BRXII Battle talk

[Aimiel]

Truly Cluelessness is a choice.

After choosing it, one then will then heap to oneself teachers, by whom one will have one's clueless ears scratched, and then begin to profess oneself to be wise, but actually they become fools (clueless ones).

 

[CabinetMaker]

...Having read your last post I am still bewildered as to the misconception you cling on to regarding universalism, the 'psycho chef' being IMO totally ludicrous, no universalist that i'm aware of believes that God will 'force' people into being with him at all, rather that once a person comes to a full knowledge of the truth they would willingly want to be with God, its inconceivable to me that you think that people would somehow not want to be....!

Interestingly, I have had this conversation with Logos_x. The result of that conversation is that universalists believe that God will send people to hell and torture them until they "willingly" accept Him. Universalists generally agree that hell (lake of fire) is a place to be avoided. But if you don't avoid it, you are only tortured until you accept Jesus as Lord.

 

[CabinetMaker]

would i have to accept your offer on good faith ot would be able to see some evidence of the money first, its a bad analogy, you believe that people are condemned for not believeing in something they cannot see.......

It is a fair anology, IF you believe God is Honest.

It says 'every' knee will bow and 'every' tongue confess - to the glory of God right? How would having people confessing before being carted off to suffer interminably bring glory exactly

I see you do not understand the difference between Confes and Profess.
Profess: to affirm faith in or allegiance to
Confess: to own or admit as true:

You can confess that Jesus is Lord without ever professing your faith to Him. The demons and Satan confess that Jesus is Lord. They know it. They do not profess any faith or allegiance to Him, however.

which is where much of the debate over the original greek comes into play, 'age of the ages' etc...

age of the ages is a poetic way of saying forever. age-during really has no meaning as such.

So unbeliefe isnt actually a sin then....? :think:

I would supose that it is. It is not a sin under the law though. Jesus led the perfect life under the law and saved us all from judgement under the law. He ushered in the New Covenant. Under the New Covenant, each of us can have a deeply personal relationship with God. Or refuse to.

what direct question have you posed to me exactly? all I've seen is you saying that God has spoke to my heart and will I answer....Hence I told you to look at my icon, my avatar is a wolf and my icon is 'Christian'....and to be honest it seems more to me that no matter what verses are supplied to you which seem crystal clear in their words - without any need for contexturalisation - you will try and contrive them yourself in order for them to fit your own doctrine, there's nothing contrived about the passage "God is the saviour of all men especially of believers" unless you have to try and twist it.....i dont need to - i can read it along with many other passages and see a wonderful divine plan - no contrivance necessary....

You are right. I looked back over the thread. I have posed several question to Redfin, none of which has been answered. Would you like a shot? Answer this for me: Consider these verses as spoken by Jesus: Mathew 7: 13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
What does this verse mean to you? How do you deal with the word "destruction"? How do you deal with the terms "few" and "many"?

Then please explain what you believe the lake of fire to be CM - literal? Allegorical...? and why do you believe it to be one or the other, the truth should be crystal clear although whichever one you do believe there's plenty of those who believe in ET who would believe the opposite....the doctrine of ET is full of inconsistency, I've seen it first hand in the church I used to be in, there's more confusion among those who ascribe to it than anything else and it was yet another reason (as well as the nauseating horror of it) that I began to see no truth in it, I believe that God has declared what will be too CM, that Jesus' ransom was for all and that it will be testified in due time why dont you believe that?

I believe the lake of fire will be (future tense) real. Revelationis speaks of its creation so it does not exist yet.

I do not believe that Jesus's ransom will be accepted by all. Why? Because Jesus said His ransom will not be accepted by all.

I will be very interested to see how you respond to Mathew 7.

 

[logos_x]

Interestingly, I have had this conversation with Logos_x. The result of that conversation is that universalists believe that God will send people to hell and torture them until they "willingly" accept Him. Universalists generally agree that hell (lake of fire) is a place to be avoided. But if you don't avoid it, you are only tortured until you accept Jesus as Lord.

If I said anything like this then I mispoke.

Separation and banishment from God is torment.

The primary word for torment in the Greek is βασανισμός, basanismos: to torture, a testing by the touchstone, which is a black siliceous stone used to test the purity of gold or silver by the colour of the streak produced on it by rubbing it with either metal.

Touchstoning, testing for purity.

