Why is scripture so fuzzy about heaven and hell?

[Fervent]

I see it in the verse and in the word.

In 1 Corinthians 15:22 Paul says:

"For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."

In Romans 5:15 Paul says:

"But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!"

Put them together and there's: "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!"

Romans is an entirely different letter, there's not really any reason to juxtapose those two verses. Second, I don't see "people" anywhere in the verse...where is it? Could you perhaps bold it since I seem to be missing it.

 

[Fervent]

The value of being aware that other serious interpretations exist is that we learn not to assume that our own interpretation is automatically right.

Sure, but mentioning that other interpretations exist is nothing but equivocation. It does nothing to address what was said, and if other interpretations are to be taken seriously they must be presented and defended. So far all that's been presented have been obfuscating attempts to introduce doubt on multiple specious grounds.

 

[wendykvw]

There are ultimately 5 groups of people who call Jesus Lord that He rejects.

1. Those who try to use works to justify themselves (Matthew 7:21-23)
2. Those who grew weary of watching for His return and resort to persecuting their brethren; think during the Great Tribulation when they won't be able to buy or sell, so they rat out those they used to go to church with and take the mark of the beast in order to eat and drink with drunkards. (Matthew 24:48-51)
3. Those who do not watch for His return and are not ready when it happens (Matthew 25:1-13)
4. Those who waste or hide their talents, (Matthew 25:14-30).. this is the one I'm most scared of.. cause I feel unprofitable. I can't even convince my own family of the Gospel, they mock it. I don't have this great testimony of being saved out of sex drugs and rock n roll or homosexuality or anything like that because I was saved at a younger age. Instead I backslid in my early adulthood. I'm not a model Christian. I have no talents, or resources and I'm not good with people. So I hope I've at least deposited what I was given so He gets His with usury... metaphorically speaking. I hate being a useless cripple.
5. Those who were uncharitable to the unfortunate (Matthew 25:31-46) I don't even know what I'm supposed to do about this one... I'm poor.. give money I don't have to panhandlers?

You have made some really great points. I would say that all of the verses you have shared do not indicate anyone can lose salvation . Over the years I have counseled those in the church, and the majority have fear of losing their Salvation. Salvation cannot be lost, Christ secured Salvation with His very own blood.

With his own blood—not the blood of goats and calves—He entered the Most Holy Place once for all time and secured our redemption forever. Hebrews 9:12


God's Grace covers us when we are still very much His children learning to walk, so to speak. No one is worthless to God, and I am sorry if you may feel at times that you may not be doing as much as you would like, God perfectly understands and is always more than willing to help us.


For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses... Hebrews 4:15

 

[Hmm]

Which scholars? I've only ever seen you quote one on the matter

Okay. Here's some more for you:

[aiónios] may sometimes mean eternal but also bears many other meanings … [such as] pertaining to the next aion [aeon/eon]
Ramelli & Konstan, Terms for Eternity, vii

[aiónios means] belonging to the age to come
J.I. Packer, The Problem of Eternal Punishment, Crux XXVI.3, September 1990, 23

[aiónios means] of the Age to Come
N.T. Wright, The New Interpreter’s Bible

how did you determine he was credible considering the regularity that translators translate it "eternal punishment?"

Amateurs like you and I are not qualified to personally determine the credibility of scholars but luckily, of course, we don't have to. If a scholar is well respected within the academic community that's good enough for me at least. Would you dispute the credentials of any of the above and, if so, on what basis?

how did you determine that's what the word means

I said before that I'm not qualified to determine what words mean so why do you keep repeating this?

why are so many professional Greek scholars routinely mistranslating it(according to you?)

Scholars disagree of course. We have to decide for ourselves who we think makes the most sense. The above scholars make sense to me. If they don't to you, that's fine.

 

[Fervent]

Okay. Here's some more for you:

[aiónios] may sometimes mean eternal but also bears many other meanings … [such as] pertaining to the next aion [aeon/eon]
Ramelli & Konstan, Terms for Eternity, vii

[aiónios means] belonging to the age to come
J.I. Packer, The Problem of Eternal Punishment, Crux XXVI.3, September 1990, 23

[aiónios means] of the Age to Come
N.T. Wright, The New Interpreter’s Bible

Gonna need more of those quotes for full context.

