• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured Conditional Immortality Supports Annihilationion, Refutes Eternal Conscious Torment and Universalism

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by Mark Corbett, Jul 28, 2017.

  1. Der Alter

    Der Alter This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +2,398
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    Clem what you need to do is PROVE that my statements are not, cannot be correct and that your assumptions/presuppositions are correct. Speculation about alternate possibilities does not refute or disprove anything.
     
  2. Super Kal

    Super Kal Christ is life

    +190
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Constitution
    ClementofA, you affirm universal reconciliation, so you might be able to answer this for me...

    for the sake of this thread i will shorten "secular universalism" to SU and "christian universalism"/"universal reconciliation" to UR, so the comment is more readable...

    SU claims that everyone will go to heaven
    UR claims that everyone will be saved eventually

    now, in the Christian world "going to heaven" and "being saved" are looked upon as interchangeable and mean the same thing... my question to you is, excluding that hell in UR is taught as a "refining fire", how is UR any different from SU?

    both schools of thought teach that you will end up at the exact same place, regardless of whatever sin you have committed... what do proponents of UR justify that UR is more biblical than SU?
     
  3. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private
    What would constitute "proof" to you? Quoting a pope, a church father, the Jewish encyclopedia, BDAG, the KJV, most of which you've quoted before as if they are relevant. Yet OTOH you've also said:

    Then are also all your quotes re Jewish beliefs & opinions irrelevant? And your quotes of church fathers? And opinions of lexicons? And BDAG references to non scriptural usages of aionios? So you won't be quoting any of these ever again, since they are, as you say, "Irrelevant not scripture"?

    https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf
    http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/unique_proof_for_universalism.html

    Checkout the - orthodox - universalism majority in the early church (and a hope for universalism majority in the present day church):

    https://www.christianforums.com/thr...niversalism-since-early-church-times.8042013/

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfund...017/04/indeed-many-universalism-early-church/


    If you think the Bible & the early church & the modern church are all wrong, you will have to prove it.

    If you think Love Omnipotent's love is finite & expires like a carton of milk so He can torture most of His creatures called human beings in fire with immortal worms eating them for all endless trillions X trillions X trillions of eons, forever and ever and ever, you will have to prove it.
     
  4. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Christian Universalism is (1) properly based on the Sacred Scriptures' teachings & that (2) salvation is possible only through Jesus Christ & Him crucified. SU is not Bible based or Christ centered.

    Salvation is by Christ & His blood, not by "hell".

    The Bible says Jesus is the Way to the Father & there is salvation in no other name but the name of Jesus.
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2018
  5. Super Kal

    Super Kal Christ is life

    +190
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Constitution
    I have to apologize, I should of asked you this first...

    ClementofA, can you walk me through what happens to the unbelieving on Judgement day according to universal reconciliation?

    I know what happens when it concerns ECT and CI, and I think I have an idea as to what happens in UR, but I want to make sure so I can get my facts straight
     
  6. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private
    What is your idea? Can you be more specific? Or refer to some Scripture?
     
  7. Super Kal

    Super Kal Christ is life

    +190
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Constitution
    Well, that's just it. I'm not fully knowledgable on what scriptures that those who believe in UR use to support it, besides Matthew 25:46 with the changing of "punishment" to "correction", and acts 3:21 which says there will be a restitution of all things

    I've read comments about UR and listened to those who hold to UR, so im guessing I have a basic idea of what will happen to the ungodly on judgment day... But before I say what I think it "might" be, I would honestly rather hear the explanation from someone, like yourself, who is more knowledgeable about this particular belief than I am, if that's okay with you.
     
  8. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private
    This page shows many of the Bible verses that are often alleged to support UR:

    https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

    And this book may be the best introductory book on the subject:

    http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/unique_proof_for_universalism.html

    Above you refer to Matthew 25:46 which is about a judgement day when some unrighteous ones will be punished. As you mentioned, the punishment of that verse is often interpreted in UR theology as being corrective. The passage also says they will be cast into fire (v.41). There are various eschatological interpretations of Mt.25:41-46, not only among URists, but also among those who believe in endless torments. For example:

    https://forum.evangelicaluniversalist.com/t/my-interpretation-of-matthew-25-31-46/410
     
  9. Der Alter

    Der Alter This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +2,398
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    i can understand the confusion behind the word "aionios", while i personally define it as "age-during" as the YLT translation does, i am willing to still call it "eternal" as it is translated in Matthew 25:46...
    however, the problem i have is how the doctrine of eternal conscious torment changes the word "punishment" to "punishing"... i pulled this from scripture4all.org for reference sake...
    kolasin
    G2851
    noun Accusative Singular feminine
    "kolasis" is not a verb. it is a noun of action. just like redemption, or judgment. someone mentioned Hebrews 9:12 earlier, and i think that is a very good example of how a noun of action works. on the grammar side, you have to apply that same standard to every other noun of action, and that would mean the term "kolasis" is talking about the end result of the action, not the duration of the action.

