25 QUESTIONS FOR UNIVERSAL SALVATION BELIEVERS

[Paul Hazelwood]

I guess I was right then, you folks don't believe in etrnity, nor an eternal God. 

No, you are not correct about that.  I think you are getting overloaded with replies on a subject that is not necessarily simple to explain.  Combine that with the fact that in general you already think we are wrong in the first place, so it gets easier and easier to come to conclusions such as you have.

[Theo Book]

(Theo)

I have prepared a sort of questionaire to Universalists - Answer me please;

1) If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And If Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, [Gen 3:6] in the garden, it must have been God's will.

2) If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And If Eve gave to her husband, Adam, and he did eat, also, [Gen 3:6] it must have been God's will.

3) If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And if cain killed Able, [Gen 4:8] it must have been God's will.

4) If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And if the sons of God came in unto the daughter's of men, [Gen 6:4] it must have been God's will.

5) If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And if every thought of man's heart was only evil continually,[Gen 6:5] it must have been God's will.

6) If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And if the men of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were exceedingly wicked before the Lord, [Gen 13:13] it must have been God's will


(legoman) Yes these were all God's will.

Are you serious? Perhaps you read a different translation than I. You really think it was God's will that men sin? Please show me THAT scripture.

(theo)

7) If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And If Saul disobeyed God, to spare the Amelekites, [1Sam 13:13-14] it must have been God's will. (Note:"...for now would the Lord have established thy kingdom upon Israel forever. But now thy kingdom shall not continue. The phrase "for now WOULD the Lord is the same as "it WAS the Lord's WILL. Saul's disobedience CHANGED the Lord's will for Saul; But it was God's will that his will be thwarted.


(logoman) God does not will something to happen that will frustrate his will.  That would make God completely contradictory to Himself.  However, God does will things to happen that appear to be contrary to His end goal.  God intends this to happen.  For example (see Romans 11:32) God intends us all to be disobedient, so that He can have mercy on us and show the riches of His glory (see Romans 9).  But God does not intend for us to be disobedient forever - in fact NO ONE will be disobedient forever.  God's goal is that all will be obedient.

You have now contradicted what you said earlier; "Yes, these were all God's will." Now you say "God does not will something to happen that will frustrate his will." Which is it?

(legoman)

It is important to note there are two things that are being talked about in verses like the above.  There is God's ultimate will - let's call it the goal, and his immediate will, let's call it the plan.  God's plan sometimes appears to run contrary to the goal.  For example, say that the goal is that no one ever sins.  Yet God knew we would all sin.  In fact you might say God even intended us to sin (but He didn't intend for us to sin forever) - God prepared the lamb before the foundation of the world to save us from sin, God put Adam & Eve in the garden right next to the tree of knowledge, God didn't stop the serpent from tempting Eve... etc.  So if God ultimately doesn't want anyone to sin, why would His plan include us sinning right now?  Because it is necessary.  In order for us to understand goodness, we need to understand evil.  In order for us to ultimately never sin again, we must first partake of sin (partake of the apple)... we must experience it, we must be tempted, we must realize its fruits, we must see how sin destroys and how sin is evil.  If we didn't sin we would never know that.  Us experiencing sin now is the plan that will later lead to us understanding good and evil which will ultimately lead to us being made in the image of God and never sinning again.

Not sure! Brain freeze! I think you got it backwards. We are ALREADY made in the image of God. Adam was made sinless. If your assessment is correct GOD got it backwards. I do not believe that for one moment.

You show a God who not only creates man TO sin, but even as he creates them TO sin, he tells them to NOT sin. THAT is insanity. God is not insane.

(legoman)

God does follows through on His intentions and achieves His plan.

Hope that made sense.

Not at all.


(Theo)

8) If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And If David committed adultry with Bath-sheba, [2 Sam 11:4] it must have been god's will.

9) If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And If, of all the many thousands who came out of Egypt, in the great exodus, only two made it to the promised land, (Joshua and Caleb)[Num 14:30,38] it must have been God's will.

10) If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And If Moses came down off the mount, and saw the children of israel dancing around a God they had made for themselves, [Num 32] it must have been God's will.

11) If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And If all men sin and come short of the glory of God; [Rom 3:23] it must have been God's will.


(legoman) Yes these are all God's will.  Just so we are crystal clear, it must have been God's will that people sin in this earth... to say otherwise is to suggest God's creation ran amok - it did something God didn't want it to do - essentially God must have made a MISTAKE.  Since it is impossible that God would make a mistake, we can safely conclude that God intended the world to be the way it is.

How can you conclude that for God to give men free will is a mistake? God has free will and we are made in his image. I begin to comprehend how it is Universal Salvation becomes a welcome doctrine among men. It eliminates the guilt of sin by putting the blame all on God for making us sinners to begin with.

(legoman)

Again the whole reason for this world is to understand good and evil, so we can learn goodness.

Nope! Adam already knew only the goodness from God. Only after his sin did he learn of the severity that results from sinning.

