Jump to content


Photo

Universalism Discussion


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
81 replies to this topic

#21 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 12 September 2005 - 09:11 PM

But not all things were created through Christ. Those things which are created through Christ belong only to the new creation, not the old.


John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. (NASB)

Nothing has been created that wasn't created through Christ. That's what it says, no?


No it doesn't. It says 'all things came into being through it [the word of God]'. See Psalm 33:6, which is the allusion here.

#22 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 12 September 2005 - 09:11 PM

I don't remember which verse it is in, but it says, "no one can confess that Jesus is Lord but by the Spirit". If this is true, then every creature will confess and have the Holy Spirit as the verse below shows.

(Rev. 5:13) And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the lamb forever.

This sounds to me like the whole earth will worship the lamb. This could not happen if there were those who were burning in hell.



I don't see this as a prophecy of the future. It is a vision in Revelation which John saw in his own day. And it is clearly both symbolic and hyperbolic. Do you really mean to tell me that fish and birds will have the Holy Spirit and confess Jesus as Lord?

#23 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 12 September 2005 - 09:12 PM

Lots of good stuff from both sides.

Instead of addressing your points to my last post, Fortigurn, you said something very interesting and I would like some clarification of what you meant.

You said something like "being in Adam and being in Christ is a choice".

Now what did you mean by this? You do not believe in the "original sin" doctrine?


No I do not believe in the 'original sin' doctrine. I see no reason to believe in a 5th century invention of Augustine, which was unknown prior to his time.

#24 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 12 September 2005 - 09:13 PM

Isaiah 45:23)
I have sworn by myself, the word has gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.


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



Well that excludes birds and worms, doesn't it? Or does it?

Look, the Universalist has only two arguments:

* All always means all
* God's love prevents Him from permitting anyone from being excluded permanently from His presence

The first is demonstrably untrue in any language. The second is speculation.

#25 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 12 September 2005 - 09:13 PM

Look, the Universalist has only two arguments:

    * All always means all
    * God's love prevents Him from permitting anyone from being excluded permanently from His presence


The first is demonstrably untrue in any language. The second is speculation.



How much have you actually read of Universalist writings? Have you, for example, exhausted all the articles over at Tentmaker, or here at GFT? I find it odd that someone thoroughly familiar with UR would summarize the whole of it down to two little points, so I would assume you've not become familiar with all that is available.



Well, I think I first debated at Tentmaker about 5 years ago. I read everything they had.

When it comes down to it, there isn't much beyond those two arguments. Everything else is simply written to support them.

#26 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 12 September 2005 - 09:14 PM

My friend: rest assured the whole creation ultimately bows in worship IN the Name of Jesus. All indeed radically means all!

All=

http://www.menfak.no...?word=¯t0000085

http://www.menfak.no/bibel/vines.html

Perhaps you could show us what the extent of Phil. 2 entails according to the Koine Greek text. Is the worship of all beings in the heavens, the earth and the underworld by rote or perfunctory genuflections? What is the scope of all beings in the heavens and the earth and the underworld?


It's a manifestly hyperbolic statement. Fish don't have knees, if you want to take the language literally, and animals are incapable of bowing in submission to Christ.

#27 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 12 September 2005 - 09:15 PM

Fortigurn,

I've got bunches of arguments, care to hear them?


Sure, go ahead.

And what argument do you have for your belief?


See the title of this thread for a start.

#28 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 12 September 2005 - 09:15 PM

Well, I think I first debated at Tentmaker about 5 years ago. I read everything they had.

When it comes down to it, there isn't much beyond those two arguments. Everything else is simply written to support them.


Oh. Well, okay. Seems like after 5 years you'd quit wasting your time arguing the point, if you are truly satisfied in your own understanding that you have achieved a reasonable conclusion on the matter. Or are you expecting someone will eventually provide adequate reason to believe in your mind what you hope in your heart is true?


I'm here at the request of another member. I actually quit debating UR after about 6 months. I'm only here because I was asked to be here.

#29 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 12 September 2005 - 09:16 PM

Fortigurn,

The God of my understanding purposed to have a family. He is now about the business of making His children into His likeness.
Eternal torment or the annhilation of His children, any of His children, is in my view inconsistent with love.
This foundation, of the absolute love nature of the Father is the basis for my understanding of God.
Could I be wrong about UR? Yes! I might be wrong about everything. But today, in this moment, the God of my understanding is Love and His Love never fails. Smile

Please feel free to take what you like and leave the rest.


