One of the arguments of the typical calvinist against the arminian is that "all" in the bible does not actually mean "all people" and that is figurative.
Figurative and symbolic language exists, so is this a problem to such verses as 1 john 2:2 when it says "whole world" or john 3:16 "for God so loved the WORLD".
my personal opinion is then that many verses don't actually make any sense when viewed in a figurative intention....such as 1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." because to say all is figurative here would be to mean all have not died in Adam...and that would mean all have not been born with sin...and the bible tells us otherwise.
But I just wanna hear your guys' take on it
oh, cmon! :sigh:
Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
Gen 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
elaboration, please?
Dont tell me you people dont wanna talk about this...
6:17 states all will drown.
6:18 states all is not really all because it excludes 8 people.
So the all in this example is not a real all.
Quote from: WhiteWings on April 13, 2009, 09:41:32 AM
6:17 states all will drown.
6:18 states all is not really all because it excludes 8 people.
So the all in this example is not a real all.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: NinjaWizards777 on April 13, 2009, 03:09:20 AM
my personal opinion is then that many verses don't actually make any sense when viewed in a figurative intention....such as
1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." because to say all is figurative here would be to mean all have not died in Adam...and that would mean all have not been born with sin...and the bible tells us otherwise.
Few verses similar to yours:
Romans 5:15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
AFAIK all denominations agree the first Adam caused 100% mankind to fall into sin/death. (excluding Jesus)
Then the next part of the verse states that even more people receive the grace of God (through Jesus)
For me that means noone is excluded. But to be honest I find it weird that more than 100% (the sinful people) recieve grace...
Romans 5:18-19Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, => Adams sin brought death upon all.
so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. => Jesus sacrifice brought forgiveness for all.
I think "so" is the keyword here.
For me the verse says something like:
If Adam can, and did, ruin our eternal life then it is obvious that Jesus can, and did, undo the damage done by Adam.
Romans 5:20 But where sin abounded (pleonazo), grace did much more abound (huperperisseuo)
I think it's safe to say all denominations agree sin abounded worldwide thoughout all generations. It is found in all parts of the world in all times. But grace abounded even more. So grace reaches all places sin has reached.
There's a difference between dialogue or monologue in a narrative and something like Paul's epistles that are supposed to be doctrinal. If all in a doctrinal passage didn't literally mean all, then the ultra liberals would have an argument about it not literally being the Blood of Christ that saves, but that that would merely refer to the sacrifice. If all in a doctrinal passage didn't literally mean all, then the ultra liberals would have an argument about it not literally being an account that we'll have to give on judgment day, and particularly not for every word, thought, and action as is the Apostle's clear emphasis.
Granted that few things precross are void of the possibility of having some or much symbolism attached to them. But Jesus said that He would no longer speak with us in figurative language, but would tell us plainly about His Father, and I've always understood St. Paul to be the written representation of that in the New Testament. I personally never look for very much of the figurative after the Cross, and in areas of the prophets that are clearly describing post crucifixion realities, because of John 16:25 indicating that that would be a very poor hermeneutic:
"These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; an hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but will tell you plainly of the Father."
I stand on this verse every single day for clarity about my heavenly Father's will. John 10:5,27 is also never very far away from my thanksgiving either for pinpoint accuracy in my relationship with Him. But this thing about being able to count on Him to tell you exactly the way it is after the resurrection is so vital and dynamic to me. We're not children of darkness, but children of the day having these things clearly revealed to us by His Spirit.
Another similar verse.
Luke 19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.
Again I think there is a common agreement that all was lost due to Adam.
Now ask these questions:
a] Did Jesus find all that was lost?
b] Did Jesus save all that was lost?
If the answer to a and/or b is no then that has the following implications:
Father overestimated the Son.
The Son failed. -> Missed the mark -> Sinned.
Quote from: martincisneros on April 13, 2009, 10:17:28 AM
"These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; an hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but will tell you plainly of the Father."
How do I/we know that hour has already come?
Maybe the hour starts when Jesus returns.
Or does hour mean something in the (very) nearby future?
And "a time is coming" of something in the more distant future?
Quote from: WhiteWings on April 13, 2009, 10:28:26 AMHow do I/we know that hour has already come?
Maybe the hour starts when Jesus returns.
Simple on how we know that that time is
now. Reread the whole or entire chapter. He was addressing the time when He would no longer be with us, when the Spirit of Truth would come and lead us into all truth, and when we would pray in His Name to the Father rather than asking Him for anything:
23And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.
24Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.
25These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs:
but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father. 26At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:
27For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.
28I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.
29His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.
30Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.
And then of course, St. Paul vouches for that with all of his comments about what was previously mysterious is now openly revealed; what eye hasn't seen, what ear hasn't heard, God has revealed to us by His Spirit of those things that He has for those that love Him, et. al., i.e. Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, etc.
Quote from: Zeek on April 13, 2009, 07:26:54 AM
Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
Gen 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
God is talking to Noah and his family...not "all" of us.
