|
Post by hearingGod on Jun 17, 2014 6:35:36 GMT -5
fyi... i find just even skimming thru posts like this exhausting... some things i just feel i don't havfa question/entertain because reading the word and just standing in it is enuff....i have no desire to watch 'some videos' on some denomination or sect of christianity etc. (chance some potential ill-'programming' or defilement). are we about Jesus or about supporting this or that? can we be simpler? if any mods wanna fine tooth this... is there error, does it bring wavering or confusion?
.... decide something about it. ask yourself 'does this feel at home at ironsmiths, or is this better on some other christian forum site'. so... no, haven't read this...
jake, instead of lengthy stuff... can't something be posted in a simple statement or question?
|
|
|
Post by Saltandlight007 on Jun 17, 2014 8:23:41 GMT -5
Sorry Jake, but I agree with HG. I haven't read through the post / watched the videos. However, my own understanding is that according to Universalism everyone will end up in heaven / have eternal life and accept Jesus eventually (even if this is after death of the body and regardless of which religion / belief they choose to follow – if any – while still alive on earth) – which appears to massively contradict the fundamental principals of Christianity. There are disagreements among scholars who are Christians (not Universalists) about what happens to those who are not saved / text interpretation regarding 'hell' – which is a different subject to Universalism I would say.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2014 15:32:22 GMT -5
Well the person did look into The Word and more specifically the Hebrew and Greek and it seems to suggest Universalism (still going through it though to be absolutely sure). But since everyone finds it confusing and doesn't want to talk about it, I removed the post. The reason I posted this was because I was absolutely astonished by what I saw and what I saw WITHOUT a doubt (assuming the dictionary definitions were correct, which I'm still looking into) suggested Universalism and I was asking for some help in this because it is a very serious issue that results in curses if mistaken (for adding/removing from Revelations) and who knows what else.
For example...if forever (or for ever) only means age in the original languages, then that would mean that it definitely can't be eternal so either it is only a temporary place where people are eventually saved OR they die there. Likewise, if torment means testing (i.e the original word used), then it can't be an Eternal Hell OR Death, which means it has to be Universalism. This is one of those things where either the definitions are incorrect or the Bible actually says that Universalism is correct. I mean, he showed more than enough evidence for it to be correct (once again, assuming the definitions). So..I can repost it if people want with just the video and a short statement asking people to help figure out if this is true or not but like...from what I saw it was shocking. I mean, assuming the definitions are correct (and I cannot emphasize this enough) then every single passage we know to condemn people to this place (whether it is used eternally or for death) actually doesn't condemn people at all.
..I don't use any other forums mostly because I can't trust the people on there. Other Christian forums seem to have a multitude of people from various belief systems and so they are always arguing (not in the violent sense) about the things they shouldn't have to argue about (because it is clearly written). Plus, with all of the variety you can't really trust the answer you're getting. At least on here I know generally what people are like (speaking in tongues, spiritual warfare etc). But..I removed it for now unless anyone wants me to repost it (which if that happens I'll try to condense). Personally it's a big deal to me because we're told to answer every question, to teach the truth regarding this subject (and this subject specifically might I add...), and we're told in Revelations that adding or removing anything from Revelations will result in curses...so I don't really want to curse anyone by teaching them the wrong thing and having them believe it. To me even the smallest of truth is a big deal because truth is truth and there is no room for lies. But that's just where I was coming from.
