Let's Talk About Hell (2)

[Hillsage]

besides the point but whoever believes Hitler was the biggest mass murderer ever has not studied much history.

Interesting. I guess that part of history is lacking for me. Who has been worse?

I believe Yahweh can cleanse all the unrighteous

Not only "can" but "will"...according to scripture.
1TI 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Ephesians 1:11 In him, according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will,

His will is that all will be saved and he will accomplish his will, according to His counsel, not ours. He caused Paul's will to change and he will do no less for anyone else. Praise be to Jesus.

 

[LutheranMafia]

Interesting. I guess that part of history is lacking for me. Who has been worse?

Mao leads the pack with 50 to 80 million killed. Stalin is next with 23 million. Hitler comes third with 12 million.

Not only "can" but "will"...according to scripture.
1TI 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

The KJV and the NIV translate this verse very differently:

This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
1 Timothy 2:3-4
​

The Amplified bible, which does the best at capturing the subtle nuances of the origional language says:

Who wishes all men to be saved and [increasingly] to perceive and recognize and discern and know precisely and correctly the [divine] Truth.
1 Timothy 2:4
​

"Wants" or "wishes" puts this verse in much better context. Of course God wishes that all could be saved, but He makes it very clear that they cannot in the parable of the wheat and the tares (Matthew 13:24-30) and in Matthew 7:23.

 

[LutheranMafia]

Good verse, I must admit.

Thank you.

I am not claiming "no damnation",and neither am I claiming "damnation based upon intellectual belief." That's actually your position since you think you can say you have love and therefore that means you know God.

Love is not intellectual. Love confounds the intellectual.

So now you're jumping from "love" being your litmus, to "believing in Jesus". So what side of the fence do you really believe matters?

I was speaking to your beliefs, not mine.

I never said that. I am saying you don't sound like you love him so do you have God's love as mentioned in 1Joh 4:7,8?

One has to love evil in order to manifest agapé? I don't think so.

The carnal mind is a 'beast' in all, but the mind of Christ is what we are all to be striving for, as Christ is formed in us. And I know some real animals that have more love for unlovely people than professing believers. So what's wrong with a dog's "animalistic intellect" and their love for even a Hitler, as opposed to you who claims the love of God, along with what appears to me as an obvious absence of love for Hitler?

I'm speaking of feral animals. Pet dogs can indeed be extremely loving, but in the wild animals have no love, it is all might-makes-right. That is what I mean by animalistic. Basing salvation on belief in Jesus is to base salvation on an intellectual concept. But Mattew 7:23 clearly contradicts the assertion that intellectual belief in Jesus can save anyone.

 

[LutheranMafia]

What if you have an atheist who is actively trying to help people and cares about others and loves them, but hates the idea of God or any kind of creator? Basically, you have someone who emotionally knows love but wants nothing to do with God. This is something I see in quite a few people.

Exactly. People aren't damned just because they get turned off by religion. Maybe they became atheists because they truly sought God in a Godless world and were unable to find Him in religion. So they turned their mind from religion and belief in God to love, which is the true heart of God. So in truth such people are more in tune with God than many religious people, in my opinion.

 

[Hillsage]

Love is not intellectual. Love confounds the intellectual.

I disagree. Agape love is a choice. God chose Jesus and he chose to go, and we also choose. We can do so because we aren't bound to instinct. Laying your life down for another is the ultimate act of God's kind of love. It may "confound the intellectual", but the one doing it, still does so by intellectual choice.

One has to love evil in order to manifest agapé? I don't think so.

That's not what I'm saying. If you have God's love then you love the sinner and you hate the sin. God has dealt with the sin issue 'for all' and He will deal with it 'in all'. The church has trouble distinguishing between sin and sinner (except theirs)...but God can and WILL distinguish and deal with both.

But Mattew 7:23 clearly contradicts the assertion that intellectual belief in Jesus can save anyone.

All Matthew 7 tells me is that in verse 21 it says: He who "does the will" and not he who 'knows me' or 'who I know'. He who "does the will" is not a "lawbreaker". So I have to deal with this verse from the POV that Jesus does not 'Know them' in any of their 'good works' because those works weren't works he had called them to. They were just 'good' works from the tree of good and evil, but their source was not the tree of life (eg. Spirit led).

