BRXII Battle talk

[Kimberlyann]

Hmmm....I just skimmed the posts, I'll get back to them later when I have more time (it's finals week) and post more thoughts on them, but one thought I did have was this:

"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
(1Jo 2:2)

Logos used this in his argument and I don't quite see it the same way.

I think here that John differentiates between 'ours' and the 'whole world' perhaps to emphasize that salvation is open to all people, be they Jews or Gentiles, or the 'saved' and 'unsaved.' For an analogy, it would be like me going in front of my classroom and saying that I have a free movie ticket for everyone in the classroom, but then only half the class takes it. It's open to everyone, but not everyone got in on it. (my apologies for reducing salvation to a movie....especially with the crummy movies they turn out these days)

Those are my thoughts....yours? :idunno:

"…that in the mouth of TWO OR THREE WITNESSES every word may be established" (Matt. 18:16).

"…In the mouth of TWO OR THREE WITNESSES shall every word be established" (II Cor. 13:1).

In order to establish a Scriptural truth or doctrine we are to have at least two Scriptural witnesses.


I wonder if we have a second witness to 1 John 2:2?

Ahh, I found one.

“We both labor and suffer reproach because we trust in the living God who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.” I Tim. 4:10.

 

[Nomad]

"…that in the mouth of TWO OR THREE WITNESSES every word may be established" (Matt. 18:16).

"…In the mouth of TWO OR THREE WITNESSES shall every word be established" (II Cor. 13:1).

In order to establish a Scriptural truth or doctrine we are to have at least two Scriptural witnesses.


I wonder if we have a second witness to 1 John 2:2?

Ahh, I found one.

“We both labor and suffer reproach because we trust in the living God who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.” I Tim. 4:10.

Hehe, I found one too:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life

 

[Ecumenicist]

Hehe, I found one too:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life

Phil 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Sounds like, by the witness of Paul, "whosoever," in the fullness of time, becometh "all."

 

[Just Tom]

All =

A-1,Adjective,3956,pas>

Radically means "all."

Used without the article it means "every," every kind or variety. So the RV marg. in Eph. 2:21, "every building," and the text in Eph. 3:15, "every family," and the RV marg. of Acts 2:36, "every house;" or it may signify "the highest degree," the maximum of what is referred to, as, "with all boldness" Acts 4:29. Before proper names of countries, cities and nations, and before collective terms, like "Israel," it signifies either "all" or "the whole," e.g., Matt. 2:3; Acts 2:36. Used with the article, it means the whole of one object. In the plural it signifies "the totality of the persons or things referred to." Used without a noun it virtually becomes a pronoun, meaning "everyone" or "anyone." In the plural with a noun it means "all." One form of the neuter plural (panta) signifies "wholly, together, in all ways, in all things," Acts 20:35; 1 Cor. 9:25. The neuter plural without the article signifies "all things severally," e.g., John 1:3; 1 Cor. 2:10; preceded by the article it denotes "all things," as constituting a whole, e.g., Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 3:9.

See EVERY, Note (1), WHOLE.

<A-2,Adjective,537,hapas>

A strengthened form of pas, signifies "quite all, the whole," and, in the plural, "all, all things." Preceded by an article and followed by a noun it means "the whole of." In 1 Tim. 1:16 the significance is "the whole of His longsuffering," or "the fulness of His longsuffering."

See EVERY, WHOLE.

<A-3,Adjective,3650,holos>

"The whole, all," is most frequently used with the article followed by a noun, e.g., Matt. 4:23. It is used with the article alone, in John 7:23, "every whit;" Acts 11:26; 21:31; 28:30; Titus 1:11; Luke 5:5, in the best texts. See ALTOGETHER.

Note: The adjective holokleros, lit., "whole-lot, entire," stresses the separate parts which constitute the whole, no part being incomplete.

See ENTIRE.

<B-1,Adverb,3654,holos>

Signifies "at all," Matt. 5:34; 1 Cor. 15:29; "actually," 1 Cor. 5:1, RV (AV, wrongly, "commonly"); "altogether," 1 Cor. 6:7 (AV, "utterly").

Notes: (1) Holoteles, from A, No. 3, and telos, "complete," signifies "wholly, through and through," 1 Thess. 5:23, lit., "whole complete;" there, not an increasing degree of sanctification is intended, but the sanctification of the believer in every part of his being.

(2) The synonym katholou, a strengthened form of holou signifies "at all," Acts 4:18.

<B-2,Adverb,3843,pantos>

When used without a negative, signifies "wholly, entirely, by all means," Acts 18:21 (AV); 1 Cor. 9:22; "altogether," 1 Cor. 9:10; "no doubt, doubtless," Luke 4:23, RV (AV, surely"); Acts 28:4. In 21:22 it is translated "certainly," RV, for AV, "needs" (lit., "by all means"). With a negative it signifies "in no wise," Rom. 3:9; 1 Cor. 5:10; 16:12 ("at all").

See ALTOGETHER, DOUBT (NO), MEANS, SURELY, WISE.