|
|
|
Post by buildthefarm on Jun 17, 2014 16:41:01 GMT -5
i haven't read any of this but i have 2 cents still. the church i grew up in went universalist when i was a teen ager. the church is now gone. it went from interconnected with dozens of other local churches, large groups, the power of the Holy Spirit and so on to completely dead zero members. id say that is the fruit of universalism in the church in a nutshell. all the beautiful arguments and well written books couldn't break through the fact that the letters in red spoke a different gospel than the gospel of universalism and according to the apostle paul that makes it no gospel at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2014 18:48:39 GMT -5
i haven't read any of this but i have 2 cents still. the church i grew up in went universalist when i was a teen ager. the church is now gone. it went from interconnected with dozens of other local churches, large groups, the power of the Holy Spirit and so on to completely dead zero members. id say that is the fruit of universalism in the church in a nutshell. all the beautiful arguments and well written books couldn't break through the fact that the letters in red spoke a different gospel than the gospel of universalism and according to the apostle paul that makes it no gospel at all. Thanks for the reply..but just a question. Did they use the English to "prove it" or how did they go about presenting their argument to people? This guy goes straight to the original languages (although he does use the original passages in English as well but that isn't the focus). So the question is, if the Greek and Hebrew says something, how can it be denied? Unless of course, it doesn't say it (which is the other possibility, still looking into but might not have time because I have to study). But like, remember how I made the post on the importance of the Hebrew and Greek and talked about the use of lexicons etc.? That's all the guy did. He didn't use some weirdo interpretation. He didn't take the English and try to say that it didn't say what it did in the English. Instead he picked out keywords crucial to understanding and basically said "this word means ___ in Greek". Now he did also use English passages which was very interesting but the shock factor didn't come from the English but rather what the Hebrew/Greek allegedly means. It's one of those things you kinda have to watch to really get how it is astonishing. But I totally understand what you mean. Having said that, Revelations doesn't seem to have us in the majority at end times either and you can already see the decrease in speaking in tongues etc. One of the articles I found for my project (which I never used, it wasn't needed) was a survey on Pentecostals and most of them don't speak in tongues now n days. The church you attended could have had a many of other things wrong with it but I don't know because I didn't attend. So their dismemberment could have came from something else that God was taking care of. Anyways, I'm still looking into it but there is a compelling case to be made and it seems illogical if this guy is going to make a video using definitions, tell people to check out the definitions and then people find out they are wrong. So I don't really think the definitions are wrong but I still need to check into it. I can send you the series if you'd like and maybe you'll notice something I don't.
|
|
|
Post by buildthefarm on Jun 17, 2014 21:40:24 GMT -5
he used the original language and all kinds of great arguments and it was a very solid case he made. and it was evil and destroyed a great ministry
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2014 22:16:31 GMT -5
he used the original language and all kinds of great arguments and it was a very solid case he made. and it was evil and destroyed a great ministry Okay, now here's a question (and this one is to show the importance of the original languages): If the original languages had words that could be used to support Universalism, then how could one call another evil who uses those words to justify Universalism if they are in the original language? In other words, how does one use the original language then to support an Eternal Lake of Fire OR death (thus proving that Universalism would be evil)? I mean..if it's in the original language, you can't deny it being there. You'd have to use those words to prove then that it can't be Universalism. Just wondering, how did you end up getting out of that church anyways? What made you change your mind? I'm just trying to learn about this stuff because it's very interesting and regardless of whether it is true or false, I'm told to have an answer for every question someone asks, so I need to know about this stuff to give an answer.
|
|
|
Post by Saltandlight007 on Jun 18, 2014 2:39:24 GMT -5
The Hebrew word 'Olam' meaning 'forever' (or 'eternal') is also used in Jonah to describe the length of time in the whale – which must have felt like it was a long time, but in reality was only 3 days. Expressions like 'destroyed', 'will be no more', etc. are often used in Scripture to describe what will happen to those who are not saved. So, debating the whole 'eternal hell' subject is viable – I believe.
However, the arguments for Universalism itself appeared thin / weak and generally did not stand up to serious biblical scrutiny - in my own experience of previous research (including looking at Greek / Hebrew translations) – done out of curiosity because so many were being drawn to the idea through preachers like Rob Bell. I concluded that it massively contradicts much of Scripture and compromises the basic simple message of the Gospel. If it's bothering you, my suggestion would be to do your own personal bible research (including Hebrew / Greek translations), or / and read some bible arguments against Universalism (Francis Chan wrote one), rather than trust a set of videos of someone else's opinion who sounds convincing. Ask the Holy Spirit to help. But, be wary that many make Scripture say what 'tickles their ears', rather than what is the sometimes painful, uncomfortable truth. Scripture does state that God would like everyone to be saved, but it doesn't state that they will be (because they have free will). Instead, it states what is required to be saved and that many will sadly choose a different path.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2014 6:56:20 GMT -5
The Hebrew word 'Olam' meaning 'forever' (or 'eternal') is also used in Jonah to describe the length of time in the whale – which must have felt like it was a long time, but in reality was only 3 days. Expressions like 'destroyed', 'will be no more', etc. are often used in Scripture to describe what will happen to those who are not saved. So, debating the whole 'eternal hell' subject is viable – I believe.
