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

[Michael Wrenn]

Originally Posted by DHK

[/COLOR]

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.
​

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.

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.

I'll take just a moment to address part of you lie-filled and libelous post.

You told me, "You don't really know who God is." You have just broken the forum rules, and if you had any integrity, you would ban yourself.

There you go throwing the word "cult" at me again. And you wonder why I get angry in my responses? I'm sick of you fundamentalist fanatics throwing that at me. I affirm all the orthodox statements of the Christian faith. Using the "cult" accusation shows what kind of person you are. Now give me a warning for that, but excuse all the lies and personal attacks you have thrown at me. That's easy to do from behind your "Moderator" tag and fake user name, isn't it?

You have already been ably refuted by another poster about your claim concerning Augustine, but you ignored that; you had to because the truth gripes your gut.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Folks, if you want to confirm for yourselves that what I have said is true, get a copy of Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, the most literal translation ever produced and the truest to the original Greek meanings of words. As I have mentioned, for example, every time other translations say "baptize", this Bible says "immerse" because that is what the original Greek meant. The same is true of "aion/aionios" as meaning "age" and "age-abiding". Those who libel me would gleefully accept the rendering of "baptize"as "immerse" made by this translation but reject the rendering of "age" and "age-abiding" that it makes. This is not only inconsistent; it is hypocritical, as well.

If you doubt what I have said, research it; this is a very reliable translation based on accepted manuscript sources.

Rotherham stated his purpose and goal as: "placing the reader of the present time in as good a position as that occupied by the reader of the first century for understanding the Apostolic Writings."

This is a literal, word-by-word translation; as such, the English syntax can be somewhat awkward in places, but this text lets you know exactly the import of what the Greek original said and meant. As a linguist and someone who is interested in the truth of God and not man, this is vitally important to me.

As I have said earlier and will repeat: 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. So, the irrefutable truth is this: The Bible makes clear that the purpose of hell or suffering is not to torture people, but to cause them to learn from their mistakes and grow closer to perfection. Divine judgment is reformative, not vindictive. Again, the word used in the original Greek New Testament is kolasis, which means a beneficial chastening such as a gardener prunes a vine to remove dead vegetation and make it grow more fruitfully.

Now, all the Zoroastrian Christians can plead for their eternal frying pans for souls all they wish, but that will not change the truth one iota. They claim to be defending the teachings of Jesus, but that is a lie -- they are corrupting those teachings with false interpretations and dishonoring the Lord they claim to serve. That is the truth.

 

[DHK]

Originally Posted by DHK


I'll take just a moment to address part of you lie-filled and libelous post.

You told me, "You don't really know who God is." You have just broken the forum rules, and if you had any integrity, you would ban yourself.

Do you know who God is? Really? If you have redefined eternal, and God is not eternal, then you have redefined who God is! He no longer is the God of the Bible; He no longer is eternal. You have taken away the eternality of God. Where have I gone wrong? Tell me.

There you go throwing the word "cult" at me again. And you wonder why I get angry in my responses? I'm sick of you fundamentalist fanatics throwing that at me.

1. You just broke the rules by calling me "a fundamentalist fanatic."
2. Reread the post and show me where I directly called you a member of a cult. There is that sensitive skin showing again.

I affirm all the orthodox statements of the Christian faith. Using the "cult" accusation shows what kind of person you are. Now give me a warning for that, but excuse all the lies and personal attacks you have thrown at me. That's easy to do from behind your "Moderator" tag and fake user name, isn't it?

If you don't affirm the eternal damnation of the wicked you don't affirm all the orthodox statements of the Christian faith, do you?
Your view on the atonement is not orthodox either.
Neither is your view on praying to the dead.
Neither is your view of the depraved nature of man.
A great deal of what you believe is unorthodox.

You have already been ably refuted by another poster about your claim concerning Augustine, but you ignored that; you had to because the truth gripes your gut.

I wasn't refuted. How does a Catholic define eternal security? That is the question one must ask. Is he eternally secure if he knows he is going to purgatory, and then to heaven?
Does a Catholic define eternal security for those that in their eyes will be saints? (Mother Theresa)?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Do you know who God is? Really? If you have redefined eternal, and God is not eternal, then you have redefined who God is! He no longer is the God of the Bible; He no longer is eternal. You have taken away the eternality of God. Where have I gone wrong? Tell me.

1. You just broke the rules by calling me "a fundamentalist fanatic."
2. Reread the post and show me where I directly called you a member of a cult. There is that sensitive skin showing again.

If you don't affirm the eternal damnation of the wicked you don't affirm all the orthodox statements of the Christian faith, do you?
Your view on the atonement is not orthodox either.
Neither is your view on praying to the dead.
Neither is your view of the depraved nature of man.
A great deal of what you believe is unorthodox.

I wasn't refuted. How does a Catholic define eternal security? That is the question one must ask. Is he eternally secure if he knows he is going to purgatory, and then to heaven?
Does a Catholic define eternal security for those that in their eyes will be saints? (Mother Theresa)?