    Using the above "reasoning" "Life" as in "eternal life" Matt 25:46, is also "not a verb. it is a noun of action. just like redemption, or judgment...on the grammar side, you have to apply that same standard to every other noun of action, and that would mean the term 'life' is talking about the end result of the action, not the duration of the action.
    .....The definition of kolasis from BDAG one of, if not, the most highly accredited Hebrew lexicon available. The blue highlights indicate the ancient sources consulted.
    κόλασις, εως, ἡ (s. prec. three entries; ‘punishment, chastisement’ so Hippocr.+; Diod S 1, 77, 9; 4, 44, 3; Aelian, VH 7, 15; SIG2 680, 13; LXX; TestAbr, Test12Patr, ApcEsdr, ApcSed; AscIs 3:13; Philo, Leg. ad Gai. 7, Mos. 1, 96; Jos., Ant. 17, 164; SibOr 5, 388; Ar. [Milne 76, 43]; Just.)
    infliction of suffering or pain in chastisement, punishment so lit. κ. ὑπομένειν undergo punishment Ox 840, 6; δειναὶ κ. (4 Macc 8:9) MPol 2:4; ἡ ἐπίμονος κ. long-continued torture ibid. Of the martyrdom of Jesus (Orig., C. Cels. 1, 48, 95; 8, 43, 12) PtK 4 p. 15, 34. The smelling of the odor arising fr. sacrifices by polytheists ironically described as punishment, injury (s. κολάζω) Dg 2:9.
    transcendent retribution, punishment (ApcSed 4:1 κόλασις καὶ πῦρ ἐστιν ἡ παίδευσίς σου.—Diod S 3, 61, 5; 16, 61, 1; Epict. 3, 11, 1; Dio Chrys. 80 [30], 12; 2 Macc 4:38 al. in LXX; Philo, Spec. Leg. 1, 55; 2, 196; Jos., Ant. 1, 60 al.; Just.; Did., Gen., 115, 28; 158, 10) ApcPt 17:32; w. αἰκισμός 1 Cl 11:1. Of eternal punishment (w. θάνατος) Dg 9:2 (Diod S 8, 15, 1 κ. ἀθάνατος). Of hell: τόπος κολάσεως ApcPt 6:21 (Simplicius in Epict. p. 13, 1 εἰς ἐκεῖνον τὸν τόπον αἱ κολάσεως δεόμεναι ψυχαὶ καταπέμπονται); ἐν τῇ κ. ἐκείνῃ 10:25; ibid. ἐφορῶσαι τὴν κ. ἐκείνων (cp. ApcEsdr 5:10 p. 30, 2 Tdf. ἐν τῇ κ.). ἐκ τῆς κ. ApcPt Rainer (cp. ἐκ τὴν κ. ApcSed 8:12a; εἰς τὴν κ. 12b and TestAbr B 11 p. 116, 10 [Stone p. 80]). ἀπέρχεσθαι εἰς κ. αἰώνιον go away into eternal punishment Mt 25:46 (οἱ τῆς κ. ἄξιοι ἀπελεύσονται εἰς αὐτήν Iren. 2, 33, 5 [Harv. I 380, 8]; κ. αἰώνιον as TestAbr A 11 p. 90, 7f [Stone p. 28]; TestReub 5:5; TestGad 7:5; Just., A I, 8, 4; D. 117, 3; Celsus 8, 48; pl. Theoph. Ant. 1, 14 [p. 90, 13]). ῥύεσθαι ἐκ τῆς αἰωνίου κ. rescue fr. eternal punishment 2 Cl 6:7. τὴν αἰώνιον κ. ἐξαγοράζεσθαι buy one’s freedom fr. eternal pun. MPol 2:3 v.l. κακαὶ κ. τοῦ διαβόλου IRo 5:3. κ. τινος punishment for someth. (Ezk 14:3, 7; 18:30; Philo, Fuga 65 ἁμαρτημάτων κ.) ἔχειν κόλασίν τινα τῆς πονηρίας αὐτοῦ Hs 9, 18, 1. ἀναπαύστως ἕξουσιν τὴν κ. they will suffer unending punishment ApcPt Bodl. 9–12. ὁ φόβος κόλασιν ἔχει fear has to do with punishment 1J 4:18 (cp. Philo, In Flacc. 96 φόβος κολάσεως).—M-M. TW.
    Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 555). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2018
  10. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private

    The Universalist position does not depend on NT usage holding such a distinction, but only that in contexts where such words occur (e.g. Mt.25:46; 2 Pet.2:9), in reference to Divinely given eschatological &/or postmortem punishment, they are not indicative of vindictive retributive punishment, but rather of a corrective punishing or chastening for the good of the offender.

