The following is my attempt to put Tom Talbott’s thoughts (Universalism, Calvinism, and Arminianism: ) into my own words and then to expand on it a bit.
(1) It is God's redemptive purpose for the world (and therefore his will) to reconcile all sinners to himself;
Some verses that support the above proposition:
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
Ro 11:31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
Joh 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
(2) It is within God's power to achieve his redemptive purpose for the world;
Some verses that support the second proposition:
Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
Job 42:2 I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.
Ps 115:3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.
Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: 11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.
1Co 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Mt 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Mr 10:27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.
Mr 14:36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.
Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself;
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
(3) Some sinners will never be reconciled to God, and God will therefore either consign them to a place of eternal punishment, from which there will be no hope of escape, or (as a few would say) put them out of existence altogether.
Some verses that support the third proposition:
Mt 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
Eph 5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
Mr 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: 48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Three propositions, each one seemingly backed by Scripture, cannot all be true. It is possible to believe any two of them, but one must be rejected as inconsistent or as a contradiction to the other two. For example:
If God will’s all to be saved (1) and anyone is eternally damned (3), then God does not accomplish His will.(2)
If God accomplishes all His will (2) and anyone is eternally lost (3), then it wasn’t God’s will for all to be saved. (1)
If God will’s all to be saved(1), and God will accomplish all His will,(2) then no one can be lost for eternity.(3)
Some Bible students reject the first proposition (God wills all to be saved), accepting the second (God accomplishes His will in everything), and third, (Some are eternally damned), these must ignore or attempt to explain away the verses clearly stating that God wills all to be saved. We say they are Calvinist. (And they often claim that “all” means only all the elect.)
Other Bible students reject the second proposition, (God accomplishes His will in everything), accepting the first and third, (God wills all to be saved and some are eternally damned), these must attempt to explain away the verses stating that God will accomplish all His will. They are called Arminian or “Free Willers”. (They might reason, God can save everyone but He chooses to allow them to reject Him forever, and so honoring their will He lets them suffer forever in torment just because they didn't want to accept Jesus before they died.)
While still other Bible believers reject the third proposition, accepting both the first and second, thereby agreeing in part with both the Calvinists and the Arminians. They explain away the “eternality” of wrath and punishment and Hell by pointing to translation problems in the verses that teach “eternal torment”.
The first two groups have serious issues with being absolutely confident in their own eternal security, and believe that many people they know, will not receive the inheritance of Eternal Salvation.
The first group, (Calvinist’s) believe that only those whom God has elected, can and will be saved, and of course, if one is of the elect, he can not lose that election, but the problem is knowing for sure if they are truly elect. It is possible to think you are saved and find out you aren’t.
1Co 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
And Mt 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
So for these believers, there is no way to know for sure they are saved.
The second group, the Arminian’s or Free will doctrine believers, can not be sure they are saved unless they ignore a bunch of verses such as…
Mt 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. (What if persecution gets really nasty? Can we endure? Peter thought he could but alas…)
Php 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
Re 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. (So those that don’t overcome might have their name blotted out?)
Re 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Yet we have this testimony from Scripture:
1Jo 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
The way we know we have eternal life, is when God gives us the capacity to love everyone, even our enemies. Those who believe in Universal Reconciliation have a tremendous edge over those who believe many will be lost forever. The U.R. believer seeing each person as an object of God’s love and mercy, in various stages of perfection, realizes that we are all going to be together for eternity and recognizes that each one is being used by God to refine those around them as well as being refined by God. It becomes a hundred times easier to love them when we see them through the light of this truth.
1Jo 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
Mt 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven:
Another reason, perhaps more obvious, that U.R. believers can be sure they are not eternally lost, is because they understand that nobody is eternally lost, but we will all be sought until we are found by The Good Shepherd.
Lu 15:4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
If anyone is desiring to lean towards the first two understandings, the two which include eternal torment, then it is not enough to assert the eternal torment verses alone, but it is necessary also to show how either the verses stating God’s will is to save all are not true, or the verses stating God will accomplish His will are not true. Until this has been accomplished, these would do well to accept those holding the view of Universal Reconciliation as fellow believers in the teachings of the Bible. While it is true that at least two of the three groups mentioned are incorrect, it may not necessarily mean that they are heretics to be rejected. Rather in humility, let us love one another, acknowledging that we have a discrepancy in our understanding of the teachings of Scripture.
