why ECT became the dominant view in the west

[ozso]

It's not judgment of nations, it's separating sheep from goats. The display of love is, essentially, incidental rather than central to the passage. The central premise is that Christ will judge and discriminate. And it's not that it is the main support beam, but the most clear and direct statement on judgment from the mouth of Jesus so any contrary position must give an answer to it. That the best alternatives seem to be able to do is weak weaseling on what a word means that primarily rests on faulty translation methods is quite telling, especially since the most natural translation fits perfectly with the context of the passage and its central theme.

In Cathocism and Orthodoxy, the main theme of Matthew 25:31-46 is the importance of the second greatest commandment, which is love your neighbor as yourself.

In a lot of Protestantism the main focus on Matthew 25:31-46 is the first half of the last verse because it confirms eternal conscious torment in hell. All the rest of it incidental and can basically be dismissed.

Of course one really does have to dismiss what the parable is about and its conclusion, because that totally ruins the emphasis being on eternal conscious torment in hell. Because the parable quite clearly says those who help their neighbor will receive eternal life.

 

[Der Alte]

In Cathocism [sic] and Orthodoxy, the main theme of Matthew 25:31-46 is the importance of the second greatest commandment, which is love your neighbor as yourself.
In a lot of Protestantism the main focus on Matthew 25:31-46 is the first half of the last verse because it confirms eternal conscious torment in hell. All the rest of it incidental and can basically be dismissed.
Of course one really does have to dismiss what the parable is about and its conclusion, because that totally ruins the emphasis being on eternal conscious torment in hell. Because the parable quite clearly says those who help their neighbor will receive eternal life.

While Matt 25:46 does say that those who ministered to the needy will receive eternal life that vs. does not negate other vss. which state additional requirements.

 

[Fervent]

In Cathocism and Orthodoxy, the main theme of Matthew 25:31-46 is the importance of the second greatest commandment, which is love your neighbor as yourself.

In a lot of Protestantism the main focus on Matthew 25:31-46 is the first half of the last verse because it confirms eternal conscious torment in hell. All the rest of it incidental and can basically be dismissed.

Of course one really does have to dismiss what the parable is about and its conclusion, because that totally ruins the emphasis being on eternal conscious torment in hell. Because the parable quite clearly says those who help their neighbor will receive eternal life.

The theme doesn't change depending on tradition, though its true it has been used to emphasize the need for charity. The pericope focuses on how the final judgment will take place, and its not a parable at all. It is figurative language, but its not a parable. So while it may be used within Catholicism and Orthodoxy to stress the importance of loving works, the focus of the passage itself is the final judgment. Part of that is the promise of eternal life to those who perform such actions, but the parallel of eternal damnation for those who fail to is equally present.

 

[ozso]

The theme doesn't change depending on tradition, though its true it has been used to emphasize the need for charity. The pericope focuses on how the final judgment will take place, and its not a parable at all. It is figurative language, but its not a parable. So while it may be used within Catholicism and Orthodoxy to stress the importance of loving works, the focus of the passage itself is the final judgment. Part of that is the promise of eternal life to those who perform such actions, but the parallel of eternal damnation for those who fail to is equally present.

Then that means the white throne judgement is going be whether or not you helped someone.

 

[Fervent]

Then that means the white throne judgement is going be whether or not you helped someone.

If this were the only verse on the matter, perhaps. But its quite likely the passage is using synechdoche anyway so its far more inclusive on its own than an overly narrow scope.

 

[ozso]

If this were the only verse on the matter, perhaps. But its quite likely the passage is using synechdoche anyway so its far more inclusive on its own than an overly narrow scope.

Usually synecdoche consists of a single word like "wheels" meaning an entire car. But in the passage there isn't a particular word being used as a part that represents a whole.

 

[Fervent]

Usually synecdoche consists of a single word like "wheels" meaning an entire car. But in the passage there isn't a particular word being used as a part that represents a whole.

Synechdoche doesn't have to be a single word, just when something partial is being used to represent a whole. In this case it would be the acts of charity representing a generally godly disposition.

 

[setst777]

It's amazing to me that ECT doctrine is mainly supported by one single word used scripture. It stands or falls depending on interpretation of the word kolasis. Which is used to sum up a parable about love and mercy towards others no less.

Regarding Matthew 25, which is one of many Scriptures that plainly show that the Judgment to come is final, you can look at the punishment to be a penalty, but as Lord Jesus describes it, the just penalty for the selfish lives the goats led is eternal punishment.