    As to the "wide gulf" referred to, the following sources allege that the words under consideration were used of corrective punishment before, soon after & at the time of Christ.

    According to this alleged quote of Trench κόλασις, as opposed to τιμωρία, has "more the notion of punishment as it has reference to the correction and bettering of the offender (see Philo, Leg, ad Cai. I; Josephus, Antt. ii. 6. 8); it is ‘castigatio,’ and naturally has for the most part a milder use than τιμωρία. Thus Plato (Protag. 323 e) joins κολάσεις and νουθετήσεις together: and the whole passage to the end of the chapter is eminently instructive as to the distinction between the words: οὐδεὶς κολάζει τοὺς ἀδικοῦντας ὅτι ἠδίκησεν, ὅστις μὴ ὥσπερ θηρίον ἀλογίστως τιμωρεῖται, ... ἀλλὰ τοῦ μέλλοντος χάριν ἵνα μὴ αὖθις ἀδικήσῃ; the same change in the words which he employs, occurring again twice or thrice in the sentence; with all which may be compared what Clement of Alexandria has said, Strom. iv. 24; and again vii. 16, where he defines κολάσεις as μερικαὶ παιδεῖαι, and τιμωρία as κακοῦ ἀνταπόδοσις. And this is Aristotle’s distinction (Rhet. i. 10): διαφέρει δὲ τιμωρία καὶ κόλασις· ἡ μὲν γὰρ κόλασις τοῦ πάσχοντος ἕνεκά ἐστιν· ἡ δὲ τιμωρία, τοῦ ποιοῦντος, ἵνα ἀποπληρωθῇ: cf. Ethic. Nic. iv. 5: τιμωρία παύει τῆς ὀργῆς, ἠδονῆν ἀντὶ τῆς λύπης ἐμποιοῦσα. It is to these and similar definitions that Aulus Gellius refers when he says (Noct. Att. vi. 14): ‘Puniendis peccatis tres esse debere causas existimatum est. Una est quae νουθεσία, vel, κόλασις, vel παραίνεσις dicitur; cum poena adhibetur castigandi atque emendandi gratiâ; ut is qui fortuito deliquit, attentior fiat, correctiorque. Altera est quam ii, qui vocabula ista curiosius diviserunt, τιμωρίαν appellant. Ea causa animadvertendi est, cum dignitas auctoritasque ejus, in quem est peccatum, tuenda est, ne praetermissa animadversio contemtum ejus pariat, et honorem levet: idcircoque id ei vocabulum a conservatione honoris factum putant.’ There is a profound commentary on these words in Göschel’s Zerstreute Blätter, part 2, p. 343–360; compare too an instructive note in Wyttenbach’s Animadd. in Plutarch. vol. xii. p. 776." https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/trench/section.cfm?sectionID=7

    So in favor of κόλασις (or κολάζω) being corrective Trench lists quotes from Plato, Aristotle, Philo, Josephus, Aulus Gellius & Clement of Alexandria. To those we could add early church universalists such as Oregon, Gregory Nyssa & many others. Moulton & Milligan continue to add to that list as follows:

    "The meaning ";cut short,"; which the presumable connexion with κόλος and κολούω would suggest, seems to be the original sense of the word. In the Paris Thesaurus we find quotations for the meaning ";prune"; (κόλασις τῶν δένδρων), and a number of late passages where the verb denotes ";correcting,"; ";cutting down"; a superfluity. Thus Galen ad Galatians 1:1-24 τὰ γὰρ ἐναντία τῶν ἐναντίων ἰάματά ἐστι, κολάζοντα μὲν τὸ ὑπερβάλλον. Of course this may be a derived sense, like that of castigo and of our ";correct,"; but in any case it is clearly a familiar sense during the NT period, and we cannot leave it out of consideration when we examine this very important word." https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/greek/2849.html

    In addition to those, under the section on κολάζω in TDNT, J. Schneider notes regarding "inscr. given by Steinleitner from Phrygian and Lydian monuments of the imperial period" that in "these inscriptions the sins punished by deity are those against the deity itself, e.g. violations of the sacred cultic laws. The deity smites the offender with sickness and infirmity, or even punishes himself and his family with death. The sinner can win back the grace of the deity only by open confession of his guilt. In this way alone can he be liberated from sickness and misfortune."

