Jump to content


Photo

Universalism Discussion


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
81 replies to this topic

#31 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 13 September 2005 - 03:22 AM

My friend: rest assured the whole creation ultimately bows in worship IN the Name of Jesus. All indeed radically means all!

All=

http://www.menfak.no...?word=¯t0000085

http://www.menfak.no/bibel/vines.html

Perhaps you could show us what the extent of Phil. 2 entails according to the Koine Greek text. Is the worship of all beings in the heavens, the earth and the underworld by rote or perfunctory genuflections? What is the scope of all beings in the heavens and the earth and the underworld?


It's a manifestly hyperbolic statement. Fish don't have knees, if you want to take the language literally, and animals are incapable of bowing in submission to Christ.


I wish to take the language as presented by the Holy Ghost! The passage in Philippians is referring to all beings in the heavens, the earth, and the underworld. If fish are beings, then they too will bow the knees in confession and praise and celebration!


How?

Perhaps you could demonstrate, Fortigurn, how the Holy Ghost has "enlarged beyond truth or reasonableness", or by exaggeration in the written words of St. Paul; that the triumph of our Lord Jesus Christ in this passage of Philippians is making someone, (the Lord Lesous), "sound bigger, better, more, than they are."



I'm doing it.

All beings in the heavens, and the earth, and the underworld are worshipping in praise and celebration and thanksgiving! The worship is IN/EN the Name of Jesus, and is not by rote or perfunctory genuflections!


The non-human creation cannot worship Christ, nor be 'in Christ'. The non-human creation was not made in the image of God, and cannot possibly comprehend the name of Jesus.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#32 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 13 September 2005 - 03:23 AM

Hey Tom, thanks for the free plug Cool; sorry I've been missing in action of late - I have my son in hospital so I'm back and forth etc.

I don't believe in substitutionary atonement.


G'day Fortigurn, in the light of Christ's atoning death on humanity's behalf:

1Jn 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but ALSO for the whole world.

...can you expand on your above statement.


Certainly. Let's start by taking out the word 'propitiation' (which shouldn't be there), and reading John 3:16-21.

Edited by Fortigurn, 13 September 2005 - 03:23 AM.

Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#33 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 13 September 2005 - 03:24 AM

hmm Fortigurn, your "I don't believe in substitutionary atonement" and "...taking out the word 'propitiation' (which shouldn't be there)" [says who??] is quite blatant, so on basis are you making this claim that "propitiation" somehow should NOT be there; 1Jn 2:2 clearly HAS IT in the text = propitiation - hilasmos ιλασμος : thus Christ IS the once for all propitiation for sin. The same again is likewise found two chapters over:

1Jn 4:10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

So how is it you seek to drive Christ's propitiation from the bible???


Because it has no place there. The English word 'propitiation' is a hopeles translation of the Greek word there. It's only there to support the concept of a vicious and angry god who refused to forgive until he was paid with a bloody sacrifice.

That's not grace by anyone's benchmark.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#34 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 13 September 2005 - 03:25 AM

Since you believe the word propitiation is a poor translation of the original languages, what (in your opinion) would be (1) the correct translation of the original language of these verses...


Covering.

...and (2) the correct way to understand/apply those terms based on your theology.


Genesis 3:12, Psalm 51.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#35 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 13 September 2005 - 03:25 AM

So let me understand this: God would never be vicious or angry enough to require a bloody sacrifice for atonement, but he would create a person, not give that person the knowledge to accept God's Son, then annhiliate the person?


I don't see Him 'annihilating' anyone in that position.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#36 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 13 September 2005 - 03:27 AM

Fortigurn: The passage under consideration is not speaking of birds, (your budgee or mine), or worms, or any other creature that is not capable of bending the knee & confession of the mouth in worship, and praise, and celebration, and thanksgiving to the Father. The scope is clear....

1. All/pas in earth, (the terrestrials.)


So not all in the terestrials?

