 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
TonyN
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 237 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18th, 2008 04:42 pm |
|
On Matt Slick's web page against Universalism he quotes verses that try to prove God will not save all mankind. Below are example verses but with an explanation from my POV:
"Enter through the cramped gate, for broad is the gate and spacious is the way which is leading away into destruction, and many are those entering through it." (14) Yet what a cramped gate and narrowed way is the one leading away into life, and few are those who are finding it" (Mat 7:13-14 Concordant Literal New Testament).
Tony's reply:
And Who or what is the root cause as to why they were not finding it? God is the root cause. He blinded Israel beginning in Isaiah's day and it continued into Christ' and Paul's day and continues to our day (see Isaiah 6:9,10; Matt.13:14; Acts 28:25-27; Rom.11:8). Before these people in Christ's day were even born they didn't have a chance to believe in Christ because they had been blinded by God (see Matt.11:25).
So if eternal torture be true, God is the most sadistic SOB in the universe for He brought these billions of humans into existence for no other reason then to torture them in fire for eternity. Yes, Christendom, that is your god, pathetic as it is.
But the truth of the matter is, that, yes, God blinded them and kept them from salvation for the future 1000 year age and new earth age. But He did this so that He would eventually be merciful to all (Romans 11:32).
Commentary on the above verse:
Matt.7:13 The crowds enter a city by the broad road which passes through the wide gate. The narrow side-paths leading to a narrow gateway in some retired corner were seldom used and were always shut in the daytime and locked at night. Few find or use these paths. This is not an illustration the gospel, but of the law. It represents an effort to attain life. It is not stated that few find life, but few find the path to it. All life is God's gift and can never be made by man, either in the sphere of religion or of science.
"Now someone said to Him, "Lord, are few being saved? Now He said to them, " (24) Be struggling to be entering through the cramped door, for I am saying to you, many will be seeking to enter and will not be strong enough." (25) From which time the householder should be roused and latch the door, and you should be beginning to stand outside and to be knocking at the door, saying, 'Lord, Lord, open to us!' and answering, he will be declaring to you, 'I am not acquainted with you! Whence are you?'" (Luk 13:23-25).
Commentary on Luke 13:23,25:
23 The Lord avoids a direct answer to the question, and turns the questioner's thoughts upon himself. It would seem that at this time, the wide gates into the kingdom had been closed, and access could be had only through the private entrances, which are locked when evening comes. The proclamation of the kingdom had opened the gates wide up to this time, and it was easy to enter by repentance and baptism. But at this crisis the proclamation was withdrawn, hence many of those who struggled could not enter. By no means should this parable be applied indiscriminately to the evangel, either of the kingdom or of the grace of God. God's good news is never
narrow or cramped. In the tabernacle in the wilderness the gate, which opened into the court where the altar and laver were stationed, was very wide, and the entrance into the holy place occupied the whole front side of the tent. It could not have been wider. These were types of the way of God during the proclamation of the kingdom. The evangel for today is wider still, for it embraces all nations and imposes no conditions. Faith in God's word cannot be obtained by any struggle. Neither is there any reluctance on God's part, but He is beseeching all men to be conciliated (2 Cor.5:20). This can be understood of those only who have neglected to enter while the wide gates of the kingdom evangel were open, and now seek an entrance after the proclamation has been closed." (A.E. Knoch, Concordant Commentary)
"God will have all mankind to be saved, because Christ ransomed all" (1 Tim.2:4-6)
"God is the Saviour of all mankind, especially (not exclusively) them that believe" (1 Tim.4:10. "These things charge and teach" (1 Tim.4:11).
Are there any verses you know of that think disprove 1 Timothy 2:4-6 and 4:10?
Tony
http://saviourofall.org
Last edited on Tue Aug 19th, 2008 12:26 pm by TonyN
____________________
Just because God says He will save all mankind does not necessarily mean He won't. (1 Tim.2:4-6)
|
Carol2
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Sat Aug 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2031 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18th, 2008 05:27 pm |
|
Give someone enough rope and he eventually hangs himself.
