The Gates of Hell?

[n david]

Aquila, do you believe the Bible is infallible?

[n david]

You enjoy a hypothetical, so here's one:

Let's say historical records claim salvation as being the Sinner's Prayer alone, but the Bible says a man must repent, be baptized and receive the HG. Which is correct? Which do YOU believe?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Slanderous lies? I'm posting the direct quote YOU created! I'm not changing anything in it. smh

I've never "prayed" for the dead with any expectation that said prayer would change the outcome of what God has decided. Nor do I believe the Bible supports such a notion.

So, your insistence that I do is indeed untrue, and an unnecessary assassination of character.

[Now here is where you insist that I do, yet again, while citing a hypothetical statement I made, out of context, wherein I was reflecting on the sovereignty of God for the sake of the thought - What if He did. Lol]

You want to have it both ways. You want to say the above, then when asked about it, you flip out and accuse me of baseless accusations and slanderous lies ... for posting your direct quote!

I'm not flipping out, I'm rolling my eyes at you. Because you sound like a pesky little brother insisting to our mother, "Yes he does, he believes in praying the dead out of Hell! He believes it, he does! He said it! He said....!" Lol

Okay, Slick Willie. "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

You don't believe in various forms of prayer?

So it's, as Esaias would post, "for muh feelz."

I think Esaias isn't some cold unfeeling person who mocks peoples emotions. Esaias just doesn't believe that emotion determines doctrine.

I've already expressed this concept. But I'll do it again. When someone passes, people grieve. Someone like Billy might have millions of people grieving. Now, I know people who started relegating Billy to Hell before his body was cold on Facebook, websites, etc. I think it's tasteless, inconsiderate, uncouth, and lacking decorum. And if someone is Apostolic, it's even worse. Because they should know better than to act like barking dogs. In these moments, I generally express the sentiment that I hope God has mercy. Why? Because what is said by implication. First, by mentioning the need for mercy, I imply that not all was right, or as it should be. Second, I imply that I reserve judgment, placing it entirely in the hands of God. I also imply that I take no pleasure in the idea that any man dies lost. Thirdly, I also imply that I would rejoice should I one day discover that God had chosen to have mercy (no matter how unlikely). Fourthly, I imply that we can trust that God is the judge and always judges justly. Fifthly, I imply that I'm sensitive to the feelings of others regarding his death. It's just about being a descent person.

[Now this is where you say, "Mom! He called preachers of truth barking dogs! It's right here! Read it! Read it" lol]

I'll take "What's NOT In That Post" for $500, Aquila. "It doesn't matter" isn't in that quote.

Ummmm, that's why I said my issue was with the "implication" (Actually, at least three implications can be drawn from his statement, but I digress.)

Question: Which is to be believed, the Bible or history?

The Bible. That's why I said I don't have a problem with the general notion if his statement. My problem was with an implication that can be drawn from it.

I'm going to ask another question, because I don't want to give you the opportunity to claim that I'm falsely accusing you: Do you agree or disagree with what EB implied -- "it's the truth contained in the Scripture which counts?"

Yes!

But we can presuppose that EB's interpretation is the ideal by which all others are measured. I believe in repentance unto justification, baptism unto identification, and reception of the Holy Spirit unto regeneration. EB doesn't believe this. He believes that these soteriological realities if grace are only effectual for the believer upon completion of Acts 2:38. I take a theological difference to that. For if justification isn't received by faith alone in repentance, no one could receive the Holy Ghost before water baptism.

Again, the millions of present day oneness, new birth a/p's should be evidence enough that God did NOT fail and hell did NOT prevail.

But that wasn't what I said. I said that one implication of what EB said would imply that Hell did prevail for at least 1,800 years. In addition, it implies that a reprobate, Godless church, preserved, translated, and disseminated His Holy Word.

The implication that you put more emphasis and more faith in historical records than the Bible is troubling, IMO.

Implications are important. If EB us right, tell me how the above implications wouldn't be true.

More double-speak. This is exactly what you've been doing by claiming God failed and hell prevailed.

See my critique above.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Aquila, do you believe the Bible is infallible?

I believe that the original autographs written by the holy men of old were very much inspired by God and were infallible. Our translations are often nuanced, and some are outright in error. When it comes to the Bible, translations based on formal equivalency are most trustworthy. Versions based on dynamic equivalency are least trustworthy.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Do you believe bible teaches traditional view on hell?

