Universalism VS. Scripture

[Mikecpking]

Since Mike's copy/paste appears in multiple threads, and it contains false witness against universalists, I'm obviously going to have to copy/paste my reply from another thread to rebut his claims.

Hi Charlie,
I appreciate what you are trying to do and God does not will anyone to perish. But scripture is very clear that a judgement will take place and people who are not saved will ultimately be destroyed. That why the notes I posted on the whole matter includes the Universalist position makes out that from your point of view no one will actually suffer the consequences of judgement; period!

John 3 :36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.

Is this scripture not true? These are the very words of Jesus.

1 Corinthians 6:
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.


Those were the very words of Paul.

So its clear not all are saved, even though God does not wish anyone to perish.

 

[mark53]

​

For discussions on "the age," I suggest you read:

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Aion.html



http://www.tentmaker.org/FAQ/index.html

Also, consider the words of the scriptures:

http://www.tentmaker.org/lists/ReconciliationScriptures.html


continued

Wow!

I have been interested in these views but to have it all put forward like this with some good links! A bit of 'light' reading and following up over Xmas!

 

[Mailman Dan]

I have been interested in these views but to have it all put forward like this with some good links! A bit of 'light' reading and following up over Xmas!

I recall you singing prasies of tentmaker before. I suggest scripture over things you read on the net myself... Much of tentmaker ideas require the bible to be wrong (misinterperted..written by men, ect) in order for them to be true.

Those were the very words of Paul.

Most Universalist don't hold Paul to be an authority teacher. Thats why much of what he said is denied. There are other religions that do that as well.


Dan~~~>begs for no more cut and pasters

 

[stumpjumper]

Most Universalist don't hold Paul to be an authority teacher. Thats why much of what he said is denied. There are other religions that do that as well.

Dan

That is most certainly not true.

In fact, without the writings of Paul there would not be much Biblical support for universalism outside of the Gospel of John.

Look up these passages by Paul:
Colossians 1:19–20; 1 Corinthians 15:22,28; Romans 5:18, 11:33–36; Philippians 2:10–11

 

[stumpjumper]

I think that we can safely say that certain people are in hell, but we should be careful when speculating on pronouncements about a person's eternal status before God. Still, Joseph Stalin among others come to mind.

I think that is a dangerous position to hold. The minute we start saying Stalin was certainly hell-bound is the minute we say "I am not as bad as Stalin." Neither of us are as bad as Stalin but are we anywhere near where we should be in relation to God?

I am convinced that the closer one moves to God the more they realize the breadth of that divide. I am not saying I am very close to God but if you read the writings of the Saints you can find it in their thoughts.

Remember Paul said: "I do not even judge myself." If we did we would find that we all fall short.

But I do offer this: salvation is open to all, and we are unimpaired to choose God's will under Divine grace, but someone like Judas can still choose to betray God, and refuse to come back afterwards.

Yes. I agree they can still choose that but we always have the hope that Balthasar found in the message of Good Friday: This is from Balthasar's book about what was meant by Christ being forsaken by the Father on Good Friday: "Here lies the hope for the person who, refusing all love, damns himself. Will not the person who wishes to be totally alone find beside him in Sheol the Someone who is lonelier still, the Son forsaken by the Father, who will prevent him from experiencing his self-chosen hell to the end?"

 

[Scholar in training]

I think that is a dangerous position to hold. The minute we start saying Stalin was certainly hell-bound is the minute we say "I am not as bad as Stalin." Neither of us are as bad as Stalin but are we anywhere near where we should be in relation to God?

Well, that is not where I was going with that, but I see the danger possible in saying it.

I am convinced that the closer one moves to God the more they realize the breadth of that divide. I am not saying I am very close to God but if you read the writings of the Saints you can find it in their thoughts.

I do not disagree with this.

Remember Paul said: "I do not even judge myself." If we did we would find that we all fall short.

Indeed.

Yes. I agree they can still choose that but we always have the hope that Balthasar found in the message of Good Friday: This is from Balthasar's book about what was meant by Christ being forsaken by the Father on Good Friday: "Here lies the hope for the person who, refusing all love, damns himself. Will not the person who wishes to be totally alone find beside him in Sheol the Someone who is lonelier still, the Son forsaken by the Father, who will prevent him from experiencing his self-chosen hell to the end?"

