In the scriptures, Jesus Christ did not die for everyone.

I.a I thank Mall for proposing this debate subject. By the description, if I read it correctly, my BoP that Jesus did die for everyone is limited to references from the Holy Bible. Normally, I would use the KJV, and may find it useful in this context. That is the translation version with which I am most familiar, having read the entire volume on three separate occasions, in addition to volumes in French, Italian, and Greek. I will make some reference to the Greek [Septuagint LXX] version as this is understood to be the language in which the Old Testament was rendered from the earliest known Hebrew texts circa 12thcentury BCE, and then the New Testament from roughly 300 CE,[1] and expecting that from antiquity to today, Greek as with all languages, has changed. However, I will also use different versions than KJV. I will also use the English Standard Version [ESV], and New International Version [NIV], and will note accordingly.

I.a.1 However, I may include additional non-biblical scripture sources for purposes of argument, but will not depend on them for voting, though I would not attempt to deter voters from considering what they will as voting justification, in spite of Pro’s attempted restriction of sourcing. I will also offer other, non-biblical sources of Holy Writ. I do this because I have no guarantee from Pro that he will restrict his sourcing to the Holy Bible, therefore, I claim privilege to cite from non-biblical sources should they serve my purpose. In addition, though unusual for typical Christianity, I recognize that the concept of God speaking to one people of the Earth, and subsequently retiring from revelation to man is a claim of supreme anthropogenic limitation, to which I reply, quoting from a favored author, Richard Bach, “The greatest sin is to limit God. Don’t.”[2]

II.a Pro refers to the above phrase to begin his argument. It has several references, none of which Pro cites, but that’s another issue. So, there I will begin, reminding Pro that, after him, it is Con who shall have, ultimately, the last word in this debate, as in each of its rounds, so I caution Pro to remember he only opens the door. Legitimately, I may choose to ignore, walk through, or, in fact, close the door.

II.b So, the door opened, let us recall who determined that The Book of Revelation was the last book of the Holy Bible. It was not John, but one of the ecumenical councils, which determined the order of the scriptural records we have today as the various interpretations of the scrolls comprising the books of the Holy Bible. Those councils extended from the fourth century CE to the eleventh century CE, so lets not get too chronologically wrapped in the cloak of infallible Holy Writ.[4]

II.b.1 In point of fact, we see no where in the volume recognized by Christendom the presence of the word, “infallible” referring to itself, as in “the infallible Word of God.” That others have so referenced it, so be it, but I challenge Pro, as though I were an agnostic, but really just the old devil’s advocate, to prove it the volume is infallible by more than just saying it is so.

II.c Therefore, I must conclude, in rebuttal to Pro’s final claim that my BoP must align as follows: “Now before I end this round, please keep this in mind in that, whatever you  [I presume Pro refers to Con]   say, it has to harmonize with Ephesians and Revelation.”  I would offer a specific reference in Pro’s R1 to guide you to that particular charge, but Pro does not offer you an easy reference to his arguments as you see me have. It makes citation so much easier to reference, you see, but many on this site find citation unnecessary. So be it. I do, therefore, I provide easy reference to my arguments. Make of that as you will. [I do not refer to Pro]

II.c.1 My rebuttal, then: Pro assumes that he can shape my BoP to his will. That argument, you will see, is fraught with error, for Pro has already defined the parameters of his BoP, and mine, in the Resolution and Description introducing, and preceding this debate, as is Pro’s charge as Instigator. As neither describe a restriction such as “…it has to harmonize with Ephesians and Revelation,”    but, rather, that I make use of “… the Bible, chapter and verse…”   I will, therefore, make use of the entire volume, thank you. After all, Pro does as you will note, later. Let Pro sing his harmony; I shall sing mine, thank you very much. However, refer to my Introduction, above, referring to the use of several interpretations of said Bible. “Harmony,” did someone say? Is marching to a different drummer necessarily discord?

II.d Infallibility. A curious word. Refer to my argument II.b.1, above. As the volume in question makes no such claim, not even within any book, referring only to that “original” scroll [whatever that  is], is that claim made for that book, alone. What do we conclude? As no book in our current collection makes the claim of itself, how do we, now, add it to the book to make the claim? I will make an argument against myself just to make the point. In the Book of Revelation,we read, “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”[5]

II.d.1 To what “book” does John refer? The Holy Bible,  as a whole, as many claim? No. For John did not conceive a “Bible.” He refers strictly to the “book” he is writing: “Revelation.” As noted above, II.b, the “Bible” is a volume conceived over seven centuries of ecumenical councils, long past John’s penmanship on the Isle of Patmos. In fact, the term, “Bible” does not exist within the whole text, either. I leave it to voters, should they be so curious, to research the meaning of that word. I have, but it is a non sequitur to this debate. Hint: its source is [surprise] Greek.

II.d.2 Note that I said I’ll argue against myself. Here’s how: I consider the Holy Bible to be the Word of God, however, I accept it only as such, not because it is infallible, for the contradictions in it are many, and not because seven centuries of argument over this and that “chapter and verse” to which Pro refers the thrust of my BoP should be considered as literal and unchangeable from the original texts from which, over centuries, we have the alleged infallible work of fallible men, including, by the way, the original authors, but because we can, today, still read, interpret, and then ask God if we have understood correctly.  I will challenge the reader to read James 1: 2-5 and conclude anything different than what I’ve just written: that we can ask God for wisdom. James uses that very word. So, go do it, every one of you.

II.d.2.A If we are to do otherwise, deny this advice from James and draw only our own conclusions, then I challenge Pro, specifically, to justify why we have so many versions of the Holy Bible. I am sourcing from three different versions myself: the KJV, the ESV, the NIV. If the Word of God [the Holy Bible] is infallible, why do we have different versions of it, even just in English? My argument is not that the Bible might as well be tossed because it is not infallible, but that given what we have, it is still valuable enough from which to plant a seed of faith and reap a harvest of value to our souls. That is accomplished, for the curious, and the sincere, by the advice given by James.

III.a Pro’s remarks concerning this event “before the foundation of the world” without pursuing the meaning of that reference “before…”, as well as misunderstanding the sense of the “the book of life,” which I will address in rebuttal III.a.1.C, and IV, below. So, what was “the foundation of the world,” and what occurred “before” it? 

III.a.1 First, let us remark Pro’s admission, showing some sense of timing, without understanding its meaning relative to the Book of Life: “Both passages  [he refers to passages in Revelation and in Ephesians]  have to do with prior to the creation… a plan had already been established.”  Therefore, the “Foundation of the world” is its creation. Pro acknowledges there is both a plan before the creation event in which plan we took part [therefore, we existed prior to the creation? – Yes!], and a creation of the world. But, were all who took part in that plan also born to parents on earth, or were some expelled from heaven “before the foundation of the world?”

