Universal Salvation Discussion--split from Debate Commentary

[Littlejoe9763]

No, the debate has been closed. I sent a PM to Muz asking if I could go ahead and post my opening and let RanRan post his later. The powers that be decided to just close the debate thread and told me to post my opening here. So, with a few minor modifications to reflect the change in the debate, here is my modified opening. Tell me what you think!


Well I waited a long time for RanRan to post his opening. I finally decided to ask the mods to allow me to post my opening and let him answer whenever he can get around to it. They instead, closed the debate thread and have allowed me to post my opening here! I want to start by thanking TWEB for hosting this debate, and my opponent RanRan for agreeing to let me debate him, (even though it didn’t happen) and for you readers for your interest and support for this debate! In the recent past, I accused Ran of being short and cryptic with his answers. He didn’t think that such was the case. I then realized, that Ran understood where he was coming from, but most of US didn’t! So when Ran issued the challenge to debate him, I was more than willing! If for nothing else, to fully understand Ran’s position! I will be arguing my position from an OVT/Arminian view point, and also from an annihilationist view! (I think). Also, my default version is ESV. In my Salted with fire refutation though, I quote KJV. So without further ado, let’s get on to the debate!

The overall result of the Cross was Universal Salvation. While it sounds nice, and appeals to the forgiving side of our nature, does the Bible really endorse and/or support this Idea? Well, since I am obviously defending the negative, I of course say no! I mean we all have friends or relatives that have passed on, some of which we are fairly certain, have not put their faith and trust in our Lord Jesus Christ. We would hope there is a way for them to possibly enter into heaven after their death. However, is this a belief or desire we can derive for scripture? Is it possible that God is going to drag someone to heaven “kicking and screaming” in spite of their unbelief? No! He is going to honor our choices here on earth! That is the truth that I (as well as many others) believe the Bible clearly states. Now, God in His infinite love for us, has made a way for us to obtain HIS righteousness and to be able to be called His sons (and daughters). This is the TRUE Gospel of the Bible. The old default verse of John 3:16-19 is sufficient enough to show us the simple truth of the gospel: “For God so loved the World that He gave His only Son that whoever believes in Him shall have eternal Life”. But this is not the whole story, for the gospel does not end there. Vs 17 and 18 tell us the complete story: 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil.”

Now Ran would have us ignore verses 16, 18 and 19 and focus ONLY on vs 17. But, vs 17 does not give us the whole picture does it? Jesus is clearly telling us, (if we read the WHOLE passage here) that we must believe in order to have eternal life. Also, conversely if we do not believe, we are condemned. Now, to continue this theme, we see the picture the Apostle Paul paints us in Ephesians 2. In vs 1 he tells us “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins”. Vs 2 shows us who we were following: “in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—“ And we know where HE ends up. Rev 20 says: “And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” I believe Revelation 20 clearly says that those who choose to follow the prince of the power of the air, i.e. Satan, will partake of the “second death”. Let’s read Rev 20:13-15: 13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. As we see, those whose name is not written in the book of life, will NOT inherit eternal life, but the second (eternal) death. No amount of bowing and scraping or confessing him Lord will change whether they are written in the book of life. Thus, it will not be possible to change your destiny at this late date. To continue in Eph. 2, vs 3 explains how we were once among the lost, vs 4 and 5 explain that God has a great love for us even when we were “dead in our trespasses” but he made us “alive in Christ” “. In vs 8a tells us how this happens: “For by grace you have been saved through faith…”. We are saved by grace through faith. Not by anything else. Finally, we get to the Lord’s own words concerning the “final destination” of believers and non believers. I of course am referring to sheep and the goats found in Matthew 25 starting with verse 31. Now Ran likes to say that “every knee shall bow and confess Jesus as Lord” and that will result in their salvation. What does our Lord say? First to the “righteous” persons reward. Matt 25:34 says: “Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world”. Verses 35 and 36 explain who the “blessed” are. “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' Notice in vs 37 they are called the righteous. Now to the “cursed” in Matt 25:41 he says: “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.” Verse 46 sums it up: “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." From the lips of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to your ear, it’s seems oh so clear! Now it seems to me, to say anything else is to call our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ a liar! If he is lying, all our hope is in vain. I don’t care how many ECF, or ANF, or whomever, you quote, if their teaching does not line up with scripture, they are just WRONG! Plain and simple.

This should suffice as a starting place to refute Ran’s universalist view.

Now, I would like to address one of Ran’s most oft quoted verses. The “salted with fire” verse of Mark 9. I would like to suggest an alternative interpretation than the one he claims to espouse. This interpretation is based on the fact that the Lord probably spoke in Aramaic and was using an Aramaic / Hebrew figure of speech when He said: “For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.” Now, from what I have been able to gather, in Hebrew, the idiomatic phrase “salted with fire” probably means “destroy completely with fire.” The verb “to salt” may have come to mean “to destroy completely” from the practice of conquerors strewing salt in order to destroy a piece of land completely. We see this practice alluded to in Judges 9:45—“And Abimelech fought against the city all that day; and he took the city, and slew the people that was therein, and beat down the city, and sowed it with salt.”

Now, “salt” in Hebrew is the word melach. Professor Frank Delitzsch translating the New Testament Greek to the Hebrew for the Trinitarian Society uses the word malach to translate the verb “to salt” in Mark 9:45. The word malach, according to the BDB (standard lexicon), means “dissipate or to be dispersed in fragments.” Other Jewish scholars have translated it as “destroy completely” (see Weston W. Fields, “Everyone Will Be Salted with Fire (Mark 9:49),” Grace Theological Journal (Fall 85):299–304).

Now if this is right, then what the Lord would seem to be saying in Mark 9:49a is: “For everyone [who lands in the lake of fire (gehenna)] will be completely destroyed with fire….” Now, the phrase “salted with fire” would not only fit the context, but also make sense. Those who heard Our Lord Jesus, including Mark, would have understood the idiom “salted with fire.” This fits nicely with the above scripture passage in Revelation, don’t you think?

So the question now becomes, why did Mark keep the original wording of the idiom? It would seem to be somewhat obscure to us non-Jewish Christians when he records the speech in Greek? One reason, I guess, would be accuracy. Every word spoken by the Lord is inerrant. Another reason would be that the Lord immediately begins to also use the metaphor of salt for purification and sanctification to apply to His disciples: “… and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltiness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another” (Mk 9:49–50).
Now, this introduces a new concept. How does salt loose its saltiness? It can't in our 21st Century world where we have “pure salt”. Pure salt, sodium chloride, can't become unsalty; but the world of the 1st century Jew, salt had a lot of impurities. The sodium chloride of impure salt could leach out leaving only the impurities, especially in humid weather, and this remaining substance of impurities would be quite tasteless (unsalty). This "salt" cannot become salty again and must be thrown out. When the purity of our faith is adulterated, or perhaps "watered down", the pure "salt" may slowly slip away leaving us with a "tasteless" faith and it may be impossible to restore the pure one, thus resulting in apostasy that leads to the second death of Revelation 20.

Without the wordings of the original idiom, the transition would be lost, and the new thought would to be abruptly introduced…such as the one Ran has often posited!

Another one of the things that Ran likes to point out is that all are resurrected, and that if Christ’s sacrifice is not universally applied, then some of the dead would not be resurrected. So, does the bible say all will be resurrected? If so, to what end? Well, the bible does say all will be resurrected doesn’t it? Sure it does! We already looked at the verses in Rev 20, that show that to be the case. Again, though, we see that some will be given eternal life and the rest cast into the lake of fire. Daniel 12:2 confirms this: “2And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt”. In vs 3 we see that there is a reward for evangelism “3 And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.

One thing I would love to see from Ran, is an example from the bible, of one person who died in unbelief and received salvation after death. Can a person die in unbelief, be sent to hell, and then be allowed to escape and go to heaven? What does Jesus say? We see in the scriptures in Luke 16:19-31, the story of “The Rich man and Lazarus”. Here none other than Christ himself said this was impossible. (Thanks to Bill the Cat for this idea)

So to conclude my opening, I would like to invite RanRan, to show us (with scripture), why we should disregard these truths I have outlined from the bible. I believe that I have shown that there is no universal salvation of mankind. That apart from belief, faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ for the remittance of sin, there is no forgiveness.

Therefore, believe in Jesus Christ and you will be saved you and your household Acts 16:31

LJ

[Littlejoe9763]

Sorry for the back to back post! I just wanted to clarify that because of the debate structure, I was suppose to also be responding to or rebutting Ran's opening in my opening. I had of course, anticipated some of his points, but probably not all. Therefore, it may read a little disjointed because of that.

Lj

[Bill the Cat]

Nicely done LJ!


Ya Freak!!

[Cowthulu]

Nice opening LJ. I wish the debate had gone forward. Even if Ran responds I doubt he will/can respond to it entirely.

[Littlejoe9763]

Thank you, thank you,:blush:

and for my next trick, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat! :bunny::wink:

[shadowman]

yes I wasnt going by the bible. But I think its screwy to have a point where humans are forever sealed in their doom where the creator turns his back on them..... "you had your chANCE, its too late, feel my wrath and vengeance" - is this the voice of the creator of all the wonders of the earth and universe (not to mention the utter brutality found in nature and humans)? whats the point of putting conscious beings through such a horrible test that will end in their being burned alive for all time. how can it be that the master plan of all time includes people going through ETERNAL SUFFERING? its not good. it doesnt matter what the bible says. its just not good. its morally wrong. mercy is a higher trait than vengeance or wrath. justice looses its meaning once you consider the thought of people being damned forever.....

[shadowman]

sorry wrong thread. good opener LJ, but do you think its ok that people are eternally tormented?

[Littlejoe9763]

sorry wrong thread. good opener LJ, but do you think its ok that people are eternally tormented?

Hi Shadowman,

Well, in my opener, I pretty much alluded to the fact that I think people who reject Christ ultimately are annihilated. They are likely the ones that are slated for the second death spoken of in Rev 20. Therefore, IMHO, they do not suffer forever.

