Tags
Bible, Calvinism, Christianity, Covenant of Grace, Covenant of Works, Election, God, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Grace, Jesus Christ, Predestination, Reformed Theology, Salvation, Sovereignty of God, Theology, Westminster Confession of Faith, Westminster Shorter Catechism
Q. 20. Did God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?
A. God, having out of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer.
It’s been awhile, but we’re returning to our ongoing series of going through the Westminster Shorter Catechism. When last we looked at the Catechism, we were discussing the misery of the state into which man fell when Adam and Eve sinned in the garden. The Catechism describes our state of misery as follows: “All mankind by their fall lost communion with God, are under his wrath and curse, and so made liable to all the miseries of this life, to death itself, and to the pains of hell forever.” At the end of that article, we noticed that this message regarding the misery of our sin is one that is largely lost in today’s churches. We don’t mind the Jesus who will make our lives better, but we balk at the Jesus who points out our sin.
However, if we leave out the message of sin and its accompanying miseries, then we are editing the gospel message. The gospel first and foremost destroys our complacency toward sin and demands we take notice of the fact that we are rebel sinners who have offended a holy God with our sin and disobedience. Only then are we prepared to hear the “good news” that is offered in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Today’s question asks “Did God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?” The answer the Catechism provides can essentially be broken down into two main parts. The first part of the answer is “God, having out of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life.” Now right away most people will take issue with every single clause in that statement. It’s not fair that God elects only some to everlasting life and not all. Furthermore, it’s not fair that God did this from “all eternity.” Finally, it’s not fair that God elects based on his “mere good pleasure.”
Human beings have an inflated sense of fairness, especially when it involves making sure we get our fair share. The concept that God would only select some for salvation, and that he would do that in eternity past rather than in the ‘here and now,’ and that he would do this based on his good pleasure rather than our merit, rubs people the wrong way. Yet the question that is not asked is this: Why is God obligated to save anyone? If we have truly “lost communion with God” and are “under his wrath and curse,” then what possesses us to think that God is obligated to save anyone, let alone some or all?
The answer to that question is God is not obligated to save anyone. If people want fair, then fair is for God to condemn everyone to eternity in hell – that’s ‘fair.’ Justice demands that lawbreakers (that’s us) be punished, and God is just (Deuteronomy 32:4). That God saves anyone is a matter of grace, not justice. That God saves anyone is most decidedly unfair in the truest sense of the word. Salvation is motivated not from God’s sense of justice, but from God’s sense of love for his creation. It pleased God to elect some to everlasting life. Rather than let all perish in everlasting punishment (which would be perfectly just), God decided to elect some to everlasting life. Why some and not all? The Westminster Confession of Faith provides an answer:
By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death. (WCF, 3.3)
Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto; and all to the praise of His glorious grace. (WCF, 3.5)
Notice the phrases “for the manifestation of his glory” and “to the praise of his glorious grace.” The manifestation of his glory is the reason given to the question why God saves some and not all. Again, many will find this answer unsatisfying and inadequate. To that I reply your problem is not with me, but with God. Consider the words of Holy Scripture:
- And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48)
- Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will. (Ephesians 1:4-5)
- But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the first fruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Thessalonians 2:13-14)
These (and others) demonstrate the truth that God, out his good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life.
The second part of today’s answer is “God…did enter into a covenant of grace to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer.” This gives us the means through which God accomplishes the salvation of those whom he has elected unto everlasting life. God enters into a covenant of grace with his people. Again, the words of the Confession flesh this out a bit:
Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe. (WCF, 7.3)
By calling it a “covenant of grace,” the Westminster Divines are conveying that it is God who not only initiates the covenant, but it is also God who upholds the stipulations of the covenant. A response is required – namely, faith – but even that requirement is graciously provided by God (“Promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.”).
