Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Servus]

I was responding to this comment by Hmm, "Does the idea of God punishing anyone make sense anyway? Doesn't He forgive us without punishing us first because that was remitted for us on the cross?"
Maybe you guys should get together and coordinate your stories. Just sayin'.

That was a quintessential strawman. You're also taking the discussion back to ground that was already covered recently, as if it hadn't taken place. Reruns of reruns. That's probably one of the reasons why this thread has been going on forever.

 

[Andrewn]

what would you consider punishment worse than death without mercy?

Sooner or later, we will all die physically. Sure, dying sooner is severe punishment. But this is what good Christian martyrs suffered for their faith, plus torture. What is a lot and incomparably worse is endless conscious torment.

Was God forgiving in Gen 7 when He destroyed everything on the earth; men, women, old, young, children, infants except for Noah, his family and the animals he had on the Ark?
Was God forgiving when He destroyed Sodom, Gomorrah and the cities of the plains; men, women, old, young, children, infants except for Lot and his family?
Was God forgiving when He commanded Israel to go into all the Canaanite cities and destroy every living thing; men, women, old, young, children, infants?

Sometimes it is mercy to remove the evil from the temporal world or to remove the good to limit their torture. But this is not the end of their life. Your view of a monstrous God is sad, but typical for Calvinists who believe that God chooses some for salvation and leaves the rest for ECT.

As far as your long quotations from Irenaeus (130-202 AD) are concerned, I suspect that he was writing against Marcion of Sinope (85-160 AD) or others w/ similar ideas. The gist of the quotations is that, contrary to Marcion, God is the same person in the OT & the NT. In the OT God punished the wicked with temporal punishments and in the NT, He punishes the wicked with otherworldly punishment. This brings us back to the word "aionios" which I understand, along with many scholars, as "otherworldly."

Irenaeus does not contradict his theory of Recapitulation in these passages.

Those, therefore, who cast away by apostasy these forementioned things, being in fact destitute of all good, do experience every kind of punishment. God, however, does not punish them immediately of Himself, but that punishment falls upon them because they are destitute of all that is good. Now, good things are eternal and without end with God, and therefore the loss of these is also eternal and never-ending.

In this passage, punishment is not only described as "aionios" but also "never ending." It will be nice to examine the source of this quotation and the Greek or Latin original. But even if really intended to say "endless," we need to remember that he was describing a specific group "apostates" and that he seems to be talking specifically about the Outer Darkness.

 

[Saint Steven]

Heb 10:26 For if we deliberately go on sinning after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire about to consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who disregarded the law of Moses died without mercy, based on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

29 How much worse punishment do you think one will deserve who has trampled on the Son of God, who has regarded as profane the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know the one who has said, Vengeance belongs to me; I will repay, and again, The Lord will judge his people. 31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

I quoted the whole passage from the CSB © 2017. This is an important passage that has been subjected to different interpretations. The bottomline in the passage is that there will be severe punishment. It does not describe the punishment as "endless" or "everlasting" and the example it gives of the of those who disregarded the law of Moses does not include torment forever in Hell.

Those to be punished are described as adversaries who have trampled on the Son of God, regarded as profane the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and insulted the Spirit of grace. These are absolutely terrible offenses and quite likely most people do not qualify for the punishment under these kind of conditions.

I would add that Jesus said it would be better to pluck out the eye that causes you to sin, or remove the hand or foot, than to go into the afterlife with them. (Matthew 5:29-31) Figurative, obviously. But a stern warning, none the less.

 

[Andrewn]

-

 

[Saint Steven]

• It makes the Bible a work of fiction that paints Jesus as a liar and a deceiver.

(The OP requested “gut reactions”.)

There are three biblical doctrines of the final judgment.
Can you name them?
Do you insist on dividing the Bride of Christ over doctrinal differences?
Perhaps you should be asking questions, instead casting judgment.

Hell - Three Christian Views Lecture by Steve Gregg

 

[Saint Steven]

There is obvious hyperbole in Heb 10:26-31 but one cannot disregard that it is talking about some sort of punishment for adversaries.

Yes, barnacle removal is hard on the complexion. - lol

 

[Servus]

There is obvious hyperbole in Heb 10:26-31 but one cannot disregard that it is talking about some sort of punishment for adversaries.

Hebrews 12:4-11 tells us about the necessity of God even punishing his children.

 

[Servus]

Opps hit quote instead of edit.

 

[Saint Steven]

Hebrews 12:4-11 tells us about the necessity of God even punishing his children.

The ASV (the forum standard) uses the word "chastening".

Hebrews 12:4-8 ASV
Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin: 5 and ye have forgotten the exhortation which reasoneth with you as with sons,
My son, regard not lightly the chastening of the Lord,
Nor faint when thou art reproved of him;
6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth,
And scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7 It is for chastening that ye endure; God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father chasteneth not? 8 But if ye are without chastening, whereof all have been made partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

 

[Servus]

The ASV (the forum standard) uses the word "chastening".

