BRXII Battle talk

[logos_x]

What on earth makes you think for one minute that I don't believe that whoever was holy in their life will continue to walk in holiness in Heaven? What, on the other hand, could ever make you think that someone who is filthy would be allowed to remain filthy in Heaven? It isn't relevant to your viewpoint, if you'll simply read the verse. Why would we need to be told that whoever is holy will remain so in Heaven? We aren't. The verse is talking about now. It is talking about 'from now on' not in Heaven.

No one is allowed out of hell or the Lake of Fire. Nowhere in Scripture are we told that it is possible for anyone sentenced there to ever escape. Ever.

I don't believe anything unclean ever enters Heaven. That is why all men need to be saved. :duh:

 

[Aimiel]

Well, Aim, It seems to me that you cling to eternal torment as though it is necessary...even to the point of being unwilling to think any differntly about what the scriptures actually say. You hold on the your precious unending torment...like the ring in Lord of the Rings...and refuse to see it be destroyed, no matter how biblical the argument might be. You spout your gobbledegook as though it's gospel, and in the process derail God's ability to save all men...no matter what is presented in rebuttle.

All I can say is that your powers of perception are severely lacking. By the way, the way that Gollum liberated the One Ring from Frodo reminds me of a story: it's about this guy that once said that it would be better to cut off your hand than to go to hell. That's a powerful thought. I don't think He would try to get men to take hell so seriously if it weren't a permanent sentence. You need to look at Scripture again, and think about what The One Who wrote it was really trying to convey. He does care whether or not men get into Heaven, or He wouldn't have sacrificed His Son; He would have just said, "Ollie-ollie oxen free, everybody gets into Heaven." Thank God for His Love.

If I thought for one minute that God would be so underhanded or tricky as to say that people will be cast into the Lake of Fire, to be tormented for eternity for their sins and then change His Mind and let them out; I'd have to realize that 'god' is a liar and fake. I not only wouldn't serve him, I'd look for a way to bring his kingdom down, because he doesn't deserve it, it should go to the one who spoke the truth: "You shall not surely die." Death is the punishment that is upon men. Death is permanent. No one who has lived has gotten out of here alive. After we die, we then face judgement. If one is sentenced to hell (the second death) there is no parole board, no reprieve and no 'short sentences' ever given. Eternity. Heaven or the Lake of Fire, there is one waiting for everyone, which one depends upon who you believe in. The one who says that sin leads to eternal conscious torment or the one who says that sin is harmless.

 

[logos_x]

All I can say is that your powers of perception are severely lacking. By the way, the way that Gollum liberated the One Ring from Frodo reminds me of a story: it's about this guy that once said that it would be better to cut off your hand than to go to hell. That's a powerful thought. I don't think He would try to get men to take hell so seriously if it weren't a permanent sentence. You need to look at Scripture again, and think about what The One Who wrote it was really trying to convey. He does care whether or not men get into Heaven, or He wouldn't have sacrificed His Son; He would have just said, "Ollie-ollie oxen free, everybody gets into Heaven." Thank God for His Love.

If I thought for one minute that God would be so underhanded or tricky as to say that people will be cast into the Lake of Fire, to be tormented for eternity for their sins and then change His Mind and let them out; I'd have to realize that 'god' is a liar and fake. I not only wouldn't serve him, I'd look for a way to bring his kingdom down, because he doesn't deserve it, it should go to the one who spoke the truth: "You shall not surely die." Death is the punishment that is upon men. Death is permanent. No one who has lived has gotten out of here alive. After we die, we then face judgement. If one is sentenced to hell (the second death) there is no parole board, no reprieve and no 'short sentences' ever given. Eternity. Heaven or the Lake of Fire, there is one waiting for everyone, which one depends upon who you believe in. The one who says that sin leads to eternal conscious torment or the one who says that sin is harmless.

