• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Would you prefer it if “Christian universalism” were true?

Cormack

“I bet you're a real hulk on the internet...”
Apr 21, 2020
1,469
1,408
London
✟102,307.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Been a While since my post, so thank you for responding.

And thank you for the cordial response. :)

We have an objective while here on earth that can only be fulfilled while here on earth,

God allowed wicked people to torture, humiliate and murder Jesus to help people to fulfill their objective,

I’ve never seen Christs cross or Gods action in history as simply facilitating our objective, but rather the focus was always on God fulfilling His own objective. The Father was in Christ “reconciling the world to Himself.” Although like you I do see synergy in the whole scheme of things.

God allowed wicked people to torture, humiliate and murder Jesus to help people to fulfill their objective, so allowing wicked people to be tortured for a while and annihilated would not be unreasonable, they at least have some value.

Though you and I see the cross of Christ as a means to attain new life, right? So, the work that God was orchestrating shows itself to be good fruit from the source of all good things. The cross wasn’t about the wicked worlds mission to secure death but rather Gods objective to bring about eternal life.

God is not allowing wicked people He Loves to be tortured to help them there is nothing more to do for them,

1. Would Gods desire that the wicked “turn from their way and live” ever dull or change?

2. Does anything about the lake of fire preclude freewill?

It seems like if our answer to question two is no, then it’s only a matter of time before people freely come to believe in and trust the Lord for their salvation. We couldn’t resist the Lord given even mundane earthly circumstances, how much more would people understand the foolishness of their ways after the judgment of their works.

After the judgment of their works is where question one seems to be most relevant. I believe God doesn’t change, meaning if He wants the wicked to turn from their evil ways and live today, then He would want them to turn from their evil ways and live 1000 years from now.

How would you answer the two points? My thoughts are no to both question one and two, which leads me into a greater affinity for universal restoration.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,814
11,612
Space Mountain!
✟1,371,047.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So for everyone who isn’t a believer in the universal reconciliation of all things, would you prefer that universalism were true?

A simple yes or no answer to start your response would be great, then the rationale behind why you have picked either yes or no.

Uh...................................I'll just go out on a limb and be honest by saying a hearty, "hell no!"

But, please keep in mind that this is just a knee-jerk, gut wrenching, off-the-cuff reaction. If any of you don't share my seemingly bellicose response, that's ok--- I don't blame you! But in such a case, I might surmise that those who share my visceral reaction will be those who have either been bullied in life or have been subject to the insanity of criminal actions or whatnot (or to worse things, like Auschwitz), and therefore can palpably feel, or have felt, actual negative VALUE of the actions of another person's evil mind and dark soul.

Do I "prefer" that universalism were true? Not really, but I know that this is contingent upon my current understanding (which, granted, could be incorrect) that the human soul will not be transformed at the Resurrection against its own will. So, in my current view, if someone like Goebbel's or Hitler were to somehow show up in the 'time-after,' and they had never repented in this life before dying, then I'm under the impression that they won't be wanting to bow the head or bend the knee to the Lord ... even though they will have to.

In other words, it's my view that people take what they are with them into the Judgement.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sawdust

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2004
3,576
600
68
Darwin
✟205,772.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Wouldn’t that be an error? Throwing hell into hell doesn’t sound right.



Yet traditionalists have labelled both “Hades” and the “lake of fire” hell. It’s like rebranding everything into the same narrow concept.

If I launched a sauna into the sun, we wouldn’t start referring to the Sun as “the Sauna.”

I still fail to see what your point is based on what you originally quoted of me. I never even used the word hell so you sound like you're just flapping your gums. :scratch:
 
Upvote 0

Abaxvahl

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2018
874
749
Earth
✟33,795.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
So for everyone who isn’t a believer in the universal reconciliation of all things, would you prefer that universalism were true?

A simple yes or no answer to start your response would be great, then the rationale behind why you have picked either yes or no.

Yes.

God in some way desires that all be saved, therefore it would in fact be best if all are saved, even though He in the actual working out of Providence probably permits the damnation of some. God can not desire anything in any way that is evil but only good, so based on "He desires the salvation of all" and "He desires not the death of a sinner" it is preferable that Universalism be true even if it actually doesn't occur.

Not only this, damnation is eternal death but the Scriptures says "God did not make death," but "death came through sin," as God obviously hates sin it is not good that either death or sin came into the world, and God doesn't desire death (of anything, even the eternal death of the damned) because He even forbids us to seek or desire death and hates those who love it. So this is another proof that in some way God desires that all be saved, so even if it does not actually happen it would be preferable if it did.