LJ

[auggybendoggy]

bravo, though I am not convinced of LJ's statment, I like his courage.

Aug

[auggybendoggy]

I'm with Shadow, usually one would think that if a Father loves his child he would not Anihilate him nor woule he torture him.

Of course the literalist renders "they are not his children", leaving a more calvinistic sense of God does not love them and thats why they indeed go to hell. This also implies God loves those who love him. I'm fully convinced God loves those who HATE him and that is, in an EXACT SENSE, why Jesus forgave ALL MEN (forgive them for they know not what they do) when he prayed. His prayer was not a request from God but a message to us that he indeed has the power to forgive sins and therfore in asking his Father (God) to forgive him, HE (being Jesus) ALREADY FORGAVE THEM. It would make no sense at all to ask God to forgive them but HE DOES NOT.

The passive salvation of Arm theology (meaning God offers salvation) fails to prove that God does save men. I tend to see it that if only endorses God offers salvation to men but it's up to them if God's mercy is effective upon them or if Gods wrath is upon them.

Talbott has convinced me that God's wrath is upon all mankind so that he may have mercy on them all.

as for LJ's salted with fire....BORN AGAIN. sounds about right.

Aug

[Littlejoe9763]

I'm with Shadow, usually one would think that if a Father loves his child he would not Anihilate him nor woule he torture him.

Of course the literalist renders "they are not his children", leaving a more calvinistic sense of God does not love them and thats why they indeed go to hell. This also implies God loves those who love him. I'm fully convinced God loves those who HATE him and that is, in an EXACT SENSE, why Jesus forgave ALL MEN (forgive them for they know not what they do) when he prayed. His prayer was not a request from God but a message to us that he indeed has the power to forgive sins and therfore in asking his Father (God) to forgive him, HE (being Jesus) ALREADY FORGAVE THEM. It would make no sense at all to ask God to forgive them but HE DOES NOT.

The passive salvation of Arm theology (meaning God offers salvation) fails to prove that God does save men. I tend to see it that if only endorses God offers salvation to men but it's up to them if God's mercy is effective upon them or if Gods wrath is upon them.

Talbott has convinced me that God's wrath is upon all mankind so that he may have mercy on them all.

as for LJ's salted with fire....BORN AGAIN. sounds about right.

Aug

God is our father, he is also our judge. The bible says that he will not leave the guilty unpunished. (Ex 34:7b)

Your confusing universal forgiveness with universal salvation. They aren't the same thing. Even we who are "saved" and are forgiven, do not always escape the consequences of our sin. We can be forgiven for the sin and still incur some punishment. Gal 6:7-8 says: Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. 8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

So since I'm an arm, and you don't see it proves God does save men, you therefore do not think I"m saved? Or any other arm's?

Talbott must ignore (as must you) a lot of scripture to arrive at his conclusions.

Born Again??? whatever :lol:

LJ

[Crow]

As the debate between RanRan and Littlejoe did not occur, that thead is being closed. All who wish to continue with the discussion have to opportunity to do so here.

[auggybendoggy]

LJ,
you shoot to quick.; Aim a little. Simply because talbott or myself or anyone else might disagree with you does not demand ignorance of any texts. Perhaps it may mean dillusional or mentally incapacitated (heehe) but It is simply pointless to argue that the other side is ignorant as I could argue the same. Why you see a need or demand to believe God punishes w/o love I see that he is love and therfore punishes IN LOVE. I find no text to imply that God is the one we are being saved from.

Now from your last response, it implies to me that you (either consciencelly or sub-cons) believe that It is God we need to be saved from. This further implies to me that you believe (cons. or sub-cons) that it is not sin that kills but God. That God is the one who issues death to all who are infected with the S.I.N. Virus. Seems like you beleive Sin corrupst the man but God deals out the death. So the wage of sin is death is God killing everyone (not sin).
this also leads me to believe God at the tree of KoG&E is somewhat deceiving, for God did not mean they will die (from sin) but that he would kill them. So God pulled a knife from his pocket, put it to Adam and Eves throats and says "love me or die". (interesting view).

I tend to believe it is God who saves. Therfore all of the punishment, wrath, hell, torture, annihilation, Fury, Vengance passages mean something different to me.

It's not that I ignore any passage, indeed my memory is not photographic and is not like that of a 16gb quad core that can recall MASS ammounts of data. So if I "forget" a passage or never picked up on the passage (as being relevant) it does not DEMAND that I knew the passage was relevant or ignored it.

Therfore I conclude you are wrong about ignoring alot of scripture.

I think we all tend to fail at fully harnassing the scriptures as a whole. So in that sense You too ignore many scriptures as much as I might. And being that you do not harness the scriptures as a whole, humble yourself and think before you speak.

Now if you should feel compelled to respond with...
"well how else do you take these passages, unless you ignore them"...
understand the above, we may in fact interpret them differently, and therfore see differently.

I realize there are many not all are saved passages. I realize there are many Gods gonna wipe em out passages. I realize there are many God discriminates against canannite passages, I realize God chose isrealites passages, I realize God does not tolerate sin passages, I realize God dines with the worse of sinners, I realize ignorance is no excuse, I realize God had mercy on paul BECAUSE HE WAS IGNORANT. I realize we could go round and round on this topic,
so I'll simply state. Your view makes no sense to me of a Father who loves his son.

I believe the Bible is from God.
I believe the Bible is for Man
I believe the bible says "God loves you"
I believe the bible says "all families on the earth will be blessed by God"

Most people believe the bible is for the righteouss
Most people believe that the bible says "God might love you" if you love him back. If not he's your worse nightmare (a blessing or a curse)
Most people believe that the bible says "God will bless you if your good enough via faith"

I simply don't believe in taosim anylonger (that is God is both good and evil) for he is both light and dark (depends on your faith).
I believe IN HIM THERE IS NO DARKNESS and therfore I believe if he loves ALL MANKIND
and if he in him there is no darkness then I believe he will bless every single person he has created.

I believe he accomplished this "process" on the cross - for God was please to reconcile unto himself ALL THINGS (all things are created by him for him and through him).
I simply beleive we dont understant the scriptures.

Aug

[Littlejoe9763]

LJ,
you shoot to quick.; Aim a little. Simply because talbott or myself or anyone else might disagree with you does not demand ignorance of any texts. Perhaps it may mean dillusional or mentally incapacitated (heehe) but It is simply pointless to argue that the other side is ignorant as I could argue the same. Why you see a need or demand to believe God punishes w/o love I see that he is love and therfore punishes IN LOVE. I find no text to imply that God is the one we are being saved from.

I'm considered a pretty good shot in my circles, with both a gun and a bow and arrow! :teeth: I used "ignore" in the disregard or pay no attention to sense, not the ignorant or ignorance (not knowing sense.)


Now from your last response, it implies to me that you (either consciencelly or sub-cons) believe that It is God we need to be saved from. This further implies to me that you believe (cons. or sub-cons) that it is not sin that kills but God. That God is the one who issues death to all who are infected with the S.I.N. Virus. Seems like you beleive Sin corrupst the man but God deals out the death. So the wage of sin is death is God killing everyone (not sin).
this also leads me to believe God at the tree of KoG&E is somewhat deceiving, for God did not mean they will die (from sin) but that he would kill them. So God pulled a knife from his pocket, put it to Adam and Eves throats and says "love me or die". (interesting view).


Wow Auggy, I didn't know you HAD that much straw in New York! :lol: Because that is one GIANT strawman. On second thought, maybe your not so far off. You simply confuse a few issues. 1) Is it God we need to be saved from? Well, there is a "wrath of God" talked about EXSTENSIVELY in both the O.T. and N.T. for instance: John 3:36 says "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him."
2) Is it Sin or God who kills. Well, it must be God, unless you are giving some mystical FORCE to sin. Sin is disobedience to God. It is not a force, living thing, or a god. So, by default, it must be God who judges a person and decides their fate. Now sin doesn't have to result in ultimate death! Here is where you seem to mistake what I'm saying. God HAS a way to avoid punishment...His Son Jesus Christ. So, God through the wages of sin = death, Gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. God gives BOTH. Choose this day whom you will serve Joshua said...But as for me and my house we will serve the Lord. If God is going to send you to heaven anyway, why ask you to choose him?

I tend to believe it is God who saves. Therfore all of the punishment, wrath, hell, torture, annihilation, Fury, Vengance passages mean something different to me.

Well, instead of saying they mean something else to you, tells what THAT is. You simple assertion doesn't enlighten anyone.


It's not that I ignore any passage, indeed my memory is not photographic and is not like that of a 16gb quad core that can recall MASS ammounts of data. So if I "forget" a passage or never picked up on the passage (as being relevant) it does not DEMAND that I knew the passage was relevant or ignored it.

Therfore I conclude you are wrong about ignoring alot of scripture.


Well your entitled to your opinion, as am I! You have simply asserted a belief without one ounce of scripture...what are we supposed to think about your beliefs?

It's time to put up or shut up, as they say!


I think we all tend to fail at fully harnassing the scriptures as a whole. So in that sense You too ignore many scriptures as much as I might. And being that you do not harness the scriptures as a whole, humble yourself and think before you speak.


That's good advice for us all Aug, however, it doesn't SEEM to have hindered you in stating your opinions.


Now if you should feel compelled to respond with...
"well how else do you take these passages, unless you ignore them"...
understand the above, we may in fact interpret them differently, and therfore see differently.


Again, how are we to interpret these? You have not offered one iota of evidence for us to examine!

I realize there are many not all are saved passages.

Yes there there any? What do you do with those? Decide they don't apply?


