Is universalism the only option if there is no hell?

[Ronald]

the spirit can't die...only the soul and body can.

Adam and Eve's spirit died on that day they ate of the forbidden fruit. Why do you think we are new creatures in Christ, what in us is new besides the Holy Spirit? Once we are given a new spirit, then of course it can't die but neither does our souls (mind, emotions, will, personality), which are also immaterial. The unbeliever's soul and body die at the second death in the Lake of Fire.

1TH 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Saved in Christ > we have a spirit. soul and body. Paul is speaking to Christians. The unbelievers have a soul with a dead spirit that must be quickened or made alive, become a new creature. This is basic stuff. If you examine the OT Temple, it is designed like the spirit, soul and body of a man. The Holy of Holies is where God dwelled, as in our spiritual compartment. The Most Holy Place parallels the heart of man or soul where thoughts, emotions, desires, will is. In that part, the lampstands, table of showbread and altar all represent in us the light of Jesus that enters, communion, His sacrifice that removes the veil. The outer court is our bodies.

I believe that the spirit is the 'animating' life force of the body

The Holy Spirit communes with our spirit and the spiritual life in Christ transcends into the soul and then manifested in our bodies as works. Sanctification is instant but it is also a process and this is the process of transforming the mind so that our thoughts, will and emotions and then actions become more Christlike.

Who says 'death and Hades/grave are destroyed in the lake of fire'?

"and the death and the hades were cast to the lake of the fire -- this [is] the second death" Rev. 20:14

"Our God is a comsuming fire" (lake of fire???) and his judgments consume death, grave, sin and every thing that is contrary to LIFE IMO

.

No, God is not the Lake of Fire. It means man could not be in His presense and physically live, he would burn up, which is why we need spiritual bodies.

 

[4LivingCreations]

Is universalism the only option if there is no hell?

If not, what are the options?

(I'm not sure this is the best place to post this, but please lets not discuss the existence of hell in this thread - thank you).

Mike

Simple, the lake of fire burns up anything you didn't grow to clean intent in, during this life. The pinnacle and focal correction being the image of YHWH, which in modern times is centered around this very issue of "eternal torment"

The bible verses that proclaim universal reconciliation are abundant, and more often than not, with little symbolism. They cannot be "interpreted", whereas metaphors inherently must be.

The bible verses that have been mistaken for eternal torment are always symbolic.

Graven images abound.
So do mistranslations. "olam" and "aeon" both mean "incomprehensible" rather than "eternal", with no inherent time aspect implied.

A good place to look for universal reconciliation, after a fair and equitable correction, are all the Psalms.

People don't read the bible, or they shrug these words off based on tradition and condition of the heart. It's not their fault until they have been warned, and the bride are commanded, and instructed how to warn in all of Ezekiel.

Psalm 67

And a few other examples:

"My mouth shall shew forth thy righteousness and thy salvation all the day; for I know not the numbers thereof."
(a great multitude that no man can number is definitively "everyone")

"He shall judge the poor of the people, he shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressor.
(yet...)
They shall fear thee as long as the sun and moon endure, throughout all generations." (a true scriptural "forever" phrase)

"Yea, all kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him."

"His name shall endure for ever: his name shall be continued as long as the sun: and men shall be blessed in him: all nations shall call him blessed."

Here is one that contains both an easily mistakable "eternal annihilation" phrase, followed immediately by the reconciliation:

"Consume them in wrath, CONSUME them, that they MAY NOT BE: and let them know that God ruleth in Jacob unto the ends of the earth. Selah.
And at evening LET THEM RETURN; and let them make a noise like a dog, and go round about the city.
Let them wander up and down for meat, and grudge if they be not satisfied." ( "IF" )

Peace.

 

[Hillsage]

I don't follow how extrapolate this out of the topic.

Don't get upset, but IMO that isn't all you don't follow. I defended my positions with scriptures and you rebutted all with 'opinion'. And then you never did explain why the "day" in chapter two, contained two days worth of creation from chapter one. To keep posts from growing even more, I'll just cherry pick some answers also.

Stop right there! I suppose you apply that to the six days of creation as well?

Case in point as far as you 'not following'. I did the very opposite. I showed how the "day" of chapter two was really 'an age' and that it mentioned two days of chapter one creation in 'the day' of chapter two.