1Co 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
1Co 8:2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. 3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
1) No named group is ever completely right . . . God is always right. As you have reacted to the “Calvinism” label, I would also reject “Arminianism” as a label.
2) All Scripture is authoritative . . . we may never discard something that is very clear because we cannot at present reconcile it with other Scripture that we are aware of. Eternal judgment is the most clear of all the propositions mentioned . . . there is more in the Bible regarding Hell than Heaven. To believe otherwise is to wrest Scripture in most horrid ways.
"aionios" means "eternal" . . . it meant that to Plato, whose usage of it preceded Scripture, it means that to Greeks today, and it means that within the pages of God's word. That settles it. “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41)
3) "Other Bible students reject the second proposition, (God accomplishes His will in everything), accepting the first and third, (God wills all to be saved and some are eternally damned), these must attempt to explain away the verses stating that God will accomplish all His will."
As I have meticulously explained elsewhere - and you have still to respond - God governs the universe and controls the outcome of every decision, regardless of how vile the intent. “Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain.” (Psalms 76:10) “A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.” (Prov. 16:9) “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son . . . “ (Romans 8:28-29) Note that all the foreknowledge and predestination spring out of this: He works ALL THINGS out for those that LOVE HIM. As Proverbs 16 points out, WE choose our way, but HE chooses where our steps actually land. We will be judged for our choice, NOT His . . . but God never surrenders control of the universe to anyone.
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . . how often WOULD I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and YE WOULD NOT! “ (Matthew 23:37)
Alfred, I've answered your comment with a new post. "For Alfred Only"
What do you base this factoid on?
there is more in the Bible regarding Hell than Heaven. To believe otherwise is to wrest Scripture in most horrid ways.
I found the word heaven in 551 verses, and the word hell in 54?
This is in the KJV where sheowl and hades are translated hell more times than they ought to be.
NASB has heaven in 434 verses and hell in only 13.
In YLT hell is found zero times and heaven is found in 207 verses.
This totally ignores all the times the Kingdom of God is mentioned.
The Bible spends way more time/verses/focus on hell than heaven. YOU know what I mean :-)
Verses that teach us what one or the other is like . . . WAY more verses discussing hell as a destination than heaven as a destination. Your word search, of course, has lots of hits on "Kingdom of Heaven" which is another way of saying "God's Kingdom", so they don't count . . . God and angels and such being in heaven don't count, unless they relate to us being there. More gumpy than happy . . . look at the verses devoted to "blessings" for righteousness in Deuteronomy vs. those on "cursings" for unrighteousness . . . WAY more on the latter. It is all consistent . . . do you disagree?
You said: "All consistent? I agree. WAY more on the latter? Disagree.
Consider this exerpt from Aion and Aionios by John Wesley Hanson.
I introduce here a passage from Professor Knapp, or Knappius, the author of the best edition of the Greek Testament known, and one in use in many colleges and ranks as a scholar of rare erudition. He observes:
"The pure idea of eternity is too abstract to have been conceived in the early ages of the world, and accordingly is not found expressed by any word in the ancient languages. But as cultivation advanced and this idea became more distinctly developed, it became necessary in order to express it to invent new words in a new sense, as was done with the words eternitas,perennitas, etc. The Hebrews were destitute of any single word to express endless duration. To express a past eternity they said before the world was; a future, when the world shall be no more. . . . The Hebrews and other ancient people have no one word for expressing the precise idea of eternity."
AN IMPRESSIVE REFLECTION.
I pause here long enough to raise this question: Is it possible that our heavenly Father had created a world of endless torture, to which his children for thousands of years were crowding in myriads, and that he not only had not revealed the fact to them, but was so shortsighted that he had not given them a word to express the fact, or even a capacity sufficient to bring the idea of the eternal suffering to which they were liable, within the compass of the cognition? He created the horse for man's use, and created man capable of comprehending the horse; he surrounded him with multitudes of animate and inanimate objects, each of which he could name and comprehend, but the most important subject of all-one which must be believed in, or eternal woe is the penalty, he not only had no name for, but was incapable of the faintest conception of the mere fact! Would, or could a good Father be guilty of such an omission? "
"The pure of eternity is too abstract to have been conceived in the early ages of the world, and accordingly is not found expressed by any word in the ancient languages"
What a strange statement.
Then . . . evolution must be true after all! The mind of man slowly comes to understand things - like mathematics - so that Adam and Eve were stupid . . . and we are smart!