The language of covenant is prevalent all throughout Scripture. God makes a covenant with Noah, with Abraham, with Moses, and with David. All of these covenants are aspects of the covenant of grace which traces its origin all the way back to the original promise of a coming savior in Genesis 3:15. Perhaps the clearest expression of the covenant of grace can be found in the book of Jeremiah:
Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (Jeremiah 31:31-14)
This is the promise of the new covenant, which is the culmination of the covenant of grace. This covenant was inaugurated in an upper room in Jerusalem nearly 2,000 years ago when a Jewish carpenter from Nazareth broke bread with twelve men during the Passover.
In our next look at the Westminster Shorter Catechism, we will look a little more closely at our Redeemer, Jesus Christ.
Soli Deo Gloria!
Pingback: Tweets that mention God to the Rescue! « New Creation Person -- Topsy.com
“If people want fair, then fair is for God to condemn everyone to eternity in hell – that’s ‘fair.’ ”
Eternal torment is not ‘fair’…it’s not even real, and to judge it as ‘fair’ just because you think it must be right is imo poor reasoning. The scriptures don’t teach eternal torment, anywhere at all. Look again at the new covenant. Look closely. There is not a thing anyone must do, there is nothing at all required on our part in that covenant. And it clearly states, “they shall ALL know me, from the least of them to the greatest.” The election you speak of, the chosen, are not chosen for salvation…salvation is there for everyone. The chosen are there to replace the Old Covenant Israel as his chosen people, priests if you will.
The church has been teaching this doctrine of salvation from eternal torment for too long. It has been exposed as a fraud, and it’s time for all of God’s chosen people to stand up and get rid of this pagan belief that the politicians brought into ‘churchianity’.
The whole idea that God chose most people for eternal torment, while taking a select people who could care less about those lost souls for himself (for if they did care for them there would be NO joy for them in heaven, knowing their loved ones were being tormented) is a bunch of hogwash. Narcissistic hogwash.
Hi Carl. Nice answer to that question. Very well written. Although, I have to agree with Phil, obviously. : )
I agree with your assertion that this has nothing to do with ‘fairness’ and I’ll even agree with you that God COULD just save some, and it wouldn’t be, IN ANY WAY, ‘unjust’ of Him to do so. He’s God. It’s HIS creation. He can do with it what He wants. Our questioning His actions are just silly, when you get right down to it.
But here’s the thing. For me it’s not a question of whether or not God SHOULD save everyone, even though I believe that He most definitely will. It’s a question of IF He’s NOT going to save everyone, then what are His Plans for those that He’s not going to save?
What would be JUST? What would be UNJUST?
If God destroyed them, would that be unjust? I don’t see how it would be.
If He decided to save them, for whatever reason, would that be unjust? Surely not.
If He decides to have them ‘tormented’ in some manner, for all eternity (a torment that NEVER ends), would THAT be just? NO! How could that be just?
If dying unsaved CAUSES us to be tormented for all eternity (God allows us to be tormented in some manner) would that be just? NO! How could that be just?
There is NO POSSIBLE WAY that torturing people, or tormenting them, or leaving them in torment, is just, IF it involves all eternity, for God is then punishing people with torment and He’s choosing to never let this torment end.
THAT is EVIL. Do you disagree?
Okay, then tell me just ONE THING that would be more evil then tormenting someone, or allowing them to be tormented, for all eternity.
I don’t care if we’re tormenting ourself & God has nothing to do with it, which isn’t what you believe, but even if ‘that’ were true, God would STILL be an unjust God, because He’s choosing to never do anything about it.
If God saved everyone ‘accept’ the worst human being of all time, and sent that one dirty rotten filthy evil heathen to hell for all eternity, then God would still be an unjust evil being. Why? Simple.
Because sending that one dirty rotten filthy evil heathen to hell for all eternity is MORE EVIL then ANYTHING that dirty rotten filthy evil heathen EVER DID in his entire life.
I know you want to counter with something like this…
‘You don’t understand Scott. We’re sinners. We deserve it because we sinned against an Infinite Holy God & therefore God is perfectly justified in having us tormented for all eternity.’
Um… NO, He’s NOT. The FACT that He IS an Infinite Holy God is PRECISELY WHY He would NEVER EVER do such a disgusting horrible despicable terrible insane and evil thing to anyone, ever.
