Welcome, Guest
Username Password: Remember me

I saw that Rob Bell signed up...
(1 viewing) (1) Guest

TOPIC: I saw that Rob Bell signed up...

Re: I saw that Rob Bell signed up... 5 years, 7 months ago #383

  • willieH
  • OFFLINE
  • Banned
  • Posts: 33
  • Karma: 0
Chris Date wrote:
willieH wrote:
It appeared to me that you evaded the question. In your reply to me, you did not state you were "calvinist", you generalized your position instead.


I said I was not a non-Calvinist; by definition, by the law of excluded middle, that meant I am a Calvinist. That, by definition, meant I affirmed the premises underyling every question you asked me.



Hmmm... you do not see any "evasiveness" in the words "I was not a non-calvinist, by definition of the law of excluded middle"???


A statement which did not seek to hide or obscure yourself, would've been... "I am a calvinist". Can you not see more forthrightness in this, than what you offered, Chris? You assume that I should know the "law of excluded middle"? Are you serious?


Do you actually think this is viable communication? Only communication methods with the least amount of complexities are truly valid, for SIMPLICITY actually prevails amongst all, whereas complexity only appeals and communicates to the few... and only seeks to communicate to and/or flatters those who use it.


Do you approach ALL you witness to, with this "law"? To me, that is EVASIVENESS. What "truck driver" or "hamburger flipper" shall you communicate with, that shall KNOW this "law"? This is the VANITY of over-education in action, as far as I am concerned.


GOD says HIS TESTIMONY and "LAW"--- "makes WISE, ...the SIMPLE" -- Psalm 19:7 -- Not "WISE, the complicated" (such as the "LAW of excluded middle" )


Is that what you think you are doing, Chris? "making WISE the SIMPLE"?


Chris Date wrote:
willieH wrote:
So I could claim (but won't), that your generalization was a purposed deception of your position.


No, you cannot claim that, since, again, by definition I was identifying myself as a Calvinist; there was no generalization.



That is like saying that using 50 words to say something (and I have just given you an example) that can be easily understood by ALL,is better than saying the SAME THING, in 5 words. Most people would call your method -- "beating around the bush". (I hope you get that, fairly CRUDE saying.)


Chris Date wrote:
willieH wrote:
I do not believe you did that at all. Just as (though you thought I did in conversing with GEH) I did not SAY that I would not post again in the thread, ...even though you reported this ASSUMPTION in your dialogue with him (not to mention a few condescending remarks as well)...


Which you clarified subsequently, hence no moderation.



Do you percieve that you actually have a "moderation" power over me Chris? What kind of submission to GOD is that?


No offense, dear brother, ...but are you not in a total submission unto Him? Being determined that ALL you say and do (as with JESUS -- John 5:19 -- John 12:49), ...is that which YOU seek to "say and do"?


I mean this as a valid question... Are you not wise enough to know that ...only if God so wills, shall any such "moderation" of me, take place. And were you to eliminate me, or portions of my words... then it is HIS WILL that it be done, NOT YOURS. Which is WHY I have noted to you that I shall accept any "moderations" you might do... as they have already been ordained in the "things not yet done", DECLARED by GOD before either of us set foot on the earth -- Isaiah 46:10


Chris Date wrote:
willieH wrote:
As a Calvinist (which indicates God to be partial to some)


This is a blatantly false misrepresenation of Calvinism. If you would like to know what Calvinism teaches, feel free to ask. In the meantime, I caution you not to make false statements about it.



FIRST -- The primary RED FLAG of "calvinism", is the subscribing to the philosphies, primarily of a MAN, but also developed by several 16th century theologians... which is so SELF-oriented, ...it is to be pitied.


That is not a false statement at all (let alone "blatant")! Calvinism, submits to the idea that a DIVINE "ELECTION" has been made of those who are saved, is an "election" has been made by God of those destined to be saved regardless of anything they have done good or evil. (which as I see it, is nothing but a FINITE misunderstanding of DIVINE "ELECTION")


If GOD "picks" those who are to be SAVED, then PARTIALITY is thereby bestowed upon them, no matter how you look at it. For if just a FEW are "elected" to be SAVED, not due to ANYTHING concerning good and evil, ...then they have been shown FAVOR (salvation from SIN and DEATH) for no REASON.


SECOND --- GOD invites us to REASON with Him -- Isaiah 1:18 -- which means that anything that is TRUE, will contain REASON. Sorry but your additions to Scriptures are UNREASONABLE.


In an odd way, ....my belief is very much like yours... except concerning the PIVOTAL understanding of DIVINE ELECTION.


Which as I see it, has nothing to do with SALVATION apart from those who are to BEAR LIGHT in the Darkness. GOD decided that Peter would be PETER, and not YOU or I... That is HIS "ELECTION" of PETER, and of you and I....


This "election" is no more partial than who was picked to be the FIRST Human. ADAM was "elected" to be that person... not you, not I, and NOT PETER! (am I getting through?)


Chris Date wrote:
willieH wrote:
, not to others in a scenario which HE DECLARED -- Isaiah 46:10 -- and which could NOT POSSIBLY vary in any WAY from that DECLARATION = What God "foreknows" is that which WILL occur. And btw, God's DECLARATION of His foreknowledge of this scenario, is not a "soothsaying", "fortune telling" both of which He is decidedly and Scripturally AGAINST! )...


I suspect few can parse the meaning of the above words; I certainly can't.



You likely "suspect" few, correctly.


You are a young man, with a lot to learn dear friend... which is what LIFE is all about... JESUS is the WAY, ...the TRUTH, ...and the LIFE. The school of LIFE, far exceeds the institutions of men... for MEN provide fleshly, finite information, whereas LIFE provides the observation of the WORKINGS of LOVE. I wish you a LONG LIFE, Chris... that you may AS YOU LOOK BACK, ... benefit from its teachings as you gaze upon the REAL SCHOOL you have over many years, attended.


