I'm sure my denomination is closer to the truth than..."

[Michael Wrenn]

You wonder why I ridicule your posts? It is because of posts like this which completely ignore clear Biblical evidence that shows you are wrong. That term is used for the duration of God and yet all on this forum realize it cannot possible mean an "age" when applied to God. It is used to describe the duration of life after the judgement of the saved as well as the duration of punishment of the lost AFTER the judgement.

Certainly "aeon" can be translated "age" in certain contexts but "aionion" in certain contexts cannot possibly be limited to just an "age" with time limits such as when it is applied to the duration of God or life and punishment after the judgement.

Your responses are irrational, unreasonable and simply arrogant for the simple reason you REFUSE to deal with the contrary Biblical evidence but ignore it and just repeat your mantra and that is all it is a mantra. Deal with the evidence!

The original literal Greek meaning of the word in scripture, and linguistics are all the evidence I need, and that evidence proves my point and refutes you -- totally and completely.

You can apply all the demeaning epithets you desire to my responses, but your position is wrong. I know you wish that "eon" did not mean an age, but it does, and you can't change that. I know that punches holes in your vengeful delight at the paganistic prospect of souls frying eternally, but that doctrine is diametrically opposite to what Jesus taught about divine judgment as aionios kolasis, meaning age-long chastisement.

Amazing how some who claim to want to follow the NT as closely as possible draw back when one of their pet doctrines cannot be substantiated therefrom.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Is this simple separation from God?

[/I]
Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

I don't know how you exegete those verses, but nowhere is there any possibility for any second chances after death--nowhere in Scripture.

If eternal is conditioned with an "if" then it is truly not eternal, is it? You really need a dictionary, an understanding of the word "eternal." There is no possibility that anything "eternal" can stop, or turn "temporary," which is what you are suggesting. You are not considering the definition of the Word. To apply your definition to God could mean that God could go out of existence! (if)

First, I don't believe any angels fell since Lucifer.
Second, I believe all those remaining angels were "confirmed" in a state of holiness.
Third, I don't believe there will be any possibility of the redeemed rebelling. In fact, that is made fairly clear in 1Cor.15:20-28.
Fourth, There is no such thing as absolute free will, even now.
For example, can a pilot turn off his engines believing he has the free will to defy God's law of gravity (when he is flying 30,000 feet in the air)?

You have a warped definition of "freedom." Not even God is totally free.
He is bound by His nature and by His Word.

There is only love when there are loving boundaries put there by a loving Father who wants to protect the children he loves. Therefore there is no absolute freedom. Thus there is eternal consequences to those who reject eternal life provided for them by an eternal sacrifice.

My loyalty is to the one I love; to the one who is my Father. I am born into my Father's family, and therefore am my Father's child. My Father gives restrictions and chastisement. He does not give me absolute freedom.

There is no such thing as absolute freedom. God keeps us because we are his children, born into his family. We cannot be lost. We cannot be "unborn" and reborn again and again. Such a concept is ludicrous.

To claim that the NT teaches eternal hell and eternal security is to go against scripture. "Eon" is an age, not an eternity. I said that theoretically one's stay in hell could be eternal if the person did not ever repent. But Jesus did not teach an eternal hell, as I have shown.

Eternal security is a Calvinist doctrine unknown and untaught for the first 1500 years of the church; it is refuted by scripture.

Yes, God is bound by His nature, and an essential part of His nature is freedom.

The NT says that after His death, Jesus went and preached to the spirits in prison. Why, and what is the purpose of preaching?

It might do your heart and soul good to follow the teachings of Jesus about hell and give up the Zoroastrian influence concerning it.

 

[DHK]

To claim that the NT teaches eternal hell and eternal security is to go against scripture.

Mat.25:41 is Scripture, as well as Rev.20:10-15. I am not the one going against Scripture.
You fail to expound John 10:27-30 every time I ask you. It defeats your position hands down. And it has nothing to do with determinism or the elect, (or it doesn't have to).

"Eon" is an age, not an eternity.

In some cases. You can remain in willful ignorance and claim that, but it would be willful because others already have informed you that that is not the major meaning, but minor. I have given you enough authoritative sources that you should know that already. You sound like another poster I know on a different subject. As hard as one may, he will not accept the orthodox definition, accepted, historical and biblical definition of the word in question. You are doing the same thing.

