• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Good

1 Follower

About Jeff2

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Theology, Bible, gardening
  1. Those who accepted Y'SHUA were immersed. Not a single person in all of Scripture was immersed with the exception of those being judged by God.
  2. If you die to self, perhaps you may find Nirvana! Many mix Buddhist teaching in with Christianity, and take it that it is necessary that we die to "self". But God's qualm is not with who we are, but our rebellion with Him. The "cost" of being a Christian would lead to the dividing of families, persecution, and even death. The "cost" will well be worth anything we sacrifice for Christ. Denying ourselves entertainment, a better car, a nicer apartment, a steak and eating baloney sandwich instead... is not Christianity. In fact, the duty to love oneself is necessary in respect to Jesus' command, "Love you neighbor as yourself." The only people I have known to be the most dead to self are extreme drug addicts. They don't care if they die doing drugs. They don't care if they rob you for money to pay for their drugs. They are truly "dead to self."
  3. Your assertion was that Conditionalism is relatively new and it was to that assertion that I responded with the list of church fathers. What I meant by that is that the doctrine is new in popularity and acceptance. While it would be good to prove that this is not just a 19-21st century excursion, I will say that the seed of many errors are to be found in the Church fathers. The fact that one may entertain them, and the rest of the Church did not embrace their doctrine, says something. They were working out many doctrines as time advanced; the question is, were they correct, or were they a deviation? I have read most of the writings before the 2nd century. However, I have not looked specifically to find and evaluate their views on future punishment.
  4. Modern "Tolerance" is Communist Social Engineering used of the Devil! It sounds all so nice. Yet what is it? "Tolerance" is accepting everything without judgment BUT Christianity, Maleness, and Whiteness. You can disparage, harass, be as ugly as you wish against Christians, and it is "tolerated." It is Post Modernism's "There are no Absolutes" mentality (which totally contradicts its own premise), saying that "true" religion is accepting all religions equally. If you say that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life; and no one comes to the Father but by Him, you have committed "Tolerance" heresy in their eyes! What is a bad philosophy is becoming a worldwide religion.
  5. An infant, up to the time they can understand the difference between right and wrong, is not "unclean." God does not count a transgression as "sin" unless the person committing it has the mental and spiritual capacity to understand that it is a sin. Your position indicates that God would judge a person and send them to hell when the person was not able to understand what they did wrong. We know that position is false. Pelagius couldn't have stated it better.
  6. delade3 said: From outdoor toilets to indoors is evolution. Bringing your poop indoors is an advancement? I don't know...
  7. This is false. Throughout Christian history there have been conditionalists: First Clement (late 1st century) Ignatius of Antioch (late 1st century) Epistle of Barnabas (late 1st or early 2nd century) Irenaeus (2nd century) Instead of a copy and paste from a website as proof, would it not be better to actually prove this? I'm willing to look at your references! (Irenaeus would not surprise me, he had some unorthodox views that the rest of the Church did not follow.)
  8. He denied the word death carried with it the connotation of separation. In every Greek lexicon I consulted it was so. Ahhhh... the Greek must be wrong! Plato, a Greek, used the word that way!
  9. Omegaman, you stated... Probably my largest objection to the Arminian few,is I believe it deprives God of Glory, by instead of salvation being soley by grace, it puts man in control of his own salvation, claiming that man is the one who decides to believe, and that results in salvation... You are objecting to a strawman of your own invention. What statement in the Works of Arminius states that Free-Will is the cause of salvation? How about in the Five Articles of the Remonstrants? I repented of Arminianism, about in 2013 No, you repented of Pelagianism.
  10. this debate between the followers of Calvin, and the followers of Arminias, the five objections of the Arminian camp, came to be declared to be heresy, at the Synod of Dort. And all Protestantism was condemned in the heretic Martin Luther in the Edict of the Diet of Worms. A Church Council decided it, and therefore we can dismiss Protestantism forever as being proven heresy! This was before the Synod of Dort, and therefore any gathering of heretics holds no force on Christian truth unless it agrees with the Edict of the Diet!
  11. While the Wager is not Biblical, it is logical. I believe that it was not stated to be anything but a philosophical argument. As a philosophical argument, it "makes sense" to the average person. However, casting your lot with a religion on that basis alone is a fool's errand. Who is to say that the Wager could not be argued for almost any religion; Christian or not? Could it by itself not be just as valid for Islam? Hinduism? The Wager has to have more to it than just itself. It has to be based in truth. There is no virtue in believing a lie.
  12. To me, the historical tradition of eternal punishment and the Scriptures that support it are clear. While not a salvation issue, I find that the annihilation position is based far too much in a philosophical argument than in Scripture. If you have to explain away half of the passages that deal with eternal punishment to arrive at where you desire, something is wrong. Every position has a few difficult passages to deal with, but when you have to turn the Bible on its ear to prove a point, I tend to believe that something is not healthy, and potentially dangerous in that position. When I see things like this, a flag goes up and I ask myself, what does Scripture say? On this basis I find annihilation wanting. The twisting's and turnings of Sophistry is no substitute for Scripture. Secondly, I do ask myself, what is someone to gain by rejecting eternal punishment? Is it an effort to prove that they are more correct than the majority? Is it to have a point to argue that their position/denomination is more correct than others, and therefore we should yield to whatever else they say? This is what I have seen from my interactions with the Jehovah's Witnesses. Lastly, while not an essential for salvation, I wonder at the commitment and passion to disprove eternal punishment. Historically speaking, the issue is late in Christian history, and dominates in groups that I would not want to hold hands with doctrinally.
  13. And "eternal" can just as easily be interpreted as "permanent" - i.e. there is no escape from eternal punishment and no risk of us losing eternal life. Deborah, thank you for bringing up a challenge. I agree that the Rich man and Lazarus is speaking of the intermediate state as you have pointed out. The argument however, is that there is no hope offered for the pleas of agony. If no pity is offered here, there would be no reason to suggest that this attitude of God about pity for those who reject His ways would exist in His Eternal Punishment after the Judgement. The replacement of meaning of "permanent" for "eternal" is not warranted from the Scriptures. In 42 occurrences aion speaks of an "age", and the 42 times used, aionios is translated consistently as "eternal." If there were examples of it being a loose term, the translators would have likely varied their translation. Sorry, but the alternative usage of a word in this case does not appear credible to me. As a former Atheist, annihilation would have appeared better than heaven to me! What could be better than the non-existence after death that I already believed was true?
  14. Now that the crisis is over, I will mention that when I lose something, it is always the last place that I look!
  15. If Hell is no threat, but a simple annihilation, why even bring it up as a warning? Why wouldn't the Bible just dwell on the positive; heaven? a reward for being right? I do not see in the example of the Rich man and Lazarus that those that are in torment will have their pain eased. 2 Thes. 1:9, speaking of those who "do not obey the gospel of Christ"(8)... "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction..." Is "everlasting"temporary? If it is temporary, why doesn't it say so? Eternal punishment in Matt. 25: 41; 46. It juxtaposed against "eternal life" for the righteous. If punishment that is "eternal" is limited and temporary, does that mean that "life" which is a reward to the righteous just a "limited" time offer too?