Are you praying to the God who tortures his enemies forever in a lake of fire? If so, save your breath. I want nothing to do with such a God. My God forgives his enemies even as they nail him to a cross. He’s worthy of my love and trust. I will pray to him for you. My good God will bless you, you know. One day you will repent of speaking evil against him.
Revival,
I’m trying and trying to work out the inconsistency here. Death is going to be abolished for all time and, in some sense, has been abolished for all time. Now, of course, if it continues to reign over most of the human race, it isn’t really abolished and never will be. When I asked you about that, I read your response as saying, more or less, that death isn’t really an enemy anymore because now God has stripped it of its authority. Yet, it will regain and hold onto its authority (presumably with God’s blessing this time?) in the Age to Come for eternity?
I read the article. It didn’t seem relevant to my question and demonstrated the exegetical question-begging so common to ECT. It assumes as its underlying premise that already/not-yet ceases in the Age to Come. Universalism argues (doesn’t assume) that it doesn’t. Rather than engaging that argument, the author simply assumes its opposite and then declares Universalism wrong for violating that assumption. It sounds a bit, to be quite honest, like the way a first-century Jew might have engaged Christianity: “What do you mean Messiah has come? Do YOU see our Pagan oppressors thrown off? Do YOU see peace reigning in the Earth? Of course not!” In fact, one of the passages the author cites (I Corinthians 15) seems to specifically argue that Jesus will return and reign, and through the course of His reign subjugate or abolish all His enemies, culminating with the final abolition of death.
Edit to add: Jason Pratt seems to have already begun a discussion on that article here: Col 1, 1 Cor 15, Already-Not Yet, and the Parousia
Hi Allan,
I have to say your testimony resonates with me. Posters such as yourself and Total Victory bring a flavour of a God brushing against my horny old agnostic hide that lures me toward and not away.
Jeff.
The inconsistency occurs when you try to extend the consummation of the age into the coming age where Scripture says it has ended. Why do you suppose Jesus himself said the the blasphemy of the HS is a sin that shall not be forgiven in this age or the age to come? What part of **shall not be forgiven in this age or the age to come **do you not understand?Regardless what you think blasphemy of the HS is or is not it is as sin Jesus said that is unpardonable, PERIOD! Do you think Jesus had extending reconciliation in mind to those who commit such a sin into the age to come when He said this? Of course not!
Revival,
Here I am trying to listen to you and work out what looks an awful lot like an inconsistency in your theological system (death is annulled and abolished and will be ultimately annulled and abolished and yet continues to reign forever) by asking questions to get your to clarify your position, and your response is a complete non-sequitur based on the word “inconsistency”? If that’s your answer (that is, a lack of any actual answer), we can continue in this new direction.
This conversation seems to make you angry. We don’t have to continue. I’m presently sitting in a theological library with books upon books written by systematic theologians, commentators versed in Greek and Hebrew, church historians, and so forth that believe in ECT. If I wanted to build the best knockout case for ECT that I could, I’m in the right place. But I don’t want to read those books right now (I’ve been reading them for years). My goal is to talk to you about what you believe, and when I tried to zero in on an area where your theology is unclear to me, you responded by changing the subject to something totally different, lashing out angrily, and dropping all pretense of real exegetical thought in order to attack my beliefs.
Up to you where this conversation goes, I suppose. Was I unclear about what I was asking in my previous post?
I’m far from angry, Snitz. Thanks for your concern though. How about addressing the inconsistency in your theological sysytem. When you understand how reconciliation works, how Jesus said there shall be no pardon of the sin of blaspheming the HS in this age or the age to come, how the consummation of the age works, the finality of Rev 20:11-15, and the purpose of the second death in eternity…what you call “inconsistency”, disappears. Please address my previous post below.
The inconsistency occurs when you try to extend the consummation of the age into the coming age where Scripture says it has ended. Why do you suppose Jesus himself said the the blasphemy of the HS is a sin that shall not be forgiven in this age or the age to come? What part of shall not be forgiven in this age or the age to come do you not understand?Regardless what you think blasphemy of the HS is or is not it is as sin Jesus said that is unpardonable, PERIOD! Do you think Jesus had extending reconciliation in mind to those who commit such a sin into the age to come when He said this? Of course not!