<C-1,Pronoun,3745,hosa>

The neuter plural of hosos, "as much as," chiefly used in the plural, is sometimes rendered "all that," e.g., Acts 4:23; 14:27. It really means "whatsoever things." See Luke 9:10, RV, "what things."

Vine's Expositary HERE

Romans 4:11
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Here all only means those that believe. And it is talking about salvation so we have a contradiction or you have to do some mental gymnastics to make those other verses ALL mean every single person will be saved since they are talking about salvation also..

All of judea came out to be baptized by John..

But we know that everyone didn't since the Pharisees and alike resisted Gods will to be baptized so it can't mean all but it says all..

 

[Just Tom]

Phil 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Sounds like, by the witness of Paul, "whosoever," in the fullness of time, becometh "all."

Just because their knees bow and they confess that he is Lord when they stand before the judgment seat doesn't by any stretch of the imagination mean that they are accepting him as savior.. They will bow before the king and show the respect that is due him..

 

[Aethril]

Nitpicking

Nitpicking

"…that in the mouth of TWO OR THREE WITNESSES every word may be established" (Matt. 18:16).

"…In the mouth of TWO OR THREE WITNESSES shall every word be established" (II Cor. 13:1).

In order to establish a Scriptural truth or doctrine we are to have at least two Scriptural witnesses.

Matt 18:16 and II Cor 13:1 give instructions for a "finding of fact" in reference to exposing sin.

 

[kmoney]

God knew they were going to eat from the tree? Okay, so then, why did God tell them not to?

:doh:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

:doh:

What's with smilie? Did you miss the point? :think:

 

[Jefferson]

So, as I said at the start, I feel the question is at fault: unbelievers will not spend eternity in a lake of fire, but they will be there until they are destroyed.

What is your commentary on Ecclesiastes 3:11 which says God has put eternity in our hearts? Doesn't that mean we will all exist forever?

 

[Kimberlyann]

Matt 18:16 and II Cor 13:1 give instructions for a "finding of fact" in reference to exposing sin.

Ok....

knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20)

Why does Peter say "no prophecy is of any private interpretation"?

These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. (1 Corinthians 2:13)

Why does Paul tell us to compare Spiritual with Spiritual?


I believe it's to protect the integrity of the Scriptures.

 

[Kimberlyann]

Just because their knees bow and they confess that he is Lord when they stand before the judgment seat doesn't by any stretch of the imagination mean that they are accepting him as savior.. They will bow before the king and show the respect that is due him..

For it is written, "AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD." (Romans 14:11 NASB)
http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1843&version=nas
The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon
Definitionraise
to confess
to profess
acknowledge openly and joyfully
to one's honour: to celebrate, give praise to
to profess that one will do something, to promise, agree, engage

 

[ChasClean]

Quote:
Originally Posted by kmoney



What's with smilie? Did you miss the point?

No, he didn’t. And I didn’t either, though you chose to ignore it.

God is not all knowing?

Who is unorthodox?

Here is why God told Adam not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Rom. 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.

God’s command to Adam had the same effect as His commands to Moses.

It is the doctrine of eternal torment alone, which is causing many to believe God isn't really all knowing. As long as ET is held on to then God can’t be all knowing.

 

[xavier47]

Quote:
Originally Posted by kmoney



What's with smilie? Did you miss the point?

No, he didn’t. And I didn’t either, though you chose to ignore it.

God is not all knowing?

Who is unorthodox?

Here is why God told Adam not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Rom. 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.

God’s command to Adam had the same effect as His commands to Moses.

It is the doctrine of eternal torment alone, which is causing many to believe God isn't really all knowing. As long as ET is held on to then God can’t be all knowing.

Hear, hear!

 

[jasonalun]

Two separate issues

Two separate issues

Actually, this verse doesn't say eternal in either part.
Aionion chastisment and aionion life, The punishment of the ages and the life of the ages.

Later, after the resurrection from death, we "put on immmmortality".

This is why there is eternal life. But the verse in question isn't saying anything about eternal life. Since it isn't when it talks about life, it isn't when it talks about chastisememt.

Hope this helps.

You keep stating "aionios doesn't mean eternal" as if it's a well-established fact, and it is not. Your understanding of that word and the idiomatic phrase "age of the ages" does not square with a number of prominent lexicons, Liddell and Scott and Bauer's to name two. How do you explain their definition of this word, and it's meaning in verses like Lk 1:33? The Greek phrase in question ("eis tous aionas" - "into the ages") is used in connection with His rule of His coming Kingdom, of which there shall be "no end" ("ouk estai telos"). Therefore, the phrase must mean "eternal" in this context.

Your definition of this word and its related idiomatic phrase (age of the ages), as only meaning eternal "if it is associated with something (or Someone) that lasts forever" is a clever device you've invented to allow you to evade its plain meaning in any passages in which you don't desire it to have that meaning. I don't see any lexicon or respected expositor giving the meaning of aionios this caveat that you do. It is clear from context that this word means "eternal," or "without" end in many places where is not referring to an eternal being directly, so your definition, even ignoring the lack of lexical support, is false.