What does it mean for Christ to be "forsaken by the Father"? Jesus certainly did not "damn himself", as your "scholar" thinks; what Jesus did do is say that he and the thief on the cross would be in paradise. Paradise (also known as Abraham's bosom) was the section of Sheol reserved for the righteous. Even though Jesus experienced death (in order to triumph over it as the firstfruits of the resurrection) he was not condemned to be with the unrighteous in Sheol and he was certainly not "separated" from the Godhead, as some unorthodox groups will claim.

 

[stumpjumper]

What does it mean for Christ to be "forsaken by the Father"? Jesus certainly did not "damn himself", as your "scholar" thinks; what Jesus did do is say that he and the thief on the cross would be in paradise. Paradise (also known as Abraham's bosom) was the section of Sheol reserved for the righteous. Even though Jesus experienced death (in order to triumph over it as the firstfruits of the resurrection) he was not condemned to be with the unrighteous in Sheol and he was certainly not "separated" from the Godhead, as some unorthodox groups will claim.

1 Peter 3:18
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison.

The word that was translated as 'prison' was phulake and it is questionable how it was used by Peter. If Peter meant Prison as in Tartarus a word that is also translated as "hell" then he was with the unrighteous and not directly in Paradise.

Given that God is omnipresent it is most likely that Jesus was, and still is, with the unrighteous in some way. Its not always cut and dry as anyone who attempts to explain how Jesus was 100% God and 100% human to non-Christians will understand (hypostatic union or not )

 

[Scholar in training]

1 Peter 3:18
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison.

The word that was translated as 'prison' was phulake and it is questionable how it was used by Peter. If Peter meant Prison as in Tartarus a word that is also translated as "hell" then he was with the unrighteous and not directly in Paradise.

Even if Jesus did "preach" to the spirits of unrighteous men who disobeyed in Tartarus (or even to the evil spirits that disobeyed, that is, angels and supernatural beings) we can agree that he did not "go" to Tartarus. Whether this really happened or not, Peter may be using typology from the Book of Enoch to illustrate Christ's triumph over death.

Given that God is omnipresent it is most likely that Jesus was, and still is, with the unrighteous in some way.

Possibly, but saying that God is omnipresent and therefore is in Tartarus or Gehenna is not the same thing as saying that Jesus condemned himself and was forsaken by God or that he suffered in Tartarus as punishment or (perhaps the most heretical of all) that he was separated from the Godhead (!).

Its not always cut and dry as anyone who attempts to explain how Jesus was 100% God and 100% human to non-Christians will understand (hypostatic union or not )

Whether or not it is "complicated" to explain Jesus' two natures (and so "not always cut and dry"), we should remember that God is by definition simplistic; there are persons, not parts, within the Godhead.

 

[stumpjumper]

Possibly, but saying that God is omnipresent and therefore is in Tartarus or Gehenna is not the same thing as saying that Jesus condemned himself and was forsaken by God or that he suffered in Tartarus as punishment or (perhaps the most heretical of all) that he was separated from the Godhead (!).

I only have time for a short reply and I'm going offline for the weekend but nobody believed that those in Sheol or Tartarus suffered. Also, saying that the Son was not forsaken by the father is coming close to Nestorianism. If Jesus the man died; Jesus as The Word of God suffered death.

http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/Balthasar/ This is a link to some of Balthsasar's writings and he was completely orthodox in his view of Good Friday. (emoticon or not)

 

[Martinez]

I think that we can safely say that certain people are in hell, but we should be careful when speculating on pronouncements about a person's eternal status before God. Still, Joseph Stalin among others come to mind.




actually, you would do well to check your bible regarding this.

if the Hell doctrine was true, then the scriptures actually points to no one being in Hell untill Judgment day!


oh quick question,

If the lake of fire is actually Hell, then how does Hell get thrown into itself near the end of revelation?

that just doesn't make sense.

and if you argue that it is hades instead of Hell (various different translations)
then you must loose all verses that regard hades as a place of torment for your arguement for eternal Hell!



btw,

Merry Christmas everyone!

 

[Mailman Dan]

If the lake of fire is actually Hell, then how does Hell get thrown into itself near the end of revelation?

actually, you would do well to check your bible regarding this.

Revelation 19:20
Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Revelation 20:10
The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Revelation 20:14
Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Revelation 20:15
And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

Revelation 21:8
But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”


And the already used Revelation 14:10-11
He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name.

