Only a loving God would create hell!

[Original Happy Camper]

Like I said in an earlier post, Lucifer and the angels were not in Heaven in the beginning, they were in testing place where God tested their loyalty. Lucifer and his angels failed the test, and fell into hell.

Please provide scripture from the Bible to help me understand your teaching.

 

[Original Happy Camper]

the fire is eternal not the burning of the lost.

Jude 1:7
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Those cities and people are not still burning, they were consumed by the eternal fire. Jesus is the eternal fire.

 

[ClementofA]

Yeah, it refers to the age to come, and the age to come is eternal! And thus those who reject to live with God, live without Him for eternity.

Paul spoke of multiple ages to come (Eph.2:7). As did John in Rev. 11:15. And elsewhere in the NT at least 10 times. So the age to come is not eternal.

I heard an online homily given by a priest, who used this passage to prove just the opposite:

"Wait a minute!... Are-are the buildings? Is that's burning forever!?! No! That's imposable folks! He's talking about the inhabitants, he's saying that they went to hell, they're in hell!"

The proper translation is important. Compare the "Interlinear" for Jude 7 via this site:

Jude 1 Interlinear Bible

The Interlinear there says it is not "suffering the vengeance of eternal fire", as one version says, but the cities are "set forth as an example", "undergoing the penalty of fire aionion".

Similarly, a literal version reads:

7 As Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them in like manner to these committing ultra-prostitution, and coming away after other flesh, are lying before us, a specimen, experiencing the justice of fire eonian." (Jude 7, CLNT)

"7 The destruction of Sodom and the surrounding cities is still apparent to all who visit the region. In this way these cities are experiencing the justice of eonian fire. The fire has long ceased but its effects will remain and testify to God's judgment until the close of this eon, after which Sodom shall return to her former estate (Ezek.16:53-56)" (Concordant Commentary of the New Testament, p.376)
Concordant Commentary on the New Testament

"We likewise subscribe to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, who "are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire" (Jude 7). This occurred many centuries ago. How poor a passage to apply to that which is thousands of years hence!"

"The word "set forth" is, literally, "lying before." The term "example" or specimen, is from the word show. These are readily comprehended if we apply them to the sites of Sodom and Gomorrah today. Their destruction was so complete that their exact location is in dispute. Now the preponderance of opinion places them under the shallow end of the Dead Sea. No one can visit this terrible desolation without fully appreciating the force of these words."

"But we are asked to forget this solemn and forceful scene for an "example" which no one can see, and which is not at all "set forth" or "lying before" us. We are asked to forget the fire (Gen.19:24) which destroyed these cities so that the smoke of the plain went up like the smoke of a furnace. The justice or "vengeance" of this fire is all too evident to this very day. It is a powerful reminder of God's judgment which should deter those who are tempted to follow a similar path. This fire is called "eternal." Just now the plain is covered by water, not fire. It was an eonian fire, as is witnessed by its effect for the eon."

"Speaking of Jerusalem, Ezekiel gives us God's thoughts concerning Sodom. "As I live, saith the Lord God, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters." And again, "When I shall bring again their captivity, the captivity of Sodom and her daughters...then will I bring again the captivity of thy captives in the midst of them...when thy sisters, Sodom and her daughters, shall return to their former estate, then thou and thy daughters shall return to your former estate" (Ezek.16:48,53,55)."

"2 Peter 2:6 gives a parallel passage, where we read that God condemns the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, reducing them to cinders by an overthrow, having placed them for an example. This is perfectly plain, unless we try to distinguish between the cities and the people, and make conscious cinders suffer from flames beneath the waters of the Dead Sea."

"If the Sodomites were on public exhibition where all could see them suffering in the flames of a medieval hell, we might consider them as set forth as an example, but as no one has ever seen them, and no one can see them, they are no example at all. The cities, however, are lying before us as a specimen of God's eonian justice. The effects of the fire endure for the eon. When Jerusalem is restored, they will be restored."

A Reply To “Universalism Refuted” Part Seven

 

[aiki]

Scripture says "God is love". God's love, holiness and righteousness are all revealed in Scripture as part of who He is.

Yes, but at the fundamental core of who He is, there is holiness.