(legoman)

To do that we have to experience evil.  From the CLV:

Eccl 1:13 It is an experience of evil Elohim [God] has given to the sons of humanity to humble them by it

God is giving us an experience of evil.  Think about the ramifications of that.

Actually, the quote says -  12 I the Preacher was king over Israel in Jerusalem. 13 And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith. 14 I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.

"This sore travail" is a reference to his "seeking and searching out by wisdom all things that are done under heaven." "Seeking and searching" are not sin.


(legoman)

Another way to look at is like this:
Heb 2:10 In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering.

Did you catch that?  We are made perfect through suffering.  God is making us perfect through suffering.

And YOU are making us the author of salvation, about whom that remark was made. "Should make THE AUTHOR OF THEIR SALVATION perfect through suffering."


(theo)

12) If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And if the Jews always resist the Holy Spirit, [Acts 7:51] it must have been God's will.

13) If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And if the Jews stoned Stephen, [Acts 7:60] it must have been God's will.

14) If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And if evil men put you out of the synagogue, and even kill you, they will think they do God a service, [John 16:2-3] but it must have been God's will.

15) If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And if the Jews rebelled against God, and cast down his law behind their backs, and slew the prophets, and wrought great provocation, [Neh 9:26] it must have been God's will.

16) If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And if Pharoah slew all the male children of Israel, [Exo 1:16] it must have been God's will.

17) If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And if Herod slew all the children of Bethlehem, and in all the costs thereof, from two years old and under, [Mat 2:16] it must have been God's will.

18) If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And if Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit, [Acts 5:2-3] it must have been God's will.

19) If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And if Sapphira, his wife joined him in his deed, [Acts 5:2-3] it must have been God's will.

20) If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And if Satan was a liar from the beginning, [John 8:44] it must have been God's will.

21) If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And if Peter betrayed his Lord with denial, [Mat 26:75] it must have been God's will.


(legoman) Yes these are all God's will too.

(Theo)
22) And If God's will cannot be frustrated, and I preach about a god of vengeance, why do you correct me, and say that my God is a God of hate? It must be God's will that I so teach! And for you to intervene in any way; for you to not aid me in my task, is to go against God's will; which can't be done?


(legoman) "why do you correct me" you say.  Why not?  Because God has given me a heart to search out the truth and preach the gospel, that's why!  Remember God's will does not frustrate His own will.  God sets us up in disobedience, puts us through suffering, so He can have mercy on us later, show His glory, and perfect us as sons.

Nope! If all those things in which men sinned was God's will, and I teach truth about it, how then is it I am to be corrected? Am I not already correct, by your understanding of what constitutes God's will? You could NOT correct me, for it was already God's will for me to say those things, and you cannot thwart God's will, according to your comprehension of how things are.

(Theo)

23) And if God's will cannot be overturned, or thwarted, why should wives submit to their own husbands, children obey their parents, murderers be punished, and etc. ad nauseum? God's will is, after all, behind it all.

24) And if God is love, and I preach that he is a God of vengeance, what difference does it make to you, it is God's will.

25) And If God's will cannot be frustrated, he becomes directly responsible for all the sin, murder, adultry, lying, cheating, stealing, every evil thing man has ever done. there can be no "repentance, (which God wills that every man repent), because how can a man 'repent" of doing god's will


(legoman) Here your questions have changed a bit.  The reason we should do what God says, and not sin, is because that is what God has commanded.  Yet people will still sin until they have a change of heart.  And that change of heart only comes from the father (John 6:44, 6:65).

Again, you missed the condition in which Adam was placed in the garden. He was not created in sin, a sinner. He was created innocent UNTIL he sinned. THAT constituted the first "change of heart" resulting in rebellion against God. YOU HAVE EVERYTHING BACKWARDS.

(legoman)

I think what you are missing is that this life is the experience of evil that God intended it to be.

Go back and read the whole thing. you missed it.


(legoman)

He created many vessels of dishonor, and some vessels of honor.  He intends for the vessels of honor to eventually overcome, while the vessels of dishonor will be destroyed.  The destruction will bring about a change, so that all vessels will be made in a new creation.  This life is all about EXPERIENCE.  We were doomed to futility, but God will liberate us.

When we take clay and make pots, we do not design in the pots evil uses. When we sell the pots, some men will purchase them and put them to evil use. That eventuallity was not designed into the pots.

God made all the vessels of which he references as "vessels of honour, vessels of dishonour" but he did not put in any of them the propensity for sin. Only the free will ability. And he also included in his creation, the solutions for sin, IN CASE they are needed. THAT was predicated upon the proposition that some men would probably sin, not because God created them TO sin.

[Theo Book]

This is what scripture says:
Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called—
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Not two baptisms (water and fire), but just one (fire).  First the physical, then the spiritual.  The water baptism is a shadow of the fire baptism to come.