I realize there are many Gods gonna wipe em out passages. I realize there are many God discriminates against canannite passages, I realize God chose isrealites passages, I realize God does not tolerate sin passages, I realize God dines with the worse of sinners, I realize ignorance is no excuse, I realize God had mercy on paul BECAUSE HE WAS IGNORANT. I realize we could go round and round on this topic,
so I'll simply state. Your view makes no sense to me of a Father who loves his son


Yes there are. There are also many "God will have mercy on you if you let him" verses. The question becomes if you let him or not. I have 3 wonderful children. I love them dearly. I wouldn't want ANYTHING bad to happen to them. However, if one of my children were to INTENTIONALLY kill someone with malice, I would understand the death penalty being enforced. I would be grief stricken, but I would understand it. God doesn't want to punish or Kill ANY of us. He is grief stricken by our (non believers) unrepentant sin. But, I believe, he is just and holy, and by his own word, MUST punish unrecompensed sin. (recompensed sin being sin washed away by our faith and trust in what Jesus did on the cross, not on what we do)

I believe the Bible is from God.
I believe the Bible is for Man
I believe the bible says "God loves you"
I believe the bible says "all families on the earth will be blessed by God"

Most people believe the bible is for the righteouss
Most people believe that the bible says "God might love you" if you love him back. If not he's your worse nightmare (a blessing or a curse)
Most people believe that the bible says "God will bless you if your good enough via faith"

I simply don't believe in taosim anylonger (that is God is both good and evil) for he is both light and dark (depends on your faith).
I believe IN HIM THERE IS NO DARKNESS and therfore I believe if he loves ALL MANKIND
and if he in him there is no darkness then I believe he will bless every single person he has created.

I believe he accomplished this "process" on the cross - for God was please to reconcile unto himself ALL THINGS (all things are created by him for him and through him).
I simply beleive we dont understant the scriptures.

Aug

Yes Christ paid for all sins on the cross. I believe that and so do you. However, the bible makes it clear that salvation by grace through faith are a gift of God. As I said in another post, if I buy you a gift, lets say a watch. I offer you this watch as a free gift. If you say "no I already have a watch, I don't need another one. Was the gift NOT bought and paid for? Yes it was. You didn't receive a watch because you refused the free gift. That's not MY fault...it's yours. If we refuse the free gift of salvation...that's not GOD"S fault...It''s OURS. This principle is why I believe universal forgiveness (what Christ accomplished on the cross) does NOT equal universal salvation!

Your POV says, I God am going to send my one and only son to be beaten, tortured and killed for you. That will be the payment for all your sins. (I believe this also). I am going to offer this to you as a free gift of eternal life. You don't even have to believe in me. You can do ANYTHING you like. Kill, rape steal. But when you die, I'll be waiting for you. Even if you refused me before, I'll still receive you with open arms. Therefore, don't worry about obeying my voice or my commandments. Don't worry about spreading the gospel. Don't worry about making disciples. Don't worry about Faith, moral living, modest living. Just DON'T worry about anything, eat drink and be merry...for tomorrow you die and go right to heaven.

Talk about a view that makes no sense...phew!

LJ

[trent1980]

Hey LJ ...

you said

Yes Christ paid for all sins on the cross.

and also ...

But, I believe, he is just and holy, and by his own word, MUST punish unrecompensed sin.


they seem to contradict eachother... If Christ was punished and payed for ALL sins, what sins are left for you to be punished for?

[Littlejoe9763]

Hi Trent,

Thanks for your question! In my post that you quote here, I tried to qualify the dichotomy of this issue.

Hey LJ ...

you said

Yes Christ paid for all sins on the cross

and also ...

But, I believe, he is just and holy, and by his own word, MUST punish unrecompensed sin.

they seem to contradict eachother... If Christ was punished and payed for ALL sins, what sins are left for you to be punished for?

1st, we all agree that Christ paid for all sin on the cross. If your reformed/calvinist, you believe Christ only paid for the sins of the elect, if your arminian, you believe that Christ paid for all sins of mankind. This is logically necessary. Christ cannot keep coming back and getting crucified for each generation of mankind. So now the question becomes, if this is logically necessary, why is there "unrecompensed" sin that must be punished? Right? Here in lies the dichotomy of salvation. I attempted to explain this with the pocketknife analogy:


Yes Christ paid for all sins on the cross. I believe that and so do you. However, the bible makes it clear that salvation by grace through faith are a gift of God. As I said in another post, if I buy you a gift, lets say a watch. I offer you this watch as a free gift. If you say "no I already have a watch, I don't need another one. Was the gift NOT bought and paid for? Yes it was. You didn't receive a watch because you refused the free gift. That's not MY fault...it's yours. If we refuse the free gift of salvation...that's not GOD"S fault...It''s OURS. This principle is why I believe universal forgiveness (what Christ accomplished on the cross) does NOT equal universal salvation!


What I am attempting to show by this analogy, is that there is one, (and only one) thing that is necessary to receive this free gift of God. RECEIVE IT! The analogy explains that the gift is paid for, and it is offered, all we have to do is accept it. Does this clear it up?

LJ

[Raphael]

Hi Trent,

Thanks for your question! In my post that you quote here, I tried to qualify the dichotomy of this issue.



1st, we all agree that Christ paid for all sin on the cross. If your reformed/calvinist, you believe Christ only paid for the sins of the elect, if your arminian, you believe that Christ paid for all sins of mankind. This is logically necessary. Christ cannot keep coming back and getting crucified for each generation of mankind. So now the question becomes, if this is logically necessary, why is there "unrecompensed" sin that must be punished? Right? Here in lies the dichotomy of salvation. I attempted to explain this with the pocketknife analogy:



What I am attempting to show by this analogy, is that there is one, (and only one) thing that is necessary to receive this free gift of God. RECEIVE IT! The analogy explains that the gift is paid for, and it is offered, all we have to do is accept it. Does this clear it up?

LJ
Hey LJ,

What do you think of this idea: That Jesus' death on the cross paid the price for all sin, except the sin of Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? (i.e. the sin of unbelief).

As a Calvinist, that personally for me is the closest I'll allow for the concept of universal forgiveness that you are talking about.

(sorry not wanting to distract from the rest of the conversation, just wanting your opinion on that)

[Littlejoe9763]

Hey LJ,

What do you think of this idea: That Jesus' death on the cross paid the price for all sin, except the sin of Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? (i.e. the sin of unbelief).

As a Calvinist, that personally for me is the closest I'll allow for the concept of universal forgiveness that you are talking about.

(sorry not wanting to distract from the rest of the conversation, just wanting your opinion on that)

Hi Raphael,

Well, I personally think that the Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is...basically...ascribing to the Holy Spirit, evil actions and/or deeds. I don't think it's unbelief. The phase comes from (as I'm sure your aware) Matthew 12:31-32
31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
But the context (verses 22-32) seems relatively clear that the Pharisee's were accusing Jesus of casting out demons by the power of Satan.

However, you make a good point in that Jesus tells us here that it is a sin that will NOT be forgiven! I believe, unbelief can be forgiven...you just have to believe to receive the forgiveness! :lol: I don't believe you can die in unbelief and be forgiven.

[Raphael]

Hi Raphael,

Well, I personally think that the Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is...basically...ascribing to the Holy Spirit, evil actions and/or deeds. I don't think it's unbelief. The phase comes from (as I'm sure your aware) Matthew 12:31-32
31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
But the context (verses 22-32) seems relatively clear that the Pharisee's were accusing Jesus of casting out demons by the power of Satan.

However, you make a good point in that Jesus tells us here that it is a sin that will NOT be forgiven! I believe, unbelief can be forgiven...you just have to believe to receive the forgiveness! :lol: I don't believe you can die in unbelief and be forgiven.
Fair enough.

[auggybendoggy]

LJ,
I'm not so much out to advertise my position as much as to say the anihilation view or eternal torment view does not seem to make much sense to me at all now days.

I'm not calling you crazy or ignorant I'm honestly saying that the view you endorse does not seem to render an image of a perfect God to me but rather I see an image of a God who utterly fails as he loses most to sin.

So when you state, God on one hand loves all and wants all to be saved but on the other hand he is just and will KILL the very person he's TRYING to reconcile, I agree with Mcdonald that
its a skitzophrenia. As the first chapter in "the evangelical universalist" is named..."A hell of a problem". God's in a pickle; He's got a real problem he can't resolve perfectly; he has NO CHOICE but to throw the baby out with the bath water in most cases.

In a long round about way I agree with Talbott and Mcdonald that the scriptures as a whole are mis-interpreted by ALL of us and therfore we can BEGIN to see that he is ONLY A BLESSING and he is not a curse. He is GOOD ONLY and not bad. Thus the taoism of God is both good and evil co-existing, ends for me there.

If you can prove to me that Gods dillema or pickle is for him to "try" to save the world but fails to achieve what he is attemtping and yet remain perfect then I will then concede your position to at least a level of contemplation. However, if you should claim that he is not "trying" to save the world and therfore he does not fail (this means the view that he offers salvation and now it's our choice) then I will have to ask for proof that he is not "trying" to save the world (in light of john 3).
If you say he is indeed trying and has met his part of saving them (offer salvation) but we must do our part (save ourselves) then I must see the above.

I do respect you and I feel you are probably way more learned than myself but after reading talbott and mcdonald I am convinced they are correct about the traditional view.

Aug

[Littlejoe9763]

LJ,
I'm not so much out to advertise my position as much as to say the anihilation view or eternal torment view does not seem to make much sense to me at all now days.

It's a Universal Salvation Discussion thread Aug, advertise away. I for one would like to see a viable argument.

I'm not calling you crazy or ignorant I'm honestly saying that the view you endorse does not seem to render an image of a perfect God to me but rather I see an image of a God who utterly fails as he loses most to sin.

Thanks for not calling me crazy or ignorant. :wink: As to God losing most to sin, well Jesus said that was what would happen in Matthew 7:13-14:

13"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.
14"For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."


So when you state, God on one hand loves all and wants all to be saved but on the other hand he is just and will KILL the very person he's TRYING to reconcile, I agree with Mcdonald that
its a skitzophrenia. As the first chapter in "the evangelical universalist" is named..."A hell of a problem". God's in a pickle; He's got a real problem he can't resolve perfectly; he has NO CHOICE but to throw the baby out with the bath water in most cases.