I said that theoretically one's stay in hell could be eternal if the person did not ever repent.

Just like the rich man in hell?? He repented! Not only for himself but for his brothers as well. Not even Lazarus was able to cool the tip of his tongue, so he desired; nor could he warn his brothers. He will be there forever; will never have a second chance.
Do you not think that everyone who tastes of the fires of Hell will immediately repent only to escape them. Of course they will.

But Jesus did not teach an eternal hell, as I have shown.

I just quoted you scripture where he did teach it. So you have a problem. Yours is hermeneutical. Christ will not contradict himself and I know that my interpretation of Scripture on this topic is right.

Eternal security is a Calvinist doctrine unknown and untaught for the first 1500 years of the church; it is refuted by scripture.

That is as illogical as it is foolish!
It is a universal negative, and you cannot prove it.
Can you go back into every month and day of the 1500 years before Calvin, ask every person that ever lived if they believed in eternal security?
Of course you can't. You can't prove such an all-inclusive negative. No one can. Narrow it down. You can't even prove if all the major sects, denominations, religious groups throughout that span of history believed it or not. You are spouting of unverified steam--hot air, and it is all evaporating.
None of it is refuted by Scripture.
I am not a Calvinist. I don't believe in Calvinism. Calvinism has nothing to do with eternal security. In fact Calvinists believe in "the perseverance of the saints" which, if studied thoroughly, is not eternal security. You are confused. You shouldn't post about things you know not.

The NT says that after His death, Jesus went and preached to the spirits in prison. Why, and what is the purpose of preaching?

That is not what he did. That is the way the KJV translated it, but the Greek word is "proclaim." He proclaimed his victory to the already defeated ones in Sheol/hades--those who initially rebelled against him following Lucifer; those who were used in bringing evil upon the world such that God destroyed it with a Flood (Gen.6:1-3). He proclaimed his victory. There was no gospel preached anywhere.

It might do your heart and soul good to follow the teachings of Jesus about hell and give up the Zoroastrian influence concerning it.

That is heresy, and a condemnation of the words of Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

The original literal Greek meaning of the word in scripture, and linguistics are all the evidence I need, and that evidence proves my point and refutes you -- totally and completely.

So you are claiming that "ainios" means ONLY Age by ALL or the MAJORITY of Greek linguistics OR are you selectively taking a FEW Greek Linguistics opinion and/or just selecting ONE possible meaning provided by Greek Linguistics?

 

[The Biblicist]

So you are claiming that "ainios" means ONLY Age by ALL or the MAJORITY of Greek linguistics OR are you selectively taking a FEW Greek Linguistics opinion and/or just selecting ONE possible meaning provided by Greek Linguistics?

W.E. Vine claims that both "aion" and "aionios" are both used for "age" and eternal and depending on context can speak of a duration undefined but not endless or a duration undefined and endless - Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words - p. 43 under "E".

Thayer's Greek Lexicon claims that "aion" has the following meanings in the New Testament:

1. Age
2. An unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity

Thayer's Greek Lexicon claims that "aionos" has the following meanings in the New Testament:

1. Without beginning or end, that which always has been and always will be
2. Without beginning
3. Without end, never to cease, everlasting

Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich in their "A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament give the following meanings:

A. Aion

1. Very long time, eternity
2. Segment of time
3. the world
4. The aeon as a person

B. Aionios

1. Without beginning
2. without beginning or end
3. without end


I could not find any Greek Lexicographer who agrees with you that it is limited to the meaning of "age" or a limited time ONLY.

Please provide just ONE Greek Lexicon that limits aion or aionios to merely a limited duration of time and denies it cannot also mean eternal or everlasting duration? Just ONE please?

 

[The Biblicist]

W.E. Vine claims that both "aion" and "aionios" are both used for "age" and eternal and depending on context can speak of a duration undefined but not endless or a duration undefined and endless - Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words - p. 43 under "E".