Something happened on that day Adam and Eve sinned. When you figure that out, you will realize what spiritual death is and that it is what we inherit.

I have figured it out IMO. They were told they would "surely die" and they did, ALL before a 'thousand year day' had passed. Had they not sinned they wouldn't have been kicked out of the garden where they would have had access to the "tree of life". And according to scripture that fruit is what would have kept them from dying, NOT BECAUSE their spirit died as you're maintaining.

GEN 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Therefore God had to kick them out of the Garden, and then sin finally killed them just like God spoke. In the 'day before the flood' or the 'antediluvian age' they both were dead.

A dead spirit is one that does not have direct access, communication, connection, forgiveness, faith, hope, peace and all that we receive when we are born again. Adam and Eve lost it ON THAT DAY.

More opinion. I'll just rebut your 'opinion list' above with a scripture concerning a SINFUL MURDERER named Cain with an UNBORN AGAIN spirit.

"access, communication" GEN 4:13 And Cain said unto the LORD,...
15 And the LORD said unto him,

"connection" GEN 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

Now you give me ONE scripture supporting your 'opinion list' from above.

Or maybe you have a different understanding of original sin and the wages of that lead to destruction?

As an X 'bred, born, raised ROMAN CATHOLIC I'm sure I might. Since I have studied enough to quote scripture for all that I have said...for the most part anyway.

No, it happened 1656 years after creation.

I'm sorry I didn't say that clearly. Adam died in the 'dayage' before the flood. He was was also dead before the '1000 year day as unto the Lord' being 930 years old. Not even Methuselah made it beyond 'that 1000 year day' dying at 960. Hope that clears up where I'm coming from.

Sin didn't mature on that day, they lost something that they had. The penalty was there separation from God just as we inherit. Like a cell phone without a battery: "Hello, hello, is anyone there?

Opinion again give me a scripture...I did.

God gives life. Spiritual is not physical in any way, nor is it a power source of physical life,

Scripture again...Jairus' daughter was dead and what raised her back to life?

LUK 8:55 And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat.

it is immaterial, not some energy pack. Jesus gives an example of spiritually dead people in this verse: "and Jesus said to him, `Suffer the dead to bury their own dead, and thou, having gone away, publish the reign of God.'Luke 9:60

There are a lot of dead people walking around! Is this concept foreign to you? Jesus gives us life, a new spirit!

I see Jesus telling them they are under the same 'death sentence' we all have because of sin that hasn't matured enough yet.

EPH 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Hmm, not dead because of a DEAD SPIRIT, but because they had trespasses/sins in their past???? Sounds like prophetic 'death' in the future to me. Kind of like "DEAD MAN WALKING"....he wasn't dead, he was sentenced to death and heading for the electric chair.

Made alive by the Holy Spirit. Jesus is God, God is Spirit and His Spirit did not die, as you said His body did.

Thanks for agreeing, but you quoted it wrong SCRIPTURALLY...Jesus didn't yield the Holy Spirit back to the father He yielded His spirit (no capitalization). Translators did know better in this verse than you apparently remembered.

LUK 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. And then DIED I might add.

This is not applicable to the human spirit, Jesus was never spiritually blind, without a spirit.

Opinion again. Give me SCRIPTURE to stand on, please...I have, and I am.

Sorry, I said I was going to cherry pick and make it short, but this was all just so wrong SCRIPTURALLY for me. My opinion now...of course.

 

[MikeBigg]

On other levels, if you didn't know you would be treated exceedingly harsh for a crime, wouldn't you want to know exactly what you faced before you made your choices?

Exactly!

Why didn't God do that in the garden? No mention of eternal torment, just "you will surely die".

Mike

 

[Alive_Again]

Why didn't God do that in the garden? No mention of eternal torment, just "you will surely die".

Because they didn't go to Hell. They're in Heaven right now. They were given another covenant (mankind). God separated the evil doers from what was considered "righteous" before the death of Jesus. They waited in a place called "paradise", later known as Abraham's Bosom.

They didn't suffer Hell for falling in the garden. They were told they would die and they did. They were driven from the garden and broke fellowship with God.

