Hell

[HisWitness]

Holding to the heresy of "no literal eternal hell" is against the doctrinal statement agreed to by Baptists for posting on the BB. :BangHead: It is part of the doctrinal statement we sign.

Have never met a Baptist who believes such error. No Baptist confession of faith in all history has held this. Have met many people who CLAIM to be Baptist but are not, since they reject truth of the Word.

Watching this thread.

I do respect you and this board--if you need to ban me from this board --then i will accept that and move on--but i have been stating from my studies so far on the subject--if that is so then maybe ill find out that it is true Also i have been called names,threatened in a fashion,and so forth,so if you need to ban me for breaking the rules--you have others to ban also if you are going to be fair on the matter

 

[DHK]

Did not lazarus die ?

Why don't you start a thread on the "death" of Lazarus.
Yes, he did, in a sense. But the Bible states that Jesus was the "firstborn" of the resurrection. So his body was not raised (from the dead), permanently. He was already four days in the grave. What happened to his spirit at that time? How could his body be raised from the dead and Jesus still maintain the title of being the "firstborn" of those raised from the dead? Did Lazarus's spirit actually go down to hell? The Bible is silent. There are some things we cannot know for sure.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Holding to the heresy of "no literal eternal hell" is against the doctrinal statement agreed to by Baptists for posting on the BB. :BangHead: It is part of the doctrinal statement we sign.

Have never met a Baptist who believes such error. No Baptist confession of faith in all history has held this. Have met many people who CLAIM to be Baptist but are not, since they reject truth of the Word.

Watching this thread.

Dr. Bob, have you ever met a Primitive Baptist Universalist, otherwise known as no-hellers, as I believe someone else mentioned on this thread?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_Baptist_Universalist

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Your Profile says that you belong to the Thomas Helwys Baptist Church, which is almost like a denomination in itself. If so, do you believe like the rest of the churches do.
Here is a statement of faith, or at least a revealing website that points out what the Thomas Helwys Baptist Churches believe:

http://godsbreath.net/2012/09/13/church-of-christ-history/

First I note that the founder is not a Baptist at all. He belonged to the Church(es) of Christ.
He believes that baptism is essential for salvation.
He wrote a book, The Mystery of Iniquity, which was supposed to be a challenge to Baptists.
Helwys never accepted the name Baptist or identified with any party affiliation.
He believed that works were necessary to salvation.
He believed that one could lose their salvation--that a man could fall away from the grace of God.
He stood against "worship invented by men," which included musical instruments, and likened them to the image of the beast.

His doctrines are the same as the Churches of Christ today.
In light of the above, are you a Baptist?

I don't know anything of a group called the Thomas Helwys Baptist Churches. My church is a small group of Baptists taking the name of our church from the founder of the first Baptist church on English soil, Thomas Helwys, and because I admire what he stood for so much, I took his name as my screen name. Surely you are not denying that Thomas Helwys, founder of the Baptists in England, was a Baptist! That Thomas Helwys certainly did not hold Church of Christ doctrines, as he was a General Baptist! To see such things as you have posted about Thomas Helwys is shocking, especially since you claim to be a Baptist!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Helwys

Tell me, are only Particular Baptists allowed on this forum? If so, I'll leave now.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I am not a universalist, but I am a student of Christian history. Here is something that contradicts the contention that no one in the early church taught universalism:

"The early church from the time of the Apostles until the 4th century was primarily a Universalist church. Most of the church fathers during this period believed that all people will be saved. Over time, alternative doctrines about the fate of sinners grew more popular, such as annihilationism and eternal conscious torment. These doctrines were often held by Christians who could not read the New Testament in the original Greek language in which it was written, and who interpreted the Bible through the lens of barbaric forms of paganism. It is noteworthy that Irenaeus the Bishop of Lyons wrote a lengthy book called Against Heresies in the late 2nd century, which never once mentioned universal salvation as a heretical belief. This is because for the first few centuries of Christian history, Universalism prevailed as the mainstream understanding of the Gospel.