Just the opposite is true Carl. I’m sorry we disagree on this. I hope that one day we agree.
@Scott:
In this we agree. Keep this thought in mind as we progress through your comment.
So, it’s silly to question God’s actions, unless…they don’t agree with MY view of justice. As with Phil, this blurs the Creator/creature distinction. You affirm this in one breath and then take it away in the next. That’s not consistent. As the creature, we submit to God, not the other way around. We don’t stand in judgment of God, but he stands in judgment of us. To claim that God is unjust because he decrees the eternal damnation of the wicked is precisely to sit in judgment of God. As C.S. Lewis puts it, we place God in the dock (the English term for the witness stand) and we’re at the judge’s bench and we are demanding God to justify himself to us. That’s the very heart of original sin.
Why? Seriously! Why is eternal judgment unjust? Regarding your question (“Do I agree?”), emphatically NO. It is not evil for God to decree the eternal punishment of wicked sinners. God is just, holy and good, so it is absurd to accuse him of evil.
This just demonstrates to me that you do not understand the depth of human sin in relation to a perfectly holy God. Adam’s one sin was enough to plunge the whole human race into sin and judgment. Adam’s one sin was enough to require the death of Jesus Christ, the very Son of God, to die to atone for it. Personally, I think it’s just silly (to use your word) to say that God can do what he wants with his creation, then scream at him for exercising his divine prerogative.
@Phil: I’m going to extend to you the benefit of the doubt and that you want to engage in honest dialogue despite the impression I get from your concluding remarks that suggest otherwise.
I’m further going to assume that by this statement above you hold the Scriptures to be authoritative. Is that a safe assumption? If so, I will also assume that if you can be shown by Scripture that your position is wrong, you will release your hold on the false doctrine and embrace what Scripture clearly teaches. Is that also a safe assumption? If it isn’t, then it does us little good to engage in further discussion. I hold the Scriptures to be divinely inspired, infallible and completely authoritative in faith and practice. If you don’t hold to this belief, then you will only be like other false teachers who use the Scriptures as they see fit — quoting it when it agrees with their pet doctrine and denying it when it doesn’t.
Having said that, let’s examine what the bible says regarding eternal judgment. Doing a search of the English Standard Version of the bible on the phrases “eternal”, “everlasting”, and “forever and ever” (the common adjectives used when referring to judgment) yields the following:
* And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. (Matthew 18:8)
* Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’ (Matthew 25:41)
* And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. (Matthew 25:46)
* But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin. (Mark 3:29)
* Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (John 3:36)
* They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from1 the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might. (2 Thessalonians 1:9; in reference to those who do not know God or obey the gospel of the Lord)
* Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. (Hebrews 6:1-2)
* Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire,1 serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 1:7)
* The sinners in Zion are afraid; trembling has seized the godless: “Who among us can dwell with the consuming fire? Who among us can dwell with everlasting burnings?” (Isaiah 33:14)
* And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. (Daniel 12:2; about as clear an OT passage as there is regarding eternal judgment)
* And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name. (Revelation 14:11)
* And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. (Revelation 20:10; and lest we be confused, the wicked at the White Throne Judgment are also thrown into the lake of fire)
I just listed 12 passage that deal, in context, with the concept of eternal judgment using the words “eternal”, “everlasting”, and “forever and ever.” These three phrases are also used to describe God’s glory, God’s kingdom, and the believer’s afterlife. Therefore, any attempt to redefine these phrases in the context of judgment would necessarily redefine them for God’s glory, God’s kingdom and the joys of heaven for the believer.
Now since you’re a friend of Scott Meinecke, I’m going to assume you will argue in a similar fashion to the way he would argue. Scott likes to go to the Greek and show how the word αιωνιος means “ages” or “a long time.” It is true that if you look at reputable Greek lexicons that these are in the range of meanings for αιωνιος (which is often translated as “eternal”). However, going to a Greek lexicon and looking up the meanings of Greek words does not a biblical Greek scholar make. You cannot look up αιωνιος and see “ages” and then just transplant that meaning into all these passages. That is not exegesis; that is reading into the text a meaning you prefer; which is not valid biblical interpretation. The men and women who translated the ESV (and other reputable English translations) are top-notch biblical scholars who have devoted their lives to accurately transmitting the word of God into the English language. You are going to have to come up with a strong exegetical argument as to why the ESV is wrong in translating αιωνιος as “eternal.” Do you have one?
