Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Saint Steven]

I'm referring to is the jumbled wall of text that gets posted a lot that's supposed to define what gehenna was and or meant in Jesus' time.

Right. It's not a discussion, only a smoke screen. Where is the person behind the curtain?

IGNORE = peace.

 

[Saint Steven]

Yes - we still have the times of sunrise and sunset in the newspaper - but we know that is not literal,

I remember in some of the Star Trek shows/movies, they referred to a 24 hour period as a "rotation".

 

[Saint Steven]

"If you believe, you are saved." That's as definitive as it gets.

Right. That's why it is called faith.

Hebrews 11:6 NIV
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

 

[ozso]

Right. It's not a discussion, only a smoke screen. Where is the person behind the curtain?

IGNORE = peace.

The information exists. The problem is the person presented it in a way that's quite difficult to deciper. So it is a matter of looking past the smoke and theatrics, and finding what's behind the curtain to ascertain the whole story, and or the rest of the story à la Paul Harvey.

 

[Saint Steven]

The information exists. The problem is the person presented it in a way that's quite difficult to deciper. So it is a matter of looking past the smoke and theatrics, and finding what's behind the curtain to ascertain the whole story, and or the rest of the story à la Paul Harvey.

I was thinking something more like the Wizard of Oz. - lol

 

[Hmm]

I don't have any reason yet to conclude Jesus didn't say gehenna. So the plan is to find out what exactly gehenna meant, how it ties in with OT scripture, what meanings and or implications it carried, why Jesus used it etc. I know some or all of those things to a degree already. So it's just a matter of putting it together in a clear concise comprehensive presentation.

However at this time I think it was mainly a reference to 70 AD.

It really is absurd for tranlators to translate the Greek word "Gehenna" to "hell". It literally means "Valley of Hinnom" " so why not leave it as that in the English Bibles and we can argue about what it means afterwards?

It is not the job of translators to behave in this irresponsible way. Translators translate. They shouldn't say “Well, we know what the word "Gehenna" means. It means "Valley of Hinnom" with the Greek word "ge" meaning "valley", and "Henna" is "Hinnom . But who cares? We think it means "hell" so we'll put that in and disingenuously call it a translation."

It's as silly as publishing a new "translation" and instead of translating the Greek word for "Jesus" as "Jesus", it's instead translated as "God the Son". So we'd have for example:

“And God the Son, walking by the Sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen.” (Matthew 4:18)

After all, Jesus really means "God the Son", so why shouldn't it be "translated" to that? Of course that would be absurd but no more absurd than what's happened with "Valley of Hinnom" being translated as something other than "Valley of Hinnom". We need translators to translate, not to create theology for us.

 

[Andrewn]

I'd tend to regard Matthew as an outlier, but think that full UR is going too far (since none of the approaches seems to agree with it). I'm perfectly happy with taking the spirit over the letter, and saying that Jesus' view of God as Father, not to mention his statements that God forgives his enemies, makes Matthew's view of things unlikely.

Should I take your statements to indicate a belief in post-mortem progression and eventual salvation of some people? If so, then what percentage, roughly, do you think would be lost forever: 0%, 1%, 10%, 50%, 90%, or more?

Of course, only God knows this. But I assume everyone has an approximate number in their head.

 

[Andrewn]

I have never claimed nor implied that eternal punishment was the only view. I clearly state that in my posts. My point has always been that there was, in fact, a significant belief in Israel before and during the time of Jesus of a place of eternal fiery punishment

It sounds like you disagree with full UR but may not have a problem with some degree of post-mortem progression for some people.

 

[public hermit]

That response also does not say anything . It's a bunch of politically correct statements that anyone could write. It would waste less paper to just say, "OGK."

It says quite a lot.

1.No one will be lost that can be saved- God is sovereign and the divine will, will obtain.

2. The limits to salvation, whatever they may be, are known only to God- It is not for us to decide who or how many are saved, and certainly not for us to declare some are damned as if the limits of God's mercy are known to us.

3. God is a holy God who is not to be trifled with- We shouldn't be presumptuous as if salvation is a trite thing.

4. No one will be saved except by grace alone- self explanatory

5. And no judge could possibly be more gracious than our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Therein lies hope that the just judge is merciful.

Does it say all will be saved? No, but it leaves open the possibility. More importantly, it doesn't declare that many will be damned eternally as those who support ECT insist on.
That statement captures the inherit ambiguity of the scriptures regarding this question and the revealed mercy of God. I think it's a step in the right direction and away from the long history of presuming many will be damned forever.

I have no idea what is supposed to be politically correct about it, unless you think discussions about salvation are inherently political.

 

[Hmm]

If so, then what percentage, roughly, do you think would be lost forever: 0%, 1%, 10%, 50%, 90%, or more?
Of course, only God knows this. But I assume everyone has an approximate number in their head.

If you're talking approximations then I'd say, broadly speaking, not having the exact numbers to hand, and rounding up to the nearest whole number, an eventual 0%.

Edited further to #4441

 

[Saint Steven]

It is not the job of translators to behave in this irresponsible way. Translators translate. They shouldn't say “Well, we know what the word "Gehenna" means. It means "Valley of Hinnom" with the Greek word "ge" meaning "valley", and "Henna" is "Hinnom . But who cares? We think it means "hell" so we'll put that in and disingenuously call it a translation."

Exactly.
And we run into this all the time on the forum too.

We present a verse that clear helps to explain and support UR. The opposition says, "It can't possibly mean that." (the scripture we quoted doesn't match their theology) Because...

