Tuesday, 15 December 2015

Arguments from silence on a path to Islam: A quick critique 2

Here is the last set of points to look at, let's look at them individually:

"5. There was no single verse where GOD or jesus says u should go to "jerusalem" But in the Al- qur'an GOD say in suratul hajj that we should go to hajj if we have the power to go So, my brothers & sisters if islam is not the realway to salvation it will not be possible formillions of millions of millions of muslim today, from diffrent part of the word, from Europe, Asia, Australia, Africa, we will all garder to mecca. At the back on one Imam, if imam say "Allahu Akbar" everybody will say "Allah Akbar" if imam bowed down everybody will bowed down for GOD. Because of what is in the book of {Zephaniah 3:9}, so what are we calling islam, we have 5 pillars of islam:

1. We should believe in oneness of GOD not threenity, is in the book of {Deutoronomy 6:4}
also in the book of {Mark 12:28-29}
2. We should perfom solat {worship GOD} is in the
book of {Nehemiah 8:4-6} & {matthew 26:39}
3. We should be paying "ZAKAT" is in the book of
{Mark 12:41-42}
4. We should be fasting for GOD. Is in the book of
{jeremiah 36:9}
5. We should be going to Hajj, is in the book of
{Isaiah 2:2}"

Firstly, the Pillars of Islam are not found in the Bible and in Zechariah 3:9, we read:
"9 “Then I will purify the lips of the peoples,
    that all of them may call on the name of the Lord
    and serve him shoulder to shoulder."
Chapter 3 in context refers to the restoration of the Jewish people to their former glory, It is not referring to Islam.
"10 From beyond the rivers of Cush[d]
    my worshipers, my scattered people,
    will bring me offerings.
11 On that day you, Jerusalem, will not be put to shame
    for all the wrongs you have done to me,
because I will remove from you
    your arrogant boasters.
Never again will you be haughty
    on my holy hill.
12 But I will leave within you
    the meek and humble.
The remnant of Israel
    will trust in the name of the Lord.
13 They will do no wrong;
    they will tell no lies.
A deceitful tongue
    will not be found in their mouths.
They will eat and lie down
    and no one will make them afraid.”
14 Sing, Daughter Zion;
    shout aloud, Israel!
Be glad and rejoice with all your heart,
    Daughter Jerusalem!
15 The Lord has taken away your punishment,
    he has turned back your enemy.
The Lord, the King of Israel, is with you;
    never again will you fear any harm.
16 On that day
    they will say to Jerusalem,
“Do not fear, Zion;
    do not let your hands hang limp.
17 The Lord your God is with you,
    the Mighty Warrior who saves.
He will take great delight in you;
    in his love he will no longer rebuke you,
    but will rejoice over you with singing.”
18 “I will remove from you
    all who mourn over the loss of your appointed festivals,
    which is a burden and reproach for you.
19 At that time I will deal
    with all who oppressed you.
I will rescue the lame;
    I will gather the exiles.
I will give them praise and honor
    in every land where they have suffered shame.
20 At that time I will gather you;
    at that time I will bring you home.
I will give you honor and praise
    among all the peoples of the earth
when I restore your fortunes[e]
    before your very eyes,”
says the Lord."

"1. We should believe in oneness of GOD not threenity, is in the book of {Deutoronomy 6:4}
also in the book of {Mark 12:28-29}"
The misuse of the Shema has been addressed in the following articles:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/deuteronomy-64-trinity-vs-shema.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/deuteronomy-64-trinity-vs-shema-2.html

"2. We should perfom solat {worship GOD} is in the
book of {Nehemiah 8:4-6} & {matthew 26:39}"
My response to this is, Which God, the God found in the Bible? Or the God in the Quran? They are not the same God. In fact, the very context of Matthew 26:39 refutes Islam because Jesus calls God his Father, something that Muslims cannot do.
"39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”"
So ultimately, I agree we should worship God, but it must be the right one.


"3. We should be paying "ZAKAT" is in the book of
{Mark 12:41-42}"
This article is worth looking at with respect to what Zakat is: http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/zakat/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

The context has nothing to do with Zakat:
"41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.

43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”"
What Jesus is saying is that the gift of the woman to God was a larger and bountiful gift than the rich individuals around her. It's true that one should give money to others, but that doesn't automatically mean that one practices Zakat.

"4. We should be fasting for GOD. Is in the book of
{jeremiah 36:9}"
The context in which fasting is mentioned in Jeremiah is a reference to a specific fasting, namely a fasting of repentance:
"8 Baruch son of Neriah did everything Jeremiah the prophet told him to do; at the Lord’s temple he read the words of the Lord from the scroll. 9 In the ninth month of the fifth year of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah, a time of fasting before the Lord was proclaimed for all the people in Jerusalem and those who had come from the towns of Judah. 10 From the room of Gemariah son of Shaphan the secretary, which was in the upper courtyard at the entrance of the New Gate of the temple, Baruch read to all the people at the Lord’s temple the words of Jeremiah from the scroll."
The fasting that is found here is the fasting of repentance. Read the following article where I comment on fasting on when we can do it and if it is an obligation: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/concerns-about-eastern-orthodoxy.html

"5. We should be going to Hajj, is in the book of
{Isaiah 2:2}"
Read the following article on Hajj for more information, it;s only a quick read: http://www.performhajj.com/what_is_hajj.php

Let's read:
"2 In the last days

the mountain of the Lord’s temple will be established
    as the highest of the mountains;
it will be exalted above the hills,
    and all nations will stream to it."

This is not a reference to Hajj, though it is a comment on individuals gathering to Jerusalem in the last days:
"3 Many peoples will come and say,

“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
    to the temple of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us his ways,
    so that we may walk in his paths.”
The law will go out from Zion,
    the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
4 He will judge between the nations
    and will settle disputes for many peoples.
They will beat their swords into plowshares
    and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not take up sword against nation,
    nor will they train for war anymore.
5 Come, descendants of Jacob,
    let us walk in the light of the Lord."

Even if Islam may have similar things to say as Christianity, that doesn't automatically mean that Islam is true. That's really all I have to say with respect to the post.

Answering Judaism.

Arguments from silence on a path to Islam: A quick critique

I came across some comments on the Answering Christianity Facebook page where a woman had embraced Islam for a number of reasons. I will just simply look at the points made and try to respond to them accordingly:

"1. Jesus christ when he was alive he never practice christianity, he only bring islam"

First of all, Where in the Bible does Jesus bring Islam to the earth and second of all, so what? Christianity follows the teachings of Jesus. Define what you mean that he didn't practice Christianity?

"2. Jesus was never mention anything like christian when he was alive. But in Al-qur'an GOD called us muslim like Qur'an 3:102"
Doesn't matter, his followers are called "Christians" in the New Testament (Acts 11:26, 1 Peter 4:16). Just because Jesus didn't mention the word Christian, it doesn't render the term false.

"3. Jesus christ was never go to church when he was alive and there is no single verse in the bible that say go to church. But in Al-qur'an Allah says we should go to "jummuah"
He doesn't have to, The principle laid down by his followers is meeting in fellowship, be it in a church building or a house. So long as believers meet together and worship Jesus together, that's all that matters. See the following verse in Hebrews 10:
"25 not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching."

"4. There is no single verse in the bible where the word "BIBLE" is mention. But in Al-qur'an there was so many places where GOD mention Al- qur'an, like qur'an 4:82"
If this lady is arguing this proves the Quran to be true, This is another superficial argument that I have seen been used by others. Just because the word Bible is not in the Bible, that doesn't mean the Bible is false and likewise, Just because the word Quran appears in the Quran, that doesn't mean it's inspired.

The next lot of points shall be looked at in another paper.

Answering Judaism

Wednesday, 2 December 2015

Prayers to saints?

