BRXII Battle talk
- Thread starter Poly
- Start date
- Status
Ecumenicist
New member
Nineveh said:
Maybe in the "Church of the Eternal Control Freak."
I'd prefer they seek and find freedom from sin through Christ's Cleansing Blood.
Ecumenicist
New member
Sorry Logos, I meant the "Church of the Control Freak of the Ages"
Nineveh
Merely Christian
Dave Miller said:
What kind of limp reply is this dave? Are you now accusing Paul of preaching at the "Church of the Eternal Control Freak."?
Anyway, "if members of your congregation were committing sexual immorality, what would you do. Then I asked, if Paul said anything about this and if so where."
Gunna answer or disappear again?
PKevman
New member
And yet the same arguments rage on. It is hard to believe that people can be so stubborn. Universalism was exposed in the Battle Royale to be false teaching and not in line with what the Bible says, and this entire thread has practially been the Universalists attempt to forget the Battle Royale entirely and the issues discussed in the Battle Royale. It has gone in every direction EXCEPT to confront the exact issues that were debated and presented from our side. There are tons of unanswered questions from Battle Royale XII that Logos never came close to answering Biblically.
Universalism is and always has been contrary to what the Bible actually says, regardless of if you attach the word Christian to it or not.
I hope and pray that many who are trapped in this false system of belief will be liberated from it upon reading Battle Royale XII, so that they don't get further steeped into like Logos, Redfin, Red77, et all.
Have a great evening and PRAISE THE LORD!
Universalism is and always has been contrary to what the Bible actually says, regardless of if you attach the word Christian to it or not.
I hope and pray that many who are trapped in this false system of belief will be liberated from it upon reading Battle Royale XII, so that they don't get further steeped into like Logos, Redfin, Red77, et all.
Have a great evening and PRAISE THE LORD!
ApologeticJedi
New member
Redfin said:
Whether they are needed or not to establish the concept of eternal life is a moot point. That the Universalists don't deny eternal life is what I point out as their inconsistency! (Though apparently that flew over your head).
In fact, if other passages prove that we have eternal life, as you say, then that only adds credence to the idea that the word “aionios” means eternal in as far as the gospel writers were concerned. For they would not have mishandled a subject about eternal life and then toned it down to say it is “a season” of life.
Redfin said:
I didn’t expect consistency when dealing with univeralists.
logos_x
New member
ApologeticJedi said:
Eternal life is a gift of God, through Christ...not an inherant possession of humanity regardless of one's relationship with God.
The gift of eternal life does not impose an eternal Hell.
We believe in the gift of eternal life...but we know that the word "aionion" cannot be used to describe it..all "aionion" says is that Christians live through the ages. If one wants to prove eternal life you would need to look elsewhere...to the word athanasia (see 1 Cor. 15:53) and translated "immortality." Our mortal bodies must "put on immortality." Immortal people can’t die. That means they live forever.
Wrong. Look at it this way...If you have enough water to get to the well, do you die of thirst when you get to the well?
I doubt it because you probably aren't that stupid.
And I don't expect consistency where those that believe in an eternal Hell because Jesus gives eternal life are concerned.
Just look at how many ways they translate "aion" or "aionios" in our English Bibles...
Age, eon, time, period, today, the future, universe, course, world, worldly, world without end, since the world began, from the beginning of the world, ever, evermore, for ever and ever, end of my days, eternal, everlasting, always, permanently, constantly, of old, ancient times, all time (since) time was, (since) time began, (before) time began, all time, (since) the beginning of time, eternal ages, eternal life, eternity, course of eternity, utter (darkness), (the son) does (remain), ages of the eternities, (in and through) the eternities of the eternities, etc.
For 'aionios" the English versions use:- everlasting, eternal, eonian, age lasting, age during, age duringly, age abiding, (in) the time of the ages, age times, (before) the ages of time, of the ages, (in) the periods of past ages, (before) the ages began, for the ages of time, (before) the beginning of time, since the world began, (before) the times of the world, (before) times eternal, from eternity, from all eternity, for ever, unfailing, final, unending, permanent, immemorial, enduring, lasting, eternally, long, perpetual, an immeasurable eternity, last, heavenly.