Thayer's Greek Lexicon claims that "aion" has the following meanings in the New Testament:

1. Age
2. An unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity

Thayer's Greek Lexicon claims that "aionos" has the following meanings in the New Testament:

1. Without beginning or end, that which always has been and always will be
2. Without beginning
3. Without end, never to cease, everlasting

Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich in their "A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament give the following meanings:

A. Aion

1. Very long time, eternity
2. Segment of time
3. the world
4. The aeon as a person

B. Aionios

1. Without beginning
2. without beginning or end
3. without end


I could not find any Greek Lexicographer who agrees with you that it is limited to the meaning of "age" or a limited time ONLY.

Please provide just ONE Greek Lexicon that limits aion or aionios to merely a limited duration of time and denies it cannot also mean eternal or everlasting duration? Just ONE please?

Then you are making the claim that after the resurrection the righteous are once again only given temporal duration of life and subject to death again. That must be the case if their life is only for a LIMITED duration.

Then you are making the claim that God Himself is not eternal but is a created being with a LIMITED duration as that is the only possible conclusion if you deny He is "aionios" or "from everlasting to everlasting"?

Then you are making the claim that punishment in hell is not eternal but is only for a limited duration and so the expressions "day and night forever and ever" really mean for a "limited number of days and nights."

You cannot select one of the above and deny the others as all three use the same Greek terms to describe their duration.

 

[The Biblicist]

W.E. Vine claims that both "aion" and "aionios" are both used for "age" and eternal and depending on context can speak of a duration undefined but not endless or a duration undefined and endless - Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words - p. 43 under "E".

Thayer's Greek Lexicon claims that "aion" has the following meanings in the New Testament:

1. Age
2. An unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity

Thayer's Greek Lexicon claims that "aionos" has the following meanings in the New Testament:

1. Without beginning or end, that which always has been and always will be
2. Without beginning
3. Without end, never to cease, everlasting

Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich in their "A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament give the following meanings:

A. Aion

1. Very long time, eternity
2. Segment of time
3. the world
4. The aeon as a person

B. Aionios

1. Without beginning
2. without beginning or end
3. without end


I could not find any Greek Lexicographer who agrees with you that it is limited to the meaning of "age" or a limited time ONLY.

Please provide just ONE Greek Lexicon that limits aion or aionios to merely a limited duration of time and denies it cannot also mean eternal or everlasting duration? Just ONE please?

Other famous Greek Lexicographers who join the list with the above are Milligan and William Barclay, Colin Brown, W. Robertson Nicoll, A.T. Robertson and the list goes on.

Name one Greek lexicographer that limits the meaning of these terms as you claim?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Mat.25:41 is Scripture, as well as Rev.20:10-15. I am not the one going against Scripture.
You fail to expound John 10:27-30 every time I ask you. It defeats your position hands down. And it has nothing to do with determinism or the elect, (or it doesn't have to).


John 10:27-30 is easy, and the correct interpretation defeats your position. Of course no one can snatch believers out of Christ's hand or the Father's hand, but they can willfully remove themselves therefrom. Is this concept and aspect of God's character which He bestows on us too difficult for you to comprehend? And the word dishonestly translated "eternal" in verse 28 is rendered correctly as "age-abiding" by Rotherham's Emphasized Bible. So, these verses refute you and affirm my positions on both eternal security and eternal hell. I started to say sorry for bursting your hot-air balloon, but I am delighted to do it.


In some cases. You can remain in willful ignorance and claim that, but it would be willful because others already have informed you that that is not the major meaning, but minor. I have given you enough authoritative sources that you should know that already. You sound like another poster I know on a different subject. As hard as one may, he will not accept the orthodox definition, accepted, historical and biblical definition of the word in question. You are doing the same thing.

Just like the rich man in hell?? He repented! Not only for himself but for his brothers as well. Not even Lazarus was able to cool the tip of his tongue, so he desired; nor could he warn his brothers. He will be there forever; will never have a second chance.
Do you not think that everyone who tastes of the fires of Hell will immediately repent only to escape them. Of course they will.

I just quoted you scripture where he did teach it. So you have a problem. Yours is hermeneutical. Christ will not contradict himself and I know that my interpretation of Scripture on this topic is right.


The only thing you know is your ignorance in thinking that you are right. I have proven beyond any question that Jesus did not teach eternal hell. The words He used to describe divine judgment prove it. I know that burns you up -- pardon the pun -- but your doctrine comes from paganistic Zoroastrianism.