No doubt you already know all the verses that contradict universalism so why don't you just go ahead and provide them all for yourself and then argue against them. 
____________________
The righteous shall live by his faith (Habakkuk 2:4).
|
Pastor John
Belvedere
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 290 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18th, 2008 06:00 pm |
|
TonyN wrote:Are there any verses you know of that think disprove 1 Timothy 2:4-6 and 4:10?
Matthew 25:46, "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal".
|
TonyN
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 237 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18th, 2008 06:09 pm |
|
Another point of contention Christians use to contradict God is the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus.
It is part of a larger parable of which the prodigal son parable is part of.
If what happened in the Rich man and Lazarus parable is supposed to be what really happens when one dies, then it must also be true for the prodigal son who died and went to a pig farm to feed pigs. No heaven or hell, just a pig farm. So I guess bad kids don't go to heaven or hell, they go to a pig farm in the nether world.
But wait! There's more! The prodigal son died but came back to life and his earthly father received him! (see Luke 15:32).
Another problem ETers have with the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus is that the rich man goes to Hades where he is pained by fire and can never cross over or never get out of Hades. Yet in Revelation we find that Hades is done away and the rich man is standing before God. So much for the great gulf he could not pass. Ever. For ever and ever. Eternally. Everlastingly.
And what was the reason Abraham gave for the rich man going where he went? He got good things in this life. And the reason why Lazarus got Abraham's bosom? He got evil things in his life. So to ensure you go to Abraham's bosom when you die, quit your job, and go begging and receive as much evil as you can because you never know, there might be higher levels in Abe's bosom for those who received the most amount of evil!
So, does the *parable* of the prodigal son or the *parable* of the rich man and Lazarus contradict God when He says He will save all mankind? By no means! It is just that what the parables stand for occur before God saves all mankind.
Tony
http://saviourofall.org
Last edited on Tue Aug 19th, 2008 12:27 pm by TonyN
____________________
Just because God says He will save all mankind does not necessarily mean He won't. (1 Tim.2:4-6)
|
TonyN
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 237 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18th, 2008 06:11 pm |
|
Pastor John wrote: TonyN wrote:Are there any verses you know of that think disprove 1 Timothy 2:4-6 and 4:10?
Matthew 25:46, "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal".
Those verses are some of the major ones brought to bear upon the truth that "God will save all mankind." So how can the Matthew scriptures be right and the Timothy scripture be right? Something has to give. Both can't be right based upon the translation you used.
It all comes down to the adjective behind the word "eternal." In "Basics of Biblical Greek" by W.D. Mounce, he states concerning the adjective: "An adjective is a word that modifies a noun (or another adjective)" (p.25). Since no adjective is greater than the noun from which it is derived, and, since the noun "aion" never once has the idea of eternity, it is impossible for its adjectival form to be greater than an age. No age is eternal. If an age were eternal it would be a contradiction in terms. It would be like saying an eternal minute.
Many word smiths go completely 180 degrees against Mounce's core idea of the adjective. For instance, in Romans 16:26 they wrongly surmise that since God is eternal that therefore the adjective "aionios" should be eternal. They make the noun modify the adjective!
The function of aionios (eonian) is to inform us of that which pertains to the eon or eons as the case may be. For instance, in Romans 16:26 it should be "the eonian God" for it is telling us about God being the God pertaining to the eons. He is over them, directing them, subjecting mankind to the goals He has in each eon. It is not trying to tell us how long God lives.
Now getting to the Matthew verses which HardyHeaven brought up:
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels'
"They will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
The word behind each use of "eternal" above is, yep, you guessed it, "aionion" which we have Anglicized as "eonian."
It is just an adjective. In the first verse the fire is pertaining to that eon in which Christ comes back and sets up His 1000 year long reign.
Likewise, the punishment and the life the nations get for how they treated Christ's brothers is pertaining to that same eon, the 1000 year eon. It would have been just as correct for Christ to say: "They will go away to the fire pertaining to the 1000 years" and "They will go away to the punishment pertaining to the thousand years and the life pertaining to the thousand years.
