An example of a sin that shall not be forgiven?

[JasonPratt]

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! "

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 ). And I am equally not impressed when non-universalists try to pull the same move.

[Aaron37]

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.

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

[SLJ]

Reference: CP.com

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

[Aaron37]

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. Sometimes l like for you and stellar to google and guess…kinda fun…lol.

[stellar_renegade]

Sonia

I don’t need you help with references. Thank you.

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

[SLJ]

Sonia

I don’t need you help with references. Thank you.

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

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

plagiarism.org/plag_article_what_is_plagiarism.html

What is Plagiarism?

Many people think of plagiarism as copying another’s work, or borrowing someone else’s original ideas. But terms like “copying” and “borrowing” can disguise the seriousness of the offense:
According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to “plagiarize” means

* to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
* to use (another's production) without crediting the source
* to commit literary theft
* to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.

In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else’s work and lying about it afterward.
But can words and ideas really be stolen?

According to U.S. law, the answer is yes. The expression of original ideas is considered intellectual property, and is protected by copyright laws, just like original inventions. Almost all forms of expression fall under copyright protection as long as they are recorded in some way (such as a book or a computer file).
All of the following are considered plagiarism:

* turning in someone else's work as your own
* copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
* failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
* giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
* changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit
* copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on "fair use" rules)

Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed, and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source, is usually enough to prevent plagiarism. See our section on citation for more information on how to cite sources properly.

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

[Aaron37]

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/

[JasonPratt]

Trinity is just a descriptive word for The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit.

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.

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.

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. (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.

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.

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.

[JasonPratt]

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.

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.

[Aaron37]

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.”

[JasonPratt]

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.)

[AUniversalist]

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.

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.

ALSO wondering why Aaron37 has like 5 threads based on this, it is like he can’t think and is looking for some kind of flaw in the responses he can use as his reason why his idea is the correct one.

[stellar_renegade]

I think it’s because he’s trying to make it into some kind of showdown, except he ends up arriving at a party instead and forgets to load his gun with anything but blanks anyway.

[Aaron37]

I think it’s because he’s trying to make it into some kind of showdown, except he ends up arriving at a party instead and forgets to load his gun with anything but blanks anyway.

[stellar_renegade]

Glad you got a good laugh outta that, buddy. I hope you never take anything I say too seriously. Unless, of course, it’s obvious it’s meant to be…

[JasonPratt]

In A’s defense, it is an important piece of scripture, including for our forum topic; and it leads to other important topics which we deal with in various ways.

[roofus]

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.

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.

That’s a good point- the writers that he quoted would more likely employ reason.

[lancia]

The short answer is that if the kings of the earth and their followers (who are the targets in view here in chp 16) are being shepherded by Christ even in their destruction (which is explicitly said in Rev 19), and are found in the final chapters going into the New Jerusalem where unrepentant sinners cannot go–not unless their names are written into the BoL (which is also explicitly said)–following the light of Christ; then obviously they do in fact eventually repent of their sins and go in. It just takes the lake of fire judgment to lead them to that point, and we aren’t at the lake of fire judgment yet in the revelation by this point.

I think this is an important interpretation because, if true, it provides evidence of post-mortem repentance. I have used this argument in another forum and was answered by some who said that the kings of the earth who enter the New Jerusalem are not the same kings of the earth mentioned in the rest of Revelation. The kings of the earth who enter New Jerusalem are those who come to power during the Millennial Kingdom of Jesus.

I find this interpretation unconvincing because the term *the kings of the earth *is never mentioned in a positive light in Revelation until Revelation 21:24. Chapter 20, where the Millennial Kingdom comes up, makes no mention of the kings of the earth. Now, verse 20:4 does say, “Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them.” But no reference I found claims that those who sat on the thrones are the same sorts of people referred to by the kings of the earth. Instead, those who sat on the thrones probably are the 24 elders of the church, as mentioned in Revelation 4:20. If Revelation 20:4 referred to the kings of the earth, then why were they not so identified to avoid confusion?

Do you have anything to add to a defense against the view that different sorts of people are indicated by the kings of the earth mentioned in Revelation 21:24 and the rest of Revelation?

[roofus]

Ask them why the gates are open?

[lancia]

Ask them why the gates are open?

Good point. Thanks!