Worshipping The Son

[praise_yeshua]

No. As I clearly stated, not everyone will be saved.




Go and learn the difference between everyone being saved (universalism) and not everyone being saved (not universalism).

I knew when you said that you were going to leave me alone that you weren’t going to leave me alone. If you’re honest with yourself, you knew it too.

I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to the thread. You know... you claimed to do the same earlier.

Not that the user will actually detail those who will not be saved. It is only a hypothetical position. Old error. New marketing material.

 

[Matthias]

I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to the thread. You know... you claimed to do the same earlier.

That isn’t what I claimed. When I write, I write first to and for the person I’m responding; second, to and for a wider audience.

Not that the user will actually detail those who will not be saved. It is only a hypothetical position. Old error. New marketing material.

I don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[praise_yeshua]

That isn’t what I claimed. When I write, I write first to and for the person I’m responding; second, to and for a wider audience.

Loading…

berean-apologetics.community.forum

 

[Matthias]

The wider hope is not universalism. It is the belief that some in second resurrection will be saved while all of the others in the second resurrection will be destroyed in the lake of fire.

A more intelligent question to ask about the wider hope is whether or not it is the concept of purgatory. (It isn’t.)

 

[praise_yeshua]

The wider hope is not universalism. It is the belief that some in second resurrection will be saved while all of the others in the second resurrection will be destroyed in the lake of fire.

A more intelligent question to ask about the wider hope is whether or not it is the concept of purgatory. (It isn’t.)

Notice the claim of "more intelligence"....

 

[Matthias]

Loading…

berean-apologetics.community.forum

Thanks. I did spot an error in what I wrote. The second sentence is missing the word “not”. This forum is not my only platform. I’ll go back and edit the post to correct the mistake.

Well, I went back to edit the post and there was no edit option available for it. This post will have to suffice as the correction.

 

[Matthias]

Notice the claim of "more intelligence"....

Readers should ask a more intelligent question about the wider hope.

 

[civic]

In a nutshell, it’s the belief that those who did not know the one God and the Messiah during their lifetime may still be saved; they will be judged on how they lived and what they reasonably could have known. Their place is in the second resurrection, and that not all who find themselves in the second resurrection will be thrown into and destroyed in the lake of fire. Instead, they will be given the life of the coming age.

Ya I don't buy into that one as its appointed once for man to die and after this comes the judgement. We are judged by our life here while we are living, not once we die and get a second chance.

If everyone got a second chance in the afterlife they would all be saved that is a no brainer. Plue Romans 1 makes it clear all are with out excuse just from Creation declaring Gods glory. God is self evident and a given. atheists have been converted from being theist. All men are born theists.

 

[Matthias]

Ya I don't buy into that one as its appointed once for man to die and after this comes the judgement. We are judged by our life here while we are living, not once we die and get a second chance.

Then your position must be that all who are in the second resurrection will be thrown into the lake of fire.

If everyone got a second chance in the afterlife …

The wider hope is not a second chance.

… they would all be saved that is a no brainer. Plue Romans 1 makes it clear all are with out excuse just from Creation declaring Gods glory. God is self evident and a given. atheists have been converted from being theist. All men are born theists.

 

[civic]

Then your position must be that all who are in the second resurrection will be thrown into the lake of fire.




The wider hope is not a second chance.

Yep that is the biblical position taught in the text in Revelation.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Yep that is the biblical position taught in the text in Revelation.

Have you noticed the absence of Scriptures anywhere? I don't see any establishment of who doesn't get in.

 

[civic]

Have you noticed the absence of Scriptures anywhere? I don't see any establishment of who doesn't get in.

Rev 20
Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

 

[Matthias]

Yep that is the biblical position taught in the text in Revelation.

The biblical position is taught in Revelation 20:11-15.

There are multiple books involved and the dead (who are temporarily resurrected to life) will be judged according to their deeds.

 

[Matthias]

Have you noticed the absence of Scriptures anywhere? I don't see any establishment of who doesn't get in.

Are you unfamiliar with the scripture which pertains to the second resurrection? I had assumed* that in a casual conversation you were familiar with them, but if not, that you would have asked about it.

* I should have known better than to assume anything in conversation with you.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Rev 20
Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

Deeds relative to the work by which men are judged....

Joh 6:29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

 

[Matthias]

A few excerpts I had said I would post from Dr. Brown’s book.