2. All/pas in heaven, (the celestials.)


So not all in the celestials?

3. All/pas in the underworld, (the subterrenes.)


So not all in the subterrenes?

I note with interest that you're redefining each of these words in a highly restritive and eschatological sense, which is interesting enough, but what's your justification for this?

Furthermore, the confession and exaltation of the Lord Jesus Christ IN/EN union with His Name, and to the glory of the Father, is not by rote, or by perfunctory genuflections; rather by exomologeo and homologeo.


Oh, I certainly agree.

When your birds and worms can function in this celebration, please do advise us, eh!


They can't, which is precisely the argument against your case.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#37 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 13 September 2005 - 03:27 AM

I don't see Him 'annihilating' anyone in that position.


Because???


Because He isn't anihiliating them. He is permitting them to die after they have lived the life they wished, and He is then leaving them dead.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#38 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 13 September 2005 - 03:28 AM

Fortigurn,

You argument concerning the lake of fire, as it stands, is fallacious.

You have argued thus:

Death and the grave are destroyed by the lake of fire.

Therefore, all that is affected by the lake of fire will be destroyed.


No, actually that has been a supplementary argument to my primary argument - which is that nowhere are we shown anyone coming out of the lake of fire. It substantiates my argument, because it shows that other things which enter the lake of fire don't emerge either.

Since you are the ones claiming that people who enter the lake of fire will emerge purified and reconciled, the onus is on you to demonstrate that Scripture shows this clearly.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#39 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 13 September 2005 - 03:29 AM

iJlasmovß is found in two passages of the New Covenant, each translated propitiation. In the third verse of the Koine, hilasterion is also translated propitiation. Can you show us a couple of reputable translations that use "covering" instead of "propitiation?"


No I can't, I can only show you reputable translations which deny that 'propitiation' should be used, and which use another word with which they can still remain within the pale of orthodoxy.

But you've helped me out enormously here:

The change from this construction shows, to quote Canon Westcott, "that the scriptural conception of the verb is not that of appeasing one who is angry, with a personal feeling, against the offender; but of altering the character of that which, from without, occasions a necessary alienation, and interposes an inevitable obstacle to fellowship.

Such phrases as 'propitiating God,' and God 'being reconciled' are foreign to the language of the New Testament. Man is reconciled
(2 Cor. v. 18 sqq.; Rom. v. 10 sq.). There is a propitiation in the matter of the sin or of the sinner." - Dr. Marvin Vincent-


Thanks.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#40 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 13 September 2005 - 03:30 AM

I don't see Him 'annihilating' anyone in that position.


Because???


Fortigurn wrote: Because He isn't anihiliating them. He is permitting them to die after they have lived the life they wished, and He is then leaving them dead.

But death is to be abolished. Taken out of operation. No more death = no more dead people.


No more death doesn't mean no one still dead, it means no one will die anymore, just as no more tears means no one will be sorrowful anymore.

You can't "leave them dead" when death no longer operates. That's like saying you're going to leave your car in the garage after it's been destroyed by fire. It's impossible.


This is a false analogy, because the Bible does not say 'death no longer operates', with the sense of 'no one will be in a state of death anymore'.

In fact it doesn't say 'death no longer operates' at all.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#41 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 13 September 2005 - 03:31 AM

Ok, fair enough, fortigurn.

So your argument regarding the lake of fire really boils down to the fact that it is not explicitly stated in Revelation that persons cast into it come out of it. this is not much of an argument against our position, although you are correct in that the burden of proof is on us.


Well no, my argument is both positive and negative - nothing comes out of the lake of fire (negative), and that which goes in is demonstrably destroyed (positive).

There are, as far as I have gathered, two types of universalist explanation of this.

The first is the one I have put forth in this thread, namely that cotext and context indicate that the fire is purgatorial for the people who go into it.


It does not appear purgatorial in that it is the means by which death and the grave are destroyed.

