-Removed-"Will me rejecting either a) your teaching of the trinity or b) your teaching on eternal hell, preclude me from being filled with the spirit of Christ and therefore from salvation?"
Why is the importance of this soooooooo paramount to you? You clearly don't believe it.
I'm guessing you just want to "show him who's boss" for disagreeing with you so much.
This has been eating at you for a long time now, hasn't it? And yeah, that's kind of sad.
12 edits
-Removed-
I will quite happily answer this question of yours when you answer this question that you have pointedly refused to answer for years:
I doubt you'd be "happy to answer".
I see you just moving the goal post around.
The question I asked you I pretty much formulated by putting myself in your shoes and asking it of myself. And I know that if I was an Annhilationist and found out I was wrong, how I would feel.
And if you paid attention you might be able to know what my answer would be. I've discussed it.
Here it is yet again. It's funny that you keep ignoring this post btw...
You're moving the goal post around by revisiting an entirely different debate to which I gave ample answers - none of which you accepted as far as I remember.
Because you could not put the words you want me to say in my mouth, you kept acting like you got no answers. Now you want that old long debate to reemerge as a distraction to this question -
If you turn out to be wrong what then will be your attitude ?
(And that is the easiest form of the question ). I don't expect a honest reply.
Without plunging full back into the trinity discussiom, Briefly -
A modalist concept of the Trinity does not to me necessarily mean a person has not been saved. And I think you have shown a Modalist concept of the revelation of the three-oneness of God. Or it has been something like a Modalist "Jesus Only" concept of the Father - Son - Holy Spirit.
You longed to force me into a secrtarian position of insisting a Modalist cannot be saved. And if you could not get those words into my mouth you pouted about being evaded.
Why are you trying to use that old discussion to excuse you from a question about the possibility of realizing Annhilation is not the case in the matter of eternal perdition ?
Hand waving about Catholics using the term "perdition" I find irreverent.
Here we go again.
Will me rejecting either a) your teaching of the trinity or
You can have a Modalist view of the Triune God and be a Christian.
You can have a Tritheist view of the Triune God (the opposite extreme to Modalism) and have received Christ as Lord to be saved.
There. What have I said here that I have not written a long time ago ?
What does Romans 10:9,10 say ? That has usually been ny bottom line of receiving Christ.
You wanted it to be a something else to portray me as dogmatically sectarian. And if you couldn't do it you kept asking the same thing as if you were being evaded.
You tried to make nuanced matter a binary matter of a strict Yes or No. What you want may not be always what you get.
One more trime - A Modalist view of the Trinity does not put a Christian outside of the brotherhood necessarily.
b) your teaching on eternal hell, preclude me from being filled with the spirit of Christ and therefore from salvation?
Here you go again. Remember the caricature I wrote about how fast a song should be ?
Christian A: "This hymn should be sung very slowly."
Christian B: "No, I think we should sing it a little quicker."
Chrisian A: "You mean I will go to hell if I do not agree with you on the tempo of the song ?"
I see you Divegeester. There is no need to attempt to force this difference of interpretation to be a binary matter upon which assurance of salvation hinges.
Did I at ANYTIME suggest that a person believing in Annhilation cannot be a true Christian ? Did I ???
I have written in the past about prominent evangelical writers who have moved away from a interpretation of conscious punishment of the lost. Did I say that these are no longer Chrsistian? No I never wrote that.
Your every disagreement with me is not used by me to insist that you cannot know the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
So here is the moment when you're suppose to be "happy" to answer my simple question.
Interpretations can in error. IF your's turns out to be wrong and God DOES in some manner besides non-existence, punish the lost, will you count God as unrighteous at that time ?
And if you do what are you going to do then ?
So come one then sonship - play your own game.
Above I even softened the question for you.
I think I made it a little easier for you to reply.
What will you do then when you find out God DOES punish with conscious everlasting punishment ?
Btw I have my answer to our questions typed and I'm ready to post as soon as as you are...
Good.
Then I expect to see it in your next post.
But if you are waiting around to see if you can get me to be so sectarian that I condemn you as not saved because you have Modalist views or Annhilationist views I surmise that your "happiness" to answer is not real.
Your turn.
- sonship
Originally posted by @gswilmWhat's your definition of "glorify"?I will quite happily answer this question of yours when you answer this question that you have pointedly refused to answer for years:
I doubt you'd be "happy to answer".
I see you just moving the goal post around.
The question I asked you I pretty much formulated by putting myself in your shoes and asking it of myself. And I k ...[text shortened]... ionist views I surmise that your "happiness" to answer is not real.
Your turn.
- sonship
Originally posted by @fmfI gave you a reasonable explanation of how I said God is glorified by demonstrating glory of His vanquishing His enemies completely.
What's your definition of "glorify"?
I am not going to write an exhaustive treatise here or a book on the word "glory" or "glorify". You had enough to understand me if you wanted to.
- sonship
1 edit
Originally posted by @gswilmI'm simply asking for your definition of "glorify". You haven't offered one. I'm not asking for "an exhaustive treatise". I just want the definition you are using that makes sense of your claim that your god figure torturing billions and billions of non-Christians creates "glory" for him
I gave you a reasonable explanation of how I said God is glorified by demonstrating glory of His vanquishing His enemies completely.