The following was taken from previous articles which is not on the website for viewing anymore. There are however changes that differ from the previous article or articles. This paper shall be looking at Mary and the saints:*

Before reading the following on Mary and the saints, I would suggest reading the following papers on Mary:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/mary-greatest-woman-who-ever-lived.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/mary-greatest-woman-who-ever-lived-2.html

Omnipresence and Multipresence are two different things. Read the following definitions:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Multipresent
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Omnipresence

With that out of the way, let's get started. Can Satan be in more than one place at once, be it omnipresence and multipresence? The answer is a resounding no. Satan cannot be in more than one place at one and even granting multipresence as an argument for Mary and the saints being prayed to, nothing from scripture has been offered and not even 2 Corinthians 4:4 counts:

"4 Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God,[a] we do not lose heart. 2 But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice[b] cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants[c] for Jesus' sake. 6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

Some today contest whether or not the passage actually refers to Satan but let's for arguments sake it refers to Satan.

If it refers to Satan, The passage just simply having dominion and power over the whole world, that's it, it isn't suggesting he has multipresence. Whether or not it refers to God or Satan, the argument for multipresence has no weight.

Is it biblically sound to say Mary has this attribute of multipresence granted to her, NO. Mary is in heaven with the believers in Jesus, she is not going to be aware of what is transpiring on the earth since she is in heaven with Lord. Even if she possessed multipresence, she wouldn't hear the prayers of men since to this world, she is dead and cannot communicate with us.

If you pray to a saint and ask for their intercession, it is necromancy. No matter how you want to try and get around it, communication with the dead for ANY reason is necromancy and no the transfiguration is not a counter example: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/mary-greatest-woman-who-ever-lived.html

There is nothing wrong with those being exalted to sainthood, that's not disputable, but that is no justification to pray to them or seek intercession.

Before anyone appeals to Jews going to the graves of their sainsts, Watch the following video by Rabbi Tovia Singer on why Jews go to the grave of their forefathers or great saintly men. This video by him should clarify some misunderstandings on the issue:
Rabbi Tovia Singer discusses the Jewish tradition of praying at a gravesite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUEuj0p6eUI

As for 2 Timothy 1:16-18, the context has nothing to do with the dead being prayed for but rather mercy is to be granted to the house of Onesiphrous for the good he did to Paul and that Onesiphrous may have mercy from the Lord when he comes and judges the world.
"15 You know that everyone in the province of Asia has deserted me, including Phygelus and Hermogenes.

16 May the Lord show mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, because he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains. 17 On the contrary, when he was in Rome, he searched hard for me until he found me. 18 May the Lord grant that he will find mercy from the Lord on that day! You know very well in how many ways he helped me in Ephesus."

Some appeal to Jeremiah 15 and Revelation 5 to try to justify their teaching on the saints, Let's look.

Moses and Samuel pleading on Israel's behalf in their day is fine, but this doesn't justify to praying to the saints who have passed on and gone into the presence of the Lord. In Jeremiah 15, The people of Israel's wickedness was so grievous that even if Moses or Samuel were there, he would not deter his anger from Israel, that is the point being made:

"Jeremiah 15:1 Then the Lord said to me: “Even if Moses and Samuel were to stand before me, my heart would not go out to this people. Send them away from my presence! Let them go! 2 And if they ask you, ‘Where shall we go?’ tell them, ‘This is what the Lord says:

“‘Those destined for death, to death;
those for the sword, to the sword;
those for starvation, to starvation;
those for captivity, to captivity.’"

This text cannot justify the Romanist position at all, it is simply not there.

Revelation 5 says:

"5 Then I saw in the right hand of him who sat on the throne a scroll with writing on both sides and sealed with seven seals. 2 And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming in a loud voice, “Who is worthy to break the seals and open the scroll?” 3 But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it. 4 I wept and wept because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside. 5 Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.”

6 Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits[a] of God sent out into all the earth. 7 He went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne. 8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God’s people. 9 And they sang a new song, saying:

“You are worthy to take the scroll
    and to open its seals,
because you were slain,
    and with your blood you purchased for God
    persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.
10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God,
    and they will reign[b] on the earth.”"

An interesting observation has been made by.... Well, he needs no introduction, I have mentioned him many times.
"Revelation 5:8. Catholics often appeal to Revelation 5:8 (and 8:3-4 which basically says the same thing) as supposed proof for saints being prayed to as well as them presenting these prayers to God. The text says, And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints” (Revelation 5:8; cf. 8:3-4). Arguing from this passage is Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch in theirIgnatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament: “The saints in heaven mediate the praises and petitions of the saints on earth (8:3)” (Scott Hahn, Curtis Mitch, Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament, [Ignatius Press, 2010], p. 499). The Catholics are guilty of distorting this text. First, the “twenty-four elders” who possess and present these prayers before God are not “saints” who are prayed to by believers. In fact, in 5:8-10 their song of praise differentiates them from people (i.e., saints) who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ. They are also differentiated from the saints in 11:16-18 and 19:1-4. Instead of beings saints they are, as Robert Mounce notes, “an angelic order who serve and adore God as the heavenly counterpart to the twenty-four priestly and twenty-four Levitical orders (1 Chron 24:4; 25:9-13)” (Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation: Revised, ed. Gordon D. Fee, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997], pp. 121-122). In agreement are New Testament scholars Alan F. Johnson and N. B. Stonehouse. Second, the evidence shows these twenty-four elders do not have prayers because they were prayed to, as Roman writers suggest. Instead, they have prayers which people offer to God alone, and they bring them to God because of His transcendence. As Mounce further observes,

“The idea of angels acting as intermediaries and presenting the prayers of saints to God is common in later Jewish thought. In Tobit 12:15 an angel says, ‘I am Rafael, one of the seven holy angels, who present the prayers of the saints, and who go in  and out before the glory of the Holy One.’ In 3Baruch 11 it is Michael the Archangel who descends to the fifth heaven to receive the prayers of people. It was the increasing emphasis in Jewish thought on the transcendence of God that made such intermediaries appropriate. In Revelation the twenty-four elders perform this function” (Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation: Revised, ed. Gordon D. Fee, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997], p. 135).

Revelation 5:8-10 and 8:3-4 do not support the Roman practice of believers praying to saints and Mary and then them in turn presenting them to God. There is absolutely no biblical basis for this teaching whatsoever, and hence must be rejected by the believer. We go to God directly." Keith Thompson, Mary is not Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all Graces, and Advocate: http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2014/03/mary-is-not-co-redemptrix-mediatrix-of.html

Answering Judaism.

Addendum: To the Rabbinic Jews reading this, if you have any points, let me know if you think the understanding presented by the Roman Catholics are the same as yours or not.

7th of January 2016* In light of recent events, the original article(s) is (are) up again.

Various comments regarding Sola Scriptura

The following was taken from a previous article which is not on the website for viewing anymore. There are however changes that differ from the article or articles this document is based on. The following context speaks on the subject of Sola Scripture:*

While I have indeed undertaken the task to refute Roman Catholicism. This doesn't mean I hate Catholics themselves, Far from it, If I hated Roman Catholics, then I would encourage others not to evangelise to them, same with Eastern Orthodox people.

If any Catholic wants to pull the "Anti-Catholic card", the same point can be said of them that they are Anti-Protestant. That's not going to get us anywhere.

Next, The onus of proof is on them to to show that the traditions as held to by the Catholic church are even found within the inspired texts of the Bible as well as in the early church Fathers. You would be hardpressed to find them.

A tradition is essentially teaching and as I explain in another article my writings could be considered a tradition or teaching, the same can be said of many apologists. We of us are conveying tradition to our reading audiences. But it stands to reason to call into question Roman Catholic tradition that is ANACHRONISTICALLY shoehorned into the biblical text and into early fathers like Ignatius, Irenaus, Origen, Tertullian etc.

With respect to the deity of Christ, If Christ and the Father's deity are affirmed, it is safe to assume and affirm that the Trinity is indeed taught in the texts of scripture itself and that Christ is called theos in the true sense. The exception would be Psalm 45 which talks about Christ's supremacy: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/triad-of-texts-nature-of-jesus.html. There is even pretty solid material out there that even confirms the Biblical witness of the Trinity itself.