To both Scott and Phil:
Let’s assume that universalism is true, for the sake of argument. In other words, at the last judgment the wicked go to the lake of fire for a period of temporal purgation of temporal sins before being ushered into eternal (there’s that word again) life. Phil, I don’t want to speak for you, but this is as best as I understand what Scott believes (he can correct me if I’m wrong). If that’s the case, then perhaps you can answer me the following questions:
1. If Christ died to atone for and secure the salvation the salvation of ALL people, then why does anyone go to temporal judgment? Atonement means the sins are paid for and the wrath of God has been appeased. For all the cries of the injustice of eternal punishment, it would certainly be unjust for God to accept the payment of Christ on behalf of ALL people then submit some of them to temporal punishment. Thus universalism makes a mockery of the atonement — the ONCE FOR ALL TIME sacrifice of Christ.
2. If judgment is only temporal, then by what mechanism are these now “purged” souls ushered into paradise? The bible makes it quite clear in Hebrews 9:27 that we are appointed to die once and then face judgment. There is no mention in Scripture (that I can tell) that describes the restoration of those souls in temporal punishment. If these people are those who in this life rejected God and his commandments and lived as if there were no God, then are we to assume that at the end of their stint in “hell” they receive an opportunity to bend the knee to Christ? I just don’t see any passage in Scripture that explicitly mentions a “second chance” offer to the wicked after death. Can you provide a Scripture for this?
3. If these people (i.e., the wicked) rejected God and rejected Jesus in this life, why would they want to spend eternity (there’s that word again) with them in paradise? Are we to assume that the pains of temporal punishment will somehow soften them to spending eternity with Christ? How is this not coercion? (“Joe Blow, after 500 years in the fire pit, do you now accept Jesus?” “NO!” “OK, back to the BBQ with you!”)
4. People claim that Calvinism removes the necessity of evangelism (why evangelize if God chooses those who will be saved?). Yet Calvinists understand that God ordains the ends AND the means, and the means of saving souls is through the “foolishness of preaching.” My question is this: How does universalism promote the Great Commission? If the basic message of universalism is “We’ll all get there eventually,” what prompts evangelism? The common critique I get from Scott is that Calvinism is only good news for the chosen, and that universalism is good news for all people. However, what makes the good news “good” if there is no bad news? Is the impetus in evangelism to get people to avoid the pains of temporal punishment? “Come to Jesus and avoid the temporal fires of hell!” That’s not much of a “sales pitch.”
5. Finally, what makes universalism any different than the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory? Other than the scope (purgatory only applies to those in the church), what’s the real difference?
That’s enough for now.
I’ll do my best to address your first response to me, though I’m sure it won’t do any good. We’ve been down this road before.
Maybe Phil can better explain things.
How did I KNOW that you’d go that route with my argument. Even as I wrote it, I saw what you’d say is a contradiction.
On one hand I ADMIT that we can’t JUDGE God & then I ‘judge God’… RIGHT? That’s the jist of your argument, right?
Nevermind the fact that I addressed that & showed that they aren’t the same. Let’s assume that you’re right & they are. If that’s so, then you’ve got a truly serious problem that you’re stuck with. Namely, you can NEVER judge God for ANYTHING HE EVER DOES, even if it’s TOTALLY CONTRADICTORY to something else that He did or said.
You can’t say that God will NEVER contradict Himself, for you just said that you can never judge God, so if God contradicts Himself, then BY YOUR OWN ARGUMENT, you can’t say a thing. Therefore God CAN contradict Himself & lie & cheat & anything else, for that matter.
You simply can’t judge Him or find fault with Him, under your conclusions, NO MATTER WHAT. Do you agree?
NO YOU DON’T. If you think you do, then you haven’t thought this through entirely.