The second is that those destroyed in the lake of fire will finally be resurrected in Christ.


The second has the problem of being complete speculation without any supporting evidence.

In defense of the first, I note that the context involves

a.) typical fire imagery - which always connotes purification (and we know that purification invovles destruction)


Fire imagery does not always connote purification, and the only contextual indicator for the function of this fire is the complete anihilation of death and the grave. That illustrates beyond doubt that the fire here is entirely destructive, not purifying.

b.) two Greek words (THEION and BASANIZO) used in conjunction, both which have purificatory connotations


Not in this context.

I also note that there are many verses which have all appearances of teaching universal reconciliation, thus affording the possibility that we are to shape our understanding of the lake of fire on these verses, rather than shaping our understanding of the UR verses on the lake of fire passages.


I note that this passage fits exactly the many eschatological passages in the Old and New Testament which speak of an everlasting reward for the righteous, an everlasting punishment for the wicked, and are utterly silent on the subject of a final release, rehabilitation, and reward of the wicked (see Daniel 12:2 and Matthew 25 for example).
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#42 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 13 September 2005 - 03:33 AM

It does not appear purgatorial in that it is the means by which death and the grave are destroyed.


As noted before, it appears to me that the type of purgatorial process I am arguing for would necessarily involve the destruction of death and the grave.


But that is not what the text says. Your reading requires death and the grave to be destroyed as a result of people being purified by the lake of fire.

We find no such thing here. We find no one being taken out of the lake of fire purified, and we do not find death and the grave being destroyed as a result of people emerging purified from the lake of fire. We find death and the grave being destroyed in the lake of fire, separate and distinct from people being placed in the lake of fire.

Edited by Fortigurn, 13 September 2005 - 03:34 AM.

Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#43 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 13 September 2005 - 03:34 AM

The second has the problem of being complete speculation without any supporting evidence.


Play nice, Fortigurn. You might no regard the supporting evidence of substantial, but that is because your theology tells you such.


No, I don't think so. It's because I don't see any verses which speak of people emerging purified from the lake of fire.

Fire imagery does not always connote purification


I was not careful to use the word 'always.'


No, you just implied it.

Fire imagery typically connotes purification. And the fact that death and the grave are destroyed by the LOF is not at odds with my suggestion that the LOF is purificatory.


You're not actaully adressing what I wrote.

Christ came to baptize with fire, did He not?


Yes. What has this to do with anything?

The fire in the lake of fire comes from heaven, does it not?


Not that I can see, no.

As for THEION and BASANIZO connoting purification, you reject that they do in this context, but your reasons for doing this are circular.



Why? I see absolutely no one being purified here.

Consider this: Death is destroyed by the LOF.
Death is destroyed by the work of Christ.

Agreed?


No, I don't agree, the way it's expressed here.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#44 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 13 September 2005 - 03:35 AM

Again, Fortigurn, you're welcome. The propitiation in Jesus Christ is not that of appeasing an angry Deity, but rather, the act of reconciliation or, at-one-ment...the bringing together in union of dust and Divinity by His grace!


Thank you, then you agree with me - the word 'propitiation' should not be used here.

We await your "reputable translations" which deny "that 'propitiation' should be used, and which use another word with which they can still remain within the pale of orthodoxy." They would be which translations?


Well you gave me the NET, which is certainly the best of the list you have there. But you also gave me another few translations which don'tus 'propitiation'. Thanks.

Welcome to a few reputable translations of iJlasmovß, Fortigurn.


I'm afraid they aren't all reputable translations, but you've proved my point anyway with the NET and a few others. Thanks.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#45 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 13 September 2005 - 03:37 AM

Again, you are most welcome. The New English Bible is a fine translation.


I'm ambivalent about the NEB, but I believe the NET is certainly a fine tranlsation.

On what basis are you prepared to declare it is the "best on the list?"


On the basis of my use of it over the last 3 years, and my discussoin with one of the committee members responsible for it.