  Hi Legoman
  I am sort of confused by your statement  above ,   though one baptism  
  by the Lord is fire
  I do see the water  baptism that comes first  , in everyone that  comes to Christ , Paul is speaking of those in Christ already ,, to the church / Body of believers  in Ephesius  of the Holy Spirit and fire Baptism ,
  the water baptism
its is the  fruits meet for repentance   we have to do these first works first  ....  or do you believe this is only for the Jews ?
  some say Jews only , but I am not certain it is just for Jews because we all have to repent first before we are even able to  recive the Holy Spirit baptism  
 
Luk 3:16 John answered, saying unto [them] all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:  

  here Paul speaks of both
 
 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
 
 
 Act 19:3   And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.  

Act 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
 
When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
 
And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
 
    for me we all goe though the water first and than the fire
 
   maybe thats the twice dead  that  in Jude we can  see a little better
  they were  not undergoing the  baptism of  repentance
   nor the same baptism of Death in the Lord ?

Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.  
  I  will consider your reply
  thanks
  here is the twice dead
   they never repented  nor have suffered for doing  Gods will like Jesus  in glorifying God
  just some thoughts to consider ..
 
 Jud 1:12  These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds [they are] without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

Its just my take on it.

What happens in the physical is just a type or shadow of what will and must happen in the spiritual.

If you are baptized in water, but don't have a change of heart, then all that happened was you went down dry and came up wet.

The water baptism symbolizes what must happen in the spiritual.  We will be covered by the living water of Christ.  The fire baptism symolizes what will actually happen - trials by fire, purging by fire, etc.  The baptism by fire is the real deal, the baptism by water is the shadow.  The baptism by fire is what the holy spirit puts us through so that we will actually be made righteous by purging out all the junk in our life.

Baptism by holy spirit ->    same thing as baptism by fire I guess?  Baptism into Christ's death?  Baptism into repentance?  These are all the same thing.  There is only ONE baptism, according to Paul.  I don't have much time to look into it right now, but like I said this is "just my take on it".

Peace out....  

That sounds like you think baptism by water is just a soaking if one fails to do right; while the baptism of fire will burn out all the unrighteousness. Well my friend, it doesn't work that way. look again. It was the baptism by fire that burned up the wood , hay, stubble. We must all be careful about the baptism of fire because we may find that WE ARE the wood, hay, or stubble.

[Theo Book]

 
  well  you put up a good  point there Legoman ! thanks and agree
 
  that the water on is temporary the Fire one does change us
     
  this is pretty good summary of it here Strong's G907 - baptizō  1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)

2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe

3) to overwhelm

"Note on Baptism in Ac. Baptism in water (such as John's) is distinguished from baptism with the Holy Spirit (i. 5, etc.). Those who receive the latter, however, may also be baptized in water (cf. xi. 16 with x. 47); and there is one example of people who had previously received John's baptism receiving Christian baptism as a preliminary to receiving the Spirit (xix. 3 ff.). John's was a baptism of repentance (xiii. 24; xix. 4), as was also Christian baptism (ii. 38), but as John's pointed forward to Jesus (xix. 4), it became obsolete when He came. Christian baptism followed faith in the Lord Jesus (xvi. 31 ff.); it was associated with His name (ii. 38; viii. 16, etc.), which was invoked by the person baptized (xxii. 16); it signified the remission (ii. 38) or washing away of sins (xxii. 16); sometimes it preceded (ii. 38; viii. 15 ff.; xix. 5), sometimes followed (x. 47 f.) the receiving of the Spirit." (F. F. Bruce. The Acts of the Apostles [Greek Text Commentary], London: Tyndale, 1952, p. 98, n. 1.)
This word should not be confused with baptô (911). The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (baptô) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizô) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.
 
 Strong's G908 - baptisma 1) immersion, submersion

a) of calamities and afflictions with which one is quite overwhelmed

b) of John's baptism, that purification rite by which men on confessing their sins were bound to spiritual reformation, obtained the pardon of their past sins and became qualified for the benefits of the Messiah's kingdom soon to be set up. This was valid Christian baptism, as this was the only baptism the apostles received and it is not recorded anywhere that they were ever rebaptised after Pentecost.

c) of Christian baptism; a rite of immersion in water as commanded by Christ, by which one after confessing his sins and professing his faith in Christ, having been born again by the Holy Spirit unto a new life, identifies publicly with the fellowship of Christ and the church.

In Rom 6:3, Paul states we are "baptised unto death" meaning that we are not only dead to our former ways, but they are buried. To return to them is as unthinkable for a Christian as for one to dig up a dead corpse! See also discussion of baptism under the previous Strong's number (907).

 
  thanks for your reply 

Actually, In my humble opinion, YOU have it correct.

[Theo Book]

You know what Theo, God did send you here to teach us something  and you to learn something also. I believe we learn from all sources.

You can bet your bottom dollar you are here for some reason that only God knows at this time.

By the way Theo, I don't believe I read what your beliefs are. If you have said I must have missed them. Just what do you believe about punishment and salvation?