It is not talking about heaven and hell. It is talking about entering into the blessings of the 1000 year kingdom of God Christ will set up on the earth and about being outside that kingdom and being chastened for the 1000 years.
So now we see that both the Matthew verses can be true and the Timothy verses can be true that "God will have all mankind to be saved and come into a realization of the truth" and "God is the Saviour of all mankind."
Tony
http://saviourofall.org
Last edited on Tue Aug 19th, 2008 12:26 pm by TonyN
____________________
Just because God says He will save all mankind does not necessarily mean He won't. (1 Tim.2:4-6)
|
Pastor John
Belvedere
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 290 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18th, 2008 06:55 pm |
|
TonyN wrote: Pastor John wrote: TonyN wrote:Are there any verses you know of that think disprove 1 Timothy 2:4-6 and 4:10?
Matthew 25:46, "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal".
Those verses are some of the major ones brought to bear upon the truth that "God will save all mankind." So how can the Matthew scriptures be right and the Timothy scripture be right?
That's easy. There are only two possible solutions: either Timothy is not inspired, or your translation of Timothy is incorrect.
Something has to give. Both can't be right based upon the translation you used.
It all comes down to the adjective behind the word "eternal." In "Basics of Biblical Greek" by W.D. Mounce, he states concerning the adjective: "An adjective is a word that modifies a noun (or another adjective)" (p.25).
Hold on. If you are not educated enough to read Greek yourself, it is not wise to cite uninspired extra-biblical writers.
Since no adjective is greater than the noun from which it is derived, and, since the noun "aion" never once has the idea of eternity, it is impossible for its adjectival form to be greater than an age. No age is eternal. If an age were eternal it would be a contradiction in terms. It would be like saying an eternal minute.
Technically, the word means "eternal age". Linguistically, however, the term would have been understood by a Jewish audience to convey eternity. It seems that unies base their entire argument on an overly literal translation.
Last edited on Mon Aug 18th, 2008 06:56 pm by Pastor John
|
TonyN
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 237 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18th, 2008 07:10 pm |
|
Pastor John wrote: TonyN wrote: Pastor John wrote: TonyN wrote:Are there any verses you know of that think disprove 1 Timothy 2:4-6 and 4:10?
Matthew 25:46, "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal".
Those verses are some of the major ones brought to bear upon the truth that "God will save all mankind." So how can the Matthew scriptures be right and the Timothy scripture be right?
That's easy. There are only two possible solutions: either Timothy is not inspired, or your translation of Timothy is incorrect.
Tony's reply: Third solution: Timothy is inspired and my translation of Timothy is correct.
Something has to give. Both can't be right based upon the translation you used.
It all comes down to the adjective behind the word "eternal." In "Basics of Biblical Greek" by W.D. Mounce, he states concerning the adjective: "An adjective is a word that modifies a noun (or another adjective)" (p.25).
Hold on. If you are not educated enough to read Greek yourself, it is not wise to cite uninspired extra-biblical writers. Tony's reply: Who says I can't? Proof? And please, no fishing alowed.
Since no adjective is greater than the noun from which it is derived, and, since the noun "aion" never once has the idea of eternity, it is impossible for its adjectival form to be greater than an age. No age is eternal. If an age were eternal it would be a contradiction in terms. It would be like saying an eternal minute.
Technically, the word means "eternal age". Linguistically, however, the term would have been understood by a Jewish audience to convey eternity. It seems that unies base their entire argument on an overly literal translation.
Tony's reply: You are going to extra-biblical sources. Also, "eternal age" would be a contradiction in terms. An impossibility. That's like saying that the month of march is an eternal month and when it ends April will come. Furthermore, it is impossible for the 1000 year age (which Matthew 25:31-46 alludes to) to be an "eternal age" as you state because Revelation 20:7 states that the 1000 years will come to an end.
Next.