Why would inanimate 'things' be called "love".

Why indeed?

What makes Him holy is His righteousness & love.

No, love does not make God holy. His righteousness does, yes, that is implicit in the term "holy"; but not love. Actually, the direction of effect is quite the other way 'round to what you assert. Love - godly love - is made so by it being holy, that is, morally perfect, anathema to what is dark and evil.

Without such He would not be holy but a despot. A monster like Hitler & Satan.

You don't understand holiness, if this is truly what you think. Holiness by its very definition, rules out despotic behaviour of the sort enacted by Stalin and Hitler. One cannot be holy and a cruel despot any more than one can be a married man and a bachelor.

The word "holy" means set apart, different.

This is by no means all that the term encompasses in its meaning. It also refers to God's divine nature, His glory and power, and to His righteous perfection. We cannot be like God in His divine Being, but we can emulate Him in the moral character of our living. And this is exactly what "Be you holy as I am holy" is urging upon us. We are to love, yes, but always in a way that accords with God's holiness.

I wrote:

Matthew 25:46 is speaking, not of remedial punishment, but of the wrath of God poured out upon the unrepentant wicked in the eternal punishment of Hell. And that punishment, as the parallelism of the verse indicates, will be as everlasting in its duration as the duration of the eternal life of the righteous in heaven.

You replied:

"This popular assertion, however, is fallacious. The fact that such a claim should so long endure and conquer, is proof of the power of deception."

It is not a fallacious assertion to say that Matthew 25:46 employs a parallelism that is used to make equal the duration of the eternal punishment of the wicked with the eternal life in heaven of the righteous. The parallelism is plainly evident, as is its purpose. What is fallacious is to deny that this is so.

The vast majority of learned sources agree the word aionios, & the noun, aion, can refer to a duration which is of a limited time period that has an end. The real issue here, then, is whether or not the word means a limited time period in the context of Matthew 25:31-46 in regards to punishment. That is something that should be a matter of serious study rather than assumptions based on what my pastor or bible study group assumes to be the case.

I have not said that "aionios" does not sometimes refer to a lengthy but limited period of time (ie. an age or eon). But it is as plain as the nose on your face that Matthew 25:46 employs the parallelism that it does for the purpose that I have pointed out. The verse clearly indicates that the everlasting punishment of the wicked is as everlasting as the eternal life of the righteous.

Considering the Greek word kolasis ("punishment", Mt.25:46, KJV) can refer to a corrective punishment, that should tell the reader of Matthew 25:46 what the possible duration of aionios ("everlasting", KJV) is & that it may refer to a finite punishment.

Only if one assumes that "kolasis" is intended in the remedial sense, which the parallelism of the verse does not allow.

Because since it is corrective, it is with the purpose of bringing the person corrected to salvation. Oncce saved the person no longer has need of such a punishment & it ends. So it isn't "everlasting". [Or if it "everlasting", it is only everlasting in its positive effect]. Therefore this passage could just as easily support universalism as anything else.

Absolutely not. You have tried here to arrive at an assertion by way of an assumption - and an assumption that ignores the constraints of the verse itself. One must do violence to the parallel of the verse to suggest that the punishment of the wicked is limited and remedial.

"Augustine raised the argument that since aionios in Mt. 25:46 referred to both life and punishment, it had to carry the same duration in both cases.5 However, he failed to consider that the duration of aionios is determined by the subject to which it refers.

Not in the case of Matthew 25:46 which is prevented from this duration-according-to-subject interpretation by the evident parallel it employs. Augustine was exactly right in his argument concerning this verse.

"Thus, the word cannot have a set value. It is a relative term and its duration depends upon that with which it is associated.

Except when constrained in meaning by the sort of parallelism Matthew 25:46 uses. The fact that "kolasis" in other places in Scripture may have a remedial sense does not require that this is so in the verse in question. The everlasting punishment of Matthew 25:46 cannot be remedial if it endures as long as the eternal life of the righteous that has no end which is what the verse asserts.

If Christ meant "endless" punishment at Mt.25:46, why use the ambiguous aionios?

It is ambiguous only to those who want to deny the plain meaning of the verse!