Amateurs like you and I are not qualified to personally determine the credibility of scholars but luckily, of course, we don't have to. If a scholar is well respected within the academic community that's good enough for me at least. Would you dispute the credentials of any of the above and, if so, on what basis?

At what point is one no longer an "amateur?" It seems to me that a seminary degree should at the very least be enough training to determine when someone is full of gas on original language arguments. Simply being "well respected" doesn't necessarily mean that the individual is qualified to comment on every issue so we as "amateurs" have to be able to distinguish between good arguments and bad. If we don't have some basis of understanding of the argument all we have is a faulty argument from authority.

I said before that I'm not qualified to determine what words mean so why do you keep repeating this?

If you're not qualified to understand basic linguistic arguments, you have no business declaring something a mistranslation. Especially since you've admitted you can't even evaluate the quality of the scholarship you're presented with and have to take it purely on reputation.

Scholars disagree of course. We have to decide for ourselves who we think makes the most sense. The above scholars make sense to me. If they don't to you, that's fine.

They make sense to you, despite your own admission that you are completely unqualified to evaluate them? May as well throw a dart at a proposed meaning and take that one as the truth, it'd be about the same value.

 

[ozso]

Romans is an entirely different letter, there's not really any reason to juxtapose those two verses. Second, I don't see "people" anywhere in the verse...where is it? Could you perhaps bold it since I seem to be missing it.

This has happened before in exchanges I've had with you, where you progressively convolute. What's that tactic called?

 

[Fervent]

This has happened before in exchanges I've had with you, where you progressively convolute. What's that tactic called?

There's nothing convoluted, you say the word is there so bold it. Where does it say "people?"

 

[Jamdoc]

You have made some really great points. I would say that all of the verses you have shared do not indicate anyone can lose salvation . Over the years I have counseled those in the church, and the majority have fear of losing their Salvation. Salvation cannot be lost, Christ secured Salvation with His very own blood.

With his own blood—not the blood of goats and calves—He entered the Most Holy Place once for all time and secured our redemption forever. Hebrews 9:12


God's Grace covers us when we are still very much His children learning to walk, so to speak. No one is worthless to God, and I am sorry if you may feel at times that you may not be doing as much as you would like, God perfectly understands and is always more than willing to help us.


For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses... Hebrews 4:15

It's more that they were never saved to begin with...
that's always the fear with verses like those.. especially in combination with Calvinism, which with Romans 9 seems to be supported, and in that case it opens the possibility that you choose God but God has not chosen you.

I have to fall back on some things Jesus said in John 6

37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

So.. I have to trust that if I choose Jesus, He chose me too, and that He wouldn't reject me if I come to Him.
but doubting my own self worth is one of my largest hurdles.
"why choose me, I'm worthless"
"why even create me, I don't even like singing"
"what can I do for the gospel, I think that I'm so bad with people that I couldn't even convince someone that water is wet, they'd disagree with me just because it's me telling them and obviously I'm wrong about everything"

like.. Ive encountered people arguing , and using Jesus' name as a curse.. and so.. I thought, Gospel opportunity
and tried telling them about Jesus
oh it stopped the fight
they just both started cursing me and cursing Jesus instead of each other.
I'm just... really bad about it.

 

[Hmm]

At what point is one no longer an "amateur?" It seems to me that a seminary degree should at the very least be enough training to determine when someone is full of gas on original language arguments.

I asked you straight if you disputed the credentials of someone like N T Wright. Do you?

A degree does not make you a professional. I have a maths degree but that doesn't qualify me to make an authoritative assessment on the work of professional mathematicians. I could correct a school student's work but that's about it. And the same goes for you.

If you're not qualified to understand basic linguistic arguments, you have no business declaring something a mistranslation. Especially since you've admitted you can't even evaluate the quality of the scholarship you're presented with and have to take it purely on reputation.

As I have said repeatedly now I am not declaring anything. I am merely citing expert opinion. In the same way, I believe that the speed of light is constant because I trust the physics community. I don't need to personally verify it.

They make sense to you, despite your own admission that you are completely unqualified to evaluate them? May as well throw a dart at a proposed meaning and take that one as the truth, it'd be about the same value.