That verse is saying that salvation is the gift of God, not our faith. That’s what the Greek says. If Paul had meant to say that we were saved unto faith he would have said it. In the thousands of opportunities that he did have. I also find it pretty unlikely that Paul thought anyone could elevate faith to works and be the grounds for boasting. I’m not perfectly sure what Revival believes, but “orthodox” libertarians do not believe that faith originates within us. Humans are always graciously enabled to have faith. Without grace, we couldn’t have faith in the first place. So we couldn’t really claim that we were purely responsible for it, let alone boast about it. Boasting about your faith is like boasting about your humility anyway. It would be entirely self-negating. I mean, isn’t our faith in Yeshua who is our saviour? If we were boasting, wouldn’t we boast that we were our own saviour? How could I boast that I couldn’t earn my own salvation and had to rely on the charity of someone else? Martin Glynn summed it up best: “I have more faith in my complete depravity and absolute necessity in my great, powerful, merciful Savior to atone for the sum of my sinful and worthless deeds than you do, you loser!”
Revival,
I’m far from angry, Snitz. Thanks for your concern though.
Of course. Anger is rather antithetical to these conversations going anywhere productive.
How about addressing the inconsistency in your theological sysytem.
I will, as soon as I find it. 
When you understand how reconciliation works,
I do.
how Jesus said there shall be no pardon of the sin of blaspheming the HS in this age or the age to come,
I addressed this in another thread. You never responded to my arguments as a whole (you made one response but it appeared you hadn’t actually read my post when you did). Would you like the link?
how the consummation of the age works,
I addressed this here.
the finality of Rev 20:11-15,
I addressed this numerous times with you. Your attempts at exegesis in the end of Revelation amount to assuming that certain named groups have radically changed identities without so much as a word from John indicating as much.
and the purpose of the second death in eternity…
Nope, I get that, too, from both the Bible’s perspective and yours.
what you call “inconsistency”, disappears.
Or, rather, is highlighted. Death is God’s enemy. Jesus defeats all his enemies, culminating with death. Death continues to reign forever. That’s inconsistent, and you’ve yet to tell me how it’s not.
Now, onto the latter half of your post.
The inconsistency occurs when you try to extend the consummation of the age into the coming age where Scripture says it has ended.
No, it occurs when Jesus defeats all enemies, including death, but death continues to reign forever. Will death be defeated or not?
Why do you suppose Jesus himself said the the blasphemy of the HS is a sin that shall not be forgiven in this age or the age to come?
I addressed this in another thread. Here: Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Revival's Reason-3)
The rest of your post is about this passage, so the same answer applies. 
Snitz
Jesus and I agree with you right up until :“If such a person, with such a bent, were to turn from that attitude and repent, all sins he had ever committed would be forgiven him and he would be no less a child of God for it”
Jesus said there is** no forgiveness **available for such a person to receive. You just don’t get it, snitz. What makes you even think a person is able to repent after searing his conscience to the point of no return?
Also your comment above totally contradicts what Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26-29 say! It is impossible for them to repent.
The fact that the Bible says everyone will. Let me ask you this: do you think there are people that have reached a point where forgiveness is impossible before they die? In other words, are there people “in this age” guilty of that sin whom God has written off already?
i’ve posted this before, but it was ignored, so it’s pointless trying again.
but
this age or the age to come…well Jesus was in one age, before He died and rose again, and the age after was either the short period before the sacking of Israel, or the age in which we now live.
if you can count, than you can see that Jesus mentioned two ages, and those ages are passing or have already passed. the next age is the one post judgement. that’s the third or even fourth age since.
therefore there is definitely forgiveness in the future for those Jesus mentions.
also, the original grammar in Hebrews about their being no more repentance reads that “WHILE they continue to crucify Christ to themselves they cannot be brought back to repentance.”
this is pretty simple logic…they can’t repent while they continue to sin in this way.
however, if they stop sinning in this way, they CAN repent.
the translations that hint that there is never again any chance for them to repent are misleading at best.
it’s really rather simple.
