Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Der Alte]

Instead of dealing with what I wrote, you used your oft-quoted preamble and a few selective verses. Were they out-of-context? Maybe, I don't care to say or to engage with issues of context.
However, I did see what you did in your post #3747 above, where you assemble a selection of (to me) out-of-context Old Testament quotes which seemed to indicate a sheol-level understanding of once you're dead, it's all over forever. Along with that is a New Testament verse having to do with the living. What a mess.

The usual empty accusations. You evidently do not comprehend the concept of context. If you think anything I post is out-of-context, don't make empty accusations, show conclusively that they are out-of-context.
FYI I get my understanding of the Jewish concept of hell from Jewish writings, not scholars. So nothing any UR leaning "scholar" says can show any error in anything I posted. As I have said numerous times there were varying views of the afterlife among the Jews none of which refutes what I posted about the Jewish view of hell.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Is that a fact. Was the punishment that God administered to the all the people of the earth at the time of Noah, proprotionate. There there are all the people killed in Sodom, Gomorrah and the cities of the plains and let us not forget all the people in the cities of Canaan. In all three cases everyone young, old, men, women, children, infants were killed. Was that all proportionate?

It may or may not be for you or I to judge - anyway, I was speaking of the Law, and you were reciting history. It did get you out of dealing with the lack of any threats against the dead, any punishment after death or the dead being freed from their sins. Freed from your sins - what's not to like about that?

 

[Hmm]

And yet there is a fire that is a punitive one.

Being stripped of your delusions and brought back to your senses is usually a very painful experience.

No sinner can be saved after they die so that means those in hell & the lake of fire will acknowledge Jesus is Lord without the indwelling Holy Spirit.

As previously said, that's contrary to 1 Corinthians 2:3:
"Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says “Let Jesus be cursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit."

Jesus told the story of the rich man and the beggar named Lazarus. The rich man asked Abraham to send someone back to the land of the living to warn his brothers what is to come so that they do not suffer the same eternal fate as he was.

The meaning of this parable has been discussed a number of times in this thread. Essentially it's a parable about the misuse of wealth, something which we in the rich West often conveniently forget, and there is no mention of an eternal punishment for the rich man. He can't get out of "hell" while he is undergoing correction but that's no different than not being able to get out of prison while you're doing your time - it doesn't mean you're in prison forever.

I do not know what QAnon is but I never said it was scripture. I was applying it as looking like what the scripture was testifying about.

Good. It's better not to know!

 

[Der Alte]

It may or may not be for you or I to judge - anyway, I was speaking of the Law, and you were reciting history. It did get you out of dealing with the lack of any threats against the dead, any punishment after death or the dead being freed from their sins. Freed from your sins - what's not to like about that?

But you have no problem saying that "aionios kolasis" i.e. eternal punishment is disproportionate although those are the very words Jesus, Himself, spoke.
And according to the Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible [EOB] "aionios kolasis" means eternal punishment.

Matthew 25:45 Then he will answer them, saying: ‘Amen, I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 These [ones on the left] will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Cleenewerck, L. (Ed.). (2011). The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible: New Testament (Mt 25:45–46). Laurent A. Cleenewerck.
http://fortsmithorthodox.org/NEW TESTAMENT.pdf

I will fix that other post my laptop went haywire a it went in the wrong thread.​

 

[Der Alte]

...As previously said, that's contrary to 1 Corinthians 2:3:
"Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says “Let Jesus be cursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit."...

While you have quoted this proof text in context you are interpreting it out-of-context.
How so, you ask. "No one speaking by the spirit of God ever says 'Let Jesus be cursed.'" If someone is not speaking by the spirit of God they will not even be thinking about saying "Jesus is Lord." Wait I know Paul is talking about 2 different people. But can you explain to me how someone who has been punished in fire for any length of time when they are removed from the fire they are immediately going to be speaking by the Spirit saying Jesus is Lord? 60% +/- of people in prison are not rehabilitated and will return and many don't accept responsibility for their crimes. When and how does that change for the inhabitants of Hades/Gehenna? Got any scripture to back it up?
Don't you think all those people in Hades/Gehenna will be saying anything to get out of there?

 

[Hark]

Being stripped of your delusions and brought back to your senses is usually a very painful experience.

Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Reads to me that it will never end.

As previously said, that's contrary to 1 Corinthians 2:3:
"Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says “Let Jesus be cursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit."