But here we know of Jesus who provided the example of Lazarus and the man who mistreated him. They were both cognizant after death, each went to his own reward. One involved great suffering. Even though he burned in the fire, he was able to recognize Abraham and Lazarus. The one desired water and he desired to have his family warned so they would not go there.

These are the Words of the Master and cannot be diminished.

It is true there are different rewards and punishments as the Word says, and the rewards for various deeds will deed. The Sheoul on earth had a counterpart in the spirit realm under the earth. There is an outer darkness too. They all involve torment, hopelessness, and suffering, culminating in a final judgment into a lake of fire.

It is important not to look at Jewish tradition to establish truth that contradicts what Jesus has said. The others in the NT spoke of Hell and eternal punishment. They spoke on more occasions of Hell and judgment than they did of Heaven.

It serves no one any honor to say that the fires are brief, that Jesus' example of Lazarus was only a "story" or a parable, or that we'll all be saved one day (taking a scripture out of context). The Word indicates most will be lost (taking the wide path to destruction). It gives us all a choice and we have the power of freewill to decide.

There is nothing wrong with examining scripture for truth, but Universalism is a heresy and the promotion of it is banned on the orthodox forum.

 

[Tobias]

Exactly!

Why didn't God do that in the garden? No mention of eternal torment, just "you will surely die".

Mike

There is something fundamentally wrong with the doctrine which states that everybody is going to hell for eternity unless they hear about Jesus and accept him. I don't think Universalism is the answer -- but there has to be something somewhere in between the two!

The idea of Jesus dying for our sins used to be one of ultimate sacrifice; where God the Father gave His all to ransom the human race. But if all go to hell unless they hear about it, then God's ultimate sacrifice isn't that impressive anymore. Not for the generations of people who had to wait thousands of years before the Gospel was preached to them!

Think about it. How would you feel if you just heard about Jesus for the first time when white men came to your village, and you realized that every one of your ancestors for the past thousands of years are now burning in hell forever? That because "God's Free Gift" was first given to someone else on the other side of the planet, your people were condemned to suffer forever and ever and ever?

Suddenly "God's Ultimate Sacrifice" seems petty and insufficient. It falls way short of what the people on this planet needed. If indeed all people are condemned to the fires of hell (through no fault of our own, we were born into sin), then one would think that God should have come up with a better plan then to sit back and wait to see if the people He had entrusted with the Gospel message would actually take it around the world. God becomes an apathetic individual who did the bare minimum to save a few of His favorite friends in Palestine, while leaving the rest of the world to rot in hell.


Like I say, something is wrong with the doctrine. This is not the God I know, nor the one the scriptures talk about in the Bible. Somebody really messed things up when they formulated that doctrine!

 

[MikeBigg]

There is something fundamentally wrong with the doctrine which states that everybody is going to hell for eternity unless they hear about Jesus and accept him. I don't think Universalism is the answer -- but there has to be something somewhere in between the two!

{ snips - to save pixels }

Like I say, something is wrong with the doctrine. This is not the God I know, nor the one the scriptures talk about in the Bible. Somebody really messed things up when they formulated that doctrine!

I agree. It doesn't fit in with the God I know.

I have been reading around a bit - there is a school of thought that suggests that the use of the English word "eternal" in the NT is not a good translation of the underlying texts. I wonder if that would make enough difference.

I'm contemplating starting a thread to do a joint word study on "eternal". I'm not sure it would be that fruitful around here.

Mike

 

[Alive_Again]

When you do, include the words used to describe God's eternal power and Godhead and kingdom and life, because they are also eternal. Do it for both the old and new covenants.

People need to understand the truth and finally settle within themselves what eternal means.

As far as people going to Hell for not receiving Jesus, in the days of the Old Covenant people, gentiles had their conscience as a law unto themselves. If people of other lands adhered to it, no doubt God responded to the innate desire to worship Him. Many cultures pursue God in ignorance. I believe that those who walked according to that inner sense of right and wrong (from those who sought it from Him from the heart), that He responded to those people and preserved them.

I believe in the New Covenant, God also reveals Himself to those who are seeking God in truth. Many Jesus reveals Himself to (who do not have opportunity to hear the gospel of the kingdom) and we will be surprised at who is saved when we get to Heaven.

I do not believe that anyone can actually reject Jesus and still be saved. I also believe that He presents Himself to those who have family members standing for them at death and "wrestles" with them. This is no way violates the Word of God.