    TDNT adds regarding Philo's view of the "legislative power of God" that this "power divides into two branches, the one for the rewarding of the good and the other for the punishment of sinners. Philo's view of God includes the insight that in God mercy is older than punishment (Deus Imm.,76) and that God would rather forgive than punish (Spec.Leg., II,196...). Punishment is for those who are not amenable to reason (Agric.,40). Thus punishment may seem to be the greatest evil, but it is to be regarded as the greatest blessing for fools, loc. cit. This is a Stoic view" ("Theological Dictionary of the New Testament", TDNT, ed. G. Kittel, Vol.3, p.815).

    The "New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis" (NIDNTTE, ed. Moises Silva, 2014, Vol. II, p.716-718) concurs with TDNT's remarks above.

    NIDTTE also refers to the 5 NT occurrences of the "derived vb. κολαφίζω" (kolaphizo, Strongs # 2852), "to strike (with the fist), fig. torment". It is used twice of "the Jewish leaders who struck Jesus during his trial before the Sanhedrin (Matt 26:67 = Mark 14:65)." (NIDTTE, p.718).

    "Then they spat in His face and beat Him with their fists; and others slapped Him," (Mt.26:67; NASB).

    There are no indications of an intent to correct Jesus via such actions by these evil human beings. Rather it seems vindictive or sadistic. Likewise with the occurrences of kolaphizo at 1 Pet.2:20 & 1 Cor.4:11, does the "buffeting" or ""to strike (with the fist), fig. torment" have no hint of correction.

    In all 4 cases of kolaphizo mentioned so far, they all are at the hands of men & do not indicate a corrective or beneficial purpose to those receiving such "torments". However, in the 5th occurrence of this word in the New Testament, that changes.

    In 2 Cor.12:7 is the only one of the 5 that refer to a Divinely given kolaphizo (compare Mt.25:46). In this context the Lord gives Paul a thorn in the flesh to "torment" or "buffet" [κολαφίζῃ] him, not as a sadistic or vindictive retribution with no thought of benefit to Paul, but rather for Paul's own good:

    "7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. 8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. 9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong."

    In Matthew 25:46, like 2 Cor.12:7, is another New Testament instance of Divinely given sufferings, usually translated "punishment" (κόλασιν) (v.46) of "fire" (v.41). Shall it not also be, as the Divinely given sufferings of 2 Cor.12:7, for the good of the recipients?

    Clearly the words under consideration are not always used of correction. So in order to determine whether or not their usage in eschatological and/or postmortem passages like Matthew 25:46 & 2 Peter 2:9 is corrective, one must consider the contexts. In that light, therefore, it seems questionable what use there would be in an examination of all of the many ancient Greek occurrences of the words. Will they inform us of the view of the New Testament God of love in regard to how He interprets them in an eschatological context? Or do extrabiblical usages, such as you've cited above, often come under the classification of false gods, fables & myths which are to be rejected, as in:

    "Not giving heed to Jewish myths, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth." (Titus 1:14).

    2 Timothy 4:4: And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

    Do we find out what the real - good - God thinks on a subject by studying what the - evil - false gods think about it? Or how - evil - revengeful, bitter men with sadistic motivations use the words in question? They will punish from their own - evil - motives, whereas the - good - God, Love Omnipotent, always does so from the motive of the betterment of His created beings.

    In support of that there is much to be brought forth from the inspired Scriptures & nothing in opposition to it. There are examples where His wrath, destruction, wounding, punishment, anger and torments are intended for the good of those who receive such. And no examples to the contrary.

    Mat 18:34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

    Matthew 25:46: “And these shall be coming away into chastening(kolasin) eonian, yet the just into life eonian.” (CLV)...1 John 4:18: “for fear has chastening(kolasin).” (CLV)

    The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. Luke 12:47-48a


    http://www.tentmaker.org/ScholarsCorner.html
     
  11. Super Kal

    Super Kal Christ is life

    +190
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Constitution
    oh, i know that other beliefs interpret Matthew 35:46 differently... i simply used that particular verse because i know it's one of the few that i see URs use to support it, even though i may disagree with their interpretation.
    i went to that site that you shared, that says it has an enormous list of verse that "support" UR... while there are a few that i can see how UR can use to show support (even though i disagree), a good majority of those verses have been taken out of context... in other words, they're reaching... and i do mean really reaching...

