The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Mark 3:28-29 and Universalism

No James, I think Aaron’s point is those who once believed and then move into unbelief. A37 correct me if I’m wrong.

Aaron,
the strategy you employ in order to prove something wrong is completely fallacious. When scriptures are extracted from other scriptures then it serves a false purpose, as you are demonstrating.

For example.

In Romans 9, it was not Pharoas choice as to whether he would obey God. It was God who hardened him and it did not depend on his efforts or his desires.

So I would then employ the same tactic: I do not say it does not depend on mans will (his efforts or his desires) but on God whom hardens whom he wants and softens who me wants. Do you agree with God that Pharoa’s disobedience was God causing him to do this regardless of his (pharoa’s) desires? Will you accept the word of God? Or will you continue in your belief in free will and reject God’s word?

To add to my last post: My point is the scriptures are to be taken as a whole. Pulling one text out and saying case closed is futile since we see that God reconciled ALL THING unto himself by making peace upon the cross.

And in Rev 5 we see ALL THINGS praising the Lamb of God. Does that include the wicked?

In Phil 2 we see ALL THINGS praising God. Does that include the wicked?

In Romans 14 we see EVERY KNEW bowing and confessing Jesus is Lord, which God PROMISES if you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth YOU SHALL BE SAVED. Will they be saved?

I imagine you will employ some prophetic interpretation that allows God to break his promise; that is even if they believe and confess, God will not save them.

But would that interpretation fit in the context of the “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” passage? I don’t think so.

Sonia

Yes, that is just one aspect of unbelief. Here is an explanation of the sin Jesus said “Has never forgiveness”: Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

The “unpardonable sin” is this and nothing more: UNBELIEF. The Holy Spirit is God’s active principle in the world, as the Son (Word, Logos) is the Father’s command and direction. By “active principle” we mean that the Holy Spirit is the personified effect of God in the lives of people and in the world. By “blaspheming” the Holy Spirit, Jesus therefore refers to one who denies the divine authority and activity of the Spirit – as did those who attributed the exorcisms of the story to Beelzebul.

Dunn, in Vol. 2 of Christ and the Spirit, puts it this way:

…the beneficial effect of [Jesus’] exorcisms was so self-evidently of God and wrought by his Spirit, that to attribute it to Satan was the worse kind of perversity – deliberately to confuse the Spirit of God with the power of Satan was to turn one’s back on God and his forgiveness (Mark 3:29).

In terms of the post-resurrection scenario, this also applies to those who refuse the prodding of the Holy Spirit to believe the Gospel. They deny the activity of the Holy Spirit in prodding them to believe, and thus blaspheme the Holy Spirit by putting his activity down to guilt feelings, etc.

Your interpretation of Romans 9 is wrong, Aug. My strategy is simple: Do you believe the words of Jesus or do you believe the words of man? Jesus said 'He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost HAS NEVER FORGIVENESS, BUT IS IN DANGER OF ETERNAL DAMNATION" Jesus is speaking the truth or he is lying. Are you calling Jesus who did not sin…a liar, Aug? For me… When Jesus says something…its settled…no ifs, not buts, its done.

Your intepretation of Mark 3 is wrong. Do you believe the word of God that pharoa had no choice or do you believe in the words of man that God’s mercy depends on you?

When Jesus says there is a sin that ‘HAS NEVER FORGIVENESS’ ( blaspheming against the HS) but is in danger of ETERNAL DAMNATION" Never means Never, Aug…not in this world or any world. CASED CLOSED! NO IFS…NO BUTS… WHEN JESUS SPEAKS… ITS A DONE DEAL…CASED CLOSED, my friend.

No, it does not include the wicked for they will be in the lake of fire due to the final judgment of mankind in Rev 20:11-15.