But in the context of chapter 7 scripture states:
Matthew 7:13 "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.
The lesson here is that many will have to go through the purgative fires of God's judgment which will destroy sin...not sinners. Just because they didn't enter the narrow gate doesn't mean they didn't enter. If you notice, this scripture says THEY STILL GOT IN, even though they didn't go through the narrow gate which avoids destruction of the sin issue by God on the other side of the gate.

The same holds true for milk toast Christians. They too will go through the judgments of fire to burn out the undealt with dross of their lives. That's what the judgment of 1Cor 3:10-15 is talking about.

 

[Hillsage]

Lutheranmafia,

Sorry, I missed post 642 with my last post.

I'd not thought about Mao and Stalin, I wonder why Hitler is always the first name named in these type discussions?

The KJV and the NIV translate this verse very differently:

This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved​

Which is why I call it the Nearly Inspired Version. Remember way back when I mentioned how translators had to pass a doctrine test before hiring? Well that was specifically referring to the NIV translation committee. If you look at the strong's definition for will/KJV or wants/NIV you will find that NIV totally watered down the definition to protect their theological persuasion.

The Amplified bible, which does the best at capturing the subtle nuances of the origional language says:

Who wishes all men to be saved and [increasingly] to perceive and recognize and discern and know precisely and correctly the [divine] Truth.
1 Timothy 2:4
​

"Wants" or "wishes" puts this verse in much better context.

This is Strong's definition for the word will in 1Ti 2:4
2307 thelema: a determination (prop. the thing), i.e. (act.) choice (specifically purpose, decree; abstr. volition) or (pass.) inclination
So if it is God's 'determination' 'choice' 'purpose', 'decree' it sounds like it's His will that will win...not ours.

 

[LutheranMafia]

Which is why I call it the Nearly Inspired Version. Remember way back when I mentioned how translators had to pass a doctrine test before hiring?

That is specifically why I used the Amplified version of the bible. It is not based on any previous edition, it is based only on the absolute interpretation of the original Greek.

Well that was specifically referring to the NIV translation committee.

No it wasn't, it was also based on the Amplified version of the Bible.

If you look at the strong's definition for will/KJV or wants/NIV you will find that NIV totally watered down the definition to protect their theological persuasion.

This is Strong's definition for the word will in 1Ti 2:4
2307 thelema: a determination (prop. the thing), i.e. (act.) choice (specifically purpose, decree; abstr. volition) or (pass.) inclination
So if it is God's 'determination' 'choice' 'purpose', 'decree' it sounds like it's His will that will win...not ours.

It sounds to me like the Amplified version is completely right in it's interpretation.

 

[Hillsage]

It sounds to me like the Amplified version is completely right in it's interpretation.

If it is God's 'determination' 'choice' 'purpose', 'decree' then that is a far cry from God wishing IMO.

That is specifically why I used the Amplified version of the bible. It is not based on any previous edition, it is based only on the absolute interpretation of the original Greek.

You say this, and then you said that it was translated by a committee who passed a doctrinal test before being hired just like the NIV translation. I don't follow your logic on this.

But it certainly does explain why Amplified went with "wishes" instead of God determines all men will be saved...that's a huge difference.

And according to the Amplified, the second verse I quoted seems to be right in line with my view.

Eph 1:11In Him we also were made [God's] heritage (portion) and we obtained an inheritance; for we had been foreordained (chosen and appointed beforehand) in accordance with His purpose, Who works out everything in agreement with the counsel and design of His [own] will,

So if "His [own] will" is a determination, choice or to purpose that all men be saved as in 1Tim 2;4 then I believe His will can persuades the will of any man in whatever age God 'calls, draws, foreordains,' just like he did with Paul in this age.

 

[LutheranMafia]

If it is God's 'determination' 'choice' 'purpose', 'decree' then that is a far cry from God wishing IMO.

The NASB, ESV and NKJV translation use the word "desires".

You talked about Strong's translation, BlueLetterBible.org uses Strong's numbering, but this is the definition that it gives for the word thelō:

1) to will, have in mind, intend
a) to be resolved or determined, to purpose
b) to desire, to wish
c) to love
1) to like to do a thing, be fond of doing
d) to take delight in, have pleasure

You say this, and then you said that it was translated by a committee who passed a doctrinal test before being hired just like the NIV translation. I don't follow your logic on this.

I said nothing about a doctrinal test. What I said was that the Amplified Bible does the best job of capturing all the subtle nuances of the original language, although sometimes it can be combersome with so many paranthetic explanatory phrases.

But it certainly does explain why Amplified went with "wishes" instead of God determines all men will be saved...that's a huge difference.

