And it doesn't. It refers to the same thing mentioned in Revelation 2:24-26:

"Now I say to the rest of you in Thyatira, to you who do not hold to her teaching and have not learned Satan's so-called deep secrets (I will not impose any other burden on you): Only hold on to what you have until I come. To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations."

Confer with John 14:21:

"Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."

...and Romans 2:7:

"To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and incorruptibility, (God) will give aionion life."

Additionally, look at the preamble to the parable of the sheep and the goats (in which the phrase aionion kolasin is located):

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory." (Matthew 25:30)

Who is the Son of Man? Jesus. What will happen when the Jesus returns? He will give authority to those who overcome and do his will to the end. Therefore, what is the aionion life that is mentioned in Matthew 25:46? It is the life given to those who will have authority over the nations when Jesus returns. How could he give eternal life to those who are still on Earth, living within the span of finite time and in the physical realm of our universe?GabuEx

Um, I didn't say the eternal life mentioned in Matthew 25 was given to people still on Earth. Furthermore, the Romans 2:7 cite works against you, saying the righteous will be given incorruptible life (which means it doesn't end). What you offered above gives me no reason to take the life part of the Matthew 25 verse as nothing other than eternal while taking the punishment part as a finite period of time.

That's not what kolasis means. You are correct that it has its roots in the word kolazo (i.e., to prune), but here is the thing: what is the intention behind one's actions when one prunes a tree or a hedge? The act of pruning cuts off either dead or poorly placed branches such that the tree can then grow better. If a human is pruned, thus, we cannot conclude that this represents that human's destruction, but rather it is the removal of what is preventing the human from growing. The human is not the one that is pruned from something else; the human is the one being pruned. Which is precisely what punishment for the purpose of improvement implies.

Here is a question: if you wish to contest the idea that kolasin means "punishment for the purposes of correction", then tell me what differentiates that word from timoria, which is another Greek word that is translated into English as "punishment".GabuEx

Once again, the pruning imagery gels with my interpretation as well. The damned are cut off from God and the righteous. You haven't shown why the Matthew 25 verse must indicate that the pruning refers to the people having stuff cut off from them instead of them being cut off from God and the righteous. You just asserted that's what the passage says. Also, you said it can have to do with the prevention of the human growing, which is in line with my idea of hell where people will never have the chance to grow in grace anymore. This verse can't establish your case. You're going to have to supply other verses.

But that is not remotely in congruence with the description of hell in Revelation:

"If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb." (Revelation 14:9-10)

"Tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb" - that doesn't sound too much to me like separation from God that is not physical torture.GabuEx

Revelation is the only place where "torment" is mentioned as the nature of eternal punishment. Also, Revelation is apocalyptic literature, so there is license to exaggerate. This means we definitely can't say from these verses that physical torture is the nature of eternal punishment. Anyway, the fire imagery used to describe eternal punishment in several places of the NT is perfectly consistent with the idea of your face burning in shame. Also, the people around back then would have immediately understood that fiery imagery can be used to just indicate punishment, but not the actual nature of the punishment.

That is as much a mistranslation as that of aionion. The Hebrew word in Daniel 12:2 is olam, which literally means "in the far distance". When used chronologically, it refers to a very distant time, but nonetheless one whose time span between now and then is finite. The ancient Hebrew did not even have any sense of infinity at all; to translate a word from that language into "eternal" is to show much more the imparted beliefs of the translator than the actual meaning of the text. When you make your translators sign statements affirming their belief in eternal punishment (which is the case for a number of translations)... well, it's rather obvious what your Biblical translation is going to contain.GabuEx

I am quite aware olam can mean different things than just eternal, but that doesn't mean it can't mean eternal. So these people that would be resurrected, they will die again? Also, I doubt every bible translation requires its translators to affirm belief in eternal punishment. Also, just because they believe in it doesn't necessarily mean they will let their bias influence how they translate a passage. Everyone has a bias, some influence people towards being truthful, while others do not.