Quote from: WhiteWings on April 13, 2009, 10:14:25 AM
Romans 5:15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
AFAIK all denominations agree the first Adam caused 100% mankind to fall into sin/death. (excluding Jesus)
Then the next part of the verse states that even more people receive the grace of God (through Jesus)
For me that means noone is excluded. But to be honest I find it weird that more than 100% (the sinful people) recieve grace...
Hi WW,
This verse is not necessarily talking about more than 100% of the people. Its talking about the "quantity" of God's grace. The "quantity" of God's grace will always exceed the "quantity" of man's trespass. Basically meaning there is no sin too big for God's grace.
Romans 5:20 below echos this.
Quote
Romans 5:20 But where sin abounded (pleonazo), grace did much more abound (huperperisseuo)
I think it's safe to say all denominations agree sin abounded worldwide thoughout all generations. It is found in all parts of the world in all times. But grace abounded even more. So grace reaches all places sin has reached.
Cheers,
Legoman
Quote from: Zeek on April 13, 2009, 09:44:00 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on April 13, 2009, 09:41:32 AM
6:17 states all will drown.
6:18 states all is not really all because it excludes 8 people.
So the all in this example is not a real all.
:thumbsup:
But it is an "all" with an exception clause. If I say:
All the beer is warm!
Do I really mean all the beer that ever existed is warm? No, there is an implied exception, what I really mean is something like this:
All the beer
in this room is warm!
Even in the case of The Flood, when the bible says "all flesh was destroyed", even if we discount Noah's family, there is still an implied exception of "all flesh
that was currently alive at the time of the flood was destroyed". ie. I believe Adam & Eve were already dead before the Flood hit, so they weren't destroyed by the flood.
Even so, all still means all. We may have to apply an "implied exception" where it logically makes sense: ie. the flood didn't destroy the flesh of those who had already died.
Legoman
Quote from: WhiteWings on April 13, 2009, 10:23:48 AM
Another similar verse.
Luke 19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.
Again I think there is a common agreement that all was lost due to Adam.
Now ask these questions:
a] Did Jesus find all that was lost?
b] Did Jesus save all that was lost?
If the answer to a and/or b is no then that has the following implications:
Father overestimated the Son.
The Son failed. -> Missed the mark -> Sinned.
This is a good example of where there really is no "implied exception" built into the meaning of "all". Is there any logical reason why "the lost" does not include everyone? No. In fact, the bible tells us that everyone inclusively is lost. Is there any logical reason why Jesus couldn't save all the lost (everyone)? Well only if you believe hell is eternal...
Also this verse doesn't even use the word "all".
Legoman
Quote from: NinjaWizards777 on April 13, 2009, 03:09:20 AM
One of the arguments of the typical calvinist against the arminian is that "all" in the bible does not actually mean "all people" and that is figurative.
Figurative and symbolic language exists, so is this a problem to such verses as 1 john 2:2 when it says "whole world" or john 3:16 "for God so loved the WORLD".
my personal opinion is then that many verses don't actually make any sense when viewed in a figurative intention....such as 1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." because to say all is figurative here would be to mean all have not died in Adam...and that would mean all have not been born with sin...and the bible tells us otherwise.
But I just wanna hear your guys' take on it
1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for[a] the sins of the whole world.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
For reference this is what Calvinists believe. They correctly believe God is sovereign over all. They incorrectly believe there is a hell/place of eternal torment. This leads to the logically (somewhat) consistent conclusion that God decrees certain individuals go to hell. However there is also the logically inconsistent side effect that this greatly diminishes God's love... but I won't get into that.
So for the above 2 verses, to the Calvinist, world cannot mean every individual. Since God is sovereign, if "world" really meant "every individual", then God would actually save every individual. And we can't have that because it contradicts the existence of a place of eternal torment. (Never mind it actually confirms God's amazing love...).
So the way the Calvinist interprets "world" in the above verses is in relation to "scope". ie. God saves people from "throughout" the world. All types and classes and categories of people are saved, from all different nations. But NOT ALL people.
Never mind that this turns God into a horrible monster who decrees people be tormented forever - we (the Calvinists) were lucky enough to be one of the "chosen ones". At least thats what the Calvinist believes. Good luck getting them to admit that's what their theology states though...
Peace.
1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for[a] the sins of the whole world.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Looking at these verses at face value... is there any reason to force an "implied exception" into the meaning of "world"?
Personally I don't think so. But if you believe in eternal torment then there would be a reason. Therefore the belief in "eternal" (aionios) hell/lake of fire/torment really needs to be addressed first. Once that is understood, then the above verses make sense.
The problem is of course is no one (well not many - again another implied exception) believes that "eternal" is not in the bible.
Quote from: legoman on April 13, 2009, 03:00:11 PM
This is a good example of where there really is no "implied exception" built into the meaning of "all". Is there any logical reason why "the lost" does not include everyone? No. In fact, the bible tells us that everyone inclusively is lost. Is there any logical reason why Jesus couldn't save all the lost (everyone)? Well only if you believe hell is eternal...
