If you believe there is no hell . . .

[Received]

We disagree on terms. All I'm saying is that your interpretation of mercy is not the position some -- I would argue most -- hold, speaking at least in reference to the professional realm. We cannot debate. There might be some minor points I'll come back to, and this response isn't a cop out or a bitter one.

 

[Received]

In John, quality and quantity are the same thing. Take for example the water-into-wine-miracle (John 2) and hte feeding of the 5000 (John 6). And spring water (John 4).

Also, after ressurecting Lazurus, Christ promises that anyone who believes in him will never see death. Since death is the end of life, then life he speaks of must be truly eternal.

John 11:25-2625 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

This by no means negates my claim. Jesus is saying that whoever believes in Him will die, so long as they believe in Him. That's the whole point. Quality and quantity are not the same thing in reference to the gospels, though they can meet, as in this particular example.

Also, we must not ignore that fact that we are in sin alreadly, and already condmened unless we believe in Christ.

John 3:16-2116 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

I have nothing to disagree with this. The old paradigm of Christianity preached sin means Hell after death; the new, correct paradigm preaches that sin has reference to now, and that all lives will culminate in a judgment, of which will not be everlasting, but still quite unpleasant for those who have acted evil and refuse repentance.

Also, we must not ingore what the ancients believed about death, even after our corpse rots, we still will see God in our flesh, if we know our redeemer.

Job 19:25-2625 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: 26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

Actually, apart from the common view, this has reference to the conclusion of Job, starting technically at the place when God "shows Job up"; it is there that Job sees God in his flesh, as the verses you quoted speak of.

The Old Testament was silent on the question of the resurrection, save one instance in Psalms, and one striking instance in Isaiah.

No only would there be no reason to preach to The Gospel, there would be no reason for Christ to die on the cross. After all, if hell is not eternal or non-existant. We could remain in our sins and pay for them our selves. This is why I ask if we need person, which by definition, means that we deserve punishment.

We need Christ to show us the way; scripture states that He is the pioneer of our faith (as the greek suggests in Hebrews 12:2); without the way there can be no repentance. This is why Christ has come. So states the universalist, anyways.

Sure, we could stay in our sins and pay for them ourselves, and some will according to universalism; but the point of forgiveness is change; it is the end of punishment, if you will. For the point of punishment is leading to rehabilitation, states the universalist. Forgiveness is the means by which one avoids punishment, the condemnation of the world (which as you aptly pointed out we are already under). There's no point in saying that we should just stay in our sins:

"What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?.... Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness." -- Romans 6:1,2,16-18 (NASB)

Sin has its own punishment; why would you not want to repent of it now, and breathe the freedom that God has given us?

No, that is just love. Don't confuse mercy with love.

Hardly; the position is switched according to the universalist (and even a majority of scholars who aren't); the understanding that mercy is something different than love, something that you get opposed to justice -- this is the understanding that leads to problems, to cheap grace, etc.

Now, you are confusing mercy and grace. God can give both or neither, or one or the other. They don't have to go hand-in-hand. And yes, God does have justice, that is why there is hell, and that is why he must have mercy to save sinners. But he can't justly have mercy unless Christ pays for our sins.

The universalist states that justice leads to a judgment, not an eternal hell; the reasoning is as follows: sin is its own punishment, from which Christ has died for solely (Matthew 1:21); men who refuse to be saved lose out in this life, because they are not taking the better route, and will find deeper condemnation by standing before God as He purges them of their sinfulness.

Mercy and justice are the same thing to God, but in different aspects.

So we are given new life only to die again? Isn't that like a life guard jumping into the ocean, swiming them to a boat, only then later to refuse to let the man drown again?

If the man chooses to drown with stubborn insistence, isn't it safer to let him come close to drowning, that he learns his lesson, and thus values your help eventually?

Yes, the concept of death is easily a New Testament perspective; but this isn't necessary to the debate here.

McDonald erringly equates justice with mercy. Mercy is witholding justice (what we justly deserve).

Only according to your system. Lots of Christian thinkers go beyond it. This is why universalism is logically valid; according to its own premises, the conclusion follows.