You want consistancy? Consider what these resources say...
Dr. R.F. Weymouth, The New Testament in Modern Speech (p. 657), "Eternal, Greek aeonian, i.e., of the ages: Etymologically this adjective, like others similarly formed does not signify, "during" but "belonging to" the aeons or ages."
Dr. Marvin Vincent, Word Studies of the New Testament (vol. IV, p. 59): "The adjective aionios in like manner carries the idea of time. Neither the noun nor the adjective in themselves carries the sense of "endless" or "everlasting." Aionios means enduring through or pertaining to a period of time. Out of the 150 instances in the LXX (Septuagint), four-fifths imply limited duration."
Dr. F.W. Farrar, The Eternal Hope (p. 198), "That the adjective is applied to some things which are "endless" does not, of course, for one moment prove that the word itself meant 'endless;' and to introduce this rendering into many passages would be utterly impossible and absurd." In Mercy and Judgment(p. 378), "Since aion meant 'age,' aionios means, properly, 'belonging to an age,' or 'age-long,' and anyone who asserts that it must mean 'endless' defends a position which even Augustine practically abandoned twelve centuries ago. Even if aion always meant 'eternity,' which is not the case in classic or Hellenistic Greek-aionios could still mean only 'belonging to eternity' and not 'lasting through it.'"
Lange's Commentary American Edition (vol. V, p. 48), on Ecclesiastes chapter 1 verse 4, in commenting upon the statement "The earth abideth forever" says, "The preacher, in contending with the universalist, or restorationist, would commit an error, and, it may be, suffer a failure in his argument, should he lay the whole stress of it on the etymological or historical significance of the words, aion, aionios, and attempt to prove that, of themselves, they necessarily carry the meaning of endless duration."
On page 45 of the same section of Lange's Commentary American Edition , Dr. Taylor Lewis says: "The Greek aiones and aiones ton aionon, the Latin secula, and secula seculorum, the Old Saxon, or Old English of Wicliffe, to worldis or worldis (Heb. XIII 21), or our more modern phrase, for ever and ever, wherever the German ewig, was originally a noun denoting age or a vast period, just like the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew words corresponding to it."
The Rev. Bennet, Olam Hanneshamoth (p. 44), "The primary nature of olam is 'hidden,' and both as to past and future denotes a duration that is unknown." Olam is the Hebrew word for the Greek aion.
The Parkhurst Lexicon: "Olam (aeon) seems to be used much more for an indefinite than for an infinite time."
Dr. MacKnight: "I must be so candid as to acknowledge that the use of these terms 'forever,' 'eternal,' 'everlasting,' shows that they who understand these words in a limited sense when applied to punishment put no forced interpretation upon them."
Dr. Nigel Turner, Christian Words(p. 457), "All the way through it is never feasible to understand aionios as everlasting."
The Pulpit Commentary, vol. 15, p. 485, "It is possible that 'aeonian' may denote merely indefinite duration without the connotation of never ending."
The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 4, p. 643, "The O.T. and the N.T. are not acquainted with conception of eternity as timelessness." Page 644: "The O.T. has not developed a special term for eternity." Page 645: "The use of the word aion in the N.T. is determined very much by the O.T. and the LXX. Aion means long, distant, uninterrupted time. The intensifying plural occurs frequently in the N.T. ...but it adds no new meaning."
Dr. Lammenois, "In Hebrew and Greek the words rendered 'everlasting' have not this sense. They signify a long duration of time, a period; whence the phrase, during these eternities and beyond."
Dr. G. Campbell Morgan,“the prince of expositors” wrote in “God’s Method’s With Men” ; “Let me say to Bible students that we must be very careful how to use the word ‘eternity.’ We have fallen into great error in our constant use of that word. There is NO word in the whole Book of God corresponding with our ‘eternal,’ which as commonly used among us, means absolutely without end.”
