Something I have Noticed

[steve]

Where is the response to this:

Seems the "never be forgiven" is the only understanding that makes practical sense of Jesus words.

I suppose that would depend upon how Jesus qualified it. It seems to me that He did so in the words of the next sentence, when He said, “neither in this age, nor in the age to come.” This sentence is omitted from Luke, but included in Matthew. In biblical studies, we do not take the least explicit among parallel statements and insist on harmonizing the more explicit ones with them. If we did this, then fornication would not be grounds for divorce, since Matthew mentions it, while Luke and Mark omit it. Likewise, "the sign of Jonah" would not be an exception to the general "no sign shall be given to this generation," since only Matthew gives the exception, and Mark omits it. If we must choose the least detailed version among parallels to make our point, thereby ruling out the more detailed parallel as definitive, then our point is weak and requires a backward procedure for dealing with parallels.

By the way, where are the responses to the last dozen questions and challenges I directed to you?

[Roberto]

Hi Steve,
Is it possible that the blasphemy is unforgivable "while it is being committed", similar to the sin of not forgiving others (neither will God forgive you) in that if you repent it is erased? Or is the grammar different one from the other?
R

[steve]

Roberto,

I don't know whether this is likely or not. I will allow others to give their opinions.

[Homer]

Nothing Matthew wrote contradicts Luke's plain statement. There is no "exception" in Matthew's version.

Roberto wrote:

Is it possible that the blasphemy is unforgivable "while it is being committed", similar to the sin of not forgiving others (neither will God forgive you) in that if you repent it is erased? Or is the grammar different one from the other?

"Blasphemes" in the Greek is not a verb indicating a continuing action, such as the present tense. It is an aorist participle which expresses simple action. Literally it is translated "having blasphemed". The "not be forgiven" is future.

[steve]

I never said there was an exception in Matthew. I said Matthew is more explicit. Please read what I say before responding.

[steve]

To Homer (and JR):

By the way, where are the responses to the last dozen questions and challenges I directed to you?

Since you may not remember them, I have gone through and culled from three recent threads multiple questions that have been addressed by me to JR and to Homer. I have attempted to answer every question and challenge they have directed to me. They seldom return the courtesy. Here are several examples. I only post here the questions that I myself have asked. There are probably an equal number of questions others have asked them which have been similarly ignored. I post these here in hopes of getting honest answers:


Questions to Homer

1. In pointing out that you do not listen to answers, and that you simply repeat questions that have already been answered, I asked you why you do this and asked, “Is there some reason that I should continue to try to conduct an honest dialogue with you?” Instead of answering, you expressed the view that I had insulted you by implying that you were not honest. How soon might I expect an honest answer to this question? It means something to me—else I would not have asked. (Why is UR Harmful? 12/27/13 11:20 PM)

2. I asked you whether the people at the woodworking forum, who behave so much more kindly than we do, are subjected to your attacks, and do not reply. You did not answer, and only complained that this sounded like a wisecrack. Will you answer now? (Something I Have Noticed 12/25/13 10:28 AM)

3. I asked what evidence, other than your intuitions, you can provide to support your contention that UR causes harm. I have received no answer. (Something I Have Noticed 12/26/13 5:20 PM)

4. I also said that I can not imagine any other motive than jealousy that would lead someone who has not lived a life of sin to resent the grace given to one who has done so. I asked: "Can you identify for me the chink in this argument?" Still awaiting any kind of reply. (Something I Have Noticed 12/26/13 5:20 PM)

5. I asked if you have read my book. This is not just an expression of curiosity about how widely read my book may be, but an attempt to find out how serious you may be in learning and weighing arguments about the different views of hell. No answer so far. (Hell 12/23/13 2:54 PM and Something I Have Noticed 12/26/13 5:20 PM)

6. You and JR both seem to pretend that only your view allows incentives to seek God in this life. You have often been corrected on this point. I asked, Why do you keep doing this? This is a question for which I wished an answer. Please address it. (Something I Have Noticed 12/30/13 1:36 PM)

