BRXII Battle talk
- Thread starter Poly
- Start date
- Status
Just Tom
New member
xavier47 said:
If I go out and walk down the street in my town with a sign that says
REPENT
OR GO
TO
HELL
OR GO
TO
HELL
I can predict that in 5 min I will have 3 people stop and tell me I am a nut. Do I need to have absolute foreknowledge to do this? No I don't..
Did Jesus need absolute foreknowledge to know that Peter would be thinking of his own life and be afraid for it and not want to get the punishment that he sees Jesus getting from the crowd. NO he didn't he knew that Peters faith was not that strong yet but it became stronger once he saw the risen savior..
It isn't that difficult..
Hey folks... try to remember that this thread is for discussing the posts in BRXII. If you have rabbit trails you want to go down, start a different thread.
WandererInFog
New member
Well, those were both an interesting read.
I think it becomes clear pretty quickly that logos_x has spent a great deal more time debating this issue and in many instances the arguments he presents do a good job of anticipating Kevin's argument's and questions. However, his actual lines of reasoning are of variable strength. For example, Establishing historical merit for the orthodoxy of Universalism is good, but then turning around and attempting to reject the doctrine of ECT on the basis that it offended some people who became atheists is a lot weaker. And in cases of many of the specific people he quotes trying to tie their atheism specifically to the doctrine of ECT seems at best of oversimplication if not an outright misrepresentation of their reasons for rejecting Christianity.
The biggest problem though that I had with logos_x post was the use of some extremely loaded questions, not quite "Are you still beating your wife?" level loaded, but fairly bad all the same. Some examples:
"Why do you believe that God could not create things in such a way that eternal torment would not be the outcome for the vast majority of the human race?" - Belief in ECT does not immediately carry with it the assumption that in particular percentage of the human race is saved or damned. One could easily believe in ECT while holding that the majority or even the vast majority of humanity will ultimately be saved. You can even find examples of strident Calvinist (ie Warfield) who held that the elect comprised the vast majority of humanity.
"Do you honestly think that an unending punishment that does not allow change is just?" - By throwing in that little adverb "honestly", this question implies that someone saying they think unending is just must on some level be being dishonest.
"What do you think Christ will do with that power, what God intends, or continue what Satan started?" - This one implies again that it's already been conceded that ECT is against God's wishes, which obviously at this point in the debate hasn't been established.
In terms of Kevin's first post, the content is a bit more succinct. He lays out the major passages seen as demonstrating ECT, and asks as for logos_x's interpretations of them. Many of these have been anticipated in logos_x initial post, but laying them out in that fashion should give both sides the opportunity to lay out their respective cases in an unambiguous fashion.
I would note though, despite the fact I just spent a lot more time criticizing logos_x's opening that's because there was just a lot more content there to sift through. I would have to say that he in essence "won" this first round, as he did a good job of presenting his case, and did so in way that anticipated many of the argument's of the other side.
I think it becomes clear pretty quickly that logos_x has spent a great deal more time debating this issue and in many instances the arguments he presents do a good job of anticipating Kevin's argument's and questions. However, his actual lines of reasoning are of variable strength. For example, Establishing historical merit for the orthodoxy of Universalism is good, but then turning around and attempting to reject the doctrine of ECT on the basis that it offended some people who became atheists is a lot weaker. And in cases of many of the specific people he quotes trying to tie their atheism specifically to the doctrine of ECT seems at best of oversimplication if not an outright misrepresentation of their reasons for rejecting Christianity.
The biggest problem though that I had with logos_x post was the use of some extremely loaded questions, not quite "Are you still beating your wife?" level loaded, but fairly bad all the same. Some examples:
"Why do you believe that God could not create things in such a way that eternal torment would not be the outcome for the vast majority of the human race?" - Belief in ECT does not immediately carry with it the assumption that in particular percentage of the human race is saved or damned. One could easily believe in ECT while holding that the majority or even the vast majority of humanity will ultimately be saved. You can even find examples of strident Calvinist (ie Warfield) who held that the elect comprised the vast majority of humanity.
"Do you honestly think that an unending punishment that does not allow change is just?" - By throwing in that little adverb "honestly", this question implies that someone saying they think unending is just must on some level be being dishonest.
"What do you think Christ will do with that power, what God intends, or continue what Satan started?" - This one implies again that it's already been conceded that ECT is against God's wishes, which obviously at this point in the debate hasn't been established.
In terms of Kevin's first post, the content is a bit more succinct. He lays out the major passages seen as demonstrating ECT, and asks as for logos_x's interpretations of them. Many of these have been anticipated in logos_x initial post, but laying them out in that fashion should give both sides the opportunity to lay out their respective cases in an unambiguous fashion.
I would note though, despite the fact I just spent a lot more time criticizing logos_x's opening that's because there was just a lot more content there to sift through. I would have to say that he in essence "won" this first round, as he did a good job of presenting his case, and did so in way that anticipated many of the argument's of the other side.