Above, I spoke in very simple terms... but as with the Pharisees, when CHRIST spoke in very simple terms, the majority of the listeners, ...did not "parse" the meanings of what He said.


What GOD KNOWS, be it now in the past, or now in the future, SHALL be the result of NOW in the present as it occurs. Try and "parse" that !


Chris Date wrote:
willieH wrote:
That said, ...how do you explain these: Prov 28:21 -- Acts 10:34 -- 2 Same 14:14 -- 1 Chron 19:7 -- Mark 12:14 -- Eph 6:9 -- Gal 2:6 -- Job 34:19 -- col 3:25 -- Matt 22:16 -- Rom 2:11 --- which all propose IMPARTIALITY to mud -- Rom 9:21 -- Jer 18:4 (persons)?



Again: Calvinism is not a view in which God shows partiality, or in which He is a respecter of persons. It's quite the opposite; He unconditionally chooses whom He will save independently from, irrespective of, anything they are or do.



FIRST --- That GOD would require His believer to abstain from EVIL, and that they do not do so, yet some (which conveniently includes yourself), will be excused from their doings, just because GOD "elected" them to be SAVED... is as far from addressing LOGIC (which you seem to be engrossed in), as it can possibly be.


Let's try and give an example and say,


CHRIS has decided that 100 people would stand before a firing squad for TREASON... and then CHRIS, "elects" 10 of them to be excused from DEATH for no other reason than CHRIS "elected" the 10 LIVE and, the other 90 DIE...


How can this be, in any consideration of LOGIC, ...NOT a display of "FAVORITISM or PARTIALITY toward the 10 which also "committed treason" but, which were excused from DEATH by a decree originated from CHRIS?


FAVORITISM, was given toward the 10! ...and any other observation of this example is about as ILLOGICALLY UNREASONABLE and spiritually irresponsible, as it can be. (again, no offense)


SECOND --- You must needs look up the words --- no "respecter of persons"... PROSPOLEPSIA -- #G4382 -- which means; PARTIALITY or FAVORITISM.


That you would believe that NO PARTIALITY has taken place in your view of "ELECTION" (as you apply it to those whom you think are saved), is an ignorance of the definition of both these GREEK and ENGLISH terms.


Chris Date wrote:
willieH wrote:
Also... what about the statement made in: 1 Cor 15:22 -- all humanity is "IN Adam" and dies accordingly... but at the same moment... ALL HUMANITY is --- IN CHRIST -- as well.



That's a false misrepresentation of the text. What it says is that in Adam, all die; that is, all who are in Adam die. Then, it says, in Christ, all will live; that is, all who are in Christ will live. It says nothing about who are in Christ.



Are you kidding me brother?


Chris... your beloved (man-created theology) has disattached you from even READING what the Holy Scriptures actually SAY... You had to REVISE the writing of GOD, in order to facilitate your belief!


Lets quote the EXACT text:

1 Cor 15:22 --- for, ...As IN ADAM, ...ALL die, ...so IN CHRIST, ...shall ALL be made ALIVE


YOUR words... "all who are" ...which you insert as follows:

As [all who are] IN ADAM die, ...so [all who are] IN CHRIST shall be made alive. ...DO NOT appear in the Scripture...


YOU have added those words to suit your theology. Which is why you do not "parse" what is said unto you, by either ME, or the Scriptures as they are WRITTEN.


I spoke EXACTLY as the Scripture READS... and YOU on the other hand have inserted YOUR IDEAS to the text.... It is YOU which FALSELY MISREPRESENT, and DISRESPECT the PERFECTION of the text.


It takes you adding the words "ALL WHO ARE", in both places to change what it actually SAYS., that it might fit the philosphy which has your allegiance.


I caution you young Mr. Date... you violate these Scriptures in doing so -- Prov 30:6 -- Deut 4:2 -- Rev 22:18


Wishing you His


PEACE... ...willieH
Last Edit: 5 years, 7 months ago by willieH.

Re: I saw that Rob Bell signed up... 5 years, 7 months ago #384

  • Givemhell
  • OFFLINE
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 810
  • Karma: 19
We had been disagreeing with each other about a grammar issue when you said:
I am not "confused" at all, bro. I believe it is you which are "confused". (:


I'm not perfect. I make mistakes myself but that sentence is impressive and full of irony.


Actually, the question is about YOUR understanding of the term KOSMOS. That you pick a meaning which YOU like, and which agrees with your philosphy, and then apply it from "Thayers" concordance, does not align with REASON -- Isaiah 1:18


I am not picking a meaning based on my philosophy. I explained to you why I pick one term or don't pick another term using many different passages of scripture. Also, I didn't write any concordance. I didn't write Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Still, I have shown you from the verses exactly why it has to mean one thing instead of another without referring to the concordance. The fact that the conclusions of my exegesis matches the information in the concordance only lends credibility to my view. Moreover, you bring no proof that the concordance is wrong. Neither have you proven that my exegesis is faulty.

Givemhell wrote:

John 17:9 " I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours."

Note that Christ distinguishes between between the world and the people who believe in Him. Obviously, the word world here is being used in a different way. The word world has more then one meaning.



FIRST -- this distinction is made and added to the text by YOU. This text does not distinguish "believers" from the WORLD...


It distinguishes the ones GIVEN the WORD -- (His Apostles -- minus ONE - vs 12)... as He SENDS them out to the WORLD, bring the message of the VICTORY of the CROSS to the WORLD -- Col 1:16-20 -- 2 Cor 5:19 -- Eph 6:15 -- Rom 10:15 -- Luke 19:10 -- ALL are lost in the SIN of ADAM -- 1 Cor 15:22 -- but are FOUND in the VICTORY of CHRIST over ADAM's SIN -- Rom 5:18-20


First of all, you are incorrect about the ones that are given to Him being only the 11 disciples. Jesus says so himself.

