One on One: Eternal Damnation VS Universal Salvation (Logos_X VS Apologist)

[logos_x]

Logos, before i say anything else, i am just curious as to what you think of the very last couple of lines from the book of Revelation:

Revelations 22:18

I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.

Jesus Christ warns all those who consider this book to beware of indulging their own conjectures concerning it. I confess that this warning has its own powerful influence upon my mind, and has prevented me from indulging my own conjectures concerning its meaning, or of adopting the conjectures of others.

There are many Bible teachers who much to do about the verse in the book of Revelation that warns about plagues coming upon anyone’s head who adds or takes away from the book. Many Bible teachers, theologians, church leaders, Biblical scholars have used this verse in such a manner as if John was referring to the entire Bible. However, he specifically mentions “this book,” one book, singular. At the time of his writings the writings which would commonly but falsely come under the heading of the New Testament were not yet canonized. The warning referred to the book of Revelation, not the entire Bible.

It is quite ironic that the very verse which warns about tampering with the Bible or parts thereof is a verse that has been, in fact, tampered with, and quite significantly. As we can see below, the King James Version of the Bible states that God will take away one’s part out of the “book of life” while the New International Version takes away one’s share in the “tree of life.”

Revelation 22:18-19 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (KJV, Rev. 22:18-19)

Revelation 22:19 19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (NIV, Rev. 22:19)

Which version is true? And which version has been tampered with? And have the plaques come upon those who made the error? Did the one who introduced the error have the plaques come upon him? And has his name been blotted out of the “book of life” or has his part been taken away in the tree of life? Who is this character?

In this particular case, the King James Version, the “Authorized Version” which many Fundamentalists and Evangelical dub an “Inerrant Bible” is the culprit, the translation with a plain old error right in the very text many use to warn people about adding or taking away from the Bible.

That said..I believe the verse means that the prophecy itself is to remain intact and untampered with. The words were to not be changed, and no other words were to be added to the book of Revelations.

 

[logos_x]

The Ludicrous Threat of Eternal Torment

The Ludicrous Threat of Eternal Torment

As I reviewed what has been presented so far, I realized that my veiw still might not be very clear to those unfamiliar with it's truth. And, in trying to find a way to drive it home, I remembered that Martin Zender wrote a short and beautifly written peice, upon which I could never improve upon, that would drive the point home very nicely...


http://www.martinzender.com/ludicrous_threat_of_eternal_torment.htm

This is, quite simply, the brilliance of God's plan of the ages summarized without any extraneous distraction or erroneous speculation, and written so simply that I think anyone can see it's truth and understand it...even mixed up kids.

The one above, and the next one I'm about to share below...should, I think, be enough to understand virtually everything else the early Christian veiw of the Savior really was before dogma hijacked the whole enterprise.

http://www.martinzender.com/eonion_life_not_eternal_life.htm

If you get these points...you will understand just what the Catholics messed up. This coupled with their militaristic perversion of the Gospel itself, created an apostate church that plunged the western world into the Dark Ages.

Now you know!

 

[Apologist]

Logos, i specifically brought up that verse because it says that the "Share in the book of life and the holy city" shall be taken away. That seems to infer that salvation shall be lost for that person. Do you deny that?

 

[logos_x]

Logos, i specifically brought up that verse because it says that the "Share in the book of life and the holy city" shall be taken away. That seems to infer that salvation shall be lost for that person. Do you deny that?

No. I do not deny that. ( Actually, as I brought up before, it is tree of life, not book of life)
That is the way it seems.

 

[Apologist]

No. I do not deny that. ( Actually, as I brought up before, it is tree of life, not book of life)
That is the way it seems.

Groovy. Then you are forced to concede that..

A) Universalism is bull
B) That particular verse is not inspired.

 

[logos_x]

Groovy. Then you are forced to concede that..

A) Universalism is bull
B) That particular verse is not inspired.

Nope. Not forced into anything. Only forced to have an open mind about such things.

It is very specific to the ones who add to or subtract from the book of Revelation.
Which really boogers the works. How do we know someone didn't add the very verse you are bringing up? How do we know someone didn't remove one that describes their restoration at a later age?

Given the nature of the literature in question...with its symbolism and hidden meanings and nuances...we cannot be forced into any singular interpretation at all. Just the opposite.

I wouldn't recommend altering the book itself though. Might not be too good of an idea.

 

[Apologist]

Nope. Not forced into anything. Only forced to have an open mind about such things.

It is very specific to the ones who add to or subtract from the book of Revelation.
Which really boogers the works. How do we know someone didn't add the very verse you are bringing up? How do we know someone didn't remove one that describes their restoration at a later age?

