Response to Confused about Hell

[Pedra]

A new member posted a question in For New Christians that can't be answered there.

He noted that people make very convincing cases for annihilation, eternal torment, and universalism.

I share the concern, but I think there's a reason: The New Testament gives multiple views on judgement, and many of them aren't literal. This should be a clue that perhaps what is actually going to happen is something we wouldn't understand.

My summary

• Paul in 1 Cor 15 and elsewhere seems to advocate universalism.
• John 12:31 ff suggests something like 1 Cor 15. God overthrows the powers that oppressed humans. Once he does that, all are drawn to Christ.
• The Revelation advocates either annihilation or torment, depending upon how you understand the second death
• Jesus certainly describes judgement, but it's not clear whether it continues forever, and a number of his statements are obviously non-literal.

Complicating the problem is that fact that "eternal" is used in the OT for things that aren't literally eternal. Fires that no longer burn, everlasting doors that aren't (ps 24).

My reading of the second death (based on Jewish usage and the obvious meaning) is that it is probably destruction, though I don't think that's certain. I think you can unify Paul's views with the end of the Revelation if you assume that not many normal humans end up in the lake of fire, but only those who are so inalterably opposed to God that they're effectively part of the "powers" that Paul's picture shows as being destroyed. Paul's picture seems universalist. Once the powers that oppressed humans are destroyed, everything else is "in Christ." The powers in his view are primarily supernatural, but it's not impossible that they include some humans.

Jesus uses such a variety of images that it's hard to pin down just what the literal meaning is. He certainly speaks of varying rewards and punishments. But I don't think there's anything that is unambiguously eternal punishment. (Mat 25 depends upon what "eternal" means. I think it's often not literal.) It may be that the Synoptic Gospels, Paul, and John simply don't agree. But I think it's barely possible that the punishments in the Gospels aren't eternal torment, in which case the Gospels could be consistent with Paul interpreted as I've interpreted him.

This is equivalent to N T Wright's view in Rethinking the Tradition, in which most people end up with Christ, but some are effectively destroyed.

I have to say though that I'm not entirely sure that Jesus' teachings in the Synoptic Gospels can actually be understood as consistent with Paul's. Reading Jesus' stories of judgement as not indicating eternal punishment seems like the most hopeful way of understanding them as consistent.

I don't see Apostle Paul advocating "Universalism" at all in 1 Cor 15.
Can you elaborate with what particular verses/ scriptures you think backs up your theory? of this.

 

[hedrick]

I don't see Apostle Paul advocating "Universalism" at all in 1 Cor 15.
Can you elaborate with what particular verses/ scriptures you think backs up your theory? of this.

Sure. 1 Cor 15 gives a fairly clear description of the end. The summary at the beginning is “as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.” The common claims that all doesn’t mean all can’t work here, unless some are exempt from Adam too. So all end up in Christ.

Now the details. First Christ, then his followers, then he destroys all the rulers and powers, the enemies, the last of which is death. Then all are subjected to him, and finally he hands it over to God and is subjected to God.

While subjected to sounds at first like it could include bad guys being punished, the same language is used for Christ being subjected to God. The term means simply to be under someone, as in military rank.

There’s no condemnation of evil humans here, except possibly if some are so allied with the rulers and powers that they are destroyed with them. Other than that possibility, everyone else ends up in Christ, per 15:22. I’m actually inclined to accept that loophole, since Jesus seems to say that it’s possible that some are lost. So I normally characterize Paul as either universalist or nearly universalist, i.e. universal with some exceptions.

Paul compares Christ to Adam two places, both saying that just as all become subject to death through Adam, all are redeemed in Christ. The other is Rom 5:15ff. To avoid universalism you have to butcher the analogy, and ignore Rom 5:18.

 

[Hillsage]

Does not the body physically die and remain/decay in the grave? The spirit meanwhile which is the immaterial part of the body returns to God. I see no conflict in that as the body remains in the grave and the spirit returns to God.

The conflict is not that. The conflict, even with the answer you just gave is this; that the soul and body were DESTROYED....and not just 'the soul' which you believe is 'spirit and body'. Your view just presents logical fallacy for me.