"20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message,"


I am not the only one who sees it this way. Please note these comments:
"Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

20-23. Neither pray I for these alone-This very important explanation, uttered in condescension to the hearers and readers of this prayer in all time, is meant not merely of what follows, but of the whole prayer.

them also which shall believe-The majority of the best manuscripts read "which believe," all future time being viewed as present, while the present is viewed as past and gone."

Secondly, even if you were right about it only being the 11 disciples, which you aren't right about, you would still be wrong about what the word kosmos means in this sentence.

Since Christ differentiates between the ones that He is praying for and the world it means that there are people who aren't a part of the world which means that world in this sentence does not refer to the totality of creation.

You lift this text out of its identifying CONTEXT, and then try to prove that JESUS does not intend on His message being given to the WORLD (KOSMOS)... rather was privy to these for whom He prayed in this verse (which does not include you, btw)...


I posted it by itself because we were dealing with the grammar of the sentence. As I have proven, whether it refers only to the disciples or not is a side issue. Also, I never said that "JESUS does not intend on His message being given to the WORLD... rather was privy to these for whom He prayed in this verse" You must have completely misunderstood my point.

In the very same CONTEXT, JESUS notes that He is sending them (His Apostles) -- John 17:18-21 -- which He has just prayed for in -- John 17:9 -- to the WORLD with this GOSPEL message -- as is verified in -- Mark 16:15 -- Matt 28:19 -- for the message is PERTINENT to EVERY CREATURE !!! -- "Go ye into ALL the WORLD, and preach the GOSPEL to EVERY CREATURE"


When you say every creature are you reading it in the same way that you read world. Do you think that Jesus was talking about preaching to fish?

No offense unto you, but ...ONLY when you LOVE that which GOD LOVES (the WORLD), shall you enter into the TRUTH.


1 John 2:15 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.


First of all, let me say that you make a lot of accusations. None of which you can back up. Second of all, if there is only one possible interpretation of the word world you run into some problems as you can see from the verse I quoted above.




Again GEH... you would have all instances of the use of the word "ALL" [Pas in Gk.] to be as YOU might hope it to be. It is obvious that "ALL" pertains to a given grouping in the above 2 texts... but this is NOT SO in -- John 1:29 nor is it so in -- Luke 2:10 -- nor is it so in -- 1 Tim 4:9-11


NO particular grouping is noted or even alluded to, ...and neither is it alluded to (in spite of your wish that it be), ...in -- John 3:16-17 -- either.


Oh, so now it is obvious? After all of that discussion, after all those verses I posted, now, it is obvious. I'm glad that now it is obvious to you. The same goes for the word world. There is more then one meaning for the word kosmos just as there is more then one meaning for the word pas. As you have pointed out in some instances, pas refers to "a given grouping" while in other cases it refers to every one. It's really simple. The same is true in English really. Look up the word world in an English dictionary. You can see the same thing there as you can see in a concordance that world can be used in several different ways and that it can refer to the totality of earth or to a part of it. This one is from dictionary.com

World
noun
1.the earth or globe, considered as a planet.
2.( often initial capital letter ) a particular division of the earth: the Western world.
3.the earth or a part of it, with its inhabitants, affairs, etc., during a particular period: the ancient world.
4.humankind; the human race; humanity: The world must eliminate war and poverty.
5.the public generally: The whole world knows it.

See, world is like all. It doesn't have to refer to every single one.

Now, let's look at what you said again.



Again GEH... you would have all instances of the use of the word "ALL" [Pas in Gk.] to be as YOU might hope it to be. It is obvious that "ALL" pertains to a given grouping in the above 2 texts... but this is NOT SO in -- John 1:29 nor is it so in -- Luke 2:10 -- nor is it so in -- 1 Tim 4:9-11


NO particular grouping is noted or even alluded to, ...and neither is it alluded to (in spite of your wish that it be), ...in -- John 3:16-17 -- either.


Actually, the use of the word all was as I hoped it to be. You confirmed this, at least in the first case by agreeing that all pertains to a given grouping and therefore pas doesn't always refer to every single last individual.

Now, lets look deeper into the quote about the census. So, is it possible that all in this sentence refers to a "particular grouping" and world refers to the entirety of the people on earth? Nope. Here's why. We know what a Roman census looked like. They would account for all people and property including all males, females, children, slaves. So, all in this sentence does not refer to a particular group of people but world does not refer to all of creation.

As far as John 3:16 is concerned, I have explained this many times and I just posted out a long explanation. I will post it here again for you since you seem to have ignored it.
Part one is obviously that words have more then one meaning and that we determine that by it's context.
Part two: I explained when I broke down the verses surrounding John 3:16 but I'm going to do it again. We can see from these verses that the ones who are saved are the ones who believe in Christ. I will further prove this by exegeting certain passages from the book of John and by quoting verses from other parts of the bible to further explain the concept.

Joh_8:12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."


Here Jesus explains that he is the light of the world. However, it is the ones who follow Him that have the light. As we can see, not every single person has the light but only those who follow him. It would go against the main idea of this sentence if we were to translate the word world to mean every single person. Clearly the phrase light of the world is qualified by Christ's next sentence.

Notice the verses that follow:

Joh_8:12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.
13 The Pharisees challenged him, “Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid.”

14 Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. 15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. 18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.”

19 Then they asked him, “Where is your father?”

“You do not know me or my Father,” Jesus replied. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” 20 He spoke these words while teaching in the temple courts near the place where the offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, because his hour had not yet come.


Immediately the pharisees oppose him but Christ's ends the dialogue by saying "If you knew me, you would know my Father also." Here Christ is doing two things as far as I see it. He is both proclaiming the Pharisees to be walking in darkness and not in the light as they don't know God and He proclaims Himself to be God as it is further expressed by the early church in Philippians 2
6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!


Also, notice they ask him about His Father as if His father is an earthly man. However, Christ is the uniquely begotten son of the Father and in this context He is referring to God the Father. Christ's retort upset them to the point where they might have seized him if it had been his time to be crucified.