I contend this is the only Christian answer to the question also.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Cormack
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,027
35
Shropshire
✟193,879.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
In other words, it's my view that people take what they are with them into the Judgement.

I know this is address to Cormack but it's a good question and I'd like to have a go at some answer.
Why can't the Judgment be a period of correction? Why does it have to be a binary heaven or eternal hell? Surely even Hitler or Goebbel aren't totally wicked because they were created by God after all and would God create something that was wholly evil?

And if there is some good somewhere, won't God eventually succeed in drawing it out so that they do eventually willingly now the knee to Him. However we may view these individuals, in God's eyes they are still his children who He wants to be reunited with - this is His stated desire - and so shouldn't we want Him to succeed in this for His sake if nothing else?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cormack
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,814
11,612
Space Mountain!
✟1,371,047.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I know this is address to Cormack but it's a good question and I'd like to have a go at some answer.
Why can't the Judgment be a period of correction?
It could be, maybe, but I'm not seeing it in Scripture. I wish I could. Is there an exacting method by which I could and should? Or do we want to just surmise that it's somehow because I haven't been given a good measure of the Holy Spirit's direct influence and teaching? (....I mean, it could be, right?)

Why does it have to be a binary heaven or eternal hell?
I don't know. In fact, I don't "know" that it has to be anything since we can't really put either concept under the micrscope or know which form of logic or which Hermeneutical methodology will yield the correct answer. Do we?

Surely even Hitler or Goebells aren't totally wicked because they were created by God after all and would God create something that was wholly evil?
I woudn't know. I'd rather not speculate one way or the other in a dogmatic fashion.

But let me ask you a question: Have you ever been subject to the pain of being a victim of either bullying, or at the receiving end of a criminals actions (...or caught in warfare as a bystander, by chance?)

I mean, what does it take to recognize pure evil in action in this world, in evil that is willing to go down to the grave without reprentance?

And if there is some good somewhere, won't God eventually succeed in drawing it out so that they do eventually willingly now the knee to Him. However we may view these individuals, in God's eyes they are still his children who He wants to be reunited with - this is His stated desire - and so shouldn't we want Him to succeed in this for His sake if nothing else?
We can ask questions of this nature all day, but if we do that, then I'd have to resort to the angles in philosophical inquiry that I do when speaking with skeptics and atheists ...

As for identifying every human being as "God's child," is this what Jesus always did? As far as I can tell in Scripture, it doesn't quite look like He did. But, I know, I could be misinterpreting or misapplying what I'm reading.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Albion
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,263
✟584,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Let's summarize...

...God obviously hates sin it is not good that either death or sin came into the world, and God doesn't desire death (of anything, even the eternal death of the damned) because He even forbids us to seek or desire death and hates those who love it.
So this is another proof that in some way God desires that all be saved, so even if it does not actually happen it would be preferable if it did.
Maybe.

I contend this is the only Christian answer to the question also.
Definitely No.


:)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,027
35
Shropshire
✟193,879.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
It could be, maybe, but I'm not seeing it in Scripture. I wish I could. Is there an exacting method by which I could and should? Or do we want to just surmise that it's somehow because I haven't been given a good measure of the Holy Spirit's direct influence and teaching? (....I mean, it could be, right?)

I can't talk about study methods because I have had no formal training in scripture knowledge. I didn't see it in scripture either until I came across the simple fact (to me!) that Jesus' words "kolasis aionios" doesn't mean "eternal punishment" but actually means something like "corrective punishment for an 'age long' i.e. a possibly long but a time-limited duration. That did it for me. If I was shown that this is wrong, I would give my faith up because I could not worship a God who created ECT on moral grounds.

I woudn't know. I'd rather not speculate one way or the other in a dogmatic fashion.

This is about Hitler types being totally evil. Isn't the fact that we are all created in the image of God proof enough of this?

But let me ask you a question: Have you ever been subject to the pain of being a victim of either bullying, or at the receiving end of a criminals actions (...or caught in warfare as a bystander, by chance?

Yes.

I mean, what does it take to recognize pure evil in action in this world, in evil that is willing to go down to the grave without reprentance?

I can honestly say that I don't want anyone to go to eternal hell. Our suffering should be acknowledged though but I think this is by corrective punishment.

We can ask questions of this nature all day, but if we do that, then I'd have to resort to the angles in philosophical inquiry that I do when speaking with skeptics and atheists ...

I know what you mean. I don't feel the same though because I have never believed in the notion of ECT so the kolasis aionios thing was enough for me.