Last edited on Mon Aug 18th, 2008 08:07 pm by TonyN
____________________
Just because God says He will save all mankind does not necessarily mean He won't. (1 Tim.2:4-6)
|
Pastor John
Belvedere
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 290 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 01:05 am |
|
TonyN wrote: Pastor John wrote: TonyN wrote: Pastor John wrote: TonyN wrote:Are there any verses you know of that think disprove 1 Timothy 2:4-6 and 4:10?
Matthew 25:46, "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal".
Those verses are some of the major ones brought to bear upon the truth that "God will save all mankind." So how can the Matthew scriptures be right and the Timothy scripture be right?
That's easy. There are only two possible solutions: either Timothy is not inspired, or your translation of Timothy is incorrect.
Tony's reply: Third solution: Timothy is inspired and my translation of Timothy is correct.
That's highly unlikely. Unies either use an erroneous translation that confuses God's will with his desire for mankind's salvation, or they stubbornly insist that the word "all" always means everyone.
Something has to give. Both can't be right based upon the translation you used.
It all comes down to the adjective behind the word "eternal." In "Basics of Biblical Greek" by W.D. Mounce, he states concerning the adjective: "An adjective is a word that modifies a noun (or another adjective)" (p.25).
Hold on. If you are not educated enough to read Greek yourself, it is not wise to cite uninspired extra-biblical writers. Tony's reply: Who says I can't? Proof? And please, no fishing alowed.
You're a unie, aren't you?
Since no adjective is greater than the noun from which it is derived, and, since the noun "aion" never once has the idea of eternity, it is impossible for its adjectival form to be greater than an age. No age is eternal. If an age were eternal it would be a contradiction in terms. It would be like saying an eternal minute.
Technically, the word means "eternal age". Linguistically, however, the term would have been understood by a Jewish audience to convey eternity. It seems that unies base their entire argument on an overly literal translation.
Tony's reply: You are going to extra-biblical sources.
What's your point? I do not recommend extra-biblical sources for those who are lacking in spiritual discernment, or who lack my advanced years of Bible college training.
Also, "eternal age" would be a contradiction in terms. An impossibility. That's like saying that the month of march is an eternal month and when it ends April will come. Furthermore, it is impossible for the 1000 year age (which Matthew 25:31-46 alludes to) to be an "eternal age" as you state because Revelation 20:7 states that the 1000 years will come to an end.
You don't seem to grasp my earlier point. Linguistically, an adjective can change the very meaning of the noun, so "age" may not literaly mean "age".
Last edited on Tue Aug 19th, 2008 01:07 am by Pastor John
|
Slim
Belvedere
| Joined: | Fri Aug 8th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 134 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 05:32 am |
|
Pastor John wrote: TonyN wrote: Pastor John wrote: TonyN wrote: Pastor John wrote: TonyN wrote:Are there any verses you know of that think disprove 1 Timothy 2:4-6 and 4:10?
Matthew 25:46, "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal".
Those verses are some of the major ones brought to bear upon the truth that "God will save all mankind." So how can the Matthew scriptures be right and the Timothy scripture be right?
That's easy. There are only two possible solutions: either Timothy is not inspired, or your translation of Timothy is incorrect.
Tony's reply: Third solution: Timothy is inspired and my translation of Timothy is correct.
That's highly unlikely. Unies either use an erroneous translation that confuses God's will with his desire for mankind's salvation, or they stubbornly insist that the word "all" always means everyone.
Something has to give. Both can't be right based upon the translation you used.
It all comes down to the adjective behind the word "eternal." In "Basics of Biblical Greek" by W.D. Mounce, he states concerning the adjective: "An adjective is a word that modifies a noun (or another adjective)" (p.25).
Hold on. If you are not educated enough to read Greek yourself, it is not wise to cite uninspired extra-biblical writers. Tony's reply: Who says I can't? Proof? And please, no fishing alowed.
You're a unie, aren't you?
Since no adjective is greater than the noun from which it is derived, and, since the noun "aion" never once has the idea of eternity, it is impossible for its adjectival form to be greater than an age. No age is eternal. If an age were eternal it would be a contradiction in terms. It would be like saying an eternal minute.