 

[ClementofA]

No, love does not make God holy. His righteousness does, yes, that is implicit in the term "holy"; but not love. Actually, the direction of effect is quite the other way 'round to what you assert. Love - godly love - is made so by it being holy, that is, morally perfect, anathema to what is dark and evil.

Holy means set apart, different. What makes God set apart & different from fallen man are His being love and light and righteous. His light reveals what His love is which corresponds to His righteousness & righteous standards, e.g. His NT moral laws. The whole law is summed up in one word, love, not holiness, as Jesus implied.

A man can have all knowledge of what is righteous & holy, give all to the poor & his body to be burned, but without love he is nothing, as per 1 Corinthians 13. Likewise without love God would be nothing. That is the core of His being that rules everything He is and does.

In relation to human beings that is a love that came down from heaven, suffered a life in this sinful world, lived perfectly & died for the sins of every person who ever lived. Why? Is the reason He did this stated to be because God is so holy? No, it is because God so "loved" the world that He gave His Son (Jn.3:16).

It is not a fallacious assertion to say that Matthew 25:46 employs a parallelism that is used to make equal the duration of the eternal punishment of the wicked with the eternal life in heaven of the righteous. The parallelism is plainly evident, as is its purpose. What is fallacious is to deny that this is so.

If aionios punishment & life refer to those of Mt.25:46 entering "into" such things in an aion to come, such as for example the millennium eon, there is nothing in that saying that both must be of equal duration. A judge may sentence one to a millennium of corrective punishment, but the president may issue a pardon long before that thousand years ends should this one repent. The unrighteous are said to go "into" this punishment, but there is nothing denying their coming 'out' of it should they repent. Even if they should not repent, the punishment is limited to a coming age or two, e.g. 1000 years.

Concordant Literal New Testament, 1983
And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian."

Rotherham Emphasized Bible, 1959
"And these shall go away into age-abiding correction, But the righteous into age-abiding life."

Youngs Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, 1898:
"And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during."

From a review of a book by Ilaria Ramelli, namely The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Brill, 2013. 890 pp):

"...in a passage in Origen in which he speaks of “life after aionios life” (160). As a native speaker of Greek he does not see a contradiction in such phrasing; that is because aionios life does not mean “unending, eternal life,” but rather “life of the next age.”
http://journalofanalytictheology.com/jat/index.php/jat/article/viewFile/jat.2015-3.181913130418a/271

Jesus Himself spoke of aionios life in the aion to come (Lk.18:30; Mk.10:30), thus limiting it, whereas Scripture speaks of multiple aions/eons/ages to come (Eph.2:7, Rev.11:15, etc).

Jude 7 speaks of the fire that destroyed Sodom as an example of "aionion fire" (the same words aionion fire used in Mt.25:41, compare v.46). Did Sodom burn forever? No. (see post # 63 for additional comments re Jude 7).

If one wishes to teach something clearly, they use words that are definitive or less ambiguous, not words that are full of ambiguity. Therefore Christ did not teach "endless" punishment or torments that have "no end". If Christ meant to teach "endless" punishment, why use the ambiguous words olam, aion and aionios? Why not instead use the word APERANTOS ("endless"; 1 Timothy 1:4)? Or why not use the words "no end" as in Lk1:33b: "And of His kingdom there will be no end"? Why not use the word "eternal" (AIDIOS) as in Rom.1:20 and Jude 6? Why not use the word His contemporary Philo used, APEIRON, unlimited? The answer seems obvious.

Absolutely not. You have tried here to arrive at an assertion by way of an assumption - and an assumption that ignores the constraints of the verse itself. One must do violence to the parallel of the verse to suggest that the punishment of the wicked is limited and remedial.

Except when constrained in meaning by the sort of parallelism Matthew 25:46 uses. The fact that "kolasis" in other places in Scripture may have a remedial sense does not require that this is so in the verse in question. The everlasting punishment of Matthew 25:46 cannot be remedial if it endures as long as the eternal life of the righteous that has no end which is what the verse asserts.

You have rejected a position that the duration of life & punishment in Matt.25:46 are not necessarily of equal duration. But did not address the argument that they are of equal & temporary duration. See my comments above, including some from my previous post. Also related to this is the passage in Dan. 12:2-3, as in the following:

The context supports the view that both the life & the punishment referred to in v.2 are of finite duration (OLAM), while v.3 speaks of those who will be for OLAM "and further".

