A Christian Objection to “Does God Predestine People To Hell”: A Response to Alex, Part VI
Tartarus
“Let me speak plainly. Too long, far too long, have the clergy been
silent; content to complain of a skepticism, of which a main cause is a
doctrine they continue to teach (without, I believe in many cases, more than a
languid and merely traditional acceptance of it.) I repeat that no thoughtful
man can believe a doctrine condemned by the conscience; and so men will seek a
refuge in skepticism, when they hear the clergy teaching these evil traditions
(for they are no more) as part of the revelation of that God, Whose blessed Son
tasted death for every man. Yes, the peculiar horror of the popular creed is
that it sets up evil as an object of worship, of reverence, of love.
So revolting to our moral nature is the popular creed, that it,
more than any other cause, produces the most wide-spread unbelief. Compared
with this, all objections to Christianity sink into insignificance.
The intelligent are by [false teaching] forced into open
revolt.”
-
Thomas Allin, Christ Triumphant
Christ Triumphant
by Thomas Allin
* * *
Alex begins his rebuttal to Part 2 of my original
articles by spurring his high horse:
“I want you to understand that I am not trying to make fun of you or
your arguments. I am sincerely pointing out the flaws you are committing. I’ll
be honest with you; if you were able to correct these flaws, your arguments
would be so much better. Work on that. I also suggest employing the use of
epistemological humility. You won’t lose as many people like that.”
Not only has Alex misused
the “logical fallacies” he has charged me with so far, but he has failed to
recognize that he is committing the fallacies he has charged me with
(my favorite so far being the ‘etymological fallacy’ debacle. I’ll be laughing
about that one for the eons.)
Moreover, I will not
commit “epistemological” humility, as the “knowledge” that scriptural
epistemology pretends to have is, itself, not humble in any way (“we,
the living, get saved, while all of you inferior peons simply could not
choose God properly. Sorry! Time to burn.”) I rest in the humility given to me
by Christ, Who is the only One Who actually is humble.
Finally: If I lose someone
in my audience, then the message is not for them. If you don’t want to
accept that “hell” isn’t in the original three manuscripts, it’s really not my
problem, and my God loves you anyway, and will reconcile you to Him. I’m
a messenger, not the message. It is those that the message is for who
are being brought to a realization of the true righteousness of God. These folk
are my audience; not the “Christian moral superiority” gang.
With that out of the way,
let’s consider the second use of ‘hell’ again in the KJV, with the word tartaroo!
Here’s the verse again, for your reading pleasure:
For if God spares not sinning messengers, but, thrusting them into the
gloomy caverns of Tartarus, gives them up to be kept for chastening judging…
On this verse, I point out that 2 Pet. 2:4 contains
the only use of Tartarus, and as such is the only verse where we can learn
about ‘Tartarus.’ Alex replies,
“Okay, so you commit another non-sequitur with your
fallacious conclusion. Just because a word appears once in scripture does
not mean that this is all God wants us to know about it.”
To which I reply: there may be certain aspects of
the judging of these messengers that are most certainly considered
elsewhere (Matt. 25:31-46, Ps. 82, and more,) but this is the only reference
to the actual location that they go. Once again, we have no reason
to presume that God is talking about “Tartarus” specifically at any other point
in Scripture, if He doesn’t even name the place anywhere else.
“After all, do we really believe that God reveals everything
to us in Scripture?”
Yes! Yes we do! Like sure, He’s not going to break
down basic arithmetic, but He lays claim to creating the arithmetic that
you can study (John 1:3!) Why should I look elsewhere to see what
God wants to say?? Sounds a little blasphemous, Alex.
No one should ever presume that we can
learn the message God would like to convey by looking outside His
text. In the words of Martin Zender, in his book, Zender on Romans, p.
298–
“Without [scripture,] we would know nothing
specific about God. We would have no evidence that Jesus Christ even lived!
Many refuse to believe this. They marginalize the word of God, and the
tell me, ‘I have other ways to learn from Jesus.’ I say, ‘Learn from Who?’ and
they say, ‘From Jesus.’ I say, ‘From Who?’ This goes on several more
times before they get my point that without the famous penmen Matthew,
Mark, Luke and John, they’d be as ignorant as fish about the Jesus they embrace
at the expense of scripture.”
