Someone wrote an article supposedly refuting Ray:
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/smithlr01.html
I plan on reading his article about Hell and writing a counter argument against it. How would you like that: "refuting those that try to refute but are not - Nightmare Sasuke"
Hello nightmare,
I read the article and found it interesting. It basically is a treatise on greek translation and grammar with emphasis on what was used to support their opinions. Hell wasn't even the main focus.
I found some of the arguments compelling especially including authors of the period to see how they used the meaning of words. I have always found idiomatic phrases and common usage language interesting.
There certainly was not a lack of quoted scripture, even though it was only examples from Ray's text.
Just for the record, I don't believe in eternal torture.
Let us know how your refutation goes.
feat
"Certainly not a lack of scripture" !!?? He was using supposition to refute scriptural witnesses presented by Ray. Much of the Greek he defined was influenced by modern usage not the original definition of the time it was written. All languages have been influenced by Latin first and English now, that is one reason the French have been so vigilant in attempting to keep foreign influence from "tainting" their language, although it will prove to be a futile attempt.
Joe
I was simply reacting to the statement above that said "I didn't find one quote of scripture in that article."
I also stated that they only cited from Ray's text.
Initially, you also stated that there was some scripture quoted yet you didn't say anything more about the scripture quoted.
I am not a language scholar and I don't know whether your knowledge or the author's knowledge is any better or worse than mine. It makes a lot of sense to me to use every tool you can to find the etymology of the words used. In my view, common usage in other writings at the same period could be more compelling case for acceptance in that regard. That's also why I found the article interesting.
I do know that it is important for me to keep a healthy skepticism about whatever anyone interprets as the truth. I don't necessarily agree with the author on the whole but then I don't agree with a lot of things people write. I just take them for what they are worth.
Does that help answer your question marks?
feat
Hello feat,
Not all of them but it is a start, this man from tektonics has taken it upon himself to attempt to demolish Ray's writings with clever sidetracking and supposition, again, "very little scripture" is used to refute Ray, actually I do not remember any from him.
Clever word games are his tool, for instance, can you see a difference between immortality and eternal? The tektonics guy attempts to blend them into one and the same, if you or I were to be given our new spiritual bodies today we would be given "immortality" only God is eternal, without beginning, without end. We (all creation) would always have a beginning.
I am not sure about "always having a healthy skepticism about whatever anyone interprets as the truth" as being a good road to growing in the Lord, through faith obtaining understanding, gaining the fruits of the spirit. Would you apply that to what Paul wrote or understood to be truth? Or any of the men guided by the Spirit who recorded God's Word? Do you have a healthy skepticism that Jesus walked the earth, had an earthly ministry, died for all of our sins and was resurrected?
I certainly would agree that we should "be as the Bereans" and check the witnesses, verify the scripture's quoted or referenced to make sure we are not being deceived or believing falsehoods. I had shown an example in a previous post about how some people cleverly change the order of words to promote their own ideology;
(Joe in bold)
LM, so true, here is just one example (I cut and pasted this from "The Kingdom" article). “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.� – 1 Cor 15:22
The first question that must be asked is HOW… How did people become IN ADAM and how do people become IN CHRIST? It would seem obvious that ALL men are born in Adam via natural birth, but NOT all men are born in Christ. Does this contradict the text? Not in the least bit. The text is NOT saying all who are in Adam will be in Christ, but rather it is contrasting that all that were in Adam were under death, and thus all who are in Christ (which is not everyone) will be made alive.
See how the author changes the order of the scripture to change it's meaning? The scripture does NOT read "all in Christ" will be made alive.
It reads; IN Christ all will be made alive.
Tricky but transparent.
Again, like Jonathon Edwards, little scripture, much supposition.
Joefeat, I pray you don't take this the wrong way, my motivation is to reason together, gain understanding together.
Since I "stumbled" onto Ray and Mike's sites I am no longer looking to the outside physical, carnal world to verify what God has planned for us, their articles have shown me (through the Spirit) that the greatest miracles are taking place within me, you, and all that are called to Him. I had no clue as to what this was before, but displacing the beast within me with the Spirit of Christ has become my supreme goal, not waiting for a rapture or watching out for the European Union to produce a charismatic leader or any of the physical signs so many are looking for. Is, was & will be, within all of our lives, each generation.
This is one reason I feel so obligated to speak up when I perceive the principles of BT are being watered down or questioned, be it blatant or subtle.
Brother, I have no animosity toward you at all, I hope you take this in the spirit it is given.
Peace,
Joe