I personally think it is because the "image/form" of Adam's body came from dirt which God created. God was not and is not dirt, God is spirit. So I have no problem seeing myself as a spirit who has a soul which is defined as non physical, or non flesh...mind, will, emotions. And this body is just the earthly tent that 'spirit/I' live in, just as Paul expressed;

2CO 5:1 For we know that if the earthly tent WE LIVE IN is destroyed,...

Just because something is left out, we are not free to assume that it is not included as that may amount to sheer presumption on our part.

Take this 'defense' you offer, and apply it to a verse you have quoted. "Man became a living soul. Why can't it be, just as you've proposed, that spirit and body are left out because 'they' were "not included" in the point of the verse's instruction? IOW apply your "sheer presumption" defense to my POV? Mine being we're talking about an obedient 'living soul' in contrast to a disobedient 'dying soul' which has sinned.

In the Garden, the triune man's soul staying alive was dependent upon the soul (mind will emotion) part of man CHOOSING to obey or disobey God's one law. Even Jesus admitted His temptations weren't a spirit problem but a flesh problem.

MAT 26:41 Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."

And yet, in the temptations of Jesus to overcome sin, He had to fight the triune battle 'of His willing spirit' and 'His unwilling flesh'....to die. Indeed concerning the third part of Jesus's makeup He said; "MY soul is was sorrowful unto DEATH" in wrestling with the two choices. But true to 'His calling and purpose' Jesus surrendered the 'Will of his weak flesh' to 'not be crucified/die'. And He surrendered 'that disobedient will in order to yield to the obedient will of His spirit, the spirit of Christ in Him. And with this final temptation decision, His 'now fully sanctified' soul ("tempted like us but without sin" Heb 4:15) made him the perfect sacrifice for the cross. His spirit never died and neither did his soul...on the cross...only His body.

Moreover, are not persons born again? I assume you as a person are born again. Therefore, you as soul/person with a body of flesh are born again. Again, I see no conflict here.

I'd say no "persons" aren't born again. I believe scripture is misleading in that regard due to bad translation.

2CO 5:17 Therefore, if any one is in Christ, (he is/not in Greek) ‘A’ new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come.

And that 'new creation' from being "in Christ" is the salvation of a 'born again spirit of Christ in you'. Your soul certainty wasn't totally changed/saved the instant you said yes to Jesus, and your body certainly didn't become glorified. If you were fat and ugly before your spirit was 'born anew' your body was still fat and ugly after. But your body now has a "living hope for glory" in the future.

1PE 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy we have been born anew to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

On the cross the only thing 'dying and shedding blood' was the BODY of Jesus. Not his soul or his spirit which returned to the Father. But it was His SOUL which was sorrowful unto death during His temptation in the Garden. And that's when His LIVING soul had to decide (mind, will, emotion) to obey the Father or follow the lust of His "weak" "flesh". Had Jesus done so, His soul, for the first time in His life would have become a 'dying soul' unworthy of being the perfect sacrifice. Thankfully Jesus chose to be led of the holy spirit of Christ IN HIM to obey GOD (Father/Holy Spirit).

Because you forget or do not acknowledge that the soul is a person consisting of both body AND spirit. Therefore men are able to kill/destroy the singular fleshly body of another man. However, they are not able to kill the soul which consists of BOTH the body AND the spirit of a man. Only God can destroy the soul.

Where as I say you can inflict mortal harm to a body so that if the spirit departs and you die, both body and soul go to one place, but the spirit returns to "the FATHER of spirits" From whence it came..

HEB 12:9 Besides this, we have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live?

Not sure if God is triune or not. I haven't studied it enough. However that being said, just because God is triune it does not logically conclude that man has to be tripartite. May be a case of comparing apples and oranges.

I have studied the trinity enough...IMO. Leaving me with an opinion which scripture confirmed, as shared before....and again with the addition of another 'witness';

1TH 5:23 May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

HEB 4:12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow/body,

 