That is as illogical as it is foolish!
It is a universal negative, and you cannot prove it.
Can you go back into every month and day of the 1500 years before Calvin, ask every person that ever lived if they believed in eternal security?
Of course you can't. You can't prove such an all-inclusive negative. No one can. Narrow it down. You can't even prove if all the major sects, denominations, religious groups throughout that span of history believed it or not. You are spouting of unverified steam--hot air, and it is all evaporating.
None of it is refuted by Scripture.
I am not a Calvinist. I don't believe in Calvinism. Calvinism has nothing to do with eternal security. In fact Calvinists believe in "the perseverance of the saints" which, if studied thoroughly, is not eternal security. You are confused. You shouldn't post about things you know not.



I know all about this and have proven it. It is an irrefutable fact that the fiendish doctrine of eternal security was unknown and untaught in the church until the legalistic murderer Calvin invented it. Rail against that all you want, but it is a historical fact.



That is not what he did. That is the way the KJV translated it, but the Greek word is "proclaim." He proclaimed his victory to the already defeated ones in Sheol/hades--those who initially rebelled against him following Lucifer; those who were used in bringing evil upon the world such that God destroyed it with a Flood (Gen.6:1-3). He proclaimed his victory. There was no gospel preached anywhere.

That is heresy, and a condemnation of the words of Christ.

See my first answers within your post, in red.

You accuse me of heresy, and you have the nerve to warn me about name calling. What does that make you?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

So you are claiming that "ainios" means ONLY Age by ALL or the MAJORITY of Greek linguistics OR are you selectively taking a FEW Greek Linguistics opinion and/or just selecting ONE possible meaning provided by Greek Linguistics?

I am saying that "aion" invariably means "age"; it is the basis of the word "eon", and an eon is invariably an age. Neither word denotes an eternity. To translate it as an eternity is being dishonest. Those who did it had an agenda, and it wasn't to maintain the teaching of Jesus.

This is proven again and again by the original usage of the term in the literal New Testament.

 

[The Biblicist]

I am saying that "aion" invariably means "age"; it is the basis of the word "eon", and an eon is invariably an age. Neither word denotes an eternity. To translate it as an eternity is being dishonest. Those who did it had an agenda, and it wasn't to maintain the teaching of Jesus.

This is proven again and again by the original usage of the term in the literal New Testament.

If your "invariably" claim is true then why does every Greek Lexicographer repudiate your restriction? I can find no reputable Greek Lexicographer that agrees with you. What then is your Greek authority for this claim?

Don't claim the scriptures as your authority because the scriptures use this very term repeatedly to characterize God's duration and that cannot possibly be limited to an "age." Neither can resurrection "life" of the saints be limited to an "age."

 

[Michael Wrenn]

In Isaiah 26:4 which modern versions mistranslate as the Lord is the Rock eternal, or the everlasting Rock, the literal rendering is "Yahweh is a rock of ages." Does that bring any particular hymn to mind?

In the following scriptures where the word is mistranslated as "eternal", the correct original literal rendering is "age-abiding":

Matthew 18:8; 19:16,29; 25:41,46 Where verse 46 is wrongly translated "eternal punishment", the literal rendering is "age-abiding correction"!!!

John 3:15,16,36; 4:14,36; 5:24,39; 6:27,40,54,68; 10:28; 12:25,50; 17:2,3

Romans 1:20; 6:23

2 Cor. 4:17,18

I Tim. 1:16,17

Heb. 9:12

I john 5:11,13

These are just some of the relevant verses; I didn't list the ones in Mark and Luke.

This is sufficient proof that Jesus did not teach an eternal hell, and that wherever the word "aion/aionios" is used, it invariably means "age" or "age-abiding".

The doctrine of an eternal hell is of pagan origin.

When Jesus spoke of God's judgment upon the wicked, he did so with words that implied a limited, corrective punishment. Specifically, he referred to divine judgment as aionios kolasis, meaning age-long chastisement, or correction. This is consistently taught in all four Gospels. It is borne out by such verses as Matthew 25:46, referenced above in its original literal rendering.

And as I have also shown, "aion" in the OT also meant an age.

This is irrefutable.

Seems as if God is not as vengeful and vindictive as some of you here.

