Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Servus]

The doctrinal positions aren't as important as the hermeneutics.

Most who hold a doctrinal position believe it's backed up with hermeneutics.

Certainly there are points which people will disagree, but most of the time that comes from things that are ambiguous not being left ambiguous, or places where there is an allowance for diversity being pigeon-holed into a single point. None of that causes issues for the Bible being directed towards common people rather than high-minded scholastics with fancy philosophies.

You would have had a hard time convincing the church of the Bible being for the common people for at least the first thousand years. And wouldn't you say a person with more education that pertains to Biblical interpretation, is better equipped to interpret it?

 

[Fervent]

Most who hold a doctrinal position believe it's backed up with hermeneutics.

Doesn't change the fact that there are bad(or, more often, inconsistent) hermeneutics and ones that examine what the text says. If the hermeneutic involves treating the Bible in a literal sense and is applied consistently, doctrinal positions work themselves out.

You would have had a hard time convincing the church of the Bible being for the common people for at least the first thousand years. And wouldn't you say a person with more education that pertains to Biblical interpretation, is better equipped to interpret it?

The scholastic influence didn't arise until around the time of Charlemagne. The languages the Bible was written in were about the most vulgar there can be, especially the Greek. Considering it was written by individuals who by and large(with the exception of Paul and Luke) were near illiterate the intellectualizing is foreign to the texts themselves. And no, I wouldn't say more education necessarily leads to better equipped for interpretation, especially because education often leads to better rationalizations and more deeply engrained self-deception. Education is a minor benefit to a conscientious interpreter, but as Paul notes several times often the things of Christ appear as foolishness to an educated mind.

 

[Hmm]

.

Certainly there are points which people will disagree, but most of the time that comes from things that are ambiguous not being left ambiguous, or places where there is an allowance for diversity being pigeon-holed into a single point. None of that causes issues for the Bible being directed towards common people rather than high-minded scholastics with fancy philosophies.

But who gets to decide what parts of scripture are ambiguous and what are not if not the scholars? It can't be left to the "common people" because this is not a homogeneous group but rather a collection.of individuals who will each have their own take on scripture. So we need some kind of consensus as to what scripture means or what the credible alternative interpretations are. Without that we'd be led into all kinds of conspiracy theories. Look at what happens to even very smart Christians when they read the book of Revelation without a guide or a good commentary. And the OT is very long and can be thoroughly confusing. Scholars are there to help bring clarity to this confusion, not to develop "fancy philosophies", even if the clarity is to say that we don't know, and we'd be lost without them.

 

[Der Alte]

.
But who gets to decide what parts of scripture are ambiguous and what are not if not the scholars? It can't be left to the "common people" because this is not a homogeneous group but rather a collection.of individuals who will each have their own take on scripture. So we need some kind of consensus as to what scripture means or what the credible alternative interpretations are. Without that we'd be led into all kinds of conspiracy theories. Look at what happens to even very smart Christians when they read the book of Revelation without a guide or a good commentary. And the OT is very long and can be thoroughly confusing. Scholars are there to help bring clarity to this confusion, not to develop "fancy philosophies", even if the clarity is to say that we don't know, and we'd be lost without them.

.....Or the "common people" can go the extra mile and become the scholars, as much as they are able, acquire the grammars, lexicons, historical sources etc., the big boys use. That's more or less what I did. I don't rely on 100+/- year old resources online simply because they are free. I have purchased many resources in the 3+ decades I have been active at this forum.
.....A caution I would extend some online free sources have been found to have significant errors e.g. Strong's. The free online Strong's has been found to have about 15,000 errors or omissions. Those errors have been corrected in more recent versions. The online Strong's is useful for researching # of times individual words occur and and locations of individual words. The word definitions in the online Strong's are not defined via a lexicon but merely show how the words were translated in the 400 year old KJV.
.....Another source often quoted is Young's Literal Translation and "Lexicon" The author was self educated in Greek. Caveat Emptor.

 

[Hmm]

Or the "common people" can go the extra mile and become the scholars, as much as they are able, acquire the grammars, lexicons, historical sources etc., the big boys use. That's more or less what I did.

The trouble is that you immediately dismiss any opinion that differs from yours with "Rubbish!!" etc. so I can only assume that lexicons doth not a scholar make. The right mind set is also required.