Moreover, His comments about light and darkness harken back to previous books in the bible. Light and darkness is a recurring theme in the bible. Take this verse for example:


Even in darkness light dawns for the upright, for the gracious and compassionate and righteous man.


If we were to continue to search out the use of these symbols, light and darkness we would continue to see what we see above, that not all men walk in the light. That men walk either in darkness or in light.

Because of these things, world in this context does not refer to every single person but is probably speaking in a sense that refers to both jews and gentiles who are walking in the light. This is a major development in the new testament as the gospel specifically reaches out to all peoples and all nations, both Jew and gentile.

Revelation 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying:

“You are worthy to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
because you were slain,
and with your blood you purchased for God
persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.



The verse above clearly refers to Jesus. Note that with his blood he purchased for God, not every single person but instead, "persons from every tribe and language and people and nation."

Joh_12:19 So the Pharisees said to one another, "You see that you are gaining nothing. Look, the world has gone after him.


Now, at that time the scope of the people who were going after Christ's teaching was very limited yet the pharasees use the word world to refer to the people who were going after Him.

Joh_14:19 Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live.


Notice in the verse that Christ says that the world will not see Him anymore yet his disciples will see Him. If kosmos always means every person then Christ would be contradicting Himself here. Clearly the word world has more then one meaning and the meaning must be determined by its context.

Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
Joh 3:15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
Joh 3:19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.
Joh 3:20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.
Joh 3:21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God."


Notice in John 3:15 that it is the who believe that receive eternal life. John 3:16 uses the word world but explains that it is the ones who believe in Him who do not perish but instead receive eternal life. The next several sentences repeat the same idea. Those who do not believe are condemned. Those who believe are saved. To say that world in this context means every man would be to say that God loves all men in a salvific sense. Clearly, the rest of the sentence as well as the sentence before it and the sentence below it teach that this is not the case.


Rom 5:20 -- Where SIN abounded, ...GRACE did MUCH MORE ABOUND... How shall you attempt to get rid of that? By adding more of your own words

Who said I want to get rid of anything? What is this? This isn't even half of a verse. Did I add my own words to any of the verses or are you just continuing a tradition of accusing me of things that you can't back up while ignoring almost all of my arguments?

Here is the actual verse:
20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,


The law here refers to the mosaic law. I don't know what to say because I'm not sure what your argument is. I don't know why you think this proves anything for you


It's not too late bro... preach His WORD (as it IS WRITTEN), not YOUR self-created philosophy.


As I said previously... I am not willing to spend LENGTHY time, preaching unto deaf ears. You are welcome to believe that God is UNREASONABLE... I find Him the MOST REASONABLE of ALL beings... And IMPARTIAL to ALL, ...the products of MUD, ...which is all we are in the end.


There you go again, accusing me of things that have no basis in reality.

You said a similar thing a long time ago. This time you said:
"I am not willing to spend LENGTHY time, preaching unto deaf ears."


How long have you spent typing in this thread do you think?

and last time you said this:

I shall not further waste my time with you... as this self composed circular hiding behind your obvious (PRIDEFUL and) RELIGIOUS training, will surely be exposed one day very soon anyway without need of my assistance whatsoever.
What bliss will fill the ransomed souls,
When they in glory dwell,
To see the sinner as he rolls,
In quenchless flames of hell.

- Isaac Watts
Last Edit: 5 years, 7 months ago by Givemhell.

Re: I saw that Rob Bell signed up... 5 years, 7 months ago #385

  • Givemhell
  • OFFLINE
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 810
  • Karma: 19
Please note that I replied to you above as well...


Chris Date wrote:
willieH wrote:
It appeared to me that you evaded the question. In your reply to me, you did not state you were "calvinist", you generalized your position instead.


I said I was not a non-Calvinist; by definition, by the law of excluded middle, that meant I am a Calvinist. That, by definition, meant I affirmed the premises underyling every question you asked me.



Hmmm... you do not see any "evasiveness" in the words "I was not a non-calvinist, by definition of the law of excluded middle"???


A statement which did not seek to hide or obscure yourself, would've been... "I am a calvinist". Can you not see more forthrightness in this, than what you offered, Chris? You assume that I should know the "law of excluded middle"? Are you serious?


Do you actually think this is viable communication? Only communication methods with the least amount of complexities are truly valid, for SIMPLICITY actually prevails amongst all, whereas complexity only appeals and communicates to the few... and only seeks to communicate to and/or flatters those who use it.


Do you approach ALL you witness to, with this "law"? To me, that is EVASIVENESS. What "truck driver" or "hamburger flipper" shall you communicate with, that shall KNOW this "law"? This is the VANITY of over-education in action, as far as I am concerned.


GOD says HIS TESTIMONY and "LAW"--- "makes WISE, ...the SIMPLE" -- Psalm 19:7 -- Not "WISE, the complicated" (such as the "LAW of excluded middle" )


Is that what you think you are doing, Chris? "making WISE the SIMPLE"?



I knew exactly what he was saying when he said it. It isn't complicated. If you didn't understand that he was saying that he was a Calvinist then how do you claim to understand the usage of koine words better then a reputable concordance?


Chris Date wrote:
willieH wrote:
So I could claim (but won't), that your generalization was a purposed deception of your position.


No, you cannot claim that, since, again, by definition I was identifying myself as a Calvinist; there was no generalization.



That is like saying that using 50 words to say something (and I have just given you an example) that can be easily understood by ALL,is better than saying the SAME THING, in 5 words. Most people would call your method -- "beating around the bush". (I hope you get that, fairly CRUDE saying.)


Chris Date wrote:
willieH wrote:
I do not believe you did that at all. Just as (though you thought I did in conversing with GEH) I did not SAY that I would not post again in the thread, ...even though you reported this ASSUMPTION in your dialogue with him (not to mention a few condescending remarks as well)...


Which you clarified subsequently, hence no moderation.



Do you percieve that you actually have a "moderation" power over me Chris? What kind of submission to GOD is that?