I don't think it means to convey torture...who or what would be commisioned by God to do this "torturing". I think it probably has to do with our own anguish at being separated, and our need for healing and purity in a shortfallen state bring to bear the inner need for reconciliation.

Just to set the record straight.

 

[CabinetMaker]

If I said anything like this then I mispoke.

Separation and banishment from God is torment.

The primary word for torment in the Greek is βασανισμός, basanismos: to torture, a testing by the touchstone, which is a black siliceous stone used to test the purity of gold or silver by the colour of the streak produced on it by rubbing it with either metal.

Touchstoning, testing for purity.

I don't think it means to convey torture...who or what would be commisioned by God to do this "torturing". I think it probably has to do with our own anguish at being separated, and our need for healing and purity in a shortfallen state bring to bear the inner need for reconciliation.

Just to set the record straight.

Did I miss-understand you? We were talking about a person who has heard that they will have a second chance after death to accept Jesus. They decide that they don't mind doing some time in hell so they lead an ungodly life on earth and then go to hell until they accept Jesus as their savior. This is a thread from june-july time frame. I was under the impression that you thought hell was a place of punishment and anguish, a place to be avoided. Did I miss-understand your interpretaion of the nature of hell?

 

[logos_x]

Did I miss-understand you? We were talking about a person who has heard that they will have a second chance after death to accept Jesus. They decide that they don't mind doing some time in hell so they lead an ungodly life on earth and then go to hell until they accept Jesus as their savior. This is a thread from june-july time frame. I was under the impression that you thought hell was a place of punishment and anguish, a place to be avoided. Did I miss-understand your interpretaion of the nature of hell?

Well...i am never going to say it souldn't be avoided, C.M.

What is it you really want to know?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Well...i am never going to say it souldn't be avoided, C.M.

What is it you really want to know?

What is the nature of "hell" to you? What is the image of "hell" to you?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

After reading this thread I think the majority of Universalists could learn a lesson from Logos_x. Logos, kudos for not acting like a rude jerk.

 

[PKevman]

After reading this thread I think the majority of Universalists could learn a lesson from Logos_x. Logos, kudos for not acting like a rude jerk.

A triple AMEN to that! :up:

 

[CabinetMaker]

After reading this thread I think the majority of Universalists could learn a lesson from Logos_x. Logos, kudos for not acting like a rude jerk.

I agree and gave positive rep to logos for being a gentleman.

 

[Redfin]

But if you are able, please supply a Bible verse that clearly proves the immutability of one’s salvational status after death, which is true to the meaning of the words in the original language. Do so, and I will for my part concede this whole issue.

Its already in the Battle Royale. Sorry if you missed it, but I don't like repeating myself over and over again. When someone shows you things that clearly fly in the face of Universalism you refuse to look at it and consider it. How about you suggest to Stephen he ask that question in the debate and I would be glad to answer it again as I have all of his questions.

Yeah, right, like a quick cut-and-paste from the BR wouldn't have been quicker, easier and more effective than that sorry non-response. :chuckle:

After all the fuss I've made about it, I'm sure you'd LOVE to share one verse of scripture that clearly proves the immutability of one's salvational status after death here, IF you could.

But you can't, since there is none.

:think:

 

[Redfin]

I have posed several question to Redfin, none of which has been answered.

Does lying fall under the "rude jerk" umbrella? :rain:

 

[Sozo]

After reading this thread I think the majority of Universalists could learn a lesson from Logos_x. Logos, kudos for not acting like a rude jerk.

Logos_x is one of my top ten favorite posters! :thumb:

 

[Kimberlyann]

After reading this thread I think the majority of Universalists could learn a lesson from Logos_x. Logos, kudos for not acting like a rude jerk.

Yes, Logos has been very much a gentlemen. :BRAVO:

However...I didn't notice the "majority" of universalists acting like rude jerks.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Does lying fall under the "rude jerk" umbrella? :rain:

From post 196
Now you must show me the verses that say there is salvation after death

[quote-Redfin] from post 197
Logos_X already has, in the BR.[/quote]
Note that I asked you, Redfin, not Logos, for the versers that support your belief. You avoided the question.

From post 322
Try this again. Can you provide one scripture, IN CONTEXT, that supports that salvation is availabe to those who have died? By death, I mean the final death that each of face and citezens of earth. The people raised by Jessus and Peter did ultimatly die. Is there one verse that says you will have a chance to accept Jesus after you are dead?

Actually there is no response from Redfin to date regarding my second inquiry.