III.a.1.A Isaiah 14: 12 – 15 [NIV]: “How are you fallen from Heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations! For you have said in your heart: I will ascend into Heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; …I will be like the Most High. Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, to be the lowest depths of the pit.”

III.a.1.B Luke 10: 17 – 18 [NIV]: “The seventy-two returned with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name. He replied, I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.”  

III.a.1.C These verses depict the fall of Satan, and his demons, before “the foundation of the world.” This world is the realm of Satan. Thus we encountered Satan, or Lucifer, as the serpent in Eden, tempting Eve. [Genesis 3] Thus we encountered Satan in the wilderness to tempt Jesus [Matthew 4]. Thus we encounter Satan today, who attempts to dissuade us from “[letting] patience have its perfect work”[6]  to have that wisdom. We shall discuss the atonement of Christ, and its infinite reach in argument, below. And thus, the understanding that those “written out” of the Book of Life include Satan and his demons “before the world was” and, therefore, are included with the “everyone” of whom the scriptures speak were those for whom Jesus Christ died, even though those who are “written out,” by refusal to take part in mortality on earth [Satan and his demons]. They made that decision “before the foundation of the world,” and it is binding on them.

IV.a Pro claims that there are those whose names are blotted from the Book of Life of the Lamb, and concludes, therefore, that Christ did not die for everyone. Pro is, shall we say, comparing apples and oranges by not investigating just what is meant by “The Book of Life,” as sketched above. Let’s fill in the illustration: Pro assumes that only those whose names are ultimately recorded in the Book of Life earn the heavenly abode of God. As it happens, I agree with that statement, for all will not abide with God in Heaven. The wicked will abide elsewhere in a kingdom suitable for them. However, this does not imply that Jesus Christ did not die for all, and my arguments for that will follow; specifically, in argument VII.

IV.b I will offer an argument of practical nature to explain what I mean. In America, at its inception [1789] the Constitution declared citizenship of all inhabitants who would be, when the 1790 Census was organized and conducted, counted as “whole persons.” This included four separate conditions: [1] free, white males under 16, [2] free, white males 16 and older, [3] free white females of any age, [4] free Blacks of any age, and either sex.[7]  This is not an argument of race, for all free Blacks were considered citizens,[8] but of voting rights, to wit, although noting the third and fourth conditions, free white females, and free Black females, as citizens, those females were NOT granted the right to vote until the Nineteenth Amendment passed in 1920. Therefore, although acknowledged as citizens of the U.S., all of its women, prior to 1920’s 19A [comparable to all who were involved in “the plan before the world was”] were denied the right to vote [comparable to all whose names appear in the Book of Life].

IV.c Therefore, Pro’s claim “So now we’ve developed a ‘not all’ understanding” misunderstands both who is involved “before the foundation of the world,” and the context of whose names are, and are not in the “Book of Life,” and what “written” or “blotted” really means in the context of our debate. This point will be further developed when my arguments begin below.

V.a “1” is rebutted by the above rebuttals, I – IV, as well as by the argument VII below of the infinite nature of Christ’s atonement.

V.b “2” “Christ’s death”  does not, itself, comprise the atonement of Christ, but the atonement includes his suffering in Gethsemane, and being scourged by the Romans prior to the crucifixion. Let us allow credit where credit is due, in spite of the resolution considering only Christ dyingfor us on the cross. He suffered plenty for us while in the flesh, alive. I submit that no ordinary man would survive the agony suffered by Christ in Gethsemane, which, interpreted, means “olive press.” I have observed the process personally, in France, much as was done anciently, pressing olives between two great slabs of stone to render the oil. Luke 22: 44 describes the resulting agonizing pressure as “as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.”   Whether Luke’s blood reference was literal or figurative, the agony cannot be imagined. Further, I submit that no ordinary man would survive the scourging done to Christ by the Romans, which is summarized by a reference to the tool used; a “scourge.”[9]  [See John 19: 1 [KJV] Finally, I submit that no ordinary man survived crucifixion, and even Christ succumbed by his choice to be the Lamb of God, sacrificed for all.

V.b.1 Pro referenced I Corinthians 15: [“pretty much the whole chapter”] – even though Christ’s death is described only in verses 3 and 4, and the balance of the chapter discusses his resurrection. The latter is an important point – resurrection, to wit, rising to life eternal from death. Well let’s look at “pretty much the whole chapter.” 

V.b.1.a I Corinthians 15: 22 [KJV] “For as in Adam all  die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” [italics added for emphasis – denying the resolution.]

V.b.1.b I Corinthians 15: 23 [KJV] “But everyman in his own order…” [italics added for emphasis – denying the resolution.]

V.b.1.c I Corinthians 15: 55 [KJV] “O death, where isthy sting? O grave, where isthy victory?” [italics added for emphasis – denying the resolution, because the question, where is…?, implies there is no more death nor grave for anyone who has lived a mortal life, nor even lack of death for anyone who never lived a mortal life, i.e., Satan and his demons.]

V.c Do these rebuttals harmonize with Ephesians and Revelation? Refer to my rebuttal II, above.

VI.a May I refer Pro, and readers take note, to his citations of Revelation 13: 8, Ephesians 1: 4, Ephesians 4: 13, 19, 20, Ephesians 5: 5 – 7, back to Revelation 13, I Corinthians 15 [“pretty much the whole chapter”], Romans 8: 33-34, Colossians 2: 13-15, II Timothy 3, I Corinthians 2… 

VI.a.1 That’s quite a lot of throwing to demand that this debate’s nature is something else. What, then, is its nature? The Description advises that scriptures be cited. Are we to understand Pro is confused on this matter? His is the first word; so be it. But mine is last, as Pro has defined the parameters of this debate. So be that.

VII.a I will begin with a reference that nearly mimics Pro’s resolution: “But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.”[10]

VII.a.1 I invite the comparison of Pro’s resolution, quoted above, and this verse from the N.T., [NIV] Hebrews 2: 9. In particular, compare the resolution to the last phrase, “…he [Jesus] might taste death for everyone.” Sounds familiar? It should.

VII.b Let’s look at this last, operative phrase in Greek [LXX]:  “… ὑπὲρ παντὸς γεύσηται θανάτου.”  [hyper pantos geusētai thanatou,  or, for everyonehe might taste death]  The operative word, everyone, translates to Greek as παντὸς [pantos], which translates back to English as “everyone,” or “all,” or “anything.” So, what was the common language in Tarsus, where Paul [né Saul] was born? Greek, anyone?  

VII.c Thus it is clear from this verse in Hebrews, the which was written by Paul to the Hebrews as a basic primer of understanding the Gospel of Jesus Christ to a people to whom Christ’s coming as the Messiah was foretold to their ancestors. Chapter by chapter, Paul lays bear the simplicity of the gospel message, including this pivotal chapter explaining the atonement.