That makes no sense. What does Chris being able to moderate your posts on a forum have to do with submission to God?


No offense, dear brother, ...but are you not in a total submission unto Him? Being determined that ALL you say and do (as with JESUS -- John 5:19 -- John 12:49), ...is that which YOU seek to "say and do"?

Wha..? Now that is what a confusing sentence looks like.


I mean this as a valid question... Are you not wise enough to know that ...only if God so wills, shall any such "moderation" of me, take place. And were you to eliminate me, or portions of my words... then it is HIS WILL that it be done, NOT YOURS. Which is WHY I have noted to you that I shall accept any "moderations" you might do... as they have already been ordained in the "things not yet done", DECLARED by GOD before either of us set foot on the earth -- Isaiah 46:10
I guess that you aren't too familiar with Reformed Theology. Also, who says that a man can't have the same will as God? Why can't God and Chris both want you to be moderated? I know that I want you to be moderated...


Chris Date wrote:
willieH wrote:
As a Calvinist (which indicates God to be partial to some)


This is a blatantly false misrepresenation of Calvinism. If you would like to know what Calvinism teaches, feel free to ask. In the meantime, I caution you not to make false statements about it.



FIRST -- The primary RED FLAG of "calvinism", is the subscribing to the philosphies, primarily of a MAN, but also developed by several 16th century theologians... which is so SELF-oriented, ...it is to be pitied.

Which "philosophies" are you talking about? Who are you saying created Calvinism? You really are very unfamiliar with the history behind these topics aren't you?



That is not a false statement at all (let alone "blatant")! Calvinism, submits to the idea that a DIVINE "ELECTION" has been made of those who are saved, is an "election" has been made by God of those destined to be saved regardless of anything they have done good or evil. (which as I see it, is nothing but a FINITE misunderstanding of DIVINE "ELECTION")

If GOD "picks" those who are to be SAVED, then PARTIALITY is thereby bestowed upon them, no matter how you look at it. For if just a FEW are "elected" to be SAVED, not due to ANYTHING concerning good and evil, ...then they have been shown FAVOR (salvation from SIN and DEATH) for no REASON.

Read Romans 9.
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f]


SECOND --- GOD invites us to REASON with Him -- Isaiah 1:18 -- which means that anything that is TRUE, will contain REASON. Sorry but your additions to Scriptures are UNREASONABLE.

In an odd way, ....my belief is very much like yours... except concerning the PIVOTAL understanding of DIVINE ELECTION.


Which as I see it, has nothing to do with SALVATION apart from those who are to BEAR LIGHT in the Darkness. GOD decided that Peter would be PETER, and not YOU or I... That is HIS "ELECTION" of PETER, and of you and I....


This "election" is no more partial than who was picked to be the FIRST Human. ADAM was "elected" to be that person... not you, not I, and NOT PETER! (am I getting through?)
I have a feeling that you guys differ on more then just election. Also, you are wrong about election. It is very much concerned with salvation. God chooses who is saved and when they are saved and makes it clear in the bible.

2 Thessalonians 2 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.


Chris Date wrote:
willieH wrote:
, not to others in a scenario which HE DECLARED -- Isaiah 46:10 -- and which could NOT POSSIBLY vary in any WAY from that DECLARATION = What God "foreknows" is that which WILL occur. And btw, God's DECLARATION of His foreknowledge of this scenario, is not a "soothsaying", "fortune telling" both of which He is decidedly and Scripturally AGAINST! )...


I suspect few can parse the meaning of the above words; I certainly can't.



You likely "suspect" few, correctly.

I sure had no idea what you were trying to say.


You are a young man, with a lot to learn dear friend... which is what LIFE is all about... JESUS is the WAY, ...the TRUTH, ...and the LIFE. The school of LIFE, far exceeds the institutions of men... for MEN provide fleshly, finite information, whereas LIFE provides the observation of the WORKINGS of LOVE. I wish you a LONG LIFE, Chris... that you may AS YOU LOOK BACK, ... benefit from its teachings as you gaze upon the REAL SCHOOL you have over many years, attended.


Above, I spoke in very simple terms... but as with the Pharisees, when CHRIST spoke in very simple terms, the majority of the listeners, ...did not "parse" the meanings of what He said.


What GOD KNOWS, be it now in the past, or now in the future, SHALL be the result of NOW in the present as it occurs. Try and "parse" that !

I don't know whether to sigh or giggle.


Chris Date wrote:
willieH wrote:
That said, ...how do you explain these: Prov 28:21 -- Acts 10:34 -- 2 Same 14:14 -- 1 Chron 19:7 -- Mark 12:14 -- Eph 6:9 -- Gal 2:6 -- Job 34:19 -- col 3:25 -- Matt 22:16 -- Rom 2:11 --- which all propose IMPARTIALITY to mud -- Rom 9:21 -- Jer 18:4 (persons)?


Again: Calvinism is not a view in which God shows partiality, or in which He is a respecter of persons. It's quite the opposite; He unconditionally chooses whom He will save independently from, irrespective of, anything they are or do.



FIRST --- That GOD would require His believer to abstain from EVIL, and that they do not do so, yet some (which conveniently includes yourself), will be excused from their doings, just because GOD "elected" them to be SAVED... is as far from addressing LOGIC (which you seem to be engrossed in), as it can possibly be.

I don't know what you are arguing against but it isn't Calvinism.


Let's try and give an example and say,


CHRIS has decided that 100 people would stand before a firing squad for TREASON... and then CHRIS, "elects" 10 of them to be excused from DEATH for no other reason than CHRIS "elected" the 10 LIVE and, the other 90 DIE...


How can this be, in any consideration of LOGIC, ...NOT a display of "FAVORITISM or PARTIALITY toward the 10 which also "committed treason" but, which were excused from DEATH by a decree originated from CHRIS?