So, here are two questions for you Redfin. You can cut and paste from the Battle Royal if you wish. All ask is that you quote your scripture, state what your interpretation of that scripture is and show that your interpretation is consistant with the context of the chapter from which the verse is taken. These are the same rules I follow when I site a Bible verse.

1) Can you show me on verse that clearly shows you will have a chance to accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour when you have died to the earth (for the last time in the case of those who were resurected by Jesus or Peter to a continued life on earth)?

2) Consider these verses as spoken by Jesus: Mathew 7: 13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Does the wide gate lead to destruction or a second chance? Did Jesus that only a relative few will find the life He offers and many will find destruction instead?

Two questions, spawned by the Battle Royal, directed to Redfin.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

However...I didn't notice the "majority" of universalists acting like rude jerks.

Then you haven't been paying attention.

 

[bigbang123]

Very fascinating stance BigBang... I assume you're an atheist. If I believed in Eternal Torment, I believe that I would quickly join your ranks.

wrong - i'm (for lack of a better term) a deist

 

[bigbang123]

Very fascinating stance BigBang... I assume you're an atheist. If I believed in Eternal Torment, I believe that I would quickly join your ranks.

wrong - i am, for lack of a better term, a deist

 

[ChasClean]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimberlyann

However...I didn't notice the "majority" of universalists acting like rude jerks.


Then you haven't been paying attention.

That was sort of a rude jerky thing to say...... wasn't it? :chuckle:

 

[bigbang123]

i said

Originally Posted by bigbang123

ALSO - cruel, barbarous, brutal, degenerate, depraved, evil, harsh, hateful, heartless, malevolent, merciless, monstrous, ruthless, sadistic and vicious

you said

Only if you stubbornly refuse to repent and accept the sacrifice that Jesus Christ made for your sins. Only if you shake your fist at God and decide you don't need Him or want Him in your life, in which case your issue is with Him and Him alone.

All of those words you used are descriptions of what Christ went through at Calvary. God allowed HIS OWN Son to go through all of those things so that you and I don't have to. God didn't create the Lake of Fire for people originally. He created it for the angels who sinned. When man sinned he consigned himself to the same judgment as the fallen angels. God WANTED to make a way out for men, so they wouldn't have to go there to pay the penalty His righteous judgment requires. So God HIMSELF came to this earth and paid that penalty in the form of Jesus Christ the God-Man.

my response

i believe in a creator but not the biblegod of your scriptures - so i'm not stubbornly shaking my fist at the god you believe in.

also your hell (if it really existed) is cruel, barbarous, brutal, degenerate, depraved, evil, harsh, hateful, heartless, malevolent, merciless, monstrous, ruthless, sadistic and vicious when you consider the unevangelized which over the centuries has been a very, hugh number.

the following quote from NO OTHER NAME (an investigation into the destiny of the unevangelized) by John Sanders

"...Just how large a group (has) the unevangelized been? It is estimated that in A.D. 100 there were 181 million people, of which one million were Christians. It is also believed there were 60,000 unreached people groups at that time. By A.D. 1000 there were 270 million people. 50 million of whom were Christians, and 50,000 unreached people groups. In 1989 there were 5.2 billion people, of whom 1.7 billion called themselves Christians, and there were 12,000 unreached people groups (figures from the World Christian Encyclopedia as cited in World Evangelization 16 [1989]:40). Although there is no way of knowing with certainty how many of these people were unevangelized, it seems safe to conclude that the vast majority of human beings who have ever lived never heard the good news of grace regarding the God of Israel and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. In terms of sheer numbers, then, an inquiry into the salvability of the unevangelized is of immense interest and importance. Do we have anything to say about the destiny of countless BILLIONS who have lived and died apart from any understanding of the divine reconciliation obtained by Jesus? Are such people automatically damned to hell? Does God genuinely desire the salvation of all people?"

I know the standard christian answer regarding the unevangelized is they will be judged based on their conscience and possibly given access to heaven because they are judged by a different standard than the ones who heard and rejected the gospel (romans 2:14-15). but, based on the biblical punishment for sin (both physical death & the 2nd death), whether it's disobeying the bible or your conscience (which everyone does), it would seem (according to the bible) that EVERYONE not biblically and correctly united with christ, whether evangelized or not, in the end is toast. in light of the stats given above doesn't that make the God of the bible seem a little too small for effective global outreach?