Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a perfect example of misinterpreting the scripture at its finest to promote the false doctrine of UR.
Have you any clue to what this former estate is?
This is about the covenant Israel had broken with God, and that restoration was done under Christ. This has nothing to do with the resoration of a soul, a wicked soul at that, being redeemed after their judgement. Sodom and Gomorrah, its unholy inhabitants were judged and burned, and the restoration being spoke of here is that of Israel, the True Israel, under Christ, Jew and Gentile alike, the people of the world, given the option to be restored spiritually under Christ. Sodom itself was not so restored - Jer 20:16, but Ammon and Moab, her representatives, as sprung from Lot, the righteous one, who dwelt in Sodom, were -Jer 48:47 and 49:6, probably most of the ten tribes and the adjoining nations, Ammon and Moab, were in part restored under Cyrus, but the full realization of the restoration was yet future to them and the heathen nations to be brought to Christ were being typified by "Sodom," whose sins they now reproduce - Deut 32:32.
In the 16th chapter of Ezekiel, God's is dealing with the Jewish nation, and their conduct and attitude towards him, here are described, and their punishment and judgement through the surrounding nations, even those they most trusted in.
This chapter is revealed under the parable of an exposed infant - Eze 16:3 - rescued from death, educated, espoused, and richly provided for, but afterwards they are guilty of the most abandoned conduct and attitude, rightly and justly punished for it. At last they are received into favor under Christ, and ashamed of her base conduct.
We are not to judge of these expressions by modern ideas of UR or any other paradigm, but by those of the times and places in which they were used - Hermeneutics 101, where many of them would not sound as they do to us. The design of this parable was to raise hatred to idolatry, and such a parable in this chapter was well suited for that very purpose only and alone.
Get it right Ironmaw, your doctrine is in serious error, as it always has been, and will always be. The people who deny the gospel after hearing it, will suffer the consequences, and justly so, because that is the nature of our God. They deny His Son.
I have a question for you, and im sure you come up with an answer to suit your interpretation of things, nevertheless i'd be interested in you answer ...
If the souls of the wicked and unbelieving are to be forever tormented in eternal fire ... How is it that that will not be annihilated?
You claim that these souls will be immortal, and forever separated/burned ... So lets look at the word immortality ...
The words translated as Immortal and immortality are the Greek words ...
"aphthartos" adjective - Immortal
which means uncorrupted ...
And the word "aphtharsia" noun - Immortality which is derived from the word "aphthartos" ...
which means incorruption ...
Now sin is what causes corruption, and therefore because of sin we die, as the wages of sin is death. So how is it that a soul can be both incorruptible and in sin at the same time?
Now mind you, the word sin in the Hebrew is "chatta'ah " which is derived from "chata' " which means to miss the mark or to go astray, and in the Greek it is "hamartanō"(verb - to sin) or one of its derivatives, which means the same thing approximately, to miss the mark, or especially to not have a part of something, in this case unity with God.
So if someone is eternally separated from God, they are literally in sin even if they are not necessarily committing what might be considered sin.
So again, the question is ... How can someone be immortal/incorruptible and in sin at the same time?
And while we are on the subject of immortality, why did God create immortal worms? I mean if you are going to take everlasting fire as being literal then you have to take, "their worm dies not" to be literal also(Isa 66:24,Mar 9:44-48) ...
I never said they were immortal....Christ said their damnation was eternal...as did John, and many others. I am only posting the scripture here, and it is the scripture you are misinterpreting. What you are failing at, as most people seem to fail at, is that they are deciding, based on very little, wherein very much is contrary, of what God will do to these people denying Christ. All we have to go on is the result, there is no "after that result" in the scripture. In Revelation 20, we see the Devil, false prophet and beast thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone...these are anti-Christal spirits...they ae symbolic of what is on earth. However, the souls, that were real people at one time, are given up by the sea, etc, are ONLY thrown into the lake of FIRE....no brimstone......just πῦρ Concluding what happens after that is ADDING to the scripture. Which is not your prerogative or mine to say. These things are left up to God, and this whole debate and its premise is based on what happens after the fact, which is fruitless and contrary to scripture. You and myself are to obey God, follow Him, follow Christ and raise our family in Him and preach the gospel to those in need. That's it.
Why can't you just do that, instead of preaching something that is beyond our understanding?
Last edited by sciotamicks; 11-27-2009 at 02:17 PM..
Reason: sp
I never said they were immortal. I am only posting the scripture here, and it is the scripture you are misinterpreting. What you are failing at, as most people seem to fail at, is that they are deciding, based on very little that very much is contrary, of what God will do to these people denying Christ. All we have to go on is the reselt, there is no "after that result" in the scripture. In Revelation 20, we see the Devil, false prophet thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone. However, the souls, given up by the sea, etc, are ONLY thrown into the lake of FIRE....no brimstone......just πῦρ Concluding what happens after that is ADDING to the scripture. Which is not your perogative or mine to say. These things are left up to God, and this whole debate and its premise is based on what happens after the fact, which is fruitless and contrary to scripture. You and myself are to obey God, follow Him, follow Christ and raise our family in Him and preach the gospel to those in need. That's it.
Why can't you just do that, instead of preaching something that is beyond our understanding?
