heresyhunter

EricH, I was enjoying our exchange, and would appreciate anything else you have to contribute.

Thanks, but why do you say that? I was just trying to keep the discussion focused. Let me re-post your question. My answer: I am suggestng no such thing. You are getting the wrong impression. I'm not arguing for any doctrine, actually. I am merely sharing what I have learned about the words translated 'confess', and I'm asking the same questions that I ask myself. This is how I learn. It is a good approach to take, in my experience. Are you perhaps unwilling to ask yourself these same question in fear that they will lead you down the wrong path?

asper, I encourage you to look at each post in the "Subjunctive Aorist" thread on the B-Greek list: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek...read.html#25244 You will find that they all agree that the subjunctive aorist can, and often does, refer to a future event that will take place. I'm sure you will learn quite a bit from the dialogue there. That was written in reference to hopos me. I don't know what you're asking. asper, I think you might benefit from joining the B-Greek mailing list where you can ask your questions to highly qualified experts.

Do not take my word for it. Look into it yourself. If indeed I am correct, would that have any bearing on your view of the lake of fire?

apser, You really ought to learn more Biblical Greek before making claims such as you have done. Dr. Carl Conrad, who runs a Biblical Greek email list, had this to say about the issue: I think that the point here is that the fulfilment of this clause (or these clauses (hINA KAMYHI, hINA hOMOLOGHSHTAI) lies in the future. How one translates a purpose clause depends fundamentally upon that. We could say, "gave him a name such that every knee WOULD bow, every tongue WOULD confess ...", but in fact the fulfilment is envisioned as something for the ESCATON, isn't it. Furthermore, the aorist subjunctive is rather common with MH for commands (Smyth,

Hmm, well every lexicon I've consulted lists genuine praise/thanksgiving and heartfelt confession as the primary meaning of these words. Moreover, I have checked how these words are used in the Bible and have found that virtually every place where these words are used, they make sense only if they carry the aforesaid positive connotations. I encourage you to do the same.

Hunterpoet, I'd be curious to see how you'd go about addressing the points I made concerning the meaning of the Greek words translated as 'confess' and the usage of said words in the Bible.

EricH, Yet, both passages speak of confessing Christ as Lord, so you can see why I quoted 1 Corinthians 12:3 with respect to Philippians 2:11. So then, you are saying that 1 Corinthians 12:3 is speaking about those who possess the Spirit? If so, how does this not imply that all will one day possess the Spirit per Philippians 2:11?

EricH, I was able to set aside a couple hours to look into how the words homologeo/exomologeo/exomologeomai are used in the Bible. Unless I goofed somewhere, it would seem that Paul only ever speaks of confession (whether homologeo, exomologeo or exomologeomai is used) in terms of genuine praise and thanksgiving and humility, and only ever uses it with the saved in mind (unless specifically noted otherwise (such as Titus 1:16). Consider the following verses:

EricH, "With the heart one believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses, resulting in salvation." I wonder if this isn't an example or a synonymous parallelism. Seeing that righteousness and salvation are inseparable, perhaps belief and confession are also inseparable? Also, have you done a study on the Greek words translated as 'confess' (homologeo/ exomologeo, exomologeomai) as they appear throughout the New Testament? The gentleman I mentioned earlier made the claim that these words always have connotations of heartfelt confession/praise everywhere in the Bible except for one or two verses where, he claims, context makes clear that the ordinary meaning is not in view. I have not gotten a chance to do an in-depth study on these words, but hope to be able to do so soon - perhaps tonight.

Hmmm. Can you perhaps put in your own words what you think 1 Corinthians 12:3 is saying? It seems to me that that verse is saying that confessing Christ is the opposite of cursing Christ, and that the former is a holy act whereas the latter is an evil act. Would you agree?

Thanks for the reply, Eric. What about 1 Corinthians 12:3? "Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit." Does this mean that confessing Christ neccessarily involves a changed heart?

The name of this sub-forum, Faith vs. Science, is very unfortunate. It implies that to be a Christian is to reject science, which is not the truth (even if many Christians do reject some/much science).

Hey everyone. I've lately been stumped by an argument I recently heard a gentleman put forth in a debate. In a nutshell, it goes like this: Premise 1: If a man confesses that Jesus is Lord, that man will be saved. Premise 2: All men will confess that Jesus is Lord. Conclusion: All men will be saved. In terms of formal logic, this is a valid syllogism: If the premises are true, the conclusion neccessarily follows. But are the premises true? In support of the first premise, the gentleman cited Romans 10:9, which reads, "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." In support of Premise 2, he cited Phillippians 2:11, which reads, "And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father." I admittedly am having a hard time refuting this argument. I have considered a few counter-arguments, but they seem rather weak to me. I am hoping that perhaps some fo you here can help me refute out. -HH

The God that I've believed in has been an illusion, and the illusion has shattered. The only way I can keep faith in God is to become a universalist. Atheism is the onlly other logical option.