 

[theseed]

This by no means negates my claim. Jesus is saying that whoever believes in Him will die, so long as they believe in Him. That's the whole point.

"Eternal" means, "always continously", "for ever and ever".

I have nothing to disagree with this. The old paradigm of Christianity preached sin means Hell after death; the new, correct paradigm preaches that sin has reference to now, and that all lives will culminate in a judgment, of which will not be everlasting, but still quite unpleasant for those who have acted evil and refuse repentance.

Paradigm does not matter, what matters is the truth. Turn or burn is the truth.

Actually, apart from the common view, this has reference to the conclusion of Job, starting technically at the place when God "shows Job up"; it is there that Job sees God in his flesh, as the verses you quoted speak of.

Job's body was not destroyed, and he was healed from his affliction. So you are flat wrong. Job is speaking of actual death in the grave.

.The Old Testament was silent on the question of the resurrection, save one instance in Psalms, and one striking instance in Isaiah.

I can see you don't study The Bible much. Do you know the diffeences between the saducees and the pharisees? The saducees did not beleive in the ressurection? Why? Because they only used the Torah, and not the entire Old Testament. There are examples of the dead comming to life in the OT. Moreover, I have proven your claim about Job to be in gross error.

We need Christ to show us the way; scripture states that He is the pioneer of our faith (as the greek suggests in Hebrews 12:2); without the way there can be no repentance. This is why Christ has come. So states the universalist, anyways.

Christ is the author and pefector of our faith, so states the Calvinists, and So states The Bible, God's infallible word. But why do we need Christ to have faith? Because we are totaly depraved and can in no way seek God without the help of the Holy Spirit. We are dead in our sins, and God must decide whom he will quicken and whom he shall leave dead. Contyary to your claims, men prefer darkness to light.

Sure, we could stay in our sins and pay for them ourselves, and some will according to universalism; but the point of forgiveness is change; it is the end of punishment, if you will. For the point of punishment is leading to rehabilitation, states the universalist. Forgiveness is the means by which one avoids punishment, the condemnation of the world (which as you aptly pointed out we are already under). There's no point in saying that we should just stay in our sins:

And what is the condemnation of this world? Death and eternal hell.

Sin has its own punishment; why would you not want to repent of it now, and breathe the freedom that God has given us?

Because you have not been born from above. God has left you in your sins, and has not regenerated your spirit.

Hardly; the position is switched according to the universalist (and even a majority of scholars who aren't); the understanding that mercy is something different than love, something that you get opposed to justice -- this is the understanding that leads to problems, to cheap grace, etc.

So, Universalist change the meanings of words to fit there own agenda? Isn't that called fraud? That's not academic, that's deception. Something Satan is good at. Mercy means what it means, and orthodox scholars know that mercy is leiniency from a sentence. If universalism is based on intellectual dishonesty, then we must reject it.

The universalist states that justice leads to a judgment, not an eternal hell; the reasoning is as follows: sin is its own punishment, from which Christ has died for solely (Matthew 1:21); men who refuse to be saved lose out in this life, because they are not taking the better route, and will find deeper condemnation by standing before God as He purges them of their sinfulness.

And what is this judgment? What is the punisment that God gives after The Great White Throne Judgment? Those not found in The Lambs Book of Life will be cast into the Lake of Fire, where they will burn always continously (Rev. 19-21).

If the man chooses to drown with stubborn insistence, isn't it safer to let him come close to drowning, that he learns his lesson, and thus values your help eventually?

You only get one chance to repent (Heb 9:27).

Yes, the concept of death is easily a New Testament perspective; but this isn't necessary to the debate here.

Proper exegesis will show that death is not simply of the flesh, but of the spirit, and whoever is not born again will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. They will not be ressurected. They will not drink from the living/spring water (John 4). They will not be found in The Lambs book of Life, but in The Lake of Fire which burns without ceasing. This are words of Jesus Christ.