Your argument is tenuous here at best, given the full context of the definition of the word thelo. What makes it especially clear are the verses that you have chosen to ignore, which I mentioned previously: Matthew 7:23 and Matthew 13:24-30. These verses clearly contradict the notion of Universalism.

And according to the Amplified, the second verse I quoted seems to be right in line with my view.

Eph 1:11In Him we also were made [God's] heritage (portion) and we obtained an inheritance; for we had been foreordained (chosen and appointed beforehand) in accordance with His purpose, Who works out everything in agreement with the counsel and design of His [own] will,

So if "His [own] will" is a determination, choice or to purpose that all men be saved as in 1Tim 2;4 then I believe His will can persuades the will of any man in whatever age God 'calls, draws, foreordains,' just like he did with Paul in this age.

You are using Eph 1:11 by applying it to a false context for 1 Timothy 2:4. It applies equally to Matthew 7:23 and Matthew 13:24-30 to the effect that it is God's purpose and design that evil heartless people will be damned to Hell. Hell is part of God's purpose and design too, not just His desire to save as many as can be saved.

 

[Hillsage]

The NASB, ESV and NKJV translation use the word "desires".

Read Strong's unabridged volume. There you will find and interesting point. It says; to wish, i.e. be inclined to...to delight in: desire, be disposed (foreward)...to determine (as an active option). Do you comprehend the nuances written here? These definitions imply 'intent to do' and not just some 'birthday cake wish by the God of the universe' for crying out loud.

You talked about Strong's translation, BlueLetterBible.org uses Strong's numbering, but this is the definition that it gives for the word thelō:

1) to will, have in mind, intend
a) to be resolved or determined, to purpose
b) to desire, to wish
c) to love
1) to like to do a thing, be fond of doing
d) to take delight in, have pleasure

Read what you posted and do so without twisting it like orthodoxy has taught you. You're making this definition say what you want it to say instead of reading it at face value. And then you could only cherry pick 2 definitions out of 6 for bold print, to even do that with.

1)to will, have in mind, intend. This is saying 'to will' is to do, whatever I 'have in mind' (salvation), I 'intend' to do (save).
a) to be resolved or determined to, to purpose. This is saying I'm 'resolved' to save, I am 'determined' to do save, I am 'purposing' to save.
b) to desire, to wishThis is saying I desire blue not pink. I'm getting blue. I wish (inclined to according to Strong's unabridged) to save Paul. This isn't speaking of a 'blow out the candles kind of wish. It's talking about whatever God wishes to do...it's done...just like Paul who certainly wished NOT to be a Christian..until God's wish changed Paul's will.
1) to like to DO a thing, be fond of DOING You printed this one all in bold...didn't you understand it? I underlined the understanding part that you missed. It is a DO and DOING statement, not a 'I like to save some' or 'I like saving some.' He's already said in scripture He wants ALL to be saved and that's what He is going to DO what He LIKES and is FOND of DOING.
d) to take delight in, have pleasure This is saying he will save all because according to scripture all things were made for his pleasure. And only a fiend would take pleasure in torturing for eternity. And who, besides the devil, would portray God as a fiend??? Oh no, not THE CHURCH!

REV 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

I said nothing about a doctrinal test. What I said was that the Amplified Bible does the best job of capturing all the subtle nuances of the original language, although sometimes it can be combersome with so many paranthetic explanatory phrases.

Some of us have sought the nuances that your crew didn't believe in. That's why were here now LM.

Your argument is tenuous here at best, given the full context of the definition of the word thelo.

Totally dis-proven now.

What makes it especially clear are the verses that you have chosen to ignore, which I mentioned previously: Matthew 7:23 and Matthew 13:24-30. These verses clearly contradict the notion of Universalism.

Already dealt with the above, and you didn't refute my comeback. Now you want to claim you won!

God's purpose and design that evil heartless people will be damned to Hell.

We've dealt with the error of both of these words many times in the past. But you probably don't remember because a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still...even if it is wrong.

 

[Dillinger]

I don't believe in an eternal hell, but a temporary or intermediate one seems plausible.

 

[Hillsage]

I don't believe in an eternal hell, but a temporary or intermediate one seems plausible.

Welcome to the forum Dillinger.

You say you don't believe in eternal hell, but did you know that Augustine (the author of your signature line) is probably the one who is most responsible for the orthodox position concerning eternal hell?

 

[LutheranMafia]

Somehow I missed this post.