VII.d The heading of this argument, section VII, claims the atonement is infinite; that is, it has everlasting effect. That speaks not only to the fact that the atonement, “by the grace of God,” expiates, or reconciles man to God of not just man’s sins, on the condition of man’s repentance, but of all his/her innocent suffering at the hands of others, or by his/her own actions, and all sorrows, grief, and pains of mortality, for all men and women who have ever lived, are living, and will ever live.

VII.d.1 In his volume, Jesus the Christ, James E. Talmage wrote: “The effect of the atonement may be conveniently considered as twofold: [1] The universal redemption of the human race from death invoked by the fall of our first parents; and [2] Salvation, whereby means of relief from the results of individual sin are provided.”[11]  Note for purposes of the debate that that atonement was accomplished for “…the universal redemption of the human race,” and no exceptions are given for that description. In other words, it was done for everyone,  in opposition to this debate’s resolution.

VII.d.2 But the atonement extends further than even that. The atonement is the underlying reason that man has the ability to be reconciled with God through repentance. God recognized, by personal past experience, that mortality is fraught with mistakes made, either by volition, or ignorantly. Some mistakes are merely accidents, violation of natural law, such as accidentally falling off a roof while putting up Christmas lights. One need not repent for such mistakes. Repentance is, according to the OED, “To review one’s actions and feel contrition or regret for something one has done or omitted to do, esp. in religious context, to acknowledge the sinfulness of one’s past action or conduct by showing sincere remorse and undertaking to reform in the future.”

VII.e The atonement goes even further than that to meet the description of “infinite.” I submit that, though it may be ultimately ineffective, the atonement was performed by Jesus Christ to extend the offer even to Satan and his minions who were expelled from heaven before the Earth was prepared for our mortal habitation. As such, they have thwarted their own personal progression by denial of obtaining a physical, mortal body, the which is essential for continued progress toward perfection. These have committed the ultimate sin; to deny God even in a state of perfect knowledge of His existence and purpose. As we, in mortality, have not this perfect knowledge, but have it merely by faith [that is, according to Paul, “…the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”[12]],  we are not subject to this ultimate condemnation unless we, too, are personal, physical witness of God in the flesh by his personal visitation.  There is no forgiveness for this ultimate sin of denial of God in this world, or the next. I invite the reader to access the following to read further on this point. It is not relevant to this discussion, so I will not waste debate space discussing it further. Read Doctrine & Covenants 76: 22-39[13]  So, the atonement is not effective for such fallen souls because they deny the Christ, and the atonement is not effective for any who so deny the Christ, yet it was still performed in perfect agony for them. Is not denial of God in this life a sin? Then so it is “before the foundation of the world.”As these who deny God after knowing of their own knowledge that he is, these who deny God remain in their sins, unredeemed because they refuse repentance, and so inherit their awful state into eternity.

VIII.a “John 1: 29 [ESV] “The next day, he[John the Baptist]  saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the  world.”

VIII.b John 2: 2 [ESV]  “He [Jesus] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”  [bold added for emphasis]

VIII.c Romans 6: 23 [ESV]  “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

VIII.d Given these references, one might ask, “what is “the world?” Answer: that which was created by God for the use of all those souls who, “before the foundation of the world,” a concept with which Pro agrees is prior to the creation, and, therefore, descriptive of a body of people which was divided, ultimately, into two groups: the group with Satan who were cast out of Heaven “before the foundation of the world,” and the rest of us, who inherited mortality, the next step in our progression, after the creation of the world, to inhabit it. That implies “all” of us, in contrast to the resolution.

VIII.e Given these references, one might ask, “what is “propitiation?” Answer: [according to the O.E.D.] “The action of propitiating someone; appeasement, conciliation, atonement, expiation; an instance of this.”  One might further ask, “Who, then, is ‘propitiated?’” Answer: See above, VIII.d; “all of us.”

VIII.f Given these references, one might ask, “what is death?” Answer: The separation of the physical body, that entity which is the result of our earthly parents, and the spirit, that entity which is the result of God, the Father, our Father in Heaven, and our Mother in Heaven; our heavenly parents. See, for reference, Luke 23: 46, descriptive of the death of Christ.

I make an end for round 1, and commend round 2 to Pro.

 

Pro resolution: “In the scriptures, Jesus Christ did not die for everyone.”

I.a Pro’s initial statement in R2:  “The title starts off with "You must present your case with bible, chapter and verse. In the scriptures....".  Yes, I concur. I have quoted the resolution of Pro’s composition above. “In the scriptures…”  According to the OED, “scriptures” is defined as “Sacred writings and related senses; The sacred writings of a religion.” Pro continues, “The basis should be from nowhere else unless it's because your case is not found in the scriptures. From the description: "Those that take the position that the topic statement is false must show from bible, chapter and verse only that that is the case."

I.b Note the bolded word in I.a, above, repeated twice. Being lower case, Pro is not referring to a specific book, such as [officially titled, Holy Bible], as noted by the cited images.[1]  As referenced by Pro, in lower case, the word is derived from Latin, biblia [books], a generic word, not the title of a Book. The Latin was taken from Greek, biblia [books], also a generic word, not the title of a Book. 

I.b.1 The Greek form is traced to Gebal, a Phoenician port city originally known by that name, but became known as Byblos to the Greeks “…because it was an exporter of papyrus… linking the city with the written word.”[2]  The papyrus shipped from Byblos was used for the publication of biblia, i.e., books, generic, and other manuscripts not necessarily limited to a particular collection of titled “Books,” which, in any case, when Byblos was an active port in antiquity, preceded the Ecumenical Council’s first generation of the Holy Bible,  a non-generic Book of books.

I.c Therefore, given the definition of “bible” as a generic word, it does not only represent the sense of Pro’s resolution, “scriptures,” as in “In the scriptures.” It may be construed as reference to generic books, and  to “the sacred writings of a religion.” Which religion? Not specified, because the word, in lower case, refers to generic religion, and not exclusively “Christian.” Therefore, my R1, I.a, I.a.1 arguments hold. Words mean things; different things in lower case and Upper Case: bible, and Holy Bible. “So,”  in Pro’s words, “no question on the only source to use for this topic.”  No, none at all. It’s name is legion, for it is many: and generic book, or “scriptures,” or “holy writ” of any religion. That could be, then, the Holy Bible,  the Torah,  the Vedahs, the Sutras, the Book of Mormon, the Agamas…  as well as Moby Dick.[3]

II.a Harmony. Nice word. Generally pleasing. So pleasing, Pro’s first mention of it… oh. Excuse me. No, it’s not found in the resolution, is it? Not found in the Description, either. Not defined. Not found until Pro’s R1. It’s the last word. Wait! There’s a related word. Words, after all, are found in word families. Another word in the family is harmonize.  But is harmonize  found in the resolution? In the description? Is it defined? No, no, and no. But, it is in Pro’s R1: “Now, before I end this round, please keep in mind that, whatever you say, it has to harmonize with Ephesians and Revelation.”  And, later, Pro says “You harmonize things, and to do so, you go by what it says in I Corinthians 2…”  

II.b Excuse my French, but I believe that instruction on the protocol of the debate is contained within the scope of the resolution [or “topic”], or the Description, but that, once the debate is engaged, instructions are therein exclusively contained, and not within argument rounds. Otherwise, Pro or Con may, with abandon, hurl protocol at one another throughout the debate. We shall see other hurling, anyway. In effect, moving the goalposts. No, I hereby rebut the moving of goal posts. Selah.