I haven't read Mcdonald or Talbott, I have looked at a little of what they have written. I just don't see how you can get schizophrenia from the scriptural God. You again haven't given us anything to look at except your assertions. :shrug:

In a long round about way I agree with Talbott and Mcdonald that the scriptures as a whole are mis-interpreted by ALL of us and therfore we can BEGIN to see that he is ONLY A BLESSING and he is not a curse. He is GOOD ONLY and not bad. Thus the taoism of God is both good and evil co-existing, ends for me there.

Again, HOW are we misinterpreting scriptures??? The description you have here of God, isn't scriptural.


If you can prove to me that Gods dillema or pickle is for him to "try" to save the world but fails to achieve what he is attemtping and yet remain perfect then I will then concede your position to at least a level of contemplation. However, if you should claim that he is not "trying" to save the world and therfore he does not fail (this means the view that he offers salvation and now it's our choice) then I will have to ask for proof that he is not "trying" to save the world (in light of john 3).
If you say he is indeed trying and has met his part of saving them (offer salvation) but we must do our part (save ourselves) then I must see the above.


There is no way I can "prove" to you anything if you don't accept scripture as it is written. That's all I have. You can believe what you want, and hope it's true, but I have a hard time seeing it to be honest with you.

I do respect you and I feel you are probably way more learned than myself but after reading talbott and mcdonald I am convinced they are correct about the traditional view.

Aug

Thanks Auggy, :blush: I appreciate that! I enjoy talking to you and respect you also because of the way you conduct yourself! As to being more learned...I don't know about that. I don't have much formal education actually, and next to zero formal BIBLE education. God has blessed me with a sound mind, and I have alway's loved to read. I guess I need to read one of the books your refering to so that I can get a handle on what your talking about. What book would you recommend?

LJ

[Raphael]

Hi Aug,

I hope you don't mind me interjecting into your conversation with LJ.

I think you're looking at it the wrong way.

God is glorified as being Merciful when a repentant sinner enters into the Kingdom and has his sin washed away.
And God is glorified as being Just when an unrepentant sinner goes to hell (whatever your view of hell is, as you know that is a whole other debate).

God isn't a failure or being evil with this.

God laid down the Law, and told man what the consequences were for breaking the Law. What happened? Man broke the Law.
Then what happened? God said because you broke the Law, you will go to Hell, unless you have a substitute, who has NOT broken the Law, to pay for your sins. (Jesus of course being the substitute)

But, God puts also limit there. He says that you have to be a Believer in Christ in order to use Him as your "Get Out Of Hell Free" card.
(John 3:16-17, ESv)"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
(Romans 10:9-11, ESV)because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame."

Scripture plainly says that only those who believe will be saved and those who don't are already condemned. How can that possibly be interpreted otherwise?

[auggybendoggy]

Raphel,
I don't mind at all, as you'll find LJ and me disagree yet discuss our differences and difficulties quite loudly. I think LJ like will conceed that we both have difficulties in our own views and neither of us would claim to have it all nailed down.

To answer the question of God being loving and just...
you state I may be looking at it the wrong way.

No your re-iterating the viewpoint.
God has a confilct.
1) God's love wants to save all men
2) God's justice requires his love to fail because men choose not to be reconciled.

God has a dilema or (a hell of a problem) because he wants DESPERATLEY for his children to be saved (adam and even be reconciled back to their father). But the image was gather from our traditional roots is that God is the one Jesus is saving us from. Indeed LJ did nothing to eleviate this point but only re-inforced my opinion that is EXACTLY what he thinks.
Most ET (eternal torment) people do believe this since God created the Lake of Fire and throws death and hades into it. So ultimatley Jesus is saving us from God's wrath? Right?

Your view of justice compomises Gods character.

If God is just (his nature) then when does he ever act out of unjust?
so if God is truth (nature) when does he lie?
if God is rightouss (nature) when is he unrightouess?
BUT IF GOD IS LOVE (NATURE) YOU THINK HE CAN ACT IN HATE?

In other words we are just like pharisees who thinks a HOLY (seperate) God who does not tolerate sin WILL NOT EAT OR DINE WITH SINNERS.
Indeed he does?
So does God tolerate sin? We say NO he's looking to perfect us.
I agree.
But he does so by TOLERATING SIN, BECOMING SIN, AND SAVING EVERY SINNER.

Thus justice is sees and Jesus should have given the adultress what the law required.
Find the man and take them both out of the city and CRACK THEIR SKULLS.

Instead

HE FORGIVES HER (does not condemn her) AND SHE DOES NOT ASK FOR IT.

So JUSTICE also forgives....unless LOVE causes God to act unjust?
So if forgiveness is an UNJUST ACT then you are correct in your view.
But if forgivenss is just then there is no reason to see how love and justive don't work together.

I believe God is love and his justice (condemnation and wrath) brings us to humility. I see in Hell his creation is seperate from their creator (father).
I see it no different here...
Adam and Eve (man and woman) were seperated from their father and now God is humbling EVERY MAN. Can you argue that some men are saved and not humbled?
All men disobey God, All men are arrogant, All men require salvation, ALL MEN MUST BE HUMBELED (GODS WRATH).
Further.

We were all object of wrath (God has bound all men to disobedience)
so the he may have mercy on them all (and unto himself reconcile all things by making peace).

So to close,
I beieve the viewpoint (taoism) that God is the one we're being saved from is INCORRECT.
I believe the viewpoint (Universal reconciliation) the God is the one saving all men is correct.

I believe the viewpoint that God only has mercy on the repentent after they repent is incorrect.
I believe the viewpoint that God has mercy on sinners and thus they repent.

I believe Gods justice does not cause him to act in hate towards his creation
I believe his LOVE NEVER FAILS, and therfroe will FIND THOSE HE SEEKS.
I believe NO ONE FINDS GOD, but rather we are lost and GOD FINDS US.

Aug

[trent1980]

I like your analogy and agree with your explanations ...

i just don't like "But, I believe, he is just and holy, and by his own word, MUST punish unrecompensed sin. "

:lol:

I think Christ took ALL the punishment for ALL sin ....

[auggybendoggy]

My understanding is that the ET view holds a double standard.

In one breath they'll say Justice REQUIRES that sin be punished.

But forgiveness (mercy) allows sin to go unpunished.

Of course the obviouse response is Jesus takes on the punishment for some but not all.
Yet scripture clearly stated he died not only for our sins but the sins of the whole world.
He is the saviour of all men, espeicailly of those who believe.

So they'll tend to say the punishment he bore is only for those who have faith (elect) and the arminain becomes a clavinist. Now if they say he did pay the sins for all men then the debt has been paid.

LJ would have us think the gift was purchased and now you just have to receive the gift.
but in acutality the DEBT has been paid and so why is it being paid two times....double taxation?
Sounds like our govt : ) (haha had to get that one in).

I believe Jesus indeed did pay of all debts and now is reconciling the whole world unto himself.
Every knee will bow and everyone will pledge their alegience (NAS of Isaiah).

Aug

[Littlejoe9763]

My understanding is that the ET view holds a double standard.

In one breath they'll say Justice REQUIRES that sin be punished.

The bible clearly state that Christ died for all sin for all men! It also clearly says that in order for that payment to be applied to YOU, YOU must believe and trust in Him. That's called a paradox. Something that seems contradictory but actually is true!


But forgiveness (mercy) allows sin to go unpunished.

Of course the obviouse response is Jesus takes on the punishment for some but not all.
Yet scripture clearly stated he died not only for our sins but the sins of the whole world.
He is the saviour of all men, espeicailly of those who believe.

Agreed! especially of those who BELIEVE!

So they'll tend to say the punishment he bore is only for those who have faith (elect) and the arminain becomes a clavinist. Now if they say he did pay the sins for all men then the debt has been paid.

No, not really. You continue to mistake where the break down occurs. The break is not with Christ, it's with us. It's clear from the scripture that the payment had to come first, or there was no salvation. Think of it like this, Christ put up HIS credit card as collatoral against your debt. The only thing standing between your debt being paid, and it BEING paid is YOUR application of HIS credit card! To say otherwise simply makes Jesus Christ himself to be a liar. If that's the case, then ALL of us are doomed! How else do you explain John 3:16, 17 AND 18???

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%203;&version=31;#fen-NIV-26127f)] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[g (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%203;&version=31;#fen-NIV-26129g)]

This seems clear and uncontradictory to me. How are we misinterpreting this passage? I'm not going to throw a lot of scriptures at you Auggy, however, an "proper" explanation (if there is one) of this one passage would go a long way to helping your case.

LJ would have us think the gift was purchased and now you just have to receive the gift.
but in acutality the DEBT has been paid and so why is it being paid two times....double taxation?
Sounds like our govt : ) (haha had to get that one in).


Please explain why it's being paid TWICE? Also, see example above.


I believe Jesus indeed did pay of all debts and now is reconciling the whole world unto himself.
Every knee will bow and everyone will pledge their alegience (NAS of Isaiah).

Aug

It's funny that you quote Isaiah 45:23 and ignore verse 22!


22 "Turn to me and be saved,
all you ends of the earth;
for I am God, and there is no other. 23 By myself I have sworn,
my mouth has uttered in all integrity
a word that will not be revoked:
Before me every knee will bow;
by me every tongue will swear.

Why do we need to turn to HIM to be saved??? According to you we are saved already!

[trent1980]

My understanding is that the ET view holds a double standard.

In one breath they'll say Justice REQUIRES that sin be punished.

But forgiveness (mercy) allows sin to go unpunished.

Of course the obviouse response is Jesus takes on the punishment for some but not all.
Yet scripture clearly stated he died not only for our sins but the sins of the whole world.
He is the saviour of all men, espeicailly of those who believe.

So they'll tend to say the punishment he bore is only for those who have faith (elect) and the arminain becomes a clavinist. Now if they say he did pay the sins for all men then the debt has been paid.

LJ would have us think the gift was purchased and now you just have to receive the gift.
but in acutality the DEBT has been paid and so why is it being paid two times....double taxation?
Sounds like our govt : ) (haha had to get that one in).

I believe Jesus indeed did pay of all debts and now is reconciling the whole world unto himself.
Every knee will bow and everyone will pledge their alegience (NAS of Isaiah).