I disagree. Agape love is a choice. God chose Jesus and he chose to go, and we also choose. We can do so because we aren't bound to instinct. Laying your life down for another is the ultimate act of God's kind of love. It may "confound the intellectual", but the one doing it, still does so by intellectual choice.

It is not an intellectual choice, it is a choice of the heart, not the head. God judges us by what is in our hearts'--our love, not by what is in our heads'--our intellectual concepts. Agape is of the heart, not the intellect. People can have very high IQ's and yet be completely unloving. If agape were an intellectual thing then that would unavoidably mean that people with high IQ's were automatically filled with agape, but obviously this is not the case.

That's not what I'm saying. If you have God's love then you love the sinner and you hate the sin. God has dealt with the sin issue 'for all' and He will deal with it 'in all'. The church has trouble distinguishing between sin and sinner (except theirs)...but God can and WILL distinguish and deal with both.

So, what it is about Hitler that you love?

All Matthew 7 tells me is that in verse 21 it says: He who "does the will" and not he who 'knows me' or 'who I know'. He who "does the will" is not a "lawbreaker". So I have to deal with this verse from the POV that Jesus does not 'Know them' in any of their 'good works' because those works weren't works he had called them to. They were just 'good' works from the tree of good and evil, but their source was not the tree of life (eg. Spirit led).

But in the context of chapter 7 scripture states:
Matthew 7:13 "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.
The lesson here is that many will have to go through the purgative fires of God's judgment which will destroy sin...not sinners.

I do believe in Purgatory.

But you are completely overlooking the thrust of Matthew 7:23. Jesus says, "I never knew you, depart from me". In other words these were people who were never genuinely with Christ, they were never loving in any way, from the start they were desstined for damnation.

Just because they didn't enter the narrow gate doesn't mean they didn't enter. If you notice, this scripture says THEY STILL GOT IN, even though they didn't go through the narrow gate which avoids destruction of the sin issue by God on the other side of the gate.

The same holds true for milk toast Christians. They too will go through the judgments of fire to burn out the undealt with dross of their lives. That's what the judgment of 1Cor 3:10-15 is talking about.

And of course there is Matthew 12:31-32:

31 “(A)Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32 (B)Whoever [a]speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever [b]speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in (C)this age or in the age to come.
​

But this verse is a double edged sword for your argument because it says that most sins will be forgiven, but some sins will never be forgiven.

I notice that you didn't say anything about Matthew 13:24-30.

 

[LutheranMafia]

Read Strong's unabridged volume. There you will find and interesting point. It says; to wish, i.e. be inclined to...to delight in: desire, be disposed (foreward)...to determine (as an active option). Do you comprehend the nuances written here? These definitions imply 'intent to do' and not just some 'birthday cake wish by the God of the universe' for crying out loud.

Read what you posted and do so without twisting it like orthodoxy has taught you. You're making this definition say what you want it to say instead of reading it at face value. And then you could only cherry pick 2 definitions out of 6 for bold print, to even do that with.

1)to will, have in mind, intend. This is saying 'to will' is to do, whatever I 'have in mind' (salvation), I 'intend' to do (save).
a) to be resolved or determined to, to purpose. This is saying I'm 'resolved' to save, I am 'determined' to do save, I am 'purposing' to save.
b) to desire, to wishThis is saying I desire blue not pink. I'm getting blue. I wish (inclined to according to Strong's unabridged) to save Paul. This isn't speaking of a 'blow out the candles kind of wish. It's talking about whatever God wishes to do...it's done...just like Paul who certainly wished NOT to be a Christian..until God's wish changed Paul's will.
1) to like to DO a thing, be fond of DOING You printed this one all in bold...didn't you understand it? I underlined the understanding part that you missed. It is a DO and DOING statement, not a 'I like to save some' or 'I like saving some.' He's already said in scripture He wants ALL to be saved and that's what He is going to DO what He LIKES and is FOND of DOING.
d) to take delight in, have pleasure This is saying he will save all because according to scripture all things were made for his pleasure. And only a fiend would take pleasure in torturing for eternity. And who, besides the devil, would portray God as a fiend??? Oh no, not THE CHURCH!

You've tried explaining around how the Amplified Bible uses one of the definitions here, i.e. wishes. You railed against the translation as the product of some corrupt institution (when I doubt that you know a single thing about how the Amplified Bible was translated) and yet here you address the exact same word and try to explain it away. You can't have it both ways. If the Amplified Bible is not incorrect then you have lost the battle.

