The Bible: God's plan for the redemption of humankind? Or... ???

sawdust · Apr 10, 2021

MMXX said:
I have difficulty understanding you. Most likely not what you are saying, but the way you say it. I started a thread about belief in and following Jesus regardless of the afterlife. Would you be a Christian if there was no afterlife? so I understand what you are saying along those lines.

Yes, Lord and savior. But why did He already being Lord, come into this world as the Son of Man?

What exactly are you trying to prove? I've never said Christ is not Saviour or that the plan of salvation is not in the scriptures. I was originally answering to the topic of this thread.

The Bible: God's plan for the redemption of humankind? Or... ??

I went with "OR" because I don't believe God's plan of redemption is the focus of scripture. Does it include the plan? Yes, undoubtedly but even there, it says more about God than men.

I really don't understand why you are having such difficulty understanding what I'm saying. You think the scripture is primarily about saving mankind, I say it is primarily the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ. We disagree about the prime focus of the Bible. It really is that simple.

This concept of the OP that our "view of the final judgment determines what we believe the Bible is about" is nonsensical to me. For me, it is in knowing the Light of the world that reveals the darkness for what it truly is and why those who prefer darkness must be imprisoned and never released.

Jipsah · Apr 11, 2021

Clare73 said:
Heh, heh. . .the old "deflect and blame someone else for the consequences of my choices" game.

I thought you believed that it is God Who established eternal torture as the default for all who don't choose to follow Jesus? If not, then who created hell, and set it up so that unbelievers are to be tortured eternally?

The responsible man understands: More like "Your own decision is what tortures you for as long as you live."

Of the lack of a decision, right? Hell is the the default destination of the dead, right?

Ceallaigh · Apr 11, 2021

sawdust said:
What exactly are you trying to prove? I've never said Christ is not Saviour or that the plan of salvation is not in the scriptures. I was originally answering to the topic of this thread.

The Bible: God's plan for the redemption of humankind? Or... ??

I went with "OR" because I don't believe God's plan of redemption is the focus of scripture. Does it include the plan? Yes, undoubtedly but even there, it says more about God than men.

I really don't understand why you are having such difficulty understanding what I'm saying. You think the scripture is primarily about saving mankind, I say it is primarily the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ. We disagree about the prime focus of the Bible. It really is that simple.

This concept of the OP that our "view of the final judgment determines what we believe the Bible is about" is nonsensical to me. For me, it is in knowing the Light of the world that reveals the darkness for what it truly is and why those who prefer darkness must be imprisoned and never released.

Despite how it's worded or how you see it worded, the topic of the tread is the three views of hell:

1) Damnationism = The plan for the genocide of the majority of humankind
2) Annihilationism = The plan to incinerate the majority of humankind
3) Ultimate Redemption (UR) = God's plan for the redemption of all humankind

You're supposed to choose one of those three options and elaborate on it or discuss all three. The OP is a proponent of view 3 Ultimate Redemption.

If you've been thinking this thread was about something other than discussing what you think God is going to do with unbelievers after they die, you have been off topic, and that's why there's been misunderstanding and confusion.

Jipsah · Apr 11, 2021

aiki said:
The Bible never once says God tortures people in hell. Scripture says hell is a place of torment but one can suffer torment and never be tortured.

A distinction without a difference.

God is not in hell, working as a torturer of the unrepentant wicked, hooded and laughing, as He cruelly and painfully abuses them.

He has His creatures do the tormenting for Him, then.

His utter absence from hell is much of what makes it so terrible.

"If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there."

The use of the term "torture" is a purely emotional and rhetorical maneuver, caricaturing the view such a term is intended to characterize and becoming a Strawman in the process.

On the contrary, the old "the sinner chooses hell" is a fairly transparent attempt to prevent God from appearing as the pitiless tyrant that the doctrine of eternal torment makes Him appear.