Aug, if UR does not line up with Jesus’ words or the word of God…you must change your theology. We don’t match our theology to the words of Jesus. Jesus’ words are crystal clear and fly in the face of UR theology. Only one is telling the truth, Aug. Now you must decide who you put your trust in: Jesus or the lie of UR? :wink:

The sin that Jesus said “Has Never Forgiveness, but is in danger of Eternal Damnation” is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit with unbelief. Either renouncing Jesus once your a born again believer( Heb 6:1-6;10:26-29) or denying Jesus when your a spiritually dead unbeliever( Mark16:16; John 3:18;36). Crystal clear, Jim? :wink:

Hey Aug, thius just adds to your dilema…go check out firedup2000’s post in the general discussion of Universalism section. :wink:

Let me get this straight - This is the Hebrews that is entirely concerned with well… how can I put this… the Hebrews and the warning to not return to the old covenant - not an unbeliever in sight. :smiley:

Here’s a commentary on Hebrews by someone who is certainly lead by the Holy Spirit if anyone is. However, I doubt A37 (which by the way in my country is a road :smiley: but on this forum is a member who says they’re (not 'their 'or ‘there’ as is common on t’internet these days) leaving but can’t quite bring themselves to do so ) will read it but no doubt will condemn it as a work of the flesh (I apologize to the hard-of-parsing for the nested parentheses ).

gods-kingdom-ministries.org/ … fm?PID=116

For those with a short attention span I’m afraid that this commentary covers every verse of the whole 13 chapters with many digressions into myriad other parts of both the old and new testaments - My apologies that it is so extensive and comprehensive. However, should you wish to do so you can save yourself the bother of reading it and skip to the 8 paragraph conclusion and begin your discrediting of the whole from that

gods-kingdom-ministries.org/ … fm?CID=100

:smiling_imp:

The sarcasm in this post is brought to you by the letter ‘C’ and the number ‘8’.

Thank you.

Literal Interpretation as applied by most Christians:
17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.

Case closed Jesus is bad. Do you bellieve Jesus or do you deny him?

Aaron, you act as if we’re shocked by this passage you raise. As I see it, the scriptures must hold together as a whole. Rather than extracting a passage and then running with it (as you do - along with so many) I’d like to see you handle all of scripture without crossing your ideas.

Of course you like mormons will simply employ the same tactic, namely this verse says this so it must be that this idea is wrong.

If I’m to be persuaded by the argument of the unforgivable sin, then let me ask this question:

The men whom Jesus was speaking about (who attributed his work to the devil) are no longer able to be saved (due to their U-sin). So when Paul tells us that Christ died for all, did he die for them? When Jesus prayed on the cross “Forgive them for they know not what they do.”- Did he pray for them? When Paul writes that God reconciled those who commited blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, did he reconcile them unto himself? OR would you aruge that ALL THINGS (WHETHER IT BE THINGS IN HEAVE OR ON EARTH) does not mean ALL THINGS?

No, I’m not shocked by any unbiblical doctrine that people on this board parade around…but I cannot see how anyone can teach UR once they understand the truth of the sin that Jesus said “HAS NEVER FORGIVENESS”. In other words, there is a sin one can commit against the HS that is irremediable…and you are basically saying" No, Jesus, you don’t really mean that…all sins will be forgiven…let me correct you,Jesus. Aug, if Jesus’ words cannot persuade you to believe the unforgivable sin, why would you believe me? Aug, by your own words you are calling Jesus a liar. It’s not by me you are not persuaded, but Jesus himself. :wink: Let that sink in a little before you respond. :wink:

I think that Aaron and the Universalists both have to interpret all the Scriptures, not just point to the other and say “yea, but what about this verse” without interpreting the verse in view. What is your interp of the Mark 3, auggy? Aaron what is your interp of the Colossians passage on reconciliation of all things?

Rufus,
I’m no literalist. When Jesus says don’t call him good, is it proper to say he’s calling himself bad since ONLY God is good. If literalist try to say Jesus is God then they are aruing with Jesus and saying, Oh no you are good too. But in the passage the man calls jesus “good teacher” and Jesus corrects him.

So if literalist (like Aaron37) want to play literal interpretation, I’m ok with that. But if they’re going to claim that others are calling Jesus a liar, then he ought to look at the log in his own eye. Unless he’s willing to say he agrees with Jesus that Jesus is not good.