He won't violate your freewill, but many cry out for God from a sincere heart and in ignorance do not know in truth who to call out to specifically. I believe He does reveal Himself to them and they are saved as they respond to Him (who did not have the opportunity to hear the gospel).

I believe this is accomplished by grace and they are simply responding to it in the only way they have opportunity. We know from the Word that none seek after God. Yet many seek God, but I believe the scripture shows that it is by grace because the fallen nature of man abides in darkness and without His drawing no one would come to Him.

 

[Hillsage]

When you do, include the words used to describe God's eternal power and Godhead and kingdom and life, because they are also eternal. Do it for both the old and new covenants.

Actually that has always been a big part of the problem. If you don't understand the best definition of the word 'aion' which gets translated as 'an age' AND 'eternal' then you end up as confused as you obviously just posted.

People need to understand the truth and finally settle within themselves what eternal means.

AND
Strong's 165 aion: prop. an age; by extens. perpetuity (also past);

Here we see the problem right up front. Tradition (post 400AD) has given the word aion two definitions 'an age' and 'eternal'...THAT IS SIMPLY NO DEFINITION THAT IS WORTH ITS SALT. How in heaven's name do you/translators decide which one to use contextually? I'll tell you how....INDOCTRINATION. Their doctrine dictates their definition. And when you have 'translators' sign a 'doctrinal statement of faith' prior to hiring them to translate, guess what happens if you don't believe in 'the trinity' 'eternal hell' ect. ect. as orthodoxy requires....well guess who isn't going to get hired to write your bibles?

Thankfully there are some translations out there that are not biased in their dealing with this word. It is those that I lean on for better understanding (doctrinally) than you will get from the best promoted hot selling bible translations.

As far as people going to Hell for not receiving Jesus, in the days of the Old Covenant people, gentiles had their conscience as a law unto themselves.

What do you mean "days of the old covenant"...what about the NEW?

ROMANS 2:14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them

If people of other lands adhered to it, no doubt God responded to the innate desire to worship Him.

Since when was "worship" the equivalent of salvation? Any scripture for that?
ACT 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

Many cultures pursue God in ignorance. I believe that those who walked according to that inner sense of right and wrong (from those who sought it from Him from the heart), that He responded to those people and preserved them.

I thought we called that "inner sense" "the tree of the knowledge of GOOD and EVIL"....A tree which led to DEATH.

I believe in the New Covenant, God also reveals Himself to those who are seeking God in truth. Many Jesus reveals Himself to (who do not have opportunity to hear the gospel of the kingdom) and we will be surprised at who is saved when we get to Heaven.

And IF He doesn't reveal Himself???? The whose sending those who were never "called", "chosen", "elect" to hell...really? Sounds like a 'respecter of persons' to me. Which is something I personally don't think he is.

I believe this is accomplished by grace and they are simply responding to it in the only way they have opportunity. We know from the Word that none seek after God. Yet many seek God, but I believe the scripture shows that it is by grace because the fallen nature of man abides in darkness and without His drawing no one would come to Him.[/quote] I can't disagree with a thing you said here bro.

 

[Alive_Again]

My friend, one scripture does not define a doctrine. It certainly does not redefine orthodoxy within a church that the gates of Hell will not prevail against.

If you're going to do a study, really go with it. Don't take one particular word out of a definition that has multiple words from one passage and try to build anything out of it. Look at the entirety of the Word, especially where it concerns God. You'll find if God's eternal nature is put into the box of an "age", that you cannot rely on that definition.

It is best to lay aside any preconceived notions when it comes to the study of the scripture, but also realize that God has been at work revealing truth for a long time and be very suspect of something that claims to revamp truth as we know it. That is where doctrines of devils come from.

So carry on your study and do it at length...

 

[4LivingCreations]

I'm contemplating starting a thread to do a joint word study on "eternal". I'm not sure it would be that fruitful around here.

Mike

I would participate, and be civil. Though this forum seems busy enough I might miss the thread with my limited time to check.

 

[lismore]

Think about it. How would you feel if you just heard about Jesus for the first time when white men came to your village, and you realized that every one of your ancestors for the past thousands of years are now burning in hell forever? That because "God's Free Gift" was first given to someone else on the other side of the planet, your people were condemned to suffer forever and ever and ever?

