The Evangelical Universalist Forum

An example of a sin that shall not be forgiven?

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#12

I just noticed how oddly the first question was worded. How would someone be able to repent while being scorched by fire? Surely you know that the time for repentance is not while you’re being punished. Repentance comes after the fact. After the lake of fire has had its due effects in you and has purified you to the point where you can’t be hurt by it anymore, then as it rages on with passions of love for your Almighty Savior, THEN you repent.

That’s how it worked for me, at least. God help those who have not yet been salted with fire!

#13

Right on. True repentance (a change of mind) requires a sound mind if the change is going to stick. The fear crazed don’t repent so much as say the right things to avoid change. A prancing ego talking about ‘power’ is a man who has not been humbled yet. They are easy enough to spot - but like all crazy people, a pain to be around.

#14

They obviously do in fact repent of their sins and go in? How so? Where is the biblical evidence for this? It is also striking that the New Testament, and especially the book of Revelation, does not mention souls repenting and being redeemed from the lake of fire.The mere mention of one person being plucked from their torment, having their name added to the Lamb’s book of life, and entering the city of God would shed so much light on this subject.

Jason for your “in fact” statement to have ‘in fact’ validity…the mere mention of one person being plucked from their torment, having their name added to the Lamb’ book of life, and entering the city of God would shed so much light on this subject, No? If you cannot produce one God breathed scripture that merely mentions this…How can you be so dogmatic about this position?

I disagree with your identity of who these people are. I don’t believe they are the kings of the earth in 21:24 or the people who have taken the mark of the beast and worshipped him in Rev 13:8; 14:9-11; 17:8… rather they are the martyred saints who have overcome the attacks of the beast by not giving in to his threats and attacks. They chose to die rather than lower themselves to worshiping the beast or taking his mark. The remarkable thing about these martyred saints is they are singing after going through literal hell on earth. :smiley:

#15

Not according to God…God seems to be waiting for a repentance that never comes. In Rev 16:9" and they repented not to give him glory" and in Rev 16:11" and repented not of their deeds."

#16

He’s not waiting, Aaron, He’s preparing them, correcting them, purifying them for the confession of Christ that will bring glory. There is no glory in torment - that’s why He wills that none should perish. He IS patience - we are the impatient ones, expecting repentance NOW, when the most important lessons take time. (And time does not stop at the resurrection) If we lived here to be ten thousand years old, we still wouldn’t grasp the depth of His love. Perhaps, that striving never ends.

‘Waiting’ - for God, is not how we count waiting. I know you think you have the power to make things happen - even if you do, that’s still temporal, time-constrained and, at best, an illusion when it comes to things eternal such as mankind redeemed by the cross. The cross is eternal, the Gospel is eternal. Let that sink in before you condemn your fellow human beings. But can such a superior human being as you, do that? That’s the question we all want answered.

OK - maybe that was over the top. I take it back. You’re not superior. You are the run-of-the-mill born-again enthusiast destined to burn-out or con enough people to buy a time-slot. Egos are insatiable. You’re only something when you’re nothing. That bit of wisdom is yet to come for you. Perhaps only in the flames of God’s love.

The Gospel is an Ego-Bust. “The lame shall enter first.” Where are you in the parade, Aaron? Impressing God, jockeying for position as you knock over the lame to get where you think you so rightfully belong?

I may be picking up horse do-do at the very rear of the parade, or still in flames because of my self-delusion, but in all of this, my God, who is love, will do right by me and save me. That’s my faith and my rest. You have no rest - screw up and you are destroyed.

#17

Jason

see also my new post: The mark of the beast and the seal of God in Rev.

#18

Discussed at length already in other threads. But you aren’t going to talk about that, I see. Again. In fact, you’re going to omit my contextual reference even for purposes of discussion. But I re-included it. :slight_smile:

Maybe you’re expected to charitably add up the pieces, instead of looking for reasons to show no mercy. After the Pharisees and scribes contradicted their own principles in order to attack Jesus, so hating Him without a cause, He came back from lunch and started teaching in parables instead.