A modalistic interpretation cannot be deemed valid because scripture clearly affirms that the Father and the son are distinct persons and even Tertullian himself refuted Modalism in his treatise Against Praxeus.

Dismissal of tradition that goes against the biblical text is not an anachronistic way of reading the Bible, considering Jesus did NOT accept every single Pharisaical tradition, though some tradition he was not against.

"15 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[b] 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
    but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
    their teachings are merely human rules.’[c]”
"

Acceptance of some of the oral tradition would not prove Sola Scriptura to be false. Washing the hands wasn't a problematic or false tradition, but was an example of a dispensable tradition, but certainly the loophole that Jesus mentions counts as a violation. Also, For those unaware, Henotheism believes one God is to be worshiped but there is an acknowledgement of other deities existing. The Shema hardly can be used as a pretext for Henotheism since YHWH in the OT emphatically states that this only one God and NONE besides him. Furthermore, in the Psalms we have the following:

"Psalm 115:1 Not to us, Lord, not to us
    but to your name be the glory,
    because of your love and faithfulness.
2 Why do the nations say,
    “Where is their God?”
3 Our God is in heaven;
    he does whatever pleases him.
4 But their idols are silver and gold,
    made by human hands.
5 They have mouths, but cannot speak,
    eyes, but cannot see.
6 They have ears, but cannot hear,
    noses, but cannot smell.
7 They have hands, but cannot feel,
    feet, but cannot walk,
    nor can they utter a sound with their throats.
8 Those who make them will be like them,
    and so will all who trust in them.
9 All you Israelites, trust in the Lord—
    he is their help and shield."

"Psalm 135:15 The idols of the nations are silver and gold,
    made by human hands.
16 They have mouths, but cannot speak,
    eyes, but cannot see.
17 They have ears, but cannot hear,
    nor is there breath in their mouths.
18 Those who make them will be like them,
    and so will all who trust in them."

Though the idols and false Gods have tangible statues, they themselves are non-existent and cannot do harm, nor even deliver one from the clutches of disaster (Much like the idol of Mary cannot do this either).

With respect to tradition, Should we consider looking at an oral tradition for profitability, yes. Should the oral tradition be binding on one's conscience if it violates God's moral code? No. One should go back to the early church and look at other material to see what the groups themselves believed, be they orthodox or heterodox movement. It is good to get the information for historical study and understanding so we can refute the objections of unbelievers should the issues arise. The ancient world did have oral tradition to be sure, but this isn't a news flash to a sola scripturist, since we accept that the Bible was oral first, then codified and written down. This wouldn't however justify the claims of Roman Catholics and what they say about their traditions.

A tradition telling us how to slaughter kosher in certain way or tying tefillin isn't so much of a problem, since a Sola Scripturist DOESN'T dismiss every tradition, but tests those said traditions. I am open to how the issue of kosher and tefillin is to be resolved. Looking into how to do these things properly would not be a violation of Sola Scriptura. If you want to discern how to properly deal with these matters, that's fine, it's important to do things the way God requires.

With respect to 2 Timothy 3:16, Paul doesn't affirm Oral Tradition as equally authoritative, he often pointed to the OT and even to Luke's own Gospel to substantiate his teaching, not to mere traditions of men. For those who are unaware, Jamnes and Jambres are the names of the Pharaoh's magicians, two at least, who opposed Moses in Egypt when he performed miracles in front of the Pharaoh.

Read more on them here: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8513-jannes-and-jambres

I acknowledge the individual books were scrolls. Even Jesus himself read from a scroll of Isaiah. Even if "Every Scripture" refers to the books of the OT, it doesn't prove the Romanist church to be true, let alone biblical or even the false doctrines they so love to propagate.

As for Sirach, as Ryan Turner of CARM observes:
"1.  There are no clear, definite New Testament quotations from the Apocrypha by Jesus or the apostles.  While there may be various allusions by the New Testament to the Apocrypha, there are no authoritative statements like "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say."  There are references in the New Testament to the pseudepigrapha (literally “false writings”) (Jude 14-15) and even citations from pagan sources (Acts 17:22-34), but none of these are cited as Scripture and are rejected even by Roman Catholics.  In contrast, the New Testament writers cite the Old Testament numerous times (Mt. 5Lk. 24:27Jn. 10:35) and use phrases such as "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say," indicating their approval of these books as inspired by God. " http://carm.org/why-apocrypha-not-in-bible


Sam Shamoun observes the following in his paper on Sola Scriptura:
"First, neither the Lord Jesus nor the Apostles ever quote any Apocryphal book with the formulaic expressions denoting canonicity, i.e. "Thus saith the Lord," "This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken through the prophet," "The Scripture says," "It is written," etc.

Now someone may wish to say that this is also true with many of the OT books which the Jews and Christians both accept as canonical. The problem with this objection is that we do know that the Lord Jesus and his Apostles, as well as the NT documents as a whole, often appealed to the Scriptures in the possession of the Jews at that time. And, as we documented in the previous parts of our discussion, one will find many references to “the Law and the Prophets,” or to “the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms” (cf. Luke 24:25, 27, 44-45). These divisions of the Scriptures did not include the Apocryphal books, but did contain the OT books found in the Jewish and Protestant canons.

Second, just because the NT may allude to material from the Apocrypha doesn’t mean that the NT writers viewed them as inspired or canonical." Sam Shamoun, Appendix: Addressing Some Arguments in Support of the Apocrypha: http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2013/01/appendix-addressing-some-arguments-in.html *

I thoroughly recommend all to read that article above and examples in said article are listed to demonstrate the point made.

Other points about Sirach may be focused on if the Lord Wills.

As for the quote from James White. WHERE did he say what he said? And Speaking of White, this is what he said on Sola Scriptura (Bold italic emphasis mine):
"
Sola scriptura says the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. It does not deny the existence of "general revelation" in nature (hence the error of saying the "sole source of revelation"). It is interesting to note, however, that Mr. Ray, in his zeal for the Roman position, ends up taking the more conservative, traditional partim-partim viewpoint of tradition and revelation, for while many modern Roman Catholic theologians are moving toward abandoning the "two-source" view of revelation, Mr. Ray states his adherence to it plainly a number of times in his article (we shall note them in passing). Mr. Ray is a former Baptist. Hence, he might want to be familiar with what the Baptists in 1689 placed in their Confession of Faith:
The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
The sufficiency of Scripture is clearly asserted, but it is a sufficiency carefully defined. No one claims the Bible is an omnipedia of all knowledge. Nor does anyone claim the Bible can tell you, specifically, what color fabric to place upon the pews of your new church building. But all things that are "necessary" for God's "own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in Holy Scripture.""

And in the same article says:
"Sola scriptura speaks to the Church as she exists in her normative state. Times of revelation are not normative. They are now passed. So how does the Church have sure access to the truths of God today? By reference to nebulous, a-historical traditions, or to the sure and unchanging Word of God in the Scriptures? Sola scriptura says the Church always has an ultimate authority to which to turn: and the Church isn't that ultimate authority! The Church is in need of revelation from Her Lord, and that she finds in Scripture, not in "traditions" that are uncertain".

James White, A Review and Rebuttal of Steve Ray’s Article, Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura: http://vintage.aomin.org/This%20Bereans%20passage.html

I would recommend others reading his articles here:
http://vintage.aomin.org/cathan.html
http://vintage.aomin.org/This%20Bereans%20passage.html

Also, Why is there the assumption that the Protestant view means that a "magic number" as to be met?

To make a few points:

A Oral Traditions of the Pharisees don't prove the Roman Catholic apostate traditions to have any weight. I already said that traditions used to deal with kosher slaughter and tefillin aren't problematic and that Jesus accepted SOME of the traditions, not all.
B. Tradition is profitable, not inspired.
C Which doesn't prove Rome to be a true church in any way.
D. Paul is referring to the Old Testament in context of 2 Timothy 3:16 and I have said it refers to the New Testament in principle.
E. The NT has an anti-Gnostic polemic contained within it.

