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

[Andrewn]

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.

Since we conjured your spirit, what do you think of messages #493 & 496? All criticism and counterarguments are welcome .

 

[Saint Steven]

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.

Glad to see that you have repented from your wandering and have returned safely to the fold. - lol

 

[hedrick]

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

That's not how I understand it. I think there are two groups. Believers will have their work tested. Some will have more survive than others. That seems to be what Dunn means by two of his "groups." Nor does 1 Cor 3:12 ff suggest purgatory. It looks like a one-time testing and judgement to me.

Dunn thinks a universalist reading of Paul is impossible because of Rom 8:13 and other places. (1 Cor 6:9 would be a possible one.) I present his view because I've been unable to find a mainstream expert on Paul who thinks Paul is universalist. Dunn's summary seems to represent a consensus.

Personally I still think a universalist reading is possible. But I don't think it's possible for Matthew, and John 5:29 is a bit hard to read that way as well. In the Synoptics, Jesus is asked what is necessary to get eternal life, and answers. I'd hope he would have said if actually everyone gets eternal life. But that doesn't mean that Paul might not have been universalist. It's just that no Paul expert that I know thinks so.

 

[Saint Steven]

That's not how I understand it. I think there are two groups. Believers will have their work tested. Some will have more survive than others. That seems to be what Dunn means by two of his "groups." Nor does 1 Cor 3:12 ff suggest purgatory. It looks like a one-time testing and judgement to me.

Dunn thinks a universalist reading of Paul is impossible because of Rom 8:13 and other places. (1 Cor 6:9 would be a possible one.) I present his view because I've been unable to find a mainstream expert on Paul who thinks Paul is universalist. Dunn's summary seems to represent a consensus.

Personally I still think a universalist reading is possible. But I don't think it's possible for Matthew, and John 5:29 is a bit hard to read that way as well. In the Synoptics, Jesus is asked what is necessary to get eternal life, and answers. I'd hope he would have said if actually everyone gets eternal life. But that doesn't mean that Paul might not have been universalist. It's just that no Paul expert that I know thinks so.

How do you balance that with this verse, which seems completely inclusive? I don't suppose the commentaries would be much help, due to doctrinal bias.

Mark 9:49 NIV
Everyone will be salted with fire.

 

[rjs330]

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? I think it does. Does it mean that 100% of people are ultimately saved? Only God knows. I may hope so.


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.


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

I think you make a very excellent point. The judgement people experience at the time they are judged is not specified in scripture. We know from scripture that the judgement is final, but the exact measure of it is not noted. The ECT is not specified other than a lake of fire. But will there be various strains of torment? Will someone who lives a "good" life, but still rejects Christ be under the same exact torment as Adolf Hitler or Stalin? I'm not so sure. One of the reasons for me is that the righteous also are judged and receive rewards based on what they have done. That's pretty clear in scripture. So the precedent is set. Perhaps the wicked will receive the same type of treatment. The torment based upon their actions and what they have done. It seems to make some sort of sense to me. But I cannot say with absolute clarity, since scripture does not specify that.

 

[rjs330]

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?”

Just cause there can be than one interpretation doesn't mean the we can interpret scripture any way we want to. If that's the case then what's the point of scripture? That's utter nonsense and leave the reader to be the final arbitor of what scripture says. If I can interpret scripture any way I want then it leaves scripture relatively meaningless. Remember the admonition of Paul to rightly divide the scriptures? Remember the warnings against those who twist scriptures? There are warnings against false doctrine. So, no we can't interpret scripture any way we want.

Peter said:

As he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures

That tells us there are not many ways to interpret scripture.

Jesus simply was testing the man's understanding of scripture. If the guy was totally off you don't think Jesus would have corrected him? Jesus did that in other incidents. The point is the guy got it right and Jesus said so. He didn't say, well that's one way to look at it. He said

And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. - Luke 10:28 Bible Gateway passage: Luke 10:28 - American Standard Version

 

[rjs330]

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

But all these views cannot be right. Someone is not understanding what the scripture says. These views are often based upon what we want it to say rather than what it says.

The though of "God is love therefore he wouldn't send people to hell for all eternity for punishmentz therefore the scripture can't be saying that," is a prime example of that. We interpret scripture how we want to confirm to what we think, rather than conform what we think to what scripture actually says.

