important foundational Christian concept as the truth of universal reconcilation of all man, why doesn't scripture leave us equally in absolutely no doubt that it is? Put another way, why didn't God fill the bible with as much proof of universal reconcilation as He did man's salvation through Jesus' sacrifice?
There's the question. For those who say He did leave as much proof, I would say that's bogus. If that was true we wouldn't even be debating the issue. It'd be as crystal-clear and beyond question as the truth of salvation through Jesus.
Well, many of the concepts you may or may not hold to be true concerning the interpretation of scripture are taken for granted by most Christians today.
Such as the trinity, Nature of Christ's death and resurrection. Prophecy as far as being Futurist or Preterist. The necessity of water Baptism. Whether or not Christ was actually God incarnate as a man or just the son of God. Heck in the time of Christ there where three main sects of Judaism which had their own interpretation of scriptures as well. Sadducees, Pharisees, and the Essenes.
Look at this list ...
The first seven Ecumenical Councils
Main article: First seven Ecumenical Councils
1. First Council of Nicaea (325) repudiated Arianism and adopted the original Nicene Creed, fixed Easter date(); recognized primacy of the sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch and granted the See of Jerusalem a position of honor.
2. First Council of Constantinople (381) repudiated Arianism and Macedonianism, revised the Nicene Creed in regard to the Holy Spirit
3. Council of Ephesus (431) repudiated Nestorianism, proclaimed the Virgin Mary as the Theotokos ("Birth-giver to God", "God-bearer", "Mother of God"), repudiated Pelagianism, and reaffirmed the Nicene Creed.
This and all following councils are not recognized by the Assyrian Church of the East.
Second Council of Ephesus (449) declared Eutyches orthodox and attacked his opponents.
Though originally convened as an Ecumenical council, this council is not recognized as Ecumenical and denounced as a Robber Council by the Chalcedonians (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants).
4. Council of Chalcedon (451) repudiated the Eutychian doctrine of monophysitism, adopted the Chalcedonian Creed, which described the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ, human and divine. Reinstated those deposed in 449 and deposed Dioscorus of Alexandria. Elevation of the bishoprics of Constantinople and Jerusalem to the status of patriarchates.
This and all following councils are rejected by the Oriental Orthodoxy.
5. Second Council of Constantinople (553) repudiated the Three Chapters as Nestorian, condemned Origen of Alexandria, decreed the Theopaschite Formula.
6. Third Council of Constantinople (680-681) repudiated Monothelitism and Monoenergism.
Quinisext Council, also called Council in Trullo [2] (692) addressed matters of discipline (in amendment to the 5th and 6th councils) and established the Pentarchy. The Ecumenical status of this council was repudiated by the western churches.
7. Second Council of Nicaea (787) restored the veneration of icons (condemned at the Council of Hieria, 754)and repudiated iconoclasm. This council is rejected by some Protestant denominations, which condemned the veneration of icons.
The list of controversial interpretations and doctrines throughout church history goes on and on. Why was it necessary for so many councils to determine acceptable doctrine? Why where there so many schisms involved in the process of these councils?
The references to universal reconciliation is obviously stated in various places throughout the bible. The question is, what about the doctrine of eternal torture? Once we understand the meaning of the word aion and it adjectives and of the word olam ... I think it becomes really quite clear. I know you wont accept this answer, but that doesn't necessarily mean that i'm wrong.
Last edited by Ironmaw1776; 08-01-2009 at 02:19 AM..
I consider universalism, eschatology in general not to be the most important teaching, I think it's plain enough for those who haven't hardened their heart.
on the other hand, that the dead are "asleep" according to bible appears very plain to me, yet the majority believes otherwise (Platonism, immortal souls), so no matter how plain anything is, many will teach otherwise following their own opinion.
if the bible would actually teach endless torment why not in clear words?
e.g. Greek tartaros instead a location near Jerusalem (gehenna), aidios instead of aiônios, aidiotês instead of aiôn, timôria (vengeance) instead of kolasis (remedial punishment, Mt. 25:46)
if you compare the koran with the bible, the bible is utterly silent on the subject of hell (rich man and Lazarus I consider to be a parable)
A lot of debate has been raging about universal reconcilation vs. eternal torment. Personally, I haven't decided one way or the other as I'm still debating it myself, though I lean toward ET. But I would like to throw one question out there for a UR to respond to:
We don't debate whether Jesus is Lord in here. Why? Because the scriptures leave us in absolutely no doubt as to the answer: He is. For such an equally important foundational Christian concept as the truth of universal reconcilation of all man, why doesn't scripture leave us equally in absolutely no doubt that it is? Put another way, why didn't God fill the bible with as much proof of universal reconcilation as He did man's salvation through Jesus' sacrifice?
There's the question. For those who say He did leave as much proof, I would say that's bogus. If that was true we wouldn't even be debating the issue. It'd be as crystal-clear and beyond question as the truth of salvation through Jesus.
That's simple ,in the original text eternal torment/hell is not even in the there. Neither was it in the early church . I don't even think UR is hidden it's there for all to see ,to see it needs the ET veil removing from our minds.
Just got back from walking the dogs and seeing the wonder of God's creation around me, even tells me He's the Savior of All.
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.
There are very many things that God hid from many, including who Jesus was. Jesus Himself said that there were many things that the disciples were unable to bear at that time. It was a revealing. God bless.
); recognized primacy of the sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch and granted the See of Jerusalem a position of honor.