“It is apparent that when we look at the Old and New
Testament, that is not the case. For example, read Rev. 10:1 or the mere fact
that Jesus was not revealed until the events of the Gospels took place.”
First: if you want to prove that God didn’t reveal
everything to us in Scripture, the first thing you should definitely not
do is point to Scripture to prove that point.
That said, this is the eighth verse in his
original series that Alex has brought me to prove… well, anything, really, so
let’s check it out.
And I perceived another strong messenger descending
out of heaven, clothed with a cloud, and the rainbow on his head, and his face
as the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire, and having in his hand a tiny open
scroll.
So! Since this verse and Alex’s claim don’t correlate
in any way, I’m going to move on. Please (for any who read this,) don’t
just cite random verses like this. In the previous article, I pointed to Titus
2:9-11, where Paul states that sectarian men are self-condemned. It is fitting,
then, that Alex claimed that I was committing a “non-sequitur” before referencing
this piece of gold.
Alex replied, giving me two opposite statements:
“You make it seem as though my original response was
going to try and prove something. It was meant to disprove your argument rather
than prove my side. Anyways, what the verse proves is that my claim of
knowledge being able to be grasped from outside of scripture is correct.”
So first I’m told that this random citation doesn’t
prove Alex’s side, and then I get a sentence telling me that this verse
proves Alex’s side??
Alex claims that “John was acquiring knowledge
outside of scripture,” so my argument is a non-sequitur. And while it is true
that John acquired knowledge outside of scripture, the direction, aim,
and context that we are discussing is completely twisted in his argument.
John’s acquisition of knowledge here is what formed the text, and again,
Alex would not be able to point at this verse if it had not been written in
the text. Moreover, John is a prophet, whereas the only gifts
believers have today are not prophetic, but are faith, expectation,
and love (1 Cor. 13:13.)
Second: Jesus being kept a secret since the
beginning of humanity’s existence doesn’t mean that God didn’t reveal
Him. He very much did do so, and then completed the word of God
with the apostle Paul (Col. 1:26.) From our modern perch, we can see the
full scope of Scripture, and observe that God has indeed revealed everything concerning
His will (Eph. 1:9-11,) through the apostle Paul (Gal. 2:7-8, 2 Cor. 11:21-23,
12:11.) This quite literally puts all forms of comprehension in context,
for in Christ are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge
(Col. 2:3.)
If you want knowledge of the righteous judgment
of messengers, you look at the Righteous Judge’s declarations
concerning the matter – no other.
“You stated, 'With this verse, even the blue letter bible falters, proclaiming in its definition that “Tartarus is the lowest level of hell,” and compares it to “Gehenna.” Yet these are separate words, with separate meanings. Once again, let’s take a look at the verse, apart from our own presumption that this is some location of “eternal hellfire,” from a more accurate translation, with our pattern of sound words.'
Again, you are begging the question here. You are
telling the blue letter bible falters, yet you do not say why. You mention where
or what you think it falters in, but that is not the same as
answering ‘why is it wrong.’”
Crazily enough, Alex, I think that’s because we
need to look at the verse first, to see how it is wrong, before jumping
to the conclusion that Tartarus is the “lowest level of hell.” There is one
way for us to figure out if the blue letter bible is telling the truth: we
must observe 2 Pet. 2:4, the only place where ‘Tartarus’ is used, and see if it
claims that “Tartarus is the lowest level of hell,” or something to this
effect.
Unfortunately, we already know that this is
an improper definition, because the KJV translators translated “Tartarus” as
‘hell’ – not as a level of it. How can the word mean the place, and
a specific part of the place?
Alex replies that “The very same way a word can
have different definitions. The word ‘bat’ can mean an animal or a tool used in
baseball. The word ‘beat’ can mean the rhythm of the music, a heart’s pattern,
feeling tired, prevailing against someone and the like. Greek words function
the same way.” Which, if proven in the Greek, could be fair, but does not
fit the context here in 2 Pet. 2:4. The word “beat” doesn’t also mean
“drum.” The word “bat” doesn’t also mean “ball.” The word “house”
doesn’t also mean “living room.” The word “book” doesn’t also mean “page
49.” If Tartarus meant “level of hell,” then it would be denoted in the
writing itself. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
“You say that Gehenna and Tartarus are separate
words, but this logic is faulty. There exists such a thing as synonyms. It
is your job to now prove to me that these words are not synonymous
in nature.”