With respect to the word ophelimos, it means profitable. No Sola Scripturist denies this and tradition itself can be profitable, as is a commentary. Several of the Reformers had no hesitation looking at the dissertations and treatises of church Fathers or the decisions of the church councils for what they said. However...... tradition in this passage is not described as God Breathed scripture itself, so how it destroys protestant creeds and confessions I have no idea. Tradition outside the scripture is NEVER referred to as God breathed, hence the point made would be a vacuous one.

Furthermore it is important to realize that scripture is "theopneustos" or God-breathed (Something the Roman tradition is not) and also can equip and furnish the believing. Tradition is fine to use for edification for sure and even may provide an insight you haven't noticed. Maybe I have an insight someone may not have seen who knows? But the point is, It is ultimately the scripture itself that is called inspired, not the traditions of the Roman apologists who want to force false teaching on their congregants.

Matt Slick observes the following regarding the Greek of the passage:
"Let's take a look at the Greek. The word "inspired" is qeovpneustos (theopneustos), and it means literally, "God breathed." This means that God was the one working through people--breathing through them his words. The Scriptures, therefore, are perfect and without error because they come from God. Paul continues and says that these Scriptures are profitable for teaching, for proof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. In verse 17 he explains that this is so the Christian may be adequate--equipped for every good work. The word artios(artios) is defined as follows:
  • "complete, capable, proficient, able to meet all demands."2
  • "complete, perfect of its kind, suitable, exactly fitted"3
  • "complete, perfect. 2a having reference apparently to "special aptitude for given uses."4
So, we see from three sources that explain the Greek that Paul is telling us that the Scriptures are "complete, capable, proficient, able to meet all demands, exactly fitted, etc." This is fine; but Paul continues to tell us that this, so we might understand that by studying the Scriptures, we will be adequately equipped for every good work.
The Greek word for "equipped" is ejxhrtismevno" (exartismenos) and it means, "having been finished, fully equipped":
  • "equip, furnish."5
  • "to be thoroughly prepared or furnished."6
  • "to complete, finish. 1a to furnish perfectly. 1b to finish, accomplish."7
We can then see that we are equipped for every good work. Every good work is explained in the previous verse as teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. This means that the Bible is sufficient for all of these things. This naturally includes the teaching of doctrine because teaching correct doctrine is a good work by which we reprove, correct, and train. Furthermore, this means that we don't need sacred tradition to teach, reprove, correct, and train in righteousness because the Scriptures are what is sufficient for this."http://carm.org/are-scriptures-sufficient

Sam Shamoun himself also notes the following:
"1. The Holy Scriptures are the sole, infallible rule of faith by virtue of it being breathed out or inspired by God. As such it is completely sufficient in and of itself to thoroughly equip Christians in all things necessary for salvation and sanctification.

2. The Bible is the only certain norm, since it is the only revelation that can be demonstrated to have come from inspired men of God. This cannot be said of oral traditions.

3. Finally, the central focus of the Scriptures is to reveal and make known the risen Lord and immortal Savior Jesus Christ, God’s eternally beloved Son, who alone grants eternal life to all who believe." Sam Shamoun, An Articulation of Sola Scriptura: The Biblical Basis for the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures: http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2013/01/an-articulation-of-sola-scriptura.html

Finally, Thompson demonstrates the following regarding the phrase "exartismos" (Bold and italic emphasis mine):
"Now, when 2 Timothy 3:17 teaches that Scripture thoroughly equips the man of God for every good work including doctrine, the original Greek word is exērtismenos (ἐξηρτισμένος), the perfect passive participle of exartizō (ἐξαρτίζω). The word exartizō is defined in the following ways by major professional lexicographers and grammarians:
Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words defines it as: “to fit out” (W. E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, William White, Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, [Thomas Nelson Inc., 1996], p. 117).

Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament defines it as: to complete, finish 1a) to furnish perfectly” (Joseph. H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, [Hendrickson Publishers, 2009], p. 222).

Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words affirms it means “to equip or furnish completely” (William D. Mounce, Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, [Zondervan, 2006], p. 1146).

Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament notes the word means to “bring to a suitable state” (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromily, Vol. 1, [Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1964-1976], pp. 475).

The Baur, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, defines it as: “equip, furnish . . . for every good deed 2 Ti 3:17” (Walter Bauer, Frederick William Danker, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur, Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, [University of Chicago Press, 2000], p. 346).
Hence, what is deduced from this text is that Scripture is able or powerful to make men wise unto salvation through faith. Scripture is God-breathed or given by inspiration of God. Scripture’s purpose is to profit us with doctrine, reproof, correction and training in righteousness. Hence, there is no doctrine or sin that Scripture is not profitable enough to address. And Scripture is sufficient in the sense that it makes the man of God complete, fully furnishing and fully equipping him for every good work including doctrine or teaching.

Therefore, since 2 Timothy 3:16-17 teaches that Scripture fully furnishes or makes the man of God fully equipped forevery good work including doctrine, that means Scripture contains everything we need for doctrin. We do not need extra-biblical tradition to supplement Scripture and inform us of doctrine allegedly missing from Scripture as Romanism teaches."

I would also recommend and judge for yourself the article by Messianic Drew on Roman Catholic claims of authority: http://messianicdrew.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/messianic-look-at-roman-catholic-claims.html (Link is now defunct).

For now this is all I have to say in this particular article.

7th of January 2016*In light of recent events, the original article(s) is (are) up again.

27th of October 2017 Sam Shamoun was the author of the article that I linked to, not Keith Thompson.

Tuesday, 17 November 2015

People's flaws + Someone else writing = Biblical Corruption?

Many Muslims take issue with the fact that the saints in the Bible are recorded engaging in wrongdoing at some point in their lives. Many examples include David and Bathsheba's adulterous affair, Lot's drunkeness, Moses smashing the rock when he was supposed to speak to it, Noah getting drunk etc.

Some go as far as saying that the Bible is corrupted or proved to be corrupted because of these. 

However, what Muslims fail to take into account is that the Bible is simply being honest with the short comings of men. It doesn't try to sugarcoat and present them as a beautiful victoria sponge cake or whatever can be classified as pretty. It gives us a picture of the saints, despite their devout beliefs and lives, still were flawed and in need of God's grace in order to be holy. 

This is not a proof of biblical corruption or slander of the holy people of God, it merely highlights their shortcomings, which is very honest.

One individual named Dailogues, a Muslim, recently asked on Paltalk How Moses could of written Deuteronomy 34 when he died and stated it was a biblical corruption. I pointed out it was Joshua that wrote Moses' death, to which Dailogues said that was proof of biblical corruption.

No that doesn't make any sense. That's not evidence of corruption, because it is a contemporary of Moses, but not just that a successor to Moses that recorded this.

Let me give you an example of finishing someone else's work and it's not corruption.

JRR Tolkien, the writer of the acclaimed book series, The Lord of the Rings, wrote a book called the Silmarillion. The Silmarillion is essentially a "history book" of the Middle-earth series designed to fill in the gaps (Not perfectly). JRR Tolkien never actually finished the book and his son Christopher compiled his Father's works, as well as come up with new material to help it gel together. Does this mean he is guilty of corrupting his Father's work? No.

Joshua completed the book of Deuteronomy and recorded Moses death, but he didn't come up with new material to fill in a gap or come up with new material for better cohesion. All Joshua did, was record what happened. This is not an example of biblically corruption at all.

If someone wrote a biography and then their closest friend (an honest friend before anyone tries to make the argument that they could of lied) recorded the details of his death, that does not logically mean that the person is corrupting that particular work.

Adding something that is true to a work is not corruption.

Answering Judaism.

