BRXII Battle talk

[PKevman]

More Universalism confusion:

More Universalism confusion:

The whole idea that God "forces" someone to be SAVED is a bit ridiculous.

Salvation is a work of God. He makes you willing.

Oh ok I get it. So God MAKES you willing, but He doesn't force you to be saved....... Makes perfect sense...... :hammer:

 

[PKevman]

Why do you misrepresent me? I did not offer the conversion of Paul as "...proof that God forces people to accept Him..."

I don't. You said in post #3259:

Salvation is a work of God. He makes you willing. You need to give a bit more credit the Holy Spirit who guides us into His Truth.

To which I said:

Please cite the Scripture verse that says God MAKES you willing.

Thank you.

Note my use of please and thank you, nothing impolite or rude. A simple request. Your response was:

Read about the conversion of Saul/Paul.

So are you now arguing that God FORCING someone to be saved, and God MAKING someone be saved are two different things? Help us out here Dale.....

 

[red77]

Oh ok I get it. So God MAKES you willing, but He doesn't force you to be saved....... Makes perfect sense...... :hammer:

I think Dale answered this with his earlier answer in regards to Saul's conversion, Saul wasnt 'forced' into wanting to follow God - but after the road to Damascus it was highly unlikely that he would want to remain the persecutor of Christians he formally was....

 

[red77]

But I don't. IF this were a parable it would be the ONLY parable that Jesus told in which SPECIFIC names are used. So the onus is again NOT on me to prove WHY it is not a parable. The onus is on YOU to prove why it is!

Neither of us can "proove" it one way or another, but its a very tenuous assumption to make that this has to be a parable because a name is mentioned - especially when that name has an underlying significance

And why do you think that is, Red? Could it be because it would be the ONLY parable in which a name is used? And the text says there was a "CERTAIN rich man" (emphasis mine). There was a CERTAIN rich man, and a CERTAIN beggar NAMED Lazarus. Sounds like real people to me!

and that name translates as 'misery' or if you are correct 'the one that God helps', the rich man isnt named at all, and why so much emphasis on the word 'certain'?

Talk rationally? In verse 23 it says that he was in torment.

In verse 24 it says “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’

Where you suspend rationality is trying to explain away the torture the man is going through and say that HE is talking RATIONALLY. The text clearly says he is CRYING OUT! In fact here is another word study for you, the Greek word for "cried" has in its meaning to call out loudly! It is in fact used of Jesus when He cries out "with a loud voice" in Luke 23:46. It is used of Paul in Acts 16:28 when he again "calls out with a loud voice". In Revelation 14:18 it is used of an angel who "Cried out with a loud voice". In every instance I see this word used in the New Testament, it always means to cry out with a loud voice. So in order to swallow your story that the man is talking rationally, we must ignore what this word "Cried" means in the text.

Further in verse 27 he is begging for mercy for his unsaved brothers.

Red77 can you provide proof that people in torment CANNOT cry in a loud voice and beg for mercy? If so please cite your source or else please stop making this argument because it doesn't work!

Pastor - if it isnt already obvious that someone who is on fire is not capable of holding a rational and coherent conversation - either talking or screaming - then I doubt anything I could say would convince you, it is taking this story literally that just doesnt work....

 

[red77]

:chuckle: Funny CM!

Sadly though, Red's whole argument has often consisted of "I believe God will accomplish everything he wills" or something similar to that restated 500 times.

and yours has been that God isnt going to be able to accomplish what he wills - or something similar to that restated 500 times....

 

[CabinetMaker]

and yours has been that God isnt going to be able to accomplish what he wills - or something similar to that restated 500 times....

Red, glad to see you back! We have unfinished business.

Okay, its a parable. So what changes? Abraham, who is not being tortured, is still speaking about a chasm that cannot be crossed. The rich man is stull suffering. Lazars is still in "heaven". A life of missery is rewarded and a life of greed is punished which is taught elsewhere is scripture.

I conceed that it is a prable and what changes? In fact, your position is weaker. In the real world, speaking while in agony is extreemly difficult, not impossible mind you, but difficult. In a parable it is much easier to accept since it is offered as an example, not a real person.

So you have your way and it is a parable. What changes?

I am looking forward to you answer!

 

[Nineveh]

Salvation is a work of God. He makes you willing. You need to give a bit more credit the Holy Spirit who guides us into His Truth.

God did not force me into a relationship with Him. You keep wanting to miss the part I could have said no. You could have said no. Everyone has that choice to make.

 

[red77]

Red, glad to see you back! We have unfinished business.

Greetings CM! :e4e: Indeed we do

I am looking forward to you answer!

Well, here it is, if you are willing to accede the possibility that this is indeed a parable then you have to also be able to accept that it is not depicting literal events, the rich man and Lazarus are not physical people but metaphors, I did some research on this story and if i recall correctly Logos gave an explanation somewhat earlier in this thread, the parable revolves around the state of Israel, and in particular the jews and the gentiles, I will try and get a more detailed explanation for this if you're interested, in regards to the 'chasm', well.....it could make sense that those in a hell would want to get out - but not much to believe that its there to stop people from crossing over from Heaven also!

 

[red77]

God did not force me into a relationship with Him. You keep wanting to miss the part I could have said no. You could have said no. Everyone has that choice to make.