[Der Alte]

begin

<H>Sure. 1 Cor 15 gives a fairly clear description of the end. The summary at the beginning is “as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.” The common claims that all doesn’t mean all can’t work here, unless some are exempt from Adam too. So all end up in Christ.
Now the details. First Christ, then his followers, then he destroys all the rulers and powers, the enemies, the last of which is death. Then all are subjected to him, and finally he hands it over to God and is subjected to God.
While subjected to sounds at first like it could include bad guys being punished, the same language is used for Christ being subjected to God. The term means simply to be under someone, as in military rank.
There’s no condemnation of evil humans here, except possibly if some are so allied with the rulers and powers that they are destroyed with them. Other than that possibility, everyone else ends up in Christ, per 15:22. I’m actually inclined to accept that loophole, since Jesus seems to say that it’s possible that some are lost. So I normally characterize Paul as either universalist or nearly universalist, i.e. universal with some exceptions.
Paul compares Christ to Adam two places, both saying that just as all become subject to death through Adam, all are redeemed in Christ. The other is Rom 5:15ff. To avoid universalism you have to butcher the analogy, and ignore Rom 5:18.<H>

end

"1 Cor 15 gives a fairly clear description of the end. The summary at the beginning is 'as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.'”
All mankind are "in Adam" because all mankind are literal, physical descendants of Adam, but all mankind is not inherently "in Christ."
This argument might be valid if Paul had written "all are redeemed by Christ."
Here are some verses where a distinction is made between those who are "in Christ" and those who are not.

Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:​

The converse of this is there is no redemption for those not "in Christ."

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.​

The converse of this there is condemnation for those not "in Christ."

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.​

The converse is any man who is not "in Christ" old things are not passed away; all things do not become new.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:​

The converse is those who are not "in Christ' do not rise.

2 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,​

The converse is there is no promise of life for those who are not "in Christ."

2 Timothy 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.​

The converse is those who are not "in Christ' do not obtain salvation.

Matthew 7:22-23
(22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
(23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

What does "never" mean to Jesus who is eternal?

 

[Oldmantook]

The conflict is not that. The conflict, even with the answer you just gave is this; that the soul and body were DESTROYED....and not just 'the soul' which you believe is 'spirit and body'. Your view just presents logical fallacy for me.

Don't have the time to address all of your responses right now but since you seem to camp on this verse I'll address it although this subject is not particularly interesting to me though it appears to be so for you, which is fine. Like I wrote earlier, the soul is the person who has a material body and an immaterial spirit. Can the body be destroyed? Yes, the material body can be destroyed. No argument there. Can man's immaterial spirit be destroyed? No, the part of the soul which is the immaterial spirit cannot be destroyed. The spirit which returns to God cannot be destroyed (Eccles 12:7). So yes the physical body belonging to the soul/person can be destroyed. However the spirit belonging to the soul/person cannot be destroyed. And that is why reference to the "spirit" part of man is left out in this verse. God is able to destroy the soul/person and body in hell - but not the spirit.

 

[Hillsage]

Don't have the time to address all of your responses right now but since you seem to camp on this verse I'll address it although this subject is not particularly interesting to me though it appears to be so for you, which is fine. Like I wrote earlier, the soul is the person who has a material body and an immaterial spirit. Can the body be destroyed? Yes, the material body can be destroyed. No argument there. Can man's immaterial spirit be destroyed? No, the part of the soul which is the immaterial spirit cannot be destroyed. The spirit which returns to God cannot be destroyed (Eccles 12:7). So yes the physical body belonging to the soul/person can be destroyed. However the spirit belonging to the soul/person cannot be destroyed. And that is why reference to the "spirit" part of man is left out in this verse. God is able to destroy the soul/person and body in hell - but not the spirit.

Don't bother to respond Oldmantook. That one verse is falling way short of all I responded with IMO. If it is not particularly interesting to you, far be it for me to want you to feel obligated to respond. Because my only reason for posting what I did was to maybe interest you in a POV which you maybe 'never' had to begin with, unlike me. I too once believed as you that the 'living soul' was a human being. I've moved from that position because of scriptural evidence which I believe doesn't support it. If you're still happy with your view, after considering all I presented then there's no reason for you to respond, because I've been where you are and am also not going to be convinced to go back. You just realize that if/when we interact it will most certainly be jaded based upon definition differences on common held words.

 

[Oldmantook]

Don't bother to respond Oldmantook. That one verse is falling way short of all I responded with IMO. If it is not particularly interesting to you, far be it for me to want you to feel obligated to respond. Because my only reason for posting what I did was to maybe interest you in a POV which you maybe 'never' had to begin with, unlike me. I too once believed as you that the 'living soul' was a human being. I've moved from that position because of scriptural evidence which I believe doesn't support it. If you're still happy with your view, after considering all I presented then there's no reason for you to respond, because I've been where you are and am also not going to be convinced to go back. You just realize that if/when we interact it will most certainly be jaded based upon definition differences on common held words.