 

[Der Alte]

It's amazing to me that ECT doctrine is mainly supported by one single word used scripture. It stands or falls depending on interpretation of the word kolasis. Which is used to sum up a parable about love and mercy towards others no less.

EOB Matthew:25:46 When he will answer them, saying: ‘Amen, I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 These [ones on the left vs. 41] will go away into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] punishment, [κόλασις/kolasis] but the righteous into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life.”[EOB, p. 96]​

…..Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church since its inception, 2000 years ago +/-. Note, the native Greek speaking Eastern Orthodox Greek scholars, translators of the EOB, linked below, translated “aionios,” in Matt 25:46, as “eternal,” NOT “age.”
…..I doubt there is anyone better qualified than the team of native Greek speaking scholars, translators of the Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible [EOB], quoted above and below, to know the correct translation of the Greek in the N.T.
Link to EOB online:

The New Testament ( The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The New Testament (The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible)

archive.org

…..The Greek word “kolasis” occurs only twice in the N.T., 1st occurrence Matt 25:46, above, and 2nd occurrence 1 John 4:18., below.

EOB 1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear, because fear is connected with punishment.[κόλασις/kolasis] But the one who fears is not yet perfect in love.[EOB, p. 518]​

In the EOB the Greek word “kolasis” is translated “punishment” in both Matt 25:46 and 1 John 4:18.
…..Some badly informed folks claim “kolasis” really means “prune” or “correction.”
Sorry, that is impossible, both “prune” and “correction” are verbs. “Kolasis” is a noun. A noun cannot be translated as a verb.
Also according to the EOB Greek scholars “kolasis” means “punishment.”
Note: in 1 John 4:18 there is no correction, the one with “kolasis” is not made perfect. Thus “kolasis” does not/cannot mean “correction.”
The word “correction” occurs one time in the N.T.
2 Timothy 3:16 ἐπανόρθωσις/epanorthosis. It looks nothing like kolasis.
…..It is acknowledged that modern Greek differs from koine Greek but I am confident that the native Greek speaking EOB scholars, supported by 2000 years +/- of uninterrupted Greek scholarship, are more than competent enough to know the correct translation of obsolete Greek words which may have changed in meaning or are no longer in use and to translate them correctly. Much as English speaking scholars today know the meaning of obsolete English words which occur in, e.g. the 1611 KJV and can define them correctly.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Matthew 7:21-23​

(21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.​

(22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?​

(23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

Neither the Father, Himself, nor Jesus, Himself, ever said that all mankind will be saved, or enter the kingdom of heaven.
As a matter of fact, Jesus said, “Not every one …shall enter into the kingdom of heaven;” Then Jesus said, “Many” [NOT a few,] “will say to me in that day,” i.e. Judgement day, “Lord, Lord, have we not … in thy name done many wonderful works?”
Then Jesus will say to those “many” “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” When Jesus says “never” He means “never” not someday by and by.

Orthodox New Testament : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The Eastern / Orthodox Bible: New TestamentBased on the Septuagint and the Patriarchal Text

archive.org

Emended to add: Matthew 25:31-46 is more an analogy.

 

[ozso]

Synechdoche doesn't have to be a single word, just when something partial is being used to represent a whole. In this case it would be the acts of charity representing a generally godly disposition.

Perhaps. But it's not a certainty. And that's what occurs to me when I view the entire passage as a whole. Rather than just focusing on the last verse. You indicated that it shouldn't be viewed with an overly narrow scope. Yet that's what many who put so much focus on verse 46 are doing. And the scope narrows even more in that it's one word out of one verse ends up being the linchpin. I just doesn't seem to be nearly as strong as people want it to be as proof of ECT.

 

[Fervent]

Perhaps. But it's not a certainty. And that's what occurs to me when I view the entire passage as a whole. Rather than just focusing on the last verse. You indicated that it shouldn't be viewed with an overly narrow scope. Yet that's what many who put so much focus on verse 46 are doing. And the scope narrows even more in that it's one word out of one verse ends up being the linchpin. I just doesn't seem to be nearly as strong as people want it to be as proof of ECT.

Certainly shouldn't be just focused on one verse, but understood in the context of the whole Olivet discourse. Which is focused on the final judgment of the world, first with the tribulations of the last day and then the particular judgment of the sheep and goats. The eternal damnation of those to Jesus' left parallels the eternal life of those to Jesus' right, negating any claim that it is a temporary judgment. That the discussion usually gets bogged down into dissecting the words aionios and kolasis is not on those who defend ECT, but those who deny it.