Revelation 21:6-96 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. 7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. 8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. 9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

 

[theseed]

We disagree on terms. All I'm saying is that your interpretation of mercy is not the position some -- I would argue most -- hold, speaking at least in reference to the professional realm. We cannot debate. There might be some minor points I'll come back to, and this response isn't a cop out or a bitter one.

You can't decide what words mean. They mean what they mean. Twisting what a passage or verse means around is intellectual dishonesty.

When God sentences someone to the lake of fire, do you really think he will accept, "I didn't think you mean what you said"?

 

[Received]

Nobody is twisting what words mean. There are two reasons you cannot accept an honest consideration of universalism: you presuppose the context of which the words were used -- such as "eternal" and the Hellenism prominent during that period that unambiguously makes the word different than what you insistently claim with your opinions --, and the fact that you obviously have a different existential understanding of who God is than I do, which always motivates our interpretation of what scripture means. I'm not out here to convince you; I know from a sample of existentialism that it cannot be done given the latter psychological standing. But your claims are by no means necessarily sound. You may claim they are with delusion, but this cannot convince anyone.

I know this may sound awfully bitter, but this is the only way I can put it. No spite intended. In debate there are often transargumentative causes that keep debators from agreeing on fundamentals.

Perhaps we can exchange books? Try reading Thomas Talbott's The Inescapable Love of God, or perhaps Randy Klassen's What Does The Bible Really Say About Hell?. This is all I can offer. Us as layman are not going to get anywhere.

Cheers,

John

 

[Amurphycat]

Hell to what I percieve, and I think that the Pope said this too.

Hell is seperation from God.

Knowing how beautiful god is, being seperated much be horrible.

 

[Received]

"Eternal" means, "always continously", "for ever and ever".

Not according to what Jesus said in John 17:3. He stated that eternal life is knowing God. He reveals that "eternal" predicates "life" in a sense of quality, not quantity. That's all there is to it.

Job's body was not destroyed, and he was healed from his affliction. So you are flat wrong. Job is speaking of actual death in the grave.

Job's body was destroyed. The entire book is ripe with examples of how his body was afflicted. Shall we look to the Old Testament scholars?

"In the present context, 'destroyed skin' could easily indicate Job's current 'oathsome sores' (cf. 3:7), resulting in repulsive breath (19:17, if taken literally) and in his becoming 'skin and bones' (19:20). The destruction may not have been total, but it was certainly real. So 'from his flesh', whatever is still left, Job will see God. It is worth adding that at the conclusion of the book Job asserts that he has seen God with his own eyes (42:5). In the end he has not needed an intermediary -- God has appeared to Him directly. And Job's ultimate vindication by God takes place in this life, not in teh next." -- Philip Johnston, Shades of Sheol (empasis mine)


I can see you don't study The Bible much. Do you know the diffeences between the saducees and the pharisees? The saducees did not beleive in the ressurection? Why? Because they only used the Torah, and not the entire Old Testament. There are examples of the dead comming to life in the OT. Moreover, I have proven your claim about Job to be in gross error.

Job is taken care of; there are instances of resuscitation, and resuscitation is by no means the same as an eschatological resurrection. Stop being so presumptive; it reveals your bias. This is why you cannot believe.

Christ is the author and pefector of our faith, so states the Calvinists, and So states The Bible, God's infallible word. But why do we need Christ to have faith? Because we are totaly depraved and can in no way seek God without the help of the Holy Spirit. We are dead in our sins, and God must decide whom he will quicken and whom he shall leave dead. Contyary to your claims, men prefer darkness to light.

That's great; nevertheless, the Holy Spirit still enlightens man and allows him to see the faith. Sure, I can agree on that, without admitting Calvinism. But still, without Christ there is no way paved. That is all I'm getting at.

And what is the condemnation of this world? Death and eternal hell.

Death resulting from sin. This is why the bible says that Jesus came to die for our sins (Matthew 1:21), and why Paul continually uses the phrase "I died" in reference to the power of sin in the book of Romans. The eternal hell part is sheer bias. Don't you know that Jesus came to save the soul -- that he came to give rest for our souls, obviously referring to now? Isn't it silly, and rather weak, of God to grant us blessedness only after life, when now we are miserable? The universalist says that this now is what is important; the more traditional claims have focused on the afterlife, and as such have forgotten the whole point of the gospel -- repent now for the kingdom of God is at hand!