Do YOU think Adam and Eve and offspring were lacking for a way to express the idea of eternity? How about Moses . . . do you think HE understood eternity?
If he DID understand eternity, you must think he was unable to express it, since he was lacking a word. I am really curious on your perspectives.
As to Herr Knapp (George Christian Knapp) . . . it is interesting that, given the high esteem with which you indicate he is regarded, this is the first I heard of him. After some effort on Google I found an old book (1845) that gave me his biography. That - frankly - was the latest thing I could find. No wiki, very few citations, except, not surprisingly, that one quote that gets passed on with great authority from one universalist or anti-hellist or anahilist to another. He did study ancient writings a lot . . . frankly I am not surprised if the godless heathen had a problem with basic spiritual concepts.
So . . . back to Moses . . . do you think he was struggling with such things? Do you consider yourself smarter than he was when he wrote much of the Bible with respect to the concept of eternity? If not, so you think he was so constricted with he given language that he was unable to express what he knew?
but was so shortsighted that he had not given them a word to express the fact, or even a capacity sufficient to bring the idea of the eternal suffering to which they were liable, within the compass of the cognition?
This demands an answer :-) Jack: None (not one) of our languages, even the ancient dead ones, existed at the tower of Babel. In fact, not one existed AFTER the tower . . . for a long time. All known languages spring from a common root language [Indo-European], all within recorded history. Many (German/English) diverged quite recently from one another.
So . . . the obvious point is that men were extremely smart and had an intensely rich language . . . much was lost because of sin.
But God resurrects the concepts again for those that know Him . . . and they invent new words to hold eternal truths. Even the translators of our KJV invented words to hold concepts the English language is less precise on.
Exactly what God told Paul to do, using Plato's little used invention which clearly meant, means, and will continue to mean "eternal". Same with Moses . . . it all works.
As to Herr Knapp (George Christian Knapp) . . . it is interesting that, given the high esteem with which you indicate he is regarded, this is the first I heard of him
If you read what I posted, you should see that I copy pasted a quote from John Wesley Hanson's book, Aion and Aionios as indicated in my opening paragraph. I'll repost it here for you.
"Consider this exerpt from Aion and Aionios by John Wesley Hanson."
I failed to put quotations around the entire quote...my bad.
This is however an indication that you still are not reading with comprehension the things I've been posting. Your responses indicate the same, only with greater clarity.
Therefore it is should not be too surprising to you that the author, "John Wesley Hanson" was familiar with Professor Knapp.
As to your sorry attempts to discredit everyone who holds a different opinion, I would think you should recognize that the men I am quoting all read Greek fluently and have offered honest critiques on the meanings of words. It certainly isn't surprising that scholar after scholar comes to the same conclusion. What is surprising to me are those who don't see it.
According to YOUR rules, I cannot accept any Greek scholars view if it happens to agree with my point because then they are Universalists and they have an axe to grind. Since all the most honest Greek scholars admit that aionios means something other than eternal, that silences their witness. Strange.
Then . . . evolution must be true after all!
Whatever?!
Are you trying to paint me as an evolutionist now?
Please! If you have nothing constructive to say, just concede.
Do YOU think Adam and Eve and offspring were lacking for a way to express the idea of eternity?
I think that this is a question worth pondering. Can you illustrate the use of a word by them which indicates they had the concept of eternity? Can you find anything in the Old Testament that warns of Eternal Judgment?
It is easily demonstrated that the Hebrew word 'owlam does not mean without end by its consistent useage in the Old Testament, so don't give me any verses that base the idea of eternity or endlessness on that word alone.
But God resurrects the concepts again for those that know Him . . . and they invent new words to hold eternal truths. Even the translators of our KJV invented words to hold concepts the English language is less precise on.
Exactly what God told Paul to do, using Plato's little used invention which clearly meant, means, and will continue to mean "eternal". Same with Moses . . . it all works.
Groan. Greek writers used Aidios and ataleutetos consistently to express the idea as I illustrated in the post which quoted the pharisee Philo. They also used aionios, but the difference is, they used aionios to express limited duration.
I am going to post another good article for you on the "evolution" of the words aion and aionios which again clearly addresses your false claims.
So . . . back to Moses . . . do you think he was struggling with such things? Do you consider yourself smarter than he was when he wrote much of the Bible with respect to the concept of eternity? If not, so you think he was so constricted with he given language that he was unable to express what he knew?