You see my interpretation as "falling way short" but you offer no explanation of why is it is short in your opinion. Why should I reconsider and change my view when you fail to explain/elaborate your response. I'm certainly willing to change my view if I see that your view has merit and mine is suspect. I gave you my reason for interpreting that verse as I do and you failed to provide a counter-reply, therefore I have no reason to change my view.

 

[hedrick]

Romans 3:24
Romans 8:1
2 Corinthians 5:17
1 Thessalonians 4:16
2 Timothy 1:1
2 Timothy 2:10
​

I'm excluding Matthew because I've been talking about Paul's view. The problem with your list of converses is that the converse of a proposition is not necessarily true. I agree that in rhetoric there's more of an implication. But I think Paul's overall scheme explains it. Look at Paul's explanation for the atonement in Rom 6. He says that death ends sin. By being in Christ, we die to sin now. he doesn't talk about those who aren't. But when they eventually die, their sin is ended as well.

It's easy to forget the degree to which the NT authors have a supernatural background. For Paul supernatural forces were active in the world. Things were bad, not just because of bad human decision. Those reflecting the activity of supernatural rulers and powers. By being in Christ, we are removed from their influence. But in 1 Cor 15, he tells us that at the end, they are destroyed. Then death itself is destroyed. For Paul, the consequence of sin is primarily death. With no powers, and death itself now destroyed, the people who used to be under domination of the powers no longer are.

Again, I point out that I am not fully universalist, because of Jesus teachings in the Synoptics. It is barely possible (though not particularly implied by the text) that some humans are so tied to the "powers" that they are destroyed with them. But in general I think Paul's vision is universalist.

This viewpoint seems offensive because it removes Christian privilege. But Paul spent his whole career fighting Jewish privilege. Did he do that to put Christians in the same privileged position? I don't believe it. God intended to use Israel to bring the whole world to God. Mat 20:1-16.

 

[Hillsage]

You see my interpretation as "falling way short" but you offer no explanation of why is it is short in your opinion.

Right, because I felt like I already gave a pretty good explanation. But you had no questions, only the opinion that I'd failed.

Why should I reconsider and change my view when you fail to explain/elaborate your response.

You shouldn't, and that's exactly what I told you in the last post. I've failed.

I'm certainly willing to change my view if I see that your view has merit and mine is suspect. I gave you my reason for interpreting that verse as I do and you failed to provide a counter-reply, therefore I have no reason to change my view.

I agree you do not see my view, even as I just said in my last post and now I'm saying the same thing again. So you are just being redundant, which is your issue and not mine. IOW I'm still saying I agree.....I failed, just let it go.

 

[Oldmantook]

Right, because I felt like I already gave a pretty good explanation. But you had no questions, only the opinion that I'd failed.


You shouldn't, and that's exactly what I told you in the last post. I've failed.


I agree you do not see my view, even as I just said in my last post and now I'm saying the same thing again. So you are just being redundant, which is your issue and not mine. IOW I'm still saying I agree.....I failed, just let it go.

Ok we agree to disagree but my point in my last reply was that if you specifically showed me the error of my interpretation, I'd be willing to scrutinize my rationale however that is not forthcoming from you which is fine. Since I replied, you need to provide counter reply based on the text as that is the whole point of discussions.

 

[Der Alte]

I'm excluding Matthew because I've been talking about Paul's view. The problem with your list of converses is that the converse of a proposition is not necessarily true. I agree that in rhetoric there's more of an implication. But I think Paul's overall scheme explains it. Look at Paul's explanation for the atonement in Rom 6. He says that death ends sin. By being in Christ, we die to sin now. he doesn't talk about those who aren't. But when they eventually die, their sin is ended as well.

First Paul's writings should be interpreted to agree with not contradict what Jesus said.
Are you talking about

Romans 6:1-8
(1) What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
(2) God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
(3) Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
(4) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
(5) For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
(6) Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
(7) For he that is dead is freed from sin.
(8) Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:​

Note Paul's use of the pronoun "we" which refers only to "so many of us who were baptized into Jesus Christ" vs. 3, not all mankind.
"he that is dead is freed from sin" vs.7 refers only to "we are buried with him by baptism into death" vs. 4 and "we be dead with Christ" vs. 8, not all mankind.
Physical death does not erase everyone's sins.