II.c Pro charges that I did not harmonize I Corinthians 15: 22 with Revelation 13, or with John 5, or with any other chapters of those books. No, I did not, because the protocol of harmonization [another word in the family] is not in the proper scope [see II.b]. Further, John 5 is not listed as a proper harmony to use, as listed by Pro. Finally, Pro missed that I did not harmonize with Ephesians. Pro further introduces harmony with Hebrews, which is not in his list, either. 

II.c.1 Pro charges, regarding my unharmonious inclusion of reference to I Corinthians 15: 22, that its reference to “all” being made alive in Christ apparently conflicts with Ephesians 1 with its apparent reference to “some,” to wit, Pro says, “Shouldn’t be some but all resurrection to life here according to you.”

II.c.2 I ask Pro to quote from Ephesians 1 the word “some,” or any variation of it. Perhaps from verse 4? “Us” means “some?” No, nor in any following verse, up to the last, verse 23, “Which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.”

II.d I therefore rebut Con and redeem the fulfillment of my BoP that Christ did die for all, and that all do resurrect to life according to scripture.

III.a Pro accuses that we throw scriptures at one another, and claims that only by harmonizing the scriptures to those which Pro listed, but only in his R1, while noting in the resolution that “In the scriptures, Jesus Christ did not die for everyone.”   Does Pro’s resolution specify specific scriptures? No. Does Pro’s Description specify specific scriptures? No. Do either Pro’s resolution, or Description, specify “harmony,” or any other derivative in that word family? No. Yet in R1, Pro begins throwing scriptures. Con followed suit in R1, per Pro’s Description that“This debate is much appropriate more for theists or people who have had serious time and investment in the scriptures.”  I’ve had some 60 years of “time and investment.” Is that enough? In R2, pro declares,  "You must present your case with bible,chapter and verse.”  But later in R2, Pro moves the goal post to declare we apparently cannot use scriptures to achieve our BoP.

III.b Pro declares, “The verses I mentioned appears to show a contradiction. Atheists seeing this debate will use this as a validation to discount the bible.”  I take Pro at his own words that the scriptures appear to contradict themselves, therefore, what harmony? And if those specific scriptures, the Holy Bible, are infallible, how, then do we interpret harmony?

III.c I hereby rebut Pro’s late R2 confusion as being contradiction to his own declared debate purpose and protocol. The foregoing of my R2, III.a, and b rebuttal above also stands as does the rebuke offered in my R2, II argument further above.

IV.a I refer back to my rebuttal in R2, II.d. Pro’s R2 discusses resurrection, citing various scriptures I offered, and the book of life, citing scriptures Pro offered, and declares these verses contradict, but only because Pro is attempting to link resurrection with the book of life, as if the two represent synonymous terms. If they do, I’m sure Pro would have shown us the definitive “bible, chapter and verse” as is Pro’s Description challenge, to demonstrate the harmony of these two terms. I will not offer Pro’s BoP on that score, because it is Pro’s claim, therefore, his BoP. And that is my challenge to Pro: show us the “bible, chapter and verse”  that so links these two subjects as synonymous. Err… harmonious. Actually, they are, but not in a manner Pro proposes since he declares that not all resurrect, nor are all listed in the book of life prior to judgment.

IV.b Can’t be avoided; I will offer a Con BoP. I offer a description of resurrection from Acts 24: 14, 15 [KJV] “…so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:  And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow  [that is, speaking of the law and the prophets], that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.”  How can Paul “believe”  the contradictive nature of  “the law and the prophets?”  I’ll answer in a later round. Let that stew for a moment.

IV.b.1 For now, I will offer a description of resurrection and the book of life, harmoniously referenced by Revelation 20: 4-5, 12, wherein the chronology is important: “And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reined with Christ a thousand years.  [These “souls” just described are dead] “But the rest of the dead  [those who did not die in Christ, obedient to his word]    lived not again  [that is, did not resurrect yet]  until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.  [That is, the resurrection of the “just;” those who followed Christ, followed by the “until”  second resurrection, that of the unjust.]

IV.c Therefore, both the just and unjust will resurrect to life from death, by Jesus Christ. The “just and unjust” counts all of us. The “small and the great” counts all of us. All of us face the judgment bar of God, the “great and small” and “just and unjust,” and all are judged out of the book of life. Therefore, resurrection is not restricted to only the just, but also the unjust. And all are judged out of the book of life. The wicked are those whose names are then stricken from the book of life since they are banished to hell.

V.a Pro argues that the scriptural references given in my R1, VIII.a, .b, .c did not say “Christ died for everyone in the world,” as if the Con BoP must show bible references that say that direct quote. I will liken the Pro argument to the common modern argument some Christians claim that the Earth was created in six days, and God rested on the seventh day. But they also maintain that “day” is a strict period of 24 hours, and this is demonstrated by the reference that each “day” is the “evening and the morning,” thereby denoting a 24-hour period, and so were defined the first three days of evenings and mornings of Genesis I: 1 - 13. 

V.a.1 However, there is a hiccup in verse 14 with a description of creating “lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night.”  So, where was this division in verse 3, describing the creation of light on the first day, yet verse five describes an “evening and morning of the first day.”

V.a.2 Further, the seventh day of rest lacks a reference to “the evening and morning.” [Genesis 2: 2]. What, then was the duration of that day? I don’t mean to nitpick. What I do mean is that the Holy Bible is not as “infallible” as a word of God that Pro would like it to be; harmonious and sweet; sugar and spice. But, does that then mean that the Holy Bible  is not holy writ? No, it does not mean that.

V.b Pro takes my reference to the Baptist’s baptism of Jesus, saying of him, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”  and rebuts my claim that the latter refers to all of us; everyone in the world. Are not the verses of the Holy Biblereplete with references that all of us sin, that all are found wanting in the eyes of God, unless we repent?

V.b.1 Romans 3: 23 [ESV] “For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.”