Given the nature of the literature in question...with its symbolism and hidden meanings and nuances...we cannot be forced into any singular interpretation at all. Just the opposite.

I wouldn't recommend altering the book itself though. Might not be too good of an idea.

Ah, ok, just wondering what you thought about it. I'll get back to the particular line of thinking at hand in my next post.

 

[Apologist]

God, in relation to time is what the Bible presents in the Bible. A point I addressed briefly earlier.Also...the "staticity of eternity" is not something the Bible presents, but is presumed out of speculations of immutibility of God and the realm in which He resides.

First and foremost, i'd like to point out that from this point on as concerning this point of the argument, Scripture is a nonissue.

Secondly, you say "presumed out of speculations of immutibility." Do you deny immutability?

I put forward that man does not enter into the reality of eternity until he is made able to do so. This does NOT happen at physical death.

I disagree with you here. I put forward that a soul is itself immortal, and made for eternity, because it proceeds from the very substance, lets say, of God. Remember, our soul is "the breath of life." This is nothing that God had to form, this is something that he breathed into us directly.

I put forward that the body alone is made for time, and, as soon as the body is cast off, the soul proceeds from time to eternity. (As to how purgatory is concerned...that's another issue for another time.)

 

[logos_x]

First and foremost, i'd like to point out that from this point on as concerning this point of the argument, Scripture is a nonissue.

Scripture will NEVER be a non-issue in this or any other discussion as far as I'm concerned.

Secondly, you say "presumed out of speculations of immutibility." Do you deny immutability?

Not necessarily. God does not change in His person. His attributes and purposes are immutible. My meaning is that, sometimes, man's speculations as to what the implications of God's immutibilty might be could lead to erroneous conclusions.

I disagree with you here. I put forward that a soul is itself immortal, and made for eternity, because it proceeds from the very substance, lets say, of God. Remember, our soul is "the breath of life." This is nothing that God had to form, this is something that he breathed into us directly.

I put forward that the body alone is made for time, and, as soon as the body is cast off, the soul proceeds from time to eternity. (As to how purgatory is concerned...that's another issue for another time.)

You are correct...we disagree. The soul apart from God is not immortal. It relies upon it's unsevered connection with God for survival. It does not become something separate from God and possess immortality innately regardless of it's (our) relationship with Father God, unless there is the possibility of reconciliation with God. It lives only as long as God allows. Eternal life is the gift of God, not our innate possession.

Your anthopological stance is flawed. This false anthopology drives eternal torment doctrine. The innate immortality of the human soul is not Biblical. While the soul survives physical death, this does not mean it is immortal on it's own. We must put on immortality, and it is God's gift solely through Christ.

Also, the soul after death of the body is still in time...not eternity where God alone dwells. It is still in aionion relationship with eternity, experiencing eternity in relationship to time. The soul, also, is incomplete without a body...awaiting resurrection from death and the consummation of the ages in Christ.

 

[logos_x]

Here are some questions I would like you to consider answering, Apologist. Not that I don't already know the answer...but you do not. And your doctrine either ignores answering them because it has no answers, and then wants to destroy people who do find scriptural and satisfying answers to them, or there is something else entirely at work here.

I'll get into that later...right now, for the sake of your own spiritual health, seek the Lord for answeres, not the traditions of men.

1.) Would endless misery benefit the Almighty, as the INFLICTOR?
2.) Would endless misery benefit the saints, as SPECTATORS?
3.) Would endless misery benefit the sinner, as the SUFFERER?​

1.) Is it true that God punishes us "for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness?" -- (Heb. 12:11)
2.) Would endless punishment be for our profit?
3.) Would endless punishment "yield the peaceable fruits of righteousness unto them who are exercised thereby?"
4.) Will God contend forever and be always wroth? -- (Isa. 62:16)
5.) Will the Lord cast off forever? -- (Lam. 3:31-33)​

1.) Will not the devil be subdued and all his works be destroyed? -- (Heb. 2:14; 1 John 3:8)
2.)Will not death, the last enemy, be swallowed up in victory and destroyed? -- (Isa.
25:6-8; 1 Cor. 15:26-54)​

 

[Apologist]

Scripture will NEVER be a non-issue in this or any other discussion as far as I'm concerned.

Scripture is not the only source for understanding of divine things. Certainly, it is important, but Logic alone is able to discern up to a certain a point. For said purposes, i put forward Summa Theologica

Not necessarily. God does not change in His person. His attributes and purposes are immutible. My meaning is that, sometimes, man's speculations as to what the implications of God's immutibilty might be could lead to erroneous conclusions.

