Good tidings of great joy, which shall be to SOME people?

[hedrick]

I'm not sure why your commentaries have a tendency to apply certain verses to Christians only. They do this with Mat 25:40 & 45 and Rom 2:14 and, now, 1Co 15:50-55! Is this a Calvinist bias?

1Co 15:22 For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

This verse clearly indicated that everyone will be resurrected. Why would the Apostle Paul change his opinion in midstream?

You can’t attribute Calvinist bias to the wide range of commentaries I use. Further, 1 Cor 15:50 ff makes it clear that putting on immortality is victory. There’s no reasonable way to understand those verses as referring to some being damned. If there is damnation, it’s not described in those verses. To get that, one would typically say that 1 Cor 15 as a whole is only about Christians. I don’t think that’s plausible, but it’s better than trying to read 50ff as describing a resurrection that includes damnation.

 

[hedrick]

1Co 15:22 For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Let me try this again. In Christ being made alive makes no sense as a description for damnation. If this applies to everyone it means universalism.

As I'm sure you know, Paul makes statements about this a couple of places. None of my commentators thinks being made alive in Christ can possibly refer to someone resurrected for damnation, since "in Christ" is Paul's term for being Christian. Since none of the commentators is universalist, they all understand it to mean that all who are in Christ will be made alive.

This doesn't technically rule out ECT, if you think the whole of 15 only describes what happens to Christians. That seems unlikely since it seems pretty clear it's giving Paul's whole vision of what will happen. It does permit universalism or conditional immortality. I doubt that a Catholic priest (one of my commentaries is by Fitzmeyer) is going to commit to conditionalism, but his commentary certainly implies it as Paul's view.

 

[rjs330]

This is, certainly, true. All occurrences of the the word "exomologeo" in the NT indicate whole-hearted confession without duress.

I feel like you've added "duress" and by mentioning it implies "non-duress" as requirement or non-requirement to confession of sin.

Confession of sin is merely an acknowledgement that you have sinned and are in need of repentance. It's an acknowledgement of our need of a savior or salvation.

Before Christ the acknowledgment of sin and failure had to do with failing to live up to the law and this a sacrifice was needed to cover our sin. That's why the sacrifices were made. Today, Christ sacrifice was all that was needed to provide atonement once. And confession and repentance is merely an acknowledgement of our need of his attornment for our sin. Why would we need to confess or have attornment? What happens to us without it? Jesus said we are condemned. What does that mean? Condemned to what?

It would appear that you have the belief that punishment for sin is somehow duress. And a threat of punishment is duress. Isn't that what Jesus does when he says it's better to die without hands than be tossed into enternal torment?

And if thy hand cause thee to stumble, cut it off: it is good for thee to enter into life maimed, rather than having thy two hands to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire.And if thy foot cause thee to stumble, cut it off: it is good for thee to enter into life halt, rather than having thy two feet to be cast into hell.And if thine eye cause thee to stumble, cast it out: it is good for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell;where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. - Mark 9:43,45,47-48 Bible Gateway passage: Mark 9:43, Mark 9:45, Mark 9:47-48 - American Standard Version

You could call that duress if you want to. I call it a warning.

Enter ye in by the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many are they that enter in thereby.For narrow is the gate, and straitened the way, that leadeth unto life, and few are they that find it. - Matthew 7:13-14
Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 7:13-14 - American Standard Version

Another warning. Enter the narrow gate or else you will be headed for destruction.

And he answered and said unto them, Think ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they have suffered these things?I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all in like manner perish.Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and killed them, think ye that they were offenders above all the men that dwell in Jerusalem?I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. - Luke 13:2-5 Bible Gateway passage: Luke 13:2-5 - American Standard Version

See Jesus is not above warning people about bad things happening should they not repent.

 

[hedrick]

I've actually found all of these discussions on eternal fate useful. I've learned a lot, more from my own investigations to prepare responses, than from actual postings.

I've come to accept the commentators' evaluation that Paul is teaching something like conditional immortality. I don't rule out universalism, but I don't think it's there explicitly.

I believe John is similar. It's faith in Christ that brings eternal life.

I think the variety of different images in Mark and Luke, plus their context, suggests that punishment there is really about lazy servants and not ECT. But Jesus does speak a couple of times about what is needed for eternal life, so it doesn't look like universalism. That leaves some kind of conditionalism as a possibility.

Matthew and the Revelation I think are outliers. Both seem to be trying to stiffen Christians' resolution for persecution. I'm very much afraid that both have reacted to persecution with apocalyptic thought and visions of their enemies being punished.

My conclusion is that eternal life in Christ is the primary teaching, and we can at most hope that God might find a way to reach everyone.