12/10/2024
To make a few corrections as to the nature of the Silmarillion, I recommend looking at this interview with Christopher Tolkien: Christopher Tolkien speaks about "The Silmarillion"

I was also wrong that Christopher had come up with material. That is untrue and I spoke in ignorance, having gone through the Silmarillion myself in the past. At the time, I had not touched the Silmarillion. My apologies to all reading.

The Silmarillion is also more accurately to be described as a mythology and fictional history as it deals with the events of the First and Second Ages of Middle-earth, briefly touching upon the Third Age.

Monday, 16 November 2015

Pontius Pilate: A righteous man?

Specifically, Does the lack of Pilate's wickedness mean that Pilate himself is treated as a righteous man in the New Testament? The answer is a no, and here is why.

What does history do? It records events down that happened. However, historians select was is important to the audience that they are writing to.

David Pawson has described the Bible as the "Prophetic History", namely, history that is important to God.

The reason the sins of Pontius Pilate are not mentioned is not because the NT are portrayed him as righteous, but because the atrocities he committed were not relevant to the theological and historical point of the book.

To quickly touch upon Josephus:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him and the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day." Antiquities of the Jews - Book XVIII

Jesus is touched upon briefly, but not extensively, as presumably, Jesus was not of significant importance to Josephus, it's more of a passing remark.

Again, history only records what is important to the writer and the target audience and what they need to know. It's the same with the Bible, it only provides you with what is relevant to God and what he wants you to know.

So is Pilate presented as good? No.

Answering Judaism.

Friday, 6 November 2015

Universalism: The Ancient Heresy

Despite the date above and due to the fact this was posted early by accident, it should say Friday 18th of December and not the Friday 6th of November. My apologies.

One of the oldest heresies, alongside Docetism, Anti-Trinitarianism and Gnosticism to ever enter the church, is Universalism. It has been embraced by many in this day and age and doesn't seem to be a heresy that is going to die anytime soon despite many refutations existing.

Where it came from may be explored in another article if the Lord Wills but for now, I think this will suffice.

Universalism is a heresy that (like all heresies) cannot be ignored. Does this teaching have biblical basis, or are the ones proclaiming it guilty of distorting the scriptures as Peter states in his second letter? We'll find out and those who know my position on the matter will probably know what my stance is on the issue.

If Universalism is true, Then we can happily embrace it and those who teach such, but if it can be shown that Universalism is in fact false and that the scriptures teach to the contrary, then those who teach it are teaching a doctrine of demons and those who believe in the heresy of universalism need to repent and shun it.

The apostles gave us numerous warnings NOT to fellowship with false teachers and that doing so means partaking of their evil deeds.

Ignatius of Antioch demonstrated a perfect attitude to how we should see the false teachers as well in his letter to the Smyrnaeans:
"Chapter IV.-Beware of These Heretics.

I give you these instructions, beloved, assured that ye also hold the same opinions [as I do]. But I guard you beforehand from those beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with; only you must pray to God for them, if by any means they may be brought to repentance, which, however, will be very difficult. Yet Jesus Christ, who is our true life, has the power of [effecting] this. But if these things were done by our Lord only in appearance, then am I also only in appearance bound. And why have I also surrendered myself to death, to fire, to the sword, to the wild beasts? But, [in fact, ] he who is near to the sword is near to God; he that is among the wild beasts is in company with God; provided only he be so m the name of Jesus Christ. I undergo all these things that I may suffer together with Him, He who became a perfect man inwardly strengthening me.

I give you these instructions, beloved, assured that ye also hold the same opinions [as I do]. But I guard you beforehand from these beasts in the shape of men, from whom you must not only turn away, but even flee from them. Only you must pray for them, if by any means they may be brought to repentance. For if the Lord were in the body in appearance only, and were crucified in appearance only, then am I also bound in appearance only. And why have I also surrendered myself to death, to fire, to the sword, to the wild beasts? But, [in fact, ] I endure all things for Christ, not in appearance only, but in reality, that I may suffer together with Him, while He Himself inwardly strengthens me; for of myself I have no such ability."

Some may perceive it unkind or hurtful to refer to people as "wild beasts" or "vile" or such a similar set of terminology, there is a biblical allowance for such language. See my previous article on this issue: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/harsh-words-and-differences-among-them.html

To further expand on that issue, Ignatius encourages the congregation to pray for the salvation of the heretics, so that they maybe saved.

The only way to love the creator God, is to believe in Jesus and it's only through Jesus that we can know the Father. Any other religion will NOT bring you to salvation nor will help you come closer to God. Every man cannot have their spiritual and emotional needs met unless the God of the Bible has dominion over their life in the sense of being under his Lordship.

Furthermore, to quote the words of David Pawson "Christians KNOW the love of God because they have experienced it and are in position to UNDERSTAND it". To preach God's love without the individual experiencing it and understanding it is very dangerous, for it gives the audience the impression that God is tolerant and indulgent and overlooks sin. God's love itself can only be understood once one has been regenerated.

Biblical texts often cited by universalists
Here in this section, we'll tackle the relevant texts that many universalists bring up to justify their teachings. Let us look at them.

"Romans 5:6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men[a] because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

18 Therefore, as one trespass[b] led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness[c] leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Paul refers to in the context what happened at the time of conversion, namely while the believers before their conversion were lost and were enemies of God, Christ has now set them free. The text is explicit to point out that the exclusivity of salvation, the position that Christ ALONE saves, is evident not only on a surface reading, but also a careful handling and exegesis of the text.

While the grace of God may be open to all, that doesn't mean all will receive, only Christ himself can quicken the individual and bring about redemption. It is by the grace of God that man can come into the faith.

Salvation is open to all, but unless man is quickened and repents toward God, he shall NOT be the recipient of eternal life.

"Romans 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? 36 As it is written,

“For your sake we are being killed all the day long;
    we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”
37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

I have spoken on this text in another article:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/comments-on-romans-8-and-other-texts.html

In addition to the article provided, The text in context is referring to the believers in Jesus and who will separate them from the Love of God. The unbelievers are already condemned and separated from God and it is their own sin that will keep them away from God and his presence for eternity. The statement of not being separated from Christ by external means are only applicable to those are in Christ Jesus, Not to those are not of his sheep.

"Romans 11:15 For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?"

"Romans 11:25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers:[a] a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,

“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
    he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”;
27 “and this will be my covenant with them
    when I take away their sins.”
28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now[b] receive mercy. 32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

34 “For who has known the mind of the Lord,
    or who has been his counselor?”
35 “Or who has given a gift to him
    that he might be repaid?”"

The believers in Jesus are the ones who have received mercy, since Paul is addressing those particular churches. There is nothing even in the text to suggest that "all" literally means all men will be saved. The usage of the word all has to be defined in context.

"Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by[a] him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross."

Who is the body that Jesus is the head of in the context, the church, not the unbelievers. Jesus is sovereign over all, but not all submit to his Lordship. The emphasis on ALL here is on the nature of Jesus, namely where all things derive their existence from, who is the one by all things consist and that Christ has dominion over creation as YHWH God. Paul is NOT saying that all human beings are going to be saved, he is only making the point on who is the creator of all things and sustainer of all things, namely Jesus Christ.

"1 Corinthians 15:19 If in Christ we have hope[a] in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God[b] has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?"

There are two different alls that are being conveyed here. In Adam, all man are dead in sin and transgression, depraved and unfit for doing good. We have inherited the sin of Adam, the adamic nature.

The all in Christ statements are not saying all men are in Christ, we have a secondary all that is present. The all will be made alive in Christ refers to those who have been drawn to Christ and are under his lordship. Not every human on this planet submits or is even in Jesus' flock, hence the all who are made alive in Christ, cannot refer to those who are enslaved to another religion but only to those who belong to Jesus. Even the context says "those who belong to him".

As for the baptism of the dead, Paul is referring to a practice by pagans and using them as an illustration to drive the point home that even the pagans know that there is a Day of Reckoning. The baptism for the dead is not a reference to Christian baptism, but to pagan baptism.

"2 Corinthians 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; 15 and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.[a] The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling[b] the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

"1 John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world."