 

[Der Alte]

The trouble is that you immediately dismiss any opinion that differs from yours with "Rubbish!!" etc. so I can only assume that lexicons doth not a scholar make. The right mind set is also required.

Not quite, any post that is personal opinion bereft of any credible, verifiable, historical, grammatical etc. evidence. E.g. "God is love and I don't think a loving God would do 'thus and such.'"
While a lexicon does not one a scholar make, one can quote what the scholar says vice a response from personal opinion. See my above reply re: Strong's and Young's. Neither had access to any scholarship in the past 40+ years.
Lots of well meaning folks quote Young's "literal" translation. If you were real sick would you consult a doctor who was self taught?

 

[Hmm]

Not quite, any post that is personal opinion bereft of any credible, verifiable, historical, grammatical etc. evidence. E.g. "God is love and I don't think a loving God would do 'thus and such.'"

Fortunately the meaning of love is not the exclusive domain of scholars. God is love and He created us in His image, and one of the implication of that is that we know what love means. That's why the two greatest commandments are about love - Christianity is built on love because we intrinsically know what it means. The second commandment if I recall correctly wasn't to parse one another's grammar and ridicule them if there's an error.

Knowing what love means, we can confidently say that because God loves us, He won't ever torture jz forever. No lexicons needed to confirm that.

If you were real sick would you consult a doctor who was self taught?

Hold on, didn't you proudly claim to be self taught in your last post?

 

[Der Alte]

Fortunately the meaning of love is not the exclusive domain of scholars. God is love and He created us in His image, and one of the implication of that is that we know what love means. That's why the two greatest commandments are about love - Christianity is built on love because we intrinsically know what it means. The second commandment if I recall correctly wasn't to parse one another's grammar and ridicule them if there's an error.

I rarely parse anyone's grammar. I have done so jokingly a few times recently with friendly acquaintances.
I agree with your views on "Love." But not sure how it addresses my post.
Does you definition of love include having public derogatory side conversations about individual members of the "Hell Fire" club? Asking for a friend.

Hold on, didn't you proudly claim to be self taught in your last post?

I don't hold myself up as an authority. I have never been quoted as an authority on anything.
I have purchased current resources, my most recent acquisition was "Origen's Commentary on the Book of John, book thirteen," a few months ago. $60 @ Logos. Another UR-ist had quoted Origen, via ILE Ramelli, as supposedly "speaking of after eternal life many times." I have a Master's degree from the flagship graduate school of my denomination.
Here is what Origen actually said.

Origen Commentary On The Gospel Of John Book Thirteen[1]
(18) For, as there, the bridegroom leaps upon souls that are more noble-natured and divine, called mountains, and skips upon the inferior ones called hills, so here the fountain that appears in the one who drinks of the water that Jesus gives leaps into eternal life.
(19) And after eternal life, perhaps it will also leap into the Father who is beyond eternal life. For Christ is life; but he who is greater than Christ is greater than life.20[2] Pg. 23
[1] Origen. (1993). Commentary on the Gospel according to John Books 13–32. (T. P. Halton, Ed., R. E. Heine, Trans.) (Vol. 89, pp. 67–69). Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.​

Contrary to the assertion by UR high priestess Ilaria Ramelli and her loyal followers, here is the one and only time Origen mentions “after eternal life.”
.....Note the context, Origen is not talking about the fate of believers he is talking about the well of water, John 4:14. Origen is saying after the well of water springs into eternal life perhaps, not for certain, it [the well of water] springs into the Father because the Father is beyond eternal life.

 

[Hmm]

I agree with your views on "Love." But not sure how it addresses my post.

Your post said something to the effect that you dismiss anyone's comment if they say that God is too loving to torture someone unless they can support it by citing Strongs, Weaks or WeakButWillings or whatever it was.

 

[Fervent]

.


But who gets to decide what parts of scripture are ambiguous and what are not if not the scholars? It can't be left to the "common people" because this is not a homogeneous group but rather a collection.of individuals who will each have their own take on scripture. So we need some kind of consensus as to what scripture means or what the credible alternative interpretations are. Without that we'd be led into all kinds of conspiracy theories. Look at what happens to even very smart Christians when they read the book of Revelation without a guide or a good commentary. And the OT is very long and can be thoroughly confusing. Scholars are there to help bring clarity to this confusion, not to develop "fancy philosophies", even if the clarity is to say that we don't know, and we'd be lost without them.

