BRXII Battle talk

[Ecumenicist]

It won't be the mere fact that they rejected The Word of God, every time He presented it to them which damns them, but that fact coupled with the fact that everyone sins, and that no one who has sinned is allowed into Heaven. Only The Blood of Jesus can remove sin. Everything else is just a placebo, no matter how cleverly disguised it might be. The fact is, if you don't warn someone, then when that person is found guilty, their blood will be required by your hand, so you'll be held just as guilty for their sin as they are. You'll be required to exact their sentence and to explain why you didn't do anything about their sin.He provides perfect restitution to those who believe, and healing with the same pre-requisite. It is faith which heals just as it is faith that saves. It is God's faith, not ours; He merely loans it to us.

Its not the Word of God that is rejected, its Aimiel's interpretation of a translation
of a translation of something the Holy Spirit revealed to a prophet several
thousand years ago.

In many cases, the Holy Spirt miraculously reaches through those many levels
of indirection to touch someone's heart. I'm personally blessed every week to
be a part of that process in the lives of dozens of people.

The proof is in the fruits, not in the Greek nor in the professed Personal Piety of
the believer, nor in the supposed Purity of the Message.

 

[Ecumenicist]

It is God's faith, not ours; He merely loans it to us.

Its by the Faith OF Christ that all of Creation is Redeemed.

 

[CabinetMaker]

No second chances after death you say?

NASB: For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as men, they may live in the spirit according to [the] [will of] God.

1 Peter 4:6 (NIV)
For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.

I stand by what I have said earlier.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Logos :nono:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I have personally checked out Logos post and almost the entire post is verbatim from other websites such as tentmaker.org

Another large portion of logos post is taken from http://bible-truths.com/lake2.html

This is really tragic.

Logos, you know better! How much of BR XII is yours???? If you are going to quote another source you should put it in quotes or distinguish it as a quote in some fashion. I realize you added a link to one of your sources (but not the other(s)) at the bottom of your post but you did not designate within the post what was yours and what wasn't. If you pulled this in a high school essay you would get a big fat "F".

I really feel like you have cheated your opponent who is investing his own time and words into the battle.

For instance the following section......

Biblical?

So, Kevin, just how much of the Bible do the believers in eternal torment really believe?


Here is a list of current contradictions created by the doctrine of eternal torment...it is not an exhaustive list, and not all applies to everyone, but please consider them and see where you might have some difficulties:

Do they believe the fire in I Cor.3:15 burns mans’ works, but not the man himself? Yes.
But do they teach that this same fire in Rev.20:15 also burns works, not the man? No.


Do they believe that God is absolutely and totally sovereign (Eph. 1:11)? Yes.
But do they teach that God exercises sovereignty over man’s supposed "free" will? No.


Do they believe that Jesus came to destroy all the works of the Devil? Yes
Do they believe He will? No



Do they believe that Jesus Christ IS the Saviour of the whole world (I Jn 4:14)? Yes.
But do they teach that Jesus Christ will SAVE the whole world? No.


Do they believe that presently Christ only has immortality (I Tim. 6:16)? Yes.
But do they teach the truth therefore that men’s souls are mortal and not immortal? No.


Do they believe that the original manuscripts of God’s Word were inerrant? Yes.
But do they teach us that the King James translation, which some say is "inerrant" has gone through THOUSANDS of error corrections since 1611? No.


Do they believe that the soul that sins shall DIE (Ezek. 18:4)? Yes.
But do they teach that souls of deceased sinners are actually DEAD? No.


Do they believe there are many cults today that need exposing? Yes.
But do they teach that the Christian religeous system, by its OWN definitions, is also a cult? No.


Do they believe that Sodom is "suffering the vengeance of eternal [aeonian] fire? Yes.
But do they teach that Sodom will be restored to their former estate (Ezek. 16:55)? No.


Do they believe in a future resurrection of dead people back to life (John 5:29)? Yes.
But do they teach that a resurrection is imperative for dead people to live again? No.


Do they believe the first half of I Cor. 15:22 that "For as through Adam ALL die?" Yes.
But do they teach the last half, "even so through Christ shall ALL be made alive?" No.


Do they believe that "...the end of the world [Gk: aion -- age]" ends in Mat. 24:3? Yes.
But do they teach that this same "aion -- age" in Matt. 25:41 & 46 will also end. No.


Do they believe ALL God purposed, spoke, and willed (Isa. 46:10-11), He will do? Yes.
But do they teach that God’s "will" to save all, I Tim. 2:4, etc., will be done? No.


Do they believe that Satan lied when he told Eve, "thou shalt not surely die?" Yes.
But do they teach the truth that sinners really do DIE at death as God has stated? No.


Do they believe that Christ is totally responsible for our salvation? Yes.
But do they teach that "no man can" come to Christ of himself (John 6:44)? No.


Do they believe Christ really died for the sins of the world? Yes.
But do they teach that Jesus Christ was dead when they placed Him in the tomb? No.