But this is what I've been saying: you say that you think total depravity is true, yet you say that we have the ability to freely choose God. I mean no offense, but that's just plainly not total depravity once you allow that all humans have the ability to choose God - you're basically taking what you think is true and calling it total depravity.GabuEx

Okay look. Calvinists, Arminians, and Molinists like myself all believe you need God's grace before you can choose him. Calvinists say the grace is only given to some and is irresistible. Arminians and Molinists, however, say it is given to all based on John 12 and is resistible. This is all I'm trying to say. Calvinists don't have a monoply on the doctrine.

And I am confused again. You believe T is completely true, we are completely depraved. As a part of that we are utterly unable to turn towards God without him making us do so. If we were, the depravity would not be total.ChiliDragon

Answer to this above.

That said, about John 6... the main reason I don't think that it's the highest authority on who is saved and who isn't, and how it's done? It's outnumbered. There are countless parables in the gospels, some passages from the Old Testament as well as from the New Testament, especially some of Paul's letters, that over and over hammer in that humans as a species and as individuals are free to make our own decisions. We can choose God, or we can chose something(-one) else, and God patiently waits for us to make up our minds. I would even argue (note that this is my personal opinion and interpretation) that we don't need God's grace to enable us to chose him before we can do so, we have that ability in our human nature already. Because we are not totally depraved. ;)ChiliDragon

Then what is the purpose of stating that we are unable of ourselves to turn to Christ?  If all are able, then this seems like a strange thing to say.  Whenever I have heard this statement, it was implied that not all were preordained by God to receive this ability. GabuEx

The purpose is to show that this is something Scripture teaches. It also helps us to have humility because it helps us see how dependent on God we are. 

You need support for the idea that most people will not become Christian in their lifetime?  Just look at the statistics - only a third of the world professes adherence to Christianity, and I'm sure that many of those people are ones that some Christians would declare unsaved. GabuEx

Yes, but people can change their religion after that, and I also hold that people don't absolutely have to hear the Gospel to be saved.

And now that I have read the article I will make a smart-ass comment about quote mining: The writer of that article fishes his quotes completely out of context though to his credit he admits it. For nearly every passage he quotes, if one was to open a Bible and read the entire chapter or paragraph that verse comes from, the final end message becomes one that does not fully support the idea of total depravity. The writer even says so himself in his conclusion:ChiliDragon

He wasn't trying to prove the doctrine. He was analyzing the TULIP to see if it's true. He can't be accused of quote mining. Anyway, I'm not a calvinist, but I do think the T doctrine speaks the truth about us in our most basic state. Also, even after God gives the grace we need to have the ability to freely choose him, I still think points 1-3 apply to a certain degree. This is important for the purposes of humility. Finally, you now need to explain why John 6 doesn't teach that we can't choose God on our own.

I'm especially curious about what you said in the other thread, that the Bible teaches that we are totally depraved and that we by ourselves are unable to turn to him for forgiveness for sins. I have not found that message in my translation of it (maybe I'm reading a corrupted and blasphemous one? :P), and I'm curious to see which passages you have that support this idea. I mean no offense or disrespect, but in your opening post in this thread you quoted a Biblical scholar, not the Bible itself, and you have yet to provide quotes from the Bible that support what you claim it teaches.ChiliDragon

I will answer everything else later, but the source article I link to in my first post of this thread gives the passage that I think supports Total Depravity. Actually, his entire analysis of the TULIP of Calvinism is excellent.

Haha, yes. I always had the question in the back of my mind, when not thinking about it, "If someone never heard about Jesus Christ in their lifetime, then do they go to Heaven or Hell?" There really are only two options: They go to Heaven and the whole purpose of Jesus' Atonement is essentially nullified, and they go to Hell and the God that is love that I know does not exist, and the God of hate reigns the universe. I cannot accept either, of course, and I have found an answer to such a problem in Mormonism. Nobody else could give me an answer to that question. Android339

Um, with people who have never heard the Gospel, God can still credit Jesus' righteousness to them. The atonement is still necessary because they will have, of course, sinned in their lives.

6. They could not turn to Christ to be saved; therefore, God created them with the full knowledge that they were guaranteed to go to hell.GabuEx

They could if he gives them the ability to.  I propose that he gives all the ability to (John 12:32).

7. Therefore, they were created by God with the unshakable eternal destiny of unceasing torture in their future. GabuEx

Unshakable not only because of God's choice to create a universe where they go to hell but also because they chose what they wanted with their sins. Although, the punishment wouldn't be torture.