 

[ozso]

Certainly shouldn't be just focused on one verse, but understood in the context of the whole Olivet discourse. Which is focused on the final judgment of the world, first with the tribulations of the last day and then the particular judgment of the sheep and goats. The eternal damnation of those to Jesus' left parallels the eternal life of those to Jesus' right, negating any claim that it is a temporary judgment. That the discussion usually gets bogged down into dissecting the words aionios and kolasis is not on those who defend ECT, but those who deny it.

Those who teach ECT are the ones who put so much weight on it in the first place though. And it's just not as rock solid as ECT teaching would have it to be. That's why I don't fully commit to ECT. Because it really isn't as solid as it's supposed to be. But of course the same is true of UR and annihilationism.

 

[Fervent]

Those who teach ECT are the ones who put so much weight on it in the first place though. And it's just not as rock solid as ECT teaching would have it to be. That's why I don't fully commit to ECT. Because it really isn't as solid as it's supposed to be. But of course the same is true of UR and annihilationism.

The navel gazing dissection of what words really mean comes primarily from the UR camp, as far as I can tell. I'm personally not committed to a particular view, but it is clear to me as far as this particular verse is concerned most of the discussion centers around UR proponents trying to make words mean something other than what their most natural meaning is, as agreed by the majority of translators and considering the wider context of the verse in question. It's not ECT proponents who devolve the conversation into overly narrow discussions of a words meaning that are thinly supported, at best.

 

[ozso]

The navel gazing dissection of what words really mean comes primarily from the UR camp, as far as I can tell. I'm personally not committed to a particular view, but it is clear to me as far as this particular verse is concerned most of the discussion centers around UR proponents trying to make words mean something other than what their most natural meaning is, as agreed by the majority of translators and considering the wider context of the verse in question. It's not ECT proponents who devolve the conversation into overly narrow discussions of a words meaning that are thinly supported, at best.

UR aside, it is ECT proponents who rely so heavily on those two words at the end of a passage that can not be taken completely literally at face value.

 

[Fervent]

UR aside, it is ECT proponents who rely so heavily on those two words at the end of a passage that can not be taken completely literally at face value.

Why is the most natural understanding of the words not the most likely? And it's UR proponents who make all kinds of silly, weak arguments that those words don't mean what the best lexical and contextual data indicate. ECT proponents just insist on reading them in the most natural manner, rather than relying on weak ad hoc justifications to explain them away.

 

[ozso]

Why is the most natural understanding of the words not the most likely? And it's UR proponents who make all kinds of silly, weak arguments that those words don't mean what the best lexical and contextual data indicate. ECT proponents just insist on reading them in the most natural manner, rather than relying on weak ad hoc justifications to explain them away.

Can the merits of ECT be discussed without including UR?

 

[Fervent]

Can the merits of ECT be discussed without including UR?

Certainly, but when we discuss how a particular verse is understood(or attacked) the views of those defending/attacking it become cogent to the discussion. With Matthew 25, it's clear that those using it in support of ECT are understanding it with the context in mind as well as the most natural understanding of the words in question while UR proponents seek to undermine the verse with improper and ad hoc questions involving specific word meanings. It's clear in the first case that the view arises from the natural understanding of the verse, while the other seeks to explain away the verse by any means necessary including tactics that ultimately destroy any hope of deriving a consistent meaning from the Biblical texts.

 

[ozso]

Certainly, but when we discuss how a particular verse is understood(or attacked) the views of those defending/attacking it become cogent to the discussion. With Matthew 25, it's clear that those using it in support of ECT are understanding it with the context in mind as well as the most natural understanding of the words in question while UR proponents seek to undermine the verse with improper and ad hoc questions involving specific word meanings. It's clear in the first case that the view arises from the natural understanding of the verse, while the other seeks to explain away the verse by any means necessary including tactics that ultimately destroy any hope of deriving a consistent meaning from the Biblical texts.

Apparently you can't talk about it without bringing UR into it.

 

[Fervent]

Apparently you can't talk about it without bringing UR into it.

Quite disingenuos for you to make such an accusation, since without mentioning UR there's no dispute over the verse. Why are you diverting instead of addressing the issues at hand?

 

[ozso]

Quite disingenuos for you to make such an accusation, since without mentioning UR there's no dispute over the verse. Why are you diverting instead of addressing the issues at hand?

I was trying to discuss the issue of ECT in of itself, UR aside, like I said a few posts back. However at this point I've lost interest in pursuing the matter.