    ClementofA, you can say
    and you'd be absolutely right, and i would 100% agree with you, because that's Acts 4:12, John 14:6 and many other scriptures... but how can UR teach that when there is no punishment for sin? what about the need for holiness/righteousness? Hebrews says without holiness no one shall see the Lord, but in UR, you can be as wicked as they come, and all you have to go through at the end is a little bit of "correctional fire", and then once you're "purified", you will get saved... from the standpoint of scripture, that is a terrible contradiction.

    i can fully admit that some of the early church taught universalism, like Origen and Clement of Alexandria... i admit they did, unlike others... but, from a patristic standpoint, does the writings from Origen and Clament of Alexandria carry more weight than Irenaeus, who was taught by a student of an Apostle, who said:

    that's straight up CI. not UR.

    in essence, UR says that i dont even have to follow Jesus in order to be saved, because all will be saved eventually, so what's the point of even trying? how do you evangelize this to an atheist?
    in a debate he would destroy you because even he can see the same inconsistency that i see
    you might quote what you did above, but this doctrine still says i can renounce Christ, go back to all of the perversion this world has to offer, and still be welcome in the arms of Christ because "all will be saved eventually"...
    and it's because of that inconsistency to which i cant believe UR to be true.
     
  12. Super Kal

    Super Kal Christ is life

    +190
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Constitution
    DerAlter, is it possible that BDAG could be wrong?

    we can discuss how "aionios" is defined until we're blue in the face, but you need to show me in scripture how the wicked are given immortality without coming to Christ.

    thats my biggest problem with ECT. if the wicked are given immortality, then it should be everywhere in scripture, but the only place i find it is when it comes from the mouth of the devil in Genesis 3:1-4
     
  13. Super Kal

    Super Kal Christ is life

    +190
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Constitution
    and one more thing, ClementofA, how does the "correctional fire" described in UR differ from the purgatory described in Roman Catholicism?
     
  14. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private
    There are different views re what correctional punishment is. Likewise there are different views among anti-URists what endless punishment is.
     
  15. Super Kal

    Super Kal Christ is life

    +190
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Constitution
    that's not really answering the question, now is it...
    if you dont know, then simply say you dont know.
    i wont hold that against you
     
  16. Der Alter

    Der Alter This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +2,398
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    Ah yes the old "The source 'could be wrong,'" dodge. That something "could be wrong" is not the same as proving that it is in fact wrong. If you want to prove that BDAG, or any other Greek language source, is wrong then I suggest you get an advanced degree or 2 in Greek and about 2 decades of study and research then you might have the qualifications to determine that a Greek language source could be in error. Let me know when that happens.
    <SKal>we can discuss how "aionios" is defined until we're blue in the face, but you need to show me in scripture how the wicked are given immortality without coming to Christ.
    thats my biggest problem with ECT. if the wicked are given immortality, then it should be everywhere in scripture, but the only place i find it is when it comes from the mouth of the devil in Genesis 3:1-4
    <end>
    We can discuss the definition of "Aionios," or any other Greek word, only when you have the necessary qualifications. The meaning of any Greek word in the NT cannot be determined by only one or two verses.
    .....Consider this, there are three words translated "life" in the NT; zoe, bios and psuche. "Aionios" is only ever used with "zoe." Since you choose to ignore everything I post, evidently because you think that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't know what they are talking about. Here is even more for you to ignore. Is it possible that the unrighteous, unrepentant can have some sort of conscious awareness after death as these passages show?
    …..In Isa 14 there is a long passage about the king of Babylon dying, according to many the dead know nothing. They are supposedly annihilated, destroyed, pfft, gone! But God, Himself, speaking, these dead people in שאול/sheol, know something, they move, meet the dead coming to sheol, stir up, raise up, speak and say, etc.

    Isa 14:9-11 (KJV)
    9) Hell [שאול ] from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.

    10) All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?
    11) Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, [שאול] and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.

    [ . . . ]
    22) For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD.
    In this passage God, himself is speaking, and I see a whole lot of shaking going on, moving, rising up, and speaking in . These dead people seem to know something, about something. We know that verses 11 through 14 describe actual historical events, the death of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.
    …..Some will argue that this passage is figurative because fir trees don’t literally rejoice, vs. 8. They will argue that the passage must be figurative since God told Israel “take up this proverb against the king of Babylon.” vs. 4. The occurrence of one figurative expression in a passage does not prove that anything else in the passage is figurative.
    …..The Hebrew word שאול/mashal translated “proverb” does not necessarily mean something is fictional. For example, Israel did not become fictional when God made them a mashal/proverb in 2 Chronicles 7:20, Psalms 44:14, and Jeremiah 24:9.

    …..Here is another passage where God, Himself, is speaking and people who are dead in sheol, speaking, being ashamed, comforted, etc.

    Ezek 32:18-22, 30-31 (KJV)
    18) Son of man, [Ezekiel] wail for the multitude of Egypt, and cast them down, even her, and the daughters of the famous nations, unto the nether parts of the earth, with them that go down into the pit.
    19) Whom dost thou pass in beauty? go down, and be thou laid with the uncircumcised.
    20) They shall fall in the midst of them that are slain by the sword: she is delivered to the sword: draw her and all her multitudes.
    21) The strong among the mighty shall speak to him out of the midst of hell [שאול] with them that help him: they are gone down, they lie uncircumcised, slain by the sword.

