Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

Der Alte · Dec 27, 2021

MMXX said:
You, repeating Der Alte, asked why didn't Jesus correct them on their view of hell if it was incorrect. Meaning as I see it, since he didn't correct them on it, he must therefore be in agreement with it.
Although I'm not entirely sure what view the Pharisees held at that time. I know Der Alte has a difficult to decipher wall of text, I pointed out several problems with, that supposedly details what the Pharisees in around 30 AD believed. But do you yourself have any evidence of what they believed? And if so can you please present it in a clear concise comprehensive manner? ***

This is the usual patellar reflex, automatonic, cop-out. You dismiss my posts as "difficult to decipher wall of text." I quote from credible, verifiable, historical resources accompanied by a short comment.
.....On the page of the post I am quoting alone I see more than one wall of text posts which do NOT quote or reference any credible, verifiable, historical, grammatical etc. evidence.
.....There is one scholar quoted. Why would anyone with an IQ above room temp think that one scholar knows more about the beliefs and practices of the 1st century Jews than the 1917 Jewish Encyclopedia, 1971 Encyclopedia Judaica and the pre-Christian Talmud articles I quoted and linked to?

Der Alte · Dec 27, 2021

Shrewd Manager said:
* * *
When thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate, as thou art in the way, give diligence that thou mayest be delivered from him; lest he hale thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee into prison. Never, I tell you, will you get free till you have paid the uttermost farthing." (Lk 12:58-59)

What makes you think this verse refers to universal reconciliation? Please show me where God sets bail for getting out of hell? What is the bail for getting out of hell? How many farthings? Where do the dead in hell keep their farthings so they can bail themselves out of hell?

And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another. (Mk 9:47-50)

I have a suggestion for you when quoting your proof texts you should read the greater context to avoid quoting out-of-context.
Please show me the scripture which says salt saves people? Do you even know what that means?
UR-ites quote Mar 9:49, out-of-context, as if it is concrete proof that UR is true.

Mark 9:42-50
42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
49 For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.
50 Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.

First vs. 42 begins with a warning of a fate worse than death so it hardly follows that in vs. 49 Jesus is saying all mankind will be saved, righteous and unrighteous alike, even after death.
Then Jesus describes a place where the fire is not quenched and the worm of each person in that place never dies.
Then Jesus states "every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt." What does that mean?

Ezekiel 43:23-24
23 When thou hast made an end of cleansing it, thou shalt offer a young bullock without blemish, and a ram out of the flock without blemish.
24 And thou shalt offer them before the LORD, and the priests shall cast salt upon them, and they shall offer them up for a burnt offering unto the LORD.
Leviticus 2:13
13 And every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.

Every offering must be without blemish before they are salted, they are not made "without blemish" by the fire/salt. So vs. 49 refers only to followers of Jesus not all mankind

Fervent · Dec 27, 2021

MMXX said:
Could you please cite in a clear concise comprehensive manner what the Pharisees of 30 AD believed and taught regarding hell, so that it can be compared to what Jesus said, in order to examine the theory?

Re-treading ground already covered is little more than a distraction.

hedrick · Dec 27, 2021

Der Alte said:
What makes you think this verse refers to universal reconciliation? Please show me where God sets bail for getting out of hell? What is the bail for getting out of hell? How many farthings? Where do the dead in hell keep their farthings so they can bail themselves out of hell?

It's a metaphor. You're pushing it too far. But it's a metaphor that suggests an end. That doesn't necessarily mean UR unless there are no suggestions elsewhere of something that's unforgiveable. At the very least Mark 3:29 seems to be an example.

Fervent · Dec 27, 2021

Shrewd Manager said:
Assuming the Pharasaical view of hell was eternal conscious torment for the sinner in Sheol, Hades and/or Gehenna, then there are plenty of examples of our Lord subjecting them to correction.

But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him. Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God? But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows. (Lk 12:5-7)

Message: God can, but He won't because He values you highly - but don't tempt Him.

When thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate, as thou art in the way, give diligence that thou mayest be delivered from him; lest he hale thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee into prison. Never, I tell you, will you get free till you have paid the uttermost farthing." (Lk 12:58-59)

Message: Don't fight God by embracing sin or you'll lose everything, but you will be released (saved, but as through fire).