Well, Aim...the issue is that God did NOT say "eternity"...the chastisment is in TIME. "Ages of the Ages" is not the same thing as "eternity"...not by a long shot. The only way God cannot save all men in your view is because of this mistranslation. This and the association of salvation with Hell itself rather that salvation from sin and death. In your view, sin is harmless unless it leads to ETERNAL torment from which one cannot be saved.

No one is saying sin is harmless...which is obvious...so your strawman argument isn't even relevent. Sin and death are intimately intwined, but there is no need for and endless misery when there is salvation from sin and death. And eternal torment from which one cannot be saved flies in the face of the salvation God offers man, in a way that derails God's ability to save, because of death. This is considered "logical" by those that think God made an eternal torment to begin with...and no argument that says, scripturally, that He did not create it in the first place is considered "illogical".

Any argument I present is dismissed. Why should I continue...except so others besides yourself might see it?

 

[Aimiel]

Well, Aim.

The name is Aimiel. Would you like for me to refer to you as, "S_x?" I've never asked you to call me Aim, and I have no idea why you insist on it. You're being rude.

...the issue is that God did NOT say "eternity"...the chastisment is in TIME. "Ages of the Ages" is not the same thing as "eternity"...not by a long shot.

If the torment were only for a short (or even long) period of time, what would be the point of entering life lame rather than to suffer? Why not enter into life whole, after a good steam-bath for a few thousand years, rather than to be without a hand or a foot? It is because there is no escape from the Lake of Fire. It never ends.

The only way God cannot save all men in your view is because of this mistranslation.

God can and does do anything He pleases. Why, He can even create beings that have freewill, who choose death over life.

In your view, sin is harmless unless it leads to ETERNAL torment from which one cannot be saved.

If it only caused harm which was temporal, it would be completely harmless (compared to eternity). Since hell is forever, and evil leads people to hell, which is forever, then evil is harmful, because people will be harmed forever. If they were merely going to be 'corrected' by hell and then let into Heaven, where would the harm be?

No one is saying sin is harmless...

What are the consequences of sin, then?

Sin and death are intimately intwined, but there is no need for and endless misery when there is salvation from sin and death.

There is no need for salvation, if there is no endless misery. Everyone is good enough to get into Heaven, somehow or another, in your mind.

And eternal torment from which one cannot be saved flies in the face of the salvation God offers man, in a way that derails God's ability to save, because of death.

You're not thinking. God sent Jesus to save men from their sins, so that they wouldn't have to be tormented forever. :duh:

Any argument I present is dismissed. Why should I continue...except so others besides yourself might see it?

Logos, if by typing a response only one person might be saved from their sins, and not have to suffer eternal conscious torment but be allowed into God's Presence in Heaven, all the 'trouble' you put yourself to by being honest and typing responses to everyone who answers you will have been worth it. It seems like you're fishing for an excuse to duck out of conversations, rather than seeking to 'hook' the men who might read what you say and be convinced of the truth in your words. Me, I'm casting a huge net across as many waters as I can find. I want my boat to be overflowing. I don't want to say, "I couldn't find anybody who thought I was the greatest," when The Lord asks me who I brought with me. I'm willing to make myself of no reputation (as you already know) for the sake of The Lord.

 

[Nineveh]

Nin, I get the impression you don't like the answers, no matter how scriptural, if they disagree with what you think you know

On the issue of the second death you have offered non answers.

So...lets not take this anywhere...I disagree with you, you disagree with me. You think I'm wrong, and I think you're wrong.

That's as far as it goes for me.

Ok, then let me clue you in. The first death is the separation of the spirit from the body. The second death is the permanent separation of the spirit from God. There is no resurrection from spiritual death... except of course that which you add to the Word.

 

[logos_x]

On the issue of the second death you have offered non answers.

I've answered, and they certainly are not "non answers'

Ok, then let me clue you in. The first death is the separation of the spirit from the body. The second death is the permanent separation of the spirit from God. There is no resurrection from spiritual death... except of course that which you add to the Word.

Well, this is what the doctrine of eternal torment says. And it is this that I am arguing against.

At any rate, all death is to be destroyed Nineveh...even if you define it as separation, that means that all separation will be destroyed, and that means it will not last.