Technically, the word means "eternal age". Linguistically, however, the term would have been understood by a Jewish audience to convey eternity. It seems that unies base their entire argument on an overly literal translation.
Tony's reply: You are going to extra-biblical sources.
What's your point? I do not recommend extra-biblical sources for those who are lacking in spiritual discernment, or who lack my advanced years of Bible college training.
Also, "eternal age" would be a contradiction in terms. An impossibility. That's like saying that the month of march is an eternal month and when it ends April will come. Furthermore, it is impossible for the 1000 year age (which Matthew 25:31-46 alludes to) to be an "eternal age" as you state because Revelation 20:7 states that the 1000 years will come to an end.
You don't seem to grasp my earlier point. Linguistically, an adjective can change the very meaning of the noun, so "age" may not literaly mean "age".
Dang, this is all crazy talk as far as I'm concerned.
|
TonyN
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 237 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 12:53 pm |
|
TonyN wrote:
Are there any verses you know of that think disprove 1 Timothy 2:4-6 and 4:10?
Pastor John replied:
Matthew 25:46, "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal".
Tony's reply: Those verses are some of the major ones brought to bear upon the truth that "God will save all mankind." So how can the Matthew scriptures be right and the Timothy scripture be right?
Pastor John's reply:
That's easy. There are only two possible solutions: either Timothy is not inspired, or your translation of Timothy is incorrect.
Tony's reply: Third solution: Timothy is inspired and my translation of Timothy is correct.
Pastor John's reply:
That's highly unlikely. Unies either use an erroneous translation that confuses God's will with his desire for mankind's salvation, or they stubbornly insist that the word "all" always means everyone.
Tony's reply:
Just because you say Unies use an erroneous translation does not mean we actually do. You saying so proves nothing. Please bring forth the actual proof that our translation has mistranslated the Greek of 1 Timothy 2:4-6. Otherwise, put a hand over your mouth for it makes you look stupid. Here are some translations that vouch for my position:
(ALT) who desires all people [or, peoples] to be saved and to come to a full [or, true] knowledge of the truth.
"All My desire I will do" (Isaiah 46:10).
(CLV) Who wills that all mankind be saved and come into a realization of the truth.
(DRB) Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
(KJV) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
(KJV+) Who3739 will2309 have all3956 men444 to be saved,4982 and2532 to come2064 unto1519 the knowledge1922 of the truth.225
(KJVR) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
(RV) who willeth that all men should be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.
(Webster) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
(WNT) who is willing for all mankind to be saved and come to a full knowledge of the truth.
(YLT) who doth will all men to be saved, and to come to the full knowledge of the truth;
(MKJV) who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Tony wrote:
Something has to give. Both can't be right based upon the translation you used.
It all comes down to the adjective behind the word "eternal." In "Basics of Biblical Greek" by W.D. Mounce, he states concerning the adjective: "An adjective is a word that modifies a noun (or another adjective)" (p.25).
Pastor John replied:
Hold on. If you are not educated enough to read Greek yourself, it is not wise to cite uninspired extra-biblical writers.
Tony's reply: Who says I can't? Proof? And please, no fishing alowed.
Pastor John:
You're a unie, aren't you?
Tony's reply:
Please bring forth proof I can't read Greek as you suggested.
Tony wrote:
Since no adjective is greater than the noun from which it is derived, and, since the noun "aion" never once has the idea of eternity, it is impossible for its adjectival form to be greater than an age. No age is eternal. If an age were eternal it would be a contradiction in terms. It would be like saying an eternal minute.
Pastor John replied:
Technically, the word means "eternal age". Linguistically, however, the term would have been understood by a Jewish audience to convey eternity. It seems that unies base their entire argument on an overly literal translation.
Tony's reply: You are going to extra-biblical sources.
Pastor John replied:
What's your point? I do not recommend extra-biblical sources for those who are lacking in spiritual discernment, or who lack my advanced years of Bible college training.