Aug

Think of it in the "overview" of God's plan and then get in to the details.

Sin separated man from God. Christ came and took away sin. We can no longer be separated from God by sin. Unfortunately it doesn't resolve the issue that all of us are born separated/spiritually dead. That's why Christ came to give LIFE and it's ETERNAL because the one thing that could take it away was been dealt with.

It's like a car with a bunch of nails in the tire. What's the problem? The nails or the flat? If I take the nails out, did I fix the problem? The nails are sin and getting air back in your tires is the LIFE Christ offered.

Now look at the finality of the Cross and what he did in regards to punishment and sin. Hell isn't a punishment for those who don't believe, it's eternal separation from God described as a horrible place. It was prepared for Satan and his Angels.
Matt 25:41 - "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."

[auggybendoggy]

Trent, Agrees that it is eternal seperation from God. Indeed when there is no faith serperation from God is eternal for there is no other remedy. In other words as long as one is in rebellion to God he is eternally serperated for there is no other name by which man can be reconciled unto God.

However in the scheme of things It appears to me God's plan is to have mercy on all by binding them to disobedience and restoring them. His plan seems to make sense if he truly loves all men. And if he truly loves all men then I see no reason why to believe his love will fail at it's attempt to reconcile and save the world.

The dyanamics of the work of the Cross is for the most part agreed upon by us as even I believe more the arminian view that Christ died to change us and not to change God.

But it's the failing character of God that he "attempts" to save the world and only saves a few that I find the arminian view to loudly fail with.

Besides this the predestination passages (especially rom 9) seems to enlight us about who hardens whom? I am no calvinist but I have to conceed to their viewpoint thats exactly what Paul is arguing.

So when LJ offers up a passive salvation, namely that Jesus offers his hand out for salvation...
I find that dead men cannot grasp anything.

So a little challenge for LJ and arminians
take a stick to the next funeral and hold it out to the dead person and see if he grabs it.

Thats us. God KNOWS we CANNOT save ourselves (yet paul says we can) and thus does not just OFFER a gift thats "paid" for. Rather, the story is HE BECOMES MAN...jumps into the water, and saves them...the grabs them and places them into the boat because WE CANNOT GRAB HIS HAND.

If a man grabs his hand (takes the gift) it's because God softened his heart to respond to him for NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER UNLESS THE FATHER DRAWS HIM. Thus not you nor I could take his hand unless he draws us (changes our view - blind to seeing).

So the obvious ? is
why does God not soften every heart to respond to taking his hand?

leading me to the Arm reasoning...
God does not soften the heart but the man does for it's his choice.

Enter Rom 9.
Whom he wills he hardnes?

I believe if "libertarian" freedom is being respected by God then MAN hardens himself
as stated in Exodus (pharoa) hardened his heart...
EXCEPT I believe Paul enlightens us that God is the one who CAUSED this for his own will and not the "desires or efforts" of pharoa.

So I take it that paul means God is the one whom hardens and the one who has mercy.

For if a man can save himself then he needs no mercy from God.

But indeed NO MAN CAN SAVE HIMSELF though paul says "if you do these things you will save yourself and your hearers) to timothy.

I find it a bit akward that any one would argue paul meant YOU SAVE YOURSELF. I believe his reference it to that of James being, if you truly believe than do so. But as for belief it also is a gift of God GIVEN to WHOM he WILLS.

So the interpretation of God died to offer salvation to the world is only a shallow understanding but rather it much more amazing to say God dies to SAVE them literally WITHOUT FAILING for ANY REASON makes much more sense.

If LJ can prove that God only offers salvation and does not do the WHOLE of saving then I will conceed his position and probably join him. However at this point in my understanding, WE ARE ALL DEAD and EVEN FOR CHOICES and therfore can say that the only way a DEAD MAN CHOOSES GOD is becauase GOD ALREADY GAVE HIM LIFE TO MAKE THE CHOICE.

For God does not have mercy because they repent...
Rahter men repent because God has mercy.

Aug

[auggybendoggy]

either my post was removed or a system backup occured???
trents response was also removed? What a drag!

[Raphael]

either my post was removed or a system backup occured???
trents response was also removed? What a drag!
The database corrupted and had to be recovered from backup.

[trent1980]

either my post was removed or a system backup occured???
trents response was also removed? What a drag!

Hey Aug --

do you have email alerts turned on? Can you PM my response? I'll do the editing and put it back up.

[auggybendoggy]

Trent, I do but I think I del everything.
I'll check...
No I don't trent...
I think it's gone : (

I know of no other way of getting it back. I don't save my responses except ont he web.

you wanna just go ahead and make points for your response I'm good with that. If not I'll do it.

Aug

[trent1980]

Trent, I do but I think I del everything.
I'll check...
No I don't trent...
I think it's gone : (

I know of no other way of getting it back. I don't save my responses except ont he web.

you wanna just go ahead and make points for your response I'm good with that. If not I'll do it.

Aug

I have yours in an email .. i think I can pull mine out of it too ...

I'll do my best to post it up here

give me about 20 minutes

[trent1980]

I’m going to do my best here .. my original response was lost but I have auggy’s response from email … let me know if a section isn’t clear and I’ll try to remember what I wrote.



trent, first off when I say "trent, agrees", I mean "treant, agreed" as in I agree with you on the statement... (to) trent, (from me) Agreed! sorry about the confusion. As for reconciliation meaning 2 parties have to agree. That is incorrect. Roncile means both parties agree. The trouble you have is you disagree that God made peace, and reconciled all things unto himself, whether it be things in heaven or things on earth. To reconcile means to fix. If both parties have to agree then and one does not agree then nothing has been "fixed" or reconciled (brought back). Thus if God has brought back that which was lost but the lost refuses to come back then God has not brought them back. Your conclusion proves to be faulty.

Because you’ve exceeded my conclusion …

Let’s say I went out to a fancy dinner way beyond my means. You call up the restaurant and pay my bill while I’m eating. When I finish my food, I realize that the bill is going to far exceed what I have in my account. You can see how from this analogy, the bill has been reconciled but I am not.

That’s how I can say God HAS reconciled ALL men but most MEN are not reconciled. That’s why Paul says “I implore, be reconciled” because the bill has been paid.



*He forgave all mankind for their sins.

The problem with mankind and God is not sin ... it's spiritual death. We're dead until we receive the Life Christ offered in his Resurrection*

Totally agree, but this does not prove that God will not bring all men to faith.

It doesn’t say that he will bring them either … I’m not sure where you’re going with that.



*He didn't attempt to send his Son to the World ... HE DID!!! * Agreed *
He didn't attempt to forgive mankind ... HE DID!!!*

Agreed, but what doesn't make sense from the ET view is the sins are still held against them. After all is it sin that throws man into eternal torment or God? (please read revelation)


They aren’t going to hell because of sins … They’re going to hell because they can’t be with God. They were born separated from God and never received the Life he offered, so they stay separated from God.

It’s not a punishment for the sins you committed on earth.



*He didn't attempt to save the world*

Strange view you hold, You think he sent his Son into the world to condemn it? My bible says he sent him that the world might be saved through him. Please prove that he is not attempting to save the world.

This was in response to you saying that God would have a failing character if he attempted and failed.

Christ was sent to save the world. Whoever believes is saved and whoever doesn’t believe isn’t. It’s a pretty simple concept.

His provision of salvation was for the whole world. It’s like me offering to buy everyone dinner and I desire that everyone comes to dinner. If you don’t go to the dinner, I can’t buy it for you.

I don’t like analogies because people often argue the analogy instead of the point its making.

Just because not all will be saved, it does not necessitate that God failed. He could send his Son that whoever believes will be saved and whoever doesn’t, won’t. Imagine that, it’s biblical too!



*trent said... he desires that all are saved. * This is related to the previous point but not directly. I agree his will is that all men be saved. *

Why don’t you put down the scripture you’re referencing and then we can look at it together?





A better question for you to raise is: "Is it impossible for God to desire and not receive?"*

I'm not convince that God loses anything especially that which his love is directed towards. I believe the scriptures as a whole shows that God NEVER gets duped, nor is he ever defeated. So if God can manipulate or cause (arm or calv) the kings and nations to do things that his will is brought about then I see no problem that he can bring each man to humility within their seperation from him. So to answer. No I believe God gets everything he wants....For the people of the earth are regarded as nothing, God does as he pleases. If you believe God does lose to sin or gets duped, would you please make a case. It must be settled on a overall scheme. What I mean is if you say man fell and God did not want it of couse scripture points that he (God) bound men to disobedience. So you would have to prove men boung men to disobedience. I'd disagree ...

Be careful … God’s will is that you give thanks in all circumstances. ALL MEANS ALL. Do you really give thanks in all circumstances?

1 Thess 5:18
give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus.


*Do people reject Christ because God has “hardened” them or does God “harden” people because they reject Christ?*


There are but 2 altenatives to this point. 1) God has mercy on whom he wants - he hardens whome he wants. 2) God does not haver mercy on whom he wants - he does not harden whom he wants Paul is ABSOLUTE in "it does NOT depend therfore on mans efforts or his desires" Arminains are stubborn to avoid this passage but until someone logically re-interprets this section and dissolves pauls own argument "so some of you will say, how can God blame us who resist his will"; paul obviously sees the arm viewpoint and does not respond with "dont you know it is you whom hardens yourself." rather he states The POTTER HAS THE RIGHT. Who is the Potter? Does he have a right to make some lumps of clay for destruction and some for glory?

You pinned yourself in to 2 bad choices.

God does harden whom he wants. He hardens those who reject him, just like the scripture says.

Read jeremiah 18 … before the clay was reshaped by the potter, what was it’s characteristic?



