Something I have Noticed

Roberto
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: Something I have Noticed

Post by Roberto » Tue Dec 31, 2013 11:27 am

Those that say they "have no time" can manage time so that they can do so in the future. We choose what we have time to do.....God willing.
This may mean that we get to it in February, but to say "I have no time to answer your questions" is very lame!
We either put it on our schedule or not.

steve7150
Posts: 2524
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Something I have Noticed

Post by steve7150 » Tue Dec 31, 2013 11:49 am

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.







I think Homer's point sounds logical although there may literally be ages, interpreting Jesus statement as applying to ages and ages seems to take away the essence of his threat making it opaque at best.
On the other hand interpreting "the age to come" as eternity sounds to me that Jesus is specifically contrasting the Pharisees opportunity for forgiveness in the age to come against everyone else's opportunity, or why even mention it?

If "all" is slightly hyperbole , it still means "great majority" and that sounds like justice and God's Will and Purposes to me.
Last edited by steve7150 on Tue Dec 31, 2013 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3354
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Something I have Noticed

Post by steve » Tue Dec 31, 2013 11:58 am

If you want me to read your book I accept your offer to send me a copy. Seems you owe me.
I will send you a copy, Homer, though I am not sure what the debt is to which you refer. Is it an allusion to donations you sent in the past? I generally assume donations have no strings attached, but I would send you a book, at your request, even if you had never donated. Since the cost of the book comes out of my personal finances, it is a donation to you—but not a product sold to you.

I wrote to Homer and JR:
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?
I will not respond to any more of your challenges, since neither you nor JR answered my questions and you will find them addressed in the book. Of course, you are under no obligation to answer, unless you are interested in honest dialogue. Answering challenges, rather than dodging them, is inherent in the word "honest" when coupled with "dialogue."

You both say that you have not had time to answer the questions, yet you both have time to write long posts—in JR's case, sometimes several in a day—which dodge the questions and usually repeat the same errors of which others (who are not all universalists!) have continually tried to disabuse you. It is not honest to say you have no time to answer, when you have time to write more words than it would have taken to answer.

The truth is, neither of you want to dialogue, but both of you want to win an argument. The irony is that, the more frequently you fall back on debunked arguments, the further you get from winning confidence that your position has merit. I am not trying to win any arguments. If you go back over the threads, you will find that, with one exception**, I only post to answer questions and challenges—which I do because I am an honest conversationalist and I proceed as if the questioner is honest. I have no point to win, since I have no position to advocate. However, just my honest and agenda-free answering of your questions may seem to increase confidence that your view is poorly argued.

-----------------------

** "SOMETHING SOME HAVE NOT NOTICED" posted Fri Dec 27, 2013 1:31 pm (page 3 of this thread)

User avatar
john6809
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:40 pm
Location: Summerland, B.C.

Re: Something I have Noticed

Post by john6809 » Tue Dec 31, 2013 1:09 pm

Homer,

You wrote,
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.
I don't know how you can even say this. Just because the users of this forum happened to use Luke's account does not suggest it contains the most details. Luke's account contains one sentence (all references NKJV): Luke 12:10 "And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven.
Matthew's account adds, "either in this age or in the age to come" (among other details). Mark adds some definition as to what blasphemy of the Holy Spirit actually means and declares that they are "subject to eternal condemnation." Matthew and Mark's accounts are posted below.

Matthew 12:31 "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.


Mark 3:28 "Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; 29 but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation" 30 because they said, "He has an unclean spirit."

You also wrote,
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.
Again, I don't know if you simply missed it, but I asked about those verses, only Luke's version of them, (which is almost verbatim) and Steve answered them on page 8. Below is the question and an answer.
John 6809 wrote:


What would you do with Luke 18:29-30?

29 So He said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or parents or brothers or wife or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, 30 who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the age to come eternal life."

"This present time" would seem to be the one in which he lived - pre-Pentecost. Yet 'the age to come" was to be the one where they would receive eternal life. Even if we allow for eternal to mean age-abiding, does this mean that age-abiding life was not available before Pentecost? It seems many OT fathers already had age-abiding life.


[Steve answered] I believe that “the age to come” is here the age in which we now live. We have received this aionios life through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. Remember, “aionios life” can mean “life pertaining to the age.”
"My memory is nearly gone; but I remember two things: That I am a great sinner, and that Christ is a great Savior." - John Newton

User avatar
jriccitelli
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Something I have Noticed

Post by jriccitelli » Tue Dec 31, 2013 2:17 pm

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: you will be punished and everyone will get a second chance.

Scripture suggests some cannot ever, ever, ever, ever be forgiven; neither in this life, or the next, how many times must it be repeated?
You make it as if supporting this view is uneducated, and ignorant, well aren't you?

You keep substituting hell for what CI understands the punishment to be: eternal death. There is strong reason to believe there is no second opportunity if you refuse, reject, 'deny the Son He will deny you', etc, etc. UR says you 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 by rejecting the Gospel. How can this not make sense? We, like the Prophets, must warn people because we have been warned ourselves that God suggests that there may 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, and for some, there will be no chance to repent.
You absolutely cannot reject Him according to what (the Bible) I am saying, and have another opportunity (let alone multiple opportunities) and most CI proponents generally teach the same.

steve7150
Posts: 2524
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Something I have Noticed

Post by steve7150 » Tue Dec 31, 2013 2:33 pm

CI says you will be punished, and for some, there will be no chance to repent.








So for some there is no more chance to repent and for some there is? So who belongs to each group?