Jipsah · Apr 11, 2021

FutureAndAHope said:
Predestination is not a truth.

Saint Paul disagrees with you.

Jipsah · Apr 11, 2021

Saint Steven said:
Did Jesus die to save us from God?

73551b7c6002671fb2353a283ed11409--funny-captions-funny-memes.jpg

Ceallaigh · Apr 11, 2021

sawdust said:
I was not in your conversation with the OP, you jumped into ours. I haven't misunderstood. You think the focus of scripture is about God's relationship with humanity. I say the focus is God, specifically the Lord Jesus Christ.

You stated: "To the point where God became humankind." You make it sound like God did us some big favour by becoming human but He (Christ) has always been human. It's why we are human, not the other way round.

You also stated: "According to the Bible, it's God who has "warm fuzzies" for mankind." Then proceeded to quote scripture about God's love while failing to recognise each case is talking about "agape" love which has no emotional content but is a rational thought to seek the highest and best. Agape love is not about how one feels towards another but is solely dependent on the integrity of the one doing the loving. God loves the world because He is beyond reproach in His character not because of anything the world is or isn't. This is why I told you to stop thinking of yourself (ie mankind in general) because God's love has nothing to do with what we are and everything to do with who He is.

We disagree about the purpose of scripture. It's as simple as that.

Here's a really good quick video on what agape love is:

I think it's a good idea to watch it and then answer the question of this thread; what do you think God is going to do with His unbelieving children after they die? Torment them? Annihilate them? Redeem them?

sawdust · Apr 11, 2021

MMXX said:
Despite how it's worded or how you see it worded, the topic of the tread is the three views of hell:

1) Damnationism = The plan for the genocide of the majority of humankind
2) Annihilationism = The plan to incinerate the majority of humankind
3) Ultimate Redemption (UR) = God's plan for the redemption of all humankind

You're supposed to choose one of those three options and elaborate on it or discuss all three. The OP is a proponent of view 3 Ultimate Redemption.

If you've been thinking this thread was about something other than discussing what you think God is going to do with unbelievers after they die, you have been off topic, and that's why there's been misunderstanding and confusion.

If I was suppose to choose one of the OP's views (which I reject all three btw) then why did he allow for an alternative in the title of this thread? What you keep failing to see is because I reject his basic premise that the primary function of scripture is salvation for humanity, we never get to discuss what that might mean for an unbeliever from my point of view because you haven't allowed my point of view to stand. You keep trying to insist that I should believe the primary purpose of scripture is salvation for mankind hence, I should choose one of his options. I reject his understanding of scripture hence I reject all 3 options he presents. If the OP never intended to allow for an alternative understanding, then he should never have put the "OR" in the title. The only reason I responded to this thread is because that OR was there in the first place.

Ceallaigh · Apr 11, 2021

sawdust said:
If I was suppose to choose one of the OP's views (which I reject all three btw) then why did he allow for an alternative in the title of this thread? What you keep failing to see is because I reject his basic premise that the primary function of scripture is salvation for humanity, we never get to discuss what that might mean for an unbeliever from my point of view because you haven't allowed my point of view to stand. You keep trying to insist that I should believe the primary purpose of scripture is salvation for mankind hence, I should choose one of his options. I reject his understanding of scripture hence I reject all 3 options he presents. If the OP never intended to allow for an alternative understanding, then he should never have put the "OR" in the title. The only reason I responded to this thread is because that OR was there in the first place.

I don't know why the OP titled his topic that way. I just know you're the only person in the thread who's focused on the title, rather than the actual topic. That happens though. A person starts posting based on the title, rather than what the OP is saying or asking. Titles can be unintentionally misleading, so that's why one should read the first post in a thread to see what it's actually about.

Saint Steven · Apr 11, 2021

renniks said:
Nice mashing of verses together with no context.

Thank you.
That's the common response when folks don't agree with my conclusions. But if all the individual parts are true, why not the whole? Remember, I'm working from a book with a Damnationist bias. Not easy to provide the answers you want.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Glad you asked.

