Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Hmm]

Yes, it's interesting that the opponents of UR are concerned about a seeming lack of consensus among UR supporters, but don't consider the fact that Infernalism has a much broader range of differences. As we have noted, both in definition and application.

Yes, ECT is constantly being tweaked to try to keep it in the bounds of respectability. But that will never work because it is wholly unacceptable and needs to be rejected wholesale.

 

[Saint Steven]

It looks like the meaning is to "pay the price" or "take the consequences."

Wow. Thanks for researching and posting this. Really amazing insights here.

For the most part these appear to be spiritual consequences. I wanted to say natural consequences, but these are really supernatural, if you follow me. Because of their idolatry, they were reaping a spiritual consequence (punishment, if you will) or price for their actions.

It's easy to take a historical view of this and feel far removed from it, but I imagine this principle still applies today due to our own forms of "idolatry".

Basically anything that takes the place of God in our lives is an idol. IMHO

 

[Lazarus Short]

That and there's milder versions of it. A lot of what I heard was it just being described as eternal separation from God. And there's the levels of hell. The beast, false prophet, Hitler etc are in the worst part. The girl scout who got hit by a bus before accepting Jesus will wind up in the mildest part. Not that I ever heard it presented exactly that way.

A lot of what you heard was doctrines of men. As DA would say, Rubbish.

 

[Hmm]

Basically anything that takes the place of God in our lives is an idol. IMHO

I agree. Overlaying the man-made image of a Tormenter/Torturer God over the perfect image of God that we have in Jesus, obscuring His love, is idolatry IMO.

 

[Saint Steven]

I agree. Overlaying the man-made image of a Tormenter/Torturer God over the perfect image of God that we have in Jesus, obscuring His love, is idolatry IMO.

I think A.W. Tozer made a statement in his book, The Knowledge of the Holy, that said something along the lines of, Idolatry can be as simple as a misunderstanding of who God is. (from memory)

 

[Hmm]

.

I think A.W. Tozer made a statement in his book, The Knowledge of the Holy, that said something along the lines of, Idolatry can be as simple as a misunderstanding of who God is. (from memory)

Perhaps this?

"The essence of idolatry is the entertainment of thoughts about God that are unworthy of Him. It begins in the mind and may be present where no overt act of worship has taken place."
A.W. Tozer, Knowledge of the Holy

If eternal torment/torture isn't unworthy of God, I don't know what is

 

[Fervent]

Why, then, is every academic theological journal peer-reviewed? Theology, history and linguistics are objective in a sense - otherwise how can you be trained in them?

Because it's hip in the acadamy. And the degree of objectivity is extremely limited, as in all of the humanities. Most of the training consists of learning different theories about semantics, text criticism, etc. There are methods, but these methods are highly subjective even at the elementary level.

If by that you mean the high regard in which he is held in by the theological community even by those who disagree with his conclusions, then of course you are right. I'm not sure what else non-experts like you or me are supposed to do.

Considering I've spent the last 3 years in seminary and have never heard of him, you're overstating your case. The colleges he's taught at aren't highly regarded for their theological programs(I don't mean that disparagingly, they're simply not in the upper echelon of theological schools) and it seems his fame is with a niche audience. We're not talking a D.A. Carson. And even if you were correct in your assessment of him, the argument itself is completely fallacious and your designation of "non-expert" for each of us isn't exactly true since I have been trained at a master's level to conduct word studies. And even more so, considering both DA and myself have provided professional lexicons that refute his scholastic opinion we would be left with a case of dueling experts which if you can't distinguish between arguments leaves no reason to consider his opinion. So on all counts your attempt to foist this guy's reputation as your argument is sophistry at its finest.

Always the ad hom.

Again, that's not an ad hom. It's simply the best I can figure from what I've read about him since hearing about him. An ad hom is an attempt to use something about a person as an argument, but I'm making no argument there except to address your ad hom by trying to make an assessment for myself.

 

[Hmm]

Considering I've spent the last 3 years in seminary and have never heard of him, you're overstating your case

It perhaps it's a sign that you are not very well read outside of your particular remit. David Bentley Hart is a world renowned scholar.

and your designation of "non-expert" for each of us isn't exactly true since I have been trained at a master's level to conduct word studies.

If "word studies", as you call it, is not your profession and you have no published peer-reviewed writings on the subject then you are not an expert on "word studies". If you disagree, how would you define an expert?

 

[Fervent]

It perhaps it's a sign that you are not very well read outside of your particular remit. David Bentley Hart is a world renowned scholar.

His name only seems to come up in regards to UR, with a little bit of interest in his polemics regarding modern atheism. Considering you're not in the field, I wonder how accurate your perception of who is well regarded in the field is.

If "word studies" is not your profession and you have no published peer-reviewed writings on the subject then you are not an expert. If you disagree, how would you define an expert?