2 From those sleeping in the soil of the ground many shall awake, these to eonian life
and these to reproach for eonian repulsion." 3 The intelligent shall warn as the warning
of the atmosphere, and those justifying many are as the stars for the eon and further."
(Dan.12:2-3, CLV)

The Hebrew word for eonian (v.2) & eon (v.3) above is OLAM which is used of limited durations in the OT. In verse 3 of Dan. 12 are the words "OLAM and further" showing an example of its finite duration in the very next words after Dan. 12:2. Thus, in context, the OLAM occurences in v.2 should both be understood as being of finite duration.

The early church accepted the following Greek OT translation of the Hebrew OT of Dan. 12:3:

καὶ οἱ συνιέντες ἐκλάμψουσιν ὡς ἡ λαμπρότης τοῦ στερεώματος καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν δικαίων τῶν πολλῶν ὡς οἱ ἀστέρες εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας καὶ ἔτι[and further]

Notice the words at the end saying KAI ETI, meaning "and further" or "and still" or "and yet" & other synonyms.

eti: "still, yet...Definition: (a) of time: still, yet, even now, (b) of degree: even, further, more, in addition." Strong's Greek: 2089. ἔτι (eti) -- still, yet

εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας καὶ ἔτι means "into the ages and further" as a translation of the Hebrew L'OLAM WA ED[5703, AD]

So this early church Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures agrees with the above translation (& those below) using the words "and further" & similarly.

3 and·the·ones-being-intelligent they-shall- warn as·warning-of the·atmosphere
and·ones-leading-to-righteousness-of the·many-ones as·the·stars for·eon and·futurity (Daniel 12:3, Hebrew-English Interlinear)
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/dan12.pdf

2 and, many of the sleepers in the dusty ground, shall awake,—these, [shall be] to age-abiding life, but, those, to reproach, and age-abiding abhorrence; 3 and, they who make wise, shall shine like the shining of the expanse,—and, they who bring the many to righteousness, like the stars to times age-abiding and beyond. (Daniel 12:2-3, Rotherham)

2 And the multitude of those sleeping in the dust of the ground do awake, some to life age-during, and some to reproaches—to abhorrence age-during.
3 And those teaching do shine as the brightness of the expanse, and those justifying the multitude as stars to the age and for ever*. (Dan. 12:2-3, YLT)
* for "for ever" Young of YLT says substitute "age during" everywhere in Scripture: http://heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/bibles/ylt.pdf


Scholar's Corner: The Center for Bible studies in Christian Universalism

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the second question, could you please clarify it?

In regards to the first question, as the Greek philosophers have demonstrated, it is within human reason to be able to know God, and God gives everyone supernatural faith and sufficient grace in order to embrace Him. Thus every person has the moral responsibility to know and love God, just as person suffering from thirst has a personal responsibility to find drink.

To the second question...a person could be righteous and still end up in hell, if they held incorrect beliefs, at least as I understand Christian thought.
To the first question, I'm not sure what philosophers you are speaking of, but I'd have to wonder if after demonstrating this, they then achieved eternal life with God.
I think every person may have the desire to search for God, but in my experience many are unsuccessful...if that's because God doesn't exist, because God exists but only chooses to reveal Himself to a chosen few, or because people just aren't patient enough to kerp looking...I don't know.

 

[Phantasman]

I disagree

Lucifer had free will to choose to rebel against GOD.

I don't see it that way. More OT ignorance.

The word Lucifer is mentioned once, by Isaiah, as son of the morning.

Satan is mentioned many times, and even by Jesus. Satan is not a person or an entity. It is a name to describe the results and thinking of ignorance of men who see truth in the physical (god).

Matthew:
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

The same thing happened when Jesus was tempted in the desert,

The adversary of the Father is ignorance, which is the mother of all sin. The devil (Satan) tempted Jesus with physical challenges (of physical proof) and Jesus responded with spiritual knowledge.

The whole Gospel message is based on this. Knowing what is physical (imperfection) and what Jesus taught as Truth (spiritual perfection of the Father). When you think that way, a lot opens up and the Gospel comes alive.

