Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[hedrick]

It's a hell of a mess. To me, the EO church has the most clarity on it and their reverence for the universalist Gregory of Nyssa, the "father of fathers, no doubt plays an important part in that; then the Catholic church with its hopeful universalism, and very much least and last the Protestant tradition with its total confusion and ever changing position (from Torture to Torment to Separation to try to make it more PC) on the issue.

The hopeful universalism of the Catholic church seems to be recent. Mainline Protestantism has gone the same way. It's the conservative branch of Protestantism you're talking about. I'd guess that's the main place where you find people who are Christians only because they fear hell. I think there's some question whether Christianity can actually survive without the threat of hell for non-Christians.

 

[Saint Steven]

It's a hell of a mess. To me, the EO church has the most clarity on it and their reverence for the universalist Gregory of Nyssa, the "father of fathers, no doubt plays an important part in that; then the Catholic church with its hopeful universalism, and very much least and last the Protestant tradition with its total confusion and ever changing position (from Torture to Torment to Separation to try to make it more PC) on the issue.

I'm still attending a Protestant church.
Found it interesting that we were all singing about "the savior of the world" on Sunday. How many actually believe what they were declaring in full voice?

I love the worship. (singing) I tolerate everything else. They are fine folks. But I feel doctrinally disconnected at times. There is no hell-fire preaching though. I couldn't tolerate that.

 

[Saint Steven]

We have three conflicting views because Scripture doesn't give a clear answer. The closest to a real description of judgement are 1 Cor 15 and the Rev. But commentators generally claim 1 Cor 15 is really only about the fate of Christians, and can't be used as the basis of a complete idea, and the Rev is sufficiently symbolic that nobody sane bases doctrine on it. Does the pit self-destruct, or is it lying alongside the new Jerusalem?

It might be interesting to consider why Scripture might not give us an answer.

Yes, and taken literally, first Corinthians fifteen is a UR supportive chapter.

 

[ozso]

The hopeful universalism of the Catholic church seems to be recent. Mainline Protestantism has gone the same way. It's the conservative branch of Protestantism you're talking about. I'd guess that's the main place where you find people who are Christians only because they fear hell. I think there's some question whether Christianity can actually survive without the threat of hell for non-Christians.

It's a common misnomer that universalism teaches there's no punishment in hell. What's different is the view that it's corrective punishment that lasts an age, rather than being everlasting torment with no purpose behind the torment other than retribution.

 

[Saint Steven]

It might be interesting to consider why Scripture might not give us an answer.

That's a great idea.
I'm glad you joined the thread today. I value your input.

So, what do you see as the options for why scripture might not give us an answer as a single view of the final judgment? I have a few thoughts, but wanted you to lay out a few thoughts first. Thanks.

 

[Lazarus Short]

It's a common misnomer that universalism teaches there's no punishment in hell. What's different is the view that it's corrective punishment that lasts an age, rather than being everlasting torment with no purpose behind the torment other than retribution.

It's the Lake of Fire - not "hell." Godfire, not hellfire, and God is Love. "Hell" is too theologically loaded to be useful in a UR discussion, IMHO. Anyway, "hell" is a 404.

 

[Saint Steven]

... "hell" is a 404.

That is so funny. - lol

 

[Lazarus Short]

That is so funny. - lol

Funny? I chose "Hell is a 404" as the title of my book.

 

[Der Alte]

The hard way: argue back and forth, with no resolution.
The easy way: use a Bible from the list that has been presented in this very thread, one that does not contain the word "hell."
What's not to like?

That's good advice everybody choose a Bible "version" which supports what they already believe about hell etc. and proclaim loud and long "This is the only correct translation."

 

[Der Alte]

It's a hell of a mess. To me, the EO church has the most clarity on it and their reverence for the universalist Gregory of Nyssa, the "father of fathers, no doubt plays an important part in that; then the Catholic church with its hopeful universalism, and very much least and last the Protestant tradition with its total confusion and ever changing position (from Torture to Torment to Separation to try to make it more PC) on the issue.

Then why does the Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible call Gehenna "Hell"?