Experts simply have the professional training, certainly peer-reviewed publication would be an indication but being trained at a masters level is sufficient for the purposes of this discussion since it is a matter of understanding these high-level arguments which is exactly what master's training is for. But again, even if we hold that neither of us have the expertise my posting of 2 lexicons used in professional language suites which both deny what your single scholar makes it a question of deciding between what mainstream, consensus scholarship says and what this dissenting voice says. There's no reason to prioritize the minority dissenter in favor of the broader consensus, so if expert testimony is the standard the consensus wins.

 

[Hmm]

His name only seems to come up in regards to UR, with a little bit of interest in his polemics regarding modern atheism. Considering you're not in the field, I wonder how accurate your perception of who is well regarded in the field is.



Experts simply have the professional training, certainly peer-reviewed publication would be an indication but being trained at a masters level is sufficient for the purposes of this discussion since it is a matter of understanding these high-level arguments which is exactly what master's training is for. But again, even if we hold that neither of us have the expertise my posting of 2 lexicons used in professional language suites which both deny what your single scholar makes it a question of deciding between what mainstream, consensus scholarship says and what this dissenting voice says. There's no reason to prioritize the minority dissenter in favor of the broader consensus, so if expert testimony is the standard the consensus wins.

That's wrong on so many levels, much like car theft in a mutli-story car park, that I honestly don't know where to begin.

 

[Saint Steven]

.


Perhaps this?

"The essence of idolatry is the entertainment of thoughts about God that are unworthy of Him. It begins in the mind and may be present where no overt act of worship has taken place."
A.W. Tozer, Knowledge of the Holy

If eternal torment/torture isn't unworthy of God, I don't know what is

That's it. You nailed it. Kudos.

 

[Fervent]

These are the 6 verses where "kolasis" is used in LXX. Quotations are from the CSB and are based on the Hebrew text:

Eze 14:3 “Son of man, these men have set up idols in their hearts and have put their sinful stumbling blocks in front of themselves.Should I actually let them inquire of me?

Eze 14:4 “Therefore, speak to them and tell them, ‘This is what the Lord Godsays: When anyone from the house of Israel sets up idols in his heart and puts his sinful stumbling block in front of himself, and then comes to the prophet, I, the Lord, will answer him appropriately. I will answer him according to his many idols,

Eze 14:7 For when anyone from the house of Israel or from the aliens who reside in Israel separates himself from me, setting up idols in his heart and putting his sinful stumbling block in front of himself, and then comes to the prophet to inquire of me, I, the Lord, will answer him myself.

Eze 18:30 “Therefore, house of Israel, I will judge each one of you according to his ways.”This is the declaration of the Lord God. “Repent and turn from all your rebellious acts, so they will not become a sinful stumbling block to you.

Eze 43:11 and they will be ashamed of all that they have done. Revealthe design of the temple to them—its layout with its exits and entrances—its complete design along with all its statutes, design specifications, and laws. Write it down in their sightso that they may observe its complete design and all its statutes and may carry them out.

Eze 44:12 Because they ministered to the house of Israel before their idols and became a sinful stumbling block to them, therefore I swore an oathagainst them”—this is the declaration of the Lord God—“that they would bear the consequences of their iniquity.

It looks like the meaning is to "pay the price" or "take the consequences."

I assume you mis-wrote the opening line, as "kolasis" occurs 14 times in the LXX, 6 in Ezekiel. Second, the CSB translated the OT using the Bibla Hebaica so it's not directly informative on how "kolasis" was used within the LXX. And even if your conclusion were to stand, it's useful in adding to the semantic range but it doesn't speak to how it's used in Matt. 25. If we were to explore the other instances in the LXX as well as the usage within broader Greek-speaking Jewish literature it would be more informative, but Ezekiel's use of it is contextually different from Matthew so there's not much to recommend assuming the same usage.

 

[Der Alte]

Yes, ECT is constantly being tweaked to try to keep it in the bounds of respectability. But that will never work because it is wholly unacceptable and needs to be rejected wholesale.

Logical fallacy but should we expect anything else from UR-ites? I think this is known as poisoning the well. Care to provide some "for examples?" I'm not going to hold my breath.
Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church for 2000 years +/-

ματθαιον 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.​

Maybe the UR faction knows more Greek than the Eastern Orthodox church. You think?

 

[Gundy22]

"Infernalism"
"UR-tes" did DA mistype UR-ites?
David Bentley Hart is who is being argued about?
I gotta keep up with terms.
William Barclay is a big theologian who was an admitted Universalist.

 

[Der Alte]

"Infernalism"
"UR-tes" did DA mistype UR-ites?
David Bentley Hart is who is being argued about?
I gotta keep up with terms.
William Barclay is a big theologian who was an admitted Universalist.

Complain, complain, complain.