CHB

I don't think God sent me here to teach. I think God sent me here to learn if Universal Salvation is truth. There is a difference. between learning truth through asking questions, and teaching through making statements. I offer a combination when I ask a question, and upon receiving a response, make a statement about the response.

What are my beliefs? They are forbidden on this board. THAT is why you have not heard them.

[legoman]

I just wanted to comment on this first.  I'll go through the rest later when I have a bit more time...

(legoman)

Another way to look at is like this:
Heb 2:10 In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering.

Did you catch that?  We are made perfect through suffering.  God is making us perfect through suffering.

And YOU are making us the author of salvation, about whom that remark was made. "Should make THE AUTHOR OF THEIR SALVATION perfect through suffering."

Sorry, I should have explained myself a bit better here.  I was in no way meaning that we are the author of our own salvation.

My point was this:  the way something is made perfect is through suffering.  That is how Jesus was 'made perfect'.

But are we not instructed to take up our cross and follow Jesus?  We must crucify the old man in us.  We must be like Christ.

Heb 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

God scourges His sons.  This is the suffering we must all go through in order to be made perfect as sons, like Christ.




And NO Adam & Eve were not perfect in the garden of eden.  If they were perfect, they would not have chosen to sin.

[legoman]

You know what Theo, God did send you here to teach us something  and you to learn something also. I believe we learn from all sources.

You can bet your bottom dollar you are here for some reason that only God knows at this time.

By the way Theo, I don't believe I read what your beliefs are. If you have said I must have missed them. Just what do you believe about punishment and salvation?

CHB

I don't think God sent me here to teach. I think God sent me here to learn if Universal Salvation is truth. There is a difference. between learning truth through asking questions, and teaching through making statements. I offer a combination when I ask a question, and upon receiving a response, make a statement about the response.

What are my beliefs? They are forbidden on this board. THAT is why you have not heard them.

I'm sure you can tell us your beliefs.  What is forbidden is prolonged arguing or flame wars that may erupt.

[Theo Book]

I guess I was right then, you folks don't believe in etrnity, nor an eternal God. 

No, you are not correct about that.  I think you are getting overloaded with replies on a subject that is not necessarily simple to explain.  Combine that with the fact that in general you already think we are wrong in the first place, so it gets easier and easier to come to conclusions such as you have.

If the arguments posted all over the website about "aiwnion" NOT meaning eternal, but "age" are any indication of what this site is about, then I am correct, not simply "overloaded" and "already thinking you are wrong" as you indicate.

In Mat 25:46 "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal," both "everlasting" and "eternal" are the same form of the same word, "aiwnion" and therfore cannot be used to mean two radically different and opposing timeframes.

 

[legoman]

I guess I was right then, you folks don't believe in etrnity, nor an eternal God. 

No, you are not correct about that.  I think you are getting overloaded with replies on a subject that is not necessarily simple to explain.  Combine that with the fact that in general you already think we are wrong in the first place, so it gets easier and easier to come to conclusions such as you have.

If the arguments posted all over the website about "aiwnion" NOT meaning eternal, but "age" are any indication of what this site is about, then I am correct, not simply "overloaded" and "already thinking you are wrong" as you indicate.

In Mat 25:46 "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal," both "everlasting" and "eternal" are the same form of the same word, "aiwnion" and therfore cannot be used to mean two radically different and opposing timeframes.

 

Theo maybe you missed my other post on this.

Aionion does not refer to eternal OR temporary.  It means "pertaining to the ages" or "continuing through ages".

The punishment pertains to ages in Matt 25:46.  So does the life.  Does the life end when the ages end?  NO, because we are granted IMMORTALITY and death is defeated.  But no where in scripture is punishment ever referred to as endless.

[Theo Book]

I guess I was right then, you folks don't believe in etrnity, nor an eternal God. 

No, you are not correct about that.  I think you are getting overloaded with replies on a subject that is not necessarily simple to explain.  Combine that with the fact that in general you already think we are wrong in the first place, so it gets easier and easier to come to conclusions such as you have.

If the arguments posted all over the website about "aiwnion" NOT meaning eternal, but "age" are any indication of what this site is about, then I am correct, not simply "overloaded" and "already thinking you are wrong" as you indicate.

In Mat 25:46 "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal," both "everlasting" and "eternal" are the same form of the same word, "aiwnion" and therfore cannot be used to mean two radically different and opposing timeframes.

 

Theo maybe you missed my other post on this.

Aionion does not refer to eternal OR temporary.  It means "pertaining to the ages" or "continuing through ages".

The punishment pertains to ages in Matt 25:46.  So does the life.  Does the life end when the ages end?  NO, because we are granted IMMORTALITY and death is defeated.  But no where in scripture is punishment ever referred to as endless.

Hey my friend, (I call you "friend" for your patience) if aiwnion does not mean endless when referencing damnation, how then does it mean endless when referencing salvation?