Do they believe the many Scriptures that liken death to "sleep?" Yes.
But do they teach that dead people are "sleeping" till resurrection? No.


Do they believe that the last enemy to be destroyed [Gk: abolished] is death? Yes.
But do they teach that ALL death, including the second death, will be abolished? No.


Do they believe that all things are possible with God (Mark 10:27)? Yes.
But do they teach that it is possible for God to save nonbelievers after they die? No.


Do they believe that every tongue in heaven and earth will confess Jesus as LORD? Yes.
But do they teach that the Holy Spirit inspires this sincere voluntary act (I Cor. 12:3)? No.


Do they believe that God’s love will never fail (I Cor. 13:8)? Yes.
But do they teach that God’s love will never fail in saving the world He loves? No.


Do they believe that the masses did not understand Christ’s parables (Mat. 13:13)? Yes.
But do they teach that Christ purposely didn’t want them to understand, (Vs. 14-17)? No.


Do they believe that loving our enemies means doing good and not evil to them? Yes.
But do they teach that God will never subject His enemies to eternal torture and evil? No.

Do they believe that Jesus' death took all sin away? Yes
Do they believe all sin is taken away? No.​

Was taken word for word from....
http://bible-truths.com/lake2.html​

 

[Zadok]

1 Peter 4:6 (NIV)

For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.

:think:

LINK

 

[Damian]

For instance the following section......Was taken word for word from....

Do they believe that Jesus' death took all sin away? Yes
Do they believe all sin is taken away? No.

The foregoing questions are important ones.

"If Jesus Christ took on the sin of the world, then God's wrath and justice have already been satisfied. The assertion that individuals will spend an eternity in hell implies that Christ's sacrificial atonement was incomplete and unsatisfactory. Evidently, Christ died in vain." (source: Damian's Post #220 in this thread)

The Calvinists apparently recognize this inconsistency and attempt to use "damage control" by flaunting the darkside of God. They assert that God desires to express his loving side for a chosen few, and display his wrathful side for the vast majority. Therefore, Christ only bore the sin for the chosen few who were predestined before the beginning of time.

As far as I am concerned, both doctrines are philosophically and theologically inadequate. In one case, you have a God who desires to save everyone but can't. In the other, you have a God who simply wants to save a chosen few and relishes the thought of consigning the vast majority to eternal damnation.

 

[CabinetMaker]

"If Jesus Christ took on the sin of the world, then God's wrath and justice have already been satisfied. The assertion that individuals will spend an eternity in hell implies that Christ's sacrificial atonement was incomplete and unsatisfactory. Evidently, Christ died in vain." (source: Damian's Post #220 in this thread)

This is the root of your problem, you do not understand what condemns a soul to the lake of fire. Your sins are forgiven therefore you do not go to "hell" because you are a sinner. In this, Jesus did exactly what He said He would do.

What convicts you to the lake of fire is your refusal of Jesus as your Lord and Saviour. If you don't wnat to be with God, God will not make you stay.

 

[logos_x]

I have personally checked out Logos post and almost the entire post is verbatim from other websites such as tentmaker.org

Another large portion of logos post is taken from http://bible-truths.com/lake2.html

This is really tragic.

Logos, you know better! How much of BR XII is yours???? If you are going to quote another source you should put it in quotes or distinguish it as a quote in some fashion. I realize you added a link to one of your sources (but not the other(s)) at the bottom of your post but you did not designate within the post what was yours and what wasn't. If you pulled this in a high school essay you would get a big fat "F".

I really feel like you have cheated your opponent who is investing his own time and words into the battle.

For instance the following section......Was taken word for word from....
http://bible-truths.com/lake2.html

I know its late to be double checking what I posted thus far in BR XII, but in addituon to the section refered to by Poly in BR XII and the section refered to by Knight above, there was also the part of my post on church history in which I failed to list the scource.

The scource was: http://www.tentmaker.org/books/OriginandHistory.html


You may now soundly beat me for these oversights on my part. It was unintentional, and my apologies to anyone I've let down.

The scource material for the balance of all my posts were clearly shown, and the balance of my posts are written by me where another scource is not refered to.

Again...my fault, and my foul.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

You may now soundly beat me for these oversights on my part. It was unintentional, and my apologies to anyone I've let down.

The scource material for the balance of all my posts were clearly shown, and the balance of my posts are written by me where another scource is not refered to.

Again...my fault, and my foul.

Keep in mind, the whole point of a BR is to have two folks battle it out (in the arena of ideas). If one side is predominantly posting from other sources (especially if it isn't referenced) it defeats the entire purpose of a Battle Royale.

Even outside of battle royales we HIGHLY discourage using external material unless it is clearly referenced and done in moderation.

Logos_x we want to hear what YOU think! If that makes it more difficult.... use more of you allocated time.

Deal?

 

[PKevman]

Good luck the rest of the debate Stephen. God bless you!