No one person or group gets to "decide," certainly not a group that consistently demeans the Bible and it's inspiration as "scholars" are so inclined to do. It doesn't take a whole lot of education to identify the ambiguities, especially in the New Testament where the language used was essentially engineered to avoid complicated expressions and make it as accessible as possible. Scholarship has its functions, but it is a tool and not an end in itself. Scholar's opinions are not more valid than the opinions of laity except on specific questions of expertise, and the end of seminary education is to train ministers to empower their congregations to be able to handle the Scripture without needing an intermediary not to create interpretive experts.

 

[hedrick]

And he huffed and he puffed but he couldn't blow the house down.
Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church since its inception, 2000 years +/- ago. Who better than the team of native Greek speaking scholars who translated the Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible [EOB] know the correct meaning of the Greek words in the NT?

EOB Matthew 25 45 Then he will answer them, saying: ‘Amen, I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 These [ones on the left] will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”[1]
1cleenewerck, L. (Ed.). (2o11). The Eastern/Greek orthodox Bible: New Testament (Mt 25:45-46). Laurent A. Cleenewerck.​

Link: [EOB online]

Speaking modern Greek doesn't necessarily mean you know how this word was used in the 1st Cent. However in this case the usage quoted in TDNT points pretty clearly to it meaning retribution and not something aiming to create improvement.

 

[hedrick]

Okay. Now I can respond to your post. I had to get that image in text while it was fresh.

Questions are good. We don't question things enough, from my perspective.

Yes, "punishment" makes no sense. The standard dogma says we should be punished for being born in Adam's race. Even though we had no choice in the matter. The death penalty hung over us before we were even capable of sin on our own. However, the price had already been paid on the cross. The benefit of which we can receive now, or in the afterlife. Who God chooses to call now, and who he chooses to redeem later is a great mystery. Why not one or the other?

You have to decide how you're going to use Scripture. If you take the most extreme passage on a subject as ending discussion, I don't think any honest exegesis can avoid Mat 25:46. If you think Matthew might have gone overboard on judgement and look at Jesus' teaching as a whole I think you're right.

I'm getting less tolerant over time of eisegesis, even when I agree with the conclusion.

 

[Fervent]

Speaking modern Greek doesn't necessarily mean you know how this word was used in the 1st Cent. However in this case the usage quoted in TDNT points pretty clearly to it meaning retribution and not something aiming to create improvement.

There's a subtle sleight of hand in the word studies that argue against it being retributive as they basically invariably refer to its secular usage. The trouble is that there is a definite religious usage in the Greek speaking Jewish communities where it almost always refers to divine punishment of one form or another, and from what I gather appears to focus on the severity rather than its purpose.

 

[Der Alte]

Your post said something to the effect that you dismiss anyone's comment if they say that God is too loving to torture someone unless they can support it by citing Strongs, Weaks or WeakButWillings or whatever it was.

Really? Here is what I actually said.

Not quite, any post that is personal opinion bereft of any credible, verifiable, historical, grammatical etc. evidence. E.g. "God is love and I don't think a loving God would do 'thus and such.'"
While a lexicon does not one a scholar make, one can quote what the scholar says vice a response from personal opinion. See my above reply re: Strong's and Young's. Neither had access to any scholarship in the past 40+ years.
Lots of well meaning folks quote Young's "literal" translation. If you were real sick would you consult a doctor who was self taught?​

See any difference?

 

[hedrick]

There's a subtle sleight of hand in the word studies that argue against it being retributive as they basically invariably refer to its secular usage. The trouble is that there is a definite religious usage in the Greek speaking Jewish communities where it almost always refers to divine punishment of one form or another, and from what I gather appears to focus on the severity rather than its purpose.

TDNT typically gives secular usage, then the LXX, and then any more contemporary Jewish usage where it's known. I agree that the closer one can get to the context of the writer the better you are.