 

[That_Bloke]

Ecclesiastes 3:11: He has made everything beautiful in His time; also He has set eternity in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God makes from the beginning to the end.
Eternity is in the hearts of men: we all desire to live forever. But only those who have set their hopes on God will actually receive this eternity.

We are not eternal beings, certainly not since Adam was cast out of Eden. Sin has contaminated our souls, and has brought death to them. Eternal life is the free gift of God, but the wages of sin is death. Death, meaning destruction, lifeless. Death cannot mean an eternal life of torment.

Jesus' sacrifice was not so that all people can have this eternal life, regardless of whether they accept Him or not. When you die, all your chances are over!
John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
"...whoever believes in Him..." will have eternal life. So, if you don't believe in Jesus, then you do not have eternal life. Jesus will not pull you out of Hell when He feels you have suffered enough. You do not get eternal life unless you believe in Him!
Matthew 10:32-33: Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.
This does not mean that if we deny Jesus on earth, then Jesus denies us before God... and then later accepts us back. There is no coming back from Hell!

Jesus' sacrifice is sufficient for everyone - everyone has the potential to spend eternity with God - but they must accept it.
1 John 2:2: He is the sacrifice for our sins. He takes away not only our sins but the sins of all the world.
He does! But only if you accept it! If this was not the case, then why don't we all live a life full of sin, knowing that when we die, we will end up with eternal life with God?

Matthew 10:28: Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
God will destroy the soul if the soul is evil. He will do this by casting it into Hell. God cannot stand sin. Even the smallest sin is worthy of death!
James 2:10: For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.
God's requirement is perfection. As sinful humans, the only way we can have this perfection is through Jesus. So, without Jesus, our souls will be destroyed.

As to the actual debate, I feel that "logos_x" will have a hard time. The authority of the Bible is at stake! To obtain the truth on the subject, references to support arguments can only come from the Bible itself. If half the world were to say that actually, the world is flat after all, then that doesn't make it true. there needs to be actual evidence from a reliable source. In this debate, the only reliable source is the Word of God, because it is Truth. So far, "logos_x" is basing his arguments on what many other people have said, and not on what the Bible says. And also, arguments such as "After all, how can a bit of fruit bring death to someone that lives forever?" are extremely weak - this is not about the act of eating some fruit, this is about the act of disobeying the most powerful being in the universe!!

The Bible has been translated many times into English - and almost all of those translations are done by using the original texts. Who is most likely to be in the wrong: many Biblical scholars, who understand the original languages, wanting to translate the Holy Scriptures as accurately as possible, having all come to pretty much the same conclusion as to the translation of the words; or a few people who do not agree with something which the Bible says, and try to "re-translate" to suit their own beliefs?

Mike.

 

[daddyugi]

Hi Logos,

Long time no post. I've had some challenges come into my life and I've had to take a
leave of absence. Pastor and I have talked about this Battle Royale and I'm looking forward to reading it all, but my post might not be timely.

I have a problem with two of the early church leaders you quoted or I really should say,
I have problems with the quotes. St. Jerome stated that the Universe is to "be restored
into their original harmonious state", but John tells us in Rev. 21 that "I saw a new
heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away". And
that's not mentioning what he said about being made into one body, again contradicting
Scripture. With the quote from Gregory of Nyssa, and I'll repost it "For it is evident that
God will in truth be all in all when there shall be no evil in existence, when every created
being is at harmony with iteself and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord;
when every creature shall have been made one body" he is saying that God cannot be
all in all until there is no evil. Poppycock. God is all in all now, if He weren't, He would
be an impotent god, not the Omnimpotent God that He is. Quoting men that deny
Scripture and deny God is not a good way to start your round. I look forward, if you have
time to respond, to your comments. God bless you.

 

[CabinetMaker]

From Logos_x's opening post:

If you read these various lady's and gentlemen's words carefully and prayerfully...ask yourself: What GOOD is the doctrine of eternal torment? What would be the point in forcing someone to live forever under the conditions of torment without any hope of redemption from that torment? Today, the Christian religion calls this "death".

There is no good in it. Thats the point. It is no good at all and should be avoided!

 

[logos_x]

From Logos_x's opening post:


There is no good in it. Thats the point. It is no good at all and should be avoided!

Then how can GOD be behind it, C.M?

God does not create evil...especially one that is permanent. That's the point!

 

[CabinetMaker]

The opening posts were pretty well done and about even, Logos, i'm sorry your second round post was very weak. You asserted over and over the eternal never has and never will mean forever (an odd statement comming from you when you think about it) .

If you are going to base you arguments against and eternal hell on the meaning of one word I might suggest you call on some more sources. I would suggest you stay away form tentmaker.org and other universal salvation sights. Your argumetn will carry more weight if you can find Greek scholars and/or theologins who are not associated with universal salvation.

Its just a thought on what would give your arguments more credability.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Then how can GOD be behind it, C.M?

God does not create evil...especially one that is permanent. That's the point!

Where is your evidence that the lake of fire is evil. Evil is actove opisition to Gods will. The lake of fire and those to be cast into it are Gods will as proclaimed by Jesus in Mathew 25.

Hell is not an evil punishment, it is a just punishment handed down by a just God.