Anyone who has knees to bow and a tongue to speak, in heaven and on earth and under the earth (in the realm of the dead), will whole-heartedly, and without reservation, acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord. No one can say that “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” you will be saved. Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. (the reason for the bodily resurrection)

Philippians 2:10-11
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

1 Corinthians 12:3
Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says,
“Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart
that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 14:9
For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that
he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

Note on "acknowledge" in Philippians 2:11 from Strong's Concordance
S1843 eksomologéō (from 1537 /ek, "wholly out from," intensifying 3670 /homologéō, "say the same thing about") – properly, fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly (whole-heartedly); hence, to confess ("openly declare"), without reservation (no holding back).

Further reading: (Isaiah 45:23, Romans 14:11, Philippians 2:10, Revelation 15:4)

Saint Steven · Apr 11, 2021

sawdust said:
I don't see the Bible as a book that was written primarily to reveal the salvation plan but rather it was written to reveal the Living God.

To what end? Why? Of what value is that?

Saint Steven · Apr 11, 2021

sawdust said:
If I was suppose to choose one of the OP's views (which I reject all three btw) then why did he allow for an alternative in the title of this thread? What you keep failing to see is because I reject his basic premise that the primary function of scripture is salvation for humanity, we never get to discuss what that might mean for an unbeliever from my point of view because you haven't allowed my point of view to stand. You keep trying to insist that I should believe the primary purpose of scripture is salvation for mankind hence, I should choose one of his options. I reject his understanding of scripture hence I reject all 3 options he presents. If the OP never intended to allow for an alternative understanding, then he should never have put the "OR" in the title. The only reason I responded to this thread is because that OR was there in the first place.

Yes, you are free to choose "Or..." But don't stop there. Define your "Or..." If I recall, you say the Bible is about God. (not about humankind) Okay, what is your view of the final judgement then?

You say you reject the three biblical views of the final judgment. I have heard that before. But when someone explains their view, it always ends up under one of these three headings. I imagine you are no different. Assuming your view is biblical. Is it? Based on what I recall you writing to date, It seems you are a Damnationist. (or possibly an Annihilationist) Your rancor over the topic tells me you probably are not a fan of UR.

1) Damnationism
2) Annihilationism
3) Ultimate Redemption (UR)

privatepop · Apr 11, 2021

Saint Steven said:
The ultimate statement of biblical context. Your view of the final judgment determines your definition of what the Bible actually is. What's yours?

Does the Bible reveal God's plan for the redemption of humankind, or is it a plan for the genocide/incineration of humanity? Depends on who you ask, I suppose.

Many may agree that the Bible reveals God's plan for the redemption of humankind, but then also claim that the vast majority of humanity will be consigned to eternal conscious torment, or incineration. (the genocide of humanity) Which is obviously not the redemption of humankind. Not even close.

Your view of the final judgment determines your definition of what the Bible actually is. This is the ultimate statement of biblical context. The thrust of the entire book. What's yours?
1) Damnationism = The plan for the genocide of the majority of humankind
2) Annihilationism = The plan to incinerate the majority of humankind
3) Ultimate Redemption (UR) = God's plan for the redemption of all humankind

1 Timothy 2:1-6
I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.

Romans 3:24 NIV
and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

There is a limit to the judgment God would bring upon unsaved mankind. God will not break his own law Deu 25:2-3, [2] And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his fault, by a certain number. [3] Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee.
With these verses we see there will not be an unending eternal suffering for the unsaved.
So what is the judgment of eternal fire? In Jude 1:7 we read, Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. If we go to Israel today we do not still see these cities burning for all eternity. The fire that came upon them may have lasted several weeks but that's it. However the results of the fire last for all eternity. All those who were in them were destroyed for evermore.
What says God? Romans 6:23, For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Saint Steven · Apr 11, 2021

privatepop said:
There is a limit to the judgment God would bring upon unsaved mankind. God will not break his own law Deu 25:2-3, [2] And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his fault, by a certain number. [3] Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee.
With these verses we see there will not be an unending eternal suffering for the unsaved.
So what is the judgment of eternal fire? In Jude 1:7 we read, Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. If we go to Israel today we do not still see these cities burning for all eternity. The fire that came upon them may have lasted several weeks but that's it. However the results of the fire last for all eternity. All those who were in them were destroyed for evermore.
What says God? Romans 6:23, For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