However, the arguments for Universalism itself appeared thin / weak and generally did not stand up to serious biblical scrutiny - in my own experience of previous research (including looking at Greek / Hebrew translations) – done out of curiosity because so many were being drawn to the idea through preachers like Rob Bell. I concluded that it massively contradicts much of Scripture and compromises the basic simple message of the Gospel. If it's bothering you, my suggestion would be to do your own personal bible research (including Hebrew / Greek translations), or / and read some bible arguments against Universalism (Francis Chan wrote one), rather than trust a set of videos of someone else's opinion who sounds convincing. Ask the Holy Spirit to help. But, be wary that many make Scripture say what 'tickles their ears', rather than what is the sometimes painful, uncomfortable truth. Scripture does state that God would like everyone to be saved, but it doesn't state that they will be (because they have free will). Instead, it states what is required to be saved and that many will sadly choose a different path. Well, firstly it would depend on where you get your definition from because apparently Strong's has changed definitions over the years (and if I can find an old version online or something I can test this). In Greek, the word used for "forever" or "for ever" is "aion". The newer Strong's even admits that it means "an age" but also likes to throw in the words "eternal" and "forever" in there too, which would actually make the word make no sense. I'll explain. In Revelations 20:10, the words lie within the "ever". The "for" is actually a definitive (and I don't know too much about that but apparently they usually mean that the word has the primary meaning, which in this case would mean age). So, you would have "for aion and aion" if you were to look in the Greek. Well if the word "aion" means "forever" or "eternal" then it would be "for forever and forever". Well, that kinda doesn't make sense does it? Forever already means an infinite amount of time, so could it not also be translated "for an age and an age"? But last night (and I did actually have some time to research), I noticed something in Revelations. And I noticed this a long long time ago but I kinda forgot about it. Firstly, we're told that only the righteous can live inside the city (Revelation 22:14), which is important. But then Revelations 22:15 talks about dogs and those who work magic etc. Well in the King James Version, it is translated "for without" at the beginning of the verse but in a number of other translations it is translated "outside". Likewise, even in Strong's the word used has the primary meaning of "outside". So using that idea, if sinners are outside of the city, how can the Lake of Fire be for eternity OR death? Or using the King James Version as the translation, "for without" is only in reference to the city, meaning that sinners are only not in the city, not that they don't exist at all. But that's just me playing "Devil's Advocate" as the secular world says. The arguments really are more within other areas. Actually, I'm actually looking at these passages myself. Even though it was only brought up to me through videos and things like that, I'm double checking using my own lexicons and such. So it isn't someone who "sounds convincing at all". And in all of the videos and articles I watched, they all look at the Greek/Hebrew words, they don't just sit there and say some random argument without providing Biblical evidence to support it. Lol I'll just keep looking into it though.
|
|
|
Post by Saltandlight007 on Jun 18, 2014 7:27:20 GMT -5
Jake, I've mentioned in both my posts that there seems to be two separate points; (1) interpretations of finite details of what happens to the unsaved and (2) Universalism (which assumes that everyone will be saved eventually). Which point are you trying to come to grips with? It may be my fault, but I do sometimes find your posts very difficult to read through / understand / confusing and find myself repeating the same information.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2014 17:39:07 GMT -5
Jake, I've mentioned in both my posts that there seems to be two separate points; (1) interpretations of finite details of what happens to the unsaved and (2) Universalism (which assumes that everyone will be saved eventually). Which point are you trying to come to grips with? It may be my fault, but I do sometimes find your posts very difficult to read through / understand / confusing and find myself repeating the same information. I'm just trying to find the truth lol. I don't know what that truth is, but it's definitely limited to either death by fire or purification by fire i.e Universalism.
|
|
|
Post by CAT on Jun 18, 2014 20:40:26 GMT -5
I'm not qualified to get involved in this conversation but... Jake, I admire your thick skin! lol And... if everyone will be saved eventually, why does anyone need to put their trust in Jesus? Is He just a shortcut to Heaven?