As for identifying every human being as "God's child," is this what Jesus always did? As far as I can tell in Scripture, it doesn't quite look like He did. But, I know, I could be misinterpreting or misapplying what I'm reading.

Who didn't He think of as a child of God?
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,263
✟584,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Why not? Is not everything God desires good and the salvation of all is one of those things? Shouldn't it be preferable for us also?

As I said...maybe. However, you're describing just a human impulse at work. What settles the matter is what God decides, and he's revealed to us that he does not save everyone "regardless." So we're stuck with it, if you want to put it that way.

Anyway, what you presented to me was God's ideal, and how can we argue against that? But that isn't the issue. It's what God does and, arguably, must do, in order to be just. He is just, you know, every bit as much as he is loving and forgiving.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Abaxvahl

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2018
874
749
Earth
✟33,795.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
As I said...maybe. However, you're describing just a human impulse at work. What settles the matter is what God decides, and he's revealed to us that he does not save everyone "regardless." So we're stuck with it, if you want to put it that way.

I agree He does not, which is why I only speak of preferences. I like St. Thomas distinction between antecedent and consequent willing, and I think that explains the situation.

Just for any readers not familiar: "[Commenting on the passage 'who wills all to be saved]... Fourth, according to Damascene, so that it is understood to be about his antecedent will, and not the consequent. For in God’s will, although there are no prior things and subsequent things, his will is nevertheless described as antecedent and consequent. Likewise, according to the order of things willed, according to which the will can be considered in two ways: namely, in general or absolutely, and according to certain circumstances, and in particular. Here the absolute and general consideration is considered prior to the particular and relative consideration. Then the absolute will is, as it were, antecedent, and the will of anything in particular is, as it were, consequent. For example, a merchant who absolutely wills to save all his goods, and this by his antecedent will; but if he considers the safety factor, he does not will all his goods to be saved, through comparison to others, namely, when the sinking of his ship follows the saving of all his goods. And this will is consequent. Similarly, in God’s case, the salvation of all men considered in itself has a reckoning so that is might be desirable; which is what the Apostle means here: therefore, he is speaking of his antecedent will. But if the good of justice is considered, and that sins be punished, thus he does not want; And this is his consequent will."

Ultimately I think it has been revealed that some will be damned, but it would be better if not, but maybe as you said, for I just remembered the debate on whether or not this is the best of all possible worlds, and then the following debate on whether or not God even needs to make the best of all possible worlds, and so on. Philosophers and theologians truly earn their paychecks.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,263
✟584,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I agree He does not, which is why I only speak of preferences.
To that extent, I agree with you. However, that's not what the thread is about and not what most of the pro-Universalism posters have been arguing for.

Ultimately I think it has been revealed that some will be damned...
Yes.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Abaxvahl
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,814
11,612
Space Mountain!
✟1,371,047.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I can't talk about study methods because I have had no formal training in scripture knowledge. I didn't see it in scripture either until I came across the simple fact (to me!) that Jesus' words "kolasis aionios" doesn't mean "eternal punishment" but actually means something like "corrective punishment for an 'age long' i.e. a possibly long but a time-limited duration. That did it for me. If I was shown that this is wrong, I would give my faith up because I could not worship a God who created ECT on moral grounds.

... and THIS, my friend, is exactly my point about there being other "philosophical inquiries" that I'd have to then apply here, which happen to be the same one's I'd bring up when I talke to Skeptics and Atheists.

The point being is, there is an undisclosed prior committment (pre-supposition) to some amorphous "ethical framework" along with an undesignated Hermeneutic that is being imported by you into the handling of the Bible ...

I mean, this isn't a sin or a moral fault on your part, it's just an observtion.

This is about Hitler types being totally evil. Isn't the fact that we are all created in the image of God proof enough of this?
No. Because to assume this is to assume, again, an undisclosed, unidentified Hermeneutic when handling the topic of 'the nature of human beings.'

Again, this kind of thing isn't a sin or a moral fault on your part, it's just an observtion.

Ok. So, you empathize with the pain of victims, then. That's a plus in my book.

I can honestly say that I don't want anyone to go to eternal hell. Our suffering should be acknowledged though but I think this is by corrective punishment.
So, are you consistent then in applying that general attitude toward people on this side of the grave as well? In other words, you don't believe in the death penalty, I assume?


I know what you mean. I don't feel the same though because I have never believed in the notion of ECT so the kolasis aionios thing was enough for me.
Well, I get that, but when Jesus told Satan not to harp on a singular piece of Scripture, but that we have to wrestle with "all" of the Word of God, then I'm kind of left scratching my head as to how simply coming across a verse here or there, or thereby gathering a collection of a dozen favored verses "does it" for anyone here, whether they're univesalists or ECT, or even Annihilationsist, or anything else we can dredge up in our interpretations.