I can see one hope to avoid the obvious meaning in Mat 25:46. While "for an age" is a tendentious translation of eternal, it's true that it often does refer to the things of God, which are not necessarily literally eternal. Think of the Temple's eternal gates, etc. Also, while contemporary Jews considered Gehenna to be eternal, they still thought that many or even almost all got out of it. So it's not completely impossible that those who failed to help Christians (what "little ones" probably means here) will go off to punishment in Gehenna but could eventually leave it.

Personally I think Matthew tends towards a rather harsh view of judgement, and it's unlikely that this is what he meant. But might whatever Jesus said in Aramaic have that implication? I guess it's possible.

 

[Saint Steven]

You have to decide how you're going to use Scripture. If you take the most extreme passage on a subject as ending discussion, I don't think any honest exegesis can avoid Mat 25:46. If you think Matthew might have gone overboard on judgement and look at Jesus' teaching as a whole I think you're right.

I'm getting less tolerant over time of eisegesis, even when I agree with the conclusion.

Matthew chapter 25 is problematic in several ways.

Verse 46 should say "age-during", or something akin to that, rather than "eternal".
And salvation is stated as being a result of help to the needy prior to verse 46.
All of which you probably already know.

Shouldn't that context be applied to verse 46? Yes, and no.
Salvation as a result of helping the needy is a rather incomplete answer to the salvation question.

 

[Fervent]

TDNT typically gives secular usage, then the LXX, and then any more contemporary Jewish usage where it's known. I agree that the closer one can get to the context of the writer the better you are.

I can see one hope to avoid the obvious meaning in Mat 25:46. While "for an age" is a tendentious translation of eternal, it's true that it often does refer to the things of God, which are not necessarily literally eternal. Think of the Temple's eternal gates, etc. Also, while contemporary Jews considered Gehenna to be eternal, they still thought that many or even almost all got out of it. So it's not completely impossible that those who failed to help Christians (what "little ones" probably means here) will go off to punishment in Gehenna but could eventually leave it.

Personally I think Matthew tends towards a rather harsh view of judgement, and it's unlikely that this is what he meant. But might whatever Jesus said in Aramaic have that implication? I guess it's possible.

The most challenging issue to rendering "aionios" in that way is the parallel usage, as there is a symmetry between the punishment and the reward. So eliminating the eternality of the punishment eliminates the eternal aspect of the life. The first consideration for any word's usage is the immediate context, and the dual usage of "aionios" in the passage implies they're being used exactly the same. Which DA has shown when it comes to "aionios zoe" it's essentially iron clad that the life is unending. So the only way to abandon the eternal punishment in Matt. 25 is to similary discard eternal life.

 

[hedrick]

Matthew chapter 25 is problematic in several ways.

Verse 46 should say "age-during", or something akin to that, rather than "eternal".
And salvation is stated as being a result of help to the needy prior to verse 46.
All of which you probably already know.

Shouldn't that context be applied to verse 46? Yes, and no.
Salvation as a result of helping the needy is a rather incomplete answer to the salvation question.

Be aware that most commentators I’ve looked see little ones as meaning Christians most places it is used in Matthew. Abusing Christians or helping them seems more directly related to your relationship with Christ. This has often been the understanding historically. E.g. Calvin’s commentary understands least of my brethren to refer to the humblest Christians.

 

[hedrick]

The most challenging issue to rendering "aionios" in that way is the parallel usage, as there is a symmetry between the punishment and the reward. So eliminating the eternality of the punishment eliminates the eternal aspect of the life. The first consideration for any word's usage is the immediate context, and the dual usage of "aionios" in the passage implies they're being used exactly the same. Which DA has shown when it comes to "aionios zoe" it's essentially iron clad that the life is unending. So the only way to abandon the eternal punishment in Matt. 25 is to similary discard eternal life.

Maybe, but if you follow that rule with Paul you get universalism out of several passages. While I doubt that Matthew meant this, eternal Gehenna is parallel to eternal life. It’s not uncommon to think after time in Gehenna you are let into eternal life. While it’s not logically impossible for the reverse, I’m not aware of anyone who thinks it would happen.

 

[Der Alte]

Speaking modern Greek doesn't necessarily mean you know how this word was used in the 1st Cent. However in this case the usage quoted in TDNT points pretty clearly to it meaning retribution and not something aiming to create improvement.