The greatest theological school of the Patristic era -- which directly descended from the Apostles themselves -- was called the Didascalium and was based in Alexandria, Egypt. It was founded by St. Pantaenus (d. ca. 216) in the year 190 C.E. Pantaenus, described by some of his students as "the Sicilian bee," was a Stoic philosopher who became a Christian missionary and traveled as far as India to spread the Gospel. He sought to reconcile the best of Greek philosophy with the radical new spiritual message of Jesus and the Apostles. He was martyred for his faith in Christ.

The Didascalium was the earliest catechetical school, and it played a very influential role in the development of Christian theology prior to the rise of the imperial Roman Church. The city of Alexandria was the center of learning and intellectual culture for the entire ancient world. This cosmopolitan metropolis was the meeting place of philosophers, theologians, writers, teachers and students of various belief systems, and during the first three centuries of Christian history it became the most important city in the Christian world. The Alexandria school of Christianity was thoroughly Universalist in its theology. One wonders how history would have been different had Alexandria remained the center of gravity of Christian thought instead of Rome, which developed a diametrically opposite theological system based on the teaching of eternal damnation."

 

[HisWitness]

Why don't you start a thread on the "death" of Lazarus.
Yes, he did, in a sense. But the Bible states that Jesus was the "firstborn" of the resurrection. So his body was not raised (from the dead), permanently. He was already four days in the grave. What happened to his spirit at that time? How could his body be raised from the dead and Jesus still maintain the title of being the "firstborn" of those raised from the dead? Did Lazarus's spirit actually go down to hell? The Bible is silent. There are some things we cannot know for sure.

well there i believe the Soul dies as i have stated in other posts--so that would be the reason he didnt tell of his time in death because he was DEAD no remembrance in DEATH--and when he was raised from the dead last thing he remembered was before he died

 

[HisWitness]

Why don't you start a thread on the "death" of Lazarus.
Yes, he did, in a sense. But the Bible states that Jesus was the "firstborn" of the resurrection. So his body was not raised (from the dead), permanently. He was already four days in the grave. What happened to his spirit at that time? How could his body be raised from the dead and Jesus still maintain the title of being the "firstborn" of those raised from the dead? Did Lazarus's spirit actually go down to hell? The Bible is silent. There are some things we cannot know for sure.

ummm his body came out of the grave wrapped up and they loosed him--so how are you saying his body was not raised--it was also confirmed he was really dead his body began to stink in corruption--

 

[HisWitness]

I am not a universalist, but I am a student of Christian history. Here is something that contradicts the contention that no one in the early church taught universalism:

"The early church from the time of the Apostles until the 4th century was primarily a Universalist church. Most of the church fathers during this period believed that all people will be saved. Over time, alternative doctrines about the fate of sinners grew more popular, such as annihilationism and eternal conscious torment. These doctrines were often held by Christians who could not read the New Testament in the original Greek language in which it was written, and who interpreted the Bible through the lens of barbaric forms of paganism. It is noteworthy that Irenaeus the Bishop of Lyons wrote a lengthy book called Against Heresies in the late 2nd century, which never once mentioned universal salvation as a heretical belief. This is because for the first few centuries of Christian history, Universalism prevailed as the mainstream understanding of the Gospel.

The greatest theological school of the Patristic era -- which directly descended from the Apostles themselves -- was called the Didascalium and was based in Alexandria, Egypt. It was founded by St. Pantaenus (d. ca. 216) in the year 190 C.E. Pantaenus, described by some of his students as "the Sicilian bee," was a Stoic philosopher who became a Christian missionary and traveled as far as India to spread the Gospel. He sought to reconcile the best of Greek philosophy with the radical new spiritual message of Jesus and the Apostles. He was martyred for his faith in Christ.