Corpselight,
I believe N. T. Wright (along with a growing number of scholars) would agree with you, as he sees most of Jesus’ apocalyptic references to be toward the fall of Jerusalem and (hence) would have seen God’s refusal to forgive blasphemy of the Holy Spirit as being a warning about that event (Wright, himself, hints at the possibility of postmortem, post-judgment salvation, but outright denies Universalism). I’m not quite ready to go that far, and have treated that passage (along with, e.g., the Sheep/Goats judgment pericope) as pointing toward eschatological judgment in my own exegesis of it.
Edit to add: I forgot to say that I think you’re spot on with regard to Hebrews 6.
fair enough mate…i guess all i’m trying to say is the way i see it, even if we’re not forgiven in this age, there’s still a third age to come
i’m sure we all agree that when Jesus died and rose again, a new age began…and the age to which He spoke before passed away. but i’m sure there are a variety of ways to look at this.
the concept of the “unforgiveable sin” does not work with arminianism OR calvinism, as in the former your free will is so omnipotent that you would always have a choice (however unlikely you would be to make that choice), and the latter would have you damned or saved beyond any consequence of your own action anyway.
so this sin is not only a problem for Universalists…it’s a logical problem for the other main schools of thought as well, though i’ve no idea how Catholics and Eastern Orthodox deal with it. Revival reckons you can sear your conscience beyond a certain point…but that would conflict with free will to a huge degree. to no longer have that free will anymore means that you can lose your free will, and thus free will cannot be the key thing in our relationship to God. also, God would know you’d commit that sin already, meaning your destiny would be sealed, meaning the slightly more Calvinistic approach of predestination would rear its ugly head.
thanks about Hebrews 6, but i should’ve said i was quoting what i learned in the other thread on the subject…so not my own research sorry! 
Corpselight,
Oh, I agree entirely. I once had a professor attempt to argue that it wasn’t that God could not forgive those guilty of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, or that they couldn’t repent, or whatever; it was that He refused to. They were perfectly capable of repentance, but in this case, God would reject “the broken and contrite heart” no matter how broken or contrite it became. And for the committed Arminian, that’s pretty much where you have to go if you believe there’s a sin that one can commit in this life that can never be forgiven, since free will is so sacrosanct that it can never be completely compromised. Of course, the man also presented an hour and a half long case that Jesus used non-alcoholic grape juice at the Last Supper, so… very, very large handfuls of salt with whatever he said.
wow…sounds like it. i sometimes wonder if there’s enough salt to go around for some of the rubbish people come up with 
Interesting, Corp. The way you tap dance around the sin that Jesus says has no forgiveness is by adding possibly 2 more ages to the consummation of the age and the age to come. 
This is not biblical and certainly not the orthodox position of the body of Christ. Also with this tap dance maneuver are you affirming that this “present evil age” is part of “the age to come”?
Yes, there is a line you can’t cross, but how far that line is I don’t know, but God certainly does. But if you flat out deny Jesus either by your actions or your words and you die in that condition your eternity is sealed according to Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26-29. Also read Romans 1:18-32.
Revival,
So there is a point in this life past which a person no longer has the free will to repent?
which postition? of the RCC? Eastern Orthodox? baptist? southern baptist? independent fundamentalist baptist? pentecostal? lutheran?
Revivals church, thats the one with the right doctrine of course. I mean those baptists sure don’t believe in speaking in tongues you know. So they think you’re un-orthodox. The RCC thinks you must be baptized in water to go to heaven (church of christ too), is that orthodox? Then theres those pesky folks who use the non-authorized version of the bible, which one is correct? 1611 KJV is the true word of god, I’ve been told before. Seems theres quite a variation in orthodoxy… as long as you believe in the doctrine of demons you’re orthodox I guess.