The Universalist Story is Not a Realistic Story (Annihilationism vs. Universalism)

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[Mark Corbett]

James 4:12

“There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?”

able to save - and to destroy
/again does not use a word that means to kill or slay

James, thanks for brining up the word "destroy" in James 4:12. The Greek word used there for "destroy" is apollumi.

apollumi most certainly does mean to kill or to slay. Here are just a couple of examples where it used in this way:


Matthew 2:13 When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill (apollumi) him."

Matthew 27:20 But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed (apollumi).

Acts 5:37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed (apollumi), and all his followers were scattered.

If you want to see more examples, look at: Matthew 12:14, Matthew 21:41, Matthew 22:7, and Luke 13:33.

 

[ClementofA]

Clement, you are correct to point out that Genesis 6:3 may be correctly translated to read "abide in" (ESV) or "remain with" (CSB) as opposed to "contend with" (NIV) or strive with" (NKJ, NAS).

IMO, even if it is translated "abide in", the point is that God decided two things related to mankind: He would destroy all except for Noah's family in a flood and He would cut back man's time on earth to normally be no more that 120 years (although this does not happen instantly). Both of these decisions appear to be in response to mankind's wickedness. Both of these decisions indicate that there comes a point where God wisely chooses to no longer work with people individually, or mankind as a whole.

Is Genesis 6:3 by itself "proof" that Universalism is not true. No, but I believe that it harmonizes with annihilationism much better than with universalism.

My take on one reason for the flood was so that the Lord would have some righteous people through whom He could work on the earth & bring a Saviour into the world to fulfill prophesy. That Saviour is announced as the Saviour of the world, which i take to mean Saviour of all people, including those who died in the flood, and still remained in unbelief, if any. Though while they were dying in the days of the flood & realizing Noah was right, who can deny that many, if not all of them, may have repented. If not, they will receive much more powerful evidences of God with & following their own resurrection back to life.

Other than that there appears to be a lot of differences of opinions with commentators (re Gen.6:3) guessing as to what this difficult passage means & why God shortened man's life span to 120 years. In the Psalms reference is made to 70 or 80 years.

What eternal Damnationists commentating re Gen.6:3 don't explain, though, is the idea that if this lifespan is the only chance for salvation, why a loving God would make the lifespan much shorter, thereby giving men less time to find God. And what of those who die at ages 0 to 20? Do they not get the same chances as others living longer? Furthermore, why bring the wicked back to life, if they are totally hardened beyond even the repair of Love Omnipotent? Just to torture them before the unfeeling impotent terminator machine called god sends them to their doom?

----------------------------------

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

1 Jn.2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

"...it doesn't say what most evangelizers of hopelessness want it to say in that regard either."

"It is false, he maintained, to translate that phrase as "everlasting punishment," introducing into the New Testament the concept found in the Islamic Quran that God is going to torture the wicked forever."

Scholar's Corner: The Center for Bible studies in Christian Universalism

 

[Mark Corbett]

What eternal Damnationists commentating re Gen.6:3 don't explain, though, is the idea that if this lifespan is the only chance for salvation, why a loving God would make the lifespan much shorter, thereby giving men less time to find God. And what of those who die at ages 0 to 20? Do they not get the same chances as others living longer? Furthermore, why bring the wicked back to life, if they are totally hardened beyond even the repair of Love Omnipotent? Just to torture them before the unfeeling impotent terminator machine called god sends them to their doom?

First, the fact that God has not explained to us the reasons and rationale for all His actions should not be used to deny that God will do things which the Bible teaches He will do. The Bible teaches that God will cause the unrighteous to perish (John 3:16), die (Romans 6:23), be destroyed in body and soul (Matthew 10:28), and be burned to ashes (2 Peter 2:6), and that this punishment is an "eternal punishment" (Matthew 25:46).

Now, regarding your questions, it is possible that God, having foreknowledge of the future decisions his creatures would make under various conditions, wisely chooses to allow different people to live for different lengths of time. This is only one possible factor. My point is not that I can explain precisely why a given person dies at 18 and another at 88. I certainly cannot. My point is simply that there are reasonable possible answers to this consistent with both God's love and with the Bible's teaching that many will ultimately end in destruction (Matthew 7:13).

You asked why God would raise the unrighteous. God has promised to reveal sins, judge, and pay back those who have sinned against His people. Raising them to judgment allows God to this. It is not wrong. In fact it is right and just. God asks us to patiently accept a lot of injustice in this world and part of the motivation He gives us is a promise that He Himself will pay back those who have done evil and never repented and found forgiveness in Christ:

ESV Romans 12:19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."