Actually, Alex, the burden of proof falls on the
one who made the claim. You are claiming that these two words are synonyms,
so I would like you to show me, in the Greek, where and how I am
supposed to be making the correlation that “Tartarus” and “Gehenna” are
synonyms – and why both words mean what you claim they mean. The
verse makes complete sense apart from this idea that the two are
synonyms, as proven already in this original series of articles, so please tell
me why we should discard the word in its context in 2 Pet. 2:4, in favor of an
interpretation offered by the blue letter bible.
All Alex did here was screenshot the blue letter
bible and send it to me, to which I will re-affirm: the blue letter bible is not
the final authority on the definition of any word. I asked for proof to his
claim with the Greek text, not the blue letter bible’s supposition. This
argument is, “The blue letter bible said this was true, so it is.” That’s what most
of his argument in relation to geena, tartaroo, and hades has
been. I have already gone into detail, both in my original series of articles
(and in this series as well,) as to why the blue letter bible’s definition
is fallible, and why we should not immediately take this website’s descriptions
as concrete, evidential fact. Any man-made construct can err. This is
human. Yet the context for Tartarus simply does not align with
the uses of Gehenna, as we have already covered, nor do we read of “the
wicked dead,” as the blue letter bible writes, being cast into Gehenna. We read
of sinning messengers being cast into the gloomy caverns of Tartarus, not
for “eternal torment,” but for chastening judging.
“By all means, I may grant to you that your argument
is correct, in that Gehenna is what you say it is. However, it does not follow
that Tartarus is not a synonym for Gehenna. By all means, if ‘Vale of
Hinnom’ in Hebrew is transliterated into the Greek as geena, and into
the English as ‘Gehenna,’ then it may have synonyms which you are unwilling to
accept. Even if, in the Greek, it is stated as geena, this may be a
transliteration that the Greeks use which is synonymous with tartaroo.”
Complete assumption, with no evidence provided. Thus
this is theory, not fact. If your evidence for this ‘synonym’ theory is, ‘well,
it’s possible lololol’ then I will kindly ask you to keep your
assumption to yourself, because you could concoct any thesis you want and
then say, ‘Well, my proof is that it’s possible!’ It seems to be hard enough
for you to accept things that can be proven, so stick to those first
before jumping into theories – especially when God is very clear on the
fact that the reasonings of alleged wise men are vain (1 Cor. 3:20, Rom.
1:22-23.)
You stated, ‘While much more similar to its KJV
counterpart, there are some important differences, as well as a note we should
add in the Greek. Before we get to that, however, we must make note of
the fact that we are speaking of sinning messengers. In this passage, we
are not seeing the eternal hellfire location for all bad people. We are
seeing the punishment for sinning messengers (or ‘angels,’ if you are
attached to that word.) You would not tell me with a straight face that sinning
messengers, a term used of celestial beings in various parts of
Scripture, are men???’
Here, you make a huge mistake of getting a
verse (2 Pet. 2:4,) out of its context.”
Wow! What a slap in the face! The dramatic irony to
this is that if I had included the context right here, as I did with
Matthew 5 and James, Alex almost assuredly would have called it fluff! Moreover,
I do express the context a few paragraphs later! The academic dishonesty
here is truly amazing.
Alex replies that I’m the one being
academically dishonest, saying,
“You want to know what is truly academically
dishonest? What you did in the prior quote of mine. Or likewise, how you
caricature my position into something that I do not believe and then attack it.
Or the fact that you do not recognize that hell as I understand it is in
lexicons. Or how about the fact that you say hell was put in by Jerome when in
fact it was understood as I understand it by people who are early church
fathers?”
1)
Just because hell is written in a lexicon does not magically
mean that the theological location of ‘eternal torment’ is true.
2)
Just because an early church father proclaims the notion of
an ‘eternal torment’ does not magically mean that ‘eternal torment’ is true.