Who didn't He think of as a child of God?
... well, there is that bit in John 8:44 which kind of sets my teeth on edge a bit. But maybe I'm reading it wrongly?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Albion
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,027
35
Shropshire
✟193,879.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
The point being is, there is an undisclosed prior committment (pre-supposition) to some amorphous "ethical framework" along with an undesignated Hermeneutic that is being imported by you into the handling of the Bible ...

I wish I could say I was clever enough to do that!

The only ethical framework I'm bringing in to my reading of scripture is the morality that Jesus showed God has - God is love - and the morality He commanded us to show in loving one another. I don't understand the considerations that you are aware of but does any of that make it impossible to say that Jesus would not eternally torment anyone?

So, are you consistent then in applying that general attitude toward people on this side of the grave as well? In other words, you don't believe in the death penalty, I assume?

I don't believe in the death penalty, no. If for no other reason it's.illogical for society to say it's wrong to kill and then itself kill someone who does that?


Well, I get that, but when Jesus told Satan not to harp on a singular piece of Scripture, but that we have to wrestle with "all" of the Word of God, then I'm kind of left scratching my head as to how simply coming across a verse here or there, or thereby gathering a collection of a dozen favored verses "does it" for anyone here, whether they're univesalists or ECT, or even Annihilationsist, or anything else we can dredge up in our interpretations.

It's wasn't just that for me or even the most important factor as I tried to describe earlier but it did clear the path for me over the verses cited in support of ECT.

well, there is that bit in John 8:44 which kind of sets my teeth on edge a bit. But maybe I'm reading it wrongly

I agree, that verse is "curious"!
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,816
1,925
✟993,205.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I’ve never seen Christs cross or Gods action in history as simply facilitating our objective, but rather the focus was always on God fulfilling His own objective. The Father was in Christ “reconciling the world to Himself.” Although like you I do see synergy in the whole scheme of things.

God’s “objective” appears to be: doing or allowing all He can to help willing individual to fulfill their objective (this would be totally unselfish on his part).

The “reconciliation” us to Him is another way of saying: doing and/or allowing everything to help willing individuals fulfill their objective of becoming like God/Christ in that they Love like God Loves. We Love each other with a Godly Love.



Though you and I see the cross of Christ as a means to attain new life, right? So, the work that God was orchestrating shows itself to be good fruit from the source of all good things. The cross wasn’t about the wicked worlds mission to secure death but rather Gods objective to bring about eternal life.
This gets into the huge topic of atonement, which I could write a book on. I enjoy talking about atonement going over every verse on the subject starting with Lev. 4-5, but are you willing to read a book worth of notes on the subject.

Try just this small part of atonement:

There is this unbelievable huge “ransom payment” being made: Jesus, Peter, Paul, John and the author of Hebrews all describe it as an actual ransom scenario and not just “like a ransom scenario”. And we can all agree on: the payment being Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder, the Payer being God/Christ, the child being set free (sinners going to God), but have a problem with: “Who is the kidnapper”? If there is no kidnapper then it is not a ransom scenario, so who is the kidnapper?

Some people try to make God the receiver of the payment, which calls God the kidnapper of His own children which is crazy. God is not a criminal nor unworthy.

Some people say satan is the kidnapper, but that would mean God is paying satan when God has the power to safely take anything from satan and it would be wrong for God to pay His satan.

Some say it is an intangible like death, evil, sin, or nothing, but there is no reason to pay a huge payment to an intangible?

There is a very wicked criminal and that person is holding a child back from entering the Kingdom to be with God. When we go to the nonbeliever, we are not trying to convince them of an idea, a book, a doctrine or theology, but to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified (which the Bible defines as the ransom payment). If the nonbeliever accepts the ransom payment (Jesus Christ) there is a child released to go to the Father, but if the nonbeliever refuses to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified a child is kept out of the Kingdom. Does this all sounds very much like a kidnapping scenario?

There is a lot more to say about this, but this is an introduction.



1. Would Gods desire that the wicked “turn from their way and live” ever dull or change?

2. Does anything about the lake of fire preclude freewill?

It seems like if our answer to question two is no, then it’s only a matter of time before people freely come to believe in and trust the Lord for their salvation. We couldn’t resist the Lord given even mundane earthly circumstances, how much more would people understand the foolishness of their ways after the judgment of their works.

After the judgment of their works is where question one seems to be most relevant. I believe God doesn’t change, meaning if He wants the wicked to turn from their evil ways and live today, then He would want them to turn from their evil ways and live 1000 years from now.