Perhaps that is why Jesus presented the great commission and the need to preach the gospel in urgent terms. 'Go into all the world............'.

On the other hand I have a book at home about Pioneer missionaries to the Indians of North America. It gives two seperate missionaries, the first to preach the gospel to certain small tribes who found that the tribes were already aware of it due to a previous visitation from above.

 

[Tobias]

Perhaps that is why Jesus presented the great commission and the need to preach the gospel in urgent terms. 'Go into all the world............'.

On the other hand I have a book at home about Pioneer missionaries to the Indians of North America. It gives two seperate missionaries, the first to preach the gospel to certain small tribes who found that the tribes were already aware of it due to a previous visitation from above.

Is the book Eternity in their Hearts by Don Richardson?


Irregardless, in the face of eternal torment for every soul that dies without Christ, nothing we've seen so far is sufficient. There are very very few testimonies of God reaching out to the remote peoples of the Earth. There is very little urgency in the Great Commission. Why work for over a thousand years with Abraham and the Israeli nation before sending Jesus? Why teach us to love our brothers and how to develop the fruit of the Spirit, when all we really need to be doing is spending every waking moment trying to rescue souls from hell?

In the light of one doctrine, the rest of the bible becomes completely irrelevant. God is not Love, because He doesn't really seem to care. It then falls upon our shoulders to save our fellow man. Even then, they might be in danger of the fires of hell if we let them live a lukewarm life. Best to get them "saved" and then slaughter them asap so they don't every yield to temptation and wind up in hell. In fact, the Church should be abortion's number one supporter, as all those who die that young must surly avoid eternal torment, right?


I'm sorry, but as a youth I have encountered church groups that taught this doctrine and got me started thinking along these lines. If you follow the logic behind this doctrine all the way, then this is where it brings you. (Well at least, this is where it brought me...)

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"Is universalism the only option if there is no hell?"

OF course not.

Annihilation is the alternative. if you're not a Christian, then Heaven isn't an option, and if there's no OTHER PLACE to go, then obviously you just have to "Cease existing".

Simple as that

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"If there is no hell, would people still need to be saved?"

Nope - people don't NEED to be saved NOW - unless, of course, they want to spend their eternity with God.

The "Lack of hell" (and I assume the subsequent lake of fire) wouldn't have any effect on that one way or another.

 

[lismore]

Is the book Eternity in their Hearts by Don Richardson?

No, is it a good one?

The one I read was 'Five Pioneer Missionaries', I don't recall the author and cant look it up because I'm not at home now.

But if the google the issue you might find many sites that mention it.

Irregardless, in the face of eternal torment for every soul that dies without Christ, nothing we've seen so far is sufficient. There are very very few testimonies of God reaching out to the remote peoples of the Earth.

I believe there will be many, perhaps ones you haven't heard of.

There is very little urgency in the Great Commission.

It seems pretty urgent to me:

He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.

Why work for over a thousand years with Abraham and the Israeli nation before sending Jesus? Why teach us to love our brothers and how to develop the fruit of the Spirit, when all we really need to be doing is spending every waking moment trying to rescue souls from hell?

The Israeli nation was meant to be a light to the people in the surrounding nations.

In the light of one doctrine, the rest of the bible becomes completely irrelevant. God is not Love, because He doesn't really seem to care. It then falls upon our shoulders to save our fellow man. Even then, they might be in danger of the fires of hell if we let them live a lukewarm life. Best to get them "saved" and then slaughter them asap so they don't every yield to temptation and wind up in hell. In fact, the Church should be abortion's number one supporter, as all those who die that young must surly avoid eternal torment, right?

I don't believe someone goes to hell because of temptation, it's because they did not believe on the name of God's one and only son. You cannot 'loose your salvation' because it's not yours, it's the gift of God.

God has chosen us to be co-workers with him in preaching the gospel and seeing souls saved.

Jesus said 'Go..............' A command. Go into all the world and preach the gospel.

 

[Tobias]

He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

But see right here even in this verse, people have to hear the Gospel before any determining judgement is made. They don't go to heaven by default unless they reject God, do they? NOR are they condemned already before the Gospel is even heard. Only after the Gospel is heard, THEN they are judged according to whether they believe in Christ or not.