You said in your earlier post that "covered" is what you would substitute for propitiation. None of the translators are in agreement. We await your reputable translations!


I've already told you about this:

No I can't, I can only show you reputable translations which deny that 'propitiation' should be used, and which use another word with which they can still remain within the pale of orthodoxy.


Please read it.

Far to the contrary. There is not one reputable translation of the Sacred Words that comes remotely close to placing "covered" in translation of the Koine iJlasmovß!


That is in fact what I already told you:

No I can't, I can only show you reputable translations which deny that 'propitiation' should be used, and which use another word with which they can still remain within the pale of orthodoxy.


Please read my posts, it will save me repeating myself.

Our Father does not cover sin: He destroys it!


I think you need to deal with the fact that the Bible uses multiple metaphors for key principles. I've given you a couple of 'covering sin' passages already. Please read them.

Can you tell us how our God who is consuming fire/pur, compares with the Limne of pur, rooted in Theion/ Theos?


I have no idea what you are talking about.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#46 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 13 September 2005 - 03:38 AM

AlanW3]

No more death doesn't mean no one still dead, it means no one will die anymore, just as no more tears means no one will be sorrowful anymore.


You can't "leave them dead" when death no longer operates. That's like saying you're going to leave your car in the garage after it's been destroyed by fire. It's impossible.


Fortigurn replied:

This is a false analogy, because the Bible does not say 'death no longer operates', with the sense of 'no one will be in a state of death anymore'.

In fact it doesn't say 'death no longer operates' at all.


You must have some different translation there. Strong's has nullify for katargeo. Nullify is to make void.


Make void isn't hardly strong enough - destroy, abolish, make to cease, wouild be a good translation. I'm afraid 'no longer operates' is not a good translation.

Your christ isn't very powerful either. He can't get rid of death, only keep it somewhat at bay.


Why do you say that? I believe that God destroys death through Christ. You, on the other hand, believe that death merely 'no longer operates'.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#47 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 13 September 2005 - 03:39 AM

In fact it doesn't say 'death no longer operates' at all.


Stream asks

Is it not the "power of sin" in operation in "this body" OF death itself? rendered cut off and disconnected by the Spirit Life? (The law of liberty) set free from its power and living by Gods power.


Yes, those who are changed no longer sin or die. This is not addressing the issue under discussion.

What of death? Paul spoke of death working in him that life work in others, stating both death and life are ours. I see both working together for a common good. Death in us through what is good and raised to life.

Graves?? How are these defined by others? Christ shows them as people and the expression "raised from the dead" is found in "raising those dead in tresspasses and sins" opening their graves and CAUSING THEM to come out and rising to newness of life (light). Before this happens we are ALL DEAD in our sins bound by the law not one righteous, thus all are in darkness prior to His bringing them up.

Those cast into the fire went IN BOUND but inside it were LOOSED and NOT HURT by the Fire which also is the lake of it and of the second death Christ saith it shall NOT HURT... Spiritual pictures to compare.


I'm struggling to find in here any Biblical evidence that those who enter the lake of fire actually emerge from it at all - purified or otherwise.

I'm obviously not on your wavelength, so please forgive me if I ask you to be more clear.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#48 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 13 September 2005 - 03:40 AM

Can you tell us how our God who is consuming fire/pur, compares with the Limne of pur, rooted in Theion/ Theos?


It's all greek to me. Laughing

*** I really couldn't resist****


Greek I understand - I studied it at university for 2 years. What I don't understand is the comparison/contrast being drawn here, or what the purpose is.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#49 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 13 September 2005 - 03:40 AM

I'd like to learn more Greek. Actually. I'd like to learn more of every language. Sad Oh well. It's cool that you studied it for 2 years though. Modern or ancient or both? Are you able to speak it as well as read it?