God is altogether immutable
God alone is immutable

I quote from the first link.

But since God is infinite, comprehending in Himself all the plenitude of perfection of all being, He cannot acquire anything new, nor extend Himself to anything whereto He was not extended previously. Hence movement in no way belongs to Him. So, some of the ancients, constrained, as it were, by the truth, decided that the first principle was immovable.

You are correct...we disagree. The soul apart from God is not immortal.

I cannot possibly agree with you here. The soul procedes from God from the substance of God. It, by very definition, cannot be seperate from God, even in Hell. By very definition, God, being infinate permeates all things and, therefore, is in constant connection with everything. That being said, i think you can understand why anything being seperated from God is a laughable concept to me. Rather, i think there must be a clear distinction between "In union with God" and "In the Mercy of God" and "In the grace of God." We are always in union with God, insofar as God permeats all things. But just because God is there doesn't mean that his mercy and his grace are present. What do you think keeps the fires of hell burning? God. Does that mean that God has mercy and grace upon those in Hell? No.

It does not become something separate from God and possess immortality innately regardless of it's (our) relationship with Father God, unless there is the possibility of reconciliation with God. It lives only as long as God allows. Eternal life is the gift of God, not our innate possession.

Again, your stance follows from a very clear misunderstanding. Nothing can be cut off from the prescence of God, because God's prescence is infinate. That does not mean that the soul is in a state of Grace.

 

[Apologist]

Would endless misery benefit the Almighty, as the INFLICTOR?
2.) Would endless misery benefit the saints, as SPECTATORS?
3.) Would endless misery benefit the sinner, as the SUFFERER?

It would benefit the Saints and the Almighty, though not necessarily the damned, but hey, who cares about them?

1.) Is it true that God punishes us "for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness?" -- (Heb. 12:11)
2.) Would endless punishment be for our profit?

False premise insofar as the premise is taken out of context.

3.) Would endless punishment "yield the peaceable fruits of righteousness unto them who are exercised thereby?"
4.) Will God contend forever and be always wroth? -- (Isa. 62:16)
5.) Will the Lord cast off forever? -- (Lam. 3:31-33) [/indent]

The same.

1.) Will not the devil be subdued and all his works be destroyed? -- (Heb. 2:14; 1 John 3:8)
2.)Will not death, the last enemy, be swallowed up in victory and destroyed? -- (Isa.
25:6-8; 1 Cor. 15:26-54)[/indent]

Irrelevent.

 

[logos_x]

Scripture is not the only source for understanding of divine things. Certainly, it is important, but Logic alone is able to discern up to a certain a point. For said purposes, i put forward Summa Theologica



God is altogether immutable
God alone is immutable

I quote from the first link.





I cannot possibly agree with you here. The soul procedes from God from the substance of God. It, by very definition, cannot be seperate from God, even in Hell. By very definition, God, being infinate permeates all things and, therefore, is in constant connection with everything. That being said, i think you can understand why anything being seperated from God is a laughable concept to me. Rather, i think there must be a clear distinction between "In union with God" and "In the Mercy of God" and "In the grace of God." We are always in union with God, insofar as God permeats all things. But just because God is there doesn't mean that his mercy and his grace are present. What do you think keeps the fires of hell burning? God. Does that mean that God has mercy and grace upon those in Hell? No.



Again, your stance follows from a very clear misunderstanding. Nothing can be cut off from the prescence of God, because God's prescence is infinate. That does not mean that the soul is in a state of Grace.

And..I can never agree with you. This is a construct, and it is a house of cards, depending on only one possiblity....that Hell is eternal concious torment. The argument therefore becomes circular.

I contend it is based upon pagan speculations to begin with...and starts out on a foundation of sand and lies.

And, to futher my argument...i will quote your beloved Adolf Hitler:

Tell a lie long enough, loud enough, and often enough and people will start to believe you.​

Your attempted escape from scripture to define Hell is very telling. You, in fact, don't have a scriptural leg to stand on...and those you thought you had to support your pagan afterlife I've shown to be nothing more than phantoms and ghosts. So now all you have left is Catholic Tradition and an appeal to circular arguments.

You depend primarily upon a pagan anthropology (the innate immortality of the human soul), the belief that God is willing to allow sin to continue forever, a denial of the resurrection, and the presumed "staticity of eternity"...none of which is born witness in scripture and, in fact flies in the face of the Holy Spirit and the testimony of scripture to a very substantial degree.