Mat 25:46 "And these shall go away into aiwnion (everlasting) punishment: but the righteous into life aiwnion (eternal)," both "everlasting" and "eternal" are the same form of the same word, "aiwnion" and therfore cannot be used to mean two radically different and opposing timeframes.

[Theo Book]

You know what Theo, God did send you here to teach us something  and you to learn something also. I believe we learn from all sources.

You can bet your bottom dollar you are here for some reason that only God knows at this time.

By the way Theo, I don't believe I read what your beliefs are. If you have said I must have missed them. Just what do you believe about punishment and salvation?

CHB

I don't think God sent me here to teach. I think God sent me here to learn if Universal Salvation is truth. There is a difference. between learning truth through asking questions, and teaching through making statements. I offer a combination when I ask a question, and upon receiving a response, make a statement about the response.

What are my beliefs? They are forbidden on this board. THAT is why you have not heard them.

I'm sure you can tell us your beliefs.  What is forbidden is prolonged arguing or flame wars that may erupt.

Yes, my friend, but it only counts when "I" am sure, and I am not sure because I already see postings telling me what is forbidden topics. I do not consider "little" infractions to be o.k. unless told so by a moderator. Since I do not know who the moderators are, it would be nice if one would give an o.k. and sign his post with "moderator."

Then I will post my beliefs for all to see and possibly straighten me out.

[Theo Book]

I just wanted to comment on this first.  I'll go through the rest later when I have a bit more time...

(legoman)

Another way to look at is like this:
Heb 2:10 In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering.

Did you catch that?  We are made perfect through suffering.  God is making us perfect through suffering.

And YOU are making us the author of salvation, about whom that remark was made. "Should make THE AUTHOR OF THEIR SALVATION perfect through suffering."

Sorry, I should have explained myself a bit better here.  I was in no way meaning that we are the author of our own salvation.

My point was this:  the way something is made perfect is through suffering.  That is how Jesus was 'made perfect'.

But are we not instructed to take up our cross and follow Jesus?  We must crucify the old man in us.  We must be like Christ.

Heb 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

God scourges His sons.  This is the suffering we must all go through in order to be made perfect as sons, like Christ.




And NO Adam & Eve were not perfect in the garden of eden.  If they were perfect, they would not have chosen to sin.

Assumption not supported by the scriptures referenced.

Jesus was perfect, yet was tempted in all points like as we, yet without sin. We are tempted when drawn by our own desires, but unlike Jesus, we give our desires more authority than is healthy for us, until finally we yield our souls to our desires. Jesus did not. Still, he COULD HAVE. And he was a perfect man.

And yes, Adam was a perfect man, but had no experience to fall back on. It is entirely speculative to discuss what might have happened in the garden if instead of Adam, God had place YOU or ME there. I hasten to add, I am glad it was not YOU or ME. This way we can assess blame much more remotely than if it had been YOU or ME. I thank my God daily for both of us.

[Paul Hazelwood]

I guess I was right then, you folks don't believe in etrnity, nor an eternal God. 

No, you are not correct about that.  I think you are getting overloaded with replies on a subject that is not necessarily simple to explain.  Combine that with the fact that in general you already think we are wrong in the first place, so it gets easier and easier to come to conclusions such as you have.

If the arguments posted all over the website about "aiwnion" NOT meaning eternal, but "age" are any indication of what this site is about, then I am correct, not simply "overloaded" and "already thinking you are wrong" as you indicate.

In Mat 25:46 "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal," both "everlasting" and "eternal" are the same form of the same word, "aiwnion" and therfore cannot be used to mean two radically different and opposing timeframes.

 

You have missed some posts then,  you are simply wrong that people here believe God is not eternal or that there is no eternity no matter how much you disagree over the definitions of those words.

[CHB]

Theo,

Am not sure but I probably see eternal, everlasting, and forever a little different than some on here. These words I believe ONLY apply to God because he is the only thing without a beginning or end which these words mean. Punishment and the life Jesus talked about have a beginning and an end.

CHB

[Paul Hazelwood]

Theo God is eternal and this verse is the indicator of that.

1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom [be] honour and power everlasting. Amen.


We will be given immortality

1C 15:51 Lo! a secret to you am I telling! We all, indeed, shall not be put to repose, yet we all shall be changed,

1C 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal put on immortality.



Matthew 25:46   even when translated to a temporary frame of time when referring to punishment or life does not change Gods immortal status because it is not a verse about Gods nature.

Re 21:1 And I perceived a new heaven and a new earth, for the former heaven and the former earth pass away, and the sea is not more. 


Heaven and earth pass away,  so if the traditional teaching about some people "NOW" being in heaven is correct then those there get erased I guess.

[Theo Book]

(WH)

Hi TB...  

This topic is a bit on the "trollish" side,

Sorry I missed this one, but since you said you had answered all my questions, I went looking for it. I shall attempt to respond with kindness to some hostility I perceive in your remarks. Or is it simply immaturity on your part?