You might believe it to be beyond our understanding, but i do not. I believe the spirit of God gives us understanding even beyond the scope of what the bible delineates. I also believe it is only by the spirit that we are able to truly understand what the bible is actually saying, especially in regards the many various mistranslations which the bible has been subjected to and the dogmatic interpretations which have for centuries been associated with them ... The whole "sola scriptura" thing in my opinion is for people who do not know how to think for themselves, or how to learn from others, or how to listen to the spirit.
The spirit of God inspires men and women even in our day to speak and write things that are for the edification of believers and for the wooing of the lost. I believe that you and many others are unable to learn allot about the truth because your ears and eyes are closed to what the spirit is doing and saying(as the spirit speaks through our conscience by conviction) and because you're wearing the blinders of traditional indoctrination, at least as far as your understanding of the Judgment of God is concerned. You claim to not be influenced by the teachings and traditions of organized religion, but I can see in you words that you plainly are. So long as you bow down at the feet of traditional interpretations of organized religion which is administered by corrupted men you will remain in bondage to their deceptions and thus also in error. So long you are yet unable to see the senselessness and evil of the doctrine of eternal torment, and be convicted of the mercy and love of God which never fails, you will not obtain unto the true liberty and life in Christ which all people are destined to eventually come to know. You will not truly be able to be completed in love as our father in heaven and his Christ are complete in love. That is to say that until your heart is opened you will remain an unfinished product of the grace of God, ever in bondage to the threat of the condemnation of yourself and all other people.
Selah ...
Last edited by Ironmaw1776; 11-27-2009 at 02:50 PM..
Why can't you just do that, instead of preaching something that is beyond our understanding?
The problem, sciota is that our understanding and love has expanded beyond that which could conceivably entertain such a gross injustice and unloving state as ET. Yours has not.
You might believe it to be beyond our understanding, but i do not. I believe the spirit of God gives us understanding even beyond the scope of what the bible delineates. I also believe it is only by the spirit that we are able to truly understand what the bible is actually saying, especially in regards the many various mistranslations which the bible has been subjected to and the dogmatic interpretations which have for centuries been associated with them ... The whole "sola scriptura" thing in my opinion is for people who do not know how to think for themselves, or how to learn from others, or how to listen to the spirit.
The above is what derails you...all of it. You add to it.
Quote:
You claim to not be influenced by the teachings and traditions of organized religion, but I can see in you words that you plainly are.
And yours are not? I beg to differ. To me it is heavily influenced by Platonic idealism.
Let me ask you a pertinent question....
Do you believe that souls are pre-existant? That is immortal prior to life here on earth as well as after, and the flesh is just a housing for them?
I am the last person in this forum to prescribe to doctrine, especially the creeds, being a preterist, so your arguement is a strawman when it comes to me.
And here are some scholarly evidences that prove most of the Christian Catechetical Seminaries(Christian theological schools) of in the first five hundred years after the death of Christ taught universal reconciliation ...
The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 12, p. 96; Retrieved April 29, 2007. “In the West this doctrine had fewer adherents and was never accepted by the Church at large. In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist; one (Ephesus) accepted conditional mortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked.”
* Seymour, Charles. A Theodicy of Hell. p. 25. Springer (2000).
* Ludlow, Morwenna. Universal Salvation: eschatology in the thought of Gregory of Nyssa and Karl Rahner. Pp. 1-2. Oxford University Press (2000).
Schmithals, Walter. The Theology of the First Christians. Pp 85-88. Westminster John Knox Press (1998).
Indeed, most of the early church in the first five centuries, especially in the eastern Greek speaking Churches, believed and taught universal reconciliation. You are wrong and history proves it, regardless of the lies you speak concerning the issues.
And here are some scholarly evidences that prove most of the Christian Catechetical Seminaries(Christian theological schools) of in the first five hundred years after the death of Christ taught universal reconciliation ...
The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 12, p. 96; Retrieved April 29, 2007. “In the West this doctrine had fewer adherents and was never accepted by the Church at large. In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist; one (Ephesus) accepted conditional mortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked.”
* Seymour, Charles. A Theodicy of Hell. p. 25. Springer (2000).
* Ludlow, Morwenna. Universal Salvation: eschatology in the thought of Gregory of Nyssa and Karl Rahner. Pp. 1-2. Oxford University Press (2000).
Schmithals, Walter. The Theology of the First Christians. Pp 85-88. Westminster John Knox Press (1998).
Indeed, most of the early church in the first five centuries, especially in the eastern Greek speaking Churches, believed and taught universal reconciliation. You are wrong and history proves it, regardless of the lies you speak concerning the issues.
And they all either renounced their view, or were kicked out. That is the charge and power of the Holy Spirit.
And they all either renounced their view, or were kicked out. That is the charge and power of the Holy Spirit.
Care to prove that statement(evidences)? Or are you just making more stuff up again?
None of them renounced their view except for Jerome, later in his life, and the conditions around his renunciation of UR are questionable, especially knowing that was when Augustine of hippo(the "ex-Gnostic" and godfather/great champion of the doctrine of eternal torment) began to have such a large influence on the Church.
Last edited by Ironmaw1776; 11-27-2009 at 04:57 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