 

[aiki]

Holy means set apart, different.

Yes, it does. But "holy" refers to more than just "separation unto." See my last post.

What makes God set apart & different from fallen man are His being love and light and righteous.

There is a good deal more that distinguishes God from Man. His omnipotence, His omnipresence, His aseity, His omniscience, His justice, His truth - these all (and more) make God distinct from His Creation.

His light reveals what His love is which corresponds to His righteousness & righteous standards, e.g. His NT moral laws. The whole law is summed up in one word, love, not holiness, as Jesus implied.

But that love is, as I've pointed out, a holy love. God's love is pure, morally perfect, which is in large part what makes godly love godly. It is, then, implicit in the First and Great commandment, that our love for God is to be of a holy sort. God will accept no other kind from us. You can't, then, artificially separate out God's love from His holiness. God's moral perfection, His holiness, is necessary to His being God, and consequently informs all of His other attributes.

A man can have all knowledge of what is righteous & holy, give all to the poor & his body to be burned, but without love he is nothing, as per 1 Corinthians 13. Likewise without love God would be nothing. That is the core of His being that rules everything He is and does.

I've never suggested that love is not fundamental to God's character, only that His holiness shapes and defines His love and is, I think, more fundamental to His nature than His love is.

In relation to human beings that is a love that came down from heaven, suffered a life in this sinful world, lived perfectly & died for the sins of every person who ever lived. Why? Is the reason He did this stated to be because God is so holy? No, it is because God so "loved" the world that He gave His Son (Jn.3:16).

But you've said here yourself that Christ came into our sinful world and "lived perfectly" and atoned for the sin of humanity. Why? Why did he do these particular things? Why didn't he permanently cure all disease, or all hunger, or all loneliness and sorrow instead? Why was Christ focused upon dealing with our sin? Why was God's love manifested to mankind in a sacrifice for sin? Well, because He is a holy God and His holiness shapes and directs the expression of His love.

If aionios punishment & life refer to those of Mt.25:46 entering "into" such things in an aion to come, such as for example the millennium eon, there is nothing in that saying that both must be of equal duration.

But the "if" at the beginning of your remark here makes everything that follows it essentially hypothetical. You cannot argue for what is by way of what could be. As I said, the parallelism Matthew 25:46 employs denies the interpretive squirming you're doing here.

A judge may sentence one to a millennium of corrective punishment, but the president may issue a pardon long before that thousand years ends should this one repent.

So? One may imagine all sorts of scenarios. But a "may happen" does not trump what Scripture flatly states will happen.

The unrighteous are said to go "into" this punishment, but there is nothing denying their coming 'out' of it should they repent. Even if they should not repent, the punishment is limited to a coming age or two, e.g. 1000 years.

If the unrighteous go into eternal or everlasting punishment and the meaning of everlasting is unconstrained in its duration by the immediate context, then it is entirely reasonable to think that there will be no end to their punishment. And this reading is reinforced by the parallelism of the verse which makes the same in duration the eternal life of the righteous and the everlasting punishment of the wicked. Nothing in Scripture gives us cause to think the eternal life of the righteous is finite in length which means the everlasting punishment of the wicked is also without limit.

Jesus Himself spoke of aionios life in the aion to come (Lk.18:30; Mk.10:30), thus limiting it, whereas Scripture speaks of multiple aions/eons/ages to come (Eph.2:7, Rev.11:15, etc).

Are you indicating here that you think the life of the righteous is not eternal, that is, unending, but lasting only for an age (which you seem to think is at most a thousand years)? I hope not. The eternal life of the righteous may be divided up into ages, but the sum total of those ages will be impossible to calculate because they will have no end. On this the Bible is clear. So, your interpretive gymnastics here don't really advance your argument at all.

Jude 7 speaks of the fire that destroyed Sodom as an example of "aionion fire" (the same words aionion fire used in Mt.25:41, compare v.46). Did Sodom burn forever? No. (see post # 63 for additional comments re Jude 7).

Again, how a word may be used in one context does not necessitate it being used the very same way in every other context.

If one wishes to teach something clearly, they use words that are definitive or less ambiguous, not words that are full of ambiguity. Therefore Christ did not teach "endless" punishment or torments that have "no end".