Shoot, with this logic, I could make my own lexicon
and… well, just “declare” things to be true, and they could be treated as fact!
“You cannot say to me that you think that 2 Pet. 2:4
speaks of only the angels, do you? I looked it up in your Concordant
version, read the entire chapter of 2 Peter 2. Regardless of what you think this
is, it is a severe mistake on your part to think it is only for
the messengers, or angels, or what have you. It is such a severe issue
that even if the translator of the concordant himself makes this same mistake,
I would doubt the authenticity of his credentials.
Let me be clear. I am addressing the issue of whether
or not this applies to humans as well. It am not saying that ‘Tartarus’
is ‘hell’ as I believe it to be. Context is key! Do not take verses out of
their context. You should know that the letters from the New Testament authors
were each one big, continuous letter with no spaces between paragraphs. Keep that
in mind when trying to exegete a text.”
These 11 sentences aren’t so much a “reply” so
much as they are a big, long-winded way of saying, “Man, I don’t believe this!”
Alex does not give one reason or piece of evidence from the verse that
indicates to us that we should be disposed above what is written. Alex
ignorantly presumes, in his reply, that the above statement he makes is an
argument, which is so incredulously wrong that I’ve even paused to
wonder if I should even remark on it. I guess I will, for anyone unfamiliar
with argumentation (that you may learn how to argue properly.) Saying,
“Well, I read the same chapter and I think it means more than
what it says!” is not an argument. It is a declaration of a disagreement – and
that’s all. I can tell you why you shouldn’t assume that
God meant more than what He directly said, yes! We considered the verse
previously! 1 Cor. 4:6! Paul entreats us not to be disposed above what
is written! And yet Alex tells me that I should be disposed above what
is written!
Alex adds to his reply, saying:
“Anyways, read 2 Peter fully. You can see what I am
talking about. The context is clear. God spares nobody from judgement.”
Thankfully, I have read 2 Peter fully, and
I happened to read a major contrast between the judgment of various
groups in 2:4-6 (from sinning messengers to the flood of the ancient world to
Sodom and Gomorrah,) and the rescue of the devout out of trial in
2:7-9 (exemplified by Lot being spared of the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah.) When
we “read 2 Peter fully,” we actually see, contrary to Alex’s view, that
some are spared from judgment, as is the case with Lot. 2 Peter
2:9 directly states:
The Lord is acquainted with the rescue of the
devout out of trial, yet is keeping the unjust for chastening in the day
of judging…
The devout are spared of indignation
(paralleled in greater fashion in Paul’s words in Rom. 5:9,) whereas those God
declares unjust are judged.
Since Alex isn’t really arguing, I guess I’ll find
the best argument I can against this. “But Gerudo!” I hear you crying. “Doesn’t
Paul say, in Romans 3:10, that not one is just? Doesn’t this mean that
everyone will be judged?” And yes, you sneaky curmudgeon, Paul does
say that! But he follows this up with the doctrine of justification
through Christ’s faith, in Rom. 3:21-23, and later, in the previously cited
verse (Rom. 5:9,) points out that those believing in his evangel are spared of
this indignation, which, though it is a separate ministry, parallels Peter’s
example nicely.
So! Again, who should I believe? Alex, or
God? Alex tells me that “the whole chapter is about judgment,” and that “the
context is clear.” This is, again, not proper exegesis if you do not proceed
to explain the context which is supposedly clear.
To you, Alex: there are billions of people
on the earth. What is clear to you may not be clear to others.
Especially considering the fact that this is going to be publicized, it is necessary,
no matter how dry or repetitious it may be, to expound upon the
context of a verse anyway. Just saying “hey, it’s clear,” and making one
singular, absolute statement (which doesn’t fully align with the text anyway)
isn’t proper exegesis. You have told me at least a hundred times
throughout your original series and your later reply that you take
offense to my writing style, and that I’m poor at arguing. Yet I’m most
certainly not making singular statements like this and wandering away
after screenshotting the blue letter bible. Why, pray tell, should I be taking
writing or scriptural advice from you, when you yourself are not
adhering to your own principles?
“Now we have to determine whether or not this
punishment is forever.”
We can’t determine that yet, Alex, for we haven’t
even determined if the punishment even is, nor has he provided
evidence to the claim.