The text does not alter much in any translation of the Lake of fire, that as the bible says, "burns with fire and brimstone." The description is there, its just a matter of weither or not you believe it. As i've stated, one can not be a Universalist and believe many text that describe the final judgement, even if the word "hell" does not exist in them. It remains very clear.



Dan~~~>wishes you a merry Christmas too

 

[Martinez]

And the already used Revelation 14:10-11
He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name.

The text does not alter much in any translation of the Lake of fire, that as the bible says, "burns with fire and brimstone." The description is there, its just a matter of weither or not you believe it. As i've stated, one can not be a Universalist and believe many text that describe the final judgement, even if the word "hell" does not exist in them. It remains very clear.



Dan~~~>wishes you a merry Christmas too

Thank you.





actually, I'm not disputing what it says in those verses,merely your understanding of those verses.

If you take the lake of fire to be a literal lake of fire, then you must also take everything else in that book literaly aswell, and as you know that would be totally ridiculous.

another good point with the above verse, that you so kindly supplied is,
if Hell is eternal seperation from God, then why are those people being torchered in the presence of the Lamb and his holy angels?

btw, you never answered how Hell could be thrown into itself.

 

[Scholar in training]

If the lake of fire is actually Hell, then how does Hell get thrown into itself near the end of revelation?

Blame the KJV's translation. "Hades" is the Greek word for Gehenna, what was thought to be the section of Sheol for the unrighteous. A concordance listing verses using the word "Hades" can be found here. "Hades", i.e. Gehenna, is the first death. The "lake of fire" is the second death. No one is saying that they are the same thing.

 

[Charlie V]

"Hades" is the Greek word for Gehenna

????

Hades and Gehenna are both Greek words, which have two different meanings.

Charlie

 

[Scholar in training]

????

Hades and Gehenna are both Greek words, which have two different meanings.

I should have been more clear; Hades was the word used to represent the "place" known as Gehenna. I do not recall the Hebrew word for the abode of the unrighteous in Sheol, so I used the Greek word "Gehenna".

 

[Charlie V]

I should have been more clear; Hades was the word used to represent the "place" known as Gehenna. I do not recall the Hebrew word for the abode of the unrighteous in Sheol, so I used the Greek word "Gehenna".

Gehenna was the valley of Hinnom.

Hades was not.

Charlie

 

[Scholar in training]

Gehenna was the valley of Hinnom.

Yes; it was.

Hades was not.

Yes; it was.

 

[Martinez]

Blame the KJV's translation. "Hades" is the Greek word for Gehenna, what was thought to be the section of Sheol for the unrighteous. A concordance listing verses using the word "Hades" can be found here. "Hades", i.e. Gehenna, is the first death. The "lake of fire" is the second death. No one is saying that they are the same thing.

Wow!

How many deaths are there?

in the story of Lazarus where Jesus uses the word Hades,
the rich man "lifts up his eyes, and being in torments"

so am I to understand God torments the dead before throwing them into an even worse torment for all eternity?

far out Man!
your God is truly vindictive!

so not only must He punish sin, but He must be completely ruthless about it!
He torches the dead before He torches them againn even worse!

Yeah, ya probaly right,

truely God is love.

so what do you think God would have to say about it, if you were a prison guard on death row and you torched your prisoners before they went off to the gas chamber or electric chair?,
remembering that God hates hypocrisy!

 

[Martinez]

Yes; it was.


Yes; it was.

the valley of Hinnom is a place also known as Gehenna.
It is the place where the Isralites sacrificed their children to the Idol Molech.

Hades is a place from Greek mythology where dead would go after they died.

they are two completely different places!

 

[Scholar in training]

so am I to understand God torments the dead before throwing them into an even worse torment for all eternity?

No, under the paradigm I am discussing any punishment in hell is self-inflicted. If you want me to explain further just ask.

your God is truly vindictive!

Your God has jell-o for legs.

the valley of Hinnom is a place also known as Gehenna.
It is the place where the Isralites sacrificed their children to the Idol Molech.

Yes, and applied typologically Hinnom represents the real "place" or "state" known as Gehenna.

Hades is a place from Greek mythology where dead would go after they died.

John was applying the word "Hades" to a particular Jewish understanding of the afterlife. So?