7. When you asked for five examples of your misrepresentation of UR, I gave seven. You were not quoted in all of them, but they all represent points you have made, been corrected upon, and made again. You have never made any acknowledgment of this matter. It seems worthy of your comment. (Hell 12/23/13 2:54 PM)

8-9. With reference to your objection that the sincerity of people’s repentance upon seeing Jesus would not be guaranteed, I wrote: “Are you suggesting that, if their repentance is not sincere, God will be fooled by it? And if their repentance is sincere, do you begrudge them the same salvation that you received in precisely the same manner?” You gave no answer, but raised the same objection repeatedly afterward. I would like to know your answers to these two questions, and a third: “Are you going to continue to raise this red herring repeatedly in the future?” (Hell 12/24/13 12:20 AM)

10-12. When you wrote: “One [universalist] says people will roast in hell for ages before repenting of his own free-will and now we hear they may repent on judgment day and escape hell entirely,” I asked you several questions, to which I have received no answer. They were: “Why would these ideas be seen as contradictory? Don't we see the same differences in disposition in this life? Some surrender to Christ in childhood, or as soon as they hear the gospel. Others resist until their deathbed, and then repent. Why would it seem strange to find the same differences on the other side?” (Hell 12/25/13 4:30 PM)

The reason I ask if there is any sense in my hoping to conduct an honest dialogue with you is that I answer every question of yours that I find posted. You only answer “softball” questions. When a question of mine really shows the error of your arguments, you pretend as if they (the questions) aren’t there. Whatever you may regard this to be, I don’t call it “honest dialogue.” Please answer these questions before addressing any more posts to me. Why should I read and respond to you, if you are not willing to do the same to me?

The same goes for JR.

Questions to JR:

1. Why is it not dangerous to say (as you do) that God may give some people a second chance after death, but it is dangerous to say (as UR does) that God may give all men such an opportunity? (Why is UR Harmful? 12/27/13 11:41 AM)

2. Why do you misrepresent universalism as removing all basis for fear from sinners, when you have so often been corrected about this? (Why is UR Harmful? 12/27/13 11:41 AM)

3. Why do you say UR is dangerous in that it departs from traditional thinking, while annihilationism, which equally departs from traditional thinking, is exempt from such criticism? (Why is UR Harmful? 12/27/13 11:41 AM)

4. Since you use Ezekiel’s “watchman on the wall” analogy to criticize those who teach a different view of hell from yours, are you saying that God told Ezekiel to preach about hell? (Why is UR Harmful? 12/27/13 11:41 AM)

5. You asked (twice) why Jeremiah was put in the dungeon. I gave my answer both times, and asked for yours answer and what your point might be. You have not replied. Please do. ((Something I Have Noticed 12/27/13 9:48 AM and Why is UR Harmful? 12/27/13 11:41 AM)

6. I asked, “Which of the blessings of the OT have I or anyone else applied to post-mortem destinies?” This was addressing one of your major points. You have not answered. (Something I Have Noticed 12/27/13 12:59 PM)

[jriccitelli]

They seldom return the courtesy. Here are several examples. I only post here the questions that I myself have asked. There are probably an equal number of questions others have asked them which have been similarly ignored…

You are purposely trying to get us to respond emotionally, well we respond out of astonishment for sure, but it is ‘because’ of your attitude and insinuations we are staying. I have tried as hard as I had time to keep up, and I am generally of the minority here so it is often a barrage. I would love to answer more often, in fact I have wanted to respond to many things still on my mind dating back 2 years (I remember Jeremiah asked me what I meant by 'cry out' a year ago, etc.), I still want to answer also, but alas I have a job and commitments and other things I love to do also. I have Mormons, JW’s, Seventh day Adventists, come and visit me regularly and I never ever ever turn them away or ignore a question, and the same goes for a Universalist, my door is always open.