“I will argue that even the Concordant agrees
with me on this issue.
You stated, ‘What we read of Tartarus is the fact
that they are gloomy caverns. The term ‘chains’ in the KJV is
mistranslated, and should read ‘caverns.’ ‘Dark’ or ‘gloomy’ chains is
nonsense; Peter is not Robert Frost, nor is this a poetic letter. He is in the
midst of listing God’s righteous ability to judge.’
Okay, so there are so many things wrong with
this statement of yours. You begin by stating that Peter is not Robert Frost,
nor that the letter is poetic as a means to support for your understanding of
the translation of the words. Brother, I could say the same thing for ‘caverns.’”
While I admit that my explanation for “gloomy
caverns” is not as clearly exposited as everything else I’ve discussed so far,
I will further argue that I didn’t have much of a need to explore the verse
beyond the fact that it concerns “sinning messengers,” and not the likes of us,
that made it sufficiently inconsequential for the “hell” argument that people
make with this verse.
With that said, Alex is right to call out this
section, though I disagree with the reason he did it (how it would prove
whether ‘Tartarus’ describes ‘gloomy caverns’ or ‘gloomy chains’ makes no
difference to the fact that it is describing a location.) I appreciate
that Alex pointed this out to me, so that I can correct my mistake here. The
word “chains” is a word study in and of itself, having three different
words for “chain” in the KJV. These three words are as follows:
1.
halusis
2.
desmos
3.
seiros
The first word, halusis, is the true word
for “chain” in Greek, its elements “UN-LOOSING.” It is, literally, a noun for
the instrument that performs the opposite of loosing – that is, chain.
It can be found eight times in the New Testament.
The second and third words, desmos
and seiros, appear only once in all of Scripture. As the word
for “chain” is already taken, these two are, derivatively, not the same
word, for we must keep a pattern of sound words (2 Tim.
1:13.) God intentionally uses different words, here, so lumping them
together would not be edifying.
This is, of course, not enough for us to discern
the meaning of the word, so we must next consider the elements of the
word, as well as its context. The word’s element is “CAVERN,”
which is how the Concordant Literal Version translated the word. Finally, the context
for seiros, knowing that all but chain could be used, is
understood when we realize that we are describing a location, (gloomy
_______ of Tartarus.)
From this train of thought, which is clear,
direct, and does not seek to go above the thought of the text, one would
find it in all ways sensible to translate this word, directly, as cavern, and
then consider the meaning of the passage from there.
Unfortunately, in contrast, “chains” does not have
this same easy train of thought. As far as I can tell (and, feel free to
correct me if there’s some transcendent translation here that I’m missing that
somehow beats this sensible conclusion,) the translation ‘chains’ requires
you to have a prior belief concerning what this passage may or may not
say, concerning what you already believe the ‘chastening judging’ is. It
is, quite literally, a pre-supposition.
(Alex calls all of this fluff, by the way, because
sensible grammatical arguments within the Greek that deny the notion of an
eternal torment chamber are always fluff, whether they are primary or secondary
in nature. No wonder he thinks all of these arguments are half-baked;
when you say ‘it’s all fluff,’ you’re sure to remain ignorant to the facts.)
“You stated, ‘In the Concordant version, you may
notice the word “chastening” is in the verse. This word is found in one
of the three oldest manuscripts, being Codex Sinaiticus. I’m not going to argue
over the efficacy of this word being included, though it is sensible that these
messengers are indeed being humbled in their judgment, similar to humanity
(Ecc. 1:13,) and considering the scope of Paul’s statements in 1 Cor. 15:20-28,
and Phil. 2:9-11.’
What exactly is your point, here? How does what you
say here help your argument? Please, stop writing fluff.”
And again, I can see Alex’s point, here. There was
some extra time spent on the consideration for this verse, and honestly, part
of the reason is because I was initially very unconvinced that this
verse was properly translated. As such, I went through each part of the verse
that I initially held up to intense scrutiny during my first consideration of
the Concordant Literal Version. I had a theory, at the time, that “chastening”
being included would show that this is still a location for torture – not to
mention a potential indicator of “eternality,” and if I could prove that it
was, then I would be able to keep some semblance of my eternal torment
view.