Personally I see verse after verse after verse which shoot holes in the theory that all are going to hell by default unless they hear the Gospel and believe. Add to this the fact that Jesus preached about the Kingdom of Heaven being here on Earth right now, rather than what we tend to think of as a place to go after we die, I see that we are definitely missing something.

Unfortunately I haven't come up with a doctrine to replace this one with. Universalism doesn't work for me, period. Nor have I found anything else that explains where people all go after they die and how they are to be judged.

Or perhaps it isn't unfortunate at all that I haven't accepted any other doctrine. I am left free to believe the Word for what it says, without feeling compelled to read anything else into it!

 

[Abana]

I have to be honest and say that I haven't read this whole thread but I do have a thought to ponder. I ask myself these questions often:
1. What did God tell Adam would happen to him if he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
2. Did God warn Adam that he would suffer the fate of an everlasting torment in the flames of hell?
3. Has God changed?
4. What is sin?
5. What are the wages of sin?
6. Is one sin greater than the other?
7. Is Adam's transgression greater than Jesus' redemption?

These questions have flooded my heart since being compelled to study Romans 5.
I believe that answers are contained there along with going back to the beginning. There is only one testimony in the New Testament of a human suffering in "hell" and that is in Luke. It is my understanding that Luke wasn't a personal witness to the ministry of Jesus and therefore his witness wouldn't have been first hand. There is no collaboration of the story of the rich man and Lazarus in the other gospels. God demands that every testimony must be established by two or more witnesses. This isn't the case with Luke. As for the book of Revelation, the only beings that we are told would be tormented day and night forever is the false prophet, satan and the beast. We are also told that the lake of fire was made for the devil and his angels. Not for humans that are made in the image of God.
Before anyone starts freaking out on me - I'm just passing along what I have found in the Bible and through study. I haven't come to a definite conclusion on the matter yet.
I do know this. There is no mention of a place of eternal suffering in fire in the old testament. There is the grave. All of the sudden, after Jesus gave His own life for all mankind, there is a place were the loving Father sends humans to burn forever?

 

[4LivingCreations]

Here is the key from my experience to finishing the inner debate, my testimony, so that those who share the similar things can be built up, if that is what they yearn for, and so that those who do not share the same viewpoint, can see where at least one of us is coming from.

Ever since I heard of the concept of "eternal torment" as a child, my first memories of it, when I play in my head what the person was describing, I shuddered with fear. Not fear of the place so much, as to the trembling question "would God really do that to a person?" In no more complication than that, of a child, it was a rejectable thought. Since I had already been told, and come to the realization, that God loves everybody, even bad people. I grew up methodist, with little teaching on "hell", as well as most other serious topics. Church seemed to be a place to hear "stories of miracles", with the epic choice of whether or not to be sprinkled, and become a member of the church, and that this for some reason made one special and more accepted. At school, a more harsh admonition to become baptized was being preached by the other kids at school, who were mostly baptist. It was all confusion to me. I was already able to pray, and I was already convinced that God was always with me available at any moment, and all I had to do was think to talk to him. So I did so, as much as a child can without getting distracted by childhood activities, constantly. I never heard any distinct voices back, but I was kept for the most part, protected from the world, and very much so in hindsight, from myself. All my life this was the case, and I went through much spiritual tribulation and pain in my life. Never able to get ahead. As I began to grow older and see the reality of the circus that we live in, and how imprisoned the average human mind is, I decided to break away from modern social understanding as best I could. Eventually, bells went off and I began to wonder about all of this "revelation" and "rapture" stuff, and if and how the world was playing up to it. It certainly is playing up to *some* kind of intervention by God, because I cannot imagine us getting much worse off than we are without blowing ourselves up. I see that in himself, mankind is beyond his means to repair the world without God stopping it all. I began to study the bible for serious, and decided that most of what Jesus did is pretty rockin, and that almost none of it is being manifested in modern religions. At some point, this "eternal torment" struggle took hold. I finally came to the realization that in my opinion, it calls God "evil" in no uncertain terms, and realized that according to modern standards, some of my loved ones would supposedly go to this "hell" because they did not jump through certain hoops, even though they lived lives that in my and most other people's opinions, were relatively filled with good fruit. Something doesn't add up, why by any stretch of logic, would all this boil down to having said "uncle" or not, and microchips that affect the condition of the heart in no way except to instill fear.
Jacobs struggle: I challenged God. Why add to the command to "go home" by dividing the camp so that some would be saved at the expense of others? That night as I lie in bed soaking it with tears on behalf of the entire clueless human race, particularly my own errant self, I prayed:
"Father, please come soon and clean all our mess up!"
And I prayed a prayer that later I was elated to find that Moses, Paul, and certainly Jesus had prayed:
"Forgive them Father, and if not, take me and destroy me, let me take another's place in destruction or whatever, so that the other person, who cannot save himself, might be saved. If you cannot save everyone, especially those who do well and don't know you, how can I be happy in that 'paradise' ? To me, to watch my dad burn in eternal torment, would have been eternal torment for me as well, though I would be 'happy' forever."
???
"Don't worry my child, I don't do those things. I've got this." was the most clear and beautiful response I could have ever imagined.