Tony's reply:
You accused me of going to extra-biblical sources by quouting the Greek scholar Mounce and then you go to extra-biblical sources (you being one source for it is just your own word,) and you bringing up the Jewish people's understanding of an eternal age. You are the pot calling the kettle "black."
Tony:
Also, "eternal age" would be a contradiction in terms. An impossibility. That's like saying that the month of march is an eternal month and when it ends April will come. Furthermore, it is impossible for the 1000 year age (which Matthew 25:31-46 alludes to) to be an "eternal age" as you state because Revelation 20:7 states that the 1000 years will come to an end.
Pastor John replied:
You don't seem to grasp my earlier point. Linguistically, an adjective can change the very meaning of the noun, so "age" may not literaly mean "age".
Tony's reply:
And you don't grasp my point that the age to come cannot possibly be eternal as you and the apostate Jews think because the age to come is only 1000 years and the Bible says that 1000 year age will end. So how can it be eternal? It can't.
Adjectives don't change the meaning of a noun, they color the noun or as Mounce and others state: the adjective ***modifies*** the noun. In "beautiful girl" the adjective beautiful does not change the meaning of the noun, girl.
Furthermore, there is no such critter as an "aionion aion" in the Bible. So there is no eternal eon. Furthermore, to state that aionion can mean eternal is to state that its noun "aion" has to mean eternal. That's bad. Real bad.
In Romans 16:26 where it is stated that God is "the aionion Theos" or "the eonian God" it is not saying He is the "eternal God" but that His Godship is pertaining to the eons. He is over them, directing them.
Just before Romans 16:26 we have this verse which definately limits "eonian":
Rom 16:25 Now to Him Who is able to establish you in accord with my evangel, and the heralding of Christ Jesus in accord with the revelation of a secret hushed in times eonian,
If the times (plural) were eternal and the secret was hushed in those so-called "eternal" times, how could it ever be revealed for those times could never end! Rather, those times were pertaining to former eons or ages which did end and God was using Paul to reveal the secret NOW.
Tony
Last edited on Tue Aug 19th, 2008 12:58 pm by TonyN
____________________
Just because God says He will save all mankind does not necessarily mean He won't. (1 Tim.2:4-6)
|
Pastor John
Belvedere
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 290 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 04:08 pm |
|
Tony,
By now you have made it abundantly clear that universalists merely exploit the ambiguities of language to make a case for their own subjective doctrine.
You can continue to throw out the usual red herrings, but I ain't taking the bait this time. Allow me to expose a massive contradiction of universalism that you have unwittingly demonstrated in your last response.
You say, according to your not-so-clever proof-texting, that God wills all He desires. Why then, could He not communicate to man through the plain and simple English of the King James Bible? You are in effect saying that FOR CENTURIES, we have been willfully mislead by God to believe that Hell is everlasting. Either that, or you are saying that you have no faith in the power of God to effectively communicte his holy Word. One can only conclude that universalism cannot be true.
Admit defeat.
|
TonyN
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 237 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 06:15 pm |
|
Pastor John wrote:
Tony,
By now you have made it abundantly clear that universalists merely exploit the ambiguities of language to make a case for their own subjective doctrine.
Tony's reply:
That's funny, I'm the one clearing up any ambiguities of aionios and you are the one making a mess of it all!
How is it ambiguous to state that an adjective can never be greater than the noun from which it is derived (i.e. aionion adj. and aion noun)?
Here is a language lesson you should have learned in grade school. I'll give it to you as a refresher short course concerning the adjective:
America = noun
American = adjective.
American is derived from its nounal form "America"
How is American greater than America? It isn't.
Bush is the American (adj) president. His presidency pertains to America. It is not greater than America!
Heaven = noun
Heavenly = Adjective
Heavenly is derived from its nounal form "Heaven."
How is Heavenly greater than Heaven? It isn't.
The heavenly angel visited Mary. The angel pertains to Heaven. It is not greater than Heaven!