That said, upon reading Alex’s response here, I
can see why he would find it to be fluff, considering it’s a completely
separate part of the verse. I was seeking to cover all my bases, and I guess I
manifested that by considering each word in the verse and putting it on paper.
“You stated, ‘The blue letter bible is incorrect to
correlate a judgment during the millennial kingdom in the vale of Hinnom with a
judgment concerning angelic beings, as are the KJV translators (and any other
English translators) for making such an assumption that God does not make. It’s
disingenuous, and an inexcusable adulteration of God’s word (2 Cor. 4:2.) To remove
the point God makes in favor of an idea man believes makes more sense to
them personally falsifies the text, and those that are teaching this
idea directly, especially upon realizing this error, are ignorant to the heart
of God (Rom. 1:18-32,) hypocritical in their love (Rom. 2:1-4,) and will be
judged on Judgment Day by God in accord with this knowingly false action (Rom.
2:5-15.)’
You did a poor job here again.”
I have a knack for doing that.
“How? You’re making these claims without trying to
prove why the blue letter bible or any other bible translation in
English is wrong.”
Except I did do that, in the first sentence
of the paragraph you cited. The blue letter bible folk (which, really, was the
Strong’s concordance folk) are making an assumption that all judgment
is the same across the board, when we have no grounds to make this
assessment (and in fact, have more grounds to presume otherwise.) The
burden of proof is on those guys to prove why we should be correlating
them. Just because some guys “said it” once does not magically make it true. I
could tell you that “Star Wars is about Captain Kirk and Spock,” but
that doesn’t magically make my statement true in any capacity. If they do not prove
themselves, then their definition is a moot point.
In contrast, in this exact series of articles, I
have gone into great detail now on the Greek itself, as opposed to
man’s ideas about the Greek. The judgment in Gehenna in the millennial kingdom
is clearly for men in the millennial kingdom, while the “chastening
judging” that is being referred to in 2 Pet. 2:4 is explicitly said to
be in relation to sinning messengers. As there is a radical difference
between an angelic messengers and human beings, I would say that
it is a much safer bet to keep these two concepts separate, than
to force them into the same event. God distinguishes them with His words,
so why should we go above Him and merge them together?
“By the way, I hope you realize you are trying to go
against not only English, but also Spanish…”
And Chinese, and Korean, and Egyptian, and
Turkish, and…
“…so many other languages which disagree with you.
The majority position of Christianity as a whole is that hell is a place of
eternal torment. You really are trying to pick a fight with the majority of
Christianity, here.
Not only that, but you are literally going against
the earliest teachings of hell as taught by some of the disciples of the
apostles themselves. To name a couple: Ignatius and the Clement of Rome. Those
two apostolic fathers actually knew, and were taught by, the Apostles!
So, here’s my issue: why should I believe you or the Concordant on this topic,
when the literal students of the Apostles are saying otherwise?”
Well, it is absolutely true that I’m inadvertently
picking a fight with the majority of Christianity, but it doesn’t stem from a
desire to do so. I am forced into open revolt, which I would not be
doing if such a lie were not being propagated. Please, observe Matt. 7:21-23–
Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will be
entering into the kingdom of the heavens, but he who is doing the will of My
Father Who is in the heavens.
Many will be declaring to Me in that day, ‘Lord!
Lord! Was it not in Your name that we prophesy, and in Your name cast out
demons, and in Your name do many powerful deeds?’
And then shall I be avowing to them that ‘I never
knew you! Depart from Me, workers of lawlessness!’
My insinuation is clear, but I will affirm it. Which
group, pray tell, is the only organized group on the planet right
now that proclaims that they are “casting out demons in Jesus’ name?” Which
group, please, is the only group that claims to be doing powerful
movements, like the “Great Awakening” and the “Woke” movement? The Inquisitors
of Rome? The Great Crusades? All in the name of Jesus?