To answer my interpretation of Mark 3 would be unfair; I’ve already stated this is one passage that leaves me reservation on Universalism. However, being I’m not a literalist, I don’t allow one verse to destroy a whole system.

God can forgive whomever he pleases and aint a dang thing anyone can say. So if God forgives those pharisees, will I call jesus a Liar; HELL NO. I’ll praise God and I think that’s what we’re going to find out.

Aaron just simply does not realize that he applies one rule of hermanutic to one passage in order to destroy an idea and then abandons that same hermanutic on other passages (such as romans 9) in order to preserve his own idea.

If he can take all of Jesus’ words literally then I’ll have more respect for his arguments. If he can read Paul in Romans 9 for what it says “IT THEREFORE DOES NOT DEPEND ON MANS EFFORTS OR HIS DESIRES” then I will respect his arguments moreso. But until then, it makes no sense to me.

Roofus,
I fully agree with what you said that EVERYONE has to take the whole of scripture. I simply believe Universalist do this moreso than anyone I’ve known.

How else can libertarians claim God loved Sodom and could have saved them but chose not to?

Aug

The sin has not pardon in this age nor the age to come is what it says (we’re back to aionion again). It says nothing about after those 2 ages - which can easily mean the age of the ages also known as God’s great Jubilee when all debts are canceled regardless, and God is all in all.

The bigger picture here is so big and all encompassing that some are bogged down in some small detail somewhere thinking that’s the whole world.

This is hardly the only passage that flies in the face of UR. Anyway, The passage where Jesus corrects the man for calling him “good teacher” can confuse alot of people of what Jesus is really teaching here. Jesus is forcing the young ruler to face the implications of calling Jesus “good,” not only with regard to Jesus’ goodness, but also with regard to his own. The young ruler shows himself to be “good” by every human test - he is devoted to keeping the Law. His fellow Jews considered his wealth to be another measure of his goodness. However, Jesus’ pointed question here and His command that the young ruler renounce his wealth and follow Him (10:21) reveal that human standards of goodness are not God’s.
The first commandment of the Law is to place God first in one’s life and to love Him completely. The young ruler “went away sad” (10:22) because he realized that though he had devoted himself to keeping the other commandments, he had failed to keep the first. His riches meant more to him than God did, and thus he was not “good” in the eyes of God. It is important to note that Jesus’ pointed remarks were motivated by love, a correction of the sole “lack” in the young man’s devotion.

Thus, Jesus’ fundamental lesson is that “goodness” flows not from men’s deeds, or even their sincere attempt to keep the Law, but rather must have another source - God Himself. In this context, Jesus’ request to “follow Me” is the equivalent of doing good by God’s standard. Jesus encourages the young ruler to give up his wealth and put God first by following God’s Son.

When we consider that Jesus is drawing a distinction between human standards of “good” and God’s standard, it becomes clear that following Jesus is good according to God’s standard. And, even if Scripture did not elsewhere abundantly declare Jesus’ goodness and righteousness (see, for example, John 10:11, 14; Romans 3:25; Heb 4:15; 9:14; 1 Peter 1:19, etc.), the command to follow Him would proclaim it. Thus, by the very standard Jesus is exhorting the young ruler to measure himself by - God’s standard - Jesus is good. And, if Jesus is good by this standard, Jesus is implicitly declaring His Deity.

Reference: TABC

There is only one way to view the truth of Mark 3:28-29, Aug. This is hardly the only passage that refutes UR… but this verse comes from Jesus himself and is crystal clear in its meaning. How can you not take this verse literal, Aug? If your system does not line up with the Lord Jesus Christ then you must change your system, my friend. If Jesus says there is a sin one can commit against the HS that “HAS NEVER FOREGIVENESS” at any time…NEVER…you either believe Jesus means what he says or you twist his words to make them say what they don’t mean to support the lie of UR. Your system is wrong.

What possible other meaning could Jesus be saying in this verse, Aug?