Lets expand on when all doesn't really mean all.
a] When the same or another verse limits the scope of all.
Example -> 8 people are mentioned that are excluded from all that will drown.
Problem -> We found the limitations very near to the word all. How far away is the limitation allowed to be 3 verses? 3 chapters? 3 books?
Abuse -> Dig through the Bible and find the desired limitation 1000 pages away to make your doctrine fit.
b] When it logically can't mean all.
Example -> The already dead people can't drown.
Problem -> This gives room to slip in all kind of exclusions that are illogical.
Abuse -> Excluded are the none elect, whites, blacks, people that are cremated, people that are not baptised, etc. I've seen all of the mentioned groups being excluded by certain denominations.
So a limited all is like a virus that infects verses that really mean 100%.
Quote from: WhiteWings on April 13, 2009, 05:42:38 PM
Abuse -> Dig through the Bible and find the desired limitation 1000 pages away to make your doctrine fit.
Abuse -> Excluded are the none elect, whites, blacks, people that are cremated, people that are not baptised, etc. I've seen all of the mentioned groups being excluded by certain denominations.
So a limited all is like a virus that infects verses that really mean 100%.
LOL! Yup!! Unfortunately, it's man's nature, and even apparently the nature of Christians, to find inherent limits to the Written Word of God's promises and to get so obscenely ridiculous with His judgments that the judgments are pushed beyond anything we'd ever attribute to Adolf Hitler if he'd had the time and omnipotence at his disposal to have gotten all he wanted accomplished. When each of us are at our wits end with the current state of affairs and want to say that absolutely no real Christian would believe some of these things of their heavenly Father, then the Holy Spirit highlights for us that sweet relative (or the annoying one) that's scared to death for the souls of the world, regardless of how much Bible teaching is virtually happening on every block and on virtually every form of media outlet. A lot of people don't even believe that these people can be reached while they're alive, as though Christ left His ministries so bankrupt of power to reach [any of] 'em. Christians are unfortunately absolutely shocked by the conversion of quite a few people that are famous. They're absolutely flabbergasted as though Christ honestly had nothing to offer them and couldn't be persuasive with each heart about anything He'd want.
Quote from: WhiteWings on April 13, 2009, 05:42:38 PM
Lets expand on when all doesn't really mean all.
a] When the same or another verse limits the scope of all.
Example -> 8 people are mentioned that are excluded from all that will drown.
Problem -> We found the limitations very near to the word all. How far away is the limitation allowed to be 3 verses? 3 chapters? 3 books?
As long as the limitation is referencing the first verse somehow, then the limitation can be applied. If we believed there were really an eternal hell, then logically we would come to the same conclusions as the mainstream church. One part of the bible talks about eternal hell. Therefore wherever it talks about "all" being saved, "all" seeing salvation, etc., it can't really mean all.
The error is not in applying the limitation (because it is "too far away" or whatever).
The error is in misunderstanding the "limitation". Gain a clear understanding of what "hell" is, and then the limitation is removed.
Quote
Abuse -> Dig through the Bible and find the desired limitation 1000 pages away to make your doctrine fit.
Only abusive if the limitation has nothing to do with the original verse or if the limitation is misunderstood.
Quote
b] When it logically can't mean all.
Example -> The already dead people can't drown.
Valid.
Quote
Problem -> This gives room to slip in all kind of exclusions that are illogical.
Key word there:
illogical. I find it interesting when debating with other Christians, as soon as you mention "logically it has to be like this", then they will say but that is just your manmade reasoning, we must use faith and not trust in logic. Bah. To a certain extent, that is true. But when we go so far as to justify God tormenting people forever, we have gone way past throwing logic out the window. Our faith has now lost all meaning and we are just drinking the koolaid.
God gave us minds and logic so we would use them. Critical thinking isn't just for the athiests. :winkgrin:
Quote
Abuse -> Excluded are the none elect, whites, blacks, people that are cremated, people that are not baptised, etc. I've seen all of the mentioned groups being excluded by certain denominations.
Yes, that is clear abuse when the text says no such thing. Again we have a misunderstanding. People assume:
elect = chosen = saved
non-elect = not-chosen = burning in hell.
Therefore "all" must mean only the elect.
But the initial premise was wrong. Really its like this:
elect = chosen for honor = saved first
non-elect = called but not chosen = saved later
Therefore "all" can be inclusive of elect & non-elect.
Its interesting break this all down logically, as it really helps to clarify "all" these verses :bigGrin:
Quote
So a limited all is like a virus that infects verses that really mean 100%.
Yes, if it is mangled.
I see it like this. ALL first means ALL (ie. all drowned in the flood). Then apply any limitations from the scripture (ie. not including Noah's family). Then apply any limitations that are implied (ie. not including the people who had already died before the flood). That should be our "scientific method" for determining what "all" really means in a particular verse.