*You've changed causality. In your analogy, the stick is independent of the death of the person. It's an analogy and that's all ... it's not a real example. We are all born physically alive and Spiritually separated from God. While we are physically alive, we have the ability to accept or reject Christ and receive Spiritual Life. the analogy is bad ... ditch it.*



I agree the analogy is just an analogy but so is my challenge (you should know that) the point of any analogy is to make a point. You seem to think that spritiually dead people can make choice of the living. Until you can show how the unrighteouss can make a righteouss decision WITHOUT GOD CHANGING THE UNRIGHTOUESS, I will continue with the analogy. Until you can show that the blind can see WITHOUT GOD FIRST GIVING THEM SIGHT, I will continue to see the analogy as valid. Now prove that the reason God had mercy on Paul was because Paul had a change of heart and I will agree with you. But I find paul writes to timoty, God had mercy on him (paul) because HE WAS IGNORANT. Do you believe paul did not know he was killing christians? Do you believe Paul knew nothing of Christ? Your reason also stands to set that the reason God has mercy on a man is becasue man finds something whith himself that causes him to change. Contrar my friend, GOD CHANGES US and gives us life that we make these decisions. Again if you can prove that the unrightouess can do good things then I'll agree

Because you’re talking about a physically dead person doing a physically alive act.

Of course a dead person cannot pickup a stick.

You’ve changed the order so that it doesn’t work. You say that the only way a person can believe is if he is spiritually alive. But scripture tells us that believing gives life.
John 20:31 - But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

You’ve flipped it … Believing comes BEFORE life.



I find my bible to say When I sin it is sin in me, when I do good it is Christ in me. I believe this is the life of the believer, namely, WE CAN DO NOTHING W/O HIM. Seems to me in your logic that we can do things outside of him. You should be careful with investing so much in this world as a reality? The analogies of this world (living and dead) show us what we can and cant do. It shows us how we live and dont live. It shows us how bound and how free we are? And therfore I believe the analogy of sutdying the dead vs. the living show us EXACTLY what Christ offers vs. what our nature is. If you think our nature is both rightouess and unrightouess then I see where your coming from, we just disagree. I believe we have nothing rightouess about us and that everman has sinned and therfore is unrighteouss not a mixed bag.

I agree no man is good or righteous … all have sinned and fallen short

I think that not all humanity is saved and yet the world goes on and does things. They breathe, jump, kill, drink, build orphanages … Is it God “with” those people doing those things?

We clearly have a free will to do whatever we want like you said. (good things are Christ, bad things are us). But I see people without Christ doing good things and so clearly “things” can be done without God.

You’ve taken that verse out of context … John 15:5
I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.

You cannot “bear fruit” apart from Christ.



*You're confusing Grace and Mercy. Grace is getting what we don't deserve (Salvation) and Mercy is not getting what we do deserve (Damnation). * I see them both extensions of Love so it does not matter to me of this fine line. Love is what matters, for of these 3 things remain, faith hope and love, the greatest is love.

And because God loved the world he sent his Son (Grace) into the world to save it.


cool



You must have misread my statement about sins sending people to hell. I don't believe man goes to hell for sins he commits here. I believe he goes to hell because that's the place that is shut out of God's presence. No man will be punished and sent to hell for his sins. Christ was punished for all sin. He that knew no sin became sin.

1 thes 4:6 - I don’t understand why you put this verse in.

2 thes 1:8 – “They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord” -- the punishment is separation (spiritually dead). They’ll remain and be shut out from his presence not punished for sins.

2 peter 2 … continuing the punishment of separation from God … then notice this is especially true for those who follow the desire of their sinful nature. Like those who reject God and his laws.

Rev 17:1 – we’d have to agree on what is what before we got in to this. But my initial thought is that the prostitute is an earthly city being judged by God with an earthly judgement.


You and LJ again prove that in your system you believe Jesus died to save us from God. Except that you change your language and points at different times to avoid this approach. Again, who thows who into the lake of Fire. Whos wrath is upon the wicked (those whos names are not written in the book of life)? Is it sin or God? If you believe in ET or Ann then I'm confused with your position.

I’m confused with your question


[quote=trent]
Try a bit of both .... God did die for the World, to save the WORLD, because he loves the WORLD. He came to give LIFE to all who believed in his name.
*It doesn't make much sense at all to say that God, without reason, elects people to have life and elects others death. 1. That isn't a God of love 2. Then ALL men who remain spiritually dead have the BEST EXCUSE in the world. They didn't believe because they couldn't.*

Trent, here I agree with you. Thats why I'm no calvinist. I do agree with them that we do not have a libertarian free will. A ungodly man does not act godly for he is bound to his nature which (rom 11) God has bound him to (disobedience). However being a reconciliationist I believe God will bring all men to faith in Christ by humbling them either here or in the next age to come. My view is not perfect as I see defects with it but to me it makes more sense of life. I believe God is MOVING us all towards the arm viewpoint. That is when we become rational (we can guage the difference between God and sin) then God will allow us to choose freely. However like a good parent, when our children are niave to the dangers in the world around us (like playing on the freeway) we restrict their freedom by holding their hand. It does not mean he controls EVERY thought and being but rather that he teaches us and allows us to even learn the hard way. The closer we get to death the more aware we become of God. that why the worldly man begins to panic and finally think about God. The closer we get to God the more aware we become that sin is not pleasant and is HORRIBLE. Sin often looks apetizing to us... lets say theft... we see a mans wallet on the floor and we find it has 1000.00 dollars in it. It seems to benefit us to take the money and use it. But I believe it destroys us. When we learn from our Father who does see sin for what it is, he warns us it's like having molten lava poured upon our heads. So when we become more learned by God (godly wisdom, love and knowledge) we become aware that to sin is like being drenched with gasoline and lit up like a candle. When a man (even the most wicked) reallize this then they can choose freely. If a man chooses still to be burned, it's because there is something wrong with him and he cannot see what it truly is...in other words he is still irrational or BLIND or dead (as we might call it). Therfore when God has changes us (we are all changed in the twinkling of an eye, those who believe) we will no longer see adultery, theft, murder, greed, pride as beneficial but rather as a hot fire that burns and we WILL AlWAYS FREELY CHOOSE GOD. sorry I cant type anymore : ) I'll respond to the rest of your letter later : )

Long paragraph … don’t know where to start

I would just chime in that the older I get, the more aware I am of how much I sin and fall short each day … and it causes me to thank him for what he did for me.

I guess I don’t understand your position on free will. Did God elect a group of believers to choose him or not?



LJ and Trent, I do appreciate your dialouge and please in no way take offense as I am not 100% sure of any position (that is to say that anyone has the bible down pat). I have many sympathies with your view and may even one day abandon my own. But I must state my heart and mind and this is all I am doing. I am not condemning you and your view as I'm learning myself about God. With love, Auggy


I appreciate yours as well … it’s nice to check your view against someone else who can throw some verses out to make you think …

Keep the scriptures coming …

Trent

[auggybendoggy]

Because you’ve exceeded my conclusion …
Let’s say I went out to a fancy dinner way beyond my means. You call up the restaurant and pay my bill while I’m eating. When I finish my food, I realize that the bill is going to far exceed what I have in my account. You can see how from this analogy, the bill has been reconciled but I am not.
That’s how I can say God HAS reconciled ALL men but most MEN are not reconciled. That’s why Paul says “I implore, be reconciled” because the bill has been paid.

In deed many things at the present time are not reconciled but are in a process of being reconciled. When he made peace it was just that not a partial peace. Therfore if God exceeds our "days and nights" then in the overall scheme of things THE VICTORY IS ALREADY WON.
Now if I take your concusion then the victory is waiting to be won? I agree with Kieth Green here that IT"S BEEN DONE. It is finished and therfore now all men are being drawn unto him. His words do not exclude the fact that men still have to be drawn. And likewise, he has ALREADY reconciled all things (not some things).

The bill analogy you give is paid not for one individual but for all men who eat. Therfore which man has to pay?


point 2: you state you do not know where I'm going with that...
I'm in agreement that Jesus did not die to save us from God. It is God who does send us to hell though for our wickedness. This wickedness (sin) keeps us from God and therefore you are half right and half wrong. To say Sin is not the reason why we are seperate from God makes no sense to me from an evangelical stance. May I paraphrase for you...
Sin is not the problem, seperation from God is. (totally disagree with the point).
Sepreation is the result, Sin (disobedience) is the problem.

They aren’t going to hell because of sins … They’re going to hell because they can’t be with God. They were born separated from God and never received the Life he offered, so they stay separated from God.

It’s not a punishment for the sins you committed on earth.
This is in reference to point 2 and also later I quote about 5 or 6 NT verses that talk about punishment for thier sin.
1 thes 4:6 (ok it's a NIV statment) digard that one
You must have misread my statement about sins sending people to hell. I don't believe man goes to hell for sins he commits here. I believe he goes to hell because that's the place that is shut out of God's presence. No man will be punished and sent to hell for his sins. Christ was punished for all sin. He that knew no sin became sin.

1 thes 4:6 - I don’t understand why you put this verse in.
NIV has punished for their sins

2 thes 1:8 – “They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord” -- the punishment is separation (spiritually dead). They’ll remain and be shut out from his presence not punished for sins.
I think again you are missing the point. The seperation is the result of Sin. Sin is not the result of disobedience. Sin takes us from God's presence. Being taken from Gods presence ALWAYS follows, not preceeds.

2 peter 2 … continuing the punishment of separation from God … then notice this is especially true for those who follow the desire of their sinful nature. Like those who reject God and his laws.

Rev 17:1– we’d have to agree on what is what before we got in to this. But my initial thought is that the prostitute is an earthly city being judged by God with an earthly judgement.

I'm a bit boggled that you think they will not be punished for thier sins.

If I am correct Romans11:27, concerning your view concludes:
27And this is[a] my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.
since in your view God did indeed take away the sins of the world and they will not be punished for their sins, then Romans 11:27 must be for the whole world. Since
he took away their sins (you also claim its everyone) then this covenenat is for EVERYONE?
I truly think you are misguided on your interpretations as a whole.
We stand on VERY different points of view.
I believe Sin is what God wants to destroy in us. He's looking to kill saul to give birth to paul;
Born again.
You seem to think Sin is no longer a problem only seperation. Where this is no sin there is no seperation. And where there is fogiveness there is mercy which means eternal condemnation is removed.