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. [...] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. (Mt 23:13,15)

Message: ECT believers are hypocrites and Jesus hates it - so just stop already, would ya.

And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another. (Mk 9:47-50)

Message: Take drastic action to stop sinning, or God's going to have to do it the hard way.

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. (Mt 5:22)

Message: you're going to hell if you've had scornful thoughts about me. Reviewing the tone of your posts on this thread, I better start praying for you bro.

Question: If God told the Jews that burning children in the fire was an abominable idea that had never entered the divine mind (Jer 32:35), why do you ascribe to Him the evil heathenish works of King Ahaz (see 2 Chron 28:3)?

Most of your "message" statements don't follow from the text, and more than a few are contradicted when the quotes are taken with the whole pericope considered. For example, your first one is not within the text at all with Jesus' statements being directed only at His disciples and telling them not to fear those who would persecute them because the alternative to dying of persecution was rejecting the truth and subjecting themselves to the death of their souls. It in no way offers correction to the traditional views of hell but instead treats the fear of hell as a real danger that is worth accepting an unjust death penalty to avoid.

public hermit · Dec 27, 2021

Der Alte said:
This is the usual patellar reflex, automatonic, cop-out. You dismiss my posts as "difficult to decipher wall of text." I quote from credible, verifiable, historical resources accompanied by a short comment.
.....On the page of the post I am quoting alone I see more than one wall of text posts which do NOT quote or reference any credible, verifiable, historical, grammatical etc. evidence.
.....There is one scholar quoted. Why would anyone with an IQ above room temp think that one scholar knows more about the beliefs and practices of the 1st century Jews than the 1917 Jewish Encyclopedia, 1971 Encyclopedia Judaica and the pre-Christian Talmud articles I quoted and linked to?

Here's how I see your argument, you tell me if it's close or not.

1. The Jewish belief in the time of Jesus regarding hell was x.
2. Jesus affirmed x in his teachings.

Therefore, x

Is that close?

Here are the problems I see:
About the first premise: This thread shows that whatever the Jewish belief concerning hell was in that context is debatable, and hence not clear.

About the second premise: Was Jesus clearly affirming a certain conception of hell? I think the gospel accounts are ambiguous on that. You don't think so, and this is why proof texting gets old, quick. If it is so obvious, we wouldn't be having these discussions. The record we have is only clear if you isolate texts, which is how this discussion always goes. Once we include the whole canon, ambiguity abounds as concerns this issue.

So, both premises need work, I think.

One thing that makes your argument specious is the fact that so many, especially the religious leadership, did not seem to recognize the Messiah, and no one seemed to be expecting what ultimately was revealed through the Messiah's cross and resurrection.

It's not just that the religious leadership got it wrong, they killed him and in their minds thought it was just, apparently. So, whatever they thought is put into question and must be seen through the cross and resurrection.

Your argument is formed explicitly as modern historical argument. Your first premise is wholly focused on a certain historical understanding of hell. Your second premise is simply an affirmation of the first, using Jesus as an affirming authority. Nowhere in your argument is the full revelation of Jesus Christ taken into account. That's why I said earlier that, at best, it needs interpretation through Christ.

If all we wanted was an understanding of the Jewish conception of hell at that time, then all we would need is an argument using historical/critical methods. But this issue requires more, and it should include an account of what the incarnation, cross, resurrection mean.

hedrick · Dec 27, 2021

Der Alte said:
Then Jesus states "every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt." What does that mean?

As in many cases, there are a number of plausible explanations. TDNT suggests a reference to Shammai's idea that almost everyone is purified by the fires of Gehenna, parallel to 1 Cor 3:12. Hermeneia, along with Withrington's commentary, suggests that it means everyone will be tested by persecution and other trials. The Word commentary agrees that it's purification, citing Mal 3:2-3. (This text was by the rabbis for Gehennon, so it could be influenced by Shammai, though the Word commentary disclaims that connection.) The comment in the Anchor Bible has no readily determinable meaning.

Der Alte · Dec 27, 2021

public hermit said:
Here's how I see your argument, you tell me if it's close or not. 1. The Jewish belief in the time of Jesus regarding hell was x. 2. Jesus affirmed x in his teachings.Therefore, x Is that close?

That's about it. Since Jesus confronted the Jews on their faith and practice more than once. Jesus even called them a bunch of snakes BUT He never criticized their belief in Hell which He undoubtedly knew about.

Here are the problems I see:
About the first premise: This thread shows that whatever the Jewish belief concerning hell was in that context is debatable, and hence not clear.

Nonsense! Everything I quoted is crystal clear. E.g. "eternal punishment." In 10 vss. Jesus clearly defined/described "aionios life" as "should not perish" etc. Never refuted! Re: "kolasis" Matt 25:46, see 1 John 4:18 which shows that there is NO correction in "kolasis."

About the second premise: Was Jesus clearly affirming a certain conception of hell? I think the gospel accounts are ambiguous on that. You don't think so, and this is why proof texting gets old, quick. If it is so obvious, we wouldn't be having these discussions. The record we have is only clear if you isolate texts, which is how this discussion always goes. Once we include the whole canon, ambiguity abounds as concerns this issue. So, both premises need work, I think

More rubbish. I don't proof text<period> If you think so show me where anything I ever quoted was out-of-context, misrepresented etc. Posting a different interpretation does NOT disprove anything I post. Opinions are a dime a dozen.

One thing that makes your argument specious is the fact that so many, especially the religious leadership, did not seem to recognize the Messiah, and no one seemed to be expecting what ultimately was revealed through the Messiah's cross and resurrection.

Click to expand...

Absolutely irrelevant! Read the O.T. they rejected their own prophets 100s of years before Jesus.

It's not just that the religious leadership got it wrong, they killed him and in their minds thought it was just, apparently. So, whatever they thought is put into question and must be seen through the cross and resurrection.

Click to expand...

Have you ever read the O.T.? Evidently not! Everything that happened to Jesus was prophesied 100s of years earlier! You should know that, since you don't virtually everything you say is highly questionable

Your argument is formed explicitly as modern historical argument. Your first premise is wholly focused on a certain historical understanding of hell. Your second premise is simply an affirmation of the first, using Jesus as an affirming authority. Nowhere in your argument is the full revelation of Jesus Christ taken into account. That's why I said earlier that, at best, it needs interpretation through Christ.

Click to expand...

A lot of biased, meaningless, irrelevant verbiage which does NOT conclusively demonstrate anything about anything except your assumptions/presuppositions. "Nowhere in your argument is the full revelation of Jesus Christ taken into account." Definitely applies to UR more than to me.

If all we wanted was an understanding of the Jewish conception of hell at that time, then all we would need is an argument using historical/critical methods. But this issue requires more, and it should include an account of what the incarnation, cross, resurrection mean.

Click to expand...

What did the Jews of Jesus' day know about the "incarnation, cross and resurrection?" Nothing you have said addresses my position.

ETA: The program went haywire and threw in random quote brackets. I tried a few times to correct. Program will not let me.

Click to expand...

hedrick · Dec 27, 2021

public hermit said:
About the second premise: Was Jesus clearly affirming a certain conception of hell? I think the gospel accounts are ambiguous on that. You don't think so, and this is why proof texting gets old, quick. If it is so obvious, we wouldn't be having these discussions. The record we have is only clear if you isolate texts, which is how this discussion always goes. Once we include the whole canon, ambiguity abounds as concerns this issue.

I prefer not to depend upon isolated texts. Unfortunately that leaves us with difficult results.

Matthew is big on fire and worms. All but 2 references to Gehenna in the Synoptics are from him.

Mark has only a couple of mentions of punishment, one of which uses Gehenna, but probably isn't meant literally (since it has cutting off body parts).

Luke has a whole list of things, ranging from missing a party to Lazarus and the rich man, but that is Hades, which is temporary.

John and Paul have no description of punishment, but do imply that eternal life is only available to those with faith. Not to mention a couple of explicit statements (e.g. 1 Cor 6:9) that some people don't inherit the Kingdom. And Paul's vision of the end seems incompatible with a torture chamber remaining.

Do we try to unify these into one view? Do we give priority to certain of them?

The conservative tradition seems to deal with situations like this by saying that the Bible has to agree by definition, and picking the most extreme view, on the ground that it's the clearest. Hence Matthew (and the Revelation) becomes governing.

My tradition tries to find unifying themes and prefers the typical position to the extreme one. It also tries to be guided by the spirit of Jesus' teachings. I'd tend to regard Matthew as an outlier, but think that full UR is going too far (since none of the approaches seems to agree with it). I'm perfectly happy with taking the spirit over the letter, and saying that Jesus' view of God as Father, not to mention his statements that God forgives his enemies, makes Matthew's view of things unlikely. (I'm afraid I see the Revelation as involving some degree of revenge fantasy.) I tend to accept Luke as a sort of compromise. It preserves accountability but more moderately than Matthew. While it's not identical to John and Paul, it's compatible with a kind of accountability that Paul talks about a few places.

public hermit · Dec 27, 2021

hedrick said:
My tradition tries to find unifying themes and prefers the typical position to the extreme one. It also tries to be guided by the spirit of Jesus' teachings

You mean something like:

Question 49. Will all human beings be saved?
No one will be lost who can be saved. The limits to salvation, whatever they may be, are known only to God. Three truths above all are certain. God is a holy God who is not to be trifled with. No one will be saved except by grace alone. And no judge could possibly be more gracious than our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. (PCUSA The Study Catechism: Full Version)

I think that response is really good. It captures the ambiguity and spirit of the revelation. It doesn't say too much or too little, I don't think.

Der Alte · Dec 27, 2021

hedrick said:
As in many cases, there are a number of plausible explanations. TDNT suggests a reference to Shammai's idea that almost everyone is purified by the fires of Gehenna, parallel to 1 Cor 3:12. Hermeneia, along with Withrington's commentary, suggests that it means everyone will be tested by persecution and other trials. The Word commentary agrees that it's purification, citing Mal 3:2-3. (This text was by the rabbis for Gehennon, so it could be influenced by Shammai, though the Word commentary disclaims that connection.) The comment in the Anchor Bible has no readily determinable meaning.

Does any of this negate or refute the alternate views expressed in the Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and Talmud which I posted, numerous times?
I have never claimed nor implied that eternal punishment was the only view. I clearly state that in my posts. My point has always been that there was, in fact, a significant belief in Israel before and during the time of Jesus of a place of eternal fiery punishment which they called both "sheol" and "Ge Hinnom" translated as "Hades" and "Gehenna" in both the 225 BC LXX and the N.T.
Which, if any, historical sources did Withrington et al. cite supporting their interpretations?
Which entry for TDNT? I have the abridged edition in 1 volume.

hedrick · Dec 27, 2021

Der Alte said:
Does any of this negate or refute the alternate views expressed in the Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and Talmud which I posted, numerous times?
I have never claimed nor implied that eternal punishment was the only view. I clearly state that in my posts. My point has always been that there was, in fact, a significant belief in Israel before and during the time of Jesus of a place of eternal fiery punishment which they called both "sheol" and "Ge Hinnom" translated as "Hades" and "Gehenna" in both the 225 BC LXX and the N.T.
Which, if any, historical sources did Withrington et al. cite supporting their interpretations?
Which entry for TDNT? I have the abridged edition in 1 volume.

The TDNT entry on gehenna. It's an inset comment, so it might be omitted in an abridged edition.

Of course there was a significant view of eternal punishment. But the dominant views, as far as we can tell, applied it to only a very few people. While not everyone agreed, one common position had a pretty widespread temporary stay. Is it more likely that Jesus was cautioning people against being one of a few notorious sinners such as Balaam, or that he was suggesting a kind of punishment that that applied more widely?

Here's Witherington's whole comment on this verse:

"Some have seen v. 49 as a reference to purgatory, where “all will be salted with fire.” Far more likely is the idea that Jesus was suggesting that disciples would be tested by trials or persecution. It may even refer to the wiles of the devil, the one associated with gehenna, who torments the disciples. The expression “salted with fire” comes from the Hebrew Scriptures, from the practice of pouring salt on the sacrificial flame presumably to purify it (Lev. 2:13; Ezek. 43:24). Thus the meaning of this saying may be close to Rom. 12:1—disciples are to see themselves as sacrifices. This saying might have had special significance for Roman Christians who were, quite literally, under fire. Schweizer suggests, however, that there is a connection between salt and fire here, namely, “the fire of God (the affliction of persecution, or the end-time …) preserves from decay like salt (with which meat is cured).”54 This then suggests that the saying has to do with how trials can actually strengthen or preserve Christian character, not merely test it. Finally, it may be of some relevance that in 1 Cor. 3:10–15 Paul uses the image of testing by fire. For “the purificatory process may destroy, but it can also preserve.”55"

Der Alte · Dec 27, 2021

public hermit said:
You mean something like:
Question 49. Will all human beings be saved?
No one will be lost who can be saved. The limits to salvation, whatever they may be, are known only to God. Three truths above all are certain. God is a holy God who is not to be trifled with. No one will be saved except by grace alone. And no judge could possibly be more gracious than our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. (PCUSA The Study Catechism: Full Version)
I think that response is really good. It captures the ambiguity and spirit of the revelation. It doesn't say too much or too little, I don't think.

It appears that neither Jesus nor Paul believed that all mankind would be saved.

John 3:15-18
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
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 life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Matthew 7:21-23
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
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.
Mark 16:16
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: [no wrongdoer] neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Ephesian 5:5 For this ye know, that [no wrongdoer] no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
1 Corinthians 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

public hermit · Dec 27, 2021

hedrick said:
Do we try to unify these into one view?

I think the prudent approach for the church is to find a unified view that captures the ambiguity, something like question #49 from the PCUSA catechism. Personally, I believe hell is remedial, purgative. But as an official position, I think the wise move would be for the church to leave the question open.

Edit: Why open? The church's function is the gospel, which rests on a statement of guarantee, i.e. if you believe, you will be saved. Whether that is also a statement of exclusion is debatable, I don't think so, but the church does not need to settle that question to honestly serve its function in proclaiming the gospel.

Hillsage · Dec 27, 2021

Der Alte said:
John 9:4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
Psalms 88:10-11
10 Wilt thou shew wonders to the dead? shall the dead arise and praise thee? Selah.
11 Shall thy lovingkindness be declared in the grave? or thy faithfulness in destruction?
Ecclesiastes 9:10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.
Isaiah 38:18 For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth.
1Thessalonians 4:13
(13) But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
Ephesians 2:12
(12) That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
Isaiah 26:14 They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise: therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish.
Psalms 6:5 For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?
JPS Prov 24:20
(20) For there will be no future to the evil man, the lamp of the wicked shall be put out.
Psalms 115:17
17 The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence.

I have no problem with any of these verses. But then I simply understand salvation in a way you don't. I understand that every verse you've quoted simply isn't dealing with the salvation of your spirit by 'faith and grace' in order to GO to heaven when you die. Your quoted verses are dealing with your future tense soul's salvation and not your past tense spirit's salvation. Your soul's salvation doesn't get you into heaven in the hereafter. It gets heaven (the kingdom of God) INTO you, here and now. At death your rewards are finished being determined by how you lived/loved here and now. And the ultimate end of that 'progressive soulish works salvation' also determines how glorified your now UNSAVED body is GOING TO BE in the soul, then body salvations, we, who are spirit saved, are all still HOPING FOR.

PSA 119:81 My soul languishes for thy salvation; I hope in thy word.

1PE 1:3 ...By his great mercy we have been born anew (spirit saved) to a living hope (soul being saved) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, (our dead body exchanged for glorified body like His) 4 and to an inheritance which is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, (future hope) 5 who by God's power are guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

1PE 1:9 As the outcome of your faith you obtain the (progressive) salvation of your souls.

1PE 1:22 Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere love of the brethren, love one another earnestly from the heart.
23 You have been born anew, (spirit saved) not of perishable seed but of imperishable, (Spirit is OSAS) through the living and abiding word of God;
24 for "All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, 25 but the word of the Lord abides for ever."

2:1 So put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander.
2 Like newborn (spirit saved) babes, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation; (of your soul)

The salvations we all still HOPE FOR for, on this side of death, is for that of your soul and body. It's the hope of salvation for your soul through sanctification and not instantaneous justification salvation like the saved spirit gets upon rebirth. Your verses deal with the "work out your soul's salvation with fear and trembling" here and now. At death your soul's 'glorified body reward' is FIXED.

No one has a 100% soul salvation, until you have fully apprehended the "high calling of God in Christ" which is "perfection". And perfection is something that even Paul, strived for but never reached (he died). How high is that calling? It's putting on "the IMAGE of the stature of the FULLNESS of Christ." It's the salvation that "ALL of creation groans for the MANIFESTATION OF THE SONS OF GOD." And 'what' part of "ALL" do you guys want to leave out of "ALL CREATION" this time?

But don't bother trying to debunk what I just said in response to YOUR last post to me.

Instead, I'm still waiting for you, or anyone on your side, to explain where in the 'heck', Hell went according to the ORTHODOX "scholars"....like YOU. Answer that request from my last post, or you don't earn the respect of answers from me.

Debunk the scholarship of Young's Literal Translation.

Below the # of X HELL is in the following translations. Do any of you even know how many times it's in YOUR BIBLE? I doubt it.

Young's Literal Trans 0x Published in 1862 & still published because TRUTH can not die.
Authorized KJV 54x
New KJV 32x
NIV 14x
ASV 13x
NAS 13x
RSV 12x

How can HELL itself be harder to 'nail' down, than snot on a fence-post? :doh:

Der Alte · Dec 27, 2021

public hermit said:
I think the prudent approach for the church is to find a unified view that captures the ambiguity, something like question #49 from the PCUSA catechism. Personally, I believe hell is remedial, purgative. But as an official position, I think the wise move would be for the church to leave the question open.
Edit: Why open? The church's function is the gospel, which rests on a statement of guarantee, i.e. if you believe, you will be saved. Whether that is also a statement of exclusion is debatable, I don't think so, but the church does not need to settle that question to honestly serve its function in proclaiming the gospel.

IOW nothing definitive.

Der Alte · Dec 27, 2021

hedrick said:
The TDNT entry on gehenna. It's an inset comment, so it might be omitted in an abridged edition.
Of course there was a significant view of eternal punishment. But the dominant views, as far as we can tell, applied it to only a very few people. While not everyone agreed, one common position had a pretty widespread temporary stay. Is it more likely that Jesus was cautioning people against being one of a few notorious sinners such as Balaam, or that he was suggesting a kind of punishment that that applied more widely?
Here's Witherington's whole comment on this verse:
"Some have seen v. 49 as a reference to purgatory, where “all will be salted with fire.” Far more likely is the idea that Jesus was suggesting that disciples would be tested by trials or persecution. It may even refer to the wiles of the devil, the one associated with gehenna, who torments the disciples. The expression “salted with fire” comes from the Hebrew Scriptures, from the practice of pouring salt on the sacrificial flame presumably to purify it (Lev. 2:13; Ezek. 43:24). Thus the meaning of this saying may be close to Rom. 12:1—disciples are to see themselves as sacrifices. This saying might have had special significance for Roman Christians who were, quite literally, under fire. Schweizer suggests, however, that there is a connection between salt and fire here, namely, “the fire of God (the affliction of persecution, or the end-time …) preserves from decay like salt (with which meat is cured).”54 This then suggests that the saying has to do with how trials can actually strengthen or preserve Christian character, not merely test it. Finally, it may be of some relevance that in 1 Cor. 3:10–15 Paul uses the image of testing by fire. For “the purificatory process may destroy, but it can also preserve.”55"

"Some have seen v. 49 as a reference to purgatory, where “all will be salted with fire.” Far more likely is the idea that Jesus was suggesting that disciples would be tested by trials or persecution. It may even refer to the wiles of the devil, the one associated with gehenna, who torments the disciples."

Kinda iffy. Maybe this, perhaps that.

The expression “salted with fire” comes from the Hebrew Scriptures, from the practice of pouring salt on the sacrificial flame presumably to purify it (Lev. 2:13; Ezek. 43:24).

That is NOT what the vss. say.

Leviticus 2:13
13 And every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.
Ezekiel 43:24
24 And thou shalt offer them before the LORD, and the priests shall cast salt upon them, and they shall offer them up for a burnt offering unto the LORD.

The salt is not thrown on the fire. It is sprinkled on the offering which must be clean. The salt does NOT purify in this procedure.

"Thus the meaning of this saying may be close to Rom. 12:1—disciples are to see themselves as sacrifices. This saying might have had special significance for Roman Christians who were, quite literally, under fire."

More speculation with no scriptural support.