Just because I might have information that Moses lacked, in no way indicates superior intelligence on my part. Did I ever say anything that indicated I thought I was smart? If my six year old daughter knows where her mom hid a cookie and I don't possess that information, is my six year old daughter smarter than me? Do you believe that God created everyone He used to pen scripture with superior intelligence to everyone alive today? I read that He used Holy men, babes, and the foolish of this world to confound the wise. Why does it even enter into the discussion? My intelligence versus Moses? I've more than once acknowledged that I believe your intelligence level is superior to mine. This doesn't mean I can't see something that is hidden from you.
"Consider this exerpt from Aion and Aionios by John Wesley Hanson."
Point stands . . . I think, right? One of them said that and adjective must have have a stronger - presumably different - force than the noun it comes from. Which is a liguistically ignorant statement. Something being very fishy ["of a fish?!"] here.
This is however an indication that you still are not reading with comprehension the things I've been posting. Your responses indicate the same, only with greater clarity.
Spare us both the emotional reactions, Jack. Your responses degenerate into slurs. I have hit you head on on key points . . . yes, with some unnecessary sarcasm, of which I repent . . . but we are both benefitted if you would respond in kind.
So . . . on the evolutionist response . . . evolution says we all started out as ignorant cave men, and all of history is "The Assent of Man". The Bible paints the opposite picture, one of a descent from ideal to something less and less good. So . . . a statement implying that mankind had not yet developed a word for "eternity" smacks of that false philosophy. I would expect you to reject it out of hand.
I think that this is a question worth pondering. Can you illustrate the use of a word by them which indicates they had the concept of eternity?
3:22 "22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever"
"owlam" here clearly indicates a life different from what they were living . . . what else besides "forever" would that mean, Jack? Eat of the tree of life and . . . what? What did He not want them to do?
I find owlan verses all over the place that mean "eternal". But let's start with this one.
They also used aionios, but the difference is, they used aionios to express limited duration.
ONE instance, Jack, where that has to be. So far, I think I have addressed the verses you have put forward . . . ainios past is eternity past, indefinite string of ages . . . Eternal judgement of Sodom . . . is eternal.
Exactly what God told Paul to do, using Plato's little used invention which clearly meant, means, and will continue to mean "eternal". Same with Moses . . . it all works.
No it doesn't, yes it does, no it doesn't, yes it does, na na na na na na.
Ro 16:25 ...according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
It's quite entertaining to look through various commentaries written by those who believe in "Eternal Damnation" and watch them do back flips trying to explain the word aionios here.
which was kept secret since the world began--literally, "which hath been kept in silence during eternal ages." Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
What??? during Eternal ages??? Too funny. chronos means time, aionios means pertaining to an age. Where do we get "eternal"? How is something kept secret during the Eternal age and then not kept secret during the Eternal age? How many Eternal ages do we have? How can we have an age that is Eternal? That is an oxymoron.
Here's another one:
Since the world began. In all past times. This refers particularly to the Gentiles. The Jews had some obscure intimations of these truths, but they were now made known to all the world. The phrase "since the world began" is, in Greek, "in eternal times;" that is, in all past times; or, as we should say, they have been always concealed. Barnes.
Mental gymnastics, wow. I'd have to score that one a 10-1/2 on the uneven parallel bars. Let's see, eternal times means all past times! That's clear. So am I to understand that Eternal does not mean Eternal but all past? In this equation "all past" equals "eternal". That would be (depending on if you are an old earther or a new earther), somewhat less than eternity would it not? And all this, when the Holy Spirit has the words aidios and ateleutetos at his fingertips. Let's see, if I wanted to express all the time pertaining to since time began, it would make perfect since to say chronos aionios. Time pertaining to the ages, which would be all past time. Why would I say "in eternal times"? when eternity exists apart from time?
Too funny.
Why does it even enter into the discussion? My intelligence versus Moses? I've more than once acknowledged that I believe your intelligence level is superior to mine. This doesn't mean I can't see something that is hidden from you.
Numbers 12:7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed."
Psalms 103:7 "He made known his ways unto Moses, his acts unto the children of Israel."
Do you really believe that a man who knows the "Ways of God", having God's mysteries explained "face to face" in opposition to all of his contemporaries and those that followed would not understand something as simple as eternity?
What??? during Eternal ages??? Too funny. chronos means time, aionios means pertaining to an age. Where do we get "eternal"?
Begging the question . . . it does NOT mean "pertaining to an age" any more than "fishy" means "pertaining to a fish".