That was for the church to discern those sinners among them visiting their church so that when they bring in their practices and their supernatural pagan tongues which are gibberish nonsense, they can weed them out from the assembly. Unfortunately, in these latter days, modern tongue speakers have believed every spirit that comes over them apart from salvation to be of God for why they assume because it does not come with interpretation, then it is for private use. Not.

The meaning of this parable has been discussed a number of times in this thread. Essentially it's a parable about the misuse of wealth, something which we in the rich West often conveniently forget, and there is no mention of an eternal punishment for the rich man. He can't get out of "hell" while he is undergoing correction but that's no different than not being able to get out of prison while you're doing your time - it doesn't mean you're in prison forever.

That is what scripture is saying for those not found having their names in the Book of Life will be cast into the lake of fire to burn forever.

Good. It's better not to know!

For all those wayward and unrepentant believers left behind with unbelievers, they will know what that mark of the beast will be for sure just as they will be warned by the angel that taking it mean the lake of fire no matter what.

 

[Fervent]

I'm sure you know by now after all the years you've dogged universalist threads, that both sides have presented scripture, exegesis, studies of "aionios", ECF writings, theologians and scholars etc. From what I've seen you're just as unwilling to accept their evidence, as they are to except yours. You talk about crickets, yet I've experienced that from you as well on several occasions.

That's not what I've seen. I've seen out-of-context quotes, one scholar's opinion, and a whole bunch of snide remarks and self-congratulatory bloviating. Every time it becomes about the context of the passage, or the linguistic data, the most I've seen in this thread from the UR camp is fly-by-night denials based on studies that they don't seem to understand but hold to simply because they like what it says.

 

[Fervent]

Proponents of the Syrian Pesh-itta version might disagree with you...no, they probably would do so.

All indications are that the Peshitta was translated from the Greek.

 

[Fervent]

These are some great points.

Opponents of UR often cite "context" as a main complaint, yet they ignore it on their own "proof-texts", choosing rather to argue about word definitions.

In reality our views are most often driven by our own presuppositions. We see what we want to see.

No, there's no ignoring the context of Matthew 25. The parable is about judgment, in fact it is the centerpiece in a 3-fold parable telling about judgment(wise brides vs foolish brides, wise servants vs foolish servants, goats and sheep) in a narrative section centered on judgment(olivet discourse). To blow up minor details of the parable and try to claim that's what the parable is about is to entirely miss the context. The central idea is that the goats(which local goats were almost indistinguishable from sheep) would be separated from the sheep in judgment, and the result of that judgment would be eternal life or eternal punishment.

 

[Fervent]

I noticed, while reading the Law that God gave to Moses, that punishments were proportionate, and that the worst sentence for any sin/crime was simple death. Never was a punishment after death mentioned or hinted at. Many, many years later, Paul wrote, "For he that is dead is freed from sin." Romans 6:7, KJV

While there is proportionality, the other half isn't true and it shows a lack of understanding on your part. Often crimes bear the punishment "and he shall be cut off" in addition to bearing a sentence of death such as the Sabbath laws. So "simple death" is not the worst punishment.

 

[Der Alte]

While there is proportionality, the other half isn't true and it shows a lack of understanding on your part. Often crimes bear the punishment "and he shall be cut off" in addition to bearing a sentence of death such as the Sabbath laws. So "simple death" is not the worst punishment.

I have found four passages in the NT which clearly mention a punishment worse than death.

• “woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. ” Matthew 26:24
• “But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.” Luke 10:12
• “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:6
Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.​

 

[ozso]

That's not what I've seen. I've seen out-of-context quotes, one scholar's opinion, and a whole bunch of snide remarks and self-congratulatory bloviating. Every time it becomes about the context of the passage, or the linguistic data, the most I've seen in this thread from the UR camp is fly-by-night denials based on studies that they don't seem to understand but hold to simply because they like what it says.

If you're seeing that from only one side you're wearing blinders.

 

[ozso]

No, there's no ignoring the context of Matthew 25. The parable is about judgment, in fact it is the centerpiece in a 3-fold parable telling about judgment(wise brides vs foolish brides, wise servants vs foolish servants, goats and sheep) in a narrative section centered on judgment(olivet discourse). To blow up minor details of the parable and try to claim that's what the parable is about is to entirely miss the context. The central idea is that the goats(which local goats were almost indistinguishable from sheep) would be separated from the sheep in judgment, and the result of that judgment would be eternal life or eternal punishment.