Do you think that anyone who was in Saul's position would have said no when confronted with the living God? Bearing in mind he was the self confessed biggest enemy of Christianity that there was and he chose to dedicate himself to God?

 

[Nineveh]

Do you think that anyone who was in Saul's position would have said no when confronted with the living God?

The question is, "can we". The answer is "yes".

 

[dale]

Why do you misrepresent me? I did not offer the conversion of Paul as "...proof that God forces people to accept Him..."

I don't. You said in post #3259:

Salvation is a work of God. He makes you willing. You need to give a bit more credit the Holy Spirit who guides us into His Truth.

You then asked me to:

Please cite the Scripture verse that says God MAKES you willing.

Thank you.

To which I referenced the conversion of Saul/Paul.

You then said:

I've read it plenty of times. Why do you think the conversion of Paul is a proof that God forces people to accept Him?...

This is how you misrepresented me Kevin, I said nothing about God forcing anyone to be saved. I said He makes them willing. I also said I trust you know the difference. Apparently you don't.

So are you now arguing that God FORCING someone to be saved, and God MAKING someone be saved are two different things? Help us out here Dale.....

Nope. I saying there's a difference between God forcing someone to be saved and God making someone want to be saved.

BTW, lest we forget...

Please cite the Scripture verse that says "Paul could have rejected at any time God's plan for his life."

 

[red77]

The question is, "can we". The answer is "yes".

highly unlikely though isnt it? If Saul hadnt encountered the living God then its not likely he would have had a change of heart is it? It stands to reason that anyone in the same position would do the same, after all - Saul was the biggest enemy of Christianity there was at the time and he converted....

 

[Nineveh]

highly unlikely though isnt it?

Not really.

God lived in the midst of Israel, yet they chose their own way time and again.

If Saul hadnt encountered the living God then its not likely he would have had a change of heart is it?

You can't say the same for the first Saul though, can you?

It stands to reason that anyone in the same position would do the same, after all - Saul was the biggest enemy of Christianity there was at the time and he converted....

But pharaoh loved God and His people? Who has seen the fearsome hand of the Living God more clearly than he?

 

[dale]

God did not force me into a relationship with Him. You keep wanting to miss the part I could have said no. You could have said no. Everyone has that choice to make.

I am not suggesting He forced you. I saying He showed you your need and the solution. Sorta like convincing an anorexic of the fact that they are starving themselves to death, then offering food.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Greetings CM! :e4e: Indeed we do





Well, here it is, if you are willing to accede the possibility that this is indeed a parable then you have to also be able to accept that it is not depicting literal events, the rich man and Lazarus are not physical people but metaphors, I did some research on this story and if i recall correctly Logos gave an explanation somewhat earlier in this thread, the parable revolves around the state of Israel, and in particular the jews and the gentiles, I will try and get a more detailed explanation for this if you're interested, in regards to the 'chasm', well.....it could make sense that those in a hell would want to get out - but not much to believe that its there to stop people from crossing over from Heaven also!

You are not satisfied that it is a parable even! IF what you say is true, then it is the only parable Jesus ever taught that was about a nation instead of and individuals relationship with God. That is just redefining the scripture too much to be acceptable.

Don't you see what you are doing? You are taking a piece of scripture and redefining it as a parable. Once you have convinced yourself that it is a parable then you continue to redefine the meaning of the parable to make into something that fits with your preconceived belief.

he last line of your post, "in regards to the 'chasm', well.....it could make sense that those in a hell would want to get out - but not much to believe that its there to stop people from crossing over from Heaven also!" has got to be a joke. Look at the passage. Abraham says quite plainly that it is a chasm that cannot be crossed. How can you believe that something that is described as impossible to cross can be crossed? Seriously, how can you take some that says a chasm cannot be crossed and say it really means it can be crossed by those who want to cross it badly enough.

If the rich man and the poor man are metephores, they are not metaphors for nations, they are metaphors for those whos treasure is on earth (rich men) and those whos treasures are in heaven (poor men). Logos's explination is no better. He willing twists the meaning of this passage to fit Universalist theology as well.

 

[logos_x]

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
(Joh 6:44-45 KJV)

This is a teaching of Christ Himself.

You will have to forgive us for believing that He told the truth, I guess.

 

[CabinetMaker]

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
(Joh 6:44-45 KJV)

This is a teaching of Christ Himself.

You will have to forgive us for believing that He told the truth, I guess.

Its not His truth thats in question. Its your interpretation of that truth that is in question.

 

[Nineveh]

I am not suggesting He forced you. I saying He showed you your need and the solution.

He shows everyone the Law. It's written on our hearts. The Law shows us the need for a Savior. God has done everything except make us accept Him.

Sorta like convincing an anorexic of the fact that they are starving themselves to death, then offering food.

Sadly, some anorexics go on to suffer and die for their willful ignorance.

 

[logos_x]

Its not His truth thats in question. Its your interpretation of that truth that is in question.

I'm sorry, I thought it was your interpretation that was in question.

 

[Nineveh]

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
(Joh 6:44-45 KJV)

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.

This is a teaching of Christ Himself.

So was the above verse.

You will have to forgive us for believing that He told the truth, I guess.

He did tell the Truth. Both times.