If it mentions souls being evangelized to slake their thirst and clean their robes, so that they may enter the gates of the city and be healed, that isn’t good enough for you. If it mentions people outside the city who were once the staunchest enemies against God and His people, now walking by the light of Christ and bringing their glory into the city, which they cannot enter unless and until their names have been written into the book of life, that isn’t good enough for you. If it talks about people coming out from the mark of the beast itself and standing upon the lake of fire itself in order to praise God for His saving justice, in accordance with the prophecy of the song of Moses (which ends with totally destroyed rebels being led to repentance thereby and so being vindicated and restored by God, rejoicing in the glory of His judgment and justice), that isn’t good enough for you.

You’re like a non-trinitarian who insists that unless the scriptures somewhere specifically spell out one little thing that they’ve fixated on to ‘prove’ trinitarian theism to be true, then trinitarian theism must be false and everyone who marshals evidence otherwise, no matter how vastly much that may be, is “only using human reasoning” or some excuse like that in order to make the scriptures say what (according to this one little fixated thing) the scriptures happen not to directly say. Doesn’t matter how close the scriptures get, doesn’t matter if they say the same thing using other poetic figures, doesn’t matter if the data logically adds up that way. They’ve found some way they can ‘deny’ trinitarianism to be true, and by God they’re going to stick to it at all costs. And accuse the trinitarians of being blindly dogmatic about our position.

For example.

Not all non-trins do this, of course, thank God. But I know perfectly well you wouldn’t accept that tactic from them; otherwise you would have long since converted to modalism or some kind of arianism! If, somehow, you haven’t heard of that tactic before: well, there you go. You may now reject trinitarianism, because on the same exact ground you’re desperately appealing to it must be obviously false. The rest of us trinitarians, though, will go on adding up things in scripture, without being remotely threatened by such tactics from non-trins.

That’s certainly the usual interpretation. The difference is that I went into much detail, including much scriptural detail, when discussing my dissension from the usual interpretation here. But as usual, you aren’t going to discuss the details–or not here anyway (we’ll see if you do so elsewhere). You’re only going to pretend like I haven’t thought about it in detail, so you can accuse me of some kind of blind dogmatism.

And of course, if someone doesn’t repent at one point in the scriptures, they must NEVER repent afterward (even if the scriptures at that point don’t explicitly say they never shall repent at any time afterward.)

Or else, logically, it’s only talking about that particular time, and it’s a further question whether they do or do not repent at some time afterward. If there’s evidence that they repent later, trying to appeal to their non-repentance at this time is fallacious. No one denies they aren’t repenting at that point. The question is whether they repent later, and talking about their non-repentance here is not evidence that God will always fail to lead them to repentance ever afterward. Nor is it evidence that He wasn’t trying to lead them to repentance (which the text also doesn’t say).

#19

Jason

There is actual scriptural support of the Trinity unlike your theory that has no scriptural support of one soul being plucked out of their torment in the lake of fire, being added to the Lamb’s book of life, etc. :wink:

#20

The thing that makes your posts so utterly aggravating is that you act as if you’ve been conversing with a brick wall. It makes people not even want to talk to you. If you at least had some kind of response to what’s been said, oppositional or no, it’d be a much different animal.

#21

Trinitarian doctrine is arrived at (in terms of systematic theology) from adding up details in scripture which, in themselves, do not explicitly state the doctrinal set. Complaining about a lack of an explicit statement of doctrine X when the case is made from adding up implications, is just like complaining (for example) that the scriptures never use the phrase “God the Son”.

If someone said “It’s striking that nowhere do the scriptures ever call Jesus ‘God the Son’! Point to where they do! You can’t do it! What, you admit they don’t? Ha ha! He admits they don’t! Have you ever wondered if you might be wrong? Why are you so dogmatic?” and kept repeating variations of this mantra whenever you tried to explain that it doesn’t matter that the scriptures never call Jesus ‘God the Son’, rejecting your explanations for why we believe that anyway while continuing to crow about you dodging the issues and how you can run but can’t hide–would you think they were interested in having a serious conversation? Or would you think they were desperately trying to find any way they could to avoid having to seriously consider your explanations for why Jesus should still be considered God the Son, the 2nd Person of the Trinity?