    22) Asshur is there and all her company: his graves are about him: all of them slain, fallen by the sword::[ . . . ]
    Eze 32:30-31
    (30) There be the princes of the north, all of them, and all the Zidonians, which are gone down with the slain; with their terror they are ashamed of their might; and they lie uncircumcised with them that be slain by the sword, and bear their shame with them that go down to the pit.
    (31) Pharaoh shall see them, and shall be comforted over all his multitude, even Pharaoh and all his army slain by the sword, saith the Lord GOD.
    Jesus speaking, in the NT a dead man in Hades had eyes, was in torment, saw Abraham, “cried and said,” asked for water, begged Abraham, etc.
    Luk 16:22-28
    (22) And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
    (23) And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
    (24) And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
    (25) But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
    (26) And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
    (27) Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
    (28) For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

     
  17. Der Alter

    Der Alter This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +2,398
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    ..<ClemA>
    According to this alleged quote of Trench κόλασις, as opposed to τιμωρία, has "more the notion of punishment as it has reference to the correction and bettering of the offender (see Philo, Leg, ad Cai. I; Josephus, Antt. ii. 6. 8); it is ‘castigatio,’ and naturally has for the most part a milder use than τιμωρία. Thus Plato (Protag. 323 e) joins κολάσεις and νουθετήσεις together: and the whole passage to the end of the chapter is eminently instructive as to the distinction between the words: οὐδεὶς κολάζει τοὺς ἀδικοῦντας ὅτι ἠδίκησεν, ὅστις μὴ ὥσπερ θηρίον ἀλογίστως τιμωρεῖται, ... ἀλλὰ τοῦ μέλλοντος χάριν ἵνα μὴ αὖθις ἀδικήσῃ; the same change in the words which he employs, occurring again twice or thrice in the sentence; with all which may be compared what Clement of Alexandria has said, Strom. iv. 24; and again vii. 16, where he defines κολάσεις as μερικαὶ παιδεῖαι, and τιμωρία as κακοῦ ἀνταπόδοσις. And this is Aristotle’s distinction (Rhet. i. 10): διαφέρει δὲ τιμωρία καὶ κόλασις· ἡ μὲν γὰρ κόλασις τοῦ πάσχοντος ἕνεκά ἐστιν· ἡ δὲ τιμωρία, τοῦ ποιοῦντος, ἵνα ἀποπληρωθῇ: cf. Ethic. Nic. iv. 5: τιμωρία παύει τῆς ὀργῆς, ἠδονῆν ἀντὶ τῆς λύπης ἐμποιοῦσα. It is to these and similar definitions that Aulus Gellius refers when he says (Noct. Att. vi. 14): ‘Puniendis peccatis tres esse debere causas existimatum est. Una est quae νουθεσία, vel, κόλασις, vel παραίνεσις dicitur; cum poena adhibetur castigandi atque emendandi gratiâ; ut is qui fortuito deliquit, attentior fiat, correctiorque. Altera est quam ii, qui vocabula ista curiosius diviserunt, τιμωρίαν appellant. Ea causa animadvertendi est, cum dignitas auctoritasque ejus, in quem est peccatum, tuenda est, ne praetermissa animadversio contemtum ejus pariat, et honorem levet: idcircoque id ei vocabulum a conservatione honoris factum putant.’ There is a profound commentary on these words in Göschel’s Zerstreute Blätter, part 2, p. 343–360; compare too an instructive note in Wyttenbach’s Animadd. in Plutarch. vol. xii. p. 776." https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/trench/section.cfm?sectionID=7<end>
    Now let us read the rest of the article from BLB which was omitted, evidently because it didn't fit the UR agenda.
    It would be a very serious error, however, to attempt to transfer this distinction in its entireness to the words as employed in the N. T. The κόλασις αἰώνιος of Matt. 25:46, as it is plain, is no merely corrective, and therefore temporary, discipline; cannot be any other than the ἀθάνατος τιμωρία (Josephus, B. J. ii. 8. II; cf. Antt. xviii. 1. 3, εἰργμὸς ἀΐδιος), the ἀϊδίοι τιμωρίαι (Plato, Ax. 372 a), with which the Lord elsewhere threatens finally impenitent men (Mark 9:43-48); for in proof that κόλασις with κολάζεσθαι had acquired in Hellenistic Greek this severer sense, and was used simply as ‘punishment’ or ‘torment,’ with no necessary underthought of the bettering through it of him who endured it, we have only to refer to such passages as the following: Josephus, Antt. xv. 2. 2; Philo, De Agric. 9; Mart. Polycar. 2; 2 Macc. 4:38; Wisd. 19:4; and indeed to the words of St. Peter himself (2 Ep. 2:9). This much, indeed, of Aristotle’s distinction still remains, and may be recognized in the scriptural usage of the words, that in κόλασις the relation of the punishment to the punished, in τιμωρία to the punisher, is predominant.
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/trench/section.cfm?sectionID=7
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2018
  18. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Who said that in UR there is no punishment for sin? Of course there is punishment for sin. It's just not the endless, sadistic, pointless, hopeless, useless, insane, tortures of a madman...or an endless Hitler-like gas chamber as in the endless annihilation theory.