V.b.2 Romans 3:10 [ESV] “As is written, ‘none is righteous, no, not one…’”

V.b.3 Isaiah 64: 6 [ESV] “We have all become as one who is unclean…”

V.c I therefore rebut that Pro’s claim of “…“Christ did not die for everyone in the world”  must be refuted by my BoP only by “bible, chapter and verse” of only verses that contain these quoted words, or they are not valid rebuttal. Nonsense. A capable reader will interpret that the phrasing used in my three sample verses in R1, VIII.a, .b, .c infers that Christ died for all. 

VI.a I suggest, given its late arrival to the debate, that harmonyis out of bounds, and ought to be scrapped as a necessary component in this debate, even though I have demonstrated that while there exists contradiction in the Holy Bible,it is not all contradictive; it also has harmony, which is good. It is needful that there be opposition in all things.[4]. Selah.

VII.a Final point: Pro says, “When everything is harmonized, we won’t have contradictions as it appears to be.”  When is when?We obviously cannot harmonize yet because, clearly, Pro is finding his own contradictions, such as in I Corinthians 15 which he combats. So, do we ignore Corinthians? Or do I ignore Ephesians? Is that how Pro harmonizes? I knew a woman in France who tore pages from her La Sainte Bible  if she encountered passages with which she disagreed, or did not understand, so that the remainder was in “harmony.” I do not personally agree with this tactic. But, this appears to be Pro’s tactic by insistence on harmony,regardless of apparent Biblical contradiction, book to book. According to Pro, only “some” books can be harmonizedwith others. Who decides which, and which books will be shelved as Apocrypha? Pro? Are we convening still another Ecumenical Council? Pro has predetermined that Con does not fit at the table. Sorry, I accept the fallible Holy Bibleas the Word of God as is, corrupted though it has been by ignorant and intentional men over millennia. How I do that is an extraneous lecture for another round.

To Pro, Round 3.

 

 

 

 

" But is harmonize found in the resolution? In the description? Is it defined? No, no, and no. But, it is in Pro’s R1"

First off , your case has to be found in scripture. So common sense says or as the book of 1 Corinthians says to compare spiritual things with spiritual.

So this should be known without teaching it to you.  Whenever you don't harmonize something, all you have is what appears to be contradiction.

When you and I find passages that are very distinct from one another and show these to a prospective person of the bible, they won't know if the bible teaches what either one of us is talking about or not. All they'll see is the scriptures saying one thing and on the other hand saying something else.

The question they're going to have is "Well is this true in the bible or not?"

Now once everything gets on one accord, another thing I believe the scriptures teach, the prospect or student will understand as a whole what the scripture is explaining.

Saying I never used a specific word is a very weak, tactical copout on your part. It's like saying I never said the debate had to be english and then you start responding with a different language of text. Somethings are just tacitly the case.

"II.c Pro charges that I did not harmonize I Corinthians 15: 22 with Revelation 13, or with John 5, or with any other chapters of those books. No, I did not, because the protocol of harmonization [another word in the family] is not in the proper scope [see II.b]. Further, John 5 is not listed as a proper harmony to use, as listed by Pro. Finally, Pro missed that I did not harmonize with Ephesians. Pro further introduces harmony with Hebrews, which is not in his list, either. "

See this is a copout. The scriptures given to you, you know are contradicting as it appears to what you've given. So you're just going to stick to just repeating yourself. This is a dishonest move and it is abandoning your burden of proof. I've harmonized what you've given.

How are you abandoning your burden of proof? Let's say there is a beginning student of the bible before us. After hearing what we have both said before understanding it as a whole, what will that student think?

When they heard what one of us had to say , they understood one thing and they were confident of one that had the truth. Then they hear something else different from the other and are totally confused.

The student wants to be honest with not learning only part of the scriptures but all of the scriptures.

Let's say the student has already learned about 2 Timothy 3.

ALL SCRIPTURE , NOT SOME IS GOOD FOR DOCTRINE OR TEACHING OR INSTRUCTION.

"II.c.1 Pro charges, regarding my unharmonious inclusion of reference to I Corinthians 15: 22, that its reference to “all” being made alive in Christ apparently conflicts with Ephesians 1 with its apparent reference to “some,” to wit, Pro says, “Shouldn’t be some but all resurrection to life here according to you.” "

Let me tear down this weak , sorry effort use of a strawman.

Your response:

"V.b.1.a I Corinthians 15: 22 [KJV] “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” [italics added for emphasis – denying the resolution.]"

My response to this :

"You didn't harmonize this with Revelation 13.

You also didn't do this with John 5 :

"28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

Shouldn't be some but all resurrection to life here according to you. "

Didn't mention Ephesians here.

Are you actually comprehending where I cited what at?

"II.c.2 I ask Pro to quote from Ephesians 1 the word “some,” or any variation of it. Perhaps from verse 4? “Us” means “some?” No, nor in any following verse, up to the last, verse 23, “Which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.” "

What a silly strawman attempt or maybe you just made a simple mistake with a misquote.

I never said the word "some" within conjunction with the book of Ephesians. I said the scripture you put forth , you didn't harmonize with the book of John and Revelation. Which throws your erroneous teaching of "all" out of the church.

"II.d I therefore rebut Con and redeem the fulfillment of my BoP that Christ did die for all, and that all do resurrect to life according to scripture."

Not according to the book of Ephesians in conjunction with Revelation. Get this false teaching of yours out of here.

"Pro listed, but only in his R1, while noting in the resolution that “In the scriptures, Jesus Christ did not die for everyone.”   Does Pro’s resolution specify specific scriptures? No. Does Pro’s Description specify specific scriptures? No. Do either Pro’s resolution, or Description, specify “harmony,” or any other derivative in that word family? No. Yet in R1, Pro begins throwing scriptures. Con followed suit in R1, per Pro’s Description that“This debate is much appropriate more for theists or people who have had serious time and investment in the scriptures.”  I’ve had some 60 years of “time and investment.” Is that enough? In R2, pro declares,  "You must present your case with bible,chapter and verse.”  But later in R2, Pro moves the goal post to declare we apparently cannot use scriptures to achieve our BoP."

You're not being honest in this debate.  The things that I've said you ignored. You clearly don't understand what I mean when I say "throw scripture for scripture". I'm not going to repeat my point on that . It's apparently worthless to you.

Now you're complaining about the debate description. Just because it didn't have arguments in it, is it supposed to or is that for the debate rounds?

Why are you being extra petty over this?

You're nitpicking stuff to death. Another thing that came to mind concerning the scripture is to put away childish things. This is a childish move on your part.

"III.b Pro declares, “The verses I mentioned appears to show a contradiction. Atheists seeing this debate will use this as a validation to discount the bible.”  I take Pro at his own words that the scriptures appear to contradict themselves, therefore, what harmony? And if those specific scriptures, the Holy Bible, are infallible, how, then do we interpret harmony?"