Thanks Dean. This is the 'love' argument, one of the two UR arguments. I happen to disagree.

Edited by Fortigurn, 12 September 2005 - 09:18 PM.


#30 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 12 September 2005 - 09:18 PM


Fortigurn,

I've got bunches of arguments, care to hear them?



Sure, go ahead.


And what argument do you have for your belief?


See the title of this thread for a start.


(1Cor. 15:2Cool All things SHALL be subdude unto Him.



This is the other of the two UR arguments, the 'all' argument.

Now, you said "that didn't include animals, fish, or birds". I think it does. Even animals are agressive and kill, this will be no more when all things are subdued to Christ, as (Isaiah chapter 11) states.


This is really stretching the sense of the passage. None of these passages speak of fish being in Christ, or acknowledging that Jesus is Lord, or bowing the knee to him, or adoring and revering him. Animals are incapable of such a thing.

(Verse 4) Here is the punishment of the wicked. "He will smite the earth with THE ROD OF HIS MOUTH, and with the BREATH OF HIS LIPS SHALL HE SLAY THE WICKED".

How does He destroy the wicked with His breath and mouth? By telling them the truth.


Scripture please.

What about these verses? (1Cor. 3:13-15) If any man's work shall burned, HE SHALL SUFFER LOSS: but he HIMSELF SHALL BE SAVED.


I fail to see this as an eschatological statement.

The Bible states that "the wages of sins is death". We all die, right? If not for Christ being resurrected we would remain dead, but since Christ is resurrected that means we will be resurrected. Christ death and resurrection paid the penalty of our death so we do not remain dead.



I don't believe in substitutionary atonement.

What is the "lake of fire" for? What does it do? Please explain



I have explained. The lake of fire is a symbol for the anihilation of the wicked, and the end of death and the grave.

#31 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 12 September 2005 - 09:22 PM

My friend: rest assured the whole creation ultimately bows in worship IN the Name of Jesus. All indeed radically means all!

All=

http://www.menfak.no...?word=¯t0000085

http://www.menfak.no/bibel/vines.html

Perhaps you could show us what the extent of Phil. 2 entails according to the Koine Greek text. Is the worship of all beings in the heavens, the earth and the underworld by rote or perfunctory genuflections? What is the scope of all beings in the heavens and the earth and the underworld?


It's a manifestly hyperbolic statement. Fish don't have knees, if you want to take the language literally, and animals are incapable of bowing in submission to Christ.


I wish to take the language as presented by the Holy Ghost! The passage in Philippians is referring to all beings in the heavens, the earth, and the underworld. If fish are beings, then they too will bow the knees in confession and praise and celebration!


How?

Perhaps you could demonstrate, Fortigurn, how the Holy Ghost has "enlarged beyond truth or reasonableness", or by exaggeration in the written words of St. Paul; that the triumph of our Lord Jesus Christ in this passage of Philippians is making someone, (the Lord Lesous), "sound bigger, better, more, than they are."



I'm doing it.

All beings in the heavens, and the earth, and the underworld are worshipping in praise and celebration and thanksgiving! The worship is IN/EN the Name of Jesus, and is not by rote or perfunctory genuflections!


The non-human creation cannot worship Christ, nor be 'in Christ'. The non-human creation was not made in the image of God, and cannot possibly comprehend the name of Jesus.

#32 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 12 September 2005 - 09:23 PM

Hey Tom, thanks for the free plug Cool; sorry I've been missing in action of late - I have my son in hospital so I'm back and forth etc.

I don't believe in substitutionary atonement.


G'day Fortigurn, in the light of Christ's atoning death on humanity's behalf:

1Jn 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but ALSO for the whole world.

...can you expand on your above statement.


Certainly. Let's start by taking out the word 'propitiation' (which shouldn't be there), and reading John 3:16-21.

Edited by Fortigurn, 12 September 2005 - 09:23 PM.


#33 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 12 September 2005 - 09:24 PM

hmm Fortigurn, your "I don't believe in substitutionary atonement" and "...taking out the word 'propitiation' (which shouldn't be there)" [says who??] is quite blatant, so on basis are you making this claim that "propitiation" somehow should NOT be there; 1Jn 2:2 clearly HAS IT in the text = propitiation - hilasmos ιλασμος : thus Christ IS the once for all propitiation for sin. The same again is likewise found two chapters over:

1Jn 4:10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

So how is it you seek to drive Christ's propitiation from the bible???


