No, you haven’t. If you did you wouldn’t be speaking in the past tense about it. You are making comments about a subject you don’t know much about. That is why I recommended the book. 
Wow…
God, save us from your followers!
Thanks Stellar - but it was probably nothing more than a childish game of semantics
Which runs quite against what Paul actually wrote in 1 Cor 12.
Which I mentioned, at some length, the last time you brought up Brother Roberson. (Whom I was nevertheless appreciative of, despite disagreeing with his rationale and position regarding speaking in tongues. 
)
You beat me to that reply very well, by the way, Jeff.
No, I respectfully disagree. Paul is describing how the Holy Spirit is using each individual believer in one gift because the carnal Corinthian church were a bunch of disfunctional fleshy spiritual babies. The Holy Spirit was unable to flow through them with all 9 gifts due to their spiritual immaturity. Nevertheless, you can only lead a horse to water… you can’t make them drink.
So I haven’t been bless with the Spirit since I stopped speaking in tongues and going to healing meetings? Who are you to judge how the Spirit is working in my life? You don’t know me or anything about me.
Perhaps you could enlighten us on how speaking in tongues has helped you to heal the sick, cast out demons, and raised the dead.
Care to share?
Aaron,
Have you ever been wrong about what the Bible teaches? How do you know that you are free from error? Did you make that decision or did the church as a community recognize this freedom from error?
Why not include the next sentence after the portion you quoted:
“It denotes the conscious and wicked rejection of the saving power and grace of God towards man. Only the man who sets himself against forgiveness is excluded from it. In such cases the only remedy is to deliver up to Satan that he may learn not to blaspheme (1 Tim 1:20)” (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, TDNT, ed. Kittel, Vol.1, p.624, by Beyer).
In my own study I am exploring the idea of purification by fire. In this system of thought, hell is not a torture device but instead a surgical device.
It is temporary and purposeful for reparing a soul. As radiation therapy is painful but healing, hells fire is painful but merciful. It will result in something being burned out of the person that stands in the way of faith and surrender and worship. It is not redemption, but the cultivation for the necessary heart conditions that preceed redemption. As a tumor on the brain could impair a mind and cause them to be angry and devilish and ruin thier relationships, so the sinful state has ruined our relationship with God. The fire does not save us, but simply removes the tumor that has affected our judgement towards the one who loves us.
That said, it would seem that Jesus warning against the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not so hopeless after all.
First we have to remember that no one who goes to hell has been forgiven. Thats why they are there. So if the judgement of hell is in an age to come and the blasphemy in question gaurantees the guilty party will enter into that age of punishment, the question is not that they can never be saved. Jesus did not say they cannot be saved. He said they cannot be forgiven in this age or in the next age. Which leads us to conclude if that in this life they have crossed a line of seared conscience and depravity to commit such a sin, that they are reprobate and no reform of thier soul is possible outside of hellfire. Thats all Jesus is saying.
We are so conditioned to assume the permanance of hell by traditional doctrine that it requires a constant reminder that Jesus did not say it was forever or that they can never be saved. Instead he treated it as something undesirable and clearly something all should seek to avoid.
So all Jesus seems to be saying is that if they commit this sin, they are going to hell and theres no ifs and or buts about it.
And in saying that it wont be forgiven, my mind goes to the child who suddenly realizes he is going to have his butt busted in an epic way because he crossed a terrible behavioral line and he suddenly screams in repentance all the way to the paddling room. But no forgiveness is afforded. The behavior indicates a corruption that must be remedied by pain. That is to say no begging or pleading is going to prevent the punishment from being carried out. Sometimes kids can apologize their way out of a spanking. Jesus is just saying if someone commits this blasphemy theres no apologizing their way out of it. They have proven they need the treatment of hellfire as tragic as that is, because they have gone so far into depravity.
Lets face it Jesus ministry was all about rescuing people from the punishment of hell as well as reconciling them to God. Hell may not be permanent, but a God of mercy is so grieved by its pain that he made an infinitely more generous way to be reconciled to Himself. And even with the treatement of hell there will come an age in which those who have suffered its fire will see with new eyes and thank God for his discipline and turn to Christ as the one who died on the cross for them.
Those who commit the BATHS are simply being told they will be guaranteed hellfire due to the acute evil condition that sin is symptomatic of.
2 Likes
I invite you to read Conditionalism With Hope 2. Which I think, is very well written. I’m surprised JRP took on Matt Slick. Matt is a very formidable logician and theologian. If JRP even stalemated him, that would be saying a lot.
Well, I can only answer - part of the question. I don’t know who won - if anyone. As this thread is started in 2010 - well before my time here. And it’s very long, to go through.
The easier question to answer, is the question of Matt Slick. He’s definitely a Calvinist and has a website at https://carm.org/. And I have seen Matt Slick debate, on Facebook video formats - he sometimes runs. NOT that I’m a Calvinist nor endorse anything Calvinism teaches.
But there is no hell as you see it. Look at the Hebrew and Greek… The Dante 
, Augustinian? Idea of hell is a fallacy…
Please go beyond what you’ve been taught and read the scriptures.
And thus you illustrate Universal reconciliation is not the same Universalism no? I hope your right. but I think otherwise as do many others in the universalist distinction.
Whoa I am not quite sure what you are saying about the difference between the UR and Universalism.
My point is that there is no HELL HELL HELLL as all you evangelicals state.
- Your first sentence is covered somewhere, in the beginning, paragraphs of Conditionalism With Hope 2.
Regarding “Universal Restoration”, I would like to point out that it is nothing like the belief system of “Universalism”. What I have noticed is that some Christians like to put both views together as one. They like to call all those who believe in “Universal Restoration”, Universalists. There is a massive difference between a “Univeralist” and one who believes in “Universal Restoration”.
Here are just a few of the differences:
Universalists may or may not believe in Hell or Punishment.
Universal Restorationists believe in Hell, just as you do, yet do not believe it lasts forever. Basically, the only difference between you and a Universal Restorationist is they believe God disciplines non-believers for a finite period of time, rather than punishing forever.
Universalists many do not believe you need to repent or have faith in Jesus Christ. They just believe everyone gets to Heaven.
Universal Restorationists believe one needs to have faith in Christ and repent of their sins, whether it is in this life, or in the next, or the one after (There are 3 Ages: Now, The Intermediate State, The Judgement).
Universalists often deny much of what the New Testament teaches (consequences of sin, requirement of faith, upholding God’s Holiness, etc).
The Universal Restorationist upholds all the main tenants of Christianity, along with its Creeds.
- Your second sentence is best addressed by Elmer Fudd
Following is the statement of faith of the founder(s) of this site & “Evangelical Universalists”, which includes a belief in “hell”:
See also 7 myths re universalism by Robin Parry (founder of this site):
I think i misplaced a suffix. Good thing Im not a bible translator.
The truth wins. From my perspective JRP has a much better grasp on the truth. I haven’t heard much from Matt Slick that I agree with. Too much like Piper. Very hell minded.
1 Like
I don’t agree TOO much with Matt Slick, either. And I even disagree with the non-denominational site, Got Questions - at times. Even though I do reference them here…for their Biblical input on topics.