You deny the restitution of all things. You deny the destruction of all the works of the devil. You deny the complete overturn of death itself. And you deny that Christ is "the savior of all men, especially those that believe".

And...you still haven't answered anything asked of you.

You need to conceed that eternal torment is bull.

 

[Apologist]

And..I can never agree with you. This is a construct, and it is a house of cards, depending on only one possiblity....that Hell is eternal concious torment. The argument therefore becomes circular.

My argument is that because the soul is eternal, it is therefore static in disposition when it leaves the body, and, if in a state of aversion from God, must remain as such.

none of which is born witness in scripture

The absense of evidence does not equate to the evidence of absense.

You deny the restitution of all things.

Briefly define.

You deny the destruction of all the works of the devil.

Bull. I concede that all works of the devil shall be destroyed. However, i want you to consider this: If you commit theft, and you pay restitution and get 10 years in jail, once you pay restitution, will that have negated the work you performed? Yes. But are you still going to jail? Yes, yes you will.

[

 

[logos_x]

My argument is that because the soul is eternal, it is therefore static in disposition when it leaves the body, and, if in a state of aversion from God, must remain as such.

And it is a false argument, because the soul is not eternal on it's own. It also negates resurrection from death, which makes it a non-argument.

The absense of evidence does not equate to the evidence of absense.

What evidence?

Briefly define.

Acts 3: 21
Act 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
Act 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
Act 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

the word restitution is a translation of ἀποκατάστασις apokatastasis: 1) restoration 1a) of a true theocracy 1b) of the perfect state before the fall.

And the words "all things" is a translation of πᾶς pas: 1) individually 1a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things,everything.

Bull. I concede that all works of the devil shall be destroyed. However, i want you to consider this: If you commit theft, and you pay restitution and get 10 years in jail, once you pay restitution, will that have negated the work you performed? Yes. But are you still going to jail? Yes, yes you will.

Which is, of course, true. But what you are saying is something else entirely.

The premise below is my view, which does not deny what you have said at all:

Professor E. H. Plumptre writes: "Theodore of Mopsuestia teaches that in the world to come those who have done evil all their life long will be made worthy of the sweetness of the divine beauty." And in the course of a statement of Theodore's doctrine, Prof. Swete observes 2 that Theodore teaches that "the punishments of the condemned will indeed be in their nature eternal, being such as belong to eternity and not to time, but both reason and Scripture lead us to the conclusion that they will be remissible upon repentance. 'Where,' he asks, 'would be the benefit of a resurrection to such persons, if they were raised only to be punished without end?' Moreover, Theodore's fundamental conception of the mission and person of Christ tells him to believe that there will be a final restoration of all creation."3 Theodore writes on Rom. 6:6, "All have the hope of rising with Christ, so that the body having obtained immortality, thenceforward the predisposition to evil should be removed. God summed up all things in Christ as though making a concise renewal and restoration of the whole creation to him. Now this will take place in a future age, when all mankind, and all powers possessed of reason, look up to him as is right, and obtain mutual concord and firm peace."​

And this:

Theodore of Mopsuestia was born in Antioch, A.D. 350, and died 428 or 429. He ranked next to Origen in the esteem of the ancient church. For nearly fifty years he maintained the cause of the church in controversy with various classes of assailants, and throughout his life his orthodoxy was regarded as unimpeachable. He was bishop for thirty-six years, and died full of honors; but after he had been in his grave a hundred and twenty-five years, the church had become so corrupted by heathenism that it condemned him for heresy. He was anathematized for Nestorianism, but his Universalism was not stigmatized. His great renown and popularity must have caused his exalted views of God's character and man's destiny to prevail more extensively among the masses than appears in the surviving literature of his times.

His own words are: "The wicked who have committed evil the whole period of their lives shall be punished till they learn that, by continuing in sin, they only continue in misery. And when, by this means, they shall have been brought to fear God, and to regard him with good will, they shall obtain the enjoyment of his grace. For he never would have said, 'until thou hast paid the uttermost farthing,' unless we can be released from suffering after having suffered adequately for sin; nor would he have said, 'he shall be beaten with many stripes,' and again, 'he shall be beaten with few stripes,' unless the punishment to be endured for sin will have an end."​

I agree with Theodore of Mopsuestia. It's very simple.

It is difficult in the extreme to understand how one can reconcile what you have said with eternal torment. It is in fact antithetical to the very concept. That you cannot, it seems, acknowledge that is....disturbing. How can this be? Except that you have cracked under the strain or completely cauterized your feelings?