If what you’re saying is true, then God can do anything He wants, anytime He wants. God can lie, even though He said He never will. If He does, what are you going to do? Judge Him?
God can torment you in Heaven. If He does, will you cry foul or just say ‘oh well, God is Sovereign’.
What your conclusions do, even though I’ve perfectly shown how God CAN’T torment someone forever, is allow for God to always do anything for any reason & not need to explain it or justify it ever. Therefore, your God is perfectly capable of anything, for nothing He does can EVER be called evil.
Therefore God COULD BE EVIL, but by your argument, we can’t say it’s evil.
Your conclusions are therefore false & mine still stand.
I did not contradict my premise at all.
You only interpreted it that way.
Your conclusions however…. well let’s just say
“HOLY CRAP!!!!!!!!!”
Now regarding your objections to Universalism, let me explain.
Salvation is ONLY through faith in Jesus. Not all Uni’s believe this, but I do & I believe that Phil does too (I think).
Therefore, the ‘temporary’ punishment is because they still haven’t come to faith in Jesus yet. Punishment lasts until they get saved. Also, CLEARLY the Lake of Fire isnt’ literal. Or do you believe in a literal Sea of Glass too?
The bible CLEARLY teaches salvation from beyond the grave in several verses & nowhere teaches that after death are eternal fate is sealed. (I already know that you’ll simply say that I’m mis-interpreting these verses or taking them out of context, or whatever). That’s fine.
Examples: Jesus preaching to the captives in Sheol/Hades
Baptism for the dead. 2 Samuel 14:14, 1 Samuel 2:6, Deut. 32:39, Hosea 13:11-14, Lam 3:31-33, Matt 5:25-26, Psa 16:10, 30:2-3, 49:15, 68:18, 86:13, 116:3-8, 139:8
Now Carl. Show me ONE VERSE which clearly teaches that when we die our eternal fate is sealed.
I find it hilarious that you put your faith in biblical translators & not in the actual meaning of the Greek words.
MANY bibles today have removed ALL references of eternal torment & hell.
I guess ‘these’ translators just can’t be trusted huh.
Google: ‘Hell is leaving the bible forever’ to see just how many bibles have done this.
@Scott:
Hey, instead of just listing the verses and assuming they prove your point, how about actually providing some exposition to show how your point is actually drawn from the text? For example, your reference to Jesus “preaching to the captives in Sheol/Hades” (taken from 1 Peter 3:18, I think?), I would be curious how you derive from that that Jesus is preaching the gospel to the wicked AFTER the last judgment. That passage is historically one of the most difficult to interpret what is being said, but you’ve somehow figured it out, so please enlighten. Or, how about Matthew 5:25-26? Can you tell me how that equates to the wicked getting a second chance after the last judgment.
How about the twelve verses I mentioned in my response to Phil? “Eternal”, “everlasting”, “forever and ever,” sounds like that’s pretty determined, doesn’t it?
I find it hilarious that you completely brushed off my argument regarding looking up words in a Greek lexicon. Just to answer your question, I don’t “put my faith” in biblical translators in the sense that I trust them to be infallible and without error. But we would be fools to not take into account their collective expertise in the ancient biblical languages. Besides, you shoot yourself in the foot because no matter which bible translation you use, you’re, in a sense, “putting your faith” in biblical translators. OK, so what? What’s the alternative? I am not an expert in Greek and Hebrew. And unless you’ve gained some training I’m not aware of, you’re not an expert in Greek and Hebrew. I can’t speak for Phil, so I won’t. But your comment about the meanings of Greek words is laughable. Are you suggesting because I can look up a word in Strong’s that somehow makes me qualified to say that “eternal” is a bad translation of αιωνιος? There is so much more involved in translating from one language to another than simply looking up words in a lexicon. So, YES, I will place my trust in a committee of people who have extensive experience working with ancient Greek and Hebrew AND who also have a high view of Scripture (inspired and infallible) to accurately translate the bible into English.
Give me one translation that has removed ALL references to eternal torment and hell.