FAVORITISM, was given toward the 10! ...and any other observation of this example is about as ILLOGICALLY UNREASONABLE and spiritually irresponsible, as it can be. (again, no offense)


Strawman. No one is talking about Chris. We are talking about God who created those people. Also you ignored everything that I said on this topic before which I find annoying and once again you need to reread Romans 9 since these issues are all dealt with there.


SECOND --- You must needs look up the words --- no "respecter of persons"... PROSPOLEPSIA -- #G4382 -- which means; PARTIALITY or FAVORITISM.


G4382
προσωποληψία
prosōpolēpsia
Thayer Definition:
1) respect of persons
2) partiality
2a) the fault of one who when called on to give judgment has respect of the outward circumstances of man and not to their intrinsic merits, and so prefers, as the more worthy, one who is rich, high born, or powerful, to another who does not have these qualities
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G4381
Citing in TDNT: 6:779, 950

Look at 2a.


That you would believe that NO PARTIALITY has taken place in your view of "ELECTION" (as you apply it to those whom you think are saved), is an ignorance of the definition of both these GREEK and ENGLISH terms.


Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Then Peter opened his mouth,.... See Gill on Acts 8:35.

And said, of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; which is to be understood, not of the substances of men, but of the outward state and condition, circumstances and qualities of men; he respects the proper persons of men themselves, but not because of their outward appearances; he does not prefer or despise men, because of their being of this or the other nation, as Jews or Gentiles; or because they are circumcised, or not circumcised; or because they are high or low, rich or poor, free or bound, or the like: the true sense here is, that God valued no man the more, because he was a Jew and circumcised, nor anyone the less, because he was a Gentile and uncircumcised; and this the apostle found to be a most certain truth, of which he was fully persuaded; partly by the vision which he himself saw, and partly by that which Cornelius had, and which the more confirmed him in this matter: these words do not at all militate against the doctrines of personal election and reprobation; and indeed, those acts in God, are not according to the outward state and condition of men, or any circumstances that attend them, or any qualities they have, internal or external; but entirely proceed from the sovereign will of God; See Gill on Romans 2:11 "



Chris Date wrote:
willieH wrote:
Also... what about the statement made in: 1 Cor 15:22 -- all humanity is "IN Adam" and dies accordingly... but at the same moment... ALL HUMANITY is --- IN CHRIST -- as well.



That's a false misrepresentation of the text. What it says is that in Adam, all die; that is, all who are in Adam die. Then, it says, in Christ, all will live; that is, all who are in Christ will live. It says nothing about who are in Christ.



Are you kidding me brother?


Nope. Hes exactly right. You should read the bible commentaries. Maybe one of them might be helpful to you. Try bible.cc It lets you look at a bunch of them when you are looking at a verse.



Chris... your beloved (man-created theology) has disattached you from even READING what the Holy Scriptures actually SAY... You had to REVISE the writing of GOD, in order to facilitate your belief!

It's not man-made. Your universalism is man-made. Moreover I have proven it and continue to prove it. He didn't revise anything. He just explained something to you that you should have understood by yourself.


Lets quote the EXACT text:

1 Cor 15:22 --- for, ...As IN ADAM, ...ALL die, ...so IN CHRIST, ...shall ALL be made ALIVE


YOUR words... "all who are" ...which you insert as follows:

As [all who are] IN ADAM die, ...so [all who are] IN CHRIST shall be made alive. ...DO NOT appear in the Scripture...


YOU have added those words to suit your theology. Which is why you do not "parse" what is said unto you, by either ME, or the Scriptures as they are WRITTEN.
Nope. You are the one who added those words. You agreed in your post to me that all can refer to "certain groupings" of people and those are your words. You have nothing to complain about.


I spoke EXACTLY as the Scripture READS... and YOU on the other hand have inserted YOUR IDEAS to the text.... It is YOU which FALSELY MISREPRESENT, and DISRESPECT the PERFECTION of the text.



It takes you adding the words "ALL WHO ARE", in both places to change what it actually SAYS., that it might fit the philosphy which has your allegiance.


He didn't add anything, you just didn't understand what that section is about.


I caution you young Mr. Date... you violate these Scriptures in doing so -- Prov 30:6 -- Deut 4:2 -- Rev 22:18


Wishing you His


PEACE... ...willieH


He didn't violate any scriptures by explaining the verse to you.
What bliss will fill the ransomed souls,
When they in glory dwell,
To see the sinner as he rolls,
In quenchless flames of hell.

- Isaac Watts
Last Edit: 5 years, 7 months ago by Givemhell.

Re: I saw that Rob Bell signed up... 5 years, 7 months ago #386

  • willieH
  • OFFLINE
  • Banned
  • Posts: 33
  • Karma: 0
Givemhell wrote:
We had been disagreeing with each other about a grammar issue when you said:
I am not "confused" at all, bro. I believe it is you which are "confused". (:


I'm not perfect. I make mistakes myself but that sentence is impressive and full of irony.


Actually, the question is about YOUR understanding of the term KOSMOS. That you pick a meaning which YOU like, and which agrees with your philosphy, and then apply it from "Thayers" concordance, does not align with REASON -- Isaiah 1:18


I am not picking a meaning based on my philosophy. I explained to you why I pick one term or don't pick another term using many different passages of scripture. Also, I didn't write any concordance. I didn't write Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Still, I have shown you from the verses exactly why it has to mean one thing instead of another without referring to the concordance. The fact that the conclusions of my exegesis matches the information in the concordance only lends credibility to my view. Moreover, you bring no proof that the concordance is wrong. Neither have you proven that my exegesis is faulty.

Givemhell wrote:

John 17:9 " I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours."

Note that Christ distinguishes between between the world and the people who believe in Him. Obviously, the word world here is being used in a different way. The word world has more then one meaning.



FIRST -- this distinction is made and added to the text by YOU. This text does not distinguish "believers" from the WORLD...