 

[The Biblicist]

In Isaiah 26:4 which modern versions mistranslate as the Lord is the Rock eternal, or the everlasting Rock, the literal rendering is "Yahweh is a rock of ages." Does that bring any particular hymn to mind?

Ps 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

The Greek Septuigent uses "aionos" in the above text.

Isa 40:28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.


1Ti 1:17 Now unto the King eternal,[aeon] immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

The Scriptures confirm God is without beginning or ending and thus the word "aionos" an "aeon" when used to describe his character or duration cannot possibly be rendered or understood to mean limited to an "age".

In other words you are denying the eternity of God's Being and nature. One cannot deny the eternity of God without also embracing He has a beginning and and ending as does every "age." Thus you are rejecting the God of Scriptures which is as equal an error as the error of JW's or Mormons about the nature of God.


Again, no one denies aeon and aionos can be used for a undefined limited duration but what Greek authority do you have to limit either "aeon" or "aeonios" to merely "age"?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Ps 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

The Greek Septuigent uses "aionos" in the above text.


And the literal translation is "from age to age", NOT "everlasting to everlasting"; this is a deliberately dishonest and wrong translation of the word.


Isa 40:28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.


1Ti 1:17 Now unto the King eternal,[aeon] immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.



The literal says, " King of the ages" .... "and glory unto the ages of ages".



The Scriptures confirm God is without beginning or ending and thus the word "aionos" an "aeon" when used to describe his character or duration cannot possibly be rendered or understood to mean limited to an "age".

In other words you are denying the eternity of God's Being and nature. One cannot deny the eternity of God without also embracing He has a beginning and and ending as does every "age." Thus you are rejecting the God of Scriptures which is as equal an error as the error of JW's or Mormons about the nature of God.


Again, no one denies aeon and aionos can be used for a undefined limited duration but what Greek authority do you have to limit either "aeon" or "aeonios" to merely "age"?

See my answers in red.

God's existence is unto the "ages of ages". That does not negate but rather affirms and confirms that "aion" still and invariably means "age", wherever it is used in the Bible.

 

[Dr. Walter]

See my answers in red.

God's existence is unto the "ages of ages". That does not negate but rather affirms and confirms that "aion" still and invariably means "age", wherever it is used in the Bible.

"ages of ages" means eternal duration. Are you denying the eternal duration of God? The term "aionos" is being used to describe an attribute of God in regard to time. Are you claiming that the attribute of God is a LIMITED DURATION?

Again, who besides YOU is the authority for defining this term as a LIMITED DURATION???

 

[The Biblicist]

"ages of ages" means eternal duration. Are you denying the eternal duration of God? The term "aionos" is being used to describe an attribute of God in regard to time. Are you claiming that the attribute of God is a LIMITED DURATION?

Again, who besides YOU is the authority for defining this term as a LIMITED DURATION???

 

[The Biblicist]

See my answers in red.

God's existence is unto the "ages of ages". That does not negate but rather affirms and confirms that "aion" still and invariably means "age", wherever it is used in the Bible.

What Greek Authority do you have to claim these terms must be interpreted as a limited duration of time?d thei

You can't just make claims about Greek words when every Greek authority I know disputes your claim!

Anyone can do what you are doing! Anyone can claim a certain Greek word means only one thing and not another! But what basis is there for making such a claim?

Anyone can claim verses with a certain term must be translate their way but what grammatical/lexicographical basis supports that claim?

 

[DHK]

See my first answers within your post, in red.

Originally Posted by DHK

Mat.25:41 is Scripture, as well as Rev.20:10-15. I am not the one going against Scripture.
You fail to expound John 10:27-30 every time I ask you. It defeats your position hands down. And it has nothing to do with determinism or the elect, (or it doesn't have to).

John 10:27-30 is easy, and the correct interpretation defeats your position. Of course no one can snatch believers out of Christ's hand or the Father's hand, but they can willfully remove themselves therefrom. Is this concept and aspect of God's character which He bestows on us too difficult for you to comprehend? And the word dishonestly translated "eternal" in verse 28 is rendered correctly as "age-abiding" by Rotherham's Emphasized Bible. So, these verses refute you and affirm my positions on both eternal security and eternal hell. I started to say sorry for bursting your hot-air balloon, but I am delighted to do it.