8. Most will not become Christian in their lifetime.GabuEx

Support for this?

9. Therefore, the majority of the human race has been preordained by God to receive unceasing torture forever when they die.

GabuEx

Going to have to back up some of your earlier points to prove this is the logical conclusion if the doctrine of Total Depravity is true.

It's right on pages 1 and 2 of this thread. :P  The problem centers around the Greek phrase aionion kolasin, which is traditionally translated into English as "eternal punishment" in Matthew 25:46.  There are two problems with this translation, however: aionionkolasin refers to a corrective punishment; timoria is the word that refers to a vengeful punishment intended to cause suffering.  Koine Greek is an exceptionally precise language; there is very much that is lost when it is translated into English, which has words that have several disparate meanings. does not mean "eternal", but rather "pertaining to a period of time of unspecified duration", and

GabuEx

Several problems here. If you're going to argue that the greek word aionion can't mean eternal here for the punishment, then it can't mean eternal for the "life" part mentioned in the very same sentence. Secondly, as for kolasin, it can have other meanings.

"The word for 'punishment' here (kolasis) has a sense of 'pruning' or 'stopping short one's development' and that this may or may not indicate conscious pain [Fire that Consumes by Edward Fudge, 197]."

-Source

The other things this word can fit perfectly with my contention that hell is a place of shame and seperation of God and not physical torture. C.S. Lewis lays it out perfectly in his book, The Great Divorce, how seperation from God can cause humans to lose their humanity in hell (stopping short one's development). Also,

We instead see the contrary: just as Jesus went against the teachings of the Pharisees on several other occasions, so too here is Jesus telling us that instead of eternal torment, no, God loves you, and will always love you, and any punishment for wrongdoing will be corrective and temporary. This fits in perfectly with his message of unconditional and unending love for all mankind - the idea of eternal torment of the damned, not so much.GabuEx

You say this punishment has to do with God's love for the sinner, but the only other place in the NT where the greek word kolasin is used is in 1st John 4:18 where John specifically connects it with fear and contrasts it with love.

Finally, Daniel 12:2 says that the the unrighteous are raised to experience everlasting shame and disgrace, which is a translation from the Hebrew. I could give more verses to support the my view of hell, but I will first wait to see how you respond.

The Bible. There's tons of threads and posts in this union explaining it in greater detail. :)ChiliDragon

Well it would be kind of hard to refute the idea if the verses supporting it are posted over various threads. Why not show which Scriptures support it here? Also, what do you make of my explanation of hell? Could you be comfortable with that?

Because I think the notion of a loving God who allows his only son to be tortured to saved all of mankind is incompatible with the idea of that same god allowing a large part of mankind to be tortured forever just because they made an uninformed decision at some point in their life. By all means, make a thread about it. I'll be there as soon as I've refilled my drink! :)ChiliDragon

I contend God let his Son suffer shame to save all mankind, and that some (not a large part) of mankind will suffer shame and seperation from God (not physical pain by the way of torture) forever because of all their sins (not just rejection of the Gospel).

Also, you didn't explain where you got this idea that hell is a place of corrective punishment for a limited amount of time.

This is an offshoot of a discussion from another thread for ChiliDragon to come discuss why he thinks the bible doesn't teach the doctrine of total depravity. Anyone else is free to comment as well. Here's a good summary of what the doctrine teaches.

What is the exact meaning of "total depravity"? Here are the points it generally offers, which one will find repeated in various forms throughout works in favor of TULIP:

1)Sin corrupts the whole person -- emotions, will, and intellect.

2)Although this is so, we are not as bad as we could be; we could be worse. We are, as Palmer puts it, not as intensively evil as possible; but we are as extensively evil as possible. [Palm.5P, 9] For example, while we as individuals may lie and cheat, this does not mean that we will go as far as murder.

3)We are incapable of a truly good act of our own selves. Any good deeds we do (outside of Christ) is merely a "relative" good deed. A truly good deed is done for the glory of God; unbelievers are incapable of this.

4)The supreme point following from these three: We are unable of ourselves to turn to Christ to be savedOn Total Depravity by JP Holding