The arguments about Jewish views have not proven as decisive as one might hope. Yes, Jesus' language was likely to be understood by his hearers against the background of current Jewish thought. But that wasn't uniform, and even though hell was thought to be eternal, most people weren't thought to stay there eternally. It turns out to look like a sort of purgatory for most people. Matthew seems the closest to traditional language. Paul and John really don't use it. Mark and Luke use some traditional terms, but only as one among several images, and explicit references to Gehenna are in passages that are either hypothetical or hyperbole.

 

[hedrick]

FYI, here's James Dunn's summary of Paul:

"If we tie this teaching into earlier reflection on the character of the flesh and on the significance of Jesus’ death, it becomes possible to speak of a kind of spectrum in Paul’s thought of final retribution. Those who have lived solely in terms of the flesh will perish with the flesh: “if you live kata sarka (“in accordance with the flesh”) you are sure to die” (Rom. 8.13). Those, however, who have as their foundation Christ, or equivalent, will be “saved,” but their works will be tested by fire (1 Cor. 3.15). And those who walk kata pneuma (“in accordance with the Spirit”) and express their faith in their lives and relationships will find that their work endures." (Dunn, James D. G.. The Theology of Paul the Apostle)

 

[rjs330]

Matthew and the Revelation I think are outliers. Both seem to be trying to stiffen Christians' resolution for persecution. I'm very much afraid that both have reacted to persecution with apocalyptic thought and visions of their enemies being punished.

The difficulty of that thought rests upon the premise that perhaps the writers were not inspired by God to write what they did. It leaves the impression that they were writing their own thoughts and biases. Perhaps based upon their on emotions. This is particularly difficult when dealing with Revelation.

John says specifically in his writing that God gave him the revelation to show his severvents. A Revelation of Christ and the things to come. So, John isn't writing specifically to stiffen his own thoughts as a reaction to persecution. Like these are the things he would like to see happen or wishes would happen. They are a revelation from God himself, not John's inner thoughts or wishes.

God clearly demonstrates that mankind will reject Christ as their salvation and chose to worship a false god. It's a further indictment upon humanity that Jesus mentioned in John when he said men would love darkness rather than light. That they would rather choose destruction than repentance and salvation in Jesus despite his sacrifice for them.

My conclusion is that eternal life in Christ is the primary teaching, and we can at most hope that God might find a way to reach everyone.

Romans tells us that God will and has reached all men. All will pass out of this world without excuse. Now of course we don't know everything about everything. God has not chosen to tell us everything. Probably because our finite minds couldn't understand. I mean look at us. Here we are having a discussion on what he has told us.

And there are plenty of those today who read scripture and say, God didn't really mean what he said.

But we do know that God HAS revealed himself to all. And no man is without excuse. I trust God to take care of the rest I don't know. Like what happens to those that are mentally handicapped and can't understand, or children who perish at a very young age. All I know is that his judgements are true and he will do the right thing. And when we are with him, we will no longer question this or that. We will fully understand that God is God and he absolutely did the right thing. I won't be in heaven questioning his judgements and calling him a terroristic God. I will see his holiness and righteousness and fully grasp the depth of his love. Cause it certainly isn't like mine.

 

[Saint Steven]

God says this.

So, you are playing the God card to end the discussion?

 

[hedrick]

The difficulty of that thought rests upon the premise that perhaps the writers were not inspired by God to write what they did. It leaves the impression that they were writing their own thoughts and biases. Perhaps based upon their on emotions. This is particularly difficult when dealing with Revelation.

It is quite clear when comparing the Gospels that Matthew, Mark, and Luke had somewhat different interpretations. They didn't just make things up. But they did interpret the teachings that had come down to them somewhat differently.

See Good tidings of great joy, which shall be to SOME people? for two examples.

There's no reason to think the Matthew, Mark or Luke give us perfect accounts, other than the desires of some Christians to beleive that they did.

Trying to deny the facts forces you to make everyone say the same thing. That requires forcing Paul and Luke to say the same thing as Matthew. Unfortunately, they don’t.

 

[rjs330]

So, you are playing the God card to end the discussion?

I believe God is the final authority. Don't you?

 

[rjs330]

Trying to deny the facts forces you to make everyone say the same thing. That requires forcing Paul and Luke to say the same thing as Matthew. Unfortunately, they don’t.

Actually proper understanding comes from reading all three. Because they were all written by different people under different circumstances, which you obviously understand. However we look at all three accounts and look at them from a standpoint of inspiration.

God wouldn't allow the writers of the Gospels to write something that was dishonest or misleading. Especially when there are three accounts. All these accounts must be taken with an eye toward each other and truth.