Now, I’m not saying that all Christians are
like this. To say so would be a brash generalization. But the groups that do
conduct these actions most certainly will hear these words from
Jesus. And what does this stem from? False doctrine. Please, observe
another group of verses, 1 Tim. 4:1-4–
Now the spirit is saying explicity, that in subsequent
eras some will be withdrawing from the faith, giving heed to
deceiving spirits and the teachings of demons, in the hypocrisy of false
expressions, their own conscience having been seared;
Forbidding to marry, abstaining from foods, which God
creates to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who believe and
realize the truth, seeing that every creature of God is ideal and
nothing is to be cast away, being taken with thanksgiving, for it is
hallowed through the word of God and pleading.
Look; none of what I’m sharing with any of
you carries this charge. I don’t forbid marriages (that’s the
Palestinians,) I don’t abstain from foods (that’s the modern-day Judaizers,)
and I don’t discard creatures that I don’t personally find ideal (that’s
Christianity.) All of these are the effects of demonic doctrine.
Alex doesn’t seem to like this, saying,
“If salvation is based solely on faith alone in
Christ alone, then why does one’s understanding of other doctrines impact their
salvation?”
First, salvation is not solely based on
“faith in Christ” alone, but based on God’s choice to save. Faith
is the effect, not the cause, and God does not use our faith, but
Christ’s faith, as the foundation (for our faith could never be a
source of divine righteousness – Rom. 1:17, Eph. 2:8-9.) And second, if you’re
believing in two contradictory doctrines at the same time, then neither of them
are truly being believed. No man can serve two masters. It is
fundamentally impossible to believe that “God is the Savior of all mankind”
while simultaneously believing that “God won’t save all, but will leave
most to burn in His personal torture chamber in earth’s basement.”
Alex also seemed to think I was referencing food
(or that Paul was referencing food) in regards to my previous statement
concerning Christianity’s propensity to discard those that they don’t find
ideal. I was referring to the topic at hand, being the eternal
torment of “whomever the Christians don’t find ideal this week,” as they
are the only religion on the planet telling you that God would do this to you.
I look at these religious organizations, and the
people inside them, and I’m not filled with rage toward them, Alex,
though I am passionate. If I have any indwelt rage, it is at the false doctrines
themselves, employed by the Adversary, which are blinding most from
apprehending the evangel that Paul brings, concerning the glory of
Christ, that it does not illuminate them (2 Cor. 4:4.) Alex takes much of what
I say as an insult, but I would reply that nothing I’ve said even comes close
to the horrific insult that “most of your loved ones will be burned alive
at the hands of my loving god, because they weren’t able to rescue themselves
out of this damnation.” This is victim blaming, fear-mongering, and a twisting
of unconditional love. That Alex does not see this highlights his lack of
awareness that he, in this story God is telling, represents the
problem. This is why I am not worried about what he thinks is “insulting,”
for I still hold fast to the understanding that all will be rescued out of
sin’s grasp – Alex included. Alex is not nearly as merciful, and would sooner
damn you for not accepting his declarations about the text instead of impart
good news about God.
While Alex focuses on “majority rule,” I am focused
on discovering the truth. I am not looking at the majority and assuming
that they are the victors, simply because they are “so many” (see God’s
sarcastic and firm disdain for this concept in 1 Kings 18:21-40,) or that they
are automatically correct. Such an assumption is how Democracy rose… and fell.
The whims of a majority do not silence the minority without strong pushback – especially
if these whims come in direct conflict with the God of the Old and New
Testament.
Alex replies:
“I agree. Just because the majority thinks a certain
way does not mean it is objectively the correct way of thinking. My arguments
about majority are not really to prove that my position is true.”
To which I reply: stop bringing it up to me,
then. I don’t care what the majority thinks. I would rather stand
alone on God’s side than consider each and every whim the sinning majority
concocts. I loathed myself when I was a part of the majority, and have
found myself much more at peace by trusting God’s direction. The
majority are falsely devout, as we can see in 2 Tim. 3:1-5–
Now this know, that in the last days perilous
periods will be present, for men will be selfish, fond of money,
ostentatious, proud, calumniators, stubborn to parents, ungrateful, malign, without
natural affection, implacable, adversaries, uncontrollable, fierce, averse
to the good, traitors, rash, conceited, fond of their own
gratification rather than fond of God;
Having a form of devoutness, yet denying
its power.