I hadn’t planned on this first one, but since there has been so much talk in this thread about Origen …

”It was Origen who contributed the essential concept of the eternal begetting or generation of the Son by the Father, and thus made the doctrine of the coeternality of the three Persons of the Trinity easier to grasp.”

(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies: Heresy And Orthodoxy In The History Of The Church, p. 109)

How ironic that we all, trinitarian and non-trinitarian alike, reject Origen’s ”essential concept”.

 

[Matthias]

“Historians of Christianity and its relationship to society often claim that Constantine created Christian Europe, or Christendom, but that now we are in the post-Constantinian era. In theology, we have to say that we now seem to have entered a post-Chalcedonian era. The transformation this development portends is greater than anything that has yet happened within Christianity. It can be compared only to the transition within biblical monotheism itself, from the unitary monotheism of Israel to the trinitarianism of the Council of Chalcedon. The difference is symbolized by the transition from the prayer Shema Yisroel, of Deuteronomy 6:4 (‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord …’), to the confession of the Athanasian Creed, ‘We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in unity.’”

(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies, p. 431)

 

[civic]

“Historians of Christianity and its relationship to society often claim that Constantine created Christian Europe, or Christendom, but that now we are in the post-Constantinian era. In theology, we have to say that we now seem to have entered a post-Chalcedonian era. The transformation this development portends is greater than anything that has yet happened within Christianity. It can be compared only to the transition within biblical monotheism itself, from the unitary monotheism of Israel to the trinitarianism of the Council of Chalcedon. The difference is symbolized by the transition from the prayer Shema Yisroel, of Deuteronomy 6:4 (‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord …’), to the confession of the Athanasian Creed, ‘We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in unity.’”

(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies, p. 431)

I thought we agreed we were leaving the "trinity" out of our discussions. That didn't last very long lol. And that goes along with secondary sources. Scripture alone with our guide along with a good Hebrew and Greek Biblical Lexicon to properly define words.

 

[Matthias]

“Was the transition from the personal monotheism of Israel to the tripereonal theism of Nicaea a legitimate development of Old Testament revelation?“

Pause. That’s a very important question.

Resume.

”Christians affirm that it is, holding that Nicaea represents a fuller unfolding, not a distortion, of the self-disclosure of the God of Israel. Indeed, the trinitarianism of Nicaea and the Christological definitions of Chalcedon are seen as the valid and necessary interpretation of the claims of Jesus Christ in the context of the Old Testament witness to the God who is One. Without Nicaea and Chalcedon, it would not have been possible to maintain that Christianity is a biblical religion, the legitimate daughter of Old Testament Judaism. Today the clarity and necessity of Chalcedon, if not refuted or disproved, have been widely forgotten and ignored. Christianity took four centuries to formulate its witness to the deity and humanity of Christ in the context of the one God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in such a way that it preserved a coherent approach to the unity of truth. It has taken fifteen centuries more to forget Chalcedon again; as it loses touch with Chalcedon, the Christian world is in the process of losing its coherence. It is in fact losing the conviction that there is any final truth about the one who said, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life.’”

(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies, pp. 431,432)

 

[Matthias]

I thought we agreed we were leaving the "trinity" out of our discussions.

The deal was only between you and I. I wish we could get everyone to join us. A day is coming when the word will never again be found on the lips of anyone. That day has not yet arrived.

That didn't last very long lol.

I didn’t address my post to you. Had I done so, I would have broken our deal.

I had promised @synergy that I would provide a few excerpts from Dr. Brown’s book for him. Dr. Brown was a trinitarian. His great mission in life was to draw everyone who has strayed from trinitarianism back to it. It’s very difficult to quote from a trinitarian source and not have it include the word which you and I have agreed to mention again in conversation between the two of us - the deal didn’t stipulate that we can never say the T word in conversation with others. You can say it as many times as your heart desires in conversation with others. So can I.

And that goes along with secondary sources.

Secondary sources, if having anything to do with the word which we agreed we wouldn’t mention in conversation with one another, is going to contain the T word. Per our agreement, neither you nor I will include it in our conversation with one another.

Scripture alone with our guide …

Excellent. The T word is nowhere mentioned in scripture. That should not be any problem at all for us.

... along with a good Hebrew and Greek Biblical Lexicon to properly define words.

That’s a secondary source and it will, at times, mention the word which you and I have agreed we will not use in conversation with one another.

I regret that you used the word that we agreed we would not use in conversation between us in the post you directed to me, but I will wink at it this time. In other words, I’m not going to consider it a violation of our agreement.

I appreciate that this deal will be harder for you than it will be for me.