Legoman
Quote from: legoman on April 13, 2009, 06:47:49 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on April 13, 2009, 05:42:38 PM
Lets expand on when all doesn't really mean all.
a] When the same or another verse limits the scope of all.
Example -> 8 people are mentioned that are excluded from all that will drown.
Problem -> We found the limitations very near to the word all. How far away is the limitation allowed to be 3 verses? 3 chapters? 3 books?
As long as the limitation is referencing the first verse somehow, then the limitation can be applied.
I think there is a limitation and that limitation certainly ends at the book. Or even the chapther.
For me it depends on in how big chuncks God reveiled the word.
I'll try to clarify that with an example.
God led His people trough the Red sea.
Example follows no real verses.
"I God declare that I can command the sea to split so you can safely cross the Red Sea"
Then the people go into the split sea and all drown.
Did God lie? No because in Revelation He mentions the Red sea again and adds that He can do such a thing but choose to take a nap.
If things work that way what use is the Bible? What now sounds like it's forbidden or ordered may lateron be expanded upon to mean the opposite.
So IMO the limitation must be so close that everyone at that time can know it.
Surely it can be referenced 1000 pages later. But not to alter it in anyway. As an example. Explained in a different way.
Quote from: WhiteWings on April 13, 2009, 07:15:01 PM
Quote from: legoman on April 13, 2009, 06:47:49 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on April 13, 2009, 05:42:38 PM
Lets expand on when all doesn't really mean all.
a] When the same or another verse limits the scope of all.
Example -> 8 people are mentioned that are excluded from all that will drown.
Problem -> We found the limitations very near to the word all. How far away is the limitation allowed to be 3 verses? 3 chapters? 3 books?
As long as the limitation is referencing the first verse somehow, then the limitation can be applied.
I think there is a limitation and that limitation certainly ends at the book. Or even the chapther.
For me it depends on in how big chuncks God reveiled the word.
I'll try to clarify that with an example.
God led His people trough the Red sea.
Example follows no real verses.
"I God declare that I can command the sea to split so you can safely cross the Red Sea"
Then the people go into the split sea and all drown.
Did God lie? No because in Revelation He mentions the Red sea again and adds that He can do such a thing but choose to take a nap.
If things work that way what use is the Bible? What now sounds like it's forbidden or ordered may lateron be expanded upon to mean the opposite.
So IMO the limitation must be so close that everyone at that time can know it.
Surely it can be referenced 1000 pages later. But not to alter it in anyway. As an example. Explained in a different way.
Yes but it doesn't work for your hypothetical example because the example is a bit inconsistent and contradictory itself. God said he would split the sea, but then didn't do it because He took a nap - implying God made a mistake, God is not omniscient, God forgot to do something etc...
For another "hypothetical" example, look at how the mainstream teaches about ET. We have a few verses that speak of eternal fire, eternal smoke rising from the lake of fire, etc. These are then used to limit every occurence of "all" in reference to salvation of all. Now I would say that is correct use of a limiter, if the limiter is indeed true (which it is not, but just assume it was). In this case proximity has no bearing on the validity of the limiter.
Psalm 119:160 The sum of Your word is truth,And every one of Your righteous ordinances is everlasting.
This is how we should all understand the bible. Read every verse. Memorize every verse. Understand every verse, and then understand every interaction with every other verse.
In actual practice that is very difficult (impossible maybe?) to do.
That is why we so often discuss a verse here in this chapter, and then another verse in a completely different chapter, and the 2 verses support each other. We keep adding verses from different chapters, and hopefully they all support each other. If we find an apparent contradiction, we screwed up somewhere. Now this works for verses that support each other.
For verses that limit another verse, it must be clear that the "limiter" is indeed referencing the "limitee". ie. If there is an eternal hell, then we must limit all verses that say "all" will be saved.
I don't think applying the limiter is the problem. The problem is misunderstanding what the limiter really is.
Legoman
Quote from: legoman on April 13, 2009, 07:37:47 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on April 13, 2009, 07:15:01 PM
Quote from: legoman on April 13, 2009, 06:47:49 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on April 13, 2009, 05:42:38 PM
Lets expand on when all doesn't really mean all.
a] When the same or another verse limits the scope of all.
Example -> 8 people are mentioned that are excluded from all that will drown.
Problem -> We found the limitations very near to the word all. How far away is the limitation allowed to be 3 verses? 3 chapters? 3 books?
As long as the limitation is referencing the first verse somehow, then the limitation can be applied.
I think there is a limitation and that limitation certainly ends at the book. Or even the chapther.
For me it depends on in how big chuncks God reveiled the word.
I'll try to clarify that with an example.
God led His people trough the Red sea.
Example follows no real verses.
"I God declare that I can command the sea to split so you can safely cross the Red Sea"
Then the people go into the split sea and all drown.
Did God lie? No because in Revelation He mentions the Red sea again and adds that He can do such a thing but choose to take a nap.