Yes, he did. And I see no ambiguity in his statements to that effect. This is so, I suspect, because I'm not trying to massage his words into saying something he didn't mean. What's more, Jesus spoke in ambiguities frequently, purposely obscuring his meaning from his listeners. Even his disciples had to press him for explanations at times. See his parables.

If Christ meant to teach "endless" punishment, why use the ambiguous words olam, aion and aionios?

They are not ambiguous - except to those who want to contort his meaning.

You have rejected a position that the duration of life & punishment in Matt.25:46 are not necessarily of equal duration.

Yup.

But did not address the argument that they are of equal & temporary duration.

See above.

The context supports the view that both the life & the punishment referred to in v.2 are of finite duration (OLAM), while v.3 speaks of those who will be for OLAM "and further".

I disagree. See above.

 

[aiki]

Satan is mentioned many times, and even by Jesus. Satan is not a person or an entity. It is a name to describe the results and thinking of ignorance of men who see truth in the physical (god).

Luke 22:3
3 Then Satan entered Judas, surnamed Iscariot, who was numbered among the twelve.

Matthew 4:1
1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

John 8:44
44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.

Acts 5:3
3 But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself?

1 Peter 5:8
8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.

Neither the verses themselves nor their context indicate that the being named Satan, or the devil, or the adversary, is anything other than an actual, living being. It is reading into Scripture in the most obvious and excessive way to suggest the devil is merely a figurative character representative of ignorance.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

considering the fact that salvation is so easy for those in the NT (such as us)..I think hell is justifiable

 

[Phantasman]

Luke 22:3
3 Then Satan entered Judas, surnamed Iscariot, who was numbered among the twelve.

Matthew 4:1
1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

John 8:44
44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.

Acts 5:3
3 But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself?

1 Peter 5:8
8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.

Neither the verses themselves nor their context indicate that the being named Satan, or the devil, or the adversary, is anything other than an actual, living being. It is reading into Scripture in the most obvious and excessive way to suggest the devil is merely a figurative character representative of ignorance.

All of the verses you supply identifies the spirit of ignorance of the true God, the Father. And the result was to use the physical (things of men) over the Truth of Spirit. Judas saw the gold over God. Ananias saw the money over God. The Jews saw power through lies and murder over God, a Father who does neither.

Satan means adversary, adversary to Truth of the Father, who seeks to be loved as he loves.

 

[ClementofA]

There is a good deal more that distinguishes God from Man. His omnipotence, His omnipresence, His aseity, His omniscience, His justice, His truth - these all (and more) make God distinct from His Creation.

No doubt.

But the "if" at the beginning of your remark here makes everything that follows it essentially hypothetical.

All i need to show is a reasonable position that Matt.25:46 harmonizes with the rest of Scripture that supports the eventual salvation of all.

As I said, the parallelism Matthew 25:46 employs denies the interpretive squirming you're doing here.

It doesn't because one position i can take is that it is parallel regarding a future age that ends.

So? One may imagine all sorts of scenarios. But a "may happen" does not trump what Scripture flatly states will happen.

If the maybe scenario i presented is just as plausible as your scenario, then your use of Mt.25:46 as a proof text fails.

If the unrighteous go into eternal or everlasting punishment and the meaning of everlasting is unconstrained in its duration by the immediate context, then it is entirely reasonable to think that there will be no end to their punishment.

That is what is at issue. BTW, you are using the same word i used above, namely "if".

Additionally, i would note that the word EIS in Mt.25:46 translated "into" means entrance into the period in context, not necessarily duration lasting throughout the entire length of the time period spoken of. See lexicons to verify that.

Nothing in Scripture gives us cause to think the eternal life of the righteous is finite in length which means the everlasting punishment of the wicked is also without limit.

I gave you several examples including Dan. 12:2-3 & two quotes by Jesus that make a case for that viewpoint.

Are you indicating here that you think the life of the righteous is not eternal, that is, unending, but lasting only for an age (which you seem to think is at most a thousand years)?