The very context of the two passages speaks itself, it even EXPLICITLY says "if anyone IS IN CHRIST". Only those who are in Christ Jesus will be the recipients of eternal life and if God has quickened an individual, they will only receive eternal life IF they repent. Only those in Jesus who have repented and accepted his offer of salvation will be reconciled to God. Those who are not in Christ are not a new creation, they are dead and lost.

In fact to expand on the context of 1 John, let's take a look at chapter 2, specifically the following verses:
"1 John 2:21 I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. 24 Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that he made to us[f]—eternal life."

If anyone denies Jesus Christ and they do not repent, they do NOT receive eternal life, neither in this age, nor in the age to come.

"John 12:30 Jesus answered, “This voice has come for your sake, not mine. 31 Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out. 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” 33 He said this to show by what kind of death he was going to die."

Ellicot has an interesting comment on this particular context:
"Will draw all men unto me.—Better, . . . unto Myself. The words “all men” are not to be limited by interpretations which refer them to nations, or to elect persons within nations; but are to be taken in all the fulness of their width as meaning simply what they say—“all.” The drawing unto Himself is the assertion of His reign over the world, from which the prince of evil shall be cast out. He will Himself be the centre of the new kingdom, from which none shall be shut out. These Greeks who are drawn to Him now are the first-fruits of the harvest of which the whole world is the field, and of which the last day is to be the great ingathering. The word “draw” occurs once in the New Testament, besides this passage, in a moral sense (John 6:44; comp. Note on it there). It is accomplished in the work of the Holy Spirit, whose mission to the Church was dependent on the ascension of our Lord (John 7:39; John 16:7); and the promise is fulfilled even in the case of those who resist the Holy Spirit’s influence. They are drawn by the moral power of the life and death and resurrection of Christ brought home to them by the Holy Ghost; but no moral power can compel a will which is free. (Comp. Note on John 6:37.) The whole mission-work of the Church and every effort which Christianity brings to bear upon the evil of the world implies this moral drawing; and implies, too, the power of man to reject it. But we may not say this moral power is not leading men to Christ, where we can least trace it, and we may not say that there is any limit where its influence ends. (Comp. Note on 1Peter 3:19.)" http://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/12-32.htm

"John 12:46 I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. 47 If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day."

Jesus isn't denying he will judge on the last day. Looking at both texts from John 12, just read in between the verses at the context and you'll see what the context is actually saying:
"34 The crowd spoke up, “We have heard from the Law that the Messiah will remain forever, so how can you say, ‘The Son of Man must be lifted up’? Who is this ‘Son of Man’?”

35 Then Jesus told them, “You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. Whoever walks in the dark does not know where they are going. 36 Believe in the light while you have the light, so that you may become children of light.” When he had finished speaking, Jesus left and hid himself from them."

Why is Jesus telling his hearers to believe in the light? There wouldn't be such an exhortation if universalism is even remotely true.

"Luke 3 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 4 As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet,

“The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
‘Prepare the way of the Lord,[a]
    make his paths straight.
5 Every valley shall be filled,
    and every mountain and hill shall be made low,
and the crooked shall become straight,
    and the rough places shall become level ways,
6 and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.’”"

"Matthew 18:12 What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? 13 And if he finds it, truly, I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray. 14 So it is not the will of my[a] Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish."

Putting aside the issue of loosing ones salvation or not, let's look carefully. In Matthew, Jesus is speaking about himself going after one of the believers who are going astray and him bringing that believer back. The sheep in context are believers, not unbelievers. As for the context of Luke, all men will see the salvation of God, but not all receive salvation.

"1 Timothy 3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man[a] Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time."

"2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you,[a] not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."

"1 Timothy 4:9 The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance. 10 For to this end we toil and strive,[b] because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe."

"1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."

In the four texts, Christ is the Saviour of all men, but not all men will be saved, simply because the atonement of Jesus will only cover those who have repented and in the Old Testament as anyone should know, the Day of Atonement or Yom Kippur would only cover the Jewish people who repented, not every single Jew. No Repentance, No Salvation, plain and simple.

God desires man to come to repentance and without repentance, you will perish. A call to repentance is part and parcel of the Gospel.

As for the texts in Philippians and Revelation, let's take a look what they actually say.

"Philippians 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,[a] 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,[b] being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

"Revelation 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying,

“Worthy are you to take the scroll
    and to open its seals,
for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God
    from every tribe and language and people and nation,
10 and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God,
    and they shall reign on the earth.”
11 Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, 12 saying with a loud voice,

“Worthy is the Lamb who was slain,
to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might
and honor and glory and blessing!”
13 And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying,

“To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!”
14 And the four living creatures said, “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshiped."

The context of those confessing Jesus as Lord in Philippians 2 is a reference to what will happen when Jesus returns. Unbelievers realize their beliefs and life were wrong and though they bow the knee to Jesus, but it is too late for them to come to Jesus and be saved and they shall go away into everlasting fire and judgement.

The individuals found in Revelation are those who PRAISE YHWH as their God, not those who deny him or give lip service to him. Those who are singing in the context have salvation and are not lost. People who deny Jesus or pay lip service, will not truly glorify Jesus at all.

What Jesus and the apostles had to say and the problems with Universalism
Universalism of all types diminishes the urgency of the Gospel and the wrath of God. While some may argue that God may let the individual out of hell after a time of cleansing, such thinking also diminishes the two points I have already mentioned above. If all man will be saved outside of Christ, what was the point of him coming? Doesn't saying hell is temporary or doesn't exist take away from the fact that YHWH is a God of wrath and that sin is something offensive to him?

For that matter, the book of Hebrews makes it very clear what happens after death.

"Hebrews 9:23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him."

Men will stand before Christ to be judged. Why fear the judgement of God if hell is temporary or nonexistent? After all, If hell exists and universalism is true, the unbeliever can say to in essence "Hmm, God is going to cleanse me in hell after my death, Why accept Jesus now? it appears to me that I can indulge in idolatry and other sins and while I may suffer from Judgement for a time, It appears to me that I can say enjoy the blessings of heaven".

Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying universalists claim that this is the mind set that they are putting into unbelievers into, I am saying that it is a mindset that the unbeliever themselves derive this conclusion from the universalist, even if it is NOT the universalist's intention. But this is the danger they are actually putting the unbeliever in. It's a dangerous game for the unbeliever to play.

Let us not forget what Jesus said in Matthew 7:21-23:
"15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’"

This doesn't sound like a Jesus that is eventually going to let a sinful individual into heaven now does it? Jesus even tells us who are the ones who will enter, those who do the will of the Father and absolutely no one else.

Take also into consideration that hell is NOT a cleansing fire. The demons who have no salvation are terrified of hell. If even the demons have a fear of God's judgement, are we not to fear judgement and repent toward God? At least humanity has been granted a second chance to be reconciled to God has it not? But this second chance is only applicable in this life and this life alone. Again, this is where urgency comes into play.

Two examples from video gaming are worth an illustration here, Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask and Final Fantasy XIII-3: Lightning Returns. In both scenarios, both protagonists are under pressure to save individuals from coming destruction, with limited time on their hands. Putting aside game mechanics and time travel or time manipulation of both games as they are not relevant to this issue, there is a sense of urgency in the context of the stories that is thrust on the two protagonists as they roam across their lands, helping individuals and doing what they can to save as many as they possibly can.

The apostles of Jesus Christ were sent out on a mission to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them and bringing them to repentance, teaching them to obey everything Jesus commanded them. God quickens an individual, enabling them to respond to the Gospel, but nevertheless, charges his followers to spread the message of the Gospel, for he has commanded all to repent:

"Acts 17:24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,[c] 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for

“‘In him we live and move and have our being’;[d]
as even some of your own poets have said,

“‘For we are indeed his offspring.’[e]
29 Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. 30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, “We will hear you again about this.” 33 So Paul went out from their midst. 34 But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them."