I have quoted the Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich definition of aionios several times and quoted from the EOB but the UR group always finds some obscure source which seems to support their assumptions/presuppositions and they tout them as the be all, end all authority on NT Greek.
Just as modern English speaking scholars know what the meaning of about 800 archaic words in the KJV, I think the native Greek speaking scholars who translated the EOB know what their ancestors meant when they wrote the NT.
But I think my best argument for "aionios" is the word study I did on the word in the NT. I reviewed every occurrence of the word "aionios" in the N.T.
“αιωνιος/aionios” occurs 72x in the N.T.
“aionios” is translated world only 5 times in the N.T. [2%]
“aionios” is correctly translated eternal 42 times in the N.T.[52%]
“aionios” is correctly translated everlasting 25 times in the N.T.[34.7%]
Jesus used “aionios” twenty eight [28] times, [38.8%] Jesus never used “aionios” to refer something ordinary/mundane which was not/could not be “eternal.”
= = = = = = = = = =
…..Some people claim that “aion/aionios” never means eternity/eternal because they sometimes refer to things which are not eternal.
However, neither word is ever defined/described, by other adjectives or descriptive phrases, as meaning a period of time less than eternal, in the New Testament, as in the following verses.
…..Jesus used “aionios” twenty eight [28] times. He never used “aionios” to refer to anything ordinary or mundane that was not or could not be eternal.

[1] Luke 1:33
(33) And he shall reign [basileusei][Vb] over the house of Jacob for ever; [αιωνας/aionas] and of his kingdom [basileias][Nn] there shall be no end.[telos]​

In this verse the reign/basileusei, which is the verb form of the word, is "aionas" and of the kingdom/basileias, the noun form of the same word, "there shall be no end.” “Aionas” by definition here means eternal.

[2] John 6:58
(58) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.[aionios]​

In this verse Jesus juxtaposes “aionios life” with “death.” If “live aionios” is only a finite period, a finite period is not opposite “death.” Thus “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”

[3] John 10:28
(28) I give them eternal [aionios] life, and they shall never [aion] perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.​

In this verse Jesus parallels “aionios” and “aion” with “[not] snatch them out of my hand”, “never perish.” If “aion/aionios” means “age(s), a finite period,” that is not the opposite of “[not] snatch them out of my hand’/never perish” “Aionios life” by definition here means “eternal life.”

[4]John 3:15
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [aionion] life.
[5] John 3:16
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [aionion] life.​

In these two verses Jesus parallels “aionion” with “should not perish,”, twice. Believers could eventually perish in a finite period, thus by definition “aionion life” here means eternal or everlasting life.

[6]John 5:24
(24) Verily, verily, [Amen, Amen] I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting [aionios] life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.​

In this verse Jesus parallels “aionios” with “shall not come into condemnation” and “passed from death unto life.” “Aionios” does not mean “a finite period,” by definition here it means “eternal,” unless Jesus allows His followers come into condemnation and pass into death.

[7]John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting [aionios] life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.​

In this verse Jesus juxtaposed aionios life with “shall not see life.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall not see life” By definition aionios means eternal.

[8]John 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never [ου μη/ou mé] thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting [aionios] life.​

In this verse Jesus paralleled aionios with “shall [ου μη/ou mé][fn] never thirst.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall never thirst.” By definition aionios means eternal.

[9]John 6:27
(27) Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting [aionios] life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.​

In this verse Jesus contrasted “aionios meat” with “meat that perishes” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “meat that perishes.” By definition aionios means eternal.

[10]John 8:51
(51) Very truly [amen amen] I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never [ou mé eis ton aiona][fn] see death."​

In this verse Jesus juxtaposes “unto aion” with “never see death.” By definition “aion” means eternity.
Thee are fourteen more verses were other speakers in the NT also define/described as aionios .

 

[Saint Steven]

Be aware that most commentators I’ve looked see little ones as meaning Christians most places it is used in Matthew. Abusing Christians or helping them seems more directly related to your relationship with Christ. This has often been the understanding historically. E.g. Calvin’s commentary understands least of my brethren to refer to the humblest Christians.

That seems to create a bit of a conundrum.
Salvation as the result of helping the humblest Christians. How did that work before there were humble Christians? - lol

Exegesis isn't always the shortest route to a reasonable answer.