However you are the only one that is adamant that "eternal" should be translated "are-abiding". You go against professional linguistic scholars, Bible scholars, commentaries of all kinds, and 2,000 years of church history. The evidence stacks up against you. You are there; standing all alone facing the world and saying "I am right and the whole world is wrong." (The whole world of Christianity at least). Source after source has been given you. You reject them all. That is called unbelief. You explanation of the above passage is based on a misunderstanding and a misguided view of the nature of God. You don't really know who God is.

"They shall never perish." His sheep shall never perish. Why? They have eternal life. Why? It is a gift of God--given by Jesus Christ, the eternal One. He doesn't live for an age. He is immortal and lives throughout all ages forever and ever, for all eternity. It seems that you don't have that capacity to understand that concept--the same adjectives that describe God, Christ, our eternal state, also describe the Hell fires of the damned.
​

In some cases. You can remain in willful ignorance and claim that, but it would be willful because others already have informed you that that is not the major meaning, but minor. I have given you enough authoritative sources that you should know that already. You sound like another poster I know on a different subject. As hard as one may, he will not accept the orthodox definition, accepted, historical and biblical definition of the word in question. You are doing the same thing.

Just like the rich man in hell?? He repented! Not only for himself but for his brothers as well. Not even Lazarus was able to cool the tip of his tongue, so he desired; nor could he warn his brothers. He will be there forever; will never have a second chance.
Do you not think that everyone who tastes of the fires of Hell will immediately repent only to escape them. Of course they will.

I just quoted you scripture where he did teach it. So you have a problem. Yours is hermeneutical. Christ will not contradict himself and I know that my interpretation of Scripture on this topic is right.

The only thing you know is your ignorance in thinking that you are right. I have proven beyond any question that Jesus did not teach eternal hell. The words He used to describe divine judgment prove it. I know that burns you up -- pardon the pun -- but your doctrine comes from paganistic Zoroastrianism.

You have proved nothing except that you know where to get odd and spurious definitions as well as translations to fit. If you want to throw around "cult" names I can think a few that would fit your website nicely.
Eternal security was around during the time of Augustine. I have already proved that, you simply don't want my proof.
Let me give you a few examples:
I have conducted a few funerals.
A funeral that I was at not too long ago was the wife of a veteran missionary who served more than 40 years on the mission field. It was a time of rejoicing not of sorrow. It was a time of blessing. Everyone present there--hundreds, knew that her life was eternally secure in the hand of Christ, and that she now indeed was with the Lord. There was no doubt in anyone's mind that that was the case. She had lived an exemplary life for all to see and testify of.
A few years back I had to conduct the funeral of the father of a friend of mine. He wasn't saved--died of a combination of cancer and cirrhosis of the liver caused by cancer. Those are difficult funerals to conduct.
Now, if you can, suppose you were there at the funeral of Mother Theresa. Put yourself in the mind of typical Catholic. They idolize her. There is no doubt in their minds that she is in heaven--by-passed purgatory--went straight to heaven. They think she should be canonized immediately, and I think she was. If that is not eternal security then what is it??
Of course I don't believe in the RCC theology, history, etc.
Augustine was a Catholic. He taught eternal security in the same way a Catholic does. They believe in purgatory, a place where some can even skip. Only those with unconfessed mortal sin go to hell. Why do the Catholics believe that way? Where did the doctrine come from?

We trace it backward through baptism. The church had begun to teach baptismal regeneration--that baptism saves, and that also became a type of eternal security. As long as your baptized you are ok. But you had to have the right kind of Baptism. Again this is a perversion of doctrine, but where did it come from?

Keep going back and eventually you come back to those who pervert the Scriptures as Peter said they would. Acts 2:38 is a good place for many cults to start. John the Baptist also required baptism. Like the Church of Christ, it became so important that it had to be required for salvation. But as long as you are baptized you are ok.
Trace it back and you will find the doctrine closely linked with baptism.
Catholics on this board have told that I am "safe" because I was baptized as an infant in the RCC. Foolishness! But there is the concept of eternal security believed on long before Calvin.