The Didascalium was the earliest catechetical school, and it played a very influential role in the development of Christian theology prior to the rise of the imperial Roman Church. The city of Alexandria was the center of learning and intellectual culture for the entire ancient world. This cosmopolitan metropolis was the meeting place of philosophers, theologians, writers, teachers and students of various belief systems, and during the first three centuries of Christian history it became the most important city in the Christian world. The Alexandria school of Christianity was thoroughly Universalist in its theology. One wonders how history would have been different had Alexandria remained the center of gravity of Christian thought instead of Rome, which developed a diametrically opposite theological system based on the teaching of eternal damnation."

thank you for this post :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Since I am new here, I have a question: I realize that this forum is controlled by fundamental Baptists, and that is the thrust of the doctrinal views here. But I have also read the Other Denominations forum and see a few who are not Baptists. So, I'll ask this: May more than one viewpoint be permitted here? In other words, can views be presented which are opposed to fundamental Baptist ones, or is this not allowed? I would like to know the answer to this before I go any further. If opposing views are not allowed to be presented, you don't have a true debate forum, you have a propaganda machine, which I am not interested in. I am interested in a debate forum where differing ideas can be presented, I seek an atmosphere of mutual learning, not indoctrination in only one viewpoint. As I said, that is not debate.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

thank you for this post :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

You are welcome.

I do not have an agenda to push. I am interested in correcting statements that are not historically objective. This is one such instance.

If all sides are not presented, how can you have true debate? How can you actually learn?

 

[Bronconagurski]

I do respect you and this board--if you need to ban me from this board --then i will accept that and move on--but i have been stating from my studies so far on the subject--if that is so then maybe ill find out that it is true Also i have been called names,threatened in a fashion,and so forth,so if you need to ban me for breaking the rules--you have others to ban also if you are going to be fair on the matter

If you tell lies, then expect to be called a liar. You have been caught in several. You have been dogmatic on your definition of aion, but now all of a sudden you are blaming your studies. Someone layed out your problem here, besides the untruths, so I will reiterate:

When you start an O.P. , if the views are not your own, then tells us that. Also tell us what you believe at this point. You don't do that. You throw out convaluted statements and if someone disagrees you start to obfuscate. You can't even be truthful when caught in a lie, but make excuses. Twice you were educated on the word aion, but proceeded to say it was not eternal. If you are in school, then you should have had a reference for that belief, but you did not. Because of your past posts and problems with the truth, I do not know whether to believe you about being in school or not.

Lastly, you are in school, you say, yet you act like you have all the answers. I know I am just a man and can be wrong, but my views come after being saved for longer than you have been alive, more than likely. So don't come in here playing your games. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

 

[HisWitness]

You are welcome.

I do not have an agenda to push. I am interested in correcting statements that are not historically objective. This is one such instance.

If all sides are not presented, how can you have true debate? How can you actually learn?

true indeed

 

[HisWitness]

If you tell lies, then expect to be called a liar. You have been caught in several. You have been dogmatic on your definition of aion, but now all of a sudden you are blaming your studies. Someone layed out your problem here, besides the untruths, so I will reiterate:

When you start an O.P. , if the views are not your own, then tells us that. Also tell us what you believe at this point. You don't do that. You throw out convaluted statements and if someone disagrees you start to obfuscate. You can't even be truthful when caught in a lie, but make excuses. Twice you were educated on the word aion, but proceeded to say it was not eternal. If you are in school, then you should have had a reference for that belief, but you did not. Because of your past posts and problems with the truth, I do not know whether to believe you about being in school or not.

Lastly, you are in school, you say, yet you act like you have all the answers. I know I am just a man and can be wrong, but my views come after being saved for longer than you have been alive, more than likely. So don't come in here playing your games. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

more bashing from you brother and then you say that you have been saved for longer than i have been alive lol

im here to learn friend-im not playing games--just because i come across in a different way than you expect people should be in your own concepts-sorry i cant be just like you God NEVER made 2 people axactly alike so why dont you be you and let me be me and watch that anger brother JK

 

[HisWitness]

If you tell lies, then expect to be called a liar. You have been caught in several. You have been dogmatic on your definition of aion, but now all of a sudden you are blaming your studies. Someone layed out your problem here, besides the untruths, so I will reiterate:

When you start an O.P. , if the views are not your own, then tells us that. Also tell us what you believe at this point. You don't do that. You throw out convaluted statements and if someone disagrees you start to obfuscate. You can't even be truthful when caught in a lie, but make excuses. Twice you were educated on the word aion, but proceeded to say it was not eternal. If you are in school, then you should have had a reference for that belief, but you did not. Because of your past posts and problems with the truth, I do not know whether to believe you about being in school or not.