I studied classical Greek, which is no longer spoken. I'm very rusty these days, but I still remember a lot.

um... also... I guess I can look it up on some lexicons at some point in the next few days... but since you're here and you have the 2 years of study, would you mind sharing what the Limne of pur, rooted in Theion/ Theos is? Pretty please? Otherwise... Limne of pur is a galactic Space Warrior, rooted in the family of Theion on planet Theos in my very next science fiction short story. Cool


Pur is fire, limnh is a lake, and theos is god.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#50 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 13 September 2005 - 03:42 AM

Your reading requires death and the grave to be destroyed as a result of people being purified by the lake of fire.

We find no such thing here.


I agree. I simply believe that God destroys persons in a different sense then he destroys death.


Please show me this from the lake of fire passage.

Even you, Fortigurn, must be destroyed in order to inherit incorruptibility.


Actually no, I have to be changed, as the Scripture says.

We find no one being taken out of the lake of fire purified, and we do not find death and the grave being destroyed as a result of people emerging purified from the lake of fire.


Well, death is the last enemy to be destroyed.


But we still don't find anyone being taken out of the lake of fire purified, and we do not find death and the grave being destroyed as a result of people emerging purified from the lake of fire.

Edited by Fortigurn, 13 September 2005 - 03:43 AM.

Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#51 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 13 September 2005 - 03:45 AM

We find death and the grave being destroyed in the lake of fire, separate and distinct from people being placed in the lake of fire.


Perhaps, perhaps not. The author of Revelation does have a rather peculiar style, and this must be appreciated by anyone seeking to understand the books contents.


There's no perhaps about it - the two are described as distinct from each other.

Christ's fire is from God. The Lake of fire is from God (fire and brimstone are said to be of heavently origin in Revelation). Christ's fire purifies. The lake of fire purifies.


That's a fallacy of equivocation. No such connection is made here. If the lake of fire purifies, then why are death and the grave destroyed, instead of being purified?

Fortigurn, can you at least admit that THEION and BASANIZO might possibly connote purification in the context of the lake of fire, if indeed other scriptures indicate such? Revelation is not the only source of information on the nature of the lake of fire.


I can't, no, because the context militates against it.

I said:

Quote:
Consider this: Death is destroyed by the LOF.
Death is destroyed by the work of Christ.

Agreed?

Fortigurn replied:  No, I don't agree, the way it's expressed here.

Why not?


Because it's a fallacy of equivocation. Death is destroyed by Christ in a manner different to the destruction of death in the lake of fire.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#52 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 13 September 2005 - 03:47 AM

Fortigurn said: Make void isn't hardly strong enough - destroy, abolish, make to cease, wouild be a good translation. I'm afraid 'no longer operates' is not a good translation.

Alan Quote:
Your christ isn't very powerful either. He can't get rid of death, only keep it somewhat at bay.


Why do you say that? I believe that God destroys death through Christ. You, on the other hand, believe that death merely 'no longer operates'.

Because in your version of the destruction/abolition/make to cease THE DEAD ARE FOREVER DEAD


So what? That doesn't mean that death is any less destroyed.

I believe that when death is abolished, there will be no one left in the death state.


Where does it say that?

Your Christ simply doesn't allow anyone to die any more. When death is abolished at the end of the ages, everyone in the death state will be vivified.

FYI, when death is said to be abolished by Christ, which is the act that ends the ages, the second death (ie the lake of fire) is the only death in operation at that time. The act of dying is ended well before Christ is said to abolish death. So it can't be as you say.


If the act of dying is ended well before Christ is said to abolish death (Scripture please), then how can Christ be abolishing death?
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#53 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 13 September 2005 - 03:48 AM

At this point I had a surprise supporting post from lovefield:

Davo,

I'm not sure I see why Finelinen and yourself are getting on Fortigurn's case concerning translating 1 John 4:10 with the word propitiation.

I, albeit for reasons different from Fortigurn's, don't believe that the text is relating the notion of an appeased God who turns His wrath away from us because of Jesus. I believe that Divine wrath and mercy are inseparable.