 

[ClementofA]

You asked why God would raise the unrighteous. God has promised to reveal sins, judge, and pay back those who have sinned against His people. Raising them to judgment allows God to this. It is not wrong. In fact it is right and just. God asks us to patiently accept a lot of injustice in this world and part of the motivation He gives us is a promise that He Himself will pay back those who have done evil and never repented and found forgiveness in Christ:

Actually, I asked:

"why bring the wicked back to life, if they are totally hardened beyond even the repair of Love Omnipotent? Just to torture them before the unfeeling impotent terminator machine called god sends them to their doom?"

Evidently you have no reasonable answer for this.

Therefore, i conclude from this thread:

1] Your caricature of God makes His omnipotence weak & impotent.

2] Your caricature of God also makes Him unjust & unloving.

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

 

[Mark Corbett]

Actually, I asked:

"why bring the wicked back to life, if they are totally hardened beyond even the repair of Love Omnipotent? Just to torture them before the unfeeling impotent terminator machine called god sends them to their doom?"

Evidently you have no reasonable answer for this.

Therefore, i conclude from this thread:

1] Your caricature of God makes His omnipotence weak & impotent.

2] Your caricature of God also makes Him unjust & unloving.

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

Just because you don't agree with my answer does not mean it is unreasonable. If God does not do what you think He should do (save everyone), this does not make Him weak, omnipotent, unjust, or unloving.

 

[Der Alte]

... "It is false, he maintained, to translate that phrase as "everlasting punishment," introducing into the New Testament the concept found in the Islamic Quran that God is going to torture the wicked forever."...

Does αιωνιον/aionion mean eternal or does it mean "age(s)," a variable finite period of time?

1 Timothy 1:17
(17) Now unto the King eternal, (1) immortal,(2) invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever (1) and ever (1). Amen.
(1) αἰών/aion (2) ̓́αφθαρτος/aphthartos​

In this verse “aion” is in apposition, see def. below, with “immortal.” If “aion” means “age(s),” a finite period, God cannot be for “a finite period” and “immortal” at the same time. God is “eternal” and “immortal” at the same time. “Aion” means “eternal.”

Romans 2:7
(7) To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality,(2) eternal (1) life:​

“Aion” is in apposition with “immortality.” If “aion” is only a finite period, believers cannot seek for “a finite period,” and “immortality” at the same time. But they can seek for “eternity” and “immortality” at the same time. “Aion” means “eternal.”

2 Corinthians 4:17-18
(17) For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal (1) weight of glory;
(18) While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal;(3) but the things which are not seen are eternal.(1)
(3) πρόσκαιρος/proskairos​

Here “aion” is contrasted with “for a moment,” vs. 4, and “temporal,” vs. 5. “Aion” cannot mean “age(s)” a finite period, it is not the opposite of “for a moment”/”temporal/temporary.” “Eternal” is.

2 Corinthians 5:1
(1)For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal (1) in the heavens.​

Here “aion house” is contrasted with “earthly house which is destroyed.” An “aion” house is not destroyed, the opposite of “is destroyed.” “Aion” means “eternal.”

Hebrews 7:24
(24) But this man, [Melchizadek] because he continueth ever,(1) hath an unchangeable (4) priesthood.
(4) ἀπαράβατος/aparabatos​

Here “unchangeable” is in apposition with “aion.” If “aion” means “age(s),” Melchizadek cannot continue “for a finite period” and be “unchangeable” at the same time. “Aion” means “eternal.”

1 Peter 1:23
(23) Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible,(2) by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.(1)​

Here “incorruptible” is in apposition with “aion.” The seed of God cannot be “incorruptible” and only “a finite period” at the same time. “Aion” means “eternal.”
The definition of “apposition” from a Greek grammar.

III. Nominative in Simple Apposition
The nominative case (as well as the other cases) can be an appositive to another substantive in the same case. The usage is quite common. There are four features of simple apposition to be noted (the first two are structural clues; the last two features are semantic): An appositional construction inz’olz’es (1) two adjacent substantives (2)in the same case (40) (3) which refer to the same person or thing, (4) and have the same syntactical relation to the rest of the clause.
The first substantive can belong to any category (e.g., subject, Predicate nom., etc.) and the second is merely a clarification, description, or identification of who or what is mentioned.(41) Thus, the appositive “piggy-backs” on the first nominative’s use, as it were. For this reason simple apposition is not an independent syntactical category.
The appositive functions very much like a PN in a convertible proposition that is, it refers to the same thing as the first noun.(42) The difference, however, is that a PN makes an assertion about the S (an equative verb is either stated or implied); with appositives there is assumption, not assertion (no verb is in mind). In the sentence “Paul is an apostle,” apostle is a PN; in the sentence, “Paul the apostle is in prison,” apostle is in apposition to Paul.
Footnotes.
(40)The nom. occasionally is in apposition to an oblique case, but the semantics are the same. See discussion below.
(41) An appositive, strictly speaking, is substantival, not adjectival. Thus, adjectives or Participles in second attributive position are not generally appositives, but usually hate an adjectival force.
(42) The significance of this will be seen in our discussion of the gen. case, for the gen can also involve a syntactical category, vi.t., the gen of apposition. The semantics involved in such a category are quite different from those involved in simple apposition.