If Universalism of ANY kind were true, we would not receive such a command from God. If all men are saved, be it no judgement or just in hell for only a little while they are being cleansed, why on earth would God command all men to repent? There would be no need to present the Gospel at all, we could just let man continue about their daily lives with not a care in this world.

Also, The argument that one converts after their death or post mortem is also completely bogus. If you die in a sinful state, you REMAIN in such. There is no cleansing of your sin, either in hell or purgatory.  Hell is retribution, NOT restoration. Hell is not a place where God can simply clean you up so you can enter the kingdom of heaven, It is a place where people who reject God shall be spending eternity, NOT a long time and then it ends.

But more than that, Hell cuts you off from the presence of YHWH. There will be no prayer to God, there will be no such ability to do so as God is not there to hear you. Hell is banishment, not just punishment. Does this sound like a place where you want to go? Does this sound like a place where you can be purified? If there is no God to purify you in hell and hell is NOT a purification of man, what is the logical step? You have weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 13:38-50, 24:51, Matthew 25:30 and Luke 13:28 to name a few texts) , regret for not accepting God and cursing him for eternity.

If there is no God in hell, man is evil and unrestrained, doomed to be depraved for eternity, no restoration, no escape, no reprieve, no compassion, just eternity in hell away from God.

David Pawson in this link conveys the horrors of hell very effectively in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OoV8abiPek

Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life, none shall come to the Father but by him. Is Jesus telling us a lie here? I don't think so. I do not believe Jesus will tell lies at all. He meant what he said.

Some could try to argue those who never have heard the Gospel will be saved by what they know to be right. While it is true man will be judged by his conscience if he has not heard the Gospel, that isn't going to save him, as man will violate his conscience and is in a state of rebellion against God. Why assume they are innocent of any charge? Even the most lovely people you could meet need the Gospel just as much as the drug dealer or prostitute down the street. Why did Jesus say make disciples of all nations (ethnic groups) if again this was the case and if again universalism is true?

More than that, let us observe the following from John 3 shall we?

"John 3:1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus[a] by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again[b] he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.[c] 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You[d] must be born again.’ 8 The wind[e] blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

9 Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you[f] do not receive our testimony. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.[g] 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.[h]"

Notice here what we have. Jesus himself makes very clear that only those who have been born again and regenerated can enter heaven. The scenario in the Old Testament with Moses is utilized by Jesus for a reason. Only those who looked upon the serpent would reap the benefits offered by it, namely if an individual was bitten by the snake, they would gaze upon the bronze snake and thus the venom would not kill them:

"Numbers 21:4 From Mount Hor they set out by the way to the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom. And the people became impatient on the way. 5 And the people spoke against God and against Moses, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this worthless food.” 6 Then the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. 7 And the people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord and against you. Pray to the Lord, that he take away the serpents from us.” So Moses prayed for the people. 8 And the Lord said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze[c] serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live."

Jesus is making the point that those who look upon him truly will reap the benefits of eternal life, no ifs, no buts. The argument cannot be made that upon death, God sanctifies the sinner, that is not a valid answer and is a cop out.

To take this even further we read the following in John 3 again:
"John 3:16 “For God so loved the world,[i] that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”"

Those who do not turn to Christ and repent will NOT receive life and it includes those who do NOT remain in Jesus. It is clear here that universalism is NOT found on the words of Jesus. If an individual loves darkness, Why should he or she be a recipient of the light? Man loves darkness and if he continues to do so, he will not enter the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Jesus also says the following in John 8 that further drives this point home:

"John 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”"

If any version of universalism was true, we would not expect Jesus to give us this warning at all. There is no need warn about the risk of dying in ones sins and not only would that be the case, it would render Jesus' own words as vacuous. That is a thought I don't believe any Christian should entertain and logically if one holds to universalism, it may lead them to serious blasphemy and slander of Jesus.

Scroll down to the section on life and death in this article: http://makestraightpaths.com/hell.htm

If you look at the references in John, they all highlight a common thread:
John 3:16
John 6:53
John 8:24
John 11:25-26
John 20:31

I have already commented on John 3:16 earlier in this paper, but let us all take a look at John 6:53:
"John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me— 46 not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink."

If hell is not eternal? Why should heaven be considered as eternal? Why is it OK for one to be eternal, but not the other. If hell is not eternal, then heaven itself is also a temporary abode, if we were to accept the idea that Hell is temporary.

Matthew Henry notes the following about the context:
"6:47-51 The advantage of the manna was small, it only referred to this life; but the living Bread is so excellent, that the man who feedeth on it shall never die. This bread is Christ's human nature, which he took to present to the Father, as a sacrifice for the sins of the world; to purchase all things pertaining to life and godliness, for sinners of every nation, who repent and believe in him."

Obviously the death that is present in the context of John 6 is spiritual death, that those who believe in Jesus despite their physical death, we be raised to eternal life. If one is not in Jesus and if they deny him, they will not receive eternal life. They'll be raised from physical death, but will be damned. This is what makes Jesus statement in John 8:24 so important to take on board that unless we accept Jesus here and NOW, not post mortem, we will not be saved.

To jump quickly to John 11:23-27 and 20:30-31 we read:
"11:23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” 24 Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life.[d] Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” 27 She said to him, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world.”"

"20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
This statement from John 20 explains his reason for writing the Gospel, to keep believers in Jesus, to encourage them to go on believing, that those who do continue trusting in him will be saved. Nothing implicitly (I say this lest someone try to go that route) or explicitly tells us that unbelievers will eventually be saved post mortem or purified in hell. Only those who believe will be saved, referring to those who are trusting in Jesus now and forever in this life. It is implicitly there without having to contrive an excuse from thin air. John 11 itself also demonstrates that those who believe will be saved and not those who are not believers.

Going back to the Sermon on the Mount, We read this:
"Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

The text speaks for itself, but more than that, here is a question to you all, Does the righteous of fallen man exceed that of the Pharisees in Jesus day? I think not, so immediate disqualification is present.

We also see in Paul's letters and in the book of Revelation a list (not comprehensive) of sinners who will not be saved:

"Revelation 21:5 And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” 6 And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. 7 The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son. 8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”"

A very serious point made in the book of Revelation. See also the following texts for more information: (1 Corinthians 5:11, 6:9, 6:18, Galatians 5:19-21, 1 John 3:7, Hebrews 12:14).

I ask every universalist to try to reconcile these passages with their doctrinal belief, I guarantee, you won't unless you take the text out of context.

Some will try to say "Well the early church were universalists and were never condemned for their beliefs.".

Here's the problem, to say Universalism was taught by the early church because it wasn't condemned at that time but only later is an argument from silence. The fact the Bible itself doesn't teach universalism condemns their heresy regardless of a council, just as Anti Trinitarianism is condemned by the Bible regardless of a council opposing it. Tertullian in his letter against Praexeus condemned Modalism. Are we to assume that Modalism is valid just because a council condemned it later and not back when it first arose? A council isn't the ultimate authority, the Bible is, but that doesn't mean it is the only authority. The council as an authority can be used but the council itself is subordinate to the Bible.

I may comment more on the Church Fathers in another paper if the Lord Wills.

The argument that the world hell is never used is also an argument from silence. If a Trinitarian Universalist specifically uses tries this argument, it most certainly cannot be used and it backfires.

To give a few examples, Lest anyone use the argument that the word Trinity is not in the Bible, this doesn't refute the doctrine, as there are doctrines in various religions that don't use terms found in their scriptures, like shituf. The late Dr Immanuel Schochet explains what Shituf is and how it applies in a given situation in his debate with Michael Brown in part 7 of the debate (7:04-7:57): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cDkiY8d2tw.

Does the name not appearing in the Bible refute shituf? No. Shituf would only be refuted if it is not in the scriptures. Likewise, the Trinity would only be subject to refutation IF the doctrine wasn't there in the scriptures. The name doesn't have to be there, as long as the concept exists in the context of the scriptures, then it matters not if the term is used.

Ergo, Even if the word hell isn't used, it matters not, what matters is if the teaching itself is present in scripture, which is the case. The same argument applies to universalism and annihilationism, both terms don't appear, but as long as they are already in the scripture, that's what matters and the case is, both universalism and annihilationism are NOT scriptural but are antithetical to scripture.

If the argument that the word hell is not in the Bible then the teaching is false, then the word Trinity not being in the Bible makes the Trinity false. Inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument as the saying goes.

Does denying universalism mean that we are denying God's power? No. He could save all if he so choose, but the question is, Why should he?

God is under no obligation to save anyone. He is not going to let anyone into his presence if they are unholy, such a thing is not going to happen and it's against his nature. As pointed out earlier, hell is not redemptive, it is punitive. The very fact that Jesus sent Christians out on the mission to preach the Gospel shows that universalism isn't true, be it an outright denial of hell, or even an acknowledgement of hell as a temporary cleansing. If someone dies cursing God, that's the eternal choice they make, they will be judged and sentenced.

Someone who dies in their sin doesn't cease sinning. The only people that stop sinning upon death are believers in Jesus and that is due to the fact that they have been justified and sanctified by Christ and will enter glorification. The unbelievers die in their sins and will receive the judgement of God. Death does not cause unbelievers to stop sinning. It's a radical assumption to make unless you want to argue annihilationism (In that case a sinner who dies without Christ stops sinning because they no longer exist). Also, The atheist and agnostic (Not saying they believe they are sinners) can at least argue someone will stop doing bad upon death, but also good, considering death is a permanent end with no hope of an afterlife. So in the atheist view, they stop doing things period, including doing bad.

Getting back to what I said about God being under no obligation to grant salvation, The fact is, NO ONE has the right to go to heaven, it is a privilege granted by grace. No one deserves heaven, let alone a chance to breathe. He could even wipe someone out if he so wished. Why should God allow us into heaven when we have offended him and why should the Father send Jesus to die for our sins if we ourselves don't deserve it? Grace is the reason why. God is love, but mentioned earlier, we can only appreciate and know the love of God through experience which leads us to understanding it. Our sinful love must never be imposed on that of God. You can only truly understand what biblical love (Not sinful love) is if you have experienced it, or even given it to another.

To ask how can a loving God send anyone to hell, shows a failure to understand the love of God. It unfortunately takes a view of God's love that is shallow, tolerant and indulgent. Namely it conveys the idea that God will accept your sin as a viable lifestyle choice, which biblically he would not share that view with you. A sinful love is precisely shallow, tolerant and indulgent. If you truly care about someone, you warn them. If you were a child, how many times have your parents said "Go to bed early" or "Don't play on the Nintendo for too long, take a break"? I am not saying those are the only examples but how many times has a parent warned and guided you? Why do they do it, because they love you and want what's best for you. God desires man to be holy, not just because it is pleasing to him, but it's your purpose. You purpose is to glorify him and love him, not use God as a butler for material gain or use him as part of the law of attraction garbage. God is not a slave, you are to be his.

Shouldn't it move Christians to warn of the coming judgement of God and tell the unbelievers they need Jesus to be saved, or even exhort church congregations to repent before they are lost? Why bother, When we can just let them be cleansed by the fires of hell? and no the section in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians is not an example of hellfire cleansing and even the context establishes Jesus to be the only foundation to build on:

"3:11 For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— 13 each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."

The reference in question refers to church leaders building the church. A foundation has to be built on Jesus Christ, lest it will fall. There is indeed nothing to suggest that the fire is a cleansing fire akin to purgatory or a cleansing fire in hell.

I recommend this article by Keith Thompson for more information on 1 Corinthians 3:12-15: http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2014/03/biblical-and-historical-refutation-of.html

Do we deny good news?
The word Gospel means good news. Do we Christians who teach biblical hellfire and not heretical universalism deny that the Gospel is good news? Absolutely not, we affirm it is good news.

The good news of the Gospel is Jesus came to die and rise again. He paid the penalty for your sin so that through repentance and faith, you'll be born again, justified by faith and saved by grace. That is the good news, that God came to save you from your sins and that if you trust in him continually, you'll have eternal life.

If you are a universalist, What good news are you presenting? That God will save all and cleanse them in hell and bring them out? If so, then why bother preaching at all? It renders the Great Commission a waste of time, money and attention, just like the pretentious and blasphemous rock opera "Jesus Christ Superstar". There literally is NO point you going to the ends of the earth to bring any news, You might as well say nothing. And if universalism is false and you do not give the message of the Gospel, you'll be guilty of sending millions to hell because you didn't give them the Gospel message that tells them to repent. I'll let that sink in for a moment.

We Christians who preach hellfire don't claim that hell is torture for torture sake or that God get's some perverse pleasure out of seeing people suffer. God doesn't take pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:23 and 33:11) and Jesus tells us that there is much rejoicing in heaven over the repentance of one sinner (Luke 15:7-10).

I had mentioned earlier that the Day of Atonement only cover those who repented and turned to God. It is very much the same with Christ's atonement. Even Michael L Brown in his discussion with Shmuley Boteach noted that "Without my repentance, the blood is meaningless. Jesus died on the cross but if I don't turn to him in repentance and faith, it's meaningless".

When to mention Hell?
Some may raise the argument that the apostles never used hell as part of their evangelistic crusades as an argument against hell, that we shouldn't scare people into following Jesus. First of all, there is a difference between fear tactics and pointing out the coming judgement. Furthermore, there are examples in the New Testament where someone who is warned of the coming judgement and fear seizes them.

Furthermore, just because hell wasn't mentioned to the unbelievers, that doesn't change the fact that there is a risk of the unbeliever going there. Usually when hell is spoken about, it is spoken as a warning to the believers, not to the unbelievers. Jesus spoke more times about hell than anyone else in the scriptures.

To give an example of someone's fear being present with respect to judgement, we observe the following in Acts 24:
"22 But Felix, having a rather accurate knowledge of the Way, put them off, saying, “When Lysias the tribune comes down, I will decide your case.” 23 Then he gave orders to the centurion that he should be kept in custody but have some liberty, and that none of his friends should be prevented from attending to his needs.

24 After some days Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish, and he sent for Paul and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus. 25 And as he reasoned about righteousness and self-control and the coming judgment, Felix was alarmed and said, “Go away for the present. When I get an opportunity I will summon you.” 26 At the same time he hoped that money would be given him by Paul. So he sent for him often and conversed with him. 27 When two years had elapsed, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus. And desiring to do the Jews a favor, Felix left Paul in prison."

Felix was actually terrified at the prospect of the coming judgement but instead of repentance, he turns Paul away, so that he could continue in his sins. His conscience was pricked by what Paul had told him. Sounds like to me mentioning judgement is a valid evangelistic tool to me and would no doubt even be useful in today's churches in the West.

Universalism I believe doesn't instill this warning in people as I have stated earlier, it gives people the false impression that God will cleanse them in hell rather than punish them eternally there.

The onus of proof is on the universalist to demonstrate that hell is a cleansing process or even non existent, and to be honest, there is no such evidence.

Links
Here are some articles I recommend on universalism:
http://www.letusreason.org/Curren31.htm
http://www.epworthpulpit.com/god-talk/what-does-early-church-teach-about-universalism
https://hewhohasearslethimhear.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/universalism-refuted/
http://www.equip.org/article/love-wins-making-a-contradictory-case-for-universalism/
http://www.bible-knowledge.com/the-false-doctrine-of-universalism/
http://remnantreport.com/cgi-bin/imcart/read.cgi?article_id=597&sub=25
http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/is-hell-really-eternal-does-the-bible-say/
http://makestraightpaths.com/hell.htm
http://www.churchhistory101.com/feedback/origen-universalism.php

Some claim Universalism is the logical conclusion of Arminianism, however this isn't the case and I shall provide an article here below:
http://humblearminian.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/does-atonement-for-all-lead-to.html

I if the Lord Wills will take a look into more arguments in the future,

Answering Judaism.