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2651
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Something I have Noticed

Post by Homer » Tue Dec 31, 2013 5:07 pm

I will send you a copy, Homer, though I am not sure what the debt is to which you refer. Is it an allusion to donations you sent in the past? I generally assume donations have no strings attached, but I would send you a book, at your request, even if you had never donated. Since the cost of the book comes out of my personal finances, it is a donation to you—but not a product sold to you.
No, books I sent you. Perhaps you have forgotten. I can certainly pay for it or will buy at Amazon. I thought you had copies to spare.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2651
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Something I have Noticed

Post by Homer » Tue Dec 31, 2013 5:42 pm

John6809,

You wrote:
You wrote,

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.


I don't know how you can even say this. Just because the users of this forum happened to use Luke's account does not suggest it contains the most details. Luke's account contains one sentence (all references NKJV): Luke 12:10 "And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven.
Matthew's account adds, "either in this age or in the age to come" (among other details). Mark adds some definition as to what blasphemy of the Holy Spirit actually means and declares that they are "subject to eternal condemnation." Matthew and Mark's accounts are posted below.
Matthew 12:31 "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

Mark 3:28 "Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; 29 but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation" 30 because they said, "He has an unclean spirit."
ex·plic·it adjective \ik-ˈspli-sət\

: very clear and complete : leaving no doubt about the meaning

Luke left no doubt about the meaning of what he said: they will never in the future be forgiven. Matthew added some words that do not negate Luke's statement, instead they compliment it, saying the same thing in different words. To compare this with Matthew's added exception to Mark's words about divorce is misleading. If Matthew was more explicit we wouldn't be having all this discussion about ages.
You also wrote,

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.

Again, I don't know if you simply missed it, but I asked about those verses, only Luke's version of them, (which is almost verbatim) and Steve answered them on page 8. Below is the question and an answer.

John 6809 wrote:

What would you do with Luke 18:29-30?

29 So He said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or parents or brothers or wife or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, 30 who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the age to come eternal life."

"This present time" would seem to be the one in which he lived - pre-Pentecost. Yet 'the age to come" was to be the one where they would receive eternal life. Even if we allow for eternal to mean age-abiding, does this mean that age-abiding life was not available before Pentecost? It seems many OT fathers already had age-abiding life.

[Steve answered] I believe that “the age to come” is here the age in which we now live. We have received this aionios life through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. Remember, “aionios life” can mean “life pertaining to the age.”
Consider this from Mark's account:

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

I understand the brothers and sisters and mothers and children to be our church family. And when did the persecutions, for the most part, take place? Seems clear to me the present age has continued from the time Jesus spoke and still continues. I do not consider Steve's answer to be correct. We will finally inherit eternal life when Jesus returns, the age to come.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2651
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Something I have Noticed

Post by Homer » Tue Dec 31, 2013 6:05 pm

Steve,

Here are three for you:
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)
You have taught on church history. Are you aware of what happened to the churches in 18th century New England where universalism took hold? I do not have my reference handy but I recall reading about the infidelity that ensued. And what followed was a degeneration into Unitarianism which is a logical outcome of the kind of thinking that leads to universalism.

I am trying to do more research on this; I do not like to respond "off the top of my head", and this takes time.
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)
I resent this comment. It is a slur on the character of those who disagree with your infatuation with universalism. I told you months ago I rejoiced when I heard Ted Bundy repented before his execution. You ought to be embarrassed for bringing this question up.
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)
No. It is not the only source available, but perhaps it would help. I have heard your bias shows.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3354
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Something I have Noticed

Post by steve » Tue Dec 31, 2013 6:49 pm

You have taught on church history. Are you aware of what happened to the churches in 18th century New England where universalism took hold? I do not have my reference handy but I recall reading about the infidelity that ensued. And what followed was a degeneration into Unitarianism which is a logical outcome of the kind of thinking that leads to universalism.
Evangelicals that I have known, who embrace universal reconciliation (or who maintain a hopeful attitude about it) have not even begun to degenerate toward infidelity. Are you under the impression that the Unitarian type of universalism represents the same doctrine being discussed here?
I resent this comment. It is a slur on the character of those who disagree with your infatuation with universalism. I told you months ago I rejoiced when I heard Ted Bundy repented before his execution. You ought to be embarrassed for bringing this question up.
I hoped for an honest answer to an honest question. I remain disappointed. I said that I cannot imagine any other motivation for such resentment, other than jealousy. This is a true remark, on my part. If you have no such resentment, then it cannot apply to you. If the resentment that seems to have characterized some of your arguments is what it appears to be, then my question specifically invited you to provide another explanation of it. You have very plainly objected to the possibility of someone repenting and being forgiven upon their first sight of Jesus after death. Yet you rejoiced that Ted Bundy repented just before death. I don't see consistency here. Forgive me if I am missing something obvious.
No. It is not the only source available, but perhaps it would help. I have heard your bias shows.
But you are asking me to defend certain propositions which I have already done in my book. I would rather give you my book to read, rather than have to write it over again here for you. And thank you for the books you have previously sent me.

As for my bias showing, I have no doubt that this is true, and I mentioned this very fact in the book a couple of times. I think a clear bias against the traditional view can be perceived in the book. For most of my ministry, I did not have this bias, but the opposite. Open-minded study and biblical reflection moved me away from this view. This fact should be rather obvious in the book. I do not know whether a bias toward either of the other two views can be discerned in it. Some have said it gives slightly more favorable treatment to restorationism. Perhaps it does, I don't know. I do know that any favorable treatment of universal reconciliation is far too much for many critics, and this may influence their reaction and their perception of bias. In any case, those whose endorsements of the book are printed in it include two traditionalists, three conditionalists and two universalists. Also, it would appear that most of the reviewers who rated the book with five stars at Amazon.com were not universalists.

Post Reply

Return to “General”