It's easy to forget the degree to which the NT authors have a supernatural background. For Paul supernatural forces were active in the world. Things were bad, not just because of bad human decision. Those reflecting the activity of supernatural rulers and powers. By being in Christ, we are removed from their influence. But in 1 Cor 15, he tells us that at the end, they are destroyed. Then death itself is destroyed. For Paul, the consequence of sin is primarily death. With no powers, and death itself now destroyed, the people who used to be under domination of the powers no longer are.

Paul cannot contradict the words of Jesus. Everything Paul wrote must agree with not contradict what Jesus taught.

Again, I point out that I am not fully universalist, because of Jesus teachings in the Synoptics. It is barely possible (though not particularly implied by the text) that some humans are so tied to the "powers" that they are destroyed with them. But in general I think Paul's vision is universalist.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17
(16) Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
(17) If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.​

This viewpoint seems offensive because it removes Christian privilege. But Paul spent his whole career fighting Jewish privilege. Did he do that to put Christians in the same privileged position? I don't believe it. God intended to use Israel to bring the whole world to God. Mat 20:1-16.

The "Jewish privilege" was they thought that simply being born Jewish they were entitled.
There is no similar "Christian privilege."

John 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
John 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
John 15:7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.​

 

[~Zao~]

It seems odd to me that Paul cannot contradict Jesus rule. Yet Moses contradicted God because of the people’s hearts and needed Jesus’ correction. Somehow Paul has gotten to be infallible instead of the progressive revelation of the Holy Scriptures according to the leading of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit contradicted Paul and that is not seen as Paul being falsely assumed to be infallible. SMH The only infallibility is within the Holy Spirit in it’s dealings no longer with law but according to grace. Too bad so few people can read anything but law and fail at reading grace.

 

[Hillsage]

Ok we agree to disagree but my point in my last reply was that if you specifically showed me the error of my interpretation, I'd be willing to scrutinize my rationale however that is not forthcoming from you which is fine. Since I replied, you need to provide counter reply based on the text as that is the whole point of discussions.

This is getting old. Other than that, showing you the "error of your interpretation" obviously isn't going to happen, as already proven. I can't "provide counter reply" anymore than I already did. And I can't give what I've already given, there is no more....I've failed I've admitted that, why can't you? I'm trying to GRACEFULLY get out of this without it coming down to a non productive adversarial dialogue. If you simply need 'the last post' to prove to yourself you're 'more right' then do so and I'll not respond, in order to give you a satisfied closure.

IMO "the whole point of discussions" is also to reach a conclusion....this is mine.

 

[Der Alte]

It seems odd to me that Paul cannot contradict Jesus rule. Yet Moses contradicted God because of the people’s hearts and needed Jesus’ correction. Somehow Paul has gotten to be infallible instead of the progressive revelation of the Holy Scriptures according to the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus is Lord not Paul. I am certainly not saying Paul is infallible. If there is a perceived difference between what Jesus said and what Paul said the words of Jesus are infallible not Paul. I'm all for progressive revelation but subsequent revelation cannot contradict what was written before.
Moses did not contradict God, he interceded with God on behalf of Israel. Big difference.

The Holy Spirit contradicted Paul and that is not seen as Paul being falsely assumed to be infallible. SMH The only infallibility is within the Holy Spirit in it’s dealings no longer with law but according to grace. Too bad so few people can read anything but law and fail at reading grace.

Again you are assuming that I said or implied that Paul was infallible, I said exactly the opposite. The Holy Spirit is not an "it" the Holy Spirit is a "Him.

Romans 8:27
(27) And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
1 Corinthians 12:11
(11) But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. ​

I'm a firm believer in grace and law. Where do the writings of Paul deal with grace versus law?

 

[hedrick]

Note Paul's use of the pronoun "we" which refers only to "so many of us who were baptized into Jesus Christ" vs. 3, not all mankind.
"he that is dead is freed from sin" vs.7 refers only to "we are buried with him by baptism into death" vs. 4 and "we be dead with Christ" vs. 8, not all mankind.
Physical death does not erase everyone's sins.