|
|
|
Post by buildthefarm on Jun 18, 2014 20:59:17 GMT -5
i think i can help. I've witnessed all this taught and embraced and watched the destruction of a large body of believers in sue. now does God destroy His people or would that be the devil? Jesus said a house divided against itself can not stand. so the devil does not cast himself out and also God does not cast Himself out. so if a church embraces universalism and the blessing that was on that church leaves and the church slowly over about 20 years is destroyed, does that appear to be the fruit of God working through the doctrine of universalism or the devil working through it. and which ever one you see working through the doctrine use the interpretation that seems to fit the facts of what happens in real life when this is implemented. does that clear up the muddy waters?
if not then take a 2nd helpful example. this subject can be confusing and difficult to understand correct? and is God the author of confusion or the devil? is the message of Jesus an easy yolk and i light burden? is sin and death difficult? Jesus claimed to have a very simple message, no man comes to the Father except through Me. now does that confuse or does the nine miles of details to try to make one point and its still not made seem simple or confusing?
when you get caught in the weeds of doctrine you use the light of other scripture and the knowledge of the other thing God did and said to examine the fruit of the doctrine. that means just examining the results and if they are Godly. it works.
all doctrines can be looked at under that same light of truth. Jesus it is better for a son so say father i will not do it, then change his mind later and go do what his father said, than for a son to say yes father i will do it, and then not do what his father said. so examine the results.
also is the great commission useless if universalism is true. yes it would make one of Jesus commands for all disciples void and Gods word never returns void right? so that would make Jesus a liar.
how bout this one, if Jesus was lying and He isn't the way the truth and the life, and He isn't the only way then why are we bothering to even be on a christian website? what a waste to gather with believers. i guess paul had that do not forsake the assembly thing wrong. in fact why wouldn't you be the maximum level of selfish? i mean do what is right in your own eyes, store up treasure on earth, commit adultery, worship false gods, disobey your parents, train up your children to be self seeking and evil, go join a gang and be a well paid hit man if you like cuz eventually your going to heaven even if you do deny Jesus and hate God and if you love sin and all things false your heart will never have to change. does that sound like a great gospel or what?!?!?! yet somehow by judging the fruit it seems like no gospel at all to me. universalism produces as much good spiritual fruit as atheism, its a fools errand to chase it down
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2014 21:39:20 GMT -5
I'm not qualified to get involved in this conversation but... Jake, I admire your thick skin! lol And... if everyone will be saved eventually, why does anyone need to put their trust in Jesus? Is He just a shortcut to Heaven? Well here is my theory about Universalism (using everything I've studied combined). You don't just "automatically get saved" but rather when New Jerusalem is put in place, you are waiting outside (which corresponds with Revelations 22:14-15) and you eventually have to decide (during whatever it is that you experience) to repent and convert. So, it still requires the use of Jesus but it's almost like..God isolates you until you decide to come to Him. Almost like a parent telling his child that he is on a time-out until he decides to apologize and not do it again. Make sense? It's like everything we already go through (or went..) as believers but it's kinda extended until everyone decides to bow (Romans 14:11). This goes with I Corinthians 3:13-15. Now..this is where translation comes in because how can I Corinthians 3:13-15 say that a man's work will be burned yet he shall be saved and then a few verses later we're told that God will destroy those who are unclean? You can't be saved and destroyed at the same time, it doesn't make any sense. So these are the kinds of questions I'm asking myself and the type of research I'm doing to figure this out. There's a lot to go through and with me being busy studying for exams I can only do little bits at a time. But basically, with the Universalism debate, that side argues that we're too busy looking at fire as a negative thing when throughout the Bible it is seen as a symbol of purity or something that cleanses things. So, it is definitely something worth looking into (in my opinion) and I understand both beliefs(since I've eliminated the possibility of eternal fire) which makes it difficult for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2014 21:56:23 GMT -5