According to the position i am presenting here, the righteous will have endless life due to, for example, obtaining immortality. Not due to them entering into life in the temporary age to come which has a beginning and an end. In this viewpoint Mt.25:46 says nothing about endless life, but rather contrasts two destinies in the future millennial kingdom of Christ. One which involves life then, & the other involving chastening. This viewpoint is more favorable to universalism than endless annihilation or torments.

Again, how a word may be used in one context does not necessitate it being used the very same way in every other context.

That is true. My intention is merely to show the same word (used twice) in Mt.25:46 & often translated "eternal" can mean that which is not eternal, but finite in duration. Which is harmonious with the viewpoint i am describing here re Mt.25:46.

Yes, he did. And I see no ambiguity in his statements to that effect. This is so, I suspect, because I'm not trying to massage his words into saying something he didn't mean. What's more, Jesus spoke in ambiguities frequently, purposely obscuring his meaning from his listeners. Even his disciples had to press him for explanations at times. See his parables.

The ambiguity is in the word aionios which can refer to duration that is undefined but not endless, or duration that is endless. If Christ wished to teach endless punishment unambiguously, He would have chosen words with less ambiguity. Since He didn't use such words, He didn't teach such a doctrine. Perhaps that helps clarify the meaning of what was said before:

If one wishes to teach something clearly, they use words that are definitive or less ambiguous, not words that are full of ambiguity. Therefore Christ did not teach "endless" punishment or torments that have "no end". For if Christ meant to teach "endless" punishment, why use the ambiguous words olam, aion and aionios? Why not instead use the word APERANTOS ("endless"; 1 Tim. 1:4)? Or why not use the words "no end" as in Lk1:33b: "And of His kingdom there will be no end"? Why not use the word "eternal" (AIDIOS) as in Rom.1:20 and Jude 6? Why not use the word His contemporary Philo used, APEIRON, unlimited? The answer seems obvious.

I disagree. See above.

It looks like we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Noxot]

Oh? And how are you certain it is Christ who has been telling you these things? They certainly don't agree with Scripture.

because it is as if Christ understands what he wrote in my own brain and heart due to me having some sort of connection to him. what seems to at first not agree with the letter of the word (which kills) is then revealed to me, by no effort of my own other than prayer and some attempt to reject evils, to make perfect sense and to be the "spirit which gives life".

I admit that I have been wrong before because I let evil spirits influence me but the more I learn to tell the difference between the spirits the safer I feel that Christ is full of all goodness and truth and that evil spirits are blind and horrible things that love lies, power, and keeping people on their level of suffering.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

To the second question...a person could be righteous and still end up in hell, if they held incorrect beliefs, at least as I understand Christian thought.
To the first question, I'm not sure what philosophers you are speaking of, but I'd have to wonder if after demonstrating this, they then achieved eternal life with God.
I think every person may have the desire to search for God, but in my experience many are unsuccessful...if that's because God doesn't exist, because God exists but only chooses to reveal Himself to a chosen few, or because people just aren't patient enough to kerp looking...I don't know.

Reply to second question: Yes, a person who holds incorrect beliefs, can hold to false doctrines can still end up in hell for those false beliefs, because such false block that person from a loving relationship with God. There is however a degree of culpability in this, if the person has no attachment to such errors, but only holds them out of a genuine mistake. In fact a Catholic could in-theory be saved without believing a certain dogma of the faith, provided he/she has never heard of it, and does not willfully reject it.

Reply to first question: The philosophers I'm speaking about are Plato and Aristotle and the like. Now I'm not saying you have to be philosopher to know and love God, a child can very easily come to the conclusion that there is a God, in fact, this has been proven be recent scientific studies. A person's failure to find God is due to them not being patient enough, God gives everyone sufficient grace to be saved at at least one point in their lives.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

Avoidance of temporary hells, if one needs such negative motivations (fire insurance) to serve God. Paul said it was the love of Christ that constrained, i.e. forced, him. Church Father Origen, for example, spoke of the possibility of people suffering torments for many ages. Assuming they continually resisted God's never failing love in ever leaving the door open to their salvation. BTW the gates into the New Jerusalum are never shut. See the book of Revelation where God says "I am making all [not some] new".