So, you are an Annihilationist then?

Based on that, what subtitle, or description, would give the Bible then?

Does, God's Plan to Incinerate the Majority of Humankind, work?

What should the title/description be, based on your chosen outcome? (for the majority) Unless I misunderstand you.

Does annihilating incineration fit the crime? Is that really justice? How does this compare with human correctional activities? In fact, why do you think God's justice is not correctional?

Mark 9:49
Everyone will be salted with fire.

Malachi 3:2
But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap.

renniks · Apr 11, 2021

Saint Steven said:
That's the common response when folks don't agree with my conclusions. But if all the individual parts are true, why not the whole? Remember, I'm working from a book with a Damnationist bias. Not easy to provide the answers you want.

Wait, if you believe that the Bible supports hell, why are you trying to change that? Because I can make it say all kinds of stuff it doesn't by putting random verses together.

Shrewd Manager · Apr 11, 2021

Saint Steven said:
Your view of the final judgment determines your definition of what the Bible actually is. This is the ultimate statement of biblical context. The thrust of the entire book. What's yours?
1) Damnationism = The plan for the genocide of the majority of humankind
2) Annihilationism = The plan to incinerate the majority of humankind
3) Ultimate Redemption (UR) = God's plan for the redemption of all humankind

All three eschatological positions can be reconciled.

First, God will live up to His promise that every knee will bow and every tongue confess (Isa 45:23, Rom 14:11, Phil 2:9-10).

To do so, the unbelief that condemns people to love their sin to death needs to be annihilated. In their vain attempts to resist repentance and cling to false sin attachments, they experience burning against God's irresistible grace.

So:
a) sin (including unbelief and corruption) and death are condemned.
b) the same 'spiritual enemies' are incinerated, as the stubborn sinner painfully overcomes by surrendering his follies to Christ.
c) the former sinner emerges made anew in the image of God, grateful and ready for healing.

That's a poor simplified 'systematic' view of the Total Victory of Christ as I believe is found in scripture.

aiki · Apr 11, 2021

Jipsah said:
A distinction without a difference.

I explained the difference. Your unwillingness to acknowledge it isn't my problem.

Jipsah said:
He has His creatures do the tormenting for Him, then.

Where does the Bible anywhere indicate this?

Jipsah said:
"If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there."

Which "hell" is meant here? Sheol? Hades? Gehenna? In point of fact, the Psalmist is referring to Sheol, not Gehenna, not the hell of eternal punishment.

Jipsah said:
On the contrary, the old "the sinner chooses hell" is a fairly transparent attempt to prevent God from appearing as the pitiless tyrant that the doctrine of eternal torment makes Him appear.

No, it is simply the fact of the matter. And the "pitiless tyrant" who says to the unrepentant wicked, "depart from me" is also the One who made a way for those same wicked people to escape eternal hell. A strange effort for one who is pitiless and tyrannical. But, then, you're characterization is the same sort of emotional Strawman rhetoric that I observed in the other poster and is employed, it seems to me, for the same reason.

sawdust · Apr 11, 2021

MMXX said:
I don't know why the OP titled his topic that way. I just know you're the only person in the thread who's focused on the title, rather than the actual topic. That happens though. A person starts posting based on the title, rather than what the OP is saying or asking. Titles can be unintentionally misleading, so that's why one should read the first post in a thread to see what it's actually about.