If things work that way what use is the Bible? What now sounds like it's forbidden or ordered may lateron be expanded upon to mean the opposite.
So IMO the limitation must be so close that everyone at that time can know it.
Surely it can be referenced 1000 pages later. But not to alter it in anyway. As an example. Explained in a different way.
Yes but it doesn't work for your hypothetical example because the example is a bit inconsistent and contradictory itself. God said he would split the sea, but then didn't do it because He took a nap - implying God made a mistake, God is not omniscient, God forgot to do something etc...
That's not what I'm trying to say. It was Gods intention to reveal the limiter centuries later. He didn't forget anything.
Just as He reveals the limiter to all centuries later.
If God works that way it would just be as logical to me as commanding many times the Shabbat should be held on the 7th day and then 2000 year later add but the 4th of 5th day is fine with me too.
QuoteThat is why we so often discuss a verse here in this chapter, and then another verse in a completely different chapter, and the 2 verses support each other. We keep adding verses from different chapters, and hopefully they all support each other. If we find an apparent contradiction, we screwed up somewhere. Now this works for verses that support each other.
I fully agree with that.
And I also see you write 'support' and not 'alter' or 'limit'
A verse found 3 books later can only confirm earlier verses. Not alter them by adding a limiter.
By lack of better words the people that only heard the first verse lived their life in a lie.
Quote from: WhiteWings on April 13, 2009, 07:54:49 PM
That's not what I'm trying to say. It was Gods intention to reveal the limiter centuries later. He didn't forget anything.
Just as He reveals the limiter to all centuries later.
If God works that way it would just be as logical to me as commanding many times the Shabbat should be held on the 7th day and then 2000 year later add but the 4th of 5th day is fine with me too.
QuoteThat is why we so often discuss a verse here in this chapter, and then another verse in a completely different chapter, and the 2 verses support each other. We keep adding verses from different chapters, and hopefully they all support each other. If we find an apparent contradiction, we screwed up somewhere. Now this works for verses that support each other.
I fully agree with that.
And I also see you write 'support' and not 'alter' or 'limit'
A verse found 3 books later can only confirm earlier verses. Not alter them by adding a limiter.
By lack of better words the people that only heard the first verse lived their life in a lie.
Yeah I get what you are saying.
That would be like God saying the following in Genesis:
"My people, you can do whatever you want, and I will save you ALL from a fiery hell which I created"
And then in Revelations He says, "Except I won't save the ones I don't like! HA!"
Kind of an extreme example but for any of these examples (yours or mine) they have to be extreme to really make the point of a false limiter.
I agree it would be bad form for God to change his words many generations after they were said. But with the bible we have many assurances that God is good and that He won't change:
- God is Love
- God doesn't lie
- God doesn't change his mind
- God doesn't change his purpose
I can look up the scriptures for those if anyone wants.
So any type of limiter that is revealed within the bible, must be consistent with those above assurances.
An eternal Hell is a REALLY HUGE LIMITER on all of these assurances that God gives us. That should be our first clue that something is wrong with the concept of eternal torment.
Not sure if we are getting off topic here. Anyway WW, I see your point about the limiter must be in the same chapter (close proximity) to the original verse. In that sense, hell being taught as a limiter is in big violation of this and this results in much contradiction if you believe in eternal hell.
Peace,
Legoman
Quote from: legoman on April 13, 2009, 07:37:47 PM
This is how we should all understand the bible. Read every verse. Memorize every verse. Understand every verse, and then understand every interaction with every other verse.
It's not hard. A child can do it. Just means building your schedule around the Word of God rather than trying to fit the Word of God into your busy schedule. The problem is not that of needing more time, but of making better use of the time that we have. It's never the supremely busy who have no time. Each five minute increment of our day should have it's own quota of usefulness. Time should never be wasted. It should be redeemed. Nothing redeems it more than time spent in God's Written Word. Many men of God throughout the centuries have been able to account for each 5 minute increment of their lives. John Wesley and F.B. Meyer are examples of consecrated time and intellect devoted to God's Word who did that very thing with their schedules. In our calling and election that is a calling and election
to excellence, according to 2Peter chapter 1, nothing else will do!
All doesn't mean all when it's clearly demonstrated by the context:
Rev 13:8
(CLV) And all who are dwelling on the earth will be worshiping it, everyone whose name is not written in the scroll of life of the Lambkin slain from the disruption of the world."
Here, it is clear from the context that "all" means only those whose names are not written in the scroll of life.
Quote from: legoman on April 13, 2009, 08:17:49 PM
I agree it would be bad form for God to change his words many generations after they were said. But with the bible we have many assurances that God is good and that He won't change:
- God is Love
- God doesn't lie
- God doesn't change his mind
- God doesn't change his purpose
Otherwise, there's not only no assurance of
all meaning
all in the Scriptures, but there's no basis for concluding anything other than what the secular humanist concludes about it all being fanciful myth with questionable relevance for the 21st century.