I am not going to write an exhaustive treatise here or a book on the word "glory" or "glorify". You had enough to understand me if you wanted to.
- sonship
2 edits
-Removed-
What you believe about trinity and hell is man made error.
Because you say so ?
You need to couple the two debates together for what, maximum obfuscation ?
You cannot take out of the mouth of Christ certain things He said about judgment. So brute force denial that this is error to take His words is your argument ?
Can you demonstrate through some form of textural criticism that the words of Matthew 25:41 and 46 were not authentically parts of the earliest copies of the Greet New Testament ?
Just saying -
]What you believe about trinity and hell is man made error.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
doesn't do the job.
Can you explain an alternative interpretation to the account of Luke 16:19-31 ?
Just saying -
What you believe about trinity and hell is man made error.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
doesn't do the job.
You have neither given a credible case that Christ did not SPEAK these things nor that an Annihilationist interpretation is very much more credible.
- sonship
1 edit
Divegeester,
Wouldn't the Son of God be unrighteous to covey to the world a situation that HE KNEW was IMPOSSIBLE ?
I am not going to make your arguments FOR you.
You have to make them for yourself if you're so sure I am in error.
What you believe about trinity and hell is man made error. [b]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But you won't show where the man made error is.
If the man made error that Jesus NEVER SAID what He is recorded to have said in [b]Matthew 25:41,46 ?
Is the man made error that Jesus NEVER SAID the teaching ( parable or otherwise) of Luke 16:19-31 ?
By coupling this debate with the one on the Trinity do you hope to make it more difficult for me ? It is curious that you have a need to couple the two discussions together.
I suspect you will hitch on a third debate soon.
You're obfuscating by complicating.
Sure, maybe new readers might be impressed.
I'm not.
Furthermore I don't believe that you believe, that accepting these teachings is essential for salvation and being filled wit the spirit of Christ.
That's right. But I do not know why you don't want to capitialize the Spirit of Christ.
And I don't know what you couple salvation with being filled with the spirit of Christ - with a small.
And frankly I think going off now to talk about that is exactly playing into you hands of distraction. It is chasing after a red herring drawn across the trail to sidetrack the chase off in another direction.
- sonship
7 edits
This is why you won't answer, because in you admitting these beliefs are not essential the entire forum is going to roll their metaphorical eyes and wonder why on earth you have been blithering on and on and on defending these beliefs.
You and your Atheist backup may roll your eyes.
Okay then. You do not think that I think avoidance of Modalism and avoidance of Tritheism only makes a person a genuine Christian.
This will not make any difference to your continued avoidance of what YOU will do if you end up being wrong about Annhilationism.
So what do new posters see. They see two people saying that each is refusing to answer the other's questions.
They'll have to decide for themselves where the better case seems to be.
It's quite interesting.
This would be more interesting:
In this difference of interpretion, if you turn out to have been wrong and God's condemnation is not Annhilation, what then ?
THAT would be interesting to hear.
I don't expect to hear no matter how ready in the wings prepared you say your answer is.
No one finds fault with God like Satan the slanderer and accuser. If it turns out that the slanderer was right and God IS a Moral Monster who punishes conscious lost sinners forever- what next ?
Will you prefer to be with the "right" Satan and away from the "unrighteous" God ?
- sonsip
1 edit
Originally posted by @gswilmCan a Christian who believes that the torturer god ideology you propagate is an essentially blasphemous error - and it paints a ludicrous picture of a morally incoherent monster deity that undermines any notion of a credible moral compass for human beings - be a good Christian to follow? [Belongs on the thread that goes by that title, perhaps, but seems appropriate here too.]I will quite happily answer this question of yours when you answer this question that you have pointedly refused to answer for years:
I doubt you'd be "happy to answer".
I see you just moving the goal post around.
The question I asked you I pretty much formulated by putting myself in your shoes and asking it of myself. And I k ...[text shortened]... ionist views I surmise that your "happiness" to answer is not real.
Your turn.
- sonship
3 edits
Originally posted by @fmfIf we strip away the flowery innuendos from your question,
Can a Christian who believes that the torturer god ideology you propagate is an essentially blasphemous error - and it paints a ludicrous picture of a morally incoherent monster deity that undermines any notion of a credible moral compass for human beings - be a good Christian to follow? [Belongs on the thread that goes by that title, perhaps, but seems appropriate here too.]
I think a Christian who lives out Christ is a good brother or sister to follow. They may have differences of interpretation on some matters.
How could I possibly believe that agreement with me on each and every difficult doctrinal matter qualifies a Christian for being an example to follow. ?
No, not every brother has to be in lock step agreement with me on the nature of God or of the destiny of the lost.
That is no reason for me to go looking for erroneous things to believe. And it is no excuse for not trying to teach the Bible as accurately as I can.
That's not your dog in the fight.
You don't believe God exists at all (so is your stand).
What do you care about the question you just asked ?
Your crocodile tears have become T-Rex tears.
I mean - as if you gave a flip, one way or the other.
- sonship