 

[Hmm]

"Infernalism"
"UR-tes" did DA mistype UR-ites?
David Bentley Hart is who is being argued about?
I gotta keep up with terms.
William Barclay is a big theologian who was an admitted Universalist.

Yes, do keep up lol!

I've come across the name William Barclay quite often because he's cited by many people as a major influence in their decision to finally cancel their Team Hell subscription and to start seeing God as a loving shepherd who moves heaven and earth to bring back his every lost sheep, but I haven't read anything by him yet. But thanks for the ref.

It's funny how you have to "admit" to being a Christian universalist as if believing that God will achieve His desire of one day being "All in all" is some kind of crime. We live in crazy times.

 

[Der Alte]

* * * It's funny how you have to "admit" to being a Christian universalist as if believing that God will achieve His desire of one day being "All in all" is some kind of crime. We live in crazy times.

All I need from any UR-ite, anywhere, is one verse, two or more would be much better, where God, Himself, or Jesus, Himself, says unequivocally that they, separately or together, will save all mankind, righteous and unrighteous alike, even after death or words to that effect.
Jesus said a lot about the punishment that those who reject Him will receive. Why wouldn't Jesus say just about as much, or more, about Universal Salvation as He did about punishment?
Jesus taught e.g.,

• “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:” Matthew 25:41
• "these shall go away into eternal punishment, Matthew 25:46"
• "the fire of hell [Γέεννα/gehenna] where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die, 3 times Mark 9:43-48"
• "cast into a fiery furnace where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” Matthew 13:42, Matthew 13:50
• “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 [A fate worse than death. DA]
• “Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven. …And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Matthew 7:23
• “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 [A fate worse than death]
• “But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.” Luke 10:12​

[Note: A fate worse than death. DA]
…..These teachings tacitly reaffirmed and sanctioned a then existing significant Jewish view of eternal hell.
In Matt. 18:6, 26:24 and Luk 10:12, see above, Jesus teaches that there is a punishment worse than death or nonexistence.
…..A punishment worse than death without mercy is also mentioned in Hebrews 10:28-31.

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. [A fate worse than death. DA]​

…..“how much sorer punishment,””Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord,””It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” these certainly do not sound like everyone will be saved, no matter what.
…..Jesus is quoted as using the word death 17 times in the gospels, if He intended to say eternal death, in Matt 25:46, that is what He would have said but He didn’t, He said “eternal punishment.”
….The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, see e.g. Acts of the apostles 23:8. They knew that everybody died; rich, poor, young, old, good, bad, men, women, children, infants and knew that it was permanent and more often than not it did not involve punishment.
…When Jesus taught e.g. “eternal punishment” the Sadducees would not have understood it as simply death, it would have meant something worse to them.
…..Jesus attended Temple and synagogues for about 25 years +/-. He undoubtedly knew what the Jews believed about everything including the fate of the unrighteous. He opposed the Jewish leaders many times, if the Jewish teaching was wrong, why wouldn’t Jesus tell them there was no hell, no eternal punishment etc? Why would Jesus teach “eternal punishment,” etc. to Jews who believed,

"The Lord, the Almighty, will punish them on the Day of Judgment by putting fire and worms into their flesh, so that they cry out with pain unto all eternity" ([Judith xvi:17]Judith xvi. 17).
Link: Judith, CHAPTER 16 | USCCB​

 

[Der Alte]

It perhaps it's a sign that you are not very well read outside of your particular remit. David Bentley Hart is a world renowned scholar.
If "word studies", as you call it, is not your profession and you have no published peer-reviewed writings on the subject then you are not an expert on "word studies". If you disagree, how would you define an expert?

I too have trained at the graduate level and I have heard the names of many renowned scholars, read some and bought their books. But I have never heard of DBH until I read it in this forum. Maybe he is only "world renowned" in the world of UR-ism.

 

[Der Alte]

.
Perhaps this?
"The essence of idolatry is the entertainment of thoughts about God that are unworthy of Him. It begins in the mind and may be present where no overt act of worship has taken place."
A.W. Tozer, Knowledge of the Holy
If eternal torment/torture isn't unworthy of God, I don't know what is

It would seem that Tozer doesn't know the Biblical definition of 'idol"
Since you quoted him as an assumed authority you don't either. If one wants to discuss Biblical idolatry don't you think you should know what you are talking about. What you described might be some kind of offense against God but it ain't idolatry.

Exodus 20:4-5​

​

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Deuteronomy 5:8-9
8 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:
9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,​

 

[ozso]

Logical fallacy but should we expect anything else from UR-ites? I think this is known as poisoning the well. Care to provide some "for examples?" I'm not going to hold my breath.

Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church for 2000 years +/-

ματθαιον 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.​

Maybe the UR faction knows more Greek than the Eastern Orthodox church. You think?

I looked up Laurent A. Cleenewerck and I didn't see anything in his credentials or bio that said he is fluent in Greek or a Greek scholar or an expert in linguistics etc.