Because it has no place there. The English word 'propitiation' is a hopeles translation of the Greek word there. It's only there to support the concept of a vicious and angry god who refused to forgive until he was paid with a bloody sacrifice.

That's not grace by anyone's benchmark.

#34 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 12 September 2005 - 09:25 PM

Since you believe the word propitiation is a poor translation of the original languages, what (in your opinion) would be (1) the correct translation of the original language of these verses...


Covering.

...and (2) the correct way to understand/apply those terms based on your theology.


Genesis 3:12, Psalm 51.

#35 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 12 September 2005 - 09:25 PM

So let me understand this: God would never be vicious or angry enough to require a bloody sacrifice for atonement, but he would create a person, not give that person the knowledge to accept God's Son, then annhiliate the person?


I don't see Him 'annihilating' anyone in that position.

#36 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 12 September 2005 - 09:27 PM

Fortigurn: The passage under consideration is not speaking of birds, (your budgee or mine), or worms, or any other creature that is not capable of bending the knee & confession of the mouth in worship, and praise, and celebration, and thanksgiving to the Father. The scope is clear....

1. All/pas in earth, (the terrestrials.)


So not all in the terestrials?

2. All/pas in heaven, (the celestials.)


So not all in the celestials?

3. All/pas in the underworld, (the subterrenes.)


So not all in the subterrenes?

I note with interest that you're redefining each of these words in a highly restritive and eschatological sense, which is interesting enough, but what's your justification for this?

Furthermore, the confession and exaltation of the Lord Jesus Christ IN/EN union with His Name, and to the glory of the Father, is not by rote, or by perfunctory genuflections; rather by exomologeo and homologeo.


Oh, I certainly agree.

When your birds and worms can function in this celebration, please do advise us, eh!


They can't, which is precisely the argument against your case.

#37 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 12 September 2005 - 09:27 PM

I don't see Him 'annihilating' anyone in that position.


Because???


Because He isn't anihiliating them. He is permitting them to die after they have lived the life they wished, and He is then leaving them dead.

#38 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 12 September 2005 - 09:28 PM

Fortigurn,

You argument concerning the lake of fire, as it stands, is fallacious.

You have argued thus:

Death and the grave are destroyed by the lake of fire.

Therefore, all that is affected by the lake of fire will be destroyed.


No, actually that has been a supplementary argument to my primary argument - which is that nowhere are we shown anyone coming out of the lake of fire. It substantiates my argument, because it shows that other things which enter the lake of fire don't emerge either.

Since you are the ones claiming that people who enter the lake of fire will emerge purified and reconciled, the onus is on you to demonstrate that Scripture shows this clearly.

#39 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 12 September 2005 - 09:29 PM

iJlasmovß is found in two passages of the New Covenant, each translated propitiation. In the third verse of the Koine, hilasterion is also translated propitiation. Can you show us a couple of reputable translations that use "covering" instead of "propitiation?"


No I can't, I can only show you reputable translations which deny that 'propitiation' should be used, and which use another word with which they can still remain within the pale of orthodoxy.

But you've helped me out enormously here:

The change from this construction shows, to quote Canon Westcott, "that the scriptural conception of the verb is not that of appeasing one who is angry, with a personal feeling, against the offender; but of altering the character of that which, from without, occasions a necessary alienation, and interposes an inevitable obstacle to fellowship.

Such phrases as 'propitiating God,' and God 'being reconciled' are foreign to the language of the New Testament. Man is reconciled
(2 Cor. v. 18 sqq.; Rom. v. 10 sq.). There is a propitiation in the matter of the sin or of the sinner." - Dr. Marvin Vincent-


Thanks.

#40 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 12 September 2005 - 09:30 PM

I don't see Him 'annihilating' anyone in that position.


Because???


Fortigurn wrote: Because He isn't anihiliating them. He is permitting them to die after they have lived the life they wished, and He is then leaving them dead.

But death is to be abolished. Taken out of operation. No more death = no more dead people.


No more death doesn't mean no one still dead, it means no one will die anymore, just as no more tears means no one will be sorrowful anymore.

You can't "leave them dead" when death no longer operates. That's like saying you're going to leave your car in the garage after it's been destroyed by fire. It's impossible.


This is a false analogy, because the Bible does not say 'death no longer operates', with the sense of 'no one will be in a state of death anymore'.

In fact it doesn't say 'death no longer operates' at all.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users