Welcome, Guest
Username Password: Remember me

"Squeezing" Scripture
(1 viewing) (1) Guest
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2

TOPIC: "Squeezing" Scripture

"Squeezing" Scripture 1 year, 11 months ago #3942

  • Timothew
  • OFFLINE
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 228
  • Karma: 15
Does the Doctrine of CI "squeeze" scripture to fit the doctrine?

One poster on this forum claims that it does. I haven't found any "Scripture Squeezing" on the part of people who believe that the Bible says that the wages of sin is death, but I consistently see Scriptures taken out of context by those who believe in eternal conscious torment in hell. Not only that, but mountains of Scripture are simply ignored completely by those who would rather believe in torment. I also see ECT read INTO many passages where it simply doesn't exist. John 3:36 is one example of many that spring to mind. (Also Matthew 25:46 and 2 Thessalonians 1:9, there are many more examples of this)

I would never want to a "Scripture Squeezer", since it is BECAUSE of what Scripture says that I came to believe that only those who receive eternal life in Christ will receive eternal life. So please, tell me me which Scriptures you believe are "squeezed" by those of us who believe that "Whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life."

I am offended by the accusation, if I may be completely honest here. I've just seen WAY TOO MUCH scripture twisting (and pitifully poor arguments) by the ECTists to allow this to stand unchallenged.
Τιμοθέῳ γνησίῳ τέκνῳ ἐν πίστει
Tim Wiesner

Re: "Squeezing" Scripture 1 year, 11 months ago #3945

  • Mcgragor
  • OFFLINE
  • Senior Boarder
  • Posts: 57
  • Karma: 0
Timothew,

I'm offended that you are so easily offended. I used the phrase "a tad too much", to try and make the point that I don't think we are necessarily dealing with blatant scripture twisting, which seems to be the impression you are leaving based on my comments.

To be fair, I can't think of hardly any doctrine that most Christians hold to where there aren't at least a couple of verses, which by the opposite adherents would appear to have been "squeezed" a bit.

For example, Acts 2:38- I simply will not let the brick wall of clear doctrine on salvation (and baptism) be destroyed by a few bricks laying around, which would seem to teach baptismal regeneration, but if we are fair and many times we are not, I can't read Acts 2:38 on the surface and not believe that is what it teaches.

The fact that I can "squeeze" Acts 2:38 into what I believe is the overwhelming teachings on faith, salvation, baptism doesn't change the fact that this verse is still there and no amount of wrangling changes that.

Now I've heard probably every argument in the book for why we don't except Acts 2:38 for what it "seems" to teach and many of them are quite good, and as I said, I am satisfied with my position based on the wealth of more clear and concise scriptures that are not taken from a history letter.

So in light of your position, which to me is starting out a little harsh considering I am very sympathetic to the CI position, I would hope you could take a deep breath and we would be able to discuss things on these terms rather than an intense debate format, in which frankly I have no use for.

One of my pet peeves is when opponents never admit they have an issue with some of their own beliefs. For example, I hold to TULIP in the reformed tradition and believe overall it represents election, predestination and so forth better than other views, but I will freely admit that there are certainly some opposing passages that give me fits--I see others who hold to what I hold who will debate it to death and never admit there is an issue, which really make me question their sincerity.

So, in light of my response, how about I let you start. You tell me which passages the CI position has the most trouble with and dare I say they must "squeeze" just a bit, but keep my word "squeeze" in light and context of what I mentioned above.

If you have none, and you feel it all fits nicely- no problem verses, then we have nothing to talk about.
Last Edit: 1 year, 11 months ago by Mcgragor.

Re: "Squeezing" Scripture 1 year, 11 months ago #3950

  • Timothew
  • OFFLINE
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 228
  • Karma: 15
You made the claim that Conditionalist Squeeze scripture a tad too much.
I haven't seen any evidence of that. Why don't you tell me what scripture you feel has been a tad squeezed?

I can't think of any scripture that has been squeezed. If you also can't tell me of any, then as you say "We have nothing to talk about", and apparently your statement was merely rhetoric.

I'm sorry that I got offended. I should know by now to not take offense at anything. I've even been called "Satan" by the lovely believers in eternal torture.
Τιμοθέῳ γνησίῳ τέκνῳ ἐν πίστει
Tim Wiesner
Last Edit: 1 year, 11 months ago by Timothew.

Re: "Squeezing" Scripture 1 year, 11 months ago #3951

Mcgragor wrote:


One of my pet peeves is when opponents never admit they have an issue with some of their own beliefs. For example, I hold to TULIP in the reformed tradition and believe overall it represents election, predestination and so forth better than other views, but I will freely admit that there are certainly some opposing passages that give me fits--I see others who hold to what I hold who will debate it to death and never admit there is an issue, which really make me question their sincerity.

So, in light of my response, how about I let you start. You tell me which passages the CI position has the most trouble with and dare I say they must "squeeze" just a bit, but keep my word "squeeze" in light and context of what I mentioned above.

If you have none, and you feel it all fits nicely- no problem verses, then we have nothing to talk about.

Since this is a public thread, I'm going to give this a go.

First, I'm totally with you on having issues with one's own beliefs. Interestingly, one thing that really helped me with that was when I reached a knowledge level where I stopped just believing what some other believer told me because they had been to seminary or had been a leader or strong Christian for a lot longer than me.

And this has caused me to root out those beliefs I had that I wasn't even realizing I had issues with.