    I see no contradiction. Furthermore, who said it's just a little bit of correctional fire, i.e. "hell"? Hell is sufficiently horrible that Jesus repeatedly warned about. Consider this:

    Re "never" (Mt.7:23, etc)...this word appears to occur 16 times in the NT & it seems that it never means anything except "never". It is used of "love never fails" (1 Cor.13:8). It also occurs in Mt.7:23 where Jesus says "I never knew you; depart you from Me, those working lawlessness." Which is such an incredibly lame remark, if Love Omnipotent believed in endless torments. If He believed that such an unspeakably horrific final destiny awaits the wicked, including those He was referring to in Mt.7:23, why didn't He make it clear by telling them that they would "never" be saved and/or He would "never" know them? Would that not have been clear & unambiguous, unlike the words He spoke, & unlike the ambiguous aion & aionios, which often refer to finite duration in ancient Koine Greek? OTOH consider re the use of the word "never":

    "Philo saith, “The punishment of the wicked person is, ζην αποθανοντα αει, to live for ever dying, and to be for ever in pains, and griefs, and calamities that never cease..." http://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/mark/9.htm

    Yet Scripture - never - uses such language. Moreover, it speaks of death being abolished, not being "for ever".

    I think it was a superior word to use relative to the ambiguous aion & aionios, if God was a believer in endless punishment. Moreover, as opposed to aion and aionios (which are often used of finite duration), God had a number of other words & expressions available that would also have better served to express endless punishment, if Love Omnipotent were a believer of such. But He never uses such of eschatological punishment. So the reasonable conclusion is that Love Omnipotent rejected using such words and expressions of a final destiny of endless punishment because He knew better & He rejected the notion that anyone will endure endless punishment. Those words & expresssions are:

    1. no end (Lk.1:33)...this expression is used of God's kingdom having "no end". It is never used of anyone's torments or punishment. We never read of anyone receiving torments that will have "no end". This unambiguous phrase, "no end", would have been a superior choice to the ambiguous words aion & aionion, if Love Omnipotent had a belief in endless torments or annihilation. But He rejected its use in expressing such a fate.

    2. endless (1 Tim.1:4)...Again if Love Omnipotent believed in endless torments, why didn't He use this word to express it, instead of the ambiguous aion & aionion, which often refer to finite durations in ancient Greek usage?

    3. never (Mt.7:23, etc)...this word appears to occur 16 times in the NT & it seems that it never means anything except "never". It is used of "love never fails" (1 Cor.13:8). It also occurs in Mt.7:23 where Jesus says "I never knew you; depart you from Me, those working lawlessness." Which is such an incredibly lame remark, if Love Omnipotent believed in endless torments. If He believed that such an unspeakably horrific final destiny awaits the wicked, including those He was referring to in Mt.7:23, why didn't He make it clear by telling them that they would "never" be saved and/or He would "never" know them? Would that not have been clear & unambiguous, unlike the words He spoke, & unlike the ambiguous aion & aionios, which often refer to finite duration in ancient Koine Greek? OTOH consider re the use of the word "never":

    "Philo saith, “The punishment of the wicked person is, ζην αποθανοντα αει, to live for ever dying, and to be for ever in pains, and griefs, and calamities that never cease..." http://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/mark/9.htm

    Yet Scripture - never - uses such language. Moreover, it speaks of death being abolished, not being "for ever".