A simple question:
We know that those thrown into the lake of fire are bing seperated from God. The question is why are they being thrown in? You seem to be saying..."it's not sin that they receive this punishment."

Matt 25:
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. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment

I also read you to conclude that they are not being punished but are simply cut off from God.
First point...
these people are punished because of their actions and faith. They acted w/o love and now receive justice. So is this sin for which they are being punished? I believe it is clear.

Did God elect a group of believers to choose him or not?
I'm convinced that the scriptures are ALL about Jesus. That does not mean we are not part of the story nor the angels in heaven. But when it comes to "Isreal" (the first born son of I AM) or
"the chose ones" "the remnant", "the elect" I believe it's Jesus.
I believe God loves all men and created them to be tranformed into the image of his son. I believe his love is so deep for ALL MEN (every man) that nothing can seperate us from the love of God.

Thats why Jesus says.
Be afraid of the one who can destroy both body and soul in hell...
"BUT" (notice this HUGE conjunction)
Dont be afraid, you are worth more than many sparrows.

Are the wicked worth more than many sparrows? I believe they are, for we are all wicked.
But to me the gospel is that God is going to save us because we cannot do it ourselves.
We think we have an ability to do godly things and really we're DEAD.

So I believe God has taken ALL who are dead and died for ALL of them so that they ALL may live and because he can "manipulate" or "cause" kingdoms of the earth to bring about his will then I see no reason to believe that his will is that ANY one will be lost forever.

He is like a shepherd who loses 1 of 99 and HE DOES NOT STOP LOOKING UNTIL HE FINDS IT. Jesus says this to the pharisees not to point that they are good shepherds but to point that a good shepherd does just that. God is a good shepherd. So building the ET view on metaphors is to me a bad Idea. Rather I agree with Talbott that God ALWAYS acts in love and love always seeks to restore things (for it always builds up)

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails

the ET view holds that love does not persevere but rather gives up upon an appointed time.
That his love does not endure forever. It does keep records of wrongs and rights. It stops protecting at a certain destined time, and that it fails to save those it is seeking.

God is seeking us out, we don't FIND God, we're blind. God finds us.
Thats the point of the dead man. Arm think God finds us and offers to bring us home and we say "no".
if we say no then God has not found us at all. For when we are save then God has found us.

Again,
the whole, "save yourself and your hearers" is no more proof that you are your own savior than you can die for your own sins.
The point should be noted for perseverance but it SHOULD BE NOTED that it is GODS MERCY that seeks us, finds us, and saves us. ALL GLORY TO HIM.

The arm position only wants to make the "offer" or passive salvation in order to justify why they are free and God does not restrict them becasue it's problematic to see MOST people reject God. So in their minds, Like lucifer, they want to be free to make their own decisions not knowing how blind we all are.

I don't believe in libertarian free will because if we had it we'd all be dead men walking. Rather it's God who DRAWS, SOFTENS, CAUSES for his own glory that we may one day be children of God who can then KNOW what sin is and choose him freely (the truth shall set you free).

Aug

[trent1980]

Because you’ve exceeded my conclusion …
Let’s say I went out to a fancy dinner way beyond my means. You call up the restaurant and pay my bill while I’m eating. When I finish my food, I realize that the bill is going to far exceed what I have in my account. You can see how from this analogy, the bill has been reconciled but I am not.
That’s how I can say God HAS reconciled ALL men but most MEN are not reconciled. That’s why Paul says “I implore, be reconciled” because the bill has been paid.

In deed many things at the present time are not reconciled but are in a process of being reconciled. When he made peace it was just that not a partial peace. Therfore if God exceeds our "days and nights" then in the overall scheme of things THE VICTORY IS ALREADY WON.
Now if I take your concusion then the victory is waiting to be won? I agree with Kieth Green here that IT"S BEEN DONE. It is finished and therfore now all men are being drawn unto him. His words do not exclude the fact that men still have to be drawn. And likewise, he has ALREADY reconciled all things (not some things).

The bill analogy you give is paid not for one individual but for all men who eat. Therfore which man has to pay?

since analogies don't work ... just go straight to it.

1. Christ died on a Cross
2. He took away the sins of the world
3. He was punished for the world's sins
4. He rose to show you he has power over life and give that life, which is his to give, to all who accept him.
5. Those who reject him, remain dead.

If Christ was punished for all sin, what sin is there left for you to be punished for?
If you don't receive the life from him, aren't you still dead?

So in regards to non believers:

They have been forgiven by God but they don't accept it. He has reconciled them to himself but they remain un-reconciled to him because they refuse to accept it. Since all their sin has been taken away, what is the cause of them going to hell? If for sin, then what did Christ take away?


point 2: you state you do not know where I'm going with that...
I'm in agreement that Jesus did not die to save us from God. It is God who does send us to hell though for our wickedness. This wickedness (sin) keeps us from God and therefore you are half right and half wrong. To say Sin is not the reason why we are seperate from God makes no sense to me from an evangelical stance. May I paraphrase for you...
Sin is not the problem, seperation from God is. (totally disagree with the point).
Sepreation is the result, Sin (disobedience) is the problem.

Be careful because you're bordering denying Christ what he came to do. Destroy the power of death. The wages of Sin are DEATH, not punishment and "out of fellowship with God". Since he took away all sin, what did Christ take away? He took away the power of Sin to kill you again. No longer can anyone "Sin" and "lose their life" ... THAT"S WHY ITS ETERNAL.

Christ FINISHED that cycle ...

But if you're never alive ... it never means anything to you.


They aren’t going to hell because of sins … They’re going to hell because they can’t be with God. They were born separated from God and never received the Life he offered, so they stay separated from God.

It’s not a punishment for the sins you committed on earth.
This is in reference to point 2 and also later I quote about 5 or 6 NT verses that talk about punishment for thier sin.
1 thes 4:6 (ok it's a NIV statment) digard that one
You must have misread my statement about sins sending people to hell. I don't believe man goes to hell for sins he commits here. I believe he goes to hell because that's the place that is shut out of God's presence. No man will be punished and sent to hell for his sins. Christ was punished for all sin. He that knew no sin became sin.

1 thes 4:6 - I don’t understand why you put this verse in.
NIV has punished for their sins

NLT
Never harm or cheat a Christian brother in this matter by violating his wife,[c] for the Lord avenges all such sins, as we have solemnly warned you before. 7 God has called us to live holy lives, not impure lives. 8 Therefore, anyone who refuses to live by these rules is not disobeying human teaching but is rejecting God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.

notice that this is in reference to "rejecting God" ... You're not being punished for sexual immorality but you will shut off from God because those who refuse to live by morality are actually rejecting God.


2 thes 1:8 – “They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord” -- the punishment is separation (spiritually dead). They’ll remain and be shut out from his presence not punished for sins.
I think again you are missing the point. The seperation is the result of Sin. Sin is not the result of disobedience. Sin takes us from God's presence. Being taken from Gods presence ALWAYS follows, not preceeds.

2 peter 2 … continuing the punishment of separation from God … then notice this is especially true for those who follow the desire of their sinful nature. Like those who reject God and his laws.

Rev 17:1– we’d have to agree on what is what before we got in to this. But my initial thought is that the prostitute is an earthly city being judged by God with an earthly judgement.[/I]

I'm a bit boggled that you think they will not be punished for thier sins.

it's kind of wordy ... I'm not trying to trick you or be deceiving ... it's just that the "punishment" (which is eternal separation) doesn't come from the sins you commit but rather your rejection of God.

think of it in a believer's position ... believer's sin all the time and commit those very sins .. do you think believers will be punished for their sins?

the difference is the acceptance and rejection of God.


If I am correct Romans11:27, concerning your view concludes:
27And this is[a] my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.
since in your view God did indeed take away the sins of the world and they will not be punished for their sins, then Romans 11:27 must be for the whole world. Since
he took away their sins (you also claim its everyone) then this covenenat is for EVERYONE?
I truly think you are misguided on your interpretations as a whole.
We stand on VERY different points of view.

Yes .. i believe the covenant applies to all men and that all their sins were taken away.

like nails in a car tire. Just because you take the nails out, you haven't solved the problem. The problem is that Sin killed us everytime we committed a sin. Christ can't offer eternal life until he takes away Sin's power. He did that 2000 years ago. Now all who received life can never lose it because of what he did. That's why it's eternal!!!


I believe Sin is what God wants to destroy in us. He's looking to kill saul to give birth to paul;
Born again.
You seem to think Sin is no longer a problem only seperation. Where this is no sin there is no seperation. And where there is fogiveness there is mercy which means eternal condemnation is removed.

Sin cannot separate you from God ... If it could, you're hopeless. God has already dealt with the sin issue ... Christ is not going to come to take away sin but to bring salvation.

Hebrews 9:28 - so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are


A simple question:
We know that those thrown into the lake of fire are bing seperated from God. The question is why are they being thrown in? You seem to be saying..."it's not sin that they receive this punishment."

Their rejection of Life. They can't be with God because they refused life.


Matt 25:
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. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment

I also read you to conclude that they are not being punished but are simply cut off from God.
First point...

yep .. shut out of his presence

these people are punished because of their actions and faith. They acted w/o love and now receive justice. So is this sin for which they are being punished? I believe it is clear.

No, Christ was punished for their actions (adultry, lack of love, sexual immorality ... every sin)
Just like he was punished for yours and mine ...




Did God elect a group of believers to choose him or not?
I'm convinced that the scriptures are ALL about Jesus. That does not mean we are not part of the story nor the angels in heaven. But when it comes to "Isreal" (the first born son of I AM) or
"the chose ones" "the remnant", "the elect" I believe it's Jesus.
I believe God loves all men and created them to be tranformed into the image of his son. I believe his love is so deep for ALL MEN (every man) that nothing can seperate us from the love of God.

Thats why Jesus says.
Be afraid of the one who can destroy both body and soul in hell...
"BUT" (notice this HUGE conjunction)
Dont be afraid, you are worth more than many sparrows.