It distinguishes the ones GIVEN the WORD -- (His Apostles -- minus ONE - vs 12)... as He SENDS them out to the WORLD, bring the message of the VICTORY of the CROSS to the WORLD -- Col 1:16-20 -- 2 Cor 5:19 -- Eph 6:15 -- Rom 10:15 -- Luke 19:10 -- ALL are lost in the SIN of ADAM -- 1 Cor 15:22 -- but are FOUND in the VICTORY of CHRIST over ADAM's SIN -- Rom 5:18-20


First of all, you are incorrect about the ones that are given to Him being only the 11 disciples. Jesus says so himself.

"20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message,"


I am not the only one who sees it this way. Please note these comments:
"Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

20-23. Neither pray I for these alone-This very important explanation, uttered in condescension to the hearers and readers of this prayer in all time, is meant not merely of what follows, but of the whole prayer.

them also which shall believe-The majority of the best manuscripts read "which believe," all future time being viewed as present, while the present is viewed as past and gone."

Secondly, even if you were right about it only being the 11 disciples, which you aren't right about, you would still be wrong about what the word kosmos means in this sentence.

Since Christ differentiates between the ones that He is praying for and the world it means that there are people who aren't a part of the world which means that world in this sentence does not refer to the totality of creation.

You lift this text out of its identifying CONTEXT, and then try to prove that JESUS does not intend on His message being given to the WORLD (KOSMOS)... rather was privy to these for whom He prayed in this verse (which does not include you, btw)...


I posted it by itself because we were dealing with the grammar of the sentence. As I have proven, whether it refers only to the disciples or not is a side issue. Also, I never said that "JESUS does not intend on His message being given to the WORLD... rather was privy to these for whom He prayed in this verse" You must have completely misunderstood my point.

In the very same CONTEXT, JESUS notes that He is sending them (His Apostles) -- John 17:18-21 -- which He has just prayed for in -- John 17:9 -- to the WORLD with this GOSPEL message -- as is verified in -- Mark 16:15 -- Matt 28:19 -- for the message is PERTINENT to EVERY CREATURE !!! -- "Go ye into ALL the WORLD, and preach the GOSPEL to EVERY CREATURE"


When you say every creature are you reading it in the same way that you read world. Do you think that Jesus was talking about preaching to fish?

No offense unto you, but ...ONLY when you LOVE that which GOD LOVES (the WORLD), shall you enter into the TRUTH.


1 John 2:15 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.


First of all, let me say that you make a lot of accusations. None of which you can back up. Second of all, if there is only one possible interpretation of the word world you run into some problems as you can see from the verse I quoted above.




Again GEH... you would have all instances of the use of the word "ALL" [Pas in Gk.] to be as YOU might hope it to be. It is obvious that "ALL" pertains to a given grouping in the above 2 texts... but this is NOT SO in -- John 1:29 nor is it so in -- Luke 2:10 -- nor is it so in -- 1 Tim 4:9-11


NO particular grouping is noted or even alluded to, ...and neither is it alluded to (in spite of your wish that it be), ...in -- John 3:16-17 -- either.


Oh, so now it is obvious? After all of that discussion, after all those verses I posted, now, it is obvious. I'm glad that now it is obvious to you. The same goes for the word world. There is more then one meaning for the word kosmos just as there is more then one meaning for the word pas. As you have pointed out in some instances, pas refers to "a given grouping" while in other cases it refers to every one. It's really simple. The same is true in English really. Look up the word world in an English dictionary. You can see the same thing there as you can see in a concordance that world can be used in several different ways and that it can refer to the totality of earth or to a part of it. This one is from dictionary.com

World
noun
1.the earth or globe, considered as a planet.
2.( often initial capital letter ) a particular division of the earth: the Western world.
3.the earth or a part of it, with its inhabitants, affairs, etc., during a particular period: the ancient world.
4.humankind; the human race; humanity: The world must eliminate war and poverty.
5.the public generally: The whole world knows it.

See, world is like all. It doesn't have to refer to every single one.

Now, let's look at what you said again.



Again GEH... you would have all instances of the use of the word "ALL" [Pas in Gk.] to be as YOU might hope it to be. It is obvious that "ALL" pertains to a given grouping in the above 2 texts... but this is NOT SO in -- John 1:29 nor is it so in -- Luke 2:10 -- nor is it so in -- 1 Tim 4:9-11


NO particular grouping is noted or even alluded to, ...and neither is it alluded to (in spite of your wish that it be), ...in -- John 3:16-17 -- either.


Actually, the use of the word all was as I hoped it to be. You confirmed this, at least in the first case by agreeing that all pertains to a given grouping and therefore pas doesn't always refer to every single last individual.

Now, lets look deeper into the quote about the census. So, is it possible that all in this sentence refers to a "particular grouping" and world refers to the entirety of the people on earth? Nope. Here's why. We know what a Roman census looked like. They would account for all people and property including all males, females, children, slaves. So, all in this sentence does not refer to a particular group of people but world does not refer to all of creation.

As far as John 3:16 is concerned, I have explained this many times and I just posted out a long explanation. I will post it here again for you since you seem to have ignored it.
Part one is obviously that words have more then one meaning and that we determine that by it's context.
Part two: I explained when I broke down the verses surrounding John 3:16 but I'm going to do it again. We can see from these verses that the ones who are saved are the ones who believe in Christ. I will further prove this by exegeting certain passages from the book of John and by quoting verses from other parts of the bible to further explain the concept.

Joh_8:12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."


Here Jesus explains that he is the light of the world. However, it is the ones who follow Him that have the light. As we can see, not every single person has the light but only those who follow him. It would go against the main idea of this sentence if we were to translate the word world to mean every single person. Clearly the phrase light of the world is qualified by Christ's next sentence.

Notice the verses that follow:

Joh_8:12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.
13 The Pharisees challenged him, “Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid.”

14 Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. 15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. 18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.”

19 Then they asked him, “Where is your father?”

“You do not know me or my Father,” Jesus replied. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” 20 He spoke these words while teaching in the temple courts near the place where the offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, because his hour had not yet come.