- "It's out of context."
- "You are cherry-picking."
- "There are verses over here that disagree."
- "UR is a heresy."
- "What do you do with the "hell" verses?"
- On and on it goes. (ad nauseam)

 

[Saint Steven]

1.No one will be lost that can be saved- God is sovereign and the divine will, will obtain.

2. The limits to salvation, whatever they may be, are known only to God- It is not for us to decide who or how many are saved, and certainly not for us to declare some are damned as if the limits of God's mercy are known to us.

3. God is a holy God who is not to be trifled with- We shouldn't be presumptuous as if salvation is a trite thing.

4. No one will be saved except by grace alone- self explanatory

5. And no judge could possibly be more gracious than our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Therein lies hope that the just judge is merciful.

I was thinking about these points in a general way this week.

We need to balance what God is capable of with what he is willing to do.

His sovereign will and intentions toward humankind (created in his image) should outweigh what he actually does. His personal standard of behavior and trustworthiness should be FAR superior to ours.

He wouldn't require us to love our enemies if he was planning to incinerate his. IMHO

 

[Hmm]

Exactly.
And we run into this all the time on the forum too.

We present a verse that clear helps to explain and support UR. The opposition says, "It can't possibly mean that." (the scripture we quoted doesn't match their theology) Because...

- "It's out of context."
- "You are cherry-picking."
- "There are verses over here that disagree."
- "UR is a heresy."
- "What do you do with the "hell" verses?"
- On and on it goes. (ad nauseam)

Yes, these are the symptoms of the very strong attachment to ECT that, thank goodness, I've never experienced. I see it as an indoctrination but one that is particularly insidious because, if you're a believer in ECT, as soon as you start to question it, you'll automatically start to feel fear and anxiety about being punished with just that. It's an imprisoning chain that's very hard to break.

 

[public hermit]

We need to balance what God is capable of with what he is willing to do

I think I know what you mean. God has the power to not sustain creation, but is unwilling to do so, perhaps? Is that kind is what you mean?

He wouldn't require us to love our enemies if he was planning to incinerate his. IMHO

Yes. God does not ask us to chose which ones we are to love, but we are expected to believe that God does just that. Be holy as God is holy, so chose who you will love and the rest be damned.

 

[public hermit]

Yes, these are the symptoms of the very strong attachment to ECT that, thank goodness, I've never experienced. I see it as an indoctrination but one that is particularly insidious because, if you're a believer in ECT, as soon as you start to question it, you'll automatically start to feel fear and anxiety about being punished with just that. It's an imprisoning chain that's very hard to break.

I think you're right. Why not be open to the possibility of UR? What is not to like?

Is it fear if I allow for the possibility I too will be damned? If that's the case, eternal damnation becomes the primary motivation; not knowledge of God's love for me or hope for unending goodness and the end of evil, but fear of torture.

I also wonder if some folks just want other folks to suffer forever.

 

[Saint Steven]

Yes, these are the symptoms of the very strong attachment to ECT that, thank goodness, I've never experienced. I see it as an indoctrination but one that is particularly insidious because, if you're a believer in it, as soon as you start to question the idea of ECT, you'll immediately start to feel fear and anxiety about being punished with just that. It's an imprisoning chain that's very hard to break.

In my personal experience, my sense of spiritual security was attended without a fear of either death or hell. I actually was looking forward to the afterlife.

I actually had the occasional daydream where someone had a gun to my head as a threat and I encouraged them to pull the trigger. I was ready to go. I just wanted them to do it right. Don't leave me disabled; blow my brains out. - lol

Being raised as a Damnationist, I "knew" that "hell" was biblical. Who could question that? I was all over it with chapter and verse. I didn't give it much thought until a sister-in-law said she couldn't believe in a God who would "send people to hell". She was raised in a Christian home. The statement seemed contradictory. Who was this God she didn't believe in? Was there really an alternative?

But it got me to thinking about it. How do you answer a statement like that? Claiming it was contradictory didn't help at all.

While I wrestled with the thought, someone on the forum, whom I had a lot of respect for, wrote in a PM that he didn't believe in a forever burning hell. I wanted to know more. That's where my education began. And I fought tooth and nail to get answers. (still under the spell of hell)

When I saw this scripture, a light came on. Not only for ours?

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

 

[Saint Steven]

I think I know what you mean. God has the power to not sustain creation, but is unwilling to do so, perhaps? Is that kind is what you mean?

That's true, but not what I was thinking.

God is capable of destroying the whole world with flood again, but he won't do it. He promised not to. He's capable of incinerating his "enemies", but he won't do it. His righteous requirement is to love our enemies. He wouldn't hold himself to a LOWER standard than he holds us to.

Saint Steven said: ↑
We need to balance what God is capable of with what he is willing to do.

 

[Saint Steven]

I also wonder if some folks just want other folks to suffer forever.

No BIG winners without BIG losers.

 

[Andrewn]

It's as silly as publishing a new "translation" and instead of translating the Greek word for "Jesus" as "Jesus", it's instead translated as "God the Son".

There is actually a new Mainline translation that does something similar:

Mar 2:10 But so you will know that the Human One has authority on the earth to forgive sins”—he said to the man who was paralyzed,11 “Get up, take your mat, and go home.”

CEB© 2011

CEB is the Common English Bible, to be distinguished from the CSB (Christian Standard Bible) that I often quote from.

 

[ozso]

I was thinking something more like the Wizard of Oz. - lol

I was too.