Mate, I realise it is in no way your intention, but at the end of the day you are making it sound like I am some sort of idiot who cannot comprehend what's written. I read the title and I read the first post, I understand what the OP was saying but I think he makes wrong conclusions based on a wrong starting premise hence, I opted to tackle his argument by referring to the OR in the title. Like I said, if there was no OR in his title, I would not have posted for I have nothing to say regarding his three options he presents.

Have you considered that maybe your focus is too narrow which is why you cannot seem to see past the OR and realise there may be other options to understand than the 3 the OP presents?

sawdust · Apr 11, 2021

Saint Steven said:
To what end? Why? Of what value is that?

Of what value is it to know the living God? Maybe it's my turn to ask if you're serious?

lol

John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Saint Steven · Apr 11, 2021

renniks said:
Wait, if you believe that the Bible supports hell, why are you trying to change that? Because I can make it say all kinds of stuff it doesn't by putting random verses together.

As I said, all three views of the final judgment have biblical support. Yet all three views are in conflict. To believe one view is to reject the other two. I'm only being honest to point out that all three views have biblical support. No one can believe all three views, they are in conflict. There is a movement away from the belief in hell. Check out this list.

Bibles that do NOT contain the word "Hell".

Wesley's New Testament (1755)
Scarlett's N.T. (1798)
The New Testament in Greek and English (Kneeland, 1823)
Young's Literal Translation (1891)
Twentieth Century New Testament (1900)
Rotherham's Emphasized Bible (reprinted, 1902)
Fenton's Holy Bible in Modern English (1903)
Weymouth's New Testament in Modern Speech (1903)
The New Testament, James Moffat, (1917)
Jewish Publication Society Bible Old Testament (1917)
Panin's Numeric English New Testament (1914)
The New Testament, Charles B. Williams, 1937
The People's New Covenant (Overbury, 1925)
Hanson's New Covenant (1884)
Western N.T. (1926)
NT of our Lord and Savior Anointed (Tomanek, 1958)
Concordant Literal NT (1983)
The N.T., A Translation (Clementson, 1938)
Emphatic Diaglott, Greek/English Interlinear (Wilson, 1942)
New American Bible (1970)
Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible (1976)
Tanakh, The Holy Scriptures, Old Testament (1985)
The New Testament, A New Translation (Greber, 1980)
Christian Bible (1991)
The Scriptures (1993)
World English Bible (in progress)
Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha [NT Only]
Original Bible Project (Dr. James Tabor, still in translation)
Zondervan Parallel N.T. in Greek and English (1975)**
Int. NASB-NIV Parallel N.T. in Greek and English (1993)**
A Critical Paraphrase of the N.T. by Vincent T. Roth (1960)
New Testament, Recovery Version, Living Stream Ministry, 1991
New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE) Roman Catholic
Holy Bible In Its Original Order, Fred R. Coulter, 2007
Etymological N.T. (An Ultra Literal Translation, 2011, Michael Wine)
Aramaic Peshitta New Testament, 2006, Janet M. Magiera
MirrorWord N.T. (Francois du Toit) still in translation
Victorious Gospel of Jesus Christ, Electronic Ver. (Tentmaker Ministries)
The Source N.T. (Dr. Ann Nyland), 2004, 2007
Jonathan Mitchell N.T. (Jonathan Mitchell) 2009
Tree of Life Version, Baker Bookhouse, 2016******
The New Testament (David Bentley Hart) Yale University Press, 2017
.

The Bible: God's plan for the redemption of humankind? Or... ???

Well-Known Member

Blood Drinker

May God be with you and bless you.

Blood Drinker

Blood Drinker

Blood Drinker

May God be with you and bless you.

Well-Known Member

May God be with you and bless you.

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

Newbie

You can call me Steve

Well-Known Member

Through him, in all things, more than conquerors.

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

You can call me Steve

Similar threads