With proper names typically the first noun is anarthrous and the appositional noun is articular.
Matt 3:1 παραγινεται ιωαννης ο βαπτιστης κηρυσσων​

John the Baptist came Preaching
Mark 15:4 0 εν αις ην και μαρια η μαγδαληνη
among them also were Mary the Magdalene...
Luke 1:24 συνελαβεν ελισαβετ η γυνη αυτου
Elizabeth his wife conceived
Rev 1:5 ο μαρτυς ο πιστος ο πρωτοτοκος εκ των νεκρων
the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, Grand Rapids MI, 1996, Daniel Wallace, pp.48-49​

 

[ClementofA]

Just because you don't agree with my answer does not mean it is unreasonable. If God does not do what you think He should do (save everyone), this does not make Him weak, omnipotent, unjust, or unloving.

Your response is besides the point that you evidently think God brings the hopelessly wicked dead, i.e. annihilated (in oblivion or nothingness) back to life, not for their salvation, but to be tormented before shipping them off to endless doom, i.e. an annihilation from which He will not resurrected them again.

You claim He will annihilate them endlessly for their own good, since He is powerless to save them, but clearly He is not raising them for their own good, but to be tormented. So if He was acting for their own good, He wouldn't have raised them only to be tormented, but left them to "rest in peace" in death (oblivion/nothingness in your view).

Therefore, i concluded from this thread:

1] Your caricature of God makes His omnipotence weak & impotent.

2] Your caricature of God also makes Him unjust & unloving.

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

 

[ClementofA]

First, the fact that God has not explained to us the reasons and rationale for all His actions should not be used to deny that God will do things which the Bible teaches He will do. The Bible teaches that God will cause the unrighteous to perish (John 3:16), die (Romans 6:23), be destroyed in body and soul (Matthew 10:28), and be burned to ashes (2 Peter 2:6), and that this punishment is an "eternal punishment" (Matthew 25:46).

Thus far i have addressed your remarks & annihilation theory proof texts in a number of posts, as follows, at the url below, which have not been answered:

Post # 215...page 11...re Matt.25:46 which is considered a stronghold for the anti-universalism positions, but i've shown is more favorable to universalism

Post # 220...page 11...Phil.3:19 refuted as an alleged annihilation proof text

Post # 221...page 12...apollumi comments of Mark Corbett refuted

Post #225...page 12....a list of annihilation proof texts easily explained away

Post #225...page 12...addressed Jn.3:16 & Rom.6:23...Dan. 12:2-3 shown as supporting Biblical universalism

Additionally, i have addressed the following with no answers:

Post #294...page 15...Rev. 20:10 shown to be harmonious with universalism

Post #316...page 16...Universalism in 1 Cor.15:22-28 & the book of Revelation

Conditional Immortality Supports Annihilationion, Refutes Eternal Conscious Torment and Universalism

In this present thread i have also commented on Mt.10:28 & 2 Pet.2:6 in post #12.

Forum

 

[Deadworm]

The OP assumes that God is not omnipotent enough or omniscient enough to fulflll His desire to restore everyone by devising a strategy that gives the damned regular opportunities to evolve spiritually in a godly direction and make the postmortem choice to receive grace. The OP also ignores 2 solidly biblical teachings: (1) texts that imply a chance for postmortem salvation of the evil dead; (2) hymnic biblical texts that envisage everyone in Hades, Heaven, and Hell worshiping Christ and acknowledging Him as their Lord. But, you ask, why do you assume that everyone will eventually freely respond to Christ? God has an eternity to wait and devise incentives and means for the damned to open their hearts to spiritual restoration. Is He up to the task of finding ways to fulfill His will? Or is God in essence not Love after all because His love for those who reject Him has a temporal limit?

That said, I consider myself a qualified universalist because I can presume neither (1) that God is powerful enough and knowledgeable enough (1) to ensure that His will to save everyone will be fulfilled or (2) that therefore any postmortem circumstances can be created to ensure that the damned will freely choose to embrace a godly existence. Truth be told, we are not really clear about the possible limitations of divine omnipotence and omniscience.

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm