Does hell exist?

FineLinen · Apr 13, 2003

"For the earnest expectation/eager outlook of creation ardently awaiteth the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creation/creature was made subject to imperfection/the bondage of transitorness, not for some deliberate fault of their own/ not willingly, but by reason of Him who subjected the same in hope. And the hope is that in the end the whole of created life shall be delivered from the shackles of mortality into the liberty of the children of God." Romans 8

My friends: our Father takes full responsibility for subjecting man to futility. The subjection of our beings to futility has been "Not willingly", but, "by reason of Him" who has hupotasso(ed) the same in elpis/ hope.

What is the hope to which our Lord has subjected us as slaves of sin? (The bondage of corruption is one of being made a slave.)

What is the hope of such subjection?

Deliverance/ eleutheroo into doxa eleutheria!

To make free/ set at liberty from the dominion of sin.

"Delivered from" being slaves of sin

AND

Entering "into"

Doxa eleutheria=

Splendour/excellence/ dignity/ grace/ majesty.

Magnificence.

Absolute perfection of our Lord.

Inward and outward brightness.

A most glorious condition/ exalted state.

Romans 8:20:

"For the creation was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him who subjected it, in hope." (ASV)

"For every living thing was put under the power of change, not by its desire, but by him who made it so, in hope." (BBE)

"For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but by the will of him who subjected it in hope;" (Common)

"For the creature has been made subject to vanity, not of its will, but by reason of him who has subjected the same , in hope." (Darby)

"For the creation was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but because of him who subjected it, in hope." (HNV)

"Because the creation was subjected to frustration, though not by its own choice. The one who subjected it did so in the hope." (ISV)

"For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope," (KJV)

"For the creature was subjected to frailty, (not of its own choice, but by him who has subjected it,) in hope," (LO)

"For nature was subjected to imperfection, not by its own will, but by the will of Him who thus made it subject." (Montgomery)

"For the creation was subjected to vanity, not by its own choice, but because of him who subjected it," (Murdock)

"For the creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope," (R. Webster)

"For, unto vanity, hath creation been made subjectnot by choice, but by reason of him that made it subject, in hope." (Joseph B. Rotherham)

"For the Creation fell into subjection to failure and unreality (not of its own choice, but by the will of Him who so subjected it)." (Weymouth)

"For to vanity was the creation made subject--not of its will, but because of Him who did subject it --in hope," (Youngs Literal)

"Because the creation/creature itself shall be delivered."

Creature= Ktisis=

The sum of aggregate things created.

Anything created.

The act of creation.

Romans 8:20,21

"For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope.

BECAUSE

The creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God."

"The creature was made subject"

Subject= Hupotasso=

To arrange under/ to subordinate.

To subject/ put in subjection.

To subject one's self/ obey.

To submit to one's control.

To yield to one's admonition or advice.

To obey/ be subject.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons...93&version=

"Subject to vanity"

Vanity= Mataiotes=

What is devoid of truth/ appropriateness.

Perverseness/ depravity.

Fraility/ want of vigour.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons...53&version=

"Not willingly"

Willingly= Heknon=

Unforced/ voluntary/ willing.

Of one's own will.

Of one's own accord.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons...35&version=

"But by reason of Him"= Dia=

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons...23&version=

"By reason of Him who subjected"

Subjected= Hupotasso=

To arrange under/ to subordinate.

To subject/ put in subjection.

To subject one's self/ to obey.

To subject to one's control.

To yield to one's admonition and advice.

To obey/ be subject.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons...93&version=

"Subjected the same in hope"

Hope= Elpis=

Expectation of evil/ fear.

Expectation of good/ hope.

Joyful and confident expectation of eternal salvation.

On hope/ in hope/ having hope in the Authro of hope or He who is the foundation of hope.

The thing hoped for.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons...680&version=

BECAUSE....BECAUSE......BECAUSE.....BECAUSE....BECAUSE

"The creature itself also shall be delivered"

Delivered= Eleutheroo=

To make free.

To set at liberty from the dominion of sin.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons...59&version=

"Delivered from the bondage of corruption"

Bondage= Douleia=

Slavery.

Bondage.

The condition of a slave.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons...97&version=

"The bondage of corruption"

Corruption= Phthora=

Corruption/ destruction/ perishing.

That which is perishable.

Corruption (moral decay)

In the Christian sense eternal misery in hell.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons...56&version=

"From the bondage of corruption into the glorious"

Glorious= Doxa=

Opinion/ judgment/ view.

Opinion/estimate whether good or bad concerning someone.

A. In the N.T. always a good opinion concerning one resulting in praise and honor and glory.

Splendour/ brightness.

Magnificence/ excellence/ preeminence/ dignity/ grace.

Majesty.

A thing belonging to God. The kingly majesty which belongs to Him as the Supreme Ruler.

The Kingly majesty of the Messiah/ the absolute perfect inward or personal excellencey of Christ Jesus.

Most glorious condition/ exalted state.

Glorious condition of blessedness.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons...91&version=

"Glorious liberty"

Liberty= Eleutheria=

Liberty to do or to omit things having no relationship to salvation.

Fancied liberty (A liberty to do as one pleases.)

True liberty: Living as we should, not as we please.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons...57&version=

"Of the glorious liberty of the children of God."

OldShepherd · Apr 13, 2003

Yesterday at 10:38 PM FineLinen said this in Post #338

Greetings again Spiderrr, builder of webs. After reading what the guys who speak and read and write Hebrew said, you posted....

I have been greatly blessed to read what the Jewish Encyclopedia has presented as their definition of Gehenna. * * * [And then what follows is mindless garbage]

I note that you have never addressed my point that pre-Christian Judaism believed and taught a literal burning hell of eternal torment and that Jesus said NOTHING that would contradict that but rather everything Jesus spoke about the fate of the unrighteous supports that interpretation. So Linen you just keep on posting your infantile snide comments about those who spoke Hebrew, you simply illustrate your inability to address the issues.

My friends: our Father takes full responsibility for subjecting man to futility. The subjection of our beings to futility has been "Not willingly", but, "by reason of Him" who has hupotasso(ed) the same in elpis/ hope.

Absolutely false. A twisting of the text which leads to eternal d amnation.

The blame, the guilt is squarely on the head of the sinner, NOT God!

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

The word of God clearly says that those who commit, unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, and unmerciful, are without excuse! They CANNOT blame God for their unrighteousness.

And as I said before what part of "shall NOT inherit the kingdom of God is not clear?

1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: 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.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Gal 5:19 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.

Wait I know what you can do, post that snide little comment about those who read and write Hebrew, it answers and proves absolutely nothing but it will impress all your Universalists buddies.

Matt 7:21 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.

Despite all the long lists of proof texts which have been posted to support Universal restoration, Jesus said Not everyone shall enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus also said that in that ONE (1) day of judgement, He will say to many, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. Jesus did NOT say sometime in the future, at another judging, I will know you but He said I never knew you.

Peace · Apr 14, 2003

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?

Paul also said that none of us are righteous not one; and the best we can hope for is still considered filthy rags. Do you believe that your flesh isnt included? Have you found a way to live without any unrighteousness in your life?

Are you that confident that we dont all fit among the murderers and the adulterers?

Isnt it possible that the wheat and the tares, the sheep and the goat, represent the Adam man found in each of us? Isnt it possible when David said that all the wicked will be destroyed that he was talking about the wicked in each of us?

Even Christs example of the two men in a bed...one will be taken and the other remain. Couldnt the one taken be the unrighteous man or women in each of us? All that would remain to inherit the Kingdom would be those who were purchased and made white by the blood of the Lamb.

Wouldn't that satisfy all scripture?

Rize · Apr 14, 2003

OS, can you answer the PM I sent to you.  It's very brief.

OldShepherd · Apr 14, 2003

Today at 12:56 AM Peace said this in Post #343

Paul also said that none of us are righteous not one; and the best we can hope for is still considered filthy rags. Do you believe that your flesh isnt included? Have you found a way to live without any unrighteousness in your life?

Are you that confident that we dont all fit among the murderers and the adulterers?

Isnt it possible that the wheat and the tares, the sheep and the goat, represent the Adam man found in each of us? Isnt it possible when David said that all the wicked will be destroyed that he was talking about the wicked in each of us?

Even Christs example of the two men in a bed...one will be taken and the other remain. Couldnt the one taken be the unrighteous man or women in each of us? All that would remain to inherit the Kingdom would be those who were purchased and made white by the blood of the Lamb.

Wouldn't that satisfy all scripture?

The Bible clearly speaks of the difference between the person and their nature.

Ro 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Ro 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

Yes ALL our righteousnesses are as filthy rags BUT the righteousness of Jesus is imputed to those who believe on His name.

FineLinen · Apr 15, 2003

Victory Of A Supreme Being

Pay no heed to the delusive plea that claims victory for Christ, if He shuts up His enemies in hell, as though the sole victory possible to a divine Being were not the conversion of His enemies; as though the perpetuation of evil in hell were not His defeat. But, in truth the traditional creed is essentially, if not formally, dualistic. There is a Deity (nominally) supreme, and a rival demi-god, Satan. There are two confronting empires, destined to exactly the same duration. In the middle ages we find actually represented in painting a rival Trinity, a Trinity of Evil (Didron, Iconog. Chret. 2.23) How profound is the revelation thus made of the beliefs ruling the minds of men, still ruling in those who believe that the devil is all but omnipotent, and practically omnipresent.

Endless Sin, A Baffled Saviour, A Victorious Devil?

Those who have reason to shrink from this appeal....are the advocates of endless sin; of a baffled Saviour; of a victorious devil. It is they who shut their eyes to the teaching of the Bible. It is they who make Scripture of none effect by their traditions. To the Bible they come drugged by early prejudice; saturated by cruel traditions, to whose horror long familiarity has deadened the mind. And so it is, that many really cannot see the true force of the Scripture, when it plainly asserts the restitution of all things. Hence the painful evasions; the halting logic that honestly but blindly turns the Bible upside down, i.e., teaching that all men drawn to Christ, means the half of mankind drawn to the devil; all things reconciled through Christ, means the final perdition of half the universe. The notion of the popular creed, i.e., that God is in the Bible detailing the story of His own defeat, how sin has proved too strong for Him, this notion seems wholly unfounded.

Grace Stronger Than Sin, Life Victorious Over All Death

Assuredly the Bible is not the story of sin, deepening into eternal ruin, of God's Son, worsted in His utmost effort; it is from the opening to the close the story of grace stronger than sin--of life victorious over every form of death--of God triumphing over evil.

Once more I repeat that the larger hope emphatically and fully accepts the doctrine of retribution. Those who picture the restitution of all things as some easy-going system, which refuses to face the stern facts of sin and misery and retribution are hopelessly wrong. We press on the impenitent the awful certainty of a wrath to come, and this with far more chance of acceptance, because taught in a form that does not wound the conscience; because we dare not teach that finite sin shall receive an infinite penalty. Few things have so hindered the spread of the larger hope as the wholly and absolutely groundless notion, that it implies an inadequate sense of sin, and pictures God as a weakly indulgent Being, careless of holiness, provided the happiness of His creatures is secured.

A Final Acquiescence To Sin, Omnipotence Breaking Down?

In fact it is those who teach the popular creed, and not we, who make light of sin. To teach unending sin in hell, even in a solitary instance, and under any conceivable modification, is to teach the victory of evil. To us this seems at once a libel on God and an untruth--a libel because it imputes to God a final acquiescence in sin; an untruth, because it teaches that His Omnipotence breaks down at the very point it is most needed, and that His Love and Purity can rest with absolute complacency, while pain and evil riot and rot for ever.

Sin Is As Endless As God Himself?

Here we may ask, can any light, however small, be thrown on this awful mystery of sin? For all practical purposes, I reply, there are but two possible views of moral sin. It is endless as God Himself, which is in fact *dualism; (*May it not be said a peculiar evil form of dualism, for in it the Good Spirit freely permits the entrance of evil, which He knows will endure for ever?) or it is temporary, and in God's mysterious plan, permitted only to serve a higher end. Indeed this view of moral evil seems to be substantially that of S. Thomas Aquinas; "he makes the elevation of the creature above the original capabilities of his nature, to depend on the introduction of sin." (Neander, Ch. Hist. viii 216) Thus it is a stage of development of the creature, and of this there seems a hint conveyed in the story of the first sin. By it man is said to have "become as one of us," and though the very Fall implied a *Rise. (*Does Clement of Alexandria mean this when he speaks of Adam as "made a man by disobedience."--Adm. ad gent.)

Stress Boldly Laid On God's Agency, Not Man's Will!

Certainly Scripture asserts that "God hath shut up all men unto disobedience, in order that He might have mercy upon all?"

Note here the stress boldly laid

1. On God's agency, and not on man's will.

2. The universality alike of sin and of salvation, both are equally absolute and universal.

3. But sin is permitted only as leading up to, as involving salvation. And thus we see not an arrangement by which man starts innocent, free to choose sin or not, but a virtual provision for the hereditary transmission of evil; by which innocence becomes impossible to all; by which every child of Adam is, in the Divine plan, "shut up to (sin)disobedience," an arrangement inconceivable on the part of a good and loving Father, except with a settled purpose of mercy to every one. (Christ Triumphant By Thomas Allin)

OldShepherd · Apr 15, 2003

Yesterday at 11:55 PM FineLinen said this in Post #346

Victory Of A Supreme Being

Stress Boldly Laid On God's Agency, Not Man's Will!

Certainly Scripture asserts that "God hath shut up all men unto disobedience, in order that He might have mercy upon all?"

Note here the stress boldly laid

1. On God's agency, and not on man's will.

2. The universality alike of sin and of salvation, both are equally absolute and universal.

3. But sin is permitted only as leading up to, as involving salvation. And thus we see not an arrangement by which man starts innocent, free to choose sin or not, but a virtual provision for the hereditary transmission of evil; by which innocence becomes impossible to all; by which every child of Adam is, in the Divine plan, "shut up to (sin)disobedience," an arrangement inconceivable on the part of a good and loving Father, except with a settled purpose of mercy to every one. (Christ Triumphant By Thomas Allin)

Another cut and paste from yet another Universalist quoting ONE (1) out-of-context verse. Linen with all your pet Universalist quotes can you explain why Jesus said, "Not everyone will enter the kingdom of heaven?" Does NOT, maybe mean "later"?

Matthew 7:21 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.

OldShepherd · Apr 16, 2003

2 Peter 3:9, is the ultimate proof text for the Universalist doctrine. And the argument does something like this, No human being could resist the infinite love of God forever. If God truly desires that all be saved, it will happen eventually. The problem with this argument is that it denies too much scripture.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing (boulomai) that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

1014 boulomai boulomai boo-lom-ahee
middle voice of a primary verb; TDNT - 1:629,108; v
AV - will 15, would 11, be minded 2, intend 2, be disposed 1, be willing 1, list 1, of his own will 1; 34
1) to will deliberately, have a purpose, be minded
2) of willing as an affection, to desire

That seems to make perfect sense, after all God is omnipotent He can save every person who ever lived if He really wanted to, and 2 Peter 3:9 tells us God really wants to save everyone.

For example, Gods chosen people, Israel, in Deut 6 Israel is chosen and God God set His love on Israel.

Deut 7:6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.
7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:

Since Israel is Gods chosen people out of all the peoples of the world and God loves them specifically, what is Gods will for them?

Jeremiah 13:11 For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave (דבק) unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear.

14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

The Hebrew word translated I caused to cleave is (דבק/dabaq) it is the hiphil, perfect. It was Gods will that all of Israel, i.e. the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah cling to Him like a belt, so that they could be to God, a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory but they would not listen. And because they would not listen, although God loved them, God did not have pity, did not have mercy, did not spare them, but destroyed them.

But according to the false Universalist doctrine, Jeremiah 13:11,14 cannot be true, Certainly God isn't powerless to do something about that problem. We've established that he wants to do something. And we believe that he already has done something about it.

What was Gods will concerning Israel and Judah, did God will that Israel and Judah be destroyed? Or did God will that all of Israel and all of Judah be as close to Him as a belt? Since God is omnipotent anything He wills, most certainly will happen, will it not? Or is the God of the Old Testament a different God than the God of the New Testament? In Jeremiah 13 we see a clear expression of Gods will but that expressed will did NOT come to pass. How can that be?

01692 דבק dabaq daw-bak
a primitive root; TWOT - 398; v
AV - cleave 32, follow hard 5, overtake 3, stick 3, keep fast 2, ...together 2, abide 1, close 1, joined 1, pursued 1, take 1; 54
1) to cling, stick, stay close, cleave, keep close, stick to, stick with, follow closely, join to, overtake, catch
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to cling, cleave to
1a2) to stay with
1b) (Pual) to be joined together
1c) (Hiphil)
1c1) to cause to cleave to
1c2) to pursue closely
1c3) to overtake
1d) (Hophal) to be made to cleave

08818 Hiphil
a) Hiphil usually expresses the "causative" action of Qal - see 08851

08816 Perfect
The Perfect expresses a completed action.
1) In reference to time, such an action may be:
1a) one just completed from the standpoint of the present
1b) one completed in the more or less distant past
1c) one already completed from the point of view of another
past act
1d) one completed from the point of view of another action
yet future
2) The perfect is often used where the present is employed in
English.
2a) in the case of general truths or actions of frequent
occurrence truths or actions which have been often
experienced or observed
2b) an action or attitude of the past may be continued into
the present
2c) the perfect of intransitive verbs is used where English
uses the present; The perfect in Hebrew in such a case
emphasises a condition which has come into "complete
existence" and realisation
2d) Sometimes in Hebrew, future events are conceived so
vividly and so realistically that they are regarded as
having virtually taken place and are described by the
perfect.
2d1) in promises, threats and language of contracts
2d2) prophetic language

Rize · Apr 17, 2003

OS... I thought that was a private message...

It's ok though.

Now concerning your counter arguments, you do realize that those verses do not have to be understood in the way that you understand them.  It may seem like it, but you've probably been reading into the Bible for a very long time.  It can be difficult to let it speak for itself.  I still have a hard time doing it, and I probably fail most of the time.  And I only read it from a non-universalist perspective for a year or so.

Old habits die hard.

Yahweh is the God who can kill and make alive again, OS.  His judgments are meant to teach us righteousness (points to axed sig

).

Do any of those verses necessarily indicate that those conditions are everlasting with no possibility of change?

And you never did tell me whether or not you're a Calvinist (that is, do you believe in predestination). 

I'm still curious

OldShepherd · Apr 19, 2003

17th April 2003 at 06:15 PM Rize said this in Post #349

OS... I thought that was a private message...

It's ok though.

Had I identified the sender, then it would have been improper. But these arguments are typical of Universalists.

Now concerning your counter arguments, you do realize that those verses do not have to be understood in the way that you understand them.  It may seem like it, but you've probably been reading into the Bible for a very long time.

Well I understand those verses the same way the ancient Hebrews understood them and the way the early church understood them. But since you are presuming to tell me I am wrong would you please translate and interpret Jeremiah 13:14, from the Septuagint, translated into Greek from Hebrew appox. 250 BC.

Jer 13:14 kai diaskorpiw autouV andra kai ton adelfon autou kai touv paterav autwn kai touV uiouV autwn en tw autw ouk epipoyhsw legei kurioV kai ou feisomai kai ouk oiktirhsw apo diafqoraV autwn

  It can be difficult to let it speak for itself.  I still have a hard time doing it, and I probably fail most of the time.  And I only read it from a non-universalist perspective for a year or so.

Oh by all means tell me how to let it speak for itself. I read both Biblical languages and I'm sure you are more knowledgable than I am. Since you are so expert why don't you tell me the "correct" interpretation of the passage. I mean since the ancient Hebrews and the entire church has been wrong for 2000 years.

Old habits die hard.

Yahweh is the God who can kill and make alive again, OS.  His judgments are meant to teach us righteousness (points to axed sig ).

Do any of those verses necessarily indicate that those conditions are everlasting with no possibility of change?

Well then perhaps you can tell me if the condition of destruction, in Jer 13:14, was permanent, for those destroyed? Or perhaps you can tell me when YHWH told the Israelites to go into Canaan and utterly destroy the inhabitants, did that judgement teach righteousness to the Canaanites? Were they made alive again?

Also you are ignoring a very important point in Jeremiah 13. Since Universalists insist that whatever God wills, will happen, this passage points out very clearly that what God willed did NOT come to pass. And absolutely nothing has been read into the passage. If necessary, I can quote the verse from the 1910 Jewish Publication Society and the English translation of the LXX.

And you never did tell me whether or not you're a Calvinist (that is, do you believe in predestination). 

I'm still curious

Irrelevant but no.

Rize · Apr 20, 2003

Today at 04:55 AM OldShepherd said this in Post #350

Well I understand those verses the same way the ancient Hebrews understood them and the way the early church understood them. But since you are presuming to tell me I am wrong would you please translate and interpret Jeremiah 13:14, from the Septuagint, translated into Greek from Hebrew appox. 250 BC.

[Greek version of Jer 13:14 excised]

You misunderstood me.  I was not talking about translation, but understanding of the correct translation (whatever that is).  As for the ancient Hebrew's understanding, according to Jesus, they didn't do a very good job of understanding their own scripture in His day.  And as for early Christians, every Christian group has their own version of what "early Christians" believed.  As far as I knew though, the majority of people who called themselves Christians in the first 5 centuries were universalists.  As for which ones actually were Christians, that is a debate that cannot be settled by us.

And you know what, you very well may be wrong in some aspects of your ability to translate Hebrew and Greek into English.  First of all, translating the words and meaning of one language into another is never a decisive business, and second, there is not a unanimous opinion on Biblical translation in the first place.  In other words, leave the argument from authority at the door.  I'm quite certain that you know more about Hebrew and Greek than I do, but that does not mean that your ability to translate it is flawless.

Today at 04:55 AM OldShepherd said this in Post #350

Oh by all means tell me how to let it speak for itself. I read both Biblical languages and I'm sure you are more knowledgable than I am. Since you are so expert why don't you tell me the "correct" interpretation of the passage. I mean since the ancient Hebrews and the entire church has been wrong for 2000 years.

400 years after Israel's last prophet, Jesus came on the scene and testified to great misunderstandings of the scripture by the Jewish teachers of law (Pharisees).  Christians have been around for 2000 years.  That just makes me even more suspicious.  Especially considering that there are hundreds (thousands?) of denominations and an uncountable number of non-denominational churches (each with their own set of doctrines).  With everything that these various churches don't agree on, should I simply believe that something is true because they agree on it?

Today at 04:55 AM OldShepherd said this in Post #350

Well then perhaps you can tell me if the condition of destruction, in Jer 13:14, was permanent, for those destroyed? Or perhaps you can tell me when YHWH told the Israelites to go into Canaan and utterly destroy the inhabitants, did that judgement teach righteousness to the Canaanites? Were they made alive again?

Also you are ignoring a very important point in Jeremiah 13. Since Universalists insist that whatever God wills, will happen, this passage points out very clearly that what God willed did NOT come to pass. And absolutely nothing has been read into the passage. If necessary, I can quote the verse from the 1910 Jewish Publication Society and the English translation of the LXX.[/b

*alert* strawman *alert*

Some Universalists mistakenly believe that whatever God wills happens.  If this is true, then there are some very curious verses in the Bible (of course, I don't take for granted that the Bible as we know it is an inspired document).

I suppose you'd like to know how I believe that everyone will be saved, and how God's desire for this to happen factors in to this belief in light of my previous statements.

Well, that is very easy.  First of all, my belief that everyone will be saved is not founded upon God's desire to save everyone.  It is founded upon other scriptures and logic.  Even so, I find God's desire to save everyone a strong proof that universalism is accurate.  You see, God could not, without violating free-will, force people to act a certain way.  Thus, God's desire for people to act a certain way sometimes goes unfulfilled.  However, if God desires all to be saved, He need only wait.  Since God has all eternity and people who are saved are (eventually) in a state where they cannot be unsaved (I think we can all agree on that), then eventually all will be saved.  In other words, God's desire for everyone to be saved clashes with the idea that God would make an offer of salvation and then put a time limit on it (the human life span in other words).

Today at 04:55 AM OldShepherd said this in Post #350

Irrelevant but no.

Click to expand...

It is quite relevant.  If you were a Calvinist, exposing the absurdity of your doctrine would be much easier.  Since your answer is no, the subject of Calvinism (pre destination in particular) is moot.  Of course, I'd be curious to know what you make of the predistination passages in the New Testament.

I'm tired, but maybe I'll find some scriptures for you to think about soon.

Also, I should clarify that I do not believe that "Hell" (a place of punishment after death) does not exist, just that Hell as traditionally understood (a place of eternal torture after death) does not exist.

MizDoulos · Apr 20, 2003

A reminder to all to stay objective and refrain from putting down any Christian group. Thank you.

[notroll][/notroll]

OldShepherd · Apr 20, 2003

Today at 03:01 PM Rize said this in Post #351

You misunderstood me.  I was not talking about translation, but understanding of the correct translation (whatever that is).

Here is your previous reply to which I posted Jeremiah 13 in response.

"Now concerning your counter arguments, you do realize that those verses do not have to be understood in the way that you understand them. It may seem like it, but you've probably been reading into the Bible for a very long time."

So once again I ask, show me how the verses I quoted do not have to be understood in the way I understand them, and how am I reading into those verses?

As for the ancient Hebrew's understanding, according to Jesus, they didn't do a very good job of understanding their own scripture in His day.

Jesus told His followers to do everything the Jewish leaders told them but not to do the things they did.

Matt 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

And as for early Christians, every Christian group has their own version of what "early Christians" believed.  As far as I knew though, the majority of people who called themselves Christians in the first 5 centuries were universalists.  As for which ones actually were Christians, that is a debate that cannot be settled by us.

Well I don't know how far you know but NONE of the early church fathers in the first three centuries were Universalists. Particularly Ignatius and Polycarp, disciples of John and Irenaeus a disciple of Polycarp. Click this [Link] to my post, on this thread, five days ago, quoting these three and several others.

As for which ones were Christian, all of the fathers listed at this site were and are considered Christian.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/

And you know what, you very well may be wrong in some aspects of your ability to translate Hebrew and Greek into English.

Which is why I trust and rely on the acknowledged experts in the Biblical languages. For example, The Theological Word Book of the O.T. (TWOT), Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew lexicon (BDB), Theological Dictionary of the N.T. (TDNT), Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker lexicon of the N.T. (BAGD). All of which I own.

First of all, translating the words and meaning of one language into another is never a decisive business, and second, there is not a unanimous opinion on Biblical translation in the first place.

This is the universal cry of all the false unorthodox doctrines in the world. Get in line, LDS, JW, WWCG, etc. Usually proclaimed by people who do not have the foggiest idea of what they are talking about. If that were true then no nation in the world would be able to communicate with any other nation. And we know that to be false.

In other words, leave the argument from authority at the door.

In that case leave ALL your arguments at the door. I do not care to hear the latest twisted scriptures from the latest fad religion, without any basis in fact or history.

I'm quite certain that you know more about Hebrew and Greek than I do, but that does not mean that your ability to translate it is flawless.

You are quite right and I know that your Universalist belief is absolutely NOT flawless. Quite the opposite.

400 years after Israel's last prophet, Jesus came on the scene and testified to great misunderstandings of the scripture by the Jewish teachers of law (Pharisees).

This is a copout. See my above quote.

Christians have been around for 2000 years.  That just makes me even more suspicious.  Especially considering that there are hundreds (thousands?) of denominations and an uncountable number of non-denominational churches (each with their own set of doctrines). With everything that these various churches don't agree on, should I simply believe that something is true because they agree on it?

And I am more than suspicious about Universalism which has only been around for about 100 years.

*alert* strawman *alert*

Some Universalists mistakenly believe that whatever God wills happens.  If this is true, then there are some very curious verses in the Bible (of course, I don't take for granted that the Bible as we know it is an inspired document).

Oh you are going to tell us where it is inspired and where it isn't? No koolaid for me thank you.

I suppose you'd like to know how I believe that everyone will be saved, and how God's desire for this to happen factors in to this belief in light of my previous statements.

Well, that is very easy.  First of all, my belief that everyone will be saved is not founded upon God's desire to save everyone.  It is founded upon other scriptures and logic.  Even so, I find God's desire to save everyone a strong proof that universalism is accurate.

So far that is circular reasoning. As for logic, read Isaiah 55:8-9. Is it logical for a man dead four days to get up a live?

However, if God desires all to be saved, He need only wait.  Since God has all eternity and people who are saved are (eventually) in a state where they cannot be unsaved (I think we can all agree on that), then eventually all will be saved.

And we still have these passages to deal with. Note, Jesus said "Not every one shall enter the kingdom of heaven" Exactly what about "NOT" is unclear?

Matthew 7:21 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.

Heb 3:8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.
10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.
11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)

Psalms 95:9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work.
10 Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways:
11 Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest.

1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Gal 5:21 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.

In other words, God's desire for everyone to be saved clashes with the idea that God would make an offer of salvation and then put a time limit on it (the human life span in other words).

No clash at all, because not only is God a God of mercy, love, and patience, as you appear to claim, He is also a God of justice.

Of course, I'd be curious to know what you make of the predistination passages in the New Testament.

Simple, man has the ability to make choices. Some choose the broad way that leads to destruction.

Matt 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Also, I should clarify that I do not believe that "Hell" (a place of punishment after death) does not exist, just that Hell as traditionally understood (a place of eternal torture after death) does not exist.

Some of those verses you might want to look up are the passages in Revelation which speak of the lake of fire.

Rize · Apr 20, 2003

I have bolded your writing.

So once again I ask, show me how the verses I quoted do not have to be understood in the way I understand them, and how am I reading into those verses?

When you see a verse that mentions destruction, you apparently assume that it is irreversible.  You are also assuming (apparently) that "destruction" means "being tormented forever".  Those are unnecessary assumptions.

Jesus told His followers to do everything the Jewish leaders told them but not to do the things they did.

That is a matter of doing.  It concerns actions and not beliefs.  My statements were not a copout.  Additionally, the leaders would have told the Jews to follow the Mosaic Law which Christians do not follow.

NONE of the early church fathers in the first three centuries were Universalists.

Define "church father".  Wasn't Origin considered a church father and wasn't he a universalist?  This is not my area of expertise and I cannot post links anymore, so I don't really want to get into it (especially since what other people believed 2000 to 1500 years ago ultimately does not decide doctrine for anyone).  I intend to do my own research into the early church fathers soon.  Until that time, let's leave this subject alone.

As for which ones were Christian, all of the fathers listed at this site were and are considered Christian.

You missed the point.  You probably don't consider me a Christian.  That was my point.  Who is and isn't a Christian changes drastically depending on what Christian you talk to.

Which is why I trust and rely on the acknowledged experts in the Biblical languages.

Acknowledged experts make mistakes.  There are many acknowledged experts on various opposing sides of many debates (including the validity of Christianity).  Forgive me if I don't implicitly trust the acknowledged experts.

This is the universal cry of all the false unorthodox doctrines in the world. Get in line, LDS, JW, WWCG, etc. Usually proclaimed by people who do not have the foggiest idea of what they are talking about. If that were true then no nation in the world would be able to communicate with any other nation. And we know that to be false.

There is a fancy name for this type of fallacious argument.  By explicitly associating my beliefs with those of other organizations which you associate with being cults, you can then dismiss my beliefs with them without actually addressing anything.  You also threw another strawman in for good measure.  Univeralism is not a cult, it is a doctrine (the doctrine being that eventually everyone will be saved; you cannot accurately take anything else from the title "universalist" alone).

Now, when did I say that we could not communicate with people of other languages?  You see, in our current society, there are people who are bilingual and can thus bridge the gap between two languages.  Even so, things do not convey between languages perfectly.  For example, subtle things like the phonetic likeness between "two", "too" and "to" do not translate properly to another language (most of which would have phonetically distinct words for each of those words).  This does not prevent us from communicating, but something gets lost in the translation every time (in this case, word play does not translate very well at all).  The problem is magnified with ancient languages that no one alive fully understands.  An example from Greek is the word we translate as "life" and "soul" in the New Testament which comes from a single Greek word.  English readers do not know that these words are translated from the same Greek word and they do not realize that there is not hard and fast rule to decide which translation is right (if any); there is only context (correct me if I'm wrong).  The Bible contains expressions of speech which makes this even more important.  And I chose this example because there are many cases where it is important.  Various popular english translations translate that Greek word differently (though modern translations seem to agree more with each other than with the KJV).

And I am more than suspicious about Universalism which has only been around for about 100 years.

You've got to be kidding.  As I mentioned above, Origin's universalism was condemned by later church councils composed of people who believed in eternal torment.  Origen lived in the third century if I'm not mistaken.  Show me one reputable source that discredits this information (and then I'll send it to some universalists whose websites I cannot link to here).

So far that is circular reasoning. As for logic, read Isaiah 55:8-9. Is it logical for a man dead four days to get up a live?

Circular reasoning?  Where?  I said that my belief comes from the Bible and logic.  Where do yours come from?  If my reasoning came from the Bible alone, it would be circular (because belief that the Bible/scripture is infallible is found only in the Bible).  Thus outside information (logic) is required to prevent it from being circular.  Which is why I mentioned it.

And you would do well to take the advice of Isaiah 55:8-9 yourself.

As for a man dead four days getting up to live (I suppose you're talking about Lazarus), that is perfectly logical if you accept that Jesus had power from the Father to raise the dead.

Is this logical?  God loves everyone, God is good, God is perfect, and God is omnipotent.  However, God, because he desires people to have free-will, allows billions and billions of souls to risk endless misery so that a fraction can (somehow) enjoy eternal happiness (while the rest are tormented forever).

If those are God's ways, then His ways are not higher than my ways.  It is plain to anyone that the best thing God could do is somehow rehabilitate all sinners.  Even if it takes a million years.  Why can't God do this?  Because people only live to be 100 or so?  That's God's fault not ours.  This is why I said that logic plays a part in my belief.  Logic prevents me from accepting your version of Christianity.  And this logic doesn't rest on scientific "facts", but principles of love that should be clear to any human being.  God is love.

"And we still have these passages to deal with. Note, Jesus said "Not every one shall enter the kingdom of heaven" Exactly what about "NOT" is unclear?"

Nothing.  You simply misunderstand what Jesus meant by "the Kingdom of Heaven".  Have you ever heard of preterists?  I don't agree with them on all points, but they have some very good ones.  Remember, when John wrote Revelation, he said that the time was near and at hand.  John the Baptist preached repentence because the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand...

I should also point out that Mathew 7:21, 1 Cor 6:9 and Gal 5:21 simply indicate that certain things must be done (repentance for example) before one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven.  And concerning Hebrews 3:8, surely you know that the author is referring to the Israelites who wandered the desert for 40 years until all who rebelled against God died of old age and sickness.  "they shall not enter into my rest" is referring to their entrance into the promised land.  And Moses did not enter into it either, yet he was with Elijah at the transfiguration.

No clash at all, because not only is God a God of mercy, love, and patience, as you appear to claim, He is also a God of justice.

I'm so glad you mentioned justice.  Maybe now you'll share with me one of those wonderful explanations about how it's just to torment people forever and ever for a finite lifetime of sins.  I'm sorry, but that is not justice by any reasonable standard.  Justice is righting wrongs (and perhaps preventing future wrongs from occuring).  How exactly does tormenting a person forever right the wrongs that they did?  

And you'll agree that we cannot earn God's infinite favor (grace) and forgiveness, how can we earn His infinite wrath?  Unless of course God is unjust in which case He can bring as much wrath on anyone for anything.  Eternal torment is about as far from justice as is possible.  It is infinitely unjust.  And on the subject of justice, isn't fairness part of the same discussion?  Is it fair for some people to be born into Christian families and some into Muslim families?  Just look at the percentage of practicing Christians in middle-eastern countries verses Christian country "X".  It should be clear that there is not an even distribution of Christians throughout the world (even if you filter out the people who look like Christians but aren't really).  Is this fair?

That was another strawman by the way.  Universalists do not deny God's sense of justice, we only deny that God's sense of justice requires Him to torture sinners forever.  Most universalists believe in judgment.  I certainly do.

Simple, man has the ability to make choices. Some choose the broad way that leads to destruction.

What does man's ability to make choices have to do with what you make of the New Testament's predistination passages?  Perhaps you're simply denying their existance.  I'll dig one up for you (Acts 13:48). 

Some of those verses you might want to look up are the passages in Revelation which speak of the lake of fire.

I'm very familiar with them.  I do not believe that the popular translation of "for ever and ever" is accurate (nor do I believe that it is a literal lake of fire).

Peace · Apr 21, 2003

If those are God's ways, then His ways are not higher than my ways. It is plain to anyone that the best thing God could do is somehow rehabilitate all sinners. Even if it takes a million years (quote from Rize)

Interesting point, Rize.

If Jesus warned us not to limit our love to those that deserve it, then it would stand to reason that God would be all the more exalted by restoring the worst of mankind, no matter how long it takes. Maybe we need to think a little more outside the box.

Do you think that Satan could be restored or rehabilitated? How incredible would that be?

Rize · Apr 22, 2003

I think the worst that God would do to any being is destroy it (annihilate it). However, that is like giving up; something which God (being infinitely powerful, resourceful etc.) has little reason to do (especially with people, since he desires that all be saved). I think that God's plan to restore all things includes Satan... though he may very well be the last thing to be restored. This is certainly not a requisite belief for universalists. Not all go so far as to say that angels are included in God's plan of salvation... The bottom line is that we are not angels and we humans (as a race) have barely gotten a glimpse of their existance.

So in short, yes I believe that Satan could be restored/rehabilitated. With God, all things are possible.

FineLinen · May 4, 2004

Love Inextinguishable & Inexhaustable

"So in a little wrath I hid My face from you for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on you, saith the Lord your Redeemer."

The Prophets and Psalms are full with pictures of the vastness of the Divine mercy, of His tenderness that never fails, never! From the midst of the sadness of the Lamentations of Jeremiah, we hear a voice assuring us that "the Lord will not cast off forever, but though He cause grief, yet will He have compassion according to the multitude of His tender mercies.

"I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth, for the spirit should fail before Me, and the souls which I have made." -Isa. 57:16-

There is a sharp contrast between the short duration of God's anger/ displeasure, and the endless character of His overwhelming love...."little wrath/ but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on you, saith the Lord your Redeemer." Our Lord's kindness and mercy are everlasting! Nothing can separate us from the Love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord, nothing!

Let our hearts dwell on the significance of the fact of the limited duration of our Fathers displeasure, taught in the Old Covenant for a moment.

"I am merciful, saith the Lord, I will not keep anger forever." -Jer. 3:12-

"His anger endureth but a moment" -Psalm 30:5-

"While His mercy endureth for ever" -Psalm 136- [A statement repeated no less than 26 times in one chapter]

"He will not always chide, neither keepeth He His anger forever, because He delighteth in mercy." -Micah 7:18-

If our Father's anger is temporary, how can it be endless? If it endure but a moment, how can it last forever in even a solitary instance or life? How can one teach that God's anger towards the vast mass of His broken creation last's forever, and that His mercy will not endure forever?

The Bible is the story of a Restoration, deeper, wider, mightier than the Fall of Adam, and therefore bringing every child of Adam's race reconciliation. It is not, as the popular creed of unending despair teaches, the self contradictory story of One Almighty to save, and yet not, in fact, saving those for whom He died.

It is the story of infinite Love "seeking till it find;" a Love that never faileth, NEVER, though heaven and earth pass away: a Love that is, from its very nature and essence, inextinguishable & inexhaustable--being the love of a Divine Father. It is the story of the unchanging purpose of the unchanging Lord God Omnipotent.

[move]"We must die and are like water spilled on the ground that cannot be gathered up again. But God does not take away life; instead He deviseth ways for the banished to be restored."[/move]

Robby · May 5, 2004

G4m · May 5, 2004

Peace said:
Interesting point, Rize.

If Jesus warned us not to limit our love to those that deserve it, then it would stand to reason that God would be all the more exalted by restoring the worst of mankind, no matter how long it takes. Maybe we need to think a little more outside the box.

Do you think that Satan could be restored or rehabilitated? How incredible would that be?

Indeed and all creation will worship Him!

Does hell exist?

Senior Veteran

Zaqunraah

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Zaqunraah

Senior Veteran

Zaqunraah

Zaqunraah

Well-Known Member

Zaqunraah

Well-Known Member

<font color=6c2dc7><b>Justified by grace through f

Zaqunraah

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Veteran

Similar threads