Now, in regards to your claim of temporal damnation, I have been considering this argument for some time, and was reluctant to use it because this argument is mostly directed at catholics who reject the Church's teaching on hell. I will however use this argument because it is still a good and effective argument, even if you are not Catholic. The argument is this:

If hell were temporal, it would only be another purgatory. Now purgatory is incredibly painful place, the pain a soul goes through in purgatory is greater than any pain on earth! But despite that incredible pain, a soul in purgatory also great peace and even joy, because a soul in purgatory is guaranteed salvation, he/she cannot lose. But in Sacred Scriptures, we do not find any reference to hell being a place of peace, hope and joy, hell is never described as anything but place of wailing and grinding of teeth. How could hell be repeatedly described as that is it has an end, it hell has an end and all our eventually saved than there must references to hope and peace in hell, in the Sacred Scriptures, but there are none, hell is clearly a place of eternal loss.

I'd like to add some more arguments I have here, but it's the Divine Mercy Hour, and I'm overdue for my prayer break. I'll be back later with more arguments.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

Please provide scripture from the Bible to help me understand your teaching.

Revelation 12 mentions Satan's rebellion against God, and it describes it happening in the "air." In greco-roman culture, the "air," was considered a spiritual realm, the ancients considered the sky a spiritual realm that existed between heaven and earth. Thus, when Saint John writes of a great war happening in the "air" he's saying that this is taking place in a spiritual realm that is not Heaven. This, by the way, is why Satan is referred to as "prince of the power of this air" (Ephesians 2:2) not that he is the prince of that specific place, but rather that he is power over the spiritual realm in general, and thus we must have discernment of all that is spiritual.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

I get tired of all the people trying to debunk universalism when they don't even seem to understand Gods infinite mercy, wisdom, and beauty. God has always held up to his own standards which is why the gates of the new jerusalem never close.

God is infinite mercy, wisdom, and beauty, and the gates of the New Jerusalem are always open. But that doesn't mean that the merciless, the unwise, and the scoffers, will enter through there gates.

i'm a universalist and I don't believe Gods main attribute is power. I think that many authoritarians see Gods main attribute as power. I think many people in hell believe that power is the greatest force in reality.

hell only exist because some souls will it to exist. when they no longer will it to exist God will provide a way. God is everlasting life and hell is the emptiness of God. what is nothing can't win against everything. the people of hell will naturally become jealous of our beauty, they will envy what they do not have and seek to possess it for themselves.

You claim to not believe in power, yet in this quote you speak of God triumphing over hell.

The damned will not be won over by the beauty of the Saints, because they have given themselves completely over to evil. On the contrary, the beauty of the Saints will be yet another source of torment for the damned, because they despise them so much.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

I think the way I do because it makes increasing sense to me. I am afraid theres so much I am beginning to see as being irrational. Ive been told that I just have to have faith but thats just not me to ignore what Im analysing.

What makes sense? If your position is so rational, why aren't you debating it with me? I am totally confident in my position, in fact this debate is one the easiest I have had so far.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

FINALLY someone gets it.

Get what? What are we supposed to get? And why aren't you sharing it with us?

I take a totally rational approach to my faith, it doesn't matter what I want, what matters is what is true. If my position isn't true, tell me.

The fact that you have not responded to any of my argument, and in fact, conceded to it somewhat in your first post, points to the veracity of my position.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

Reply to second question: Yes, a person who holds incorrect beliefs, can hold to false doctrines can still end up in hell for those false beliefs, because such false block that person from a loving relationship with God. There is however a degree of culpability in this, if the person has no attachment to such errors, but only holds them out of a genuine mistake. In fact a Catholic could in-theory be saved without believing a certain dogma of the faith, provided he/she has never heard of it, and does not willfully reject it.

Reply to first question: The philosophers I'm speaking about are Plato and Aristotle and the like. Now I'm not saying you have to be philosopher to know and love God, a child can very easily come to the conclusion that there is a God, in fact, this has been proven be recent scientific studies. A person's failure to find God is due to them not being patient enough, God gives everyone sufficient grace to be saved at at least one point in their lives.

That's odd, because Plate and Aristotle had very different ideas on the nature of God. Neither of them either knew or loved the God of Christianity and I would assume neither would be saved according to Christian teaching. Using them as the guide to obtain a strong saving faith in Christianity doesn't really work then.