@Scott:
I decided to check up on this claim. I went to Bible Gateway and looked up Matthew 25:46 (you know, one of those bible passage which CLEARLY doesn’t prove the concept of eternal judgment) in all available English versions (they have 22 different English versions). And you know what? They all (with one exception) said something along the lines of:
“And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matthew 25:46; ESV)
The other versions sometimes used “everlasting” or “forever and ever,” but most used “eternal.” Here is the one, lone exception:
“And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during.” (Matthew 25:46; Young’s Literal Translation)
Not sure what “age-during” means. Here is the description of Young’s Literal Translation from Bible Gateway:
Despite the nebulous meaning of “age-during,” would you trust a translation created by ONE MAN over a translation created by a committee? Nothing against Mr. Young, but translation by committee is going to, by necessity, produce a cleaner document than what one man can create.
Just for kicks, I am including the IVP (Inter VArsity Press) commentary for this passage that can also be referenced at Bible Gateway:
Hoping this posts. This is my 4th. attempt.
Carl. In your response to Matthew. Look at what you just did.
You’re judging God, Carl. You just told me that I can’t do that, yet you just said that “according to you” God ONLY HAS 3 options AND that ONLY ONE OPTION would actually satisfy ALL of God’s attributes. So you’re saying then that God would be WRONG if He destroyed everybody or saved everybody, when in fact, BOTH of those options would display a greater God of justice, then your view, IN MY OPINION.
Now Carl. If I can’t “judge” God, then on what basis can you?
These conclusions of yours are merely ‘your opinion’, as are mine, obviously.
Now to your response to me. Carl… you SOUND like you’re getting angry with me again. If so, then apparently I struck a nerve as you, once again, ignored the jist of my argument.
This thing is typing really slow here now. WHY?
Maybe my computer sucks… lol
Go back and address my points. I won’t repeat them.
Anyway, I “listed verses” to show that there are verses that support this view of salvation beyond the grave. I didn’t feel it necessary to “expound on them” (for time & space, mainly).
NONE of your verses teach that at death, our eternal fate is sealed. Even the famous ‘it is given to man once to die…’ doesn’t, but that at least implies that it might be (I’ll grant that).
Jesus preaching to the captives was IN Sheol/Hades. I said nothing about this being AFTER any judgement. BUT It’s CLEARLY after they died. DUH! lol
Give you a list of bibles? I gave you a link.
Google “hell is leaving the bible forever”
But instead… here ya go
(Oh, SOME of these also say NOTHING of eternal torment, everlasting punishment, or forever and ever)
SOME BIBLICAL SCHOLARS agree with me. Go figure.
Bibles that do not contain the word HELL:
Wesley’s NT (1755), Scarlett’s NT (1798), The NT in Greek & English (Kneeland 1823), Young’s Literal Translation (1891), 20th Century NT (1900), Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible (reprinted 1902), Fenton’s Holy Bible in modern english (1903), Weymouth’s NT (1903), Jewish Publication Society OT (1917), Panin’s Numeric English NT (1914), The People’s New Covenant (1925), Hanson’s New Covenant (1884), Western NT (1926), NT of our Lord and Savior Anointed (Tomanek 1958), Concordant Literal NT (1983), The NT, a translation (Clementson 1938), Emphatic Diaglott Greek English Interlinear (Wilson 1942), New American Bible (1970), Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible (1976), Tanakh, The Holy Scriptures, Old Testament (1985), The New Testament, A New Translation (Greber, 1980), Christian Bible (1991), Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha [NT Only], A Critical Paraphrase of the N.T. by Vincent T. Roth (1960), Zondervan Parallel N.T. in Greek and English (1975)**
Int. NASB-NIV Parallel N.T. in Greek and English (1993)**
Concerning these last 2: the article says “A note about the Parallel Interlinears. I am referring to the word-for-word translations beneath the Greek in these works, NOT the English versions which are also in these reference works. Obviously the versions in these books (NIV, NASB, and KJV) contain the word Hell as many times as they normally would”
What’s also interesting to note is that the NKJV used hell only 32 times, when the KJV uses it 54 times. So the NKJV disagrees with the KJV about the word hell. In addition to that, all translations after that ONLY use the word hell like 12 to 14 times. WHY IS THAT????