How would you answer the two points? My thoughts are no to both question one and two, which leads me into a greater affinity for universal restoration.
You are asking the wrong question. How could a person make a truly “free will” choice to get out of hell once in hell? A truly free will choice has to have likely alternatives, for the nonbelieving sinner on earth the choices are between accepting God’s pure undeserved charitable gifts (Love) or continue to pursue the perceived pleasures of sin. In hell there is no likely alternative to make a truly free will choice, it is more like having a gun to your head.

All those repeatedly provided with the choice can run out of help from God in that God would know there is nothing more that could be done to allow the person to choose His Love (charity/forgiveness/mercy/grace). Those who are refusing God’s Love (forgiveness) while here on earth have no other way of to obtain God’s Love since the only way is the way Jesus taught us “he that is forgiven much Loves much”, so he that is forgiven of an unbelievable huge debt will automatically receive and unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love). God is doing His part right now in that He forgives everyone, but if that forgiveness is not humbly freely accepted as pure undeserved charity, then the transaction is not completed and thus the person does not have Godly type Love.

Those who never have the opportunity to reject God’s Love would still go to heaven without Godly type Love and have only a strong child for wonderful parent type Love (different subject).
 
Upvote 0

Cormack

“I bet you're a real hulk on the internet...”
Apr 21, 2020
1,469
1,408
London
✟102,307.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
God’s “objective” appears to be: doing or allowing all He can to help willing individual to fulfill their objective (this would be totally unselfish on his part).

“All He can” meaning every last thing so long as it’s going to end in the salvation of the lost sinner. Which would mean if God required to gift a man 1000 years of torment, after which he would believe in Christ for the salvation of his soul, God would pursue that. Right?

The “reconciliation” us to Him is another way of saying: doing and/or allowing everything to help willing individuals fulfill their objective of becoming like God/Christ in that they Love like God Loves. We Love each other with a Godly Love.

Reconciling “the world” to Himself, “not counting people’s sins against them.” Like how Jesus insists He’s made “all things” new. Unless you read “the world” and “all things” to mean something other than the world.

but are you willing to read a book worth of notes on the subject.

Sure. :) I’m not the best speed reader, but like in the case of replying to people in my old topics, I’ll get there.

but have a problem with: “Who is the kidnapper”?

Satan! Christos Victor model! Sorry, I’m reacting as I read. :tearsofjoy: I’d do that more often but most people don’t respond well to the loose posting style.

Some people say satan is the kidnapper, but that would mean God is paying satan when God has the power to safely take anything from satan and it would be wrong for God to pay His satan.

I’m not so sure God could safely remove people from Satan while preserving their freedom of wills in tact. If people were willingly enslaved to the devil and his wicked system of things, as the Bible teaches we were slaves to sinful passions, then there’s no saving that person if not for their own desire to first be saved. There’s only freedom for a slave when he first wishes to be freed, the Jesus victory is part of that desire coming to life in us.

Although on the Victor model God gives Satan the shiny coin of Jesus, only for the wicked kingdom of things to realise they couldn’t hold or enslave Christ the King so simply as they enslave or murdered the other prophets.

Like tying string onto a coin and offering it to someone, only to sneak it back. Yoink!

Some people say satan is the kidnapper,

Some people try to make God the receiver of the payment,

Some say it is an intangible like death, evil, sin,

I’m slightly disappointed you never shared your own verdict on which atonement model you subscribe to. Maybe you’re not convinced by any of the ideas.

You are asking the wrong question.

I’m pretty sure they’re excellent questions so long as you’re a believer in libertarian freewill, and for as much as I’ve read from you, you do appear to believe in that form of freewill.

How could a person make a truly “free will” choice to get out of hell once in hell? A truly free will choice has to have likely alternatives,

Mmhmm, which is why I asked question two. “Does anything about the lake of fire preclude freedom?” People can have choices even in circumstances where they’re in dire straits.

We could panic, curse, regret, torment ourselves or even believe and repent. Unless you believe there’s something about hell that’ll preclude the human ability to repent or regret or believe in the Lord Jesus.