Mark 9:45 If your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off! It is better for you to enter into life lame, rather than having your two feet to be cast into Gehenna,(fn Hell) the fire that will never be quenched, 46 <‘where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.’> 47 If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out! It is better for you to enter into the Kingdom of God with one eye, rather than with two eyes to go into the Gehenna (fn Hell)of fire, 48 <‘where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.’>
Cleenewerck, L. (Ed.). (2011). The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible: New Testament (Mk 9:45–48). Laurent A. Cleenewerck.​

This comment is total nonsense. "from Torture to Torment to Separation to try to make it more PC) on the issue."
Learn some truth.
Link: [EOB online]

 

[Hmm]

proclaim loud and long

That reminds me of someone but I don't think it's @Lazarus Short. Who could it be I wonder

 

[Der Alte]

***

<quote=Hedrick>That’s not entirely fair. The word Gehenna does appear, though normally in contexts involving hyperbole or hypotheticals. Just what its implications are is not clear because ideas varied. But it was often, maybe even normally, considered to be eternal. It’s just that people weren’t necessarily thought to stay there eternally. From the citations I’ve seen of the Talmud, it looks like views about it got harsher over time among Jews. Probably the same happened among Christians. Why? I don’t know, but I suspect religious conflict and persecution might be involved. It’s easy to think your enemies deserve to have bad things happen to them. It’s not an impulse Jesus approved of, but it’s easy to understand.
My best source is "Hell and its Rivals" by Alan Bernstein. He makes a case that Christian developments were part of a general development in ideas about the afterlife, occurring throughout the region in all religions. Much of the development had already occurred by the 1st Cent, but it continued.</quote>

***

My best source for the beliefs of the Jews are the; Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and the Talmud.
¢¢…..Concerning only the existence of a Jewish belief in hell not the validity of the historical faith, beliefs, practices etc. of the ancient Jews,
Below are quotes from three credible Jewish sources; the Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and the Talmud. Which to date have not been refuted and I am convinced cannot be refuted.
…..According to these three sources, among the יהודים/Yehudim/ιουδαιων/Youdaion/Jews in Israel, before and during the time of Jesus, there was a significant belief in a place of everlasting torment of the wicked and they called it both sheol and gehinnom, which are translated Hades and Gehenna, respectively, in both the 225 BC LXX and the NT.
…..There were different factions within Judaism; Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes etc. and different beliefs about resurrection, hell etc. These differing beliefs do not refute anything in this post.

[1]1917 Jewish Encyclopedia, Gehenna
The place where children were sacrificed to the god Moloch … in the "valley of the son of Hinnom," to the south of Jerusalem (Josh. xv. 8, passim; II Kings xxiii. 10; Jer. ii. 23; vii. 31-32; xix. 6, 13-14). … the valley was deemed to be accursed, and "Gehenna" therefore soon became a figurative equivalent for "hell." Hell, like paradise, was created by God (Sotah 22a);[“Soon” in this paragraph would be about 700 BC +/-, DA]​

[Note: This is according to the ancient Jews, long before the Christian era, NOT any assumed/alleged bias of “modern” Christian translators. DA]