I don't even know what that terminology [trolling] means. I have seen it on several boards, but no one has ever applied it to my posts before. mind explaining it?

(WH)

...but because we at Tentmaker are a welcoming bunch, it deserves to be addressed in the name of welcome...  

Btw... before I begin... Welcome to Tentmaker, TB ... God has brought you here to LEARN... the big question is... will you?  

Basically the answer to ALL your questions is -- YES -- and in your endeavor to "trip" the truth (as was attempted by the Pharisees with CHRIST), shall your "attempt" herein, fail...  

And if you bother to completely read my answer to you, ...you will in all likelihood, become frustrated because your attempt to refute the Salvation of ALL, herein fails... but, as I have already suggested to you --- an OPPORTUNITY is given you, for GOD has led you here to LEARN...    ...and we here at TM shall hope you "have your EARS on"    as freely as you have "OPENED your MOUTH"...  

In case it comes up later, this is the remark I identified as "hostility in your remarks"
 

"as freely as you have "OPENED your MOUTH"(Capitals YOURS for emphasis)

(WH)

The question I have for you, TB... is shall you LEARN from this failure to refute "UR", or will you attempt to sidestep it?  

Let us begin, shall we?  

(TB)
I have prepared a sort of questionaire to Universalists - Answer me please;

1) If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And If Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, [Gen 3:6] in the garden, it must have been God's will.

(WH) YES -- YHVH God works ALL THINGS according to the counsel of HIS OWN WILL -- Eph 1:11

(TB)  If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And If Eve gave to her husband, Adam, and he did eat, also, [Gen 3:6] it must have been God's will.

(WH) YES (see # 1) -- also... this event is IN the WORD, and the WORD which preceeded the event, must needs occur as noted IN the WORD which preceeded the event...  

(TB) 3) If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And if cain killed Able, [Gen 4:8] it must have been God's will.

YES (see #1) -- also... the "murder" of Abel is part of the WORD which does NOT CHANGE... and so that "murder" which was PART of the THINGS NOT YET DONE -- Isaiah 46:10 -- had to occur, for the Scriptures [WORD] -- CANNOT be BROKEN -- John 10:34 -- the WORD has NO VARIANCE -- James 1:17 -- and is the SAME, yesterday, today and forever -- Heb 13:8

Why would you quote Isaiah to demonstrate something about the conversation in the garden? I will now quote another covenant to demonstrate a principal that applies to every day since creation; "Where there is no law, sin is not imputed." Adam was not accountable for every word of God since the world began. He was accountable for the sin of disobedience to specific instructions about a specific act of obedience/disobedience.

(tb)

4) If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And if the sons of God came in unto the daughter's of men, [Gen 6:4] it must have been God's will.

(WH) YES (see #1) -- also... God made woman, to be an HELP, ...meet to MAN, without qualification (in every way) -- Gen 2:20 -- That "help" was not limited or described, so it stands as "help" in every way that MAN needed "help"... do you doubt the WORD which states this?  

Your responses are bordering on the edge of phantasy. It is not the word of God I doubt, but it is your application of that word of God. I am beginning to think you have no idea whatsoever about what scripture teaches.


(tb)

5) If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And if every thought of man's heart was only evil continually,[Gen 6:5] it must have been God's will.

(WH) YES (see #1) -- also... God sends man into CAPTIVITY -- Jer 29:14 -- that He might DELIVER him FROM IT... as well as CONCLUDE ALL in UNBELIEF -- Rom 11:32 -- that He might have MERCY upon ALL -- are you getting any of this, TB?  

I know why you are laughing. You don't believe it either. NO MAN ever begot a son, only to subject him to humiliation of temptation of flesh, subject him to unbelief, subject him to disobedience, just so you as his dear old daddy, can offer him a chance to repent. It is monstrous in the extreme, and to accuse God of so behaving is unbelievable. All that dows is how that you do not comprehend whaqt the scriptures are actually saying, so you take one sound bite out of context so you can present your mangled view of reality.

(tb)

6) If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And if the men of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were exceedingly wicked before the Lord, [Gen 13:13] it must have been God's will

(WH) YES (see #1) -- also...  GOD created EVIL as well as GOOD -- Isaiah 45:7 -- and the KNOWLEDGE of IT, is HIS -- Gen 3:22 -- to have KNOWLEDGE of IT, must therefore be a DIVINE thing... which MANY (likely such as yourself), think to be OPPOSING DIVINITY!  
[/quote]

Paul was accused of saying we must do evil so good can result, and he called it "slander;"
Rom 3:8 "And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come..." You have now slandered God.

(WH)

How could something which is INHERENT within the Heart of GOD (knowledge of G & E), be OTHER than DIVINE, TB?

I guess probably the same way any other God can deal proudly, because of what is in his heart. Exodus 18:11 "Now I know that the Lord is greater than all Gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them."