None of your quotations say anything about the eventual fate of non-Christians. Those with faith in Christ are justified and have already passed from death to life. Those who are not currently in Christ aren't mentioned. However they will be freed when the "powers" have been dealt with.

Rom 6:7 is part of his discussion of the atonement, but in a different sense than commonly, because it's looking at the effect of Christ's death on our life now. Whoever has died is freed from sin. We have died with Christ, so we are freed from sin. Paul's focus is on sin's power over us. People who die, good or bad, are no longer in sin's power. So we who have died with Christ aren't in sin's power. "salvation" in the usual sense isn't at issue. After all, he's speaking about how we should behave in the current life, on the assumption that we are now no longer under sin's power.

In principle, someone could die, stand before God's throne, and be punished, even though at that point they were no longer under sin's power, simply on the basis of what they had done in life. But his discussion of the judgement doesn't support that. He sees the judgement as defeat of the powers and death. After that, everyone is in Christ.

 

[hedrick]

Jesus is Lord not Paul. I am certainly not saying Paul is infallible. If there is a perceived difference between what Jesus said and what Paul said the words of Jesus are infallible not Paul.

I agree. However what complicates the issue is that Paul is earlier than the Gospels by a significant amount. I generally consider the Synoptic Gospels a better source of Jesus' teachings, in part because Paul almost never quotes Jesus.

This is why despite what I think is Paul's clear teaching of universalism, I'm not universalist. However many of the key passages on judgement come from Matthew specifically. Mark, which appears to be the earliest, has about 2 references, one of which is in a series that includes obvious hyperbole. (The other is the sin against the Holy Spirit.) Luke has more about judgement, but he also talks about punishments that are not obviously final as well, mentioning something that is probably hell in 2 (Luke 13:22ff, and the Rich Man and Lazarus). The Rich Man and Lazarus seems obviously non-literal, unless you think Father Abraham is actually going to be our judge. So I'm willing to consider that an almost universalism based on Paul might actually go back to Jesus, with Jesus definitely teaching accountability, but not necessarily eternal hell.

I see this as a possibility, but I don't consider it certain.

One of my concerns about Paul's approach is that it is based on the idea that people who sin are captives of sin, and the powers will eventually be destroyed. Jesus obviously sees hostile forces at work as well, but I think he stills see our moral choices as responsible actions for which we'll be held accountable. Jesus' position here is more consistent with my modern world-view.

Logically speaking, you could hold someone accountable for actions done under the influence of the Powers. But it would offend my modern moral sense to imagine someone standing before God, having been freed of slavery to sin (by both death and the final defeat of the Powers), and now able to understand what he had done, and still sent to hell for what he did under their influence. I can imagine an argument for it; I just find it hard to swallow.

But having said all that, I think it's likely that some people are so opposed to God that they are treated in Paul's scenario as part of the Powers that have to be destroyed.

I have wondered at times whether the real punishment of hell (at least for those not committing the unforgiveable sin) might be realizing just what you had done to people. I don't think you'd need to be separated into a hell, tortured, or even deprived of God's communion. Just imagine Hitler having to apologize and make peace with 9 million people, one by one. Might that be enough to satisfy justice?

 

[~Zao~]

Jesus is Lord not Paul. I am certainly not saying Paul is infallible. If there is a perceived difference between what Jesus said and what Paul said the words of Jesus are infallible not Paul. I'm all for progressive revelation but subsequent revelation cannot contradict what was written before.

Subsequent revelations of Paul about Christ and the church’s role are merely furthering the revelation of God and the Israelites.

Moses did not contradict God, he interceded with God on behalf of Israel. Big difference.

The law came thru Moses and grace and truth came thru Christ. Christ corrected the Israelites on divorce and when He returns He will correct our further misunderstandings.

Again you are assuming that I said or implied that Paul was infallible, I said exactly the opposite. The Holy Spirit is not an "it" the Holy Spirit is a "Him.

Romans 8:27
(27) And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
1 Corinthians 12:11
(11) But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.​

According to wisdom it is a “Her".​

I'm a firm believer in grace and law. Where do the writings of Paul deal with grace versus law?

Where doesn’t it?

BTW that quote did not reference you.