That is as illogical as it is foolish!
It is a universal negative, and you cannot prove it.
Can you go back into every month and day of the 1500 years before Calvin, ask every person that ever lived if they believed in eternal security?
Of course you can't. You can't prove such an all-inclusive negative. No one can. Narrow it down. You can't even prove if all the major sects, denominations, religious groups throughout that span of history believed it or not. You are spouting of unverified steam--hot air, and it is all evaporating.
None of it is refuted by Scripture.
I am not a Calvinist. I don't believe in Calvinism. Calvinism has nothing to do with eternal security. In fact Calvinists believe in "the perseverance of the saints" which, if studied thoroughly, is not eternal security. You are confused. You shouldn't post about things you know not.

I know all about this and have proven it. It is an irrefutable fact that the fiendish doctrine of eternal security was unknown and untaught in the church until the legalistic murderer Calvin invented it. Rail against that all you want, but it is a historical fact.

You are dead wrong and I have just proved that to you. Not only that I have also demonstrated that you are setting forth a premise impossible to prove--it is illogical--a universal negative.
"No one believed in eternal security for 1500 years before Calvin."
That statement is illogical and unproveable. It is foolish to make such statements because you can't prove them.
The atheist says: "There is no god." Fine. Has he looked? Everywhere? On every planet? Behind every rock? In every solar system. You are making the same silly statement that the atheist makes. It is a universal negative. The atheist cannot prove the statement he makes. He can't find God because He doesn't look for Him. Even if that were possible, he couldn't look in every possible place.
Neither can you possibly interview all people that ever lived for 1500 years before Calvin to prove your statement. That is what you would have to do.
"This doctrine was non-existent before Calvin." Prove it!!!
It is impossible. I hope you see that.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

In Isaiah 26:4 which modern versions mistranslate as the Lord is the Rock eternal, or the everlasting Rock, the literal rendering is "Yahweh is a rock of ages." Does that bring any particular hymn to mind?

In the following scriptures where the word is mistranslated as "eternal", the correct original literal rendering is "age-abiding":

Matthew 18:8; 19:16,29; 25:41,46 Where verse 46 is wrongly translated "eternal punishment", the literal rendering is "age-abiding correction"!!!

John 3:15,16,36; 4:14,36; 5:24,39; 6:27,40,54,68; 10:28; 12:25,50; 17:2,3

Romans 1:20; 6:23

2 Cor. 4:17,18

I Tim. 1:16,17

Heb. 9:12

I john 5:11,13

These are just some of the relevant verses; I didn't list the ones in Mark and Luke.

This is sufficient proof that Jesus did not teach an eternal hell, and that wherever the word "aion/aionios" is used, it invariably means "age" or "age-abiding".

The doctrine of an eternal hell is of pagan origin.

When Jesus spoke of God's judgment upon the wicked, he did so with words that implied a limited, corrective punishment. Specifically, he referred to divine judgment as aionios kolasis, meaning age-long chastisement, or correction. This is consistently taught in all four Gospels. It is borne out by such verses as Matthew 25:46, referenced above in its original literal rendering.

And as I have also shown, "aion" in the OT also meant an age.

This is irrefutable.

Seems as if God is not as vengeful and vindictive as some of you here.

You obviously 'ain't seen nothin' yet' what sin does or is, brother. May God never let you see it or you will soon change your mind about the eternal hell, for no eternal hell can be long enough for what sin can do and does.

Can you see Christ in the night he was betrayed? Do you see your own sins in that night?

No?

Then you won't understand the eternal hell.

Yes?

Then you have had a glimpse of reality.

For what Christ suffered in that night, was the Kingdom of his Father regained and retrieved in the depths of hell, was satan cast down into the pit and the Son of the King set at the right hand of God in heavenly glory of Majesty.

As visible as invisible and invisible as visible, are both heaven and hell in “that Selfsame-day”.

Few in hell will miss their own experience of hell. Let me put it this way - Nobody's going to hell; only some won't stay in hell forever. It's called 'grace'.

So how do you work out any logic of hell that is not eternal?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Michael Wrenn, nothing will change your mind than a change of heart and for that you need Eternity in the twinkling of and eye or eternity in all ages won't set it right for you.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

First, "Biblicist" and "Dr. Walter", I see no need to address a post by one person using two usernames. Is one the alter ego of the other?