(tb)

7) If God's will cannot be frustrated;
And If Saul disobeyed God, to spare the Amelekites, [1Sam 13:13-14] it must have been God's will. (Note:"...for now would the Lord have established thy kingdom upon Israel forever. But now thy kingdom shall not continue. The phrase "for now WOULD the Lord is the same as "it WAS the Lord's WILL. Saul's disobedience CHANGED the Lord's will for Saul; But it was God's will that his will be thwarted.

(WH) YES (see #1) -- also...

Thought you said you answered all my questions?


(WH)

(1) use or translation of the word "forever" is INVALID, for until one can COMPLETELY define the word -- (which includes WITHOUT BEGINNING -- by explaining how something has NO BEGINNING, to include why and how that, ...IS?)... Use of the word FOREVER by any finite which does not comprehend said meaning, is therefore INVALID.

Why. Because you declared it so? WHATEVER meaning is to be applied to aiwnion salvation, is also to be applied to aiwnion punishment. "And these shall go away into aiwnion [everlasting] punishment: but the righteous into life aiwnion [eternal]." [Mat 25:46]

(WH)

(2) GOD shall establish ISRAEL for ever, ...for "ISRAEL" are His Sons, which are without beginning or end... For ALL His SONS were WITH Him, BEFORE entering this realm -- Luke 15:11-32 -- Job 38:7 

Finally I begin to comprehend where you are getting this stuff from.

Luke 15:11 plainly says "And he said, A certain ANTHRWPOS [man] had two sons:
Hosea 11:9 "... I am God, and not ANTHRWPOS [man]..."

I think I will take a break, this nonsense is starting to get to me and I do not want to be unkind.

[bobf]

Hey my friend, (I call you "friend" for your patience) if aiwnion does not mean endless when referencing damnation, how then does it mean endless when referencing salvation?

An adjective does not have mean either "everlasting" or "temporary".  Here is a definition of olam given by Hebrew scholars.  Using that definition, the word olam could be applied to things that are temporary and to things that are everlasting.  And in fact, olam and aionion are applied both to things temporary and everlasting.

I can ask you the same question you are asking:

Habakuk 3:6 He stood, and measured the earth: he beheld, and drove asunder the nations; and the everlasting mountains were scattered, the perpetual hills did bow: his ways are everlasting.

Are the mountains everlasting?  Or are God's ways temporary?

My answer is that the duration of both are "beyond the horizon".  When applied to God that means everlasting but for the mountains it means less than everlasting.  If punishment is everlasting then God's mercy is not everlasting.  Yet both are olam and aionion.

[Theo Book]

Hey my friend, (I call you "friend" for your patience) if aiwnion does not mean endless when referencing damnation, how then does it mean endless when referencing salvation?

An adjective does not have mean either "everlasting" or "temporary".  Here is a definition of olam given by Hebrew scholars.  Using that definition, the word olam could be applied to things that are temporary and to things that are everlasting.  And in fact, olam and aionion are applied both to things temporary and everlasting.

I can ask you the same question you are asking:

Habakuk 3:6 He stood, and measured the earth: he beheld, and drove asunder the nations; and the everlasting mountains were scattered, the perpetual hills did bow: his ways are everlasting.

Are the mountains everlasting?  Or are God's ways temporary?

My answer is that the duration of both are "beyond the horizon".  For God that means everlasting but for the mountains it means less than everlasting.  If punishment is everlasting then God's mercy is not everlasting.  Yet both are olam and aionion.

In this you are correct. That leaves remaining the question of the application of the information.

Do you believe Mat 25:46 is really saying "And these shall go away into aiwnion [temporary] punishment: but the righteous into life aiwnion [eternal]"?

This life is certainly a "blink of an eye" when compared to eternity, and God had a word for that kind of time; "oligon" - and it is found in James 4:14 "Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a oligon [little time], and then vanisheth away."

If this is indeed the doctrine of punishment and ultimate salvation, God certainly had the vocabulary to sustain it. But he did not say "And these shall go away into oligon [temporary] punishment, and then vanish away into life aiwnion [eternal]"?

Now THAT indeed changes the meaning of what is said.

[UBS] oligon little, small, (pl.) few | in a short while, briefly; a little while, in only a small way; 

[bobf]

Do you believe Mat 25:46 is really saying "And these shall go away into aiwnion [temporary] punishment: but the righteous into life aiwnion [eternal]"?

No, I don't believe "tempory punishment" is what Jesus meant.  The punishment is conditional.  Until the conditions are met for salvation the punishment is continous and indefinite in duration (the wrath of God abides on him) and so punishment's end is beyond the horizon.  I believe "a duration extending beyond the horizon" is approximately what Jesus intended to say for both life and punishment.  He left it for us to ascertain from "the sum of Thy Word" what those vague words meant in each instance.

If this is indeed the doctrine of punishment and ultimate salvation, God certainly had the vocabulary to sustain it. But he did not say "And these shall go away into oligon [temporary] punishment, and then vanish away into life aiwnion [eternal]"?