Immediately the pharisees oppose him but Christ's ends the dialogue by saying "If you knew me, you would know my Father also." Here Christ is doing two things as far as I see it. He is both proclaiming the Pharisees to be walking in darkness and not in the light as they don't know God and He proclaims Himself to be God as it is further expressed by the early church in Philippians 2
6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!


Also, notice they ask him about His Father as if His father is an earthly man. However, Christ is the uniquely begotten son of the Father and in this context He is referring to God the Father. Christ's retort upset them to the point where they might have seized him if it had been his time to be crucified.

Moreover, His comments about light and darkness harken back to previous books in the bible. Light and darkness is a recurring theme in the bible. Take this verse for example:


Even in darkness light dawns for the upright, for the gracious and compassionate and righteous man.


If we were to continue to search out the use of these symbols, light and darkness we would continue to see what we see above, that not all men walk in the light. That men walk either in darkness or in light.

Because of these things, world in this context does not refer to every single person but is probably speaking in a sense that refers to both jews and gentiles who are walking in the light. This is a major development in the new testament as the gospel specifically reaches out to all peoples and all nations, both Jew and gentile.

Revelation 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying:

“You are worthy to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
because you were slain,
and with your blood you purchased for God
persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.



The verse above clearly refers to Jesus. Note that with his blood he purchased for God, not every single person but instead, "persons from every tribe and language and people and nation."

Joh_12:19 So the Pharisees said to one another, "You see that you are gaining nothing. Look, the world has gone after him.


Now, at that time the scope of the people who were going after Christ's teaching was very limited yet the pharasees use the word world to refer to the people who were going after Him.

Joh_14:19 Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live.


Notice in the verse that Christ says that the world will not see Him anymore yet his disciples will see Him. If kosmos always means every person then Christ would be contradicting Himself here. Clearly the word world has more then one meaning and the meaning must be determined by its context.

Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
Joh 3:15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
Joh 3:19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.
Joh 3:20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.
Joh 3:21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God."


Notice in John 3:15 that it is the who believe that receive eternal life. John 3:16 uses the word world but explains that it is the ones who believe in Him who do not perish but instead receive eternal life. The next several sentences repeat the same idea. Those who do not believe are condemned. Those who believe are saved. To say that world in this context means every man would be to say that God loves all men in a salvific sense. Clearly, the rest of the sentence as well as the sentence before it and the sentence below it teach that this is not the case.


Rom 5:20 -- Where SIN abounded, ...GRACE did MUCH MORE ABOUND... How shall you attempt to get rid of that? By adding more of your own words

Who said I want to get rid of anything? What is this? This isn't even half of a verse. Did I add my own words to any of the verses or are you just continuing a tradition of accusing me of things that you can't back up while ignoring almost all of my arguments?

Here is the actual verse:
20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,


The law here refers to the mosaic law. I don't know what to say because I'm not sure what your argument is. I don't know why you think this proves anything for you


It's not too late bro... preach His WORD (as it IS WRITTEN), not YOUR self-created philosophy.


As I said previously... I am not willing to spend LENGTHY time, preaching unto deaf ears. You are welcome to believe that God is UNREASONABLE... I find Him the MOST REASONABLE of ALL beings... And IMPARTIAL to ALL, ...the products of MUD, ...which is all we are in the end.


There you go again, accusing me of things that have no basis in reality.

You said a similar thing a long time ago. This time you said:
"I am not willing to spend LENGTHY time, preaching unto deaf ears."


How long have you spent typing in this thread do you think?

and last time you said this:

I shall not further waste my time with you... as this self composed circular hiding behind your obvious (PRIDEFUL and) RELIGIOUS training, will surely be exposed one day very soon anyway without need of my assistance whatsoever.


Not bothering <with you> any further... have fun...


I will post answers to those which I have actually written to, and which have some semblance of REASON within their beliefs.



PEACE... ...willieH
Last Edit: 5 years, 7 months ago by willieH.

Re: I saw that Rob Bell signed up... 5 years, 7 months ago #387

  • Givemhell
  • OFFLINE
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 810
  • Karma: 19
Not bothering <with you> any further... have fun...


I will post answers to those which I have actually written to, and which have some semblance of REASON within their beliefs.


Your accusation is meaningless in light of the many posts that I have written responding to your arguments which include many well reasoned and lengthy explanations, exegesis, citations etc.

Anyone who is interested can easily look through what has been written, even in what you posted above and they will be able to see that your accusation, that there is no "semblance of REASON" as you put it, is nothing more then a baseless accusation. In fact, the exact opposite is true.

Moreover, whether you choose to respond to what I wrote doesn't matter to me one bit. If anything, I'm glad that you are no longer "responding" to me because all of your "responses" were full of the same disgusting venom. You would just write your Universalist theology that you weren't able to back up, insults, accusations, misrepresentations of what I believe, nonsensical sentences and ignored 99 percent of everything that I said to you.

I really do wish you the best. I have enjoyed the practice that I got out of responding to your posts though at times the frustration from not being able to get you to agree with certain concepts like "sometimes words can have more then one meaning" was a bit exhausting. Well, either way, have fun with Chris "if he decides to put up with you".
What bliss will fill the ransomed souls,
When they in glory dwell,
To see the sinner as he rolls,
In quenchless flames of hell.

- Isaac Watts
Last Edit: 5 years, 7 months ago by Givemhell.

Re: I saw that Rob Bell signed up... 5 years, 7 months ago #505

  • Timothew
  • OFFLINE
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 228
  • Karma: 15
Here's a link to an old Christianity Today article on Rob Bell, Universalism, Annihilationism, and the Traditional View, and an urge for all sides to remain civil in this debate (which must take place).

www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/marchw...rsalism.html?start=1
Τιμοθέῳ γνησίῳ τέκνῳ ἐν πίστει
Tim Wiesner
Time to create page: 2.26 seconds
Featured audio: Dr. Al Mohler & Chris Date debate
"Should Christians rethink Hell?" on Unbelievable?