Because you have not been born from above. God has left you in your sins, and has not regenerated your spirit.


This indicates that according to a standard the life of blessedness is somehow less enjoyable than a life of sin. How can you say that?


So, Universalist change the meanings of words to fit there own agenda? Isn't that called fraud? That's not academic, that's deception. Something Satan is good at. Mercy means what it means, and orthodox scholars know that mercy is leiniency from a sentence. If universalism is based on intellectual dishonesty, then we must reject it.


You're clearly trippin'. Facts ignored do not cease to be facts. Universalists and a good deal of other Christian thinkers are simply revealing that the understanding of mercy as you present it is based on the sentimental, pseudo-humble opinions of classical theologians. That's all. You cannot prove it from scripture, and as a matter of fact, scripture states clearly that mercy is justice, in Psalm 62:12 where it is stated that God in his love or mercy rewards a man according to his deeds.


And what is this judgment? What is the punisment that God gives after The Great White Throne Judgment? Those not found in The Lambs Book of Life will be cast into the Lake of Fire, where they will burn always continously (Rev. 19-21).


Once again, this is question begging. You are using your understanding of eternal in the passage stated. The universalist says that according to this word there will be a perfect punishment, leading to rehabilitation.


You only get one chance to repent (Heb 9:27)


This is a non-sequitur. My point was that if eternal life is life now, and can be lost and and gained continually, it fits the analogy I previously stated. You respond with this quote. Nonetheless, you only get one chance to repent prior to judgment! That's the whole deal. You can repent before the wrath of God comes; if it comes when you don't repent, you will face the wrath, then repent. You get an easy route, or a painful one.

Proper exegesis will show that death is not simply of the flesh, but of the spirit, and whoever is not born again will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. They will not be ressurected. They will not drink from the living/spring water (John 4). They will not be found in The Lambs book of Life, but in The Lake of Fire which burns without ceasing. This are words of Jesus Christ.


Revelation 21:6-96 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. 7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. 8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. 9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.


Actually this is incorrect; it states that they will be resurrected -- or how else would they be standing before the white throne? Nonetheless, this doesn't prove your case. The universalist says, why yes, this scripture is true, but the word for "eternal" here -- often falsely translated as everlasting -- means that they will find rehabilitation in their punishment, just as I revealed to you in Matthew 25 with Barclay's statement regarding the greek word for "punishment", when used in all other forms of greek literature, signifying rehabilitation.

 

[raphael_aa]

Paradigm does not matter, what matters is the truth. Turn or burn is the truth.

That would be your opinion about what the truth is. The mere fact that you can phrase it like that tells me a lot about the way you see God.

Personally I think received has done a great job giving an alternative universalist view that is scripturally and theologically sound. You may be unconvinced by his arguments, that's ok.

Paradigm matters a great deal. It is the framework, often unconscious, within which we ascribe meaning to text. It is by no means trivial or obvious. In my experience, those people who most deny that their interpretation of scripture has any personal or cultural biases are most prone to think that their ideas are really God's.

It is my rule of thumb, which I believe has scriptural support, to always err on the side of mercy over judgement. Should there be a traditional judgement scene, I would rather be told by God 'You made me sound too merciful' than 'You made me sound too judgemental'.

 

[theseed]

It is my rule of thumb, which I believe has scriptural support, to always err on the side of mercy over judgement. Should there be a traditional judgement scene, I would rather be told by God 'You made me sound too merciful' than 'You made me sound too judgemental'

I would rather help people escape from hell, then tell them there is no hell, only later to be disappointed.

Paradigm matters a great deal. It is the framework, often unconscious, within which we ascribe meaning to text. It is by no means trivial or obvious. In my experience, those people who most deny that their interpretation of scripture has any personal or cultural biases are most prone to think that their ideas are really God's.