Question one was fairly uncontroversial, and if you feel like having a pop @ either of those questions I’ll be happy to read your thoughts.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,148
EST
✟1,123,613.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I can't talk about study methods because I have had no formal training in scripture knowledge. I didn't see it in scripture either until I came across the simple fact (to me!) that Jesus' words "kolasis aionios" doesn't mean "eternal punishment" but actually means something like "corrective punishment for an 'age long' i.e. a possibly long but a time-limited duration. That did it for me. If I was shown that this is wrong, I would give my faith up because I could not worship a God who created ECT on moral grounds. * * *
On what do you base your statement "Jesus' words 'kolasis aionios' doesn't mean 'eternal punishment' but actually means something like 'corrective punishment' for an 'age long' i.e. a possibly long but a time-limited duration?"
....That is patently false and can be shown to be false by scripture alone. The word "kolasis" occurs only 2 times in the NT. Matt 25:46 and 1 Joh 4:18.
1 John 4:18
18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment.[kolasis] He that feareth is not made perfect in love.​
"Kolasis" means "torment" NOT "correction." The one who has "kolasis" is not made perfect i.e. no correction.
Below are 10 passages where Jesus defines/describes "aionios" by paralleling it with other words.
…..Some people argue that “aion/aionios” never means eternity/eternal because they sometimes refer to things which are not eternal.
However, neither word is ever defined/described, by other adjectives or adjectival phrases, as meaning a period of time less than eternal, in the New Testament, as in the following verses.
…..Jesus used “aionios” twenty eight [28] times. He never used “aionios” to refer to anything ordinary or mundane that was not or could not be eternal.
…..In the following ten verses Jesus defines “aionios” as “eternal.”
In Joh 3:15-16 If "aionios" does not mean "eternal" then Jesus lied, twice. He said those that believed on Him would have "aionios" life and never perish.
[1] Luke 1:33
(33) And he shall reign [basileusei, Vb] over the house of Jacob for ever; [aionas] and of his kingdom [basileias, Nn] there shall be no end.[telos]​
In this verse the reign/basileusei, the verb form of the word, is "aionas" and of the kingdom/basileias, the noun form of the same word, "there shall be no end.”
“Aionas” by definition here means eternal.
[2] John 6:58
(58) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.[aionios]​
In this verse Jesus juxtaposes “aionios life” with “death.” If “live aionios” is only a finite period, a finite period is not opposite “death.” Thus “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”
[3] John 10:28
(28) I give them eternal [aionios] life, and they shall never [aion] perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.​
In this verse Jesus parallels “aionios” and “aion” with “[not] snatch them out of my hand.” If “aion/aionios” means “age(s), a finite period,” that is not the opposite of “[not] snatch them out of my hand’” “Aionios life” by definition here means “eternal life.”
[4]John 3:15
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [aionion] life.
[5] John 3:16
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [aionion] life.​
In these two verses Jesus parallels “aionion” with “should not perish.” Believers could eventually perish in a finite period, thus by definition “aionion life” here means eternal or everlasting life.
[6]John 5:24
(24) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting [aionios] life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.​
In this verse Jesus parallels “aionios” with “shall not come into condemnation” and “passed from death unto life.” “Aionios” does not mean “a finite period,” by definition here it means “eternal,” unless Jesus lets His followers come into condemnation and pass into death.
[7]John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting [aionios] life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.​
In this verse Jesus juxtaposed aionios life with “shall not see life.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall not see life” By definition aionios means eternal.
[8]John 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never [ου μη/ou mé] thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting [aionios] life.​
In this verse Jesus paralleled aionios with “shall [ου μη/ou mé][fn] never thirst.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall never thirst.” By definition aionios means eternal. See footnote [fn] on “ou mé” below.
[9]John 6:27
(27) Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting [aionios] life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.​
In this verse Jesus contrasted “aionios meat” with “meat that perishes” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “meat that perishes.” By definition aionios means eternal.
[10]John 8:51
(51) Very truly [amen amen] I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never [ou mé eis ton aiona][fn] see death."​
In this verse Jesus juxtaposes “unto aion” with “never see death.” By definition “aion” means eternity.

[Character limit. Continued next post]
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,148
EST
✟1,123,613.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
[Previous post continued]