“And where does the Bible ever say there’s a Trinity?” they might hoot. "Nowhere! You can’t prove that it does! You know it and we know it! All your explanations for why there’s supposed to be this unbiblical notion of a Trinity are just unnecessary rhetoric, not worth our time to even acknowledge. You have no Biblical evidence for a Trinity at all! Show us where it says there’s a Trinity! What?–all we hear are crickets! Bring out your grand poo-bahs to show us where the Bible says God is a Trinity! :laughing: :laughing: :smiley: "

That kind of insultingly dismissive and wilfully blockheaded attitude to trinitarians, is exactly the kind of attitude you’ve been having toward universalists ever since you got here, and it’s exactly what you’re engaging in every time people try to show (for numerous reasons) that it doesn’t matter if the scriptures never specifically show people repenting and being pulled out of the lake of fire, and you retort with “It’s striking that the scripture never show that, it would make so much difference if they did, but they don’t and so you can’t prove it’s true!” (or variations thereof.)

I’m not impressed when non-trinitarians do that (and thank you, by the way, to the non-trins on the board who don’t do that :wink: ). And I am equally not impressed when non-universalists try to pull the same move.

#22

Jason

Trinity is just a descriptive word for The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit. I John 5:7 shows the Trinity beautifully, but you won’t find it in most bibles because The “Majority” Greek text is also the main Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox religion. They had a vested interest in changing (or deleting) some texts. The growing religion that became known as Roman Catholic, after many debates eventually agreed on the doctrine of the Trinity. So they had no reason to remove 1 John 5:7 from their Bibles, since it supported what they taught.

But the Greek Eastern Orthodox religion was combating a heresy called “Sabellianism,” and would have found it easier to combat the heresy by simply removing the troubling passage from their Bibles. :wink:

Your theory of one soul repenting and being plucked out of their torment form the lake of fire and getting added to the book of life… is just that… “a theory” based on not one actual God breathed scripture.

Reference: CP

#23

Aaron,
You seem to have a fondness for cryptic references. CP.com is “Chicago Pneumatic”.

A source should be listed so as to be traceable. The purpose being to give credit to the actual author–and that’s impossible if the author cannot be identified–as well as to allow people to investigate the source for themselves, for fact checking, context, etc.

I believe the link I sent you before has information regarding proper format for citing internet sources. If not, I’m sure a quick google search should provide the info you need.

Sonia

#24

Sonia

I don’t need your help with references. Thank you. Sonia, you like to bring in other doctrines( which have nothing to do with the subject at hand) that my references believe in (that I don’t) to diminish the comments of the author. So, until you stop doing that…you will get occasional encryptions. Btw, most of my references are traceable. :wink: Sometimes l like for you and stellar to google and guess…kinda fun…lol.

#25

Except apparently you do, you arrogant son-of-a-gun. :wink:

#26

There’s obviously some things you still don’t understand Aaron. Perhaps this will help:

plagiarism.org/plag_article_what_is_plagiarism.html

Fortunately, plagiarism is not an unforgivable sin … just trying to keep it on topic. :wink:
Sonia

#27

Everyone

Here is another view of the unpardonable sin that UR says is pardonable. Unpardonable is something that isn’t pardonable. I do not endorse all doctrines of this website.

grammateus.wordpress.com/2010/06 … ue-part-2/

#28

Based on not one actual God breathed scripture (so the unitarians would say). Also, the concept that it is only a descriptive term is closer to modalism, not to orthodox trinitarianism (whether RCC, EOx or Protestant. Or Nestorian, Coptic, Jacobite or several other now-minor variants of trinitarianism for that matter.)

I think you meant 1 John 5:8, by the way. And the second half of that is only found in super-late manuscripts. (The first half says there are three that bear witness: the Spirit and the water and the blood. It’s the second half that has become notorious.) The Eastern Orthodox are extremely much in favor of the Trinity, and were part of the Church who “eventually agreed on the doctrine of the Trinity” “after many debates”. Just like the RCCs, they would have no reason at all to remove it from Bibles. But trinitarians of all shades would have plenty of reason to add it to Bibles. Which happens to be how the textual evidence comes out.