The first to go, as I REALLY studied the subject, was Pre-Tribulation Rapture. It was taught to me since the day I first became a Christian in 1981. The second big one was ECT, just six years ago. The interesting thing is that I now have no issues with my position, which is CI. But this time I hold my beliefs not because someone told me. Rather, It's because I actually studied it. And one of my study methods is to lurk in debates between proponents of each side (sometimes more than 2 sides) of an issue and notice the debating tools and arguments made by both sides. To be clear, this is only ONE of my study methods.

I remember trying to have a positive discussion with one of the elders of my Southernn Baptist church in central KY when I first moved here. I was arguing annihilation and he was arguing ECT. I was really trying to be nice about it, but his face just got redder and redder and finally he held up his King James bible and virtually yelled, "I BELIEVE IN WHAT MY BIBLE TEACHES!". My response, which ended the discussion, was, as politely as I could, say, "Me too. Where we differ is in our interpretation of it.

To be honest, one of the challenges I had when moving from Seattle to rural KY is I find that I have a hard time finding "bible knowledge peers" in this area. In Seattle, I knew a lot of folks that had studied the word more than me and could answer some of my "tricky" questions. And the more I knew, the more tricky they got. Where I live now, even my pastor at that SB church (I no longer attend there) was really limited in his knowledge and understanding of that is actually in the bible. I could find nobody in that church that could answer or even address any of my questions without their eyes sort of just glazing over.

And the flip side of it is that they believe a LOT of stuff that they can't be effective apologists for. They believe it because it is what they were told in VBS 10, 20, 40 or 60 years ago and they've just accepted it ever since. When you start questioning it - even politely - you can see them getting irritated at having to leave their comfort zone of discussing what they truly understand.

I've actually used my experience with them to ask myself, "where am I doing the same thing?". Again, this was the death knell for ECT for me (a teaching that, as I became educated on the content of His word and His personality, I had a harder and harder time accepting).

A more recent discovery is that the bible is not the word of God. Rather, it CONTAINS the word of God. A lot of it is, as it claims, good for teaching, but it is the words of men inspired by God. And many preachers today are inspired by God. But I don't consider their sermons the divine word of God.

Another one I'm hitting hard now is the concept of universalism. I was just studying Mark this morning and I find it interesting what words Jesus uses in Mark 3:28-29. Specifically, the word "all". Now, it says "all sins", not "all men's sins". I have a ways to go on this one. There is plenty of scripture that deals with sheep and goats, lost and saved, etc.

But there is even a more subtle background point, and it is discussed in Romans 9, and amplified by scripture pointing to us depending on the faith of Christ rather than our own faith. But as I said, I have a ways to go on this one.

The BIG one I'm finding myself sliding away from right now is the "traditional" concept of "the Trinity".
Last Edit: 1 year, 11 months ago by Kentucky Reign.

Re: "Squeezing" Scripture 1 year, 11 months ago #3952

  • Timothew
  • OFFLINE
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 228
  • Karma: 15
SINCE there are no verses that have been "Squeezed" by those of us who believe in Conditional Immortality, let's instead talk about verses that been squeezed by ECTists:

Here is my favorite:
Matthew 25:46
"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

ECTists LOVE to quote this verse, as if it proved that the eternal punishment was actually eternal conscious torment. But as anyone can see, this verse doesn't even begin to say that the eternal punishment is eternal conscious torment. It just says "eternal punishment". That is what the entire question is! What does the eternal punishment consist of, Eternal Death or Eternal Conscious Torment? Is it right to squeeze "eternal conscious torment" into the words "eternal punishment" and then claim victory all the while ignoring the rest of the verse "but the righteous into eternal life".

Matthew 25:46 clearly proves that only the righteous go into eternal life, but the ECTists ignore this and make two bizarrely contradictory claims, that the wicked do not receive eternal life and that the wicked live forever in hell being conscious of torment.
Τιμοθέῳ γνησίῳ τέκνῳ ἐν πίστει
Tim Wiesner

Re: "Squeezing" Scripture 1 year, 11 months ago #3954

Timothew wrote:
SINCE there are no verses that have been "Squeezed" by those of us who believe in Conditional Immortality, let's instead talk about verses that been squeezed by ECTists:

Here is my favorite:
Matthew 25:46
"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

ECTists LOVE to quote this verse, as if it proved that the eternal punishment was actually eternal conscious torment. But as anyone can see, this verse doesn't even begin to say that the eternal punishment is eternal conscious torment. It just says "eternal punishment". That is what the entire question is! What does the eternal punishment consist of, Eternal Death or Eternal Conscious Torment? Is it right to squeeze "eternal conscious torment" into the words "eternal punishment" and then claim victory all the while ignoring the rest of the verse "but the righteous into eternal life".

Matthew 25:46 clearly proves that only the righteous go into eternal life, but the ECTists ignore this and make two bizarrely contradictory claims, that the wicked do not receive eternal life and that the wicked live forever in hell being conscious of torment.


One of my favorite debating tools is to, early on, work to make sure we all agree on the definition of key words in the debate. I love to let an ECT advocate go through these verses and then ask them, "what does the word 'punishment' mean?" Once we nail it down (which is oddly difficult because they want to "squeeze" it into suffering for suffering's sake and thereby prepare for it to, later in the debate, support ECT) the debate becomes simpler, though they still may walk away believing in ECT - at least for the time being.
Last Edit: 1 year, 11 months ago by Kentucky Reign.
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2
Time to create page: 1.01 seconds
Featured audio: Dr. Al Mohler & Chris Date debate
"Should Christians rethink Hell?" on Unbelievable?