 

[logos_x]

Keep in mind, the whole point of a BR is to have two folks battle it out (in the arena of ideas). If one side is predominantly posting from other sources (especially if it isn't referenced) it defeats the entire purpose of a Battle Royale.

Even outside of battle royales we HIGHLY discourage using external material unless it is clearly referenced and done in moderation.

Logos_x we want to hear what YOU think! If that makes it more difficult.... use more of you allocated time.

Deal?

Deal.

Again it was unitentional, I even made a note to myself to reference those items and still failed to do so.

(Actually I edited the references in.. but failed to save the additions in my editor before pasting it in to post :doh: )

At any rate...thank you for your understanding.

 

[logos_x]

Good luck the rest of the debate Stephen. God bless you!

Good luck to you as well brother!

Also, my apologies to you. I certainly wasn't trying to cheat you, and I hope you don't think I did.

God bless you as well.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Deal.

Again it was unitentional, I even made a note to myself to reference those items and still failed to do so.

(Actually I edited the references in.. but failed to save the additions in my editor before pasting it in to post :doh: )

At any rate...thank you for your understanding.

OK, but you might be missing the point just a tad.... even IF you had referenced all the material you used it is WAY TOO MUCH. You say it was "unintentional" yet by that you mean it was "unintentional" to forget the proper reference, yet that only addresses part of the problem. If we deleted all the material out of your posts (especially round 3) that wasn't written by you we would be left with only a couple paragraphs.

I am not trying to beat a dead horse here or "pile on", but I really, REALLY want to drive home the point that we want people to debate using their own voice, their own thoughts, their own minds. External sources are good, if referenced clearly and only used in moderation. There is no reason to copy and paste 10 paragraphs in a row, even if properly referenced!

The debate is supposed to between Logos_X and Pastorkevin, not tentmaker.org and pastorkevin.

 

[Damian]

This is the root of your problem, you do not understand what condemns a soul to the lake of fire. Your sins are forgiven therefore you do not go to "hell" because you are a sinner. In this, Jesus did exactly what He said He would do.

What convicts you to the lake of fire is your refusal of Jesus as your Lord and Saviour. If you don't wnat to be with God, God will not make you stay.

Well, I personally do not consider this a problem.

"Hell is only what the ego has made of the present." ACIM

* Selah *

I view hell as a state of mind in which the individual believes he's separated from God.

And I agree that it is our choice that keeps us in hell. However, we always have the option of choosing again. That's what spiritual growth entails.

Nevertheless, I do have an issue with the biblical conception of salvation and hell. Why isn't the option to accept Christ always available?

 

[logos_x]

OK, but you might be missing the point just a tad.... even IF you had referenced all the material you used it is WAY TOO MUCH. You say it was "unintentional" yet by that you mean it was "unintentional" to forget the proper reference, yet that only addresses part of the problem. If we deleted all the material out of your posts (especially round 3) that wasn't written by you we would be left with only a couple paragraphs.

I am not trying to beat a dead horse here or "pile on", but I really, REALLY want to drive home the point that we want people to debate using their own voice, their own thoughts, their own minds. External sources are good, if referenced clearly and only used in moderation. There is no reason to copy and paste 10 paragraphs in a row, even if properly referenced!

The debate is supposed to between Logos_X and Pastorkevin, not tentmaker.org and pastorkevin.

Point taken.

But, knight...I wrote much more than a couple of paragraghs...that's a bit of an exageration.

But...way too much reference material. Understood.

And I hope it is also understood by anyone reading my arguments, and this thread as well, that the reference material says the same thing I would say, anyway.

At any rate...I will use references far more sparingly in the future.

 

[belboy87]

Point taken.

But, knight...I wrote much more than a couple of paragraghs...that's a bit of an exageration.

But...way too much reference material. Understood.

And I hope it is also understood by anyone reading my arguments, and this thread as well, that the reference material says the same thing I would say, anyway.

At any rate...I will use references far more sparingly in the future.

One of those very difficult situations. On the one hand, they have a point... On the other, I hope that the argument itself is not criticized simply because of this oversite.

Thus far it appears to be handled quite maturely.

 

[logos_x]

One of those very difficult situations. On the one hand, they have a point... On the other, I hope that the argument itself is not criticized simply because of this oversite.

Thus far it appears to be handled quite maturely.

Well..it's my own fault if it is I'm afraid.

 

[Redfin]

I still think that PK has to scripturally prove the immutability of one's salvational status after death, or he will have failed to accomplish anything beyond promoting a particular interpretation of scripture that ignores the meaning of the original words used.

But that's just me... :think:

 

[logos_x]

I still think that PK has to scripturally prove the immutability of one's salvational status after death, or he will have failed to accomplish anything beyond promoting a particular interpretation of scripture that ignores the meaning of the original words used.

But that's just me... :think:

Hopefully, people will be able to see past my own shortcomings and see the argument itself.

And, I agree.