Aion = noun (eon)
Aionion = adjective (eonian)
Aionion is derived from Aion.
How is Aionion (eonian) greater than aion (eon)? It isn't.
"And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian." (Mat 25:46)
Both the chastening and the life pertain to the eon. They are not greater than the eon!
The above language lesson is not a red herring but is germain to the subject at hand.
Pastor John wrote:
You can continue to throw out the usual red herrings, but I ain't taking the bait this time. Allow me to expose a massive contradiction of universalism that you have unwittingly demonstrated in your last response.
Tony's reply:
I have thrown out no red herrings. This is what a red herring is:
from: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html
Description of Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
(end of quote)
So, once again, Pastor John, you have lied about what I have been posting. I have posted no red herrings. If anything it is you who consistently throw out red herrings to get people off the main point of the subject at hand . . . such as . . . how can I know about language since I don't know Greek etc. etc. etc.
Pastor John wrote:
You say, according to your not-so-clever proof-texting, that God wills all He desires. Why then, could He not communicate to man through the plain and simple English of the King James Bible? You are in effect saying that FOR CENTURIES, we have been willfully mislead by God to believe that Hell is everlasting. Either that, or you are saying that you have no faith in the power of God to effectively communicte his holy Word. One can only conclude that universalism cannot be true.
Admit defeat.
Tony's reply:
Pro 25:2 "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." So God conceals and man has to dig it out.
God had the inspired revelation of saving all mankind done in Greek.
As to man corrupting that message, the apostle Paul said "Now the spirit is saying explicitly, that in subsequent eras some will be withdrawing from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and the teachings of demons, (2) in the hypocrisy of false expressions, their own conscience having been cauterized;" (1Ti 4:1-2)
A hypocrisy of false expresions are "eternal age" and "eternal torment" etc. to name a few. The King James was not the only translation in English, you know. God had Satan make up the KJV to confuse the mass of mankind since He is the one Who is "sending them an operation of deception, for them to believe the falsehood," (see 2 Thess.2:11).
And you, my friend, are deeply involved and entrenched in that deception and falsehood. You are disobedient to God by teaching the exact opposite of what 1 Timothy 2:4-6 and 4:10,11 tells you very explicitely to teach. God didn't hide this command in a corner.
Not only that but King James was a homosexual sodomizer! And that's historical fact.
Let's not forget too that Jesus used parables to keep the people blinded (Matt.13:13-15). If there is such a critter as eternal torment, Jesus purposely kept the people blinded just so they'd go to hell for eternity. And God was in cahoots with Jesus for Jesus said: "At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes" (Matt. 11:25).
Furthermore, Universalism needs no "clever proof-texting" so I don't need to do that.
So much for you exposing a major contradiction of Universalism. The only thing you've exposed is you.
So tell me, Pastor John, if you really are a pastor, how is it that you feel you can be disobedient to your Lord when He specifically tells us:
For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. 11 These things command and teach. (1 Tim.4:10,11)
NEXT!
____________________
Just because God says He will save all mankind does not necessarily mean He won't. (1 Tim.2:4-6)
|
Pastor John
Belvedere
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 290 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 09:05 pm |
|
I didn't think you could answer the question, Tony.
Tell me, are you a pastor?
|
Board Whore
Belvedere
| Joined: | Mon Jul 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 44 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 09:12 pm |
|
You know what really bothers me about these universalists?
Why is it aways all men shall be saved, ...or all mankind shall be saved?
|
Kanamit
Belvedere
| Joined: | Tue Aug 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 13 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 09:21 pm |
|
Board Whore wrote: You know what really bothers me about these universalists?
Why is it aways all men shall be saved, ...or all mankind shall be saved?
You're all wrong. The proper translation is as follows:
All mankind shall be served.
|
TonyN
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 237 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 10:43 pm |
|
Pastor John wrote: I didn't think you could answer the question, Tony.
Tell me, are you a pastor?
But I did answer your question.