Quote from: legoman on April 13, 2009, 08:17:49 PM
That would be like God saying the following in Genesis:
"My people, you can do whatever you want, and I will save you ALL from a fiery hell which I created"
And then in Revelations He says, "Except I won't save the ones I don't like! HA!"
That's exactly what I mean!
QuoteNot sure if we are getting off topic here.
That's for the topic starter to decide. I think not because the ET get their limiters from many verses away.
Quote from: Doc on April 13, 2009, 08:28:46 PM
All doesn't mean all when it's clearly demonstrated by the context:
Rev 13:8
(CLV) And all who are dwelling on the earth will be worshiping it, everyone whose name is not written in the scroll of life of the Lambkin slain from the disruption of the world."
Here, it is clear from the context that "all" means only those whose names are not written in the scroll of life.
I agree. An easy example because the limiter is in the same verse.
But to take legomans example: What if the verse is given in Genesis and the limiter in Revelation.
Can such a limiter even exist? If we find such a limiter then for me personally not hindered by any scriptual knowledge it can only be a translation or interpretation error.
Quote from: WhiteWings on April 13, 2009, 08:54:28 PM
Quote from: legoman on April 13, 2009, 08:17:49 PM
That would be like God saying the following in Genesis:
"My people, you can do whatever you want, and I will save you ALL from a fiery hell which I created"
And then in Revelations He says, "Except I won't save the ones I don't like! HA!"
That's exactly what I mean!
QuoteNot sure if we are getting off topic here.
That's for the topic starter to decide. I think not because the ET get their limiters from many verses away.
Good points.
Its easy to forget that we are looking at the complete work of the bible and can read the beginning to end.
But what about Adam? Where were the warnings for Adam about eternal hell? He died a little too soon to find out about that one. Oh well too bad - God will have the last laugh there I guess :laughing7:
What about all the people in the old testament? The thoughts on this vary, from:
- all OT people in hell
- Jesus preaching to some of the OT people in hell so some can be saved
- some of the OT people saved by faith (predetermined by God)
etc.
But they didn't really have the same scriptures about the lake of fire/gehenna/eternal fire, because the new testament wasn't written yet.
So God was a little slow in revealing his purpose - too bad for those who died before they knew there was a hell I guess.
Of course, in truth, God is slow in revealing his purpose, but luckily his purpose is actually good!
Quote from: WhiteWings on April 13, 2009, 09:00:53 PM
I agree. An easy example because the limiter is in the same verse.
But to take legomans example: What if the verse is given in Genesis and the limiter in Revelation.
Can such a limiter even exist? If we find such a limiter then for me personally not hindered by any scriptual knowledge it can only be a translation or interpretation error.
It can exist, but the Scriptures wind up using more precise language than subjective duration language. Such as the issue with animals. Genesis and Leviticus seems to say what it seems to say. But Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel and many other passages do a complete about face on the sanctity of all life issue as a result of the Cross of Christ. But it doesn't do the duration thing that many people try to build ET on. Such as with Hosea 2:18 it'll use the Hebrew word for blood covenant with regards to God's salvation towards the animals themselves. It'll take on the language of dramatic promises, like a couple of places that speak of His saving work in the animal kingdom being just like when He brought Israel out of the land of Egypt -- implying to me at least, that in the months, years, and decades to come, the signs and wonders will get really nasty over this if need be. In other words, when something is dramatically changed elsewhere in the Bible, it's not something that's snuck in with only the orthodox who think they've got the stronger stomach being able to know the truth of God's Word. It'll be something that the Archangel Gabriel [practically] blows the Trumpet over in the Scriptures. It'll be more than one statement. It'll really paint the new image that God wants us to have of the situation, rather than being some obscure time reference that the Church winds up fighting for the rest of the eon over like a couple of cats hung over a clothes line with their tails tied together.
Quote from: martincisneros on April 13, 2009, 09:14:16 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on April 13, 2009, 09:00:53 PM
I agree. An easy example because the limiter is in the same verse.
But to take legomans example: What if the verse is given in Genesis and the limiter in Revelation.
Can such a limiter even exist? If we find such a limiter then for me personally not hindered by any scriptual knowledge it can only be a translation or interpretation error.
It can exist, but the Scriptures wind up using more precise language than subjective duration language.
Yes any such limiter would must be very precise. And repeated in more than 1 place in the bible - every scripture always has its witness in another part of the bible. So even the extreme example of a single verse in Genesis limited by a single verse in Rev doesn't work because every verse should be verified with 2 or 3 witnesses.
Legoman
Quote from: legoman on April 13, 2009, 09:19:22 PM
Quote from: martincisneros on April 13, 2009, 09:14:16 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on April 13, 2009, 09:00:53 PM
I agree. An easy example because the limiter is in the same verse.
But to take legomans example: What if the verse is given in Genesis and the limiter in Revelation.
Can such a limiter even exist? If we find such a limiter then for me personally not hindered by any scriptual knowledge it can only be a translation or interpretation error.