The EOx weren’t the only ones combatting that heresy, and indeed as a heresy it far precedes the split between the RCCs and the EOx. Do you even know what the heresy of Sabellianism is?! “Trinity is just a descriptive word for The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit.” You or your source actually affirmed it by accident at the start of your reply.

Sabellius was a bishop in the precinct of Arius, back in the late 200s or early 300s, who was preaching something Arius understood to be the denial of the distinction of the Persons, including of the Father and the Son. In responding against this preaching–which Sab might not have intended but was only being inept about–Arius went to the other extreme and insisted upon the total distinction of the Persons of the Father and the Son as categorically different entities, the Father uncreated but the Son created. (Arius was also zealous to deny cosmological tri-theism, which he thought the orthodox party was promoting.)

The bishops hashed this out in the early 300s; where, had the Trinitarian Comma been known about, it would have been deployed against both Arius and Sabellius. The split between the RCCs and the EOx happened no earlier than the 600s, after they had solidly affirmed the Two Natures doctrine of Christ over against the One Nature trinitarian advocates (roughly speaking the Coptic and Ethiopian churches), partially on the charge that the ON advocates were trending into Sabellianism. Which by the way wasn’t true, but it made for good rhetorical ammo. :wink: (On the contrary, the first textual indications of the Trinitarian Comma itself come from a Latin text in the late 300s to either the heretic Spanish Priscillian or to his disciple Bishop Instantius. But throughout the 400s the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa, i.e. the same region as the Coptic and Ethiopian churches. Also in Italy.)

The term only starts showing up in Old Latin and Vulgate texts of the actual scriptures (not references from Patristic commentary) in the 500s; where it differs substantially in wording from text to text (or family to family). Meaning they weren’t copying it from a prior text until it was already established in the text as ‘text’. It shows up in absolutely no other early languages, aside from a few relatively late Greek texts where usually it is treated as a marginal comment (apparently copied from the Latin).

The Greeks didn’t (usually) include it, because they realized the text was spurious and had crept into the actual text over time in Latin (nowhere else). Neither the Eastern Orthodox (Greek or otherwise), nor any other trinitarian, would have had reason to erase it, including in dispute against the occasional Sabellianist. They would have been deploying it against Sabellians instead, or at least trying to defend its use to Sabellians.

(Similarly, when Arius and those like him tried to make a point from the way GosJohn 1:3-4 was used before the Nicean Council, the text wasn’t deleted or even altered. The only thing that was changed was what we would call the punctuation, so that “In Him was life” would start a new sentence instead of finishing up one.)

Your source is quite wrong on almost all points. I recommend getting a new source.

Not just one, but hundreds. Just like trinitarian doctrine is not based on just one (even the Trinitarian Comma, thank God!) but hundreds.

You may not agree with how it is based on hundreds of scripture, but that doesn’t change the fact that I can and do derive it from hundreds of scripture. You can continue to ignore that I do so from hundreds of scripture references, but that doesn’t change the fact that I do so. Squinting shut your eyes and plugging up your ears, doesn’t mean the light does not exist.

#29

I suppose I should add that this knowledge of the Trinitarian Comma is standard in the field, but I was double-checking with Metzger’s 2nd edition of A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament for accuracy on some of the details. :slight_smile:

I could have pulled the details of Sabellius and Sabellianism from any of several sources at hand (in fact I mentally compiled them from numerous sources); but Aaron would probably most appreciate Robert Morey’s The Trinity: Evidence and Issues.

#30

Jason

No, I mean’t 1 John 5:7 “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” :wink:

#31

Yes, that’s the Trinitarian Comma, or one version of it. It’s hard to keep track of the minor variants. The versification issues come from trying to figure out where to change from verse 7 to 8 (and from verse 6 to verse 7), which the inclusion or omission of the Comma naturally affects. Versification wasn’t standardized until relatively late. (Note: which means I don’t hold the variant versification counts against the inclusion of the Comma. Despite its relatively common grammatic variations, mostly in Latin, its position between “there are three that bear witness” and “the Spirit and the water and the blood” seems pretty standard whenever it’s included as far as I can tell.)