Lastly, you are in school, you say, yet you act like you have all the answers. I know I am just a man and can be wrong, but my views come after being saved for longer than you have been alive, more than likely. So don't come in here playing your games. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

brother that word aion goes further than you think it does

 

[HisWitness]

If you tell lies, then expect to be called a liar. You have been caught in several. You have been dogmatic on your definition of aion, but now all of a sudden you are blaming your studies. Someone layed out your problem here, besides the untruths, so I will reiterate:

When you start an O.P. , if the views are not your own, then tells us that. Also tell us what you believe at this point. You don't do that. You throw out convaluted statements and if someone disagrees you start to obfuscate. You can't even be truthful when caught in a lie, but make excuses. Twice you were educated on the word aion, but proceeded to say it was not eternal. If you are in school, then you should have had a reference for that belief, but you did not. Because of your past posts and problems with the truth, I do not know whether to believe you about being in school or not.

Lastly, you are in school, you say, yet you act like you have all the answers. I know I am just a man and can be wrong, but my views come after being saved for longer than you have been alive, more than likely. So don't come in here playing your games. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

but im not gonna tire my fingers in posting on it because you will reject it anyway and hold to your tradition

 

[Bronconagurski]

You are welcome.

I do not have an agenda to push. I am interested in correcting statements that are not historically objective. This is one such instance.

If all sides are not presented, how can you have true debate? How can you actually learn?

Yes, but you were referring to hiwwitness' belief, not any of the church fathers, and hiswitness has never denied still believing in universalism. I wanted to see if you would, so thanks for your reply in that regard. One shouldn't have to drag out of someone what they believe. I agree that some of the church fathers had heretical views of some things.

So, you see yourself as a historian, ready to correct anything you deem incorrect?

 

[Bronconagurski]

but im not gonna tire my fingers in posting on it because you will reject it anyway and hold to your tradition

See, there is where you are wrong. My views are built on scholarship and study. Try it, you might learn something.

 

[Bronconagurski]

true indeed

Mighty convenient for your hero to show up when you were getting caught in all those lies. Yep, makes one think something is amiss here. Kind of like a diversion. JMHO

 

[DHK]

Since I am new here, I have a question: I realize that this forum is controlled by fundamental Baptists, and that is the thrust of the doctrinal views here. But I have also read the Other Denominations forum and see a few who are not Baptists. So, I'll ask this: May more than one viewpoint be permitted here? In other words, can views be presented which are opposed to fundamental Baptist ones, or is this not allowed? I would like to know the answer to this before I go any further. If opposing views are not allowed to be presented, you don't have a true debate forum, you have a propaganda machine, which I am not interested in. I am interested in a debate forum where differing ideas can be presented, I seek an atmosphere of mutual learning, not indoctrination in only one viewpoint. As I said, that is not debate.

The Baptist forums are reserved for Baptists only. I am a fundamentalist, but most of the posters that I see are from the SBC which is not a fundamental denomination though many of them have a conservative theology. There is intense debate here on many subjects such as Calvinism vs. Arminianism, and other topics that arise within the Baptist faith.

You may feel more at home posting in the non-Baptist forums, such as the Other Christian Denomination forum, where your views will be more tolerated, as they are not typically Baptist in nature. There are still Baptists that post there, along with some others.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Yes, but you were referring to hiwwitness' belief, not any of the church fathers, and hiswitness has never denied still believing in universalism. I wanted to see if you would, so thanks for your reply in that regard. One shouldn't have to drag out of someone what they believe. I agree that some of the church fathers had heretical views of some things.

So, you see yourself as a historian, ready to correct anything you deem incorrect?

No, just ready to present all sides. How can one be a historian and not do that?