It can exist, but the Scriptures wind up using more precise language than subjective duration language.
Yes any such limiter would must be very precise. And repeated in more than 1 place in the bible - every scripture always has its witness in another part of the bible. So even the extreme example of a single verse in Genesis limited by a single verse in Rev doesn't work because every verse should be verified with 2 or 3 witnesses.
Legoman
Good words guys...This is along the lines of what I was thinking and hadn't posted. :thumbsup: I believe all is all unless there's a qualifier in context. For example, WW, I looked at the Genesis verse about the flood...many translations qualify there as "everything
upon the earth that breathes through its nostrils". I guess Noah and his crew wouldn't technically be on the earth (terra firma), as they were floating on God's water" (?).
Quote from: jabcat on April 14, 2009, 12:12:49 AM
Quote from: legoman on April 13, 2009, 09:19:22 PM
Quote from: martincisneros on April 13, 2009, 09:14:16 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on April 13, 2009, 09:00:53 PM
I agree. An easy example because the limiter is in the same verse.
But to take legomans example: What if the verse is given in Genesis and the limiter in Revelation.
Can such a limiter even exist? If we find such a limiter then for me personally not hindered by any scriptual knowledge it can only be a translation or interpretation error.
It can exist, but the Scriptures wind up using more precise language than subjective duration language.
Yes any such limiter would must be very precise. And repeated in more than 1 place in the bible - every scripture always has its witness in another part of the bible. So even the extreme example of a single verse in Genesis limited by a single verse in Rev doesn't work because every verse should be verified with 2 or 3 witnesses.
Legoman
Good words guys...This is along the lines of what I was thinking and hadn't posted. :thumbsup: I believe all is all unless there's a qualifier in context. For example, WW, I looked at the Genesis verse about the flood...many translations qualify there as "everything upon the earth that breathes through its nostrils". I guess Noah and his crew wouldn't technically be on the earth (terra firma), as they were floating on God's water" (?).
If it means earth as in planet earth (which I don't believe) then water/seas are on earth too.
But that's sidetracking the thread. More on-topic is to say that many explaining words are spoken/written that inform us of a boat and who/what is in it. The logical limiter is that a boat floats and that those in the boat don't drown. And just in case you might think the boat sank it's clearly explained they didn't drown.
In fact this story is one of the best and most lenghty explaining (at least) 8 people survived.
If you read the story you read the limiter. That's the way it should be according to me. (but not is according to Martin) People that lived at the time the story was written down, know the whole story. They don't have to wait another millenium for a limiter.
That breathes through it's nostrils might be a way that should be translated. Not sure. Few fish likely drowned with the flood. Not saying it couldn't have happened 'cause the world was in absolute pandamonium with that MegaFlood. Just depends on how rough the waters were as far as whether or not whales, dolphins, and other things that some people would mistakenly think of as fish as to whether or not they'd of gotten pretty thin in population.
Several obvious qualifiers here...
וּבְכָל-הַשֶּׁרֶץ, הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל-הָאָרֶץ--וְכֹל, הָאָדָם. 21 And all flesh perished that moved upon the earth, both fowl, and cattle, and beast, and every swarming thing that swarmeth upon the earth, and every man;
כב כֹּל אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁמַת-רוּחַ חַיִּים בְּאַפָּיו, מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בֶּחָרָבָה--מֵתוּ. 22 all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, whatsoever was in the dry land, died.
כג וַיִּמַח אֶת-כָּל-הַיְקוּם אֲשֶׁר עַל-פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה, מֵאָדָם עַד-בְּהֵמָה עַד-רֶמֶשׂ וְעַד-עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וַיִּמָּחוּ, מִן-הָאָרֶץ; וַיִּשָּׁאֶר אַךְ-נֹחַ וַאֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ, בַּתֵּבָה. 23 And He blotted out every living substance which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and creeping thing, and fowl of the heaven; and they were blotted out from the earth; and Noah only was left, and they that were with him in the ark.
Good reference site http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm
Quote from: jabcat on April 14, 2009, 12:49:32 AM
וּבְכָל-הַשֶּׁרֶץ, הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל-הָאָרֶץ--וְכֹל, הָאָדָם.
כב כֹּל אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁמַת-רוּחַ חַיִּים בְּאַפָּיו, מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בֶּחָרָבָה--מֵתוּ.
כג וַיִּמַח אֶת-כָּל-הַיְקוּם אֲשֶׁר עַל-פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה, מֵאָדָם עַד-בְּהֵמָה עַד-רֶמֶשׂ וְעַד-עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וַיִּמָּחוּ, מִן-הָאָרֶץ; וַיִּשָּׁאֶר אַךְ-נֹחַ וַאֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ, בַּתֵּבָה.
Interesting.