Are the wicked worth more than many sparrows? I believe they are, for we are all wicked.
But to me the gospel is that God is going to save us because we cannot do it ourselves.
We think we have an ability to do godly things and really we're DEAD.

So I believe God has taken ALL who are dead and died for ALL of them so that they ALL may live and because he can "manipulate" or "cause" kingdoms of the earth to bring about his will then I see no reason to believe that his will is that ANY one will be lost forever.

He is like a shepherd who loses 1 of 99 and HE DOES NOT STOP LOOKING UNTIL HE FINDS IT. Jesus says this to the pharisees not to point that they are good shepherds but to point that a good shepherd does just that. God is a good shepherd. So building the ET view on metaphors is to me a bad Idea. Rather I agree with Talbott that God ALWAYS acts in love and love always seeks to restore things (for it always builds up)

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails

the ET view holds that love does not persevere but rather gives up upon an appointed time.
That his love does not endure forever. It does keep records of wrongs and rights. It stops protecting at a certain destined time, and that it fails to save those it is seeking.

God is seeking us out, we don't FIND God, we're blind. God finds us.
Thats the point of the dead man. Arm think God finds us and offers to bring us home and we say "no".
if we say no then God has not found us at all. For when we are save then God has found us.

Again,
the whole, "save yourself and your hearers" is no more proof that you are your own savior than you can die for your own sins.
The point should be noted for perseverance but it SHOULD BE NOTED that it is GODS MERCY that seeks us, finds us, and saves us. ALL GLORY TO HIM.

The arm position only wants to make the "offer" or passive salvation in order to justify why they are free and God does not restrict them becasue it's problematic to see MOST people reject God. So in their minds, Like lucifer, they want to be free to make their own decisions not knowing how blind we all are.

I don't believe in libertarian free will because if we had it we'd all be dead men walking. Rather it's God who DRAWS, SOFTENS, CAUSES for his own glory that we may one day be children of God who can then KNOW what sin is and choose him freely (the truth shall set you free).

Aug

I still don't understand .. can you just answer yes or no?

Do you think God elected a group of people to believe in him? YES OR NO
Apart from that election, can anyone believe in God? YES OR NO

Trent

[auggybendoggy]

I believe God elected Jesus to save all men.
Apart from being elected in christ NO WAY!
But God has reconciled ALL men unto himself.

Ok this is established...
we disagree with "reconcile"
I believe it means all things is and will be reconciled and saved
you believe all things are reconciled and many will be lost.
I assume you also believe while they are being eternally tormented God has brought harmony unto all things?

As for our difference on sin and punishment. I find your view a hard to embrace as I find that Gods wrath and punishment of sin to be synonomous.
Can you prove that God's wrath is not punishment for sin?
if it is than what is God's wrath?
if you say it is punishment for not embracing Gods offer of life than forgiveness of sin was worthless...men needed to be forgiven of not embracing his offer of life (I thought that was sin).

So I find there is but one salvation (from sin and death)
and I find that God's desire is to have mercy on all men and he hardens and softens (mercy and hardens see rom 9) whom he pleases, then either God is confused or a failure?
I find he is not confused but has proven his might in that he can save all his creation without losing.
I find he is no failure as he DID IT ALL and is now drawing ALL men unto salvation.

Every knee will bow and every tounge will confess...and NO one confesses Jesus as Lord w/o the Holy Spirit.

and Trent, I don't believe you are trying to trick me or deceive me. I think we are just 2 people trying to come to understand God and his word. We obviously have major differences from our positions but I hope you do not take offense to my words. If I say something like "clear denial"
that is only from my opinion and does not mean you are out to lunch or are insane.
I simply mean TO ME it is a clear denial as best as I know it.

Sincerely,

Aug

I

[trent1980]

Auggy --

You never answered if you gave thanks in all circumstances. If "God's will" always happens, then you're not saved because I KNOW you do not give thanks IN ALL circumstances.

You can see the flaw in your belief ... can't you?

I don't take offence to anything you write and I hope you don't take offence to anything I write. I just find that your belief doesn't hold water in many circumstances. When I point them out, it's frustrating because you just seem to ignore them (like the one above).

Another ... How did Christ offer eternal life if it's not eternal? You believe Sin separates man from God (Death). How can you possibly "cross from death to life" if commiting one sin separates you again???? That just doesn't make sense.


I believe God elected Jesus to save all men.
Apart from being elected in christ NO WAY!
But God has reconciled ALL men unto himself.

That doesn't make sense. Can you please provide a scriptural reference for why you think God elected Christ to save all men.

I can only infer from above that since God cannot fail, and he sent Christ to save all men, that all are saved.

Can you reconcile this scripture then?
Matthew 7:14 "But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."


Ok this is established...
we disagree with "reconcile"
I believe it means all things is and will be reconciled and saved
you believe all things are reconciled and many will be lost.
I assume you also believe while they are being eternally tormented God has brought harmony unto all things?

I believe many will be lost because the bible says that ...
"But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Many will not find it ... which is what we clearly see in this world. Many do not accept Christ.

Please reference the scripture for "Harmony to all things" so we can discuss it.


As for our difference on sin and punishment. I find your view a hard to embrace as I find that Gods wrath and punishment of sin to be synonomous.

They are in a lot of ways. But I believe that Christ was punished for the sins of the world.

I just also believe that being spiritually dead is the result of sin, not the punishment. If you take away sin's ability to bring spiritual death, you still haven't resolved the issue of how to get spiritual life.


Can you prove that God's wrath is not punishment for sin?

I'm assuming you mean God's wrath as in being shut out of his presence. The answer is yes. If Christ took away the sins of the world, what is there left for you to "be punished" for? What could God possibly hold over your head to punish you for? If there was something, then his Son didn't really take it away. But if you are born dead, and never receive life, you are shut out of God's presence because you are still dead.

Spiritual Death (the one Adam suffered) was by his choice. It wasn't a punishment for his action but it was his action itself. He chose to be the ruler of what is right and wrong instead of relying on God.

His punishment, if you will, was being kicked out of the Garden and the subsequent falling apart of the world. But his punishment was not Spiritual Death. Spiritual Death was the result of what he chose.


if it is than what is God's wrath?

Do I believe God brings judgements against mankind on earth? sure
Do I believe that sin has any bearing over our Eternal Life? No

So if you are talking about God's wrath consuming the works of men, or the burning of the world, or the destruction of Earth and Heaven ... Then yes the world will be destroyed because of it's sin

If you are talking about the wrath of God in regards to Salvation and being in his presense or eternally shut out ... Then no, sin does not have any bearing on this. If it did, Christ didn't do what he said he did.

"Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!


if you say it is punishment for not embracing Gods offer of life than forgiveness of sin was worthless...men needed to be forgiven of not embracing his offer of life (I thought that was sin).

It isn't a punishment. It's the result of your choice.

Like if I said, "don't run in the street or you'll get hit by a car". If you run in the street and get hit by a car, was that my punishment to you for not listening? No. It was a result of not listening.

It's not the receiving of Forgiveness that makes it mean anything. Forgiveness is what God gave us to clear our guilt.

Think of it like a Judge. If you stole a man's car and were sentenced to 10 years, the Judge could just simply reduce that sentence to 0 years and let you walk out.

God could have just dropped the sentence .. but he chose to also give forgiveness to clear the guilt of what we did. If someone never receives the Forgiveness, then it is to their loss and means nothing. But all men are forgiven.

Just keep in mind that forgiveness does not equal salvation. (in my belief)


So I find there is but one salvation (from sin and death)
and I find that God's desire is to have mercy on all men and he hardens and softens (mercy and hardens see rom 9) whom he pleases, then either God is confused or a failure?
I find he is not confused but has proven his might in that he can save all his creation without losing.
I find he is no failure as he DID IT ALL and is now drawing ALL men unto salvation.

That sounds good, but it doesn't account for all the scripture which point to men perishing, not receiving life, not crossing over to life, and eternal separation from God.

Don't ignore those scriptures ...


Every knee will bow and every tounge will confess...and NO one confesses Jesus as Lord w/o the Holy Spirit.

Every knee will bow and everyone will know Christ was the savior. On that day of Judgement, those who rejected Christ will hear "Depart from me, I don't know you".

Doesn't matter how much they confess then ... Even satan and demons know Christ is Lord.


and Trent, I don't believe you are trying to trick me or deceive me. I think we are just 2 people trying to come to understand God and his word. We obviously have major differences from our positions but I hope you do not take offense to my words. If I say something like "clear denial"
that is only from my opinion and does not mean you are out to lunch or are insane.
I simply mean TO ME it is a clear denial as best as I know it.


Likewise Aug ... Keep reading and keep posting scriptures to me ... It's like a puzzle and all the pieces should fit. We don't need a hammer to build a puzzle and if one of my pieces doesn't fit, let's throw it out and keep going ...

Keep our hearts and minds open to what the Holy Spirit reveals and use this forum as a way to fellowship with our brothers.

Sincerely,

Aug

I

Trent

[Littlejoe9763]

Auggy and Trent,

Trent, you have been posting some very good material! Auggy, you have been making some good points also! Sorry, I have been extremely busy this last week and this weekend. I'm not sure how long it will be that way. I just wanted to chime in and saywhen it comes to peace or reconciliation, there cannot be either one unless BOTH parties agree. Christ died to reconcile all men to himself. I think we all agree with that. But if one side does NOT want to reconcile or have peace between them, it isn't reconciled and/or there is no peace. If you say that God is going to make EVERYONE reconcile to him, then we are all just robots and are going to do as we are told by the master programmer. It also makes God out to be a tyrant in that we will be forced to accept Him whether we want to or not. If that is the case, why does He command request us to (from the scripture) to choose life, choose Christ, choose to live a Godly life and to spread the Gospel. It just doesn't make sense this way to me. There is no reason to spread the Gospel if all are reconciled to him. There's really no reason for churches, christian music, or a reason to give to the poor, visit the sick and the ones in prison. It is all foolishness then...isn't it?

LJ