Dr. Marvin Vincent, Word Studies of the New Testament (vol. IV, p. 59): "The adjective aionios in like manner carries the idea of time. Neither the noun nor the adjective in themselves carries the sense of "endless" or "everlasting." Aionios means enduring through or pertaining to a period of time. Out of the 150 instances in the LXX (Septuagint), four-fifths imply limited duration."
Dr. F.W. Farrar, The Eternal Hope (p. 198), "That the adjective is applied to some things which are "endless" does not, of course, for one moment prove that the word itself meant 'endless;' and to introduce this rendering into many passages would be utterly impossible and absurd." In Mercy and Judgment(p. 378), "Since aion meant 'age,' aionios means, properly, 'belonging to an age,' or 'age-long,' and anyone who asserts that it must mean 'endless' defends a position which even Augustine practically abandoned twelve centuries ago. Even if aion always meant 'eternity,' which is not the case in classic or Hellenistic Greek-aionios could still mean only 'belonging to eternity' and not 'lasting through it.'"
Lange's Commentary American Edition (vol. V, p. 48), on Ecclesiastes chapter 1 verse 4, in commenting upon the statement "The earth abideth forever" says, "The preacher, in contending with the universalist, or restorationist, would commit an error, and, it may be, suffer a failure in his argument, should he lay the whole stress of it on the etymological or historical significance of the words, aion, aionios, and attempt to prove that, of themselves, they necessarily carry the meaning of endless duration."
On page 45 of the same section of Lange's Commentary American Edition , Dr. Taylor Lewis says: "The Greek aiones and aiones ton aionon, the Latin secula, and secula seculorum, the Old Saxon, or Old English of Wicliffe, to worldis or worldis (Heb. XIII 21), or our more modern phrase, for ever and ever, wherever the German ewig, was originally a noun denoting age or a vast period, just like the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew words corresponding to it."
The Rev. Bennet, Olam Hanneshamoth (p. 44), "The primary nature of olam is 'hidden,' and both as to past and future denotes a duration that is unknown." Olam is the Hebrew word for the Greek aion.
The Parkhurst Lexicon: "Olam (aeon) seems to be used much more for an indefinite than for an infinite time."
Dr. MacKnight: "I must be so candid as to acknowledge that the use of these terms 'forever,' 'eternal,' 'everlasting,' shows that they who understand these words in a limited sense when applied to punishment put no forced interpretation upon them."
Dr. Nigel Turner, Christian Words(p. 457), "All the way through it is never feasible to understand aionios as everlasting."
The Pulpit Commentary, vol. 15, p. 485, "It is possible that 'aeonian' may denote merely indefinite duration without the connotation of never ending."
The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 4, p. 643, "The O.T. and the N.T. are not acquainted with conception of eternity as timelessness." Page 644: "The O.T. has not developed a special term for eternity." Page 645: "The use of the word aion in the N.T. is determined very much by the O.T. and the LXX. Aion means long, distant, uninterrupted time. The intensifying plural occurs frequently in the N.T. ...but it adds no new meaning."
Dr. Lammenois, "In Hebrew and Greek the words rendered 'everlasting' have not this sense. They signify a long duration of time, a period; whence the phrase, during these eternities and beyond."
Dr. G. Campbell Morgan,“the prince of expositors” wrote in “God’s Method’s With Men” ; “Let me say to Bible students that we must be very careful how to use the word ‘eternity.’ We have fallen into great error in our constant use of that word. There is NO word in the whole Book of God corresponding with our ‘eternal,’ which as commonly used among us, means absolutely without end.”
How do you make an endless aion? It would be simple to do...just place a word meaning "endless" to define the aion as endless.
The same would be true of aionion...if you want people to understand that it is pertaining to and endless age..simply place a word meaning "endless" to designate it as endless.
They don't...and I don't believe it was an oversight, nor the mishandling of the words employed.