 

[logos_x]

The name is Aimiel. Would you like for me to refer to you as, "S_x?" I've never asked you to call me Aim, and I have no idea why you insist on it. You're being rude.

Ok, Aimiel. Sorry.

If the torment were only for a short (or even long) period of time, what would be the point of entering life lame rather than to suffer? Why not enter into life whole, after a good steam-bath for a few thousand years, rather than to be without a hand or a foot?

Indeed, why not?

It is because there is no escape from the Lake of Fire. It never ends.

Why?

God can and does do anything He pleases. Why, He can even create beings that have freewill, who choose death over life.

And, he can do what He pleases with them as well...even save them.

If it only caused harm which was temporal, it would be completely harmless (compared to eternity). Since hell is forever, and evil leads people to hell, which is forever, then evil is harmful, because people will be harmed forever. If they were merely going to be 'corrected' by hell and then let into Heaven, where would the harm be?

So...He CANNOT save people from Hell, once one arrives there, because if He does then theres no harm done? Is that your argument?

I think missing out on the Kingdom Age, and possibly even when God creates a new Heaven and Earth is quite a lot of chastisment...but is also not a monsterous thing to do and is also quite appropriate.

What are the consequences of sin, then?There is no need for salvation, if there is no endless misery.

Wow, Aimiel.
Why?

Everyone is good enough to get into Heaven, somehow or another, in your mind.

This is amazing. I haven't eliminated Hell altogether Aimiel...I've argued for one in line with God's purposes to save all men. There is need for chastisment...but eternal torment does NOTHING forever.
I really don't understand why you cannot wrap your mind around a punishment that actually accomplishes something.

You're not thinking. God sent Jesus to save men from their sins, so that they wouldn't have to be tormented forever. :duh:

I'm thinking...and that is exactly why I have argued against the above. :duh:

Logos, if by typing a response only one person might be saved from their sins, and not have to suffer eternal conscious torment but be allowed into God's Presence in Heaven, all the 'trouble' you put yourself to by being honest and typing responses to everyone who answers you will have been worth it. It seems like you're fishing for an excuse to duck out of conversations, rather than seeking to 'hook' the men who might read what you say and be convinced of the truth in your words. Me, I'm casting a huge net across as many waters as I can find. I want my boat to be overflowing. I don't want to say, "I couldn't find anybody who thought I was the greatest," when The Lord asks me who I brought with me. I'm willing to make myself of no reputation (as you already know) for the sake of The Lord.

No...It's pointles to respond to someone that is not interested in your answers, and refuses to learn anything from your responses...except that maybe the others who read it besides the one you are responding to could glean something from your response. It's like Jesus and the Pharisees. And, I'm sure Jesus would've liked to have more of the Pharisees actually listen to Him, rather than constantly trying to undercut His ministry...but at the same time, we learn a great deal from their exchanges, even though the Pharisees did not.

 

[Aimiel]

No...It's pointles to respond to someone that is not interested in your answers, and refuses to learn anything from your responses...except that maybe the others who read it besides the one you are responding to could glean something from your response.

If you were to take the Scriptures into account, rather than proof-texting and if you were capable of considering the possibility that I just might be right, then you might be capable of learning (or perhaps teaching) something. Until that point, when all you want to do is to lecture and explain how you're right and I'm wrong, all you'll have is mind-games. I can't speak for you, but I've learned a great deal not only from reading your responses (you're the most articulate and responsive universalist I've ever encountered, by far) but from considering The Word of God to ascertain what It actually says and means, to determine truth, as expressed by The Lord with His Logos, as well as His Rhema.

 

[dale]

If you were to take the Scriptures into account, rather than proof-texting and if you were capable of considering the possibility that I just might be right, then you might be capable of learning (or perhaps teaching) something. Until that point, when all you want to do is to lecture and explain how you're right and I'm wrong, all you'll have is mind-games. I can't speak for you, but I've learned a great deal not only from reading your responses (you're the most articulate and responsive universalist I've ever encountered, by far) but from considering The Word of God to ascertain what It actually says and means, to determine truth, as expressed by The Lord with His Logos, as well as His Rhema.