You are simply repeating yourself.

I'm not going to answer these same questions again. If you say anything new, I'll respond of course.

 

[ozso]

There's nothing convoluted, you say the word is there so bold it. Where does it say "people?"

I'm not playing this game. It's just going to end up in pages of cat and mouse.

 

[Fervent]

I asked you straight of you disputed the credentials of someone like N T Wright. Do you?

A degree does not make you a professional. I've got a maths degree but that doesn't qualify me to make an authoritative assessment the work of professional mathematicians. I could correct an school student's work but that's about it. And the same goes for you.

If your math degree hasn't qualified you to do math...well, that's a poor degree. N.T. Wright, when speaking to his specialty, is well qualified. But that doesn't mean I'm simply going to accept any and every argument from him based on reputation. If I don't understand it, I'm not going to take a position but given that I have training in Greek and in performing word studies I can follow most arguments of scholars except the most intricate.

As I have said repeatedly now times before I am not declaring anything. I am merely citing expert opinion. In the same way, I believe that the speed of light is constant because I trust the physics community. I don't need to personally verify it.

You've repeatedly stated that "eternal punishment" is a mistranslation, which means you are making a positive evaluative claim to scholarship that claims such. You are not simply presenting various scholastic opinions, and it is disingenuous for you to deny making an evaluation of the scholarship.

You are simply repeating yourself.

I'm not going to answer these same questions again. If you say anything new, I'll respond of course.

It bears repeating because you've given no reason to take the scholars opinions seriously since by your own admission you are unqualified to evaluate not only the quality of the arguments but the quality of the scholars themselves.

 

[Fervent]

I'm not playing this game. It's just going to end up in pages of cat and mouse.

There's no game, though I am trying to get you to explicitly state that you believe it is implied because what you are doing is reading it as if an ellipsis has taken place. That's appropriate(perhaps even warrranted) in the English, but in the Greek it would have to be demonstrated to be appropriate and is unnecessary based on the grammatical structure of the Greek.

The fact is there is no "people" in the verse, you're reading it into it.

 

[ozso]

There's no game, though I am trying to get you to explicitly state that you believe it is implied because what you are doing is reading it as if an ellipsis has taken place. That's appropriate(perhaps even warrranted) in the English, but in the Greek it would have to be demonstrated to be appropriate and is unnecessary based on the grammatical structure of the Greek.

The fact is there is no "people" in the verse, you're reading it into it.

Lets come back down to earth and put aside your maze.

My contention is Paul is referring to everyone collectively.

Your contention is Paul is separating the unsaved from the saved.

 

[Fervent]

So Paul could be talking about all fish, or all mango trees, or all of everything or all of nothing.

No, he's talking about "all in Adam" and "all in Christ."

 

[ozso]

No, he's talking about "all in Adam" and "all in Christ."

All what?

 

[Fervent]

Lets come back down to earth and put aside your maze.

My contention is Paul is referring to everyone collectively.

Your contention is Paul is separating the unsaved from the saved.

There's no maze. You're making an inappropriate inference based on the structure of the English, I'm treating it according to the Greek grammar which bears no such ambiguity. It's a statement of federal headship, with the subjects of the clauses being "all in Adam" and "all in Christ."

 

[Fervent]

All what?

"All in Adam" and "all in Christ" are substantives(they act like nouns), "all" bears no noun.

 

[ozso]

There's no maze. You're making an inappropriate inference based on the structure of the English, I'm treating it according to the Greek grammar which bears no such ambiguity. It's a statement of federal headship, with the subjects of the clauses being "all in Adam" and "all in Christ."

Again, you own question: all what in Adam and all what in Christ? Remember, "people" isn't in the text.

 

[ozso]

"All in Adam" and "all in Christ" are substantives(they act like nouns), "all" bears no noun.

All what in Adam and all what in Christ?

 

[Fervent]

Again, you own question: all what in Adam and all what in Christ? Remember, "people" isn't in the text.

There's no need to specify "what" or "who" is "in Christ" for "all in Christ" to be a specific and complete subject. We may supply a "who" or similar, but the phrases are substantive on their own and form a complete subject. "All" by itself is an adjective and can't stand as a subject without a noun being supplied.