Do you know what harmony is ?

It doesn't have contradictions. So all of the scriptures we're laying out would have to not be inconsistent in order to demonstrate agreement between them.

"only because Pro is attempting to link resurrection with the book of life, as if the two represent synonymous terms. If they do, I’m sure Pro would have shown us the definitive “bible, chapter and verse” as is Pro’s Description challenge, to demonstrate the harmony of these two terms. I will not offer Pro’s BoP on that score, because it is Pro’s claim, therefore, his BoP. And that is my challenge to Pro: show us the “bible, chapter and verse”  that so links these two subjects as synonymous. Err… harmonious. Actually, they are, but not in a manner Pro proposes since he declares that not all resurrect, nor are all listed in the book of life prior to judgment."

Looks like you're taking issue with the resurrection of Christ and the book of life.

I'll ask you to read over and study Ephesians 1 and 2 , then compare it with Revelation 13.

I've already laid out the explanation in the previous round. Now if you're really serious about acknowledging these scriptures, come back with some questions about what you're still not understanding about these passages.

To be in the book of life, it means you have life, is that so? Are you made alive through Christ being raised up with him?

Also I declare what the book of John 5 declares. It says what it says. Don't pin this on me. You either accept what the scriptures say or you don't.

"IV.b Can’t be avoided; I will offer a Con BoP. I offer a description of resurrection from Acts 24: 14, 15 [KJV] “…so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:  And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow  [that is, speaking of the law and the prophets], that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.”  How can Paul “believe”  the contradictive nature of  “the law and the prophets?”  I’ll answer in a later round. Let that stew for a moment."

When will you start harmonizing these scriptures?

What was just quoted, it says resurrection.....of the dead...but resurrected to what ?

It didn't say all people are resurrected to life . That makes sense because the book of John 5 says there are those resurrected to.......life ...and....damnation. Again, Revelation 13 makes it very clear, everyone is not in the book of life of the lamb, ****of the lamb slain****. The resurrection of life of the lamb slain that was also resurrected applies to those in that book.

The details here are very important. You see the word "resurrected " and move fast with the conclusion the scripture always means back to life.

" IV.c Therefore, both the just and unjust will resurrect to life from death, by Jesus Christ. The “just and unjust” counts all of us. "

The book of John 5 doesn't agree with you.

It doesn't say all people are resurrected to life. But I understand that is what you're saying.

"Therefore, resurrection is not restricted to only the just, but also the unjust. And all are judged out of the book of life. The wicked are those whose names are then stricken from the book of life since they are banished to hell."

Now you're starting to agree with scripture. All people you can say are resurrected. But those who weren't resurrected to life, their name was not found in the book of life.

That's according to Revelation 20:15

What you have to do is get a clear distinction with the resurrection. As said in John 5 compared with Revelation 20, it is saying of those resurrected to damnation are simply resurrected to die which is the second death mentioned in Revelation 20.  Those are the ones not in the book of life that have worshipped the beast that Christ was not slain for as mentioned in Revelation 13 of those that worshipped the beast whose names were not in the book.

Remember the book is called the book of life of the lamb slain. The book of life of the lamb slain would have all names in it if all were on the list of the lamb slain. The lamb's book of life contains those with life in connection to the lamb's death. Why wouldn't my name be in the book of I was connected with the death of the lamb?

Harmonizing again with Ephesians 1 and we'll start at verse 13

"And you also were included in Christ(AB) when you heard the message of truth,(AC) the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal,(AD) the promised Holy Spirit,(AE) 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance(AF) until the redemption(AG) of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.(AH)"

Harmonizing back with John 5 about being resurrected to life. The distinction is made in the resurrection as when resurrected to ***life *** versus damnation, you're restored back to life and it stays that way. A guaranteed inheritance. Those that get resurrected to die again we're not included in Christ. To be resurrected in Christ, you remain alive or as the scriptures calls it, eternal life.

You're hung up on this point about everybody being resurrected but does it mean all people were resurrected through Christ? The scripture answers that.

Looking at Revelation 20 ,

"5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection."

Your interpretation : "

“But the rest of the dead  [those who did not die in Christ, obedient to his word]    lived not again  [that is, did not resurrect yet]  "

You read that into it.

It just says "But the rest of the dead....." with you adding on the " those who did not die in Christ".

Going down to verse 12, same chapter :

"12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works."

No where here it mentions those being alive, they're dead. Those living with Christ have life as mentioned back in verse 4. None that have life is mentioned here in these latter verses.

To keep from being confused, read the language as it is put. Those not alive with Christ receiving judgment , the context here mentions nothing but the dead. According to what you're saying they are alive but this scripture isn't saying that.

Being made alive by grace through the resurrection, if it were all people, they wouldn't be those names not found in the book of life as mentioned in verse 15. I guess the only point of the lake of fire would be for the fallen angels.

Think about what being made alive means as the book of Ephesians says. You have life forever more. Those not in the body of Christ don't get this gift as mentioned in Romans 5 or else they would be in the body.

"IV.c Therefore, both the just and unjust will resurrect to life from death, by Jesus Christ. The “just and unjust” counts all of us. The “small and the great” counts all of us. All of us face the judgment bar of God, the “great and small” and “just and unjust,” and all are judged out of the book of life. Therefore, resurrection is not restricted to only the just, but also the unjust. And all are judged out of the book of life. The wicked are those whose names are then stricken from the book of life since they are banished to hell."

Totally non-scriptural and disregards John 5.

"“extraneous lecture”

V.a Pro argues that the scriptural references given in my R1, VIII.a, .b, .c did not say “Christ died for everyone in the world,” as if the Con BoP must show bible references that say that direct quote. "

How else can we separate from what you're saying versus the scriptures?

"V.b Pro takes my reference to the Baptist’s baptism of Jesus, saying of him, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”  and rebuts my claim that the latter refers to all of us; everyone in the world. Are not the verses of the Holy Biblereplete with references that all of us sin, that all are found wanting in the eyes of God, unless we repent?"

It doesn't say Christ died for all people. You're looking at the word "world" to mean every person.

"V.c I therefore rebut that Pro’s claim of “…“Christ did not die for everyone in the world”  must be refuted by my BoP only by “bible, chapter and verse” of only verses that contain these quoted words, or they are not valid rebuttal. Nonsense. A capable reader will interpret that the phrasing used in my three sample verses in R1, VIII.a, .b, .c infers that Christ died for all. "

Let's see if these scriptures say Christ died for all.

"V.b.1 Romans 3: 23 [ESV] “For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.”. "

No.

"V.b.2 Romans 3:10 [ESV] “As is written, ‘none is righteous, no, not one…’”"

No.