When it comes to Christian doctrine in
particular (that is, not Christian individuals, who are
unconditionally loved by God, but modern Christian beliefs, which
are not,) I find that the portions I underlined accurately convey the
doctrine of eternal torment. The doctrine itself does not carry a natural affection
toward all of God’s creation, with refusal or inability to see the message
in the relative wickedness. Instead, eternal torment sees sinful creatures
as the plague, folk that God failed to save – that He either cannot
or will not fix, and angrily condemns them for it (with the
standards for earning such a spot varying among local churches.)
These folk are averse to the good – that
is, not fond of the good. The message that these folk are not going
to be burned alive, per the sufficient evidence in the oldest Greek
manuscripts, but that they will be corrected and drawn into God’s family (Rom.
8:20-21, 1 Cor. 15:22-28,) is the greatest news that any could ever hear! Such
news ensures that there is a plan for all (Eph. 1:9-11,) that
ends in love and fervent care for their Creator, as well as all (Phil.
2:9-11, Col. 1:15-20.)
The willful ignorance to the evidence
displayed so far reveals a conceited nature among groups that knowingly
force a false translation. These folk have seen the evidence and purposefully
and intentionally teach a doctrine that very clearly carries serious
error, with much more provable and loving alternatives rooted directly in
the text.
Such folk are not fond of God, but find
gratification in their own interpretations. This argument can be
considered as such: “Well, I think the majority makes more sense than
the word of God, and I agree with the majority rather than the oldest
Greek manuscripts, which would more accurately convey God’s thought.”
We can, finally, infer that this attitude is core
to the Christian religion, as their doctrine enables such mode of thought.
They are indeed devout – all of the gatherings, prayer circles,
apologetics, and more – but they deny the power of the One they claim to
worship. God is able in all – yet He cannot save all. Or, God loves all,
so much so that He sends His own Son – yet He chooses not to save all.
Alex would do well to drop out of such
high-minded social groups, for it infects his argumentation. Many don’t
consider that the things they’ve been taught could be false, and hardly want to
self-reflect, while providing these same excuses that Alex does. By presenting
these excuses like this, I hope to awaken a few to their own lack of
careful textual criticism, that they may be invigorated to truly consider the
word of God as is, instead of asserting their belief first, and
pulling random, mistranslated verses out of context to try and prove it.
And, finally, my final thoughts on the “apostolic
fathers” deal: I am here to study the word itself, not man’s opinions
about the word. Why study the students of the apostles when I can
study the apostles? It would be like trying to learn calculus from my
friend in class instead of the certified math teacher. Will he get a few
things correct? Sure. But he’s certainly no expert, and his credibility
is wanting.
Alex replied,
“The Early Church Fathers had to go off by something
which is much older than the Codices. The codices might be the oldest completed
versions in Greek. They are not however the oldest.”
I can only assume that he thinks, because the
early church fathers could read material that we don’t have today, that we
should not be trusting the oldest Greek manuscripts that are available,
but the secondary sources outside of God’s word in order to grasp
the thoughts stated in the text. I rebut that, again, the early church
fathers are not the word of God. Old or new does not change the fact that
they are fallible men, just as fallible as the majority today. The
codices that we have today are the oldest available, and the early
church fathers do not supersede the word of God in any capacity. The
word of sinning man and the word of God do not agree.
“Again, you need to remember to be more loving in
your rebuttal or answering of this. I say this respectfully! I’m not sure who
hurt you for you to be this harsh, but anyone who does not know you and reads
your website will be scared away from the faith. Be careful, man.”
And who would be the one to tell me how loving I’m
being, Alex? Yourself? This is going to happen more often. With no argument,
Alex has sunk to this emotional criticism, claiming “volatility” to distract
from his own unfounded talking points.
Last thing before the break: I am trying to
scare many away from such unfounded, fear-driven doctrines, Alex. That’s
the reason for the verbiage. I’m sure you would claim that my last 20
paragraphs or so are just cold, heartless ramblings, but that’s because you do
not want to hear or consider or weigh the points I’ve been making
(it’s all fluff, right?) If you find mal-intent, you would use that as a
platform to dismiss everything I say. I have been very patient
throughout this study, even through the personal cracks like the one you give
here, but you and I both would gain nothing if I sat here
sugarcoating every other point.
Comments
Post a Comment