Sure God  has the words to make it crystal clear what He meant.  But I don't make the assumption that God must make it crystal clear just because I wish He would have.  I read that God told Daniel to shut up the words and I believe God did exactly that.

Daniel 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. 4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased

Incidentally, in the LXX, the words translated "everlasting contempt" in Daniel 12:2 are the same exact words translated "shame of thy youth" in this verse.

Isaiah 54:4 Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed: neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame: for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more.

How is that in one case "everlasting contempt" is forever but in another case it will be forgetten?

[Theo Book]

Theo God is eternal and this verse is the indicator of that.

1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom [be] honour and power everlasting. Amen.

Same word as that used in Mat 25:46, and used to describe both punishment and salvation. Are you implying it now has THREE meanings?

We will be given immortality

1C 15:51 Lo! a secret to you am I telling! We all, indeed, shall not be put to repose, yet we all shall be changed,

1C 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal put on immortality.

Matthew 25:46   even when translated to a temporary frame of time when referring to punishment or life does not change Gods immortal status because it is not a verse about Gods nature.

Re 21:1 And I perceived a new heaven and a new earth, for the former heaven and the former earth pass away, and the sea is not more. 

Heaven and earth pass away,  so if the traditional teaching about some people "NOW" being in heaven is correct then those there get erased I guess.

I don't think the heavens where the rain dwells is the same heaven where the saints dwell.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Same word as that used in Mat 25:46, and used to describe both punishment and salvation. Are you implying it now has THREE meanings?

athanasia (immortality) is not in matthew 25:46.

[Paul Hazelwood]

I don't think the heavens where the rain dwells is the same heaven where the saints dwell.

Well, the verse about a new heaven and new earth does not speak of where the rain dwells this verse talks about the sea in which it may be referring to.

Re 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works


Interesting how from this translation, hell delivered up the dead.  Even though supposedly HELL is a place where no one escapes and are not dead but are alive and suffering.

[Theo Book]

Do you believe Mat 25:46 is really saying "And these shall go away into aiwnion [temporary] punishment: but the righteous into life aiwnion [eternal]"?

No, I don't believe "tempory punishment" is what Jesus meant.  The punishment is conditional.  Until the conditions are met for salvation the punishment is continous and indefinite in duration...

What's "indefinite" about aiwnion? Whenever aiwnion is applied to God, to salvation, and to punishment, why would someone think he is saying three different things? MY first reaction is that he is using words that indicate he means.

(the wrath of God abides on him) and so punishment's end is beyond the horizon. 

I am not familiar with that scripture reference that speaks of "punishment's end." Can you please supply it for my study?

I believe "a duration extending beyond the horizon" is approximately what Jesus intended to say for both life and punishment. 

Oh! NOW I begin to see. We are to study what Jesus intended to say, rather than all those stuffy things he actually DID say. Thanks for a "heads up" on this one.

He left it for us to ascertain from "the sum of Thy Word" what those vague words meant in each instance.

Vague words? Like what?

If this is indeed the doctrine of punishment and ultimate salvation, God certainly had the vocabulary to sustain it. But he did not say "And these shall go away into oligon [temporary] punishment, and then vanish away into life aiwnion [eternal]"?

Sure God  has the words to make it crystal clear what He meant.  But I don't make the assumption that God must make it crystal clear just because I wish He would have.  I read that God told Daniel to shut up the words and I believe God did exactly that.

I think you are mistaking God for God's instruction to Daniel. If God is going to hold me accountable for understanding his word, he really must not play word games with me. THAT is not "Godly." That is insanity. I believe he said what he meant for us to understand.

Daniel 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. 4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased

Incidentally, in the LXX, the words translated "everlasting contempt" in Daniel 12:2 are the same exact words translated "shame of thy youth" in this verse.

Isaiah 54:4 Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed: neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame: for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more.

Where? "Shame" is [oneidismon]; "everlastind contemp" is [aisxuneen aiwnion]
Daniel 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

LXT Daniel 12:2 kai polloi twn katheudontwn en tw platei tees gees anasteesontai oi men eis zween aiwnion oi de eis oneidismon oi de eis diasporan kai aisxuneen aiwnion

Isaiah 54:4 Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed: neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame: for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more.

LXT Isaiah 54:4 mee fobou oti kateesxunthees meede entrapees oti wneidisthees oti aisxuneen aiwnion epileesee kai oneidos tees xeereias sou ou mee mneestheesee

How is that in one case "everlasting contempt" is forever but in another case it will be forgetten?

Because it is not the same language.

[Theo Book]

Same word as that used in Mat 25:46, and used to describe both punishment and salvation. Are you implying it now has THREE meanings?

athanasia (immortality) is not in matthew 25:46.

Right! What's your point? I was addressing "aiwnion" which is in both reference verses.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Oh! NOW I begin to see. We are to study what Jesus intended to say, rather than all those stuffy things he actually DID say. Thanks for a "heads up" on this one.

Yes, that is the nature of parables, they mean something other than the words used to tell one.