”(I)n general …sinners go to hell immediately after their death. The famous teacher Johanan b. Zakkai [30 BC-90 AD] wept before his death because he did not know whether he would go to paradise or to hell (Ber. 28b). The pious go to paradise, and sinners to hell(B.M. 83b).
“But as regards the heretics, etc., and Jeroboam, Nebat's son, hell shall pass away, but they shall not pass away" (R. H. 17a; comp. Shab [Talmud]. 33b). All that descend into Gehenna shall come up again, with the exception of three classes of men: those who have committed adultery, or shamed their neighbors, or vilified them (B. M. 58b).[/i]
“… heretics and the Roman oppressors go to Gehenna, and the same fate awaits the Persians, the oppressors of the Babylonian Jews (Ber. 8b).[Talmud] “When Nebuchadnezzar descended into hell, [שאול/Sheol] all its inhabitants were afraid that he was coming to rule over them (Shab. 149a; [Talmud] comp. Isa. xiv. 9-10). The Book of Enoch [x. 6, xci. 9, etal] also says that it is chiefly the heathen who are to be cast into the fiery pool on the Day of Judgment (x. 6, xci. 9, et al). "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). The sinners in Gehenna will be filled with pain when God puts back the souls into the dead bodies on the Day of Judgment, according toIsa. xxxiii. 11 (Sanh. 108b)[Talmud].
Link: Jewish Encyclopedia Online
Note, scripture references are highlighted in blue.
= = = = = = = = = =
[2]1972 Encyclopedia Judaica:
Gehinnom (Heb. גֵּי בֶן־הִנֹּם, גֵּי בְנֵי הִנֹּם, גֵּיא בֶן־הִנֹּם, גֵּיא הִנֹּם; Gr. Γέεννα; "Valley of Ben-Hinnom, Valley of [the Son (s) of] Hinnom," Gehenna), a valley south of Jerusalem on one of the borders between the territories of Judah and Benjamin, between the Valley of *Rephaim and *En-Rogel (Josh. 15:8; 18:16). It is identified with Wadi er-Rababi.
…..During the time of the Monarchy, Gehinnom, at a place called Topheth, was the site of a cult which involved the burning of children (II Kings 23:10; Jer. 7:31; 32:35 et al.; ). Jeremiah repeatedly condemned this cult and predicted that on its account Topheth and the Valley of the Son of Hinnom would be called the Valley of the "Slaughter" (Jer. 19:5–6).
In Judaism the name Gehinnom is generally used as an appellation of the place of torment reserved for the wicked after death. The New Testament used the Greek form Gehenna in the same sense.
Link:
Gehinnom
http://www.jevzajcg.me/enciklopedia/Encyclopaedia Judaica, v. 07 (Fey-Gor).pdf
= = = = = = = = = =
[3]pre-Christianity Talmud -Tractate Rosh Hashanah Chapter 1.
The school of Hillel says: . . . but as for Minim, [i.e. followers of Jesus] informers and disbelievers, who deny the Torah, or Resurrection, or separate themselves from the congregation, or who inspire their fellowmen with dread of them, or who sin and cause others to sin, as did Jeroboam the son of Nebat and his followers, they all descend to Gehenna, and are judged there from generation to generation, as it is said [Isa. lxvi. 24]:
"And they shall go forth and look upon the carcases of the men who have transgressed against Me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched." Even when Gehenna will be destroyed, they will not be consumed, as it is written[Psalms, xlix. 15]: "And their forms wasteth away in the nether world," which the sages comment upon to mean that their forms shall endure even when the grave is no more.
Concerning them Hannah says [I Sam. ii. 10]: "The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces."
Link: Tract Rosh Hashana: Chapter I.​

 

[Fervent]

Then why does the Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible call Gehenna "Hell"?

Mark 9:45 If your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off! It is better for you to enter into life lame, rather than having your two feet to be cast into Gehenna,(fn Hell) the fire that will never be quenched, 46 <‘where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.’> 47 If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out! It is better for you to enter into the Kingdom of God with one eye, rather than with two eyes to go into the Gehenna (fn Hell)of fire, 48 <‘where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.’>
Cleenewerck, L. (Ed.). (2011). The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible: New Testament (Mk 9:45–48). Laurent A. Cleenewerck.​

This comment is total nonsense. "from Torture to Torment to Separation to try to make it more PC) on the issue."
Learn some truth.
Link: [EOB online]

There's also the curious fact that supposed universalist Gregory of Nyssa, when teaching on the purpose of baptism, wrote at some length about the worm that will never die and the need for baptism to avoid perdition. And when commenting on psalm 58 in his work on infant mortality wrote of how the torments of the damned would increase the pleasure of the blessed. As well as explicitly entertaining the possibility that Judas' torment extended to infinity. Of course, why bother reading what Gregory of Nyssa wrote when we can just go with what "scholars" with a theology to push make of him.