Besides, the word propitiation was coined to express the very theological notion which Fortigurn takes issue with.


Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#54 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 13 September 2005 - 03:49 AM

Fortigurn wrote: If the act of dying is ended well before Christ is said to abolish death (Scripture please), then how can Christ be abolishing death?

Fortigurn, this is from the Concordant publishing concern's site: I think you'll find it pertinent:


I don't think it's a very natural reading of the text.

Alan wrote:Because in your version of the destruction/abolition/make to cease THE DEAD ARE FOREVER DEAD

Fortigurn replied: So what? That doesn't mean that death is any less destroyed.

Alan reply: It means it still operates. The destruction of something should make sure it can no longer function.


But death is no longer functioning - it is no longer coming upon people. People are no longer dying, just as people are no longer weeping.

Alan wrote: I believe that when death is abolished, there will be no one left in the death state.

Fortigurn reply: Where does it say that?

Alan reply: As in Adam, all are dying, even so, in Christ, shall all be vivified. It doesn't say "all in Christ", it says "in Christ all". "In Adam all", "in Christ all". 1 Corinthians 15:22 It says all that have died shall be vivified.


I've been through this already.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#55 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 13 September 2005 - 03:52 AM

Hi again, Fortigurn.

You wrote:

Quote:
Please show me this (that God destroys persons in a different sense then he destroys death) from the lake of fire passage.

As I said, I cannot show you this from Revelation alone.


Don't you think that's significant?

Yes, and this transformation involves the destruction of the old man. Your sinful nature won't be changed, it will be destroyed so that you can be changed.


But it's the nature which is destroyed, not me.

But we still don't find anyone being taken out of the lake of fire purified, and we do not find death and the grave being destroyed as a result of people emerging purified from the lake of fire.


You are right in that we are not directly told by the text that death is destroyed because of people emerging purified from the lake of fire. But I trust that we agree that death is destroyed after the lake of fire does its thing with the persons cast into it, correct?


Death is only destroyed after people have been cast into the lake of fire, yes.

Edited by Fortigurn, 13 September 2005 - 03:54 AM.

Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#56 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 13 September 2005 - 03:54 AM

There's no perhaps about it - the two (casting of persons into the LOF and the casting of death into the LOF) are described as distinct from each other.


There certainly is a perhaps about it, until you can prove that John was meaning to say that the casting of death and the grave into the fire and the casting of persons into the fire are spearable. He could simply be employing a rather common literary device whereby one event is described in two ways.


That is not a natural reading of the text. This is a sequential narrative (note the sequential kai in verse 1).

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
And (or perhaps EVEN) death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

It is a possibility.


I'm afraid that translating kai here as 'even' is not a possibility. Note also that the casting of people into the lake of fire is again distinguished from the casting of death and the grave into the lake of fire in verse 15.

Where's the equivocation? The connection is apparrent -- Christ's baptismal fire is the very fire which shall devour the wicked. Do you agree with this, at least?


No I don't at all. The baptismal fire of Christ occurred in Acts 2. It didn't devour the wicked, it annointed the apostles.

As for death being destroyed and not purified, I've already explained this. The alloy thrown into the furnace with the gold shall be destroyed while the gold emerges refined.


If that were the case, then the whole of creation would be cast into the lake of fire, the creation would emerge purified, and death and the grave would be destroyed.

But that's not what we have. Nothing comes out of the lake of fire.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#57 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 13 September 2005 - 03:54 AM

How so? Seems to me that both readings, yours and mine, remain possible as the context stands by itself.


You need positive and negative evidence to make a good case. Negative evidence would be verses saying that things come out of the lake of fire. Positive evidence would be verses saying that the lake of fire doesn't destroy people, and that people come out of the lake of fire purified.

I need positive and negative evidence to make a good case. Negative evidence would be an absence of any veres describing things coming out of the lake of fire. Positive evidence would be verses describing the lake of fire destroying something going into it.