Hebrews 12:4-8 ASV
Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin: 5 and ye have forgotten the exhortation which reasoneth with you as with sons,
My son, regard not lightly the chastening of the Lord,
Nor faint when thou art reproved of him;
6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth,
And scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7 It is for chastening that ye endure; God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father chasteneth not? 8 But if ye are without chastening, whereof all have been made partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

In looking up synonyms for the word "chasten" I came across "settle someone's hash". If that's not definitive, I don't know what is.

 

[Lazarus Short]

In looking up synonyms for the word "chasten" I came across "settle someone's hash". If that's not definitive, I don't know what is.

You never know where the paper trail will take you.

 

[Lazarus Short]

What's to deal with? I replied to Hmm, you asked a question about that post, I answered the question. What am I missing?

"...I answered the question." No, you did not. I ask again:

Please point out how forgiving was part of any of those narratives. I only recall that prior to the flood of Noah, God regretted that He had made man. I don't think forgiving entered into it, those things simply needed doing.

 

[Der Alte]

"...I answered the question." No, you did not. I ask again:
Please point out how forgiving was part of any of those narratives. I only recall that prior to the flood of Noah, God regretted that He had made man. I don't think forgiving entered into it, those things simply needed doing.

You will have to read the post I was responding to to get the connection. I'm not going to quote it here.

 

[Der Alte]

That was a quintessential strawman. You're also taking the discussion back to ground that was already covered recently, as if it hadn't taken place. Reruns of reruns. That's probably one of the reasons why this thread has been going on forever.

Cop-out! Nothing I said is a strawman! I didn't open the conversation why are you choosing me to criticize because this particular point was discussed before? Wait don't tell me he is a fellow UR-ite and I'm not.

 

[Der Alte]

There is obvious hyperbole in Heb 10:26-31 but one cannot disregard that it is talking about some sort of punishment for adversaries.

Cop-out. Typical UR-ite response when scripture as written contradicts one's denominational assumptions/presupposition, blow it off as S.P.A.M.-Fig, i.e. symbolic, poetic, allegory, metaphor, figurative anything but literal.
So in your opinion God really didn't mean what He said in Heb 10:30-31 He was using hyperbole

Hebrews 10:30-31
30 For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people."
31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.​

Where does God say e.g. "Don't worry, everybody is going to be saved even after death?"

 

[Fervent]

Do you agree with every doctrine and practice that was formed by taking the Bible at face value?

I'm not sure what the question is, exactly. Do I agree with every doctrine that purports to take the Bible at face value? No. Does every doctrine I believe in require support of a face value reading? Yes.

If that's the case, why are there so many different doctrines? Why are there so many debates all throughout CF about what the Bible says?

There's considerable agreement among those who take the Bible literal. There are so many doctrines and disagreements because most are simply looking to the Bible as a prop for what they want to believe rather than looking to determine what the Bible says in its own voice.

 

[Servus]

I'm not sure what the question is, exactly. Do I agree with every doctrine that purports to take the Bible at face value? No. Does every doctrine I believe in require support of a face value reading? Yes.

Most likely those who don't accept those doctrines would disagree with you on that.

There's considerable agreement among those who take the Bible literal. There are so many doctrines and disagreements because most are simply looking to the Bible as a prop for what they want to believe rather than looking to determine what the Bible says in its own voice.

You and I might agree on all points, except one or two. The point is I'm sure there's a few points of doctrine we both agree on, that others (who read and study the Bible and don't use it as a prop) disagree on. I don't think it's as cut and dry as you seem to be making it out to be.

 

[Der Alte]

So has Charles Stanley. Yes somehow he's wrong and you're right. Put another way, what you say against others, can be said against you.

I have already responded about Stanley. I quoted two scholars who both said Hebrews 10 says what it means and means what it says and I can quote other scholars.

He was asking a question.

So in you opinion the question was just nonsense? There was actually no punishment worse than death without mercy? The writer of Hebrews was just speaking about an imaginary boogey man?
Heb 10:30-31 says otherwise

Hebrews 10:30-31
30 For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[Deu 32:35] and again, "The Lord will judge his people."[Deu 32:36]
31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.​

I guess in your view these words don't mean exactly what they say? "It is not a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. God will not avenge, God will not repay?"
And coupled with the preceding verses the question was not an empty one.

So far you've been avoiding giving an explanation of how you reached your conclusions. I'm not even saying you're wrong. I'm just asking you to expound some.

I read the verses, I believe what they say unlike some I don't invent figurative language to make the verses support some assumptions/presuppositions. In many instances I quote lexicons and other sources to support what I say.

 

[Andrewn]

So in your opinion God really didn't mean what He said in Heb 10:30-31 He was using hyperbole

There will be punishment, severe punishment. Did you forget that I answered this not too long ago in message #4049?

 

[Fervent]

Most likely those who don't accept those doctrines would disagree with you on that.

The doctrinal positions aren't as important as the hermeneutics.

You and I might agree on all points, except one or two. The point is I'm sure there's a few points of doctrine we both agree on, that others (who read and study the Bible and don't use it as a prop) disagree on. I don't think it's as cut and dry as you seem to be making it out to be.

Certainly there are points which people will disagree, but most of the time that comes from things that are ambiguous not being left ambiguous, or places where there is an allowance for diversity being pigeon-holed into a single point. None of that causes issues for the Bible being directed towards common people rather than high-minded scholastics with fancy philosophies.