 

[Der Alte]

That reminds me of someone but I don't think it's @Lazarus Short. Who could it be I wonder

But for the fact the only version he ever promoted was the Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible. Which OBTW pwns the UR narrative.

 

[ozso]

It's the Lake of Fire - not "hell." Godfire, not hellfire, and God is Love. "Hell" is too theologically loaded to be useful in a UR discussion, IMHO. Anyway, "hell" is a 404.

"Hades" appears 11 times in the NT. The Aramaic Bible in Plain English translates them all as "Sheol".

I find it unlikely that when Jesus was speaking he suddenly went from Aramaic to Greek and said "Hades" instead of "Sheol" in Matthew 11:23, Matthew 16:18, Luke 10:15 and Luke 16:23.

"Hades" appears twice in Acts of the Apostles 2:27 and Acts of the Apostles 2:31, but that's Peter quoting Psalms 16:8-11 so that's definitely "Sheol".

"Hades" appears in 1 Corinthians 15:55 but many translations say "death". The KJB says "grave".

"Hades" appears in Revelation 1:18, Revelation 6:8 and Revelation 20:13-14. And in all of those it appears alongside "death" so it seems likely those should all be "Sheol" as well.

Therefore I'm going to conclude that neither "Hell" nor "Hades" belongs anywhere in the Bible.

 

[Fervent]

Longest thread, ever. Still, no answer.

An answer has been given multiple times, though perhaps not understood. UR renders the cross moot, as it would either spare us from nothing or the penalty incurred by sin is one that is purely restorative making the cross injustly remove us from punishment that would be in our best interest.

 

[Der Alte]

We have three conflicting views because Scripture doesn't give a clear answer. The closest to a real description of judgement are 1 Cor 15 and the Rev. But commentators generally claim 1 Cor 15 is really only about the fate of Christians, and can't be used as the basis of a complete idea, and the Rev is sufficiently symbolic that nobody sane bases doctrine on it. Does the pit self-destruct, or is it lying alongside the new Jerusalem?
It might be interesting to consider why Scripture might not give us an answer.

When read in-context 1 Corinthians 3:15 refers ONLY to Christians. You are familiar with the concept of "in-concept" aren't you.

1 Corinthians 3:9-17
9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.​

These verses clearly show that Paul is not talking to/about all mankind but only to “laborers together with God,””God's husbandry,””God's building” “who build on the foundation of Christ” vss, 9-12.
Paul mentions this foundation three times. Vs. 11 excludes any work not on the foundation of Christ.
The phrases “every man,””no man,””any man,” throughout this passage refer to the group in vss. 9-10, NOT all mankind.

11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon [the foundation of Christ], he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.​

The work mentioned in these vss. is NOT the ordinary, mundane works of all unsaved mankind but the work of Christians building on the foundation of Christ. Man is NOT saved by works.
And vs. 15 does not say anyone is saved by fire. It says, “Yet so as by fire.”

16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.​

Vs. 17 clearly refutes UR in this passage. All mankind is not saved, those who defile the temple will be destroyed.
This passage is NOT speaking about all mankind no matter how UR-ites try to manipulate it.
Nowhere is it written that anyone is saved by fire or that the loss of ordinary, mundane works of unsaved mankind will save anyone.

 

[Der Alte]

* * *

* * * Therefore I'm going to conclude that neither "Hell" nor "Hades" belongs anywhere in the Bible.

The heterodox solution for when the Bible contradicts their assumptions/presuppositions "Change the Bible."

 

[ozso]

An answer has been given multiple times, though perhaps not understood. UR renders the cross moot, as it would either spare us from nothing or the penalty incurred by sin is one that is purely restorative making the cross injustly remove us from punishment that would be in our best interest.

One would think being freed from sin and the law being fulfilled here on earth alone would be enough. It's not like everything the apostles (especially Paul) wrote about what Jesus did for us only addresses the afterlife.

 

[Hmm]

the penalty incurred by sin is one that is purely restorative making the cross injustly remove us from punishment that would be in our best interest.

I'm finding it hard to envisage a scenario where an everlasting punitive punishment would be in our own best interests. Care to give an example of that?