Paul used the word “aionios” eleven [11] times. It is translated “eternal/everlasting” 20 times and world 3 times. In the following 12 verses Paul defines “aionios” as eternal.
[11]Romans 5:21
(21) That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal [aionios] life by Jesus Christ our Lord.​
In this verse Paul juxtaposes “aionios life” with death. “A finite period life” is not opposite death. “Aionios life” by definition here means ‘eternal life.”
[12]Ephesians 3:21
(21) to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever [tou aionios] and ever! [ton aionion] Amen.​
In this verse Paul parallels “tou aionios ton aionion” with “throughout all generations.” "Age(s)" a finite period cannot refer to "all generations." By definition “tou aionios ton aionion” means forever and ever.
[13]Romans 1:20
(20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal [aidios] power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
[14]Romans 16:26
(26) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting [aionios] God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:​
In Rom 1:20 Paul refers to God’s power and Godhead as “aidios.” Scholars agree “aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, unending etc. In Rom 16:26, Paul, the same writer, in the same writing, refers to God as “aionios.” Paul has used “aidios” synonymous with “aionios.” In this verse by definition “aionios” means eternal, everlasting.
[15]2 Corinthians 4:17-18
(17) For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal [aionios] weight of glory;
(18) While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal;[proskairos] but the things which are not seen are eternal [aionios]​
In this passage Paul juxtaposes “aionios” with “for a moment,” vs. 4, and “temporal,” vs. 5. “Age(s)” an indeterminate finite period, it is not the opposite of “for a moment”/”temporal/temporary” “eternal” is. “Aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”
[16]2 Corinthians 5:1
(1) For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal [aionios] in the heavens.​
In this verse Paul juxtaposes “aionios house” with “earthly house which is destroyed.” Is God going to replace our destroyed earthly house with a house which only lasts a little longer and will be destroyed at the end of an age? The aionios house is not destroyed, the opposite of “is destroyed.” Thus, “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”
[17]1 Timothy 6:16
(16) Who only hath immortality, [aphthartos] dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting [aionios]​
In this verse Paul paralleled “aionios” with “immortality.” If “aionios” is only a finite period, God cannot be “immortal” and only exist for a finite period at the same time. Thus “aionios” by definition means “eternal.”
[18]Galatians 6:8
(8) For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; [fthora] but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. [aionios]​
In this verse Paul juxtaposes “aionios” with “corruption.” “Fleshly” people reap “corruption” but spiritual people reap “life aionios,” i.e. “not corruption.” “Age(s), a finite period, is not opposite of “corruption.” Thus “aionios life” by definition here means “eternal/everlasting life.”
[19]Romans 2:7
(7) To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, [apftharsia] he will give eternal [aionios] life.​
In this verse Paul parallels “aionios” with “immortality.” If “aionios” is only a finite period, believers do not seek for “a finite period,” and “immortality” at the same time. But they can seek for “eternal life” and “immortality” at the same time. Thus by definition “aionios life” here means “eternal life.”
[20]1 Timothy 1:17.
(17) Now unto the King eternal, [aion] immortal, [aphthartos] invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever [aion] and ever [aionios]. Amen.​
In this verse Paul parallels “aion” with “immortal.” “Aion” cannot mean “age(s),” a finite period and immortal at the same time. Thus “aion” by definition here means “eternal.”
[21]Romans 5:21
(21) That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal [aionios] life by Jesus Christ our Lord.​
In this verse Paul juxtaposes “aionios life” with death. “A finite period life” is not opposite death. “Aionios life” by definition here means ‘eternal life.”
[22]Ephesians 3:21
(21) to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever [tou aionios] and ever! [ton aionion] Amen.​
In this verse Paul parallels “tou aionios ton aionion” with “throughout all generations.” "Age(s)" a finite period cannot refer to "all generations." By definition “tou aionios ton aionion” means forever and ever.
[23]Hebrews 7:24 but because Jesus lives forever [aion] he has an unchangeable [aparabatos] priesthood.​
In this verse “aion” is parallel with “unchangeable.” If “aion” means “age(s),” Jesus cannot continue for only a “finite period” and simultaneously be “unchangeable.” Thus “aion” by definition here means “eternal.”
[24]1 Peter 1:23
(23) For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, [aphthartos] through the living and enduring word of God. …
1 Peter 1:25
(25) but the word of the Lord endures forever.[aion] " And this is the word that was preached to you.​
In verse 23 Peter parallels “word of God” with “imperishable.” The same writer, Peter, in the same writing 1 Peter, in verse 25 writes the word of God “endures eis ton aiona/unto eternity. ” The word of God is not a finite age long but imperishable. Thus by definition “aion” here means “eternity”
[25]1 Peter 5:10
(10) And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal [aionion] glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, [oligon] will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast.​
In this verse Peter contrasted “aionios” with “little while” Jesus does not give His followers a finite period of glory then they eventually die. Thus “aionios” here, by definition, means “eternal.”
[26]Revelation 14:11
(11) And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever:[eis aionas aionon] and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.​
In this verse “aionas aionon torment” is paralleled with “no rest day or night.” If “aionas, aionon” means “a finite period” at some time they would rest, “Aionas, aionon” by definition here means “forever and forever.”
= = = = = = =
Footnotes ου μη/ou mé
●The double negative [ου μη] signifies in nowise, by no means. Θεωρήσῃ[theōrésé], denoting steady, protracted vision, is purposely used, because the promise contemplates the entire course of the believer's life in Christ. It is not, shall not die forever, but shall live eternally.[Vincent word studies]
● ④οὐ marker of reinforced negation, in combination w. μή, οὐ μή has the effect of strengthening the negation (Kühner-G. II 221–23; Schwyzer II 317; Mlt. 187–92 [a thorough treatment of NT usage]; B-D-F §365; RLudwig: D. prophet. Wort 31 ’37, 272–79; JLee, NovT 27, ’85, 18–23; B-D-F §365.—Pla., Hdt. et al. [Kühner-G. loc. cit.]; SIG 1042, 16; POxy 119, 5, 14f; 903, 16; PGM 5, 279; 13, 321; LXX; TestAbr A 8 p. 85, 11 [Stone p. 46]; JosAs 20:3; GrBar 1:7; ApcEsdr 2:7; Just., D. 141, 2). οὐ μή is the most decisive way of negativing something in the future.
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000)A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian Literature.(3rd Ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
● The combinations with οὐ μή also be noticed as, ουδεν οὐ μή (Lu. 10:19); οὐ μή se σε άνο ουδ ου σε εγκαταιπο (Heb. 13:5); ουκετι οὐ μή (Rev. 18:14). There is no denying the power of this accumulation of negatives. Cf. the English hymn "I'll never, no never, no never forsake."
Grammar Of The Greek New Testament In The Light Of Historical Research
By A. T. Robertson, M.A., D.D., Ll.D., Litt.D. p.1165.
 