"V.b.3 Isaiah 64: 6 [ESV] “We have all become as one who is unclean…” "

No .

These scriptures say plainly with no private interpretation as the scriptures say, all are sinners or there is not one who is not or was not a sinner.

A capable reader can infer, interpret however they like. That's the problem with not just reading something as is. People and false prophets can come up with anything.

"VI Argument: Harmony as a debate necessity is out of bounds

VI.a I suggest, given its late arrival to the debate, that harmonyis out of bounds, and ought to be scrapped as a necessary component in this debate, even though I have demonstrated that while there exists contradiction in the Holy Bible,it is not all contradictive; it also has harmony, which is good. It is needful that there be opposition in all things.[4]. Selah."

Are you literally giving justification for not going by everything that's written in the bible or for not going by as much as we can find what is it written on a specific subject to avoid that?

You're saying there are contradictions. Are you conceding that the scriptures I provided show the topic statement true but because they appear to contradict what you understand, you just settle with them being contradictions but yet hold your view as correct biblically?

If you wish to do that, then both of us can just have our true side of the bible separated by conflict and say we're both right based on our separate sides of the fence . The problem is it has to be one or the other. A contradiction like this self negates what the actual gospel of salvation is leaving those yet to believe and understand straddling the fence that we're on opposite sides of.

That's why in lieu of settling with what is thought to be contradiction, should just be an obstacle or stepping stone we have to take, working harder, learning what the scripture is saying.

"When is when?We obviously cannot harmonize yet because, clearly, Pro is finding his own contradictions, such as in I Corinthians 15 which he combats. So, do we ignore Corinthians? Or do I ignore Ephesians?"

We shouldn't be having a debate about something that has to be proven with scripture then asking a question of which scripture to ignore. This is supposed to be your source. You don't ignore your source.

You can give up calling everything a contradiction. I choose to continue to read, study and analyze what I'm reading.

How am I combating? I've done nothing but harmonize scripture. The book of Corinthians says compare spiritual things with spiritual. The book of Proverbs 4 says of all thy getting, get understanding. It's something you're not understanding about 1 Corinthians 2:13.

Compare the things between the two passages. You don't ignore anything. Just as the book of Revelation warns about taking anything away from the book or adding on, you read just as written, you don't leave anything out that's written.

Each book and chapter has a piece of information you have to put together. The book of Genesis doesn't go over every single detail of creation. You'll find more information in the book of Revelation 14,  Psalms 95, Nehemiah 9, Psalms 74, Psalms 104, Isaiah 45, Exodus 20.

This is how people declare so called contradictions and false beliefs about creation. They look at isolated text maybe unbeknownst to them that they've learned only part of the gospel but thinking the whole creation story and the details there of is only in the book of Genesis.

"Is that how Pro harmonizes? "

What are you not understanding about harmonizing scripture?

Is this why you can't or have not put everything together? You don't know exactly how to do it so you threw your hands up on it.

" I do not personally agree with this tactic. But, this appears to be Pro’s tactic by insistence on harmony,regardless of apparent Biblical contradiction, book to book. "

I didn't know you actually believed in using a source you think has conflicted information.

Let me ask, if you wanted to demonstrate a fact to somebody , would you use questionable or erratic so called evidence or would you use solid material?

Why would you even enter a debate with the belief or maybe you weren't aware that scripture existed against what you knew.

You say harmony is a tactic of mine. Are you saying nobody else would try to demonstrate evidence that is totally consistent in its source?

You're not making sense.

According to Pro, only “some” books can be harmonizedwith others. Who decides which, and which books will be shelved as Apocrypha? Pro? Are we convening still another Ecumenical Council?"

Where have I said only some books can be congruent? Is this all you have left is to strawman? I notice you're not even attempting to build your case with scripture. At this point, you're criticizing over how consistent evidence is somebody's tactic. 

That's offensive to scientists abroad that also invest in factual data. The truth and the facts are always consistent or else they wouldn't be what they are. 

I don't understand why someone would take a biblical topic that can't be declared correct or incorrect due its source thought of being conflicted unless you thought you had this in the bag.

"Pro has predetermined that Con does not fit at the table. Sorry, I accept the fallible Holy Bibleas the Word of God as is, corrupted though it has been by ignorant and intentional men over millennia. How I do that is an extraneous lecture for another round."

There goes the debate right here. If you deny the scriptures to be true by holding the position that they have perceived contradictions you can't resolve, it makes a topic like this futile to debate.

I.a Pro’s initial R1 argument cited in Revelation 13: 8, to wit, "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Grammatically, “all that dwell upon the earth” must include more than those whose names are not written in the book of life, because, as we witnessed in my R1, II.a.1.A - .C, the realm of Satan is on this earth, among us whose names are written in the book of life. Satan’s minions are not so recorded because they are eternally damned for denial of the plan of God “before the world was.”

I.b Further, we see in Romans 14: 11, “For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue confess to God.”  If Paul is speaking about every human entity on earth bowing to the Lord, that must include the minions of Satan, who also are on earth, and who will have no consequence to their confession that they, only now [rather, at that future time], recognize the Christ as the Lord God, because their names were never written in the book of life.

I.c Therefore, Pro has not proven the BoP that “Jesus did not die for everyone,” because everyone on earth shall bow down in recognition that Jesus is the Christ, even though some, Satan’s minions, shall not taste of the first or last fruits of the resurrection, whereas even the wicked who have lived mortal lives on earth will resurrect as did Jesus Christ, and acknowledge him as such. Therefore, Pro’s first checkpoint is defeated. 

II.a “Harmony” is not the subject of this debate, and Pro may crow from the rooftops, but I challenge readers to find it in the Resolution or the Description [let alone a reference of its necessity in the Holy Bible]. I’ll add that, for all Pro’s crowing “harmony,” I’ll remind that Pro’s initiation to R3 is “First off, your case must be found in scripture.”  So, then, must be Pro’s case. I will, once again, use my opponent’s own argument against him:

II.a.1 Pro further cites II Timothy 3, saying “All scripture, not some, is good for doctrine or teaching or instruction.”   “ALL” not “some.” I will take Pro at his word, and then ask, if [quoting Pro quoting me] “Pro charges that I did not harmonize I Corinthians 15: 22 with Revelation 13, or with John 5, or with any other chapters in those books.” II Timothy 3 says that all scripture is good for doctrine. Why, then, must I harmonize with any particular scripture defined by Pro if all of it is good for doctrine? Is Pro arguing against himself? Seems to me that is exactly what he is doing.

II.a.2 It follows that, according to Pro, all scriptures harmonize, but apparently only those that Pro selects. My selections do not count. Hmmm. Yeah, dear reader, that doesn’t track for me, either.