I have wrestled with these things myself. But I always have to remind myself that what I think should be has to conform to what the word says. And if it says it, then I have to trust what it says. It might be hard to understand sometimes, but if I stick with it, it will eventually become clear. And in this, the scriptures are abundantly clear. I've heard all these arguments before. Had them myself. But, the ones that propose there is no ECT, come from an unwillingness to accept that God would do that, rather than from believing that God is God and his judgments are true and deserved. He will not punish the unbelievers unrighteously, unjustly. Just cause WE think it is, doesn't mean God thinks it is. For is WAYS ARE NOT OUR WAYS. And we must trust him. For he tells us his ways are right and just.

I am willing to accept the possibility of degrees of ECT. That not all receive the exact degrees of punishment no matter what. Since God rewards all believers with eternal life, but we also receive rewards based on our actions on earth, then it is logical to believe that all unbelievers will receive eternal punishment, but that punishment will also be based upon their life and actions.

But UR is definitely not scriptural at all.

 

[Andrewn]

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).

Annihilation for non-believers.

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).

Purgatory for Christians.

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."

Paradise for good Christians.

Nor does 1 Cor 3:12 ff suggest purgatory. It looks like a one-time testing and judgement to me.

Yes, this is how I understand 1Co 3:12-14 also. But I believe that fallen Christians, especially false teachers, will have to go to Hades with unbelievers. This is how I read Mat 7:19-23; 1Co 3:15; and Jam 3:1. I don't call it purgatory because, in Catholicism, purgatory is for Christians only. Also, they believe that a majority of Christians go their initially while I hope that a minority of Christians go to Hades.

Dunn thinks a universalist reading of Paul is impossible because of Rom 8:13 and other places.

I suppose this is because Dunn understands death as annihilation. But other commentators understand it as going to Hades, which can be temporary.

Rom 8:13 If you do live according to the flesh, you will die. However, if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

(1 Cor 6:9 would be a possible one.)

1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived;

This is an important to consider together with Rom 8:13 and other verses mentioned above to support that Christians who practice unrighteousness might end up in Hades.

Personally I still think a universalist reading is possible. But I don't think it's possible for Matthew, and John 5:29 is a bit hard to read that way as well.

I agree. It is because of these verses that I'm not absolutely sure the NT teaches UR. I think it teaches something close to UR.

In the Synoptics, Jesus is asked what is necessary to get eternal life, and answers. I'd hope he would have said if actually everyone gets eternal life.

I think a lot of the time the goal is to avoid going to Hades entirely. As St Paul said, to be away from the body is to be at home with the Lord. Only God knows.

 

[hedrick]

How do you balance that with this verse, which seems completely inclusive? I don't suppose the commentaries would be much help, due to doctrinal bias.

Mark 9:49 NIV
Everyone will be salted with fire.

I have 4 modern commentaries on Mark. They all think 9:48, 49, and 50 were put together because they all use fire, but that they were not originally together. That means we have no real context for 9:49. 3 of the 4 think it's referring to a judgement like 1 Cor 3:12 ff. One (Witherington) suggests that it might refer to everyone experiencing trials during life.

I find Witherington's interpretation that most persuasive, but it certainly could refer to a judgement by fire. Even if it's literally everyone, that doesn't mean that judgement will have the same result for everyone.

I think this is really thin support for universalism. I can see it in Paul, but not in the Synoptics or John.

 

[Saint Steven]

Jesus simply was testing the man's understanding of scripture. If the guy was totally off you don't think Jesus would have corrected him? Jesus did that in other incidents. The point is the guy got it right and Jesus said so. He didn't say, well that's one way to look at it. He said

And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

But did he get it right? Is there salvation in keeping the the law? (Nope)

 

[Saint Steven]

But UR is definitely not scriptural at all.

All these posts and you haven't learned anything. You seem to be wasting your time. I wish I could help you. You really should at least watch that video and point out the errors. Can you do that?

 

[Saint Steven]

I have 4 modern commentaries on Mark. They all think 9:48, 49, and 50 were put together because they all use fire, but that they were not originally together. That means we have no real context for 9:49. 3 of the 4 think it's referring to a judgement like 1 Cor 3:12 ff. One (Witherington) suggests that it might refer to everyone experiencing trials during life.

I find Witherington's interpretation that most persuasive, but it certainly could refer to a judgement by fire. Even if it's literally everyone, that doesn't mean that judgement will have the same result for everyone.

I think this is really thin support for universalism. I can see it in Paul, but not in the Synoptics or John.

If those three verses were intentionally put together, shouldn't we assume that there was a reason for it? Rather than shrug it off as some sort of meaningless mishmash.

 

[Saint Steven]

These views are often based upon what we want it to say rather than what it says.

That's exactly what happens when I present the scriptures that support UR. Damnationists claim it can't mean what it clearly says. I showed you this example earlier. I don't think you responded to it.