Upvote 0

Cormack

“I bet you're a real hulk on the internet...”
Apr 21, 2020
1,469
1,408
London
✟102,307.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
But in such a case, I might surmise that those who share my visceral reaction will be those who have either been bullied in life or have been subject to the insanity of criminal actions or whatnot (or to worse things, like Auschwitz), and therefore can palpably feel, or have felt, actual negative VALUE of the actions of another person's evil mind and dark soul.

But let me ask you a question: Have you ever been subject to the pain of being a victim of either bullying, or at the receiving end of a criminals actions (...or caught in warfare as a bystander, by chance?)

Ok. So, you empathize with the pain of victims, then. That's a plus in my book.

Jesus answered the question of what we can do with our own pain when He said “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.” The reality is that asking someone if they’ve ever been victimised is silly, we’ve all been there, we all pay taxes.

Christians often shift from the focus of their own pain onto pain in the world, as if they have grand insight or have felt the weight of the worlds pain upon their shoulders. It’s simply inauthentic.


Or do we want to just surmise that it's somehow because I haven't been given a good measure of the Holy Spirit's direct influence and teaching? (....I mean, it could be, right?)

Christ forgave far worse than anyone on the board has had to endure, not so we could wring our hands at the prospect of our schoolyard bully getting an eternity of comeuppance in hellfire, but rather to serve as an example so that we can forgive too.

People who lament their hurt too long have their motives and methods forever darkened by that hurt. Hurting people go on to hurt other people. When we let go of that offence we are no longer at the mercy of our past.

It’s less likely that you are gimped of the Spirit and more likely that you have untreated trauma that needs to be brought to the Lord for healing.

As for identifying every human being as "God's child," is this what Jesus always did?

Paul does teach we’re all Gods “offspring,” (Acts 17,) and of course throughout scripture we read how all people are objects of His love and provision.

God love you mate. :thumbsup:
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hmm
Upvote 0

Cormack

“I bet you're a real hulk on the internet...”
Apr 21, 2020
1,469
1,408
London
✟102,307.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
I don't believe in the death penalty, no. If for no other reason it's.illogical for society to say it's wrong to kill and then itself kill someone who does that?

That’s clever, @Hmm.

Just thinking about the visceral gut distaste for universalism, and again it’s a point of preference observation.

People who would rather see Universalism out the door want the people who wronged them to be punished more than they want these people to see the error of their ways and become Christian family.

Tim: ‘Yeah, Jason really busted my acorns in high school. Stuffed me into a locker and then he told me to pray for “cheese us” to save me……. :cry:

God: Jason went on to be an alcoholic you know. His uncle abused him from age five.

Tim: oh…. :grin: That’s kinda cool.

God: Would you like Jason to learn the error of his ways? He could love Jesus, discover life and turn from being a bully forever. He could see the world through your eyes and truly empathise with the harm he’s caused. He’d be my son and your healed brother.

Tim:…… tell me more about his alcoholism, God. :hearteyes::fire::fire::fire::fire:
 
Upvote 0