 

[Oldmantook]

This is getting old. Other than that, showing you the "error of your interpretation" obviously isn't going to happen, as already proven. I can't "provide counter reply" anymore than I already did. And I can't give what I've already given, there is no more....I've failed I've admitted that, why can't you? I'm trying to GRACEFULLY get out of this without it coming down to a non productive adversarial dialogue. If you simply need 'the last post' to prove to yourself you're 'more right' then do so and I'll not respond, in order to give you a satisfied closure.

IMO "the whole point of discussions" is also to reach a conclusion....this is mine.

Your prerogative. You initiated this discussion. I gave you my best response as I understand the issue. We agree to disagree.

 

[Der Alte]

Subsequent revelations of Paul about Christ and the church’s role are merely furthering the revelation of God and the Israelites.
The law came thru Moses and grace and truth came thru Christ. Christ corrected the Israelites on divorce and when He returns He will correct our further misunderstandings.

I'm fine with that as long as one does interpret Paul or any other NT writer as contradicting Jesus.

According to wisdom it is a “Her".

Not necessarily. Did you read the 3 verses I quoted; Romans 8:27, 1 Corinthians 12:11 and John 16:13, where the Holy Spirit is referred to with masculine pronouns?

"Grammatical gender is based on the type of noun, such as masculine or feminine or neuter, and is not tied to sex. Natural gender is based on sex as a biological distinction between male, female or neither male nor female."​

BTW that quote did not reference you.

It was in a post with my name on it.

 

[sdowney717]

<H>Sure. 1 Cor 15 gives a fairly clear description of the end. The summary at the beginning is “as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.” The common claims that all doesn’t mean all can’t work here, unless some are exempt from Adam too. So all end up in Christ.
Now the details. First Christ, then his followers, then he destroys all the rulers and powers, the enemies, the last of which is death. Then all are subjected to him, and finally he hands it over to God and is subjected to God.
While subjected to sounds at first like it could include bad guys being punished, the same language is used for Christ being subjected to God. The term means simply to be under someone, as in military rank.
There’s no condemnation of evil humans here, except possibly if some are so allied with the rulers and powers that they are destroyed with them. Other than that possibility, everyone else ends up in Christ, per 15:22. I’m actually inclined to accept that loophole, since Jesus seems to say that it’s possible that some are lost. So I normally characterize Paul as either universalist or nearly universalist, i.e. universal with some exceptions.
Paul compares Christ to Adam two places, both saying that just as all become subject to death through Adam, all are redeemed in Christ. The other is Rom 5:15ff. To avoid universalism you have to butcher the analogy, and ignore Rom 5:18.<H>
"1 Cor 15 gives a fairly clear description of the end. The summary at the beginning is 'as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.'”
All mankind are "in Adam" because all mankind are literal, physical descendants of Adam, but all mankind is not inherently "in Christ."
This argument might be valid if Paul had written "all are redeemed by Christ."
Here are some verses where a distinction is made between those who are "in Christ" and those who are not.

Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:​

The converse of this is there is no redemption for those not "in Christ."

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.​

The converse of this there is condemnation for those not "in Christ."

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.​

The converse is any man who is not "in Christ" old things are not passed away; all things do not become new.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:​

The converse is those who are not "in Christ' do not rise.

2 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,​

The converse is there is no promise of life for those who are not "in Christ."

2 Timothy 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.​

The converse is those who are not "in Christ' do not obtain salvation.

Matthew 7:22-23
(22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
(23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

What does "never" mean to Jesus who is eternal?

YES, only those in Christ are alive, so all will be made alive in Christ.
Only believers have eternal life in Christ, that is the consistent message of the gospel.

God's punishing wrath is poured out as flaming fire on those who do not know God, and those who do not obey the gospel, when Christ returns, those people are not saved from wrath, they are destroyed.
All the people of the world are destroyed by God. Not a single person of the world survives. IT is a universal destruction, like Noah's day, the people of that time are all wicked, and the flood came and took them all away, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be.

Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians 1, so that is Paul's view, and Paul's view is consistent with Christ's view which is all that matters. Other people can have different views, but there were false prophets among the people and there will be false prophets among you in the church as well.
The false lying prophets would say no destruction and peace when there was a coming destruction. They were false because they were in league with Satan.

6 since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, 7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels,
8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,
10 when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among you was believed.