Jacob (heel-grabber, struggles with flesh)
becomes
Israel (struggles with God)
I was allowed to "win", and I was struck upon my thigh as a reminder of who's in charge.
My right thigh was physically and ever so mildly "frogged" as I lay in bed that night. And it twitches on occasion when I am in serious prayer of praise to this day.

Subsequently I have "discovered", rather, truly, been shown:
1. "eternal" and "forever" clauses in the bible are mistranslations.
2. the "sinner" that is to be destroyed is the sinner inside me.
3. there are only two things in the bible that are written in stone, i.e. SOLELY LITERAL with no room for interpretation,
The ten commandments, and the life, death, resurrection and actions of Yeshua.
Everything else is symbolic, whether or not it happened literally.

To "stone" someone until they "die" is to cast your testimony upon that person until they die to the sin in question. If not, cast them out of the camp so that God may deal with them personally in the wilderness, as the NT teaches.
Moses' peers knew this, pharisees turned it in to a literal death penalty for power and control.
The destruction of the sinner has suffered the same fate, being turned into "eternal torment" for the same purpose.
I never bought into it, and can see that those who do, do not really know...
YET.
Then once they fully understand it, have a chance to decide:
Blaspheme the Set Apart Spirit or not.

The abomination (eternal torment) has caused desolation, in that it forces men to buy and sell thier soul, when it has already been paid for.
It stands in many temples.
And the body is the temple.

Jacob's struggle.
Be free.
Now, all references to Jacob and Israel, are to me, and to you, whoever believes.

You give up none of the gospel, by ceasing to unknowingly call God "evil", and all of the instructions given by the prophets are revealed, if you clean yourself the best you can from sinful intent (the body follows automatically)

"Son of man, I send you to a rebellious house"
"Whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear"

The tribulation is spiritual. Any physical events that occur are simply because:

"I will answer them according to the multitude of their idols"

Thus saith YHWH, our Elohim.

Peace.

 

[Yahu]

My friend, one scripture does not define a doctrine. It certainly does not redefine orthodoxy within a church that the gates of Hell will not prevail against.

If you're going to do a study, really go with it. Don't take one particular word out of a definition that has multiple words from one passage and try to build anything out of it. Look at the entirety of the Word, especially where it concerns God. You'll find if God's eternal nature is put into the box of an "age", that you cannot rely on that definition.

It is best to lay aside any preconceived notions when it comes to the study of the scripture, but also realize that God has been at work revealing truth for a long time and be very suspect of something that claims to revamp truth as we know it. That is where doctrines of devils come from.

So carry on your study and do it at length...

While I agree with most of your statement I have to STRONGLY disagree with the bold text!

Many times it is the doctrines of devils that has been rooted in the common perception and it takes someone to stand against it. That is exactly what the reformation did to stand up to the error that had crept into the RCC.

Just because the majority think its correct doesn't make it so. Just ask all those that used to think the world was flat. The same thing can be said of doctrines rooted in the common perception like doctrines from Augustine. Many of his false doctrines are still rooted solidly into common christianity like the doctrine that the 'ben Elohyim' of Gen 6 that crossed with the daughters of man were sons of the line of Seth. That false doctrine is still rooted strongly into Christianity because of works like Paradise Lost.