Romans 5:18-19
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

 

[hedrick]

But did he get it right? Is there salvation in keeping the the law? (Nope)

You’re saying Jesus didn’t get it right? That’s pretty gutsy. I’d rather ask whether his answer could make sense.

The typical Protestant objection to works righteousness is that it’s an attempt to earn righteousness. But Jesus never portrayed obedience that way. We’re just servants doing what we’re told. It doesn't earn us any credit. Indeed he never suggested that we have to earn righteousness in the first place. God loves us. We’re his children. (No, I’m not suggesting universalism. We can reject that status.)

As I understand 1st Cent Judaism, obeying God wasn’t seen as earning righteousness but as something done by people who are already within the covenant, out of gratitude. Thus it’s a sign of faith, in the Reformers’ sense of trust in God.

I note that Jesus took a rather non-legalistic approach to the Law. He was quite free in reinterpreting it so that obedience helped others. Thus obeying the Law was really the way you carry out loving God and neighbor.

What did Paul mean by faith? He used Abraham as a model, and said his faith was demonstrated by his actions, based on trust in God. In my opinion, faith for Paul was not belief, but rather faithfulness. That’s one possible meaning of pistis. He contrasted this to works of the Law that (in the context of Romans) were ways of demonstrating one’s superior status as a Jew.

So I think obeying the commandments, in the context of Jesus’ message as a whole, actually does show that one trusts Christ, and thus is justifying. As always, this doesn't mean that we have to be perfect, as we would if we were earning salvation by works. Rather it is done in an attitude of humility, repenting as we fall short.

 

[Saint Steven]

You’re saying Jesus didn’t get it right? That’s pretty gutsy. I’d rather ask whether his answer could make sense.

I meant the rich young ruler. But I think Jesus directed him to the standard answer of the day. Live by the law and you will be saved. If that was true, what was Jesus doing there? Didn't he come to provide what the law couldn't? (Acts 13:39) See below.

And the fact is NO ONE can live by the law. The law brings condemnation. So, when Jesus said, "Do this and you will live.", it was an impossible request. And the rich young ruler said he had done these things since his youth. Yet he was lacking something. He knew it.

Then the real test came, "Sell all you have and come follow me."

Acts 13:39 NIV
Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses.

 

[Andrewn]

Acts 13:39 NIV
Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses.

The expression "everyone who believes is set free from every sin" can mean that every believer is forgiven or that every believer becomes sinless. So, I checked a large number of translations and read notes on the original Greek text. Apparently the same Greek word used allows 2 legitimate ways to translate this verse represented in the following:

Act 13:39 and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses. (NKJV)

Act 13:39 and by him every one that believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses. (RSV)

When there is a difficulty in NT translation, I usually check Lamsa's translation. Here is what it says:

Act 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.

It chooses the word "justified," which most other translations choose anyway. But my point is that: while "freed" is a possible, the phrase "from every sin" is certainly absent from the Greek text. It is added not only in the NIV but also in NRSV.

 

[Saint Steven]

The expression "everyone who believes is set free from every sin" can mean that every believer is forgiven or that every believer becomes sinless. So, I checked a large number of translations and read notes on the original Greek text. Apparently the same Greek word used allows 2 legitimate ways to translate this verse represented in the following:

Act 13:39 and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses. (NKJV)

Act 13:39 and by him every one that believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses. (RSV)

When there is a difficulty in NT translation, I usually check Lamsa's translation. Here is what it says:

Act 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.

It chooses the word "justified," which most other translations choose anyway. But my point is that: while "freed" is a possible, the phrase "from every sin" is certainly absent from the Greek text. It is added not only in the NIV but also in NRSV.

Thanks, that's good.
I guess I have understood the "set free" aspect as being free from the consequences of sin. (spiritual death) Which "justification" supports. Interesting that the NIV uses both definition options.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Acts 13:39 NIV
Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses.

 

[rjs330]

But did he get it right? Is there salvation in keeping the the law? (Nope)

So Jesus was wrong? Jesus said he was correct. If he wasn't correct then Jesus was wrong to tell him he did. Was Jesus lying? Was he off base? Why would Jesus tell him he was right if he was wrong?

 

[Clare73]

But did he get it right? Is there salvation in keeping the the law? (Nope)

Yes, he got it right.
Can you keep it to God's standard?

Then you have the answer to your question.

 

[Clare73]

That's exactly what happens when I present the scriptures that support UR. Damnationists claim it can't mean what it clearly says. I showed you this example earlier. I don't think you responded to it.

Romans 5:18-19
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Bible 101: to be understood in the context of the whole NT. . .that's a fail.