i think i can help. I've witnessed all this taught and embraced and watched the destruction of a large body of believers in sue. now does God destroy His people or would that be the devil? Jesus said a house divided against itself can not stand. so the devil does not cast himself out and also God does not cast Himself out. so if a church embraces universalism and the blessing that was on that church leaves and the church slowly over about 20 years is destroyed, does that appear to be the fruit of God working through the doctrine of universalism or the devil working through it. and which ever one you see working through the doctrine use the interpretation that seems to fit the facts of what happens in real life when this is implemented. does that clear up the muddy waters? if not then take a 2nd helpful example. this subject can be confusing and difficult to understand correct? and is God the author of confusion or the devil? is the message of Jesus an easy yolk and i light burden? is sin and death difficult? Jesus claimed to have a very simple message, no man comes to the Father except through Me. now does that confuse or does the nine miles of details to try to make one point and its still not made seem simple or confusing? when you get caught in the weeds of doctrine you use the light of other scripture and the knowledge of the other thing God did and said to examine the fruit of the doctrine. that means just examining the results and if they are Godly. it works. all doctrines can be looked at under that same light of truth. Jesus it is better for a son so say father i will not do it, then change his mind later and go do what his father said, than for a son to say yes father i will do it, and then not do what his father said. so examine the results. also is the great commission useless if universalism is true. yes it would make one of Jesus commands for all disciples void and Gods word never returns void right? so that would make Jesus a liar. how bout this one, if Jesus was lying and He isn't the way the truth and the life, and He isn't the only way then why are we bothering to even be on a christian website? what a waste to gather with believers. i guess paul had that do not forsake the assembly thing wrong. in fact why wouldn't you be the maximum level of selfish? i mean do what is right in your own eyes, store up treasure on earth, commit adultery, worship false gods, disobey your parents, train up your children to be self seeking and evil, go join a gang and be a well paid hit man if you like cuz eventually your going to heaven even if you do deny Jesus and hate God and if you love sin and all things false your heart will never have to change. does that sound like a great gospel or what?!?!?! yet somehow by judging the fruit it seems like no gospel at all to me. universalism produces as much good spiritual fruit as atheism, its a fools errand to chase it down Yes but the issue isn't that it is difficult to understand but rather that the original Greek/Hebrew terms are difficult to translate while having it make sense. But..that comes with translation of any kind, especially ancient languages. I don't know much about either Hebrew or Greek so I'm basically relying merely on lexicons. That can make it difficult, especially when I'm seeing that Strong's has changed a few of their definitions. With a clear and proper translation, that would eliminate any difficulty. But the issue is, a lot of words can be translated almost as like polar opposites in some ways. Like torture can be either what we think as torture or touchstone (which would be symbolic for testing). So how should it be translated then? It is only once I go through all of the terms in which I can see which one makes more sense. Also, if you see what I wrote above, it wouldn't make the Great Commission useless, just different from what we normally think it is. Using Universalism (at least what I can make out of it), similarly to the Annihilation doctrine, there are varying periods of time for each person depending on what they've done, but in the case of Universalism, it would be the time required for people to fully repent and be cleansed. Once again, I'm just "playing Devil's Advocate". There's still plenty of research required. Now that you bring up the idea of lying, here is another argument I'm seeing. In Revelations 14:10 it says that people will be "tormented" (which can be translated as touchstone or tested as well) in the presence of the Lamb (Jesus). So..firstly if it is eternal (which some believe), how can Jesus be there to watch the whole thing for eternity? Likewise, in order for ANY of this to happen it needs to be in the presence of the Lamb and where is he? He is in New Jerusalem at this time. So...if people are being burned to annihilation, they would have to be somewhere outside of the gates where Jesus can watch them (otherwise that passage would be lying, and it can't be inside since nothing unholy can enter the city). So..if people are being burned outside of the city, wouldn't people be able to hear that? Wouldn't that maybe cause people to cry? I know for sure I would. I would be in pain just because of my empathetic nature for others. So if I were to be crying, that would also violate Revelation of John 21:4 which says that no one will be crying. Similarly, it also says no death so if there is a certain time period for each person and some people last a long long time, then having their death AFTER New Jerusalem would also violate that passage. One could argue that those things only apply to New Jerusalem, but the Bible never says that so one needs to look at both perspectives. Like I said though, still doing research on it all. I still see both views on Annihilation and Universalism so now it's a matter of narrowing it down.
|
|