REV 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

I don't see how this verse has anything to do with the subject at hand.

Already dealt with the above, and you didn't refute my comeback. Now you want to claim you won!

You never addressed Matthew 13:24-30.

We've dealt with the error of both of these words many times in the past. But you probably don't remember because a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still...even if it is wrong.

You are brain washed by your own philosphy which is clearly contradicted by the Bible.

 

[Dillinger]

You say you don't believe in eternal hell, but did you know that Augustine (the author of your signature line) is probably the one who is most responsible for the orthodox position concerning eternal hell?

I don't subscribe to everything that Augustine proposed. I simply like that one quote.

 

[Hillsage]

If agape were an intellectual thing then that would unavoidably mean that people with high IQ's were automatically filled with agape, but obviously this is not the case.

By intellectual I wasn't talking about smarts. I was talking about a decision having to be made and not going by a feeling. Whether you make that decision in your head or your heart is a mute point IMO. Not worth debating.

So, what it is about Hitler that you love?

I suppose I'd have to say that if God is the Father of his spirit and my spirit then we are brothers and if God loves him then I should too. I don't love what he did though and neither does our Father.

But you are completely overlooking the thrust of Matthew 7:23.

No, I dealt with it and you disagree.

And of course there is Matthew 12:31-32:

31 “(A)Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32 (B)Whoever [a]speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever [b]speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in (C)this age or in the age to come.
​

But this verse is a double edged sword for your argument because it says that most sins will be forgiven, but some sins will never be forgiven.

It does not say "never be forgiven". Read the text, it says "not be forgiven...in this age or the age to come". This was spoken in the age of the law and before Jesus had even made salvation possible. There are at least two more ages ahead according to scripture which was written in the present church age.

EPH 2:7 that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

I notice that you didn't say anything about Matthew 13:24-30.

Jesus never sowed the tares. So those people/tares will have to go through the purgative fires of judgment in the next age. What did Jesus say about them after they'd been judged and purged...sort of like the people in purgatory which you believe in.

MAT 13:42 and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

Do you have ears to hear what Jesus is saying here? Most don't. They go into the furnace and come out righteous after having paid every last cent and bowing the knee.

 

[gort]

Do you have ears to hear what Jesus is saying here? Most don't. They go into the furnace and come out righteous after having paid every last cent and bowing the knee.

I'm wondering if you're hearing what you're saying yourself?

You've just introduced another way of salvation outside of Christ Jesus, where one can pay every last cent.

 

[Hillsage]

You can't have it both ways. If the Amplified Bible is not incorrect then you have lost the battle.

I'm not having it both ways at all. I still believe "wish" is a bad translation which doesn't convey the intent of the word. If you think God's wishes are just a 'birthday candle wish' mentality, then you missed what Strong's spelled out...just like orthodox mentors wanted you to when they picked wish out of that list, to begin with. If it is God's 'determination' 'choice' 'purpose', 'decree' then that is a far cry from God 'birthday wishing'.

Originally Posted by Hillsage

REV 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
​

I don't see how this verse has anything to do with the subject at hand.

I'm sorry you missed that point too. But I'm not going over it again. Reread it...or not.

You are brain washed by your own philosphy which is clearly contradicted by the Bible.

Thank you I believe they are washed now too. But the philosophy certainly wasn't my own originally, it took years of seeking the truth to settle the same questions you still ask. A search which requires reading bibles more aligned to the heart of God than the church of man.

Going mountain biking in Colorado, won't be back til Sunday PM.

 

[Hillsage]

I don't subscribe to everything that Augustine proposed. I simply like that one quote.

Yeah, he did say a lot of good things. My favorite is "Preach the gospel at all times and when necessary...use words."

 

[Tavita]

I'm wondering if you're hearing what you're saying yourself?

You've just introduced another way of salvation outside of Christ Jesus, where one can pay every last cent.

I agree, it's not a matter of one paying a last cent for their own sins. Christ has ALREADY paid for every single sin. It's a matter of dealing with the flesh. Even though we are clean by the washing of the word and we know our sins are forgiven, the flesh must still be dealt with. This is the point of the scriptures concerning fire. Our being tested and tried so as by fire.

1Pe 1:7 so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

1Co 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Rev 3:18 I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see.

These scriptures are not just talking about 'believers'. ALL mankind has already been redeemed and bought with a price. ALL mankind will undergo the fires of purging to the flesh (which is what man's work is.. done by the flesh).