Kimberlyann
New member
Your right it doesn't make sense if you believe in eternal punishment, it would be more merciful to just let the dead remain dead. Another thing that doesn't make sense to me it the belief that the lost are being punished now, when they haven't even been judged yet. That isn't just.Just Tom said:
Remember God sent Adam and Eve out of the garden before they had the chance to eat of the tree of life and live forever.
The Resurrection is necessary for the dead to live again.
"and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment. (John 5:29) "
In your opinion. I think Logos is doing a excellent job.
denversurvivor
New member
Who cares what others think? Give me the BIBLE!
Who cares what others think? Give me the BIBLE!
Pastor Kevin used11 Biblical references to validate at least a portion of his assertions.
By contrast logos_x used: quotes from 25 people (including a few agnostics and at least one atheist) a concordance word search, an etymology book, two commentaries, two lexicons, and two dictionaries. The only scripture Logos used as proof text was a passing reference to the prodigal son. And trying to pull theology out of a parable is never a good idea. I sure hope more scripture is coming from Logos.
My score: PK 11 Logos_X 1/2
I know you can’t score the debate solely on who can quote the Bible more, but I did think it was interesting.
Who cares what others think? Give me the BIBLE!
Pastor Kevin used11 Biblical references to validate at least a portion of his assertions.
By contrast logos_x used: quotes from 25 people (including a few agnostics and at least one atheist) a concordance word search, an etymology book, two commentaries, two lexicons, and two dictionaries. The only scripture Logos used as proof text was a passing reference to the prodigal son. And trying to pull theology out of a parable is never a good idea. I sure hope more scripture is coming from Logos.
My score: PK 11 Logos_X 1/2
I know you can’t score the debate solely on who can quote the Bible more, but I did think it was interesting.
denversurvivor
New member
Focus People
Focus People
The omni's and the im's are a dabate for another day. :bang:
Focus People
xavier47 said:
The omni's and the im's are a dabate for another day. :bang:
Just Tom
New member
But he did this after they had fallen so he must have had a reason since if they would have then they would have lived forever in their fallen state and that would be miserable for them and God..Kimberlyann said:
I heard that the place those are before the judgment is a place called Abraham's bosom you know that parable..
A resurrection to a spiritual body for you soul to reside in... Not a complete recreating of their being..
Lighthouse said:
God is not all knowing? Orthodox?
Here is why God told Adam not to.
Rom. 7:7
10 I found that the very commandment (Do Not Eat of That Tree or any commandment from God) that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.
It is the doctrine of eternal torment alone, which is causing many to believe God isn't really all knowing.
Wanderer,
I would have to come a little closer to the truth too, if I believed, like Warfield, that those who aren't predestined to life, are then predestined to eternal torment.
In other words, what thinking person could live with the idea that the majority of people were predestined for eternal torment. He couldn't live with it. So he had to ignore part of his doctrine (the road to life is narrow and few find it) but accept the other part. In other words, he became clearly inconsistent.
I would have to come a little closer to the truth too, if I believed, like Warfield, that those who aren't predestined to life, are then predestined to eternal torment.
In other words, what thinking person could live with the idea that the majority of people were predestined for eternal torment. He couldn't live with it. So he had to ignore part of his doctrine (the road to life is narrow and few find it) but accept the other part. In other words, he became clearly inconsistent.
Questions I would like to have answered in the current Battle Royal. :think:
1. In the Book of Revelation there are 8 passages of Scripture mentioning the "overcomers" of the Lord. Why are ONLY overcomers mentioned as not being "hurt" by the Lake of Fire?
2. If only "overcomers" are not hurt by the second death/ a.k.a. the Lake of Fire, are the vast majority of the house of God subject to the Lake?
3.What does hurt/ ajdikevw in the Koine mean?
4. How does the Lake differ from our God the Consuming Fire?
5. How does the Lake compare with our God the Consuming Fire?
6. What is the significance of theion, and why is theion rooted in Theos?
7. Where & when did the Lake originate? Before Genesis? Before sin? After sin?
8. Are there early statements in Church history regarding the Lake of Fire and its significance?
9. Is fire in Scripture alway portrayed in a negative connotation?
10. Does Fire symbolize Deity in the Scriptures? Where? :sheep:
1. In the Book of Revelation there are 8 passages of Scripture mentioning the "overcomers" of the Lord. Why are ONLY overcomers mentioned as not being "hurt" by the Lake of Fire?
2. If only "overcomers" are not hurt by the second death/ a.k.a. the Lake of Fire, are the vast majority of the house of God subject to the Lake?
3.What does hurt/ ajdikevw in the Koine mean?
4. How does the Lake differ from our God the Consuming Fire?
5. How does the Lake compare with our God the Consuming Fire?
6. What is the significance of theion, and why is theion rooted in Theos?
7. Where & when did the Lake originate? Before Genesis? Before sin? After sin?
8. Are there early statements in Church history regarding the Lake of Fire and its significance?
9. Is fire in Scripture alway portrayed in a negative connotation?
10. Does Fire symbolize Deity in the Scriptures? Where? :sheep:
- Status