Redfin
New member
PastorKevin said:
:blabla:
Yes, the same arguments do rage on. It is hard to believe that people can be so stubborn. Eternal torment was exposed in the Battle Royale to be false teaching and not in line with what the Bible says, and this entire thread has practially been the Eternal Tormentors attempt to forget the Battle Royale entirely and the issues discussed in the Battle Royale. It has gone in every direction EXCEPT to confront the exact issues that were debated and presented from our side. There are tons of unanswered questions from Battle Royale XII that PK never came close to answering Biblically.
Eternal torment is and always has been contrary to what the Bible actually says, regardless of whether you attach false definitions to the Greek words or not.
I hope and pray that many who are trapped in this false system of belief will be liberated from it upon reading Battle Royale XII, so that they don't get further steeped into like PK, Ninevah, Amiel, et all.
Anyone can "claim" rightness and victory, PK. So what? It doesn't even take originality.
:think:
Ecumenicist
New member
Nineveh said:
Not Paul...
I'd try to work with everyone involved to bring about healing.
Again, if you have a particular Pauline quote in mind, please share it.
Nineveh
Merely Christian
Dave Miller said:
Who said, "...we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." Do you even know? Do you even grasp what I was trying to say when I first quoted this unknown source?
This is how you would handle the sexually immoral in your congregation. Yet...
...you don't even know if Paul had something to tell us on this issue?
Wow dave, and you hold a position of authority in a church. Don't you think it's time to find out?
Ecumenicist
New member
Nineveh said:
I hope you have a nice weekend.
PKevman
New member
Redfin said:
And anyone can restate what someone else says, but that is hardly a compelling argument. Tell me what questions that were asked by Logos during the battle that I didn't answer Biblically? I can provide the exact questions and numbers from the debate that Stephen never clearly answered from the Word of God, such as the question of how angels are forgiven from their sins when Christ didn't die for angels. There has not ever been even a hint of an attempt from Universalists to answer that question, in fact they want to make every effort to steer the conversation away from the fallen angels when that topic comes up. To say that Satan and the fallen angels get saved is not supported anywhere in Scripture, and Universalists refuse to admit this.
Here is why: Universalists don't want to admit that Satan and the fallen angels are tormented for all eternity in the Lake of Fire because it destroys their doctrine, and they would have to admit that eternal torment is possible, which is not something that any Universalist is willing to do. So they will fight and claw and attempt to prove that Satan and the fallen angels get saved, when in fact to do that they must make a ton of assumptions that are found nowhere in the Bible, such as:
-They must be saved because all are saved!
-If all are saved, then obviously Satan and the fallen angels are included.
-God provided some other way of salvation for the angels apart from Jesus Christ. (Which is in itself completely unBiblical because there is no other way to be saved except by Jesus!)
-Angels are saved through the sacrifice of Christ, the same as fallen men. (This is even more unBiblical because the Bible makes it clear that angels CANNOT be saved by Jesus, because Jesus died for men and not for angels)
And this was just one example of many that I could cite from the debate itself, which was overwhelmingly voted to be in our favor. Not to say that braggingly, but rather to say that those who read it and cared enough to vote on it overwhelmingly said that we won the debate.
Now I didn't participate in the debate in order to win a debate, as much as I wanted to give those who are trapped in the false teachings of Universalism something to think about and consider. But the point that I am making is why would we be attempting to take attention away from a debate that went very well for our position, as you say when you restate my statement? Really Redfin, you are grasping at straws, but then again what else would we expect from an adherent to Universalism?
PKevman
New member
Nineveh said:
I would think that anyone who is a Pastor or minister of any position or authority would have at least some knowledge of the Biblical principles for handling sexually immoral church members and what Paul had to say about it. I cannot believe that this continues to drag on with Dave refusing to give you a direct answer from the Scriptures.
ApologeticJedi
New member
Curious about Pastor Kevin's statements I went back and found this....
Wow! I am amazed at how vastly unqualified certain people are to hold an office in the church and never feel the need to qualify themselves at some point. So that when they are asked about sexual immorality in their church they give this sort of answer and then ask for any verses to the contrary.
Dave, do you not own a concordance? Do you never read your Bible? If a subject comes up, what do you consult first? Your own wisdom?