I believe the Bible teaches there are two hells, hades and Gehenna. Hades is the grave and is the state of the dead (who are unconscious). Gehenna is the Jerusalem garbage dump and is a symbol of the final judgment against sinners (the lake of fire). At the judgment all will be resurrected, and judged, and those who are not in the Book of Life will suffer eternal destruction in the lake of fire. So, I believe the Bible plainly teaches conditional immortality and the final, eventual annihilation of the wicked.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

You enjoy a hypothetical, so here's one:

Let's say historical records claim salvation as being the Sinner's Prayer alone, but the Bible says a man must repent, be baptized and receive the HG. Which is correct? Which do YOU believe?

Assuming the interpretation you're speaking about is EB's, I'd argue that a closer look at such an interpretation would be warranted. Because what you're saying would imply that there was a gap of 1,800 years in which no one was saved. So, either this gap is a reality, or our interpretation of the text off.

Remember, even if we regard the Bible as being infallible, our interpretations are not. Think about how your own faith has evolved over the years as your study of Scripture has shaped what you believe.

This isn't to say that Acts 2:38 isn't true. It is only a reexamination of our understanding of it.

For example, if repentance is unto justification, baptism is unto identification, and Holy Spirit infilling is unto regeneration...what is the fate of those who have only experienced justification through repentance by faith alone?

We can't argue that justification is only received upon completion of Acts 2:38, because that would cancel it out, because no one can receive the Spirit unless first justified. And if we argue that justification only comes as a result of repentance and water baptism, then it would be impossible to receive the Holy Spirit prior to water baptism, which we actually see in Scripture (Acts 10), and see in our churches throughout the world, leaving both Scripture and experience in agreement. And if we argue one must have proper theology to receive justification, justification would require a theological aptitude test. And how many of us were fully aware of the details of Apostolic Christology when saved? This would imply that our salvation wasn't even actualized in obeying Act 2:38, but rather made a reality upon understanding Oneness.

A systematic approach to Act 2:38 Soteriology will bear out that justification by faith alone in repentance justifies the sinner, making them able to both be both water baptized and filled with the Spirit, or both filled with the Spirit and then water baptized.

A systematic approach to Act 2:38 Soteriology has been largely avoided, even neglected. Why? Because such an approach would have been to the disunity of the body (UPCI) after the merger. The one steppers and three steppers would have drawn even greater battle fronts. Because justification by faith alone would have been born out clearly. This would have divided the body. So, a systematic soteriology identifying the point of justification was never fully developed.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I believe the Bible teaches there are two hells, hades and Gehenna. Hades is the grave and is the state of the dead (who are unconscious). Gehenna is the Jerusalem garbage dump and is a symbol of the final judgment against sinners (the lake of fire). At the judgment all will be resurrected, and judged, and those who are not in the Book of Life will suffer eternal destruction in the lake of fire. So, I believe the Bible plainly teaches conditional immortality and the final, eventual annihilation of the wicked.

I don't need to tell you that your view is divergent from the interpretation of the majority. Seeing that we all read the same Bible, how do you explain such a difference in interpretation?

I propose that the problem lies in an improperly defined ontological framework regarding soma, psueche, and pneuma, in relation to seemingly incongruent, or contradictory, Scriptural realities.

[houston]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Aquila, have you considered going to law school?

You have a low opinion of attorneys.

[Carl]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I don't need to tell you that your view is divergent from the interpretation of the majority. Seeing that we all read the same Bible, how do you explain such a difference in interpretation?

I propose that the problem lies in an improperly defined ontological framework regarding soma, psueche, and pneuma, in relation to seemingly incongruent, or contradictory, Scriptural realities.

Well is that not the same thing a trinitarian would tell a oneness believer? That oneness is divergent from the majority interpretation and therefore is very suspect.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Because what you're saying would imply that there was a gap of 1,800 years in which no one was saved. So, either this gap is a reality, or our interpretation of the text off.

Upon what evidence are you basing this gap?

You're doing the very thing you accuse EB of doing -- arguing from silence.

You're actually, seriously making the claim that no one ... not one single person repented, was water baptized in Jesus name and received the HG for over 1,800 years?!?

You've posted some absurd things, but this, IMO, beats all.

smh