III.a My BoP is that Christdiedfor everyone. We have both argued resurrection, but I stop here, having discussed that subject enough. My BoP is as stated. The Resolution speaks to death, so, from here on, I concentrate on that point. 

III.b The book of life. Pro wants to continue this argument, as well. Proceed, then, Pro; I make an end here, as well. The book of life has naught to with whether Christ died for all. I’ve made all the argument I plan to make with regard to the book of life, because our death will come for all of us, regardless of our listed names in the book of life. Life, not death. Death is our resolved subject. Again, Pro may argue on. His choice. His BoP.

Does it need my harmonization with Revelation 13 if “all scripture is good for doctrine?”  I refer to I.c.1, above.

III.c On this matter, Pro completely overlooked my discussion in R2, IV.b.1, which speaks directly to Pro’s R3 commentary, “It doesn't say all people are resurrected to life. But I understand that is what you're saying.”  Pro’s “It” is referring to the quote in R2 [fro, I Corinthians 15: 22], explicitly, that “in Christ shall all be made alive,” because, “As in Adam, all die…” Can that be anymore harmonious with my BoP? But Pro concludes,   “But those who weren't resurrected to life, their name was not found in the book of life”  and cites Revelation 20:15. But I have previously cautioned Pro about picking verses at random without reviewing context. The context of this 20thchapter is the discussion of events leading up to the final judgment, and that the first and second resurrections precede judgment, but the resurrection of the just are resurrected first, and then later, but still before judgment, the unjust. All, though once dead, and still referred to as once being dead, are alive when judged. That is, if we are, indeed, to “harmonize” with Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians, since all scriptures are good for doctrine. Or, is Pro in auto-argument mode again? How, then, can one scripture disagree with another? Answer: see the history of the Ecumenical Councils in my R2, II through II.d.1.A.

IV.a My opponent declares I am “complaining,” “being petty,” and “nitpicking… just because [the Description] didn’t have arguments in it.” Wrong. I’m not saying it did not have arguments; I said it lacked debate protocol, such as requiring harmonization. Yes, the Description should have debate protocols, and the Debate rounds have arguments. That seems clear in the DART Help Center. 

V.a Let us review: 

V.a.1 R1, II.d Holy Bible, Revelation 22: 18-19

V.a.2 R1, II.d.2 Holy Bible, James 1: 2-5

V.a.3 R1, III.a.1.A Isaiah 14: 12-15

V.a.4 R1, II.a.1.B Like 10: 17-18

V.b That’s not all in R1, but, the point is made. I also submit R2, which has its own several scriptural references. Need I list them here? Look to the cited sources; all of them, as in this R3. The point is made, and Pro’s claim is demonstrated to be false. Pro may not like these references, but he made them a demand in his Resolution and Description, and those I have cited demonstrate my BoP.

V.c Then Pro claims Romans 3: 23, Romans 3: 10, and Isaiah 64: 6 do not say “Christ died for all.”

V.c.1 Romans 3 says “all have sinned.” Romans 3 says “none are righteous.” Isaiah says “all [are] unclean.” These, contrary to Pro’s assumed failure of my citation, all discuss that all[everyone, yes?] are sinful and unworthy [but for Christ’s atonement – and, no, it doesn’t say that specifically, but what, pray tell, is the atonement for?]. Therefore, all [everyone] need Christ’s atonement, or they remain dead when they die. No, they do not speak to Christ dying for all. My argument is establishing for whom Christ died: everyone, and the scriptures above in Romans and Isaiah are harmonizing with I Corinthians 15: 22  “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” There is the ultimate scripture, so far, as demanded by the Con BoP of the Resolution, that “…Christ died for everyone.” Pro may rant and complain, he may toss other scriptures, but he cannot argue that II Timothy 3 states that all scriptures are good for doctrine and then deny that I Corinthians 15: 22 is “good for doctrine.”

VI.a Pardon my assumption that consistent evidence should be a debate tactic. Is this more instruction from Pro that belongs in the Description, that I should not offer consistent evidence as a tactic?

VI.b Pro concludes that my analysis of Revelation 20: 4-5, 12 “disregards John 5,” but insists that II Timothy 3 says “all scripture is good for doctrine.” Mathematically, Pro says thus: IIT3 = J5 = R20 ∴  R20 ≠ J5. Is R20 also not equal to IIT3? No, it doesn’t make sense even when given in God’s native language.[1]

VII.a Con: “I accept the fallible Holy Bible as the Word of God as is…”

VII.a.1 Pro reply: “If you deny the holy scriptures to be true…”  

VII.b Con: “But, this appears to be Pro’s tactic by insistence on harmony, regardless of apparent Biblical contradiction, book to book.”

VII.b.1 Pro reply: “I don't understand why someone would take a biblical topic that can't be declared correct or incorrect due its source thought of being conflicted…”

VII.c Con: “Pro has predetermined that Con does not fit at the table. Sorry, I accept the fallible Holy Bible as the Word of God as is, corrupted though it has been by ignorant and intentional men over millennia. How I do that is an extraneous lecture for another round.”  But, not yet in this round. Let patience have her perfect work.

VII.c.1 Pro reply: There goes the debate right here. If you deny the scriptures to be true by holding the position that they have perceived contradictions you can't resolve,it makes a topic like this futile to debate.”

VII.d Pro: ““All scripture, not some, is good for doctrine or teaching or instruction.”

VII.d.1 I bolded the text of Pro’s commentary from R3 because he assumes “you can’t resolve” while I never acknowledged that limitation. See as said above, concluding VII.c, regarding patience. [James 1: 4]

VII.d.2 Pro: “You didn’t harmonize this with revelation 13… You also didn’t do this with John 5.”  I didn’t harmonize with Matthew 5: 48, either, but is it required? Refer to II.c, II.c.1, III.b, VII.d.

VII.e I will ask, in closing, if Pro has ever read the Holy Bible, cover to cover. All of it, OT, NT; Genesis to Revelation, every single chapter and verse; every word. I have, in four languages: English, French, Italian, and Greek. I own several versions, mostly in English, and others in the languages noted. I also own a copy of the Latin Vulgate, but I am not well versed in Latin. I have, however, also read the Egyptian Book of the Dead in the original hieroglyphs, and English, as translated by E.A. Wallace Budge, having learned Egyptian in my undergraduate days. Also, the Q’ran, the Siddhartha, the Vedas, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, [both in English and French] the Torah, the Catholic Catechism, [English and French] the Dao, The Book of Shadows, and some others. I am retired, with time to read, and I began reading such subjects as of 12 years of age, which was the age of my first Bible reading. When asked if I know scripture, I reply, “Which one?” because, unlike Pro, I consider many works to be holy writ, all written by men, not God, and not exclusively the Bible. This is not a topic I take lightly or futilely. I resent Pro’s charge and demand an apology.

I commend R4 to Pro.