    4. eternal (Rom.1:16; Jude 1:6)...this word, AIDIOS, is used of God's "eternal" power & "eternal" chains that bind until the day of judgement. It is never used of anyone's final destiny. We never read of anyone being tormented for eternal ages. We never read of anyone suffering eternal (AIDIOS) punishment. If Jude believed in endless punishment, he had the perfect opportunity at Jude 1:6 by simply adding that the angels would suffer the judgement of eternal (AIDIOS) punishment or torments. Instead of warning his readers of such a horrificly monstrous fate, as he should have been morally obligated to do if it were a real possibility, instead he conveys the relatively utterly lame & insignificant info that these angelic beings will be kept in chains until judgement day. OTOH, consider:

    "Instead of saying with Philo and Josephus, thanaton athanaton, deathless or immortal death; eirgmon aidion, eternal imprisonment; aidion timorion, eternal torment; and thanaton ateleuteton, interminable death, he [Jesus] used aionion kolasin..." http://www.tentmaker.org/books/prevailing/upd3.html

    "Nyssa defined the vision of God promised there as "life without end, eternal incorruption, undying beatitude [ten ateleuteton zoen, ten aidion aphtharsian , ten athanaton makarioteta]." ("Christianity and Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in ..." By Jaroslav Pelikan, p.165 @): https://books.google.ca/books?id=3V...5DMMQ6AEIODAE#v=onepage&q=ateleuteton&f=false

    5. unfading (1 Pet.1:4; 5:4)...Peter uses this word of an endless inheritance reserved in heaven & a crown of glory. It is never used of the endless pain, punishment or torments that anyone will receive. Can it be denied that this would have been a superior word (over aion & aionios) to use to express such a horrific destiny if Love Omnipotent actually had such in store for anyone? Wouldn't He want to express warnings about it in the clearest ways possible?

    6. found no place for repentance (Heb.12:17)...is used in Heb.12:17 of the loss of a finite earthly blessing..."he found no place of repentance, although having earnestly sought it with tears". Never is it used regarding those in Gehenna, Hades, the lake of fire, or eschatological punishment. Never do we read of those cast into any "hell" that they will not (or never) find a place of repentance, even though they earnestly seek it with tears. God was quite capable of expressing such in His Holy Scriptures. But rather than give such a warning, as Love Omnipotent should have if such an unbelievably horrific future awaited anyone, instead we are told of the relatively lame loss of a finite earthly blessing. Such a waste of words if endless punishment were really true.

    7. In Mt.18:6 is the lame warning of a punishment which is compared to mere drowning, which is nothing compared to being kept alive for the sole purpose of being tortured for all the "endless" ages of eternity that have "no end" & "never" cease. Jesus says it is "better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea". OTOH, if He had been a believer in endless punishment, He could have expressed that by saying it is better for them to have never lived, never been conceived, or that their parents had never known (had sex with) one another. Compare this anti-biblical Jewish view that the Lord Jesus Christ, Love Omnipotent, rejected:

    "To every individual is apportioned two shares, one in hell and one in paradise. At death, however, the righteous man's portion in hell is exchanged, so that he has two in heaven, while the reverse is true in the case of sinners (Ḥag. 15a). Hence it would have been better for the latter not to have lived at all (Yeb. 63b)." http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6558-gehenna


    You do have to follow Jesus to be saved, whether it's in this life or postmortem. If you reject Him now & die in your sins, & then go to hell, you will regret it. The many Bible passages about "hell" make it clear that it's foolish to reject God in this life. There will be just payback, not unjust infinite payback, for how people live their momentary finite lives. Atheists can respect this, that the true God, the UR God, punishes justly. OTOH many millions of atheists, as also many former churchgoers/Christians, have rejected Jesus because of the false unbiblical endless punishment portrayal of Love Omnipotent, whom they see as unjust, immoral, sadistic & hypocritical.

    This also raises the question of whether professing Jesus just for "fire insurance" is a true salvation. And does Love Omnipotent wish us to follow Him for that reason, being terrified of Him, or because living righteously & lovingly in Christ & not harming others or ourselves, is the way our conscience tells us we should live. In connection with that thought, consider these words from the Bible:

    17In this, love has been perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment that, just as He is, also are we in this world.

    18There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear, because fear has punishment; and the one fearing has not been perfected in love. 19We love because He first loved us.

    Except you left out the part about "hell" in the UR teaching. It might not be worth it to live an entire long life in the pleasures of sin & then spend a mere 5 minutes in that "hell". That's how bad that "hell" could be. And no one is guaranteed a long life, since we could all die at any moment.

    http://www.tentmaker.org/ScholarsCorner.html
     
  19. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Are you speaking to me?

    You asked:

    "and one more thing, ClementofA, how does the "correctional fire" described in UR differ from the purgatory described in Roman Catholicism?"

    Why do you ask? What is your understanding of "the purgatory described in Roman Catholicism?"

    As i said:

    There are different views re what correctional punishment is. Likewise there are different views among anti-URists what endless punishment is.
     
  20. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Evidently you ignored almost my entire post which refutes the quote you provided. Why? Evidently to further your pro endless tortures agenda. Ignoring others arguments is no way to win a debate.
     
Loading...