And it seems the idea that those parables had to do with national judgement on the heels of Israel's destruction had little to nothing to do with it. It seems to get overlooked for the most part that God ended up coming to Israel himself in human form to deal with them on the level he had been through prophets since Moses, one last time.

 

[Fervent]

If you're seeing that from only one side you're wearing blinders.

I see generic accusations coming from those in UR trying to claim a pot-and-kettle situation, but I've seen no specific examples. Care to share some?

And it seems the idea that those parables had to do with national judgement on the heels of Israel's destruction had little to nothing to do with it. It seems to get overlooked for the most part that God ended up coming to Israel himself in human form to deal with them on the level he had been through prophets since Moses, one last time.

There's a common theme, and while national judgment is a part of the equation it's more a moving from a national to a personal level. The entire narrative segment is about judgment, and the division of the two groups and commonality between the 3 parables is judgment. The foolish brides are shut out, the foolish servant is stripped of the little he has, and the goats are sent to eternal punishment. Acts of charity are peripheral, at best. So while the national judgment sets the stage, the movement of the narrative is from the national judgment to the eschatological, final judgment.

 

[ozso]

I see generic accusations coming from those in UR trying to claim a pot-and-kettle situation, but I've seen no specific examples. Care to share some?

The fishing expedition such a great tactic. If I don't waste my time on that, then you can say that's because none exist. And if I do, then you can say the examples I give don't qualify.

There's a common theme, and while national judgment is a part of the equation it's more a moving from a national to a personal level. The entire narrative segment is about judgment, and the division of the two groups and commonality between the 3 parables is judgment. The foolish brides are shut out, the foolish servant is stripped of the little he has, and the goats are sent to eternal punishment. Acts of charity are peripheral, at best. So while the national judgment sets the stage, the movement of the narrative is from the national judgment to the eschatological, final judgment.

It depends on how much of what's said in the Bible one wants to say will take place thousands of years after it was said, rather than it being about impending events of that time.

 

[Fervent]

The fishing expedition such a great tactic. If I don't waste my time on that, then you can say that's because none exist. And if I do, then you can say the examples I give don't qualify.

Uh huh. Sounds like a cop out.

It depends on how much of what's said in the Bible one wants to say will take place thousands of years after it was said, rather than it being about impending events of that time.

As if Biblical prophecy doesn't have both a short range(immediate) and long range(eschatological) fulfillment. Or do you think because thousands of years have passed the Bible is somehow irrelevant?

 

[ozso]

Uh huh. Sounds like a cop out.

You know as well as I do that it's a no win situation.

As if Biblical prophecy doesn't have both a short range(immediate) and long range(eschatological) fulfillment. Or do you think because thousands of years have passed the Bible is somehow irrelevant?

It's a matter of whether short range prophecy is being mistaken as long range.

 

[ozso]

I have found four passages in the NT which clearly mention a punishment worse than death.

• “woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. ” Matthew 26:24
• “But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.” Luke 10:12
• “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:6
Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.​

You left out the part where you show how those verses clearly mention a punishment worse than death, or what they say that punishment consists of, or how long it's supposed to last.

 

[Saint Steven]

Check this out. (new forum topic)

Good tidings of great joy, which shall be to SOME people?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Certainly, but those promises have to be understood within the context they were given before reaching a conclusion on them. No where is universal salvation promised by God, in fact salvation thrughout the Scriptures is predicated on obedience.

The context is God and His glory, Christ and him crucified. That's always the context. And that glory is the consummation of the plan, which is God's Salvation, the raising to life in Christ of the fallen dead in Adam. Not really a coherent narrative for God's glory and a plan coming together if Adam turns out to be greater than Christ, now is it? So is true obedience possible without faith in Christus victor?

Your assumption of UR, but nice dodge.

Really? How does any other eschatology give full credit to God's power? Because any old deity can kill and destroy, satan does that all the livelong day. Only God can truly convert His enemies, by changing hearts and opening eyes.

Yet another ad hominem with nothing of substance.

Nothing of substance...except the word of God. Don't worry, Jesus may not have been looking at you. But seriously, why dismiss that scripture? It's a classic statement of principle of Christian interpretation. That's what the atheists are always getting wrong, demanding that God 'prove his existence' usually in some kind of petty empiricist way that only betrays their pride. As though the Maker of heaven and earth kowtows to the foolishness of their wisdom. Hence a variation on the theme: God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble. It's restated in so many ways. Submit to Christ and believe.