If one writer leaves something out it's because they weren't inspired to mention it. If another writer adds to the details it's not because they made it up. It because they were inspired to write the facts of what really occurred in order to fully tell the story and include necessary details. The gospels are not stand alone, but are written to include everything that God wanted said about Christ's life, his teachings and his mission.

Luke's information is JUST AS True as the others.

Otherwise you have to choose one of them to be true and the others are not.

Various interpretations of the writers implies they were acting on their own merits and own opinions. Which they were not.

 

[Saint Steven]

I believe God is the final authority. Don't you?

Do you claim to represent Him?

 

[rjs330]

Do you claim to represent Him?

I'm not sure what you mean by that. But I don't claim to be a prophet of God. I merely quote what God says. And it's not something that can't be confirmed, cause it was written down. I'm not doing anything special or claiming to be anything special.

I've been around a while. I have learned not to be guilty of using a single verse taken out of context and build a belief around it. I've seen that happen far too often and have been guilty of believing something when someone does that only to find out later what they did.

We should conform out beliefs to what scripture says rather than try to conform scripture to what we believe.

 

[Andrewn]

Since none of the commentators is universalist, they all understand it to mean that all who are in Christ will be made alive. This doesn't technically rule out ECT, if you think the whole of 15 only describes what happens to Christians. That seems unlikely since it seems pretty clear it's giving Paul's whole vision of what will happen. It does permit universalism or conditional immortality.

These are the main principles I see in 1Co 15:

- All the dead will be resurrected.
- those who are alive will be changed.
- death will be eliminated.

1Co 15 is about resurrection of the dead. But before getting there, it is useful to quote a short passage about the resurrection from Thessalonians:

1Th 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, in the same way, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. 15 For we say this to you by a word from the Lord: We who are still alive at the Lord’s coming will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the archangel’s voice, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are still alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.

This is a short summary of the whole process but 1Co 15 is a 58-verse chapter and gives us more information.

1Co 15:21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead also comes through a man. 22 For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

This is the 1st axiom I listed above: All will be made physically alive. But we should not stop there but rather compare the following:

Rom 5:18 So then, as through one trespass there is condemnation for everyone, so also through one righteous act there is justification leading to life for everyone. 19 For just as through one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so also through the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.

Through Adam, all got condemnation (Rom) and death (1Co). Through Christ, all got justification (Rom) and resurrection (1Co). Thus the vivification we receive from Christ is not only the resurrection of the body, but also justification.

1Co 15:23 But each in his own order: Christ, the firstfruits; afterward, at his coming, those who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, when he abolishes all rule and all authority and power.

These verses seem to indicate that there a sequence in the resurrection of the dead, (1) Christ Himself, the firstfruits; (2) the faithful in Christ at His coming; (3) all the rest of mankind at the end, when the final judgment takes place.

1Co 15:25 For he must reign until he puts all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be abolished is death.

This is the third axiom. Death will be abolished. The expression supports that all everyone would have been resurrected, not only Christians. The Apostle concludes his thoughts about the restoration of all things in v. 28, adds concluding remarks in v. 29-34, then starts to describe the resurrection body in v. 35. He asserts that a material body made of flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Then we get to the verses under question.

1Co 15:51 Listen, I am telling you a mystery: We will not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we will be changed. 53 For this corruptible body must be clothed with incorruptibility, and this mortal body must be clothed with immortality. 54 When this corruptible body is clothed with incorruptibility, and this mortal body is clothed with immortality, then the saying that is written will take place: Death has been swallowed up in victory. 55 Where, death, is your victory? Where, death, is your sting?

This is the 2nd axiom mentioned above. Everyone will be changed. All people will have incorruptible spiritual bodies. Then, and only then, victoroy can be completed and death completely conquered. There is absolutely no way that death could be completely conquered if only Christians are resurrected, as some of your sources indicate.

I've actually found all of these discussions on eternal fate useful. I've learned a lot, more from my own investigations to prepare responses, than from actual postings.

Yes, this is how discussions are supposed to work: send us back to our study .

 

[Saint Steven]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. But I don't claim to be a prophet of God. I merely quote what God says. And it's not something that can't be confirmed, cause it was written down. I'm not doing anything special or claiming to be anything special.

I've been around a while. I have learned not to be guilty of using a single verse taken out of context and build a belief around it. I've seen that happen far too often and have been guilty of believing something when someone does that only to find out later what they did.

We should conform out beliefs to what scripture says rather than try to conform scripture to what we believe.

Even Jesus understood that there is more than one interpretation of scripture. And he wants us to use our reasoning faculties.

Luke 10:26 NIV
“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

 

[Saint Steven]

Even Jesus understood that there is more than one interpretation of scripture. And he wants us to use our reasoning faculties.