You get your doctrine of eternal security and the atonement from Calvin. I get mine from the Bible and the earliest churches; my view of the atonement is the one that was held from the beginning through the first thousand years. That proves who is "orthodox" and who is not. Your doctrines are unscriptural, johnny-come-lately, Gospel-denying, God-perverting, antithesis to the faith.

 

[DHK]

Folks, if you want to confirm for yourselves that what I have said is true, get a copy of Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, the most literal translation ever produced and the truest to the original Greek meanings of words. As I have mentioned, for example, every time other translations say "baptize", this Bible says "immerse" because that is what the original Greek meant. The same is true of "aion/aionios" as meaning "age" and "age-abiding". Those who libel me would gleefully accept the rendering of "baptize"as "immerse" made by this translation but reject the rendering of "age" and "age-abiding" that it makes. This is not only inconsistent; it is hypocritical, as well.

You mean to say that if a man is right in one are then that makes him perfect and right in ALL areas?? I have heard better logic than that!

If you doubt what I have said, research it; this is a very reliable translation based on accepted manuscript sources.

Rotherham stated his purpose and goal as: "placing the reader of the present time in as good a position as that occupied by the reader of the first century for understanding the Apostolic Writings."

This is a literal, word-by-word translation; as such, the English syntax can be somewhat awkward in places, but this text lets you know exactly the import of what the Greek original said and meant. As a linguist and someone who is interested in the truth of God and not man, this is vitally important to me.

One of the most dangerous things a person can do is to place his theology in an opinionated translation of the Bible. This is one man's opinion of how the Bible should be translated. It is not inspired. He is fallible. To stake your doctrine on this one man's translation is foolish. Besides that, there are other versions that have similar translations. It is not a new thing; simply liberal doctrine.

As I have said earlier and will repeat: When Jesus spoke of God's judgment upon the wicked, he did so with words that implied a limited, corrective punishment.

No, he never did. Hell, everlasting torment, forever and ever, where the worm dieth not and the fires are not quenched, who shall be tormented day and night forever and ever; all speak of eternal damnation of the wicked without any correction possible. You have to prove your case, not your opinion.

Specifically, he referred to divine judgment as aionios kolasis, meaning age-long chastisement.

There is no such thing as "age-long chastisement".
Prove your case, not your opinion. Don't post opinion as fact.

So, the irrefutable truth is this: The Bible makes clear that the purpose of hell or suffering is not to torture people, but to cause them to learn from their mistakes and grow closer to perfection.

There is nothing there that is irrefutable. Statements like that are plain lies. You should be ashamed.

Divine judgment is reformative, not vindictive.

A good example of that is when God told the Israelites to go in and kill all the Caananites, right? Their deaths reformed them, right?

Again, the word used in the original Greek New Testament is kolasis, which means a beneficial chastening such as a gardener prunes a vine to remove dead vegetation and make it grow more fruitfully.

You can't randomly quote words out of their context. Give Scripture. Words out of context don't mean a thing.

Now, all the Zoroastrian Christians can plead for their eternal frying pans for souls all they wish, but that will not change the truth one iota. They claim to be defending the teachings of Jesus, but that is a lie -- they are corrupting those teachings with false interpretations and dishonoring the Lord they claim to serve. That is the truth.

This is totally slanderous and uncalled for. If anyone deserved an infraction it would be you for this name-calling and directing it to all those on the board.

 

[DHK]

You get your doctrine of eternal security and the atonement from Calvin. I get mine from the Bible and the earliest churches; my view of the atonement is the one that was held from the beginning through the first thousand years. That proves who is "orthodox" and who is not. Your doctrines are unscriptural, johnny-come-lately, Gospel-denying, God-perverting, antithesis to the faith.

I already told you in another post where I got the doctrine of eternal security from, and it wasn't Calvin. Every time you say that it is a lie.
My teaching is from the Bible; it is orthodox. I believe that those on the board will agree with me. We can set up a poll and see? But the poll would not be historical. Augustine believed in purgatory, as did some other ECF. Do you also? Many of them believed in baptismal regeneration, a very early church heresy. You believe in this also? Just because it was in early history doesn't make it true.

 

[The Biblicist]

You get your doctrine of eternal security and the atonement from Calvin. I get mine from the Bible and the earliest churches; my view of the atonement is the one that was held from the beginning through the first thousand years. That proves who is "orthodox" and who is not. Your doctrines are unscriptural, johnny-come-lately, Gospel-denying, God-perverting, antithesis to the faith.

I have asked you several times and no response to this date. Name any Greek lexicographers that limit the meaning of aeon or aionion to simply "age." Name one!

This business about Calvin being the origin is simply foolish. We do not have sufficient history to make that claim. Secular church history is limited and far from comprehensive of all who lived in history and/or all beliefs occurring in history. This is like telling you that Jacob Arminisus is where your doctrine of salvation originated. All you are doing is running from any serious discussion of scripture, perhaps because you cannot deal with scriptures and so you avoid that issue by trying to make everything a post-Biblical historical origin so you don't have to deal with Biblical data.