____________________
Just because God says He will save all mankind does not necessarily mean He won't. (1 Tim.2:4-6)
|
TonyN
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 237 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 10:45 pm |
|
Board Whore wrote: You know what really bothers me about these universalists?
Why is it aways all men shall be saved, ...or all mankind shall be saved?
Literally, in the Greek it is PANTAC ANTHRWPOUC "all humans." Mankind is just more idiomatic.
____________________
Just because God says He will save all mankind does not necessarily mean He won't. (1 Tim.2:4-6)
|
Dr. Zaius
Belvedere
| Joined: | Thu Jul 31st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 11:42 pm |
|
TonyN wrote: Board Whore wrote: You know what really bothers me about these universalists?
Why is it aways all men shall be saved, ...or all mankind shall be saved?
Literally, in the Greek it is PANTAC ANTHRWPOUC "all humans." Mankind is just more idiomatic.
All humans.
*sigh*
|
Pastor John
Belvedere
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 290 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 11:54 pm |
|
TonyN wrote: Pastor John wrote: I didn't think you could answer the question, Tony.
Tell me, are you a pastor?
But I did answer your question.
You gave a very superficial reply bracketed by scriptures and more red herrings.
As you would have it, God would be the author of confusion. But clearly, "God is not a God of confusion, but of peace as in all the churches of the saints", (I Cor. 14:33).
So Tony, how about answering my question? Are you a pastor?
|
TonyN
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 237 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20th, 2008 12:18 am |
|
Continuing our series of verses brought against the truth of God saving all mankind . . .
Another verse which Christians pit against the truth that God will save all mankind is this:
"Many are called but few are chosen."
Some questions which need to be asked though are: How can one truth in the Bible contradict another truth? Why cannot "God will have all humans to be saved" and "God is the Saviour of all humans" and "Many are called but few are chosen" all be true? They can and are true.
"Again, in contrast to our calling, the calling concerned with the kingdom of the heavens was compared in Matthew 22:1-14 to a king's invitation to the wedding festivities for his son. But many refused to come and were declared to be "not worthy" (v.8). For in that calling, "many are the called, yet few are the chosen" (Matt.22:14).
"However, our holy calling is by no means a refusable invitation. Rather it is a settled matter in the purpose of God. The fact is, and quite apart from any works on our part, "God...seats us together among the celestials...that in the oncoming eons, He should be displaying the transcendent riches of His grace in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus" (Eph.2:6,7). The "multifarious wisdom of God" is to be made known "to the sovereignties and authorities among the celestials, through the ecclesia" (Eph.3:10), "His body, which is the ecclesia of which [Paul] became a dispenser" (Col.1:24,25).
"The reason why our calling is not a refusable invitation, is because, in our case, all the called are also chosen (cf 1 Cor.1:21-31). This is in accord with God's own purpose, the goal which He intends to accomplish (2 Tim.1:9). It is quite true that in Israel there will be many to whom the Lord Jesus will avow, "`I never knew you!'" (Matt.7:23). That is, they were never united with Him. Yet it is equally true that God "foreknew" us, and designated us beforehand "to be conformed to the image of His Son" (Rom.8:29). The message here in Paul's evangel is this: "Now whom He designates beforehand, these He calls also, and whom He calls, these He justifies also; now whom He justifies these He glorifies also" (Rom.8:30). We are called, and we are "God's chosen ones" (Rom.8:33)!"
(James Coram, Unsearchable Riches, vol.74 pp. 75,76)
So "many are called but few are chosen" has to do with Israel and the choosing of Israelites to be part of Christ's kingdom which He will set up for the 1000 year millennial reign on the earth.
This does not mean that those not chosen for that kingdom cannot later be saved by God, for, Christ ransomed all humans and based upon that ransoming, God will save all humans (1 Timothy 2:4-6).
Tony
http://saviourofall.org
Last edited on Wed Aug 20th, 2008 12:22 am by TonyN
____________________
Just because God says He will save all mankind does not necessarily mean He won't. (1 Tim.2:4-6)
|
Current time is 02:13 am | Page: 1 2 3 4   |
|
|
|
|