Luke 10:26 NIV
“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

And since you @rjs330 are so interested in context, notice that Jesus states that living according to the Law of Moses will result in eternal life. But when this answer is unsatisfactory, he offers an extra-biblical solution. (horrors)

 

[Andrewn]

I believe John is similar. It's faith in Christ that brings eternal life.

I tend to believe that the NT does not contradict the NT. I have had difficulty with Joh 5:29, but I will quote the whole passage:

Joh 5:24 “Truly I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not come under judgment but has passed from death to life. 25 “Truly I tell you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For just as the Father has life in himself, so also he has granted to the Son to have life in himself. 27 And he has granted him the right to pass judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 28 Do not be amazed at this, because a time is coming when all who are in the graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done good things, to the resurrection of life, but those who have done wicked things, to the resurrection of condemnation.

The underlined word is "krisis," which is the same in all 3 instances but for some weird reason it is rendered "condemnation" in a lot of translations following the KJV.

In the LXX, "krisis" often translates the Hebrew "mishpat." And the latter usually means "justice." It is quite likely that that is what the writer of John's Gospel meant by "krisis": those who have done evil will come to a resurrection of justice. Justice is served, not by ECT or annihilation but through a system that ensures insuring that the punishment is commensurate on the crime.

Does this understanding fit w/ 1Co 15 where it is said that death is eliminated through the resurrection and Rom 5 where it says that everyone is justified? Perhaps. Does it mean that 100% of people are ultimately saved or that a small minority is annihilated? Only God knows.

The arguments about Jewish views have not proven as decisive as one might hope. Yes, Jesus' language was likely to be understood by his hearers against the background of current Jewish thought. But that wasn't uniform, and even though hell was thought to be eternal, most people weren't thought to stay there eternally. It turns out to look like a sort of purgatory for most people.

Actually, I think my views (based on the NT as I understand it) are not entirely different from the Jewish views. @Der Alte presented the Jewish view as if it supported a majority of people going to ECT. But that was a misrepresentation.

FYI, here's James Dunn's summary of Paul:

"If we tie this teaching into earlier reflection on the character of the flesh and on the significance of Jesus’ death, it becomes possible to speak of a kind of spectrum in Paul’s thought of final retribution. Those who have lived solely in terms of the flesh will perish with the flesh: “if you live kata sarka (“in accordance with the flesh”) you are sure to die” (Rom. 8.13). Those, however, who have as their foundation Christ, or equivalent, will be “saved,” but their works will be tested by fire (1 Cor. 3.15). And those who walk kata pneuma (“in accordance with the Spirit”) and express their faith in their lives and relationships will find that their work endures." (Dunn, James D. G.. The Theology of Paul the Apostle)

This represents 3 groups fixed at death: annihilation, purgatory for Christians, and paradise. Very different from what I believe.

 

[Saint Steven]

We should conform out beliefs to what scripture says rather than try to conform scripture to what we believe.

That seems like a bit of a conundrum, if not a recipe for disaster.

Understanding what scripture says requires interpretation. If your interpretation is wrong, your belief is wrong. Even the Christian religious cults base their beliefs on scripture. Does that make them right? According to your formula quoted above, yes.

Furthermore, even legitimate Christian religious groups differ on their interpretation of scripture. Is one right and the other wrong?

And doesn't even our interpretation of scripture stem from our beliefs? We have all chosen a pair of glasses, as it were, to the view the Bible with. And what we see, is colored by the lenses we chose.

I would like to see you think through these things rather than simply regurgitate all sorts of dogma in an attempt to correct me.

Here is an amazingly unbiased presentation of the three views of the final judgment. Each one with biblical support and each one in conflict with the other two views.

Hell - Three Christian Views Lecture by Steve Gregg

 

[Andrewn]

Here is an amazingly unbiased presentation of the three views of the final judgment. Each one with biblical support and each one in conflict with the other two views.

I love this video. @MMXX usually posts it. He hasn't been around for a while .

 

[Saint Steven]

I love this video. @MMXX usually posts it. He hasn't been around for a while .

Yes. I love it as well. I got it from @MMXX and have been sharing it when appropriate (or not) ever since. A few of our pals seem to be taking a much-needed break. May God give them rest and re-energize them to join us again soon. - AMEN

 

[Ceallaigh]

Yes. I love it as well. I got it from @MMXX and have been sharing it when appropriate (or not) ever since. A few of our pals seem to be taking a much-needed break. May God give them rest and re-energize them to join us again soon. - AMEN

Thanks. I strayed off into other discussions. I still remember how astonished I was when I first heard Steve Gregg present that. I just didn't expect to hear such from him because he's so staunch and pragmatic.