 

[Apologist]

And it is a false argument, because the soul is not eternal on it's own. It also negates resurrection from death, which makes it a non-argument.

Answer me this:

A) Is the soul created or derived?

B) If it is created, then from what? If it is derived, then from what?

C) Is the source from which it is made indestructable? If so, then how can it be any different?

 

[logos_x]

Answer me this:

A) Is the soul created or derived?

B) If it is created, then from what? If it is derived, then from what?

C) Is the source from which it is made indestructable? If so, then how can it be any different?

A) Gee...I dunno...both?

B) From the merging of body and spirit.

C) You are confusing soul with Spirit.

 

[Apologist]

The soul is derived from the substance of God. We see this when God "Breathes the breath of life" into man, and again when Christ "breaths his last and gives up the ghost."

It is not created by any means. It is given by God of his own substance. God's substance is ultimately simple.

Summa Theologica Reference proving the simplicity of God

As such, being of absolute simplicity, it cannot be broken down by any means. Therefore, it is indestructable.

Boomshakalaka.

 

[logos_x]

The soul is derived from the substance of God. We see this when God "Breathes the breath of life" into man, and again when Christ "breaths his last and gives up the ghost."

It is not created by any means. It is given by God of his own substance. God's substance is ultimately simple.

Summa Theologica Reference proving the simplicity of God

As such, being of absolutely simplicity, it cannot be broken down by any means. Therefore, it is indestructable.

Boomshakalaka.

Soul is:

ψυχη
psuche

1) breath
1a) the breath of life
1a1) the vital force which animates the body and shows itself in breathing
1a1a) of animals
1a1b) of men
1b) life
1c) that in which there is life
1c1) a living being, a living soul
2) the soul
2a) the seat of the feelings, desires, affections, aversions (our heart, soul etc.)
2b) the (human) soul in so far as it is constituted that by the right use of the aids offered it by God it can attain its highest end and secure eternal blessedness, the soul regarded as a moral being designed for everlasting life
2c) the soul as an essence which differs from the body and is not dissolved by death (distinguished from other parts of the body)

Spirit is:

πνεῦμα
pneuma

1) the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son
1a) sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his personality and character (the \\Holy\\ Spirit)
1b) sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his work and power (the Spirit of \\Truth\\)
1c) never referred to as a depersonalised force
2) the spirit, i.e. the vital principal by which the body is animated
2a) the rational spirit, the power by which the human being feels, thinks, decides
2b) the soul
3) a spirit, i.e. a simple essence, devoid of all or at least all grosser matter, and possessed of the power of knowing, desiring, deciding, and acting
3a) a life giving spirit
3b) a human soul that has left the body
3c) a spirit higher than man but lower than God, i.e. an angel
3c1) used of demons, or evil spirits, who were conceived as inhabiting the bodies of men
3c2) the spiritual nature of Christ, higher than the highest angels and equal to God, the divine nature of Christ
4) the disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul of any one
4a) the efficient source of any power, affection, emotion, desire, etc.
5) a movement of air (a gentle blast)
5a) of the wind, hence the wind itself
5b) breath of nostrils or mouth

Now...your speculations, and those of the Catholic church, do not necessarily follow from these definitions. They are distinct things, similar but different.

In fact, the immortal soul does not follow from this, and is never explicitly described by Holy Scripure.


Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

If you confuse the two, one might make the same mistakes the Catholic church has made.

In fact, the Catholic Church's premise on this matter, and also its position on Heaven and Hell, is more in line with the following than the Jewish view and subsequent Christian view derived from the Jewish one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism


Do Wa Diddy Diddy Dum Diddy Do!

 

[Apologist]

Soul is:
psuche

2) the soul

Spirit is:

πνεῦμα
pneuma

3b) a human soul that has left the body

Nuff said.

In fact, the immortal soul does not follow from this, and is never explicitly described by Holy Scripure.

Who cares about what does or does not follow from one's understanding of the scripture? Certain things don't have to follow from one's understanding of the scripture. It can be concluded via sheer logic.

If you confuse the two, one might make the same mistakes the Catholic church has made.

Mother Church does not make mistakes! :sozo2:

In fact, the Catholic Church's premise on this matter, and also its position on Heaven and Hell, is more in line with the following than the Jewish view and subsequent Christian view derived from the Jewish one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism

A) Copy/paste particularly the relevent part concerning Manichaeism and the soul.

B) Are you trying to say that the position is wrong because it resembles a pagan religion's stance? If so, then that is an Association fallacy.

Do Wa Diddy Diddy Dum Diddy Do!

TADA!