LOL...you like my handwriting? :tease:
An example of where all doesn't mean all would be Luke 21:22, which is the cornerstone, and genuinely the only verse, of full preterism:
22For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
This was said around 30AD
And the New Testament was written between 40AD and 95AD, perhaps all written prior to 70AD. So, Luke 21:22 would have zero to do with prophecies written later with the completion of the New Testament, particularly if any of it, such as 2Peter and Revelation were written after 70AD, as there's much evidence to support in terms of early Christian acknowledgements of when those documents were written and because scholars don't have copies of 2Peter and Revelation prior to the 90sAD. Scholars have copies of all of the other writings of the New Testament prior to 70AD. Those have been found. Earliest copies being in the 40s of fragments of the multiplication of the bread passages from the Gospels.
Various aspects of prophecy weren't fulfilled in 70AD, such as the White Throne Judgment, and the millenial reign of the saints in the thousand+ years previous to that in all of the nations of the earth. The prophecy in Acts chapter 1 about the bodily return of Jesus most definitely wouldn't have been fulfilled in 70AD. Jesus said in this Luke 21:22 passage that all things that have been written, or had been written as of when He was saying that, which doesn't deal with prophecy further in the New Testament. Additionally, it was with regards to the things spoken about and to Israel (as the rest of Luke 21 will bare out) which doesn't deal with all of the prophecies throughout the Bible regarding the nations, regarding the animals, regarding the bodily return of Christ, regarding the restoration of Israel to Christ (addressed by St. Paul in Romans 11), the bodily resurrection in 1Corinthians 15, and regarding the restored earth where righteousness is dwelling in the heavens and earth in 2Peter 3. If all things had strictly been fulfilled, then because of 1Corinthians 15:28, Christ Jesus would no longer be Lord -- which all genuine Christians would immediately brand heresy!
Quote from: martincisneros on April 14, 2009, 06:38:35 PM
An example of where all doesn't mean all would be Luke 21:22, which is the cornerstone, and genuinely the only verse, of full preterism:
22For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
Are you 100% sure that verse is translated correctly.
I don't ask because your the rest of your post doesn't make sense but because past/current/future tense (or whatever its called) can mean a huge difference in this verse.
Quote from: martincisneros on April 14, 2009, 06:38:35 PM
An example of where all doesn't mean all would be Luke 21:22, which is the cornerstone, and genuinely the only verse, of full preterism:
22For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
This was said around 30AD
And the New Testament was written between 40AD and 95AD, perhaps all written prior to 70AD. So, Luke 21:22 would have zero to do with prophecies written later with the completion of the New Testament, particularly if any of it, such as 2Peter and Revelation were written after 70AD, as there's much evidence to support in terms of early Christian acknowledgements of when those documents were written and because scholars don't have copies of 2Peter and Revelation prior to the 90sAD. Scholars have copies of all of the other writings of the New Testament prior to 70AD. Those have been found. Earliest copies being in the 40s of fragments of the multiplication of the bread passages from the Gospels.
Various aspects of prophecy weren't fulfilled in 70AD, such as the White Throne Judgment, and the millenial reign of the saints in the thousand+ years previous to that in all of the nations of the earth. The prophecy in Acts chapter 1 about the bodily return of Jesus most definitely wouldn't have been fulfilled in 70AD. Jesus said in this Luke 21:22 passage that all things that have been written, or had been written as of when He was saying that, which doesn't deal with prophecy further in the New Testament. Additionally, it was with regards to the things spoken about and to Israel (as the rest of Luke 21 will bare out) which doesn't deal with all of the prophecies throughout the Bible regarding the nations, regarding the animals, regarding the bodily return of Christ, regarding the restoration of Israel to Christ (addressed by St. Paul in Romans 11), the bodily resurrection in 1Corinthians 15, and regarding the restored earth where righteousness is dwelling in the heavens and earth in 2Peter 3. If all things had strictly been fulfilled, then because of 1Corinthians 15:28, Christ Jesus would no longer be Lord -- which all genuine Christians would immediately brand heresy!
Revelation has a reference to the temple still standing in it, which is a major clue that it was written before 70 AD, among other clues. But we know that Revelation wasn't the final revelation given to us in scripture.
If Revelation is talking about the Temple that was standing on earth when John was writing this, because he was caught up to the third heaven in Revelation 4:1. I've not yet seen anything conclusive one way or the other to prevent a future temple from at least being attempted, or to prove conclusively that Revelation 4:1 has no baring on what John's seeing throughout the book of Revelation.
Quote from: martincisneros on April 14, 2009, 07:56:10 PM
If Revelation is talking about the Temple that was standing on earth when John was writing this, because he was caught up to the third heaven in Revelation 4:1. I've not yet seen anything conclusive one way or the other to prevent a future temple from at least being attempted, or to prove conclusively that Revelation 4:1 has no baring on what John's seeing throughout the book of Revelation.
The best arguments I've seen for early dating of Revelation are by a partial preterist, who himself admits that even the literal historical fulfillment surrounding 70 AD does not necessarily preclude a future one of some type.
He also admits that the evidence is not 100% conclusive, but that the evidence does fall slightly in favor of the early date.