Eternal time . . . . an endless sequence of days, years . . . do you understand that?
Eternal but all past? In this equation "all past" equals "eternal".
Well . . . if eternity stretches out before endlessly, it also stretches out behind endlessly. "Eternal Ages past" . . . what am I missing in your confusion?
I posted:
"The pure [idea] of eternity is too abstract to have been conceived in the early ages of the world, and accordingly is not found expressed by any word in the ancient languages"
You replied:
What a strange statement.
I suppose you will dislike Barnes commentary now too, for though he believes in eternal damnation, he also concurs with the "strange statement" in his commentary on 2Tim 1:10.
I'll include the text in the next comment box.
Following is the text from Barnes Commentary on 2 Tim 1:10.
"And hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. This is one of the great and glorious achievements of the gospel, and one of the things by which it is distinguished from every other system. The word rendered "hath brought to light" ... means to give light, to shine; ...The sense is, that these things were before obscure or unknown, and that they have been disclosed to us by the gospel. It is, of course, not meant that there were no intimations of these truths before, or that nothing was known of them--for the Old Testament shed some light on them; but that they are fully disclosed to man in the gospel. It is there that all ambiguity and doubt are removed, and that the evidence is so clearly stated as to leave no doubt on the subject. The intimations of a future state, among the wisest of the heathen, were certainly very obscure, and their hopes very faint. The hope of a future state is styled by Cicero, ...a conjecture or surmise of future ages. Tusc. Q. 1. Seneca says it is "that which our wise men do promise, but they do not prove." Epis. 102. Socrates, even at his death, said, "I hope to go hence to good men, but of that I am not very confident; nor doth it become any wise man to be positive that so it will be. I must now die, and you shall live; but which of us is in the better state, the living or the dead, God only knows." Pliny says, "Neither soul nor body has any more sense after death, than before it was born." Cicero begins his discourse on the subject with a profession that he intended to deliver nothing as fixed and certain, but only as probable, and as having some likelihood of truth. And, having mentioned the different sentiments of philosophers, he concludes,--"Which of these opinions is true, some god must tell us; which is most like to truth, is a great question." See Whitby, in loc. Such doubts existed in regard to the immortality of the soul; but of the resurrection and future life of the body, they had no conception whatever. Comp. Ac 17:32. With what propriety, then, may it be said that these doctrines were brought to light through the gospel! Man would never have known them if it had not been for revelation. The word "life," here, refers undoubtedly to life in the future world. The question was, whether man would live at all; and that question has been determined by the gospel. The word "immortality" means, properly, incorruption, incapacity of decay; and may be applied either to the body or the soul. ... Here it seems to refer to the future state as that in which there will be no corruption or decay....The gospel thus has truths not found in any other system, and contains what man never would have discovered of himself. As fair a trial had been made among the philosophers of Greece and Rome as could be made, to determine whether the unaided powers of the human mind could arrive at these great truths; and their most distinguished philosophers confessed that they could arrive at no certainty on the subject. In this state of things, the gospel comes and reveals truths worthy of all acceptation; sheds light where man had desired it; solves the great problems which had for ages perplexed the human mind, and discloses to man all that he could wish--that not only the soul will live for ever, but that the body will be raised from the grave, and that the entire man will become immortal. How strange it is that men will not embrace the gospel! Socrates and Cicero would have hailed its light, and welcomed its truths, as those which their whole nature panted to know. "
Spare us both the emotional reactions, Jack. Your responses degenerate into slurs.
Excuse me?
I have hit you head on on key points . . .
Alfred if I dropped a load of bricks on your head, you couldn't be more oblivious to being hit head on with facts. You are making me laugh.
yes, with some unnecessary sarcasm, of which I repent . . . but we are both benefitted if you would respond in kind.
And I repent of the bricks comment.(Although I do rather like it.) LOL
Barnes: He talks a lot about ancient extra-Biblical people, not so much about the people that really matter, God's people. We expect the heathen to be wandering in darkness, so no big surprise, eh?
As to immortality being unknown or barely known in the OT . . . First of all: Do you agree with that?
They clearly believed in a resurrection . . . I guess I want to know what you believe the OT saints believed about the afterlife.
It certainly isn't surprising that scholar after scholar comes to the same conclusion.
SO . . . if I can find 2 scholars of equal scholarship to every one you find that accept that aionios means "eternal" and believe in eternal hell, will you change your mind based on preponderance of the evidence of scholarship?
Post a Comment