Have you considered applying those same principles to yourself Aimiel? If YOU were to take the Scriptures into account, rather than proof-texting and if YOU were capable of considering the possibility that LOGOS just might be right, then YOU might be capable of learning (or perhaps teaching) something.

Please understand, I'm not trying to be abrasive here. That just seems to be a common trait. Nobody seems able to really consider that they themselves just could be wrong. They hang on to their "plausibility structure" (as Logos would call it) with all they got. I suppose that's why it's called a plausibility structure, because anything outside of it just ain't even plausible.

That's another reason I don't believe in "free" will. Unless God broadens our plausibility structure, our sinful selves are trapped in only whatever we're able to learn from other sinful men. But we know that salvation is OF the Lord.

 

[dale]

Wondering why I can no longer edit my posts? I would like to have changed the wording a bit, but I guess someone thought it would be better not to allow that. Whatever.

 

[Aimiel]

Have you considered applying those same principles to yourself Aimiel?

I don't think of myself as having 'apprehended' anything more than this one thing: forgetting the things that are passed, I press forth, toward the mark for the great high calling of God, in Christ Jesus. When I speak with those who are overcome of heresy and yet call themselves Christian, I keep in mind only one thing: Christ, and Him crucified. That helps me to see them more like He does, instead of the way that religious people do, who will simply oppose everything that they say, excluding them from their clique. As a believer, I like to obey The Word of God which tells me to hope all things, believe all things, endure all things and God's Love will never fail.

 

[dale]

:squint:

 

[Nineveh]

Well, this is what the doctrine of eternal torment says. And it is this that I am arguing against.

Unfortunately your replies as to what death is are lacking.

that means that all separation will be destroyed, and that means it will not last.

That is your hope. That is also why you must carry around the "we all get to die to the flesh twice" idea.

 

[logos_x]

Unfortunately your replies as to what death is are lacking.

I don't think they are lacking anything. In your view something of us lives, on its own, and that lasts forever, regardless of ones relationship with the Lord. It is your view, therefore, that is lacking, making people content with the Serpent's lie "you will not surely die"

That is your hope. That is also why you must carry around the "we all get to die to the flesh twice" idea.

Precisely, it is my hope. It also happens to be my faith. However, as I explained before, those that face a second death are limited to specific people who's sins still cling to them because they have not accepted their salvation yet. It is not "we all get to die twice".

 

[logos_x]

I don't think of myself as having 'apprehended' anything more than this one thing: forgetting the things that are passed, I press forth, toward the mark for the great high calling of God, in Christ Jesus. When I speak with those who are overcome of heresy and yet call themselves Christian, I keep in mind only one thing: Christ, and Him crucified. That helps me to see them more like He does, instead of the way that religious people do, who will simply oppose everything that they say, excluding them from their clique. As a believer, I like to obey The Word of God which tells me to hope all things, believe all things, endure all things and God's Love will never fail.

That's great Aimiel.

To this I will respond with "who determins what is heresy for you?"

The dictionary definition of "heresy" is:

her·e·sy
n., pl. -sies.
An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member.
Adherence to such dissenting opinion or doctrine.
A controversial or unorthodox opinion or doctrine, as in politics, philosophy, or science.
Adherence to such controversial or unorthodox opinion.

By that defintion, everyone on TOL is heretical...including yourself. And quess what...to a Pharisee or a Saducee, Christ was a heretic and a blasphemer.

I, too, like to obey The Word of God which tells me to hope all things, believe all things, endure all things and God's Love will never fail.

I found I could not do that while clinging to the notion of unending and permanent misery.
I think untold millions of Christians in reality have the same difficulty...but think they must believe in eternal torment in order to remain faithful to scripture. I've shown that to be questionable...and is in fact the result of inaccurate translation. Because of this I've found that the doctrine of eternal torment is one of the biggest deceptions ever perpetrated upon mankind, it is a lie against both God and man.