In fact I have similarly have not seen responses from you, so how can you point the finger?

But first, I certainly am not satisfied with your explanation of the Matt 12 verse, you said Jesus qualified it? The two qualifiers deny the possibility even ‘further’. How do you add a possibility when Jesus just added two negatives? It begins with impossible, and it proceeds to be even more impossible. It won’t be forgiven, now or then, period. If your boss said this to you, what would you ‘think’ he meant?
I cannot imagine ‘why’ Jesus has to be any clearer. Again it reminds me of the Serpents statement: did God really say? I suppose you could add the hypothetical UR scenario to the end of ‘any’ statement, or you ‘could’ hypothetically add ‘anything’ to the end of ‘any’ statement, say Eph 1:21;
“He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come (but in the c age Jesus will return to being a little child like he was before)

[jriccitelli]

This seems wildly speculative (and incorrect). The Bible nowhere suggests that succeeding ages nullify the grace of previous ages. (Steve pg 8, Dec 30)

Our commentary is speculative? The UR answer defines ‘speculative’.
The Bible nowhere suggests that succeeding ages nullify the death and warnings of previous ages, unless you repent and believe, you will die.

I don’t think that the threat of unforgiveness (and therefore hell) is “punchless.” You often suggest this, but it makes no sense to me. (Steve pg 8, Dec 30)

CI says: Some will never ever, ever, ever, ever get a second chance, this life is it.
UR says: Some will be punished and 'ALL' get a second chance.
CI says: Some cannot ever, ever, ever, ever be forgiven; neither in this life, or the next, how many times must it be said?

You keep substituting hell for what CI understands the punishment to be: eternal death. There is no second opportunity if you refuse, reject, or 'deny the Son He will deny you', "go on sinning willfully", etc, etc. Punishment sure, but punishment is not the point. UR says 'everyone' will have a chance to repent, somewhere (?) post mortem, CI and most every theologian and commentary I have seen says that many were warned and many have sealed their fate, and many still may do so seal their fate, by rejecting the Gospel on this earth, in this life.
How can this not make sense? We, like the Prophets, must warn them because we have been warned that there will be no other chance to renew your repentance if you refuse Him, only death. How can I say it so you understand?
UR says you will be punished sure, but UR teaches there will be a chance for 'everyone' to repent.
CI says you will be punished, but for 'some', there will be no chance to repent.

Death is the main threat, and the one used throughout (and the most grievous). That's how it was in the beginning, so it is in the end.

[steve7150]

Death is the main threat, and the one used throughout (and the most grievous). That's how it was in the beginning, so it is in the end.

User avatar
jriccitelli

Posts: 854
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Top





Is Death our God or is God our God? What is "Death's" Will and Purposes verses what God's Will and Purposes are. You think they are the same thing JR?

[Homer]

I never said there was an exception in Matthew. I said Matthew is more explicit. Please read what I say before responding.

Please look at the definition of "explicit" before responding. Luke is the one who is explicit, as the caviling argumentation of "this age and that age" shows. We could argue over an almost limitless number of ages; age of Jesus' earthly ministry, age of the apostles, age of the early fathers, ante-Nicene age, and on and on.

IMO Jesus divided time into two ages and all other ages mentioned in scripture fall within these two over-arching categories. See Mark for another example:


Mark 10:29-30, New American Standard Bible (NASB)
29. Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel’s sake, 30. but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life.


The "present age" of which Jesus spoke, clearly includes your ages "A" and "B". In Luke Jesus says the same regarding "this age" and "the age to come".

As for your questions, as JR said we are constantly under attack from many here; you have managed to attract a number of universalists and I do not have time to reply to everything thrown at us.

If I find time I will try and answer your questions which are mostly a thinly veiled personal attack. The ad hominem is so tempting but I'm confident you can resist; just pause and hit the "delete" and you can make it go away.

If you want me to read your book I accept your offer to send me a copy. Seems you owe me .