I'm looking at positive and negative evidence for my case. I'm seeing that very clearly.

What are you seeing?

Death is destroyed by Christ in a manner different to the destruction of death in the lake of fire.


How so?


Because death was not destroyed literally on the cross. It continued to operate.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#58 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 13 September 2005 - 03:55 AM

hello fortigurn,

when you get a chance...
i was curious if your beliefs are similar to those others that have believed similar to you that have come to this forum....(the lost bieng dead forever)


Yes I believe in anihilation.

>>>the others that have taught this teach that people are raised again and given a second oppurtunity in a "millineum" to hear the gospel...is this your view??<<<


No.

>>> are the lost dead ever raised in your view or are they just transferred from death in hades to death in the lake of fire..in other words are they raised up to a judgement of some sort before getting thrown back into a death state<<<


Some of the dead do not rise again. Others of the dead rise to judgment, and receive reward or punishment. The punishment results in death, but is not instant death.

>>>what do you see as a believer or someone who will not experience the "lake of fire"....are all other religions cast into it ??<<<


John 3:16-21.

Edited by Fortigurn, 13 September 2005 - 03:55 AM.

Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#59 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 13 September 2005 - 03:57 AM

Well you guys have been busy since I've been away.



davo wrote:
hmm Fortigurn, your "I don't believe in substitutionary atonement" and "...taking out the word 'propitiation' (which shouldn't be there)" [says who??] is quite blatant, so on basis are you making this claim that "propitiation" somehow should NOT be there; 1Jn 2:2 clearly HAS IT in the text = propitiation - hilasmos ιλασμος : thus Christ IS the once for all propitiation for sin. The same again is likewise found two chapters over:

1Jn 4:10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

So how is it you seek to drive Christ's propitiation from the bible???

Because it has no place there. The English word 'propitiation' is a hopeles translation of the Greek word there. It's only there to support the concept of a vicious and angry god who refused to forgive until he was paid with a bloody sacrifice.

That's not grace by anyone's benchmark.

Fortigurn wrote:
It's only there to support the concept of a vicious and angry god who refused to forgive until he was paid with a bloody sacrifice.


That may well be the interpretation YOUR understanding imposes on that text, a somewhat pagan notion – but that says more about the way YOU see things; not what THAT verse is saying.


If you read what I wrote with care, you'll find that I am in fact militating specifically against such a pagan idea. Which is precisely why I believe that the word 'propitiation' should not be there.

Fortigurn wrote:
Because it has no place there. The English word 'propitiation' is a hopeles translation of the Greek word there.

"It" has EVERY place there – it's in the text of scripture.


No it is not in the text of Scripture. It's an English word which is in English translations of Scripture.

YOU say it is "a hopeles translation of the Greek" yet YOU offer NO proof of such, least you've not furnished us with any yet.


Actually I offered two, both of which were provided by others here (very helpfully).

The action is BY God IN Christ, which was one of COVERING man's sin...


I agree entirely. Look, so do you - you've used the word 'covering'.

...so man thus being expiated i.e., atoned for, is cleansed, IOW forgiven.


I disagree. The Bible says that it was our attitude towards God which had to be changed - not God's attitude towards us (John 3:16, Luke 15:17-24, Romans 5:6-10, 1 John 4:10, 19, and others).

So if as you so boldly claim "I don't believe in substitutionary atonement" [Christ in our stead in relation to sins bearing and judgment] then your only argument is against Scripture:

1Jn 4:10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

You can reject it if you like but it still holds firm and cannot be shaken.


I am not rejecting it, I am simply understanding it in a different way to you.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#60 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 13 September 2005 - 03:57 AM

Plain and simple, we can argue semantics until the cows come home, but it doesn't change the effect of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Call it "covering", call it "propitiation", call it whatever you will...

It was enough to take away the sins of the world; mine and yours and everyone else's.


John 3:16-21, Acts 2:37-38, 1 John 1:5-10.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users