Actually, this is a misapplication of the word paradigm. Paradigms are how society frames the world. The word schema or schemata here would be more fitting.

I often find that those who reject the biblical and traditional view of the hell doctrine do so because of emotional difficulties (biases) rather than proper exegesis. They distort Scripture by inventing to meanings for words that never existed before, and ignore the paradigms of bible times.

 

[Received]

Nonsense; the words are intellectually sound, but your biases and intellectual trepidation prevent you from seeing clearly. A paradigm is simply a model, specifically one that encapsulates the doctrine of a particular worldview or movement.

You still seem to misunderstand the pressing need of universalists to save the world. Salvation is not a matter of heaven and hell, but as the root word "salve" indicates, it implies wholeness -- specifically psychological wholeness. It has never been a matter of heaven or hell. This is why Jesus has claimed rest for our souls now. The universalist does not say "look to the future," but "look to your miserable present." The traditional church has missed salvation in the present, and consequently Christianity as a whole.

 

[seebs]

If you are not yet in the Kingdom of Heaven, ask God. It is here, now. Go out and love some neighbors.

The Beatitudes are a new way of life, not a revenge fantasy.

 

[McCravey]

I sometimes wonder if there is not only heaven here on earth at the present time but also if hell doesn't exist along side it.

I'm reminded of when Christ asked the Pharisees.."how do you expect to escape hell?" or something like that. I don't think he meant how do you keep from going to it, but how do you expect to get out of it.

 

[techjedi]

I sometimes wonder if there is not only heaven here on earth at the present time but also if hell doesn't exist along side it.

I'm reminded of when Christ asked the Pharisees.."how do you expect to escape hell?" or something like that. I don't think he meant how do you keep from going to it, but how do you expect to get out of it.

Goes along with what I was about to say....

"Where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth..." is more of an allusion to the suffering and violence that occurs in the world. Being a part of God's kingdom, the one Jesus established and continues in the here and now, is a way of life that promotes the opposite - love, service, care. You can escape the destructive cycle by becoming a servant in God's kingdom.

 

[UberLutheran]

How long should God intolerate injustice?

...as long as there are people roaming this planet.

That's HIS choice: nobody told God to create humanity with free will!

 

[UberLutheran]

This is also not true, we know that there will be 3 people in Hell.

Revelation 20:10
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

You're applying a literal interpretation to a document (the Revelation) which was never intended to be taken literally.

The Revelation was written to encourage Christians who were the objects of a pogram instituted by the Emperor Domitian when the Christians refused to worship the Roman emperor.

 

[UberLutheran]

You can't decide what words mean. They mean what they mean. Twisting what a passage or verse means around is intellectual dishonesty.

When God sentences someone to the lake of fire, do you really think he will accept, "I didn't think you mean what you said"?

Have you read the words in the original language, in the original context, in the political, social, religious, cultural, and linguistic context of the period in which they were written?

THAT is why Biblical scholars spend their entire lives studying the Scriptures in such incredible detail -- to determine exactly WHAT "the words" really mean.

 

[UberLutheran]

I would rather help people escape from hell, then tell them there is no hell, only later to be disappointed.

...then LIVE the Gospel -- and if necessary, use words.

People will always be more attracted to someone who "walks his talk" than someone who merely promotes his "walk".

 

[UberLutheran]

Why?

Because I support Lotus Notes.

That is MORE than enough Hell for one lifetime!

(UL, who is going through scores upon scores upon scores of Notes .dll files to find the ONE corrupt .dll which prevents a user's Lotus Notes from opening and has concluded that this truly MUST be Hell!)

 

[theseed]

If you are not yet in the Kingdom of Heaven, ask God. It is here, now. Go out and love some neighbors.

The Beatitudes are a new way of life, not a revenge fantasy.

The Kingdome of Heaven is now, and is comming.

 

[theseed]

The traditional church has missed salvation in the present, and consequently Christianity as a whole.

Actually, Roman Catholics have emphasized salvation in the present for hundreds of years.

Also, worldview, paradigm is collective, therefore schema is preferable when speaking of individuals.