"Schweizer suggests, however, that there is a connection between salt and fire here, namely, “the fire of God (the affliction of persecution, or the end-time …) preserves from decay like salt (with which meat is cured).”54 This then suggests that the saying has to do with how trials can actually strengthen or preserve Christian character, not merely test it."

The salt in this context does NOT preserve.

"Finally, it may be of some relevance that in 1 Cor. 3:10–15 Paul uses the image of testing by fire. For “the purificatory process may destroy, but it can also preserve.”55"

There is no purificatory process in the salting of offerings. The offering must be pure before it is offered.
My AbrTDNT does not have the Witherington comment.

hedrick · Dec 27, 2021

Der Alte said:
"Some have seen v. 49 as a reference to purgatory, where “all will be salted with fire.” Far more likely is the idea that Jesus was suggesting that disciples would be tested by trials or persecution. It may even refer to the wiles of the devil, the one associated with gehenna, who torments the disciples."
Kinda iffy. Maybe this, perhaps that.

The expression “salted with fire” comes from the Hebrew Scriptures, from the practice of pouring salt on the sacrificial flame presumably to purify it (Lev. 2:13; Ezek. 43:24).
That is NOT what the vss. say.

Leviticus 2:13
13 And every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.
Ezekiel 43:24
24 And thou shalt offer them before the LORD, and the priests shall cast salt upon them, and they shall offer them up for a burnt offering unto the LORD.
The salt is not thrown on the fire. It is sprinkled on the offering which must be clean. The salt does NOT purify in this procedure.

"Thus the meaning of this saying may be close to Rom. 12:1—disciples are to see themselves as sacrifices. This saying might have had special significance for Roman Christians who were, quite literally, under fire."
More speculation with no scriptural support.

"Schweizer suggests, however, that there is a connection between salt and fire here, namely, “the fire of God (the affliction of persecution, or the end-time …) preserves from decay like salt (with which meat is cured).”54 This then suggests that the saying has to do with how trials can actually strengthen or preserve Christian character, not merely test it."
The salt in this context does NOT preserve.

"Finally, it may be of some relevance that in 1 Cor. 3:10–15 Paul uses the image of testing by fire. For “the purificatory process may destroy, but it can also preserve.”55"
There is no purificatory process in the salting of offerings. The offering must be pure before it is offered.
My AbrTDNT does not have the Witherington comment.

Kinda iffy. Maybe this, perhaps that.

Sorry, but sometimes we simply don't know what a text means. Different language, different culture. We have a lot less documentation than we'd like on the 1st Cent.

Here's what the Word commentary says on Lev 2:13

"All grain offerings are to be offered with מלח, “salt,” the primary preservative in the ancient world. The use of salt renders the offering fit."

Here's what Milgrom's commentary says:

"Salt was the preservative par excellence in antiquity.6 Moreover, its preservative qualities made it the ideal symbol of the perdurability of a covenant.7 The apostles are called “the salt of the earth” (Matt 5:17*). In other words, they are said to be the preservers, the guardians, of God’s word and the teachers who protect and preserve the world against moral decay."

I'm afraid that's all the commentaries I have on Leviticus.

Gundy22 · Dec 27, 2021

The verses that say "the dead know nothing" are counter-manded by Samuel talking to King Saul - even prophesying his death - and beggar lazarus, rich man and Abraham conscious - living and knowing things in Luke 16.

Paul contrasts being alive on earth with "being present with the Lord".
Many souls under the altar in Revelation are calling out - they are conscious, awake, knowing things,

Gundy22 · Dec 27, 2021

Jos 10:12

Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

Jos 10:13

And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Sun doesn't orbit the earth, people.
I have to look on this stuff written in geocentric cosmogeny in a similar way I look on these "dead know nothing" verses. If Jesus comes along and portrays conscious deceased people as He does in Luke 16, then Jesus trumps Ecclesiastes and Psalms saying the dead know nothing.

Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

This is me about 1 yr. old.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

social troglodyte

Senior Veteran

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Senior Veteran

social troglodyte

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Senior Veteran

This is me about 1 yr. old.

social troglodyte

One 4 Him & Him 4 all

This is me about 1 yr. old.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Senior Veteran

Arminian Commando

Arminian Commando

Similar threads