Interesting, though, isn't it...that we both are motivated by essentially the same thing. :think:

 

[Aimiel]

...but think they must believe in eternal torment in order to remain faithful to scripture. I've shown that to be questionable...

:nono: No, you haven't. You've expressed your understanding of the Scriptures (in some regard) but you have not, in any way shape or form cast the least bit of doubt upon what the Scriptures so clearly state. You've expressed your own belief, and proof-texts to support it, but it isn't going to erase truth, simply because you maintain a myopic view of The Word of God and cling to your universalism.

 

[Nineveh]

I don't think they are lacking anything.

Of course they are. While the first death is rather easy, you totally fail to explain the second death.

In your view something of us lives, on its own, and that lasts forever, regardless of ones relationship with the Lord.

As testified to in the story of the witch of Endor and the separation in "the grave" of hell/Abraham's Bosom.

It is your view, therefore, that is lacking, making people content with the Serpent's lie "you will not surely die"

Um :think: Nope. That's the lie universalism spreads. The Bible indicates we all die once, then we are judged. It's the lake that is the second death. Unless one repents and accepts Christ, thereby being buried with Christ, they will suffer the second death. For you to tack on another resurrection past what the Bible proclaims is a false hope on your part.

Precisely, it is my hope. It also happens to be my faith.

You have placed your faith in a false hope. Your faith should be in the One who can save people out of the lake not in your extraBiblical ideas.

However, as I explained before, those that face a second death are limited to specific people who's sins still cling to them because they have not accepted their salvation yet. It is not "we all get to die twice".

Except if we take a look at that parable Jesus tells us, the rich man was repentant, but that didn't get him any favors. He wasn't even granted the opportunity to go warn his own kin away from the place he was. He was told, " ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”

What's sad logos, is One was raised from the dead, it was He Himself that warns us away from the lake. Yet, you still do not believe.

 

[Aimiel]

Taking Scriptures out-of-context, proof-texting and ignoring warnings found in Scripture is a dangerous business. We're supposed to rightly divide The Word of Truth, not pick and choose what we want to believe. Universalism isn't in Scripture, but eternal conscious torment definitely waits for those who don't believe The One Who wrote The Scriptures.

 

[logos_x]

:nono: No, you haven't. You've expressed your understanding of the Scriptures (in some regard) but you have not, in any way shape or form cast the least bit of doubt upon what the Scriptures so clearly state. You've expressed your own belief, and proof-texts to support it, but it isn't going to erase truth, simply because you maintain a myopic view of The Word of God and cling to your universalism.

Aimiel I'm not trying to cast doubt on what the scriptures clearly state. I'm not trying to erase the truth. I'm showing what the scriptures actually say in the Hebrew and the Greek in which it was written, and shown where the translation of those scriptures is not accurate. This is not a myopic exercise on my side. At any rate, I wonder, what have you done that is different...except refuse to realise that most people that were Christians in the first centuries of Christianity never heard of an endless torment, and the first systematic Christian theology contained Universal Salvation and punishments that don't undo Gods ability to save all men...which no one refuted formally for over 200 years. You still cling to eternal torment and utilize "proof texting" to support it. I don't see any real difference in your approach when it is compared to mine.

When the Bible says that Christ is "the savior of all men, especially the believers." I believe what it says. If what you are saying is true, Paul should've said Christ is the savior of believers, and ONLY believers. Well...that is NOT what he said. He said something very different that you teach.

But, hey, I couldn't see it either until the Lord opened my eyes to it.

 

[logos_x]

Taking Scriptures out-of-context, proof-texting and ignoring warnings found in Scripture is a dangerous business. We're supposed to rightly divide The Word of Truth, not pick and choose what we want to believe. Universalism isn't in Scripture, but eternal conscious torment definitely waits for those who don't believe The One Who wrote The Scriptures.

No...it isn't. Aion is not eternal, aionion is not eternal...unless there is the accompanying modifier that designates it as endless. Eternal conscious torment is not in scripture in the Hebrew or the Greek.