Sorry if this seems harsh, but I'm being less harsh to those in authority at their church than Jesus will be on judgment day. It is better to correct yourself here on earth. I'd be happy to point you in the right direction on this subject. Start by reading Paul's letters to the Corinthians - and while I know what chapter and verse, I'd rather if you read the whole thing for your answer.
Wow! I am amazed at how vastly unqualified certain people are to hold an office in the church and never feel the need to qualify themselves at some point. So that when they are asked about sexual immorality in their church they give this sort of answer and then ask for any verses to the contrary.
Dave, do you not own a concordance? Do you never read your Bible? If a subject comes up, what do you consult first? Your own wisdom?
Sorry if this seems harsh, but I'm being less harsh to those in authority at their church than Jesus will be on judgment day. It is better to correct yourself here on earth. I'd be happy to point you in the right direction on this subject. Start by reading Paul's letters to the Corinthians - and while I know what chapter and verse, I'd rather if you read the whole thing for your answer.
Ecumenicist
New member
PastorKevin said:
Keep thinking Kevin, its a good habit.
ApologeticJedi
New member
kmoney said:
I think it good to help heal their lives, but it is not the most important thing at that moment. Trying to heal their lives without turning them over to Satan will destroy lives.
It is never a good idea to think you are smarter than God. When God has left instructions for how to deal with the sexually immoral and someone says "Well, I think this approach is better....", frankly that tells me they are not equipped to be a leader in a church.
Even worse is that someone that gives their own opinion and then announces that they have not sought God's opinion and suggests that people need to instruct them if they disagree. Uggg!!!
logos_x
New member
PastorKevin said:
Because I believe in Jesus Christ I have saving faith.
Apparently Satan himself, and demons as well, will be given the gift of belief some day.
They must be reconciled to God through the blood of the cross. Why should that seem so incredible to us?
I think it's because we think God made a permanent hell to place them in. But if it is corrective and remedial as well as punitive, then even hell itself was made to rid the universe of evil...even within sentient creatures that God created, including even the Devil himself.
All that came from God must return to God (Romans 11:36). Christ Jesus didn't shed his blood on Calvary for mankind only, but for all creation (Rom. 8:20-21). We know that there are "spiritual forces of wickedness among the celestials" (Eph. 6:12). Don't they also need reconciled to God? Colossians 1:16-20 proves that all creation, "whether those on the earth or those in the heavens,"...which is where Satan is now.... will be "reconciled to God through the blood of [Jesus Christ]." What is wrong with believing this?
I don't think there is anything wrong with believeing this, but because of the doctrine of permanent misery for angel or man we think that it isn't plausible. But this isn't because of what the scriptures themselves say, rather it is because of the belief in eternal torment itself that causes that to be considered false. When eternal torment, as a doctrine like is currently believed by so many, is accepted as being plausible and even true...then the doctrine itself serves itself while reading and even translating scripture. And that is the problem: people BELIEVE in eternal torment, they believe it to be acceptible, and plausible, that Jesus Christ will raise the dead and billions of people will be in permanent and unending misery for all eternity as a result..and they think it to be "justice" solely because they believe God will do that...therefore it MUST be justice.
And, in reality Kevin I did answer it.
The idea that "universalists" shy away from this question is understandable, given that we are fighting a plausibility structure that says that God CANNOT save all MEN. If we can't convince you...with the preponderance of evidence presented....that God can do THAT, then why go on and try to prove that Satan and demons can be reconciled to God?
Truth is...the idea of permanent misery because the fallen remain fallen forever is what we are scripturally proving to be false. But no matter how compelling and scriptural an argument against it is presented, the believers in this idea of a permanent misery because the fallen remain fallen forever will not accept anything else.
The leaven has leavened the whole lump.
So, your assessment as to why (you think) the question goes unanswered is not because it destroys universal salvation when an argument is presented...but because the answer is considered implausible to those that believe in eternal torment, so making an argument for Satan being saved in the end still does no good as an argument when you can't even believe all MEN will be saved first.
- Status