Could it be that translators were WRONG and other translators ADMITTED IT? OBVIOUSLY THIS IS THE CASE.
There’s a simple reason why the word HELL doesn’t belong in the bible. Because NONE of the 4 words translated hell, ACTUALLY MEAN HELL.
MOST of christianity today agrees with me on 3 of them, which ONLY leaves Gehenna.
FACT: Gehenna is a valley on earth. THAT is what Jesus was referring to. He used it as a metaphor (probably), but also He was literally speaking about THAT valley.
FACT: Gehenna is NOWHERE called the Lake of Fire & Vice-Versa. Rather, DEATH and HADES are CAST INTO this Lake of Fire. So much for it being literal.
FACT: Hell is nowhere called any of these places & vice-versa.
FACT: Jesus NEVER ONCE spoke about a place called HELL and the bible NEVER mentions such a place.
The surrounding pagan religions, at that time, believed in ETERNAL TORMENT. Even Augustine admitted that MANY christians IN HIS DAY WERE UNIVERSALISTS.
Augustine HATED Greek. He studied the latin translation of the bible. THAT latin bible was translated by ONE MAN (Jerome). You just said you had a problem with ONE MAN translating the bible, by the way.
THAT bible is where the idea of eternal torment, everlasting punishment, and forever and ever come from (I know you say I’m wrong about this). If you have evidence, then great. Show me.
The following is from an article called “UNIVERSALISM–THE PREVAILING DOCTRINE OF THE FIRST 500 YEARS OF CHRISTIANITY”
There’s a short version of this work (google it) with a link to the entire work. Here’s a piece of it:
(24) From the days of Clement of Alexandria to those of Gregory of Nyssa and Theodore of Mopsuestia (A.D. 180-428), the great theologians and teachers, almost without exception, were Universalists. No equal number in the same centuries were comparable to them for learning and goodness.
(25) The first theological school in Christendom, that in Alexandria, taught Universalism for more than two hundred years.
(26) In all Christendom, from A.D. 170 to 430, there were six Christian schools. Of these four, the only strictly theological schools, taught Universalism, and but one endless punishment.
If this is not true, then please provide PROOF. If you have PROOF, then I won’t believe this any more. Why would I?
Thanks Carl. Talk to you later.
@Scott:
I asked you two simple questions in my last comment to you. The first was to provide a simple exposition (a paragraph or two, not a dissertation) that demonstrates that any of the verses you provided teach the doctrine you claim they do. Why won’t you do this simple thing for me?
Second, you need to stop this argument of distraction between “hell” and eternal damnation. You seem to think that because modern translations are using the word “hell” less frequently that somehow means these translations no longer (or are moving away from) teach eternal damnation. I couldn’t care less if every single English translation removed the word hell from their bible if they felt that the word “hell” was a bad translation of the original language. The point of difference between you and me isn’t over the word hell and its frequency in the English bible; it’s whether or not the bible teaches the doctrine of eternal damnation (punishment, torment, etc.). So please desist from this Dan Brown-esque “DaVinci Code” conspiracy kick you seem to be on and argue the point, OK? In light of this, I will ask you a third question, can you provide some biblical exposition that ANY of the 12 verses I supplied your anti-Trinitarian buddy Phil (did you know that about him?) as teaching eternal damnation of the wicked when Christ returns a second time. Again, I’m not asking for a dissertation, just a paragraph of two that shows given the context that I’m wrong and you’re right.
Third, thanks for the list of bible translations (you did actually answer one of my questions directly without a lot of prevaricating). To be honest, I have never heard of ANY of the translations (save for the interlinears). Where do you get these things? I have checked up on the Concordant Literal because Phil referenced it. First off, did you know the LONE translator of that version was a card carrying universalist? Seems a bit self-serving to use that translation, doesn’t it? Second, he also seems to have a defective Christology as well (what is it with universalists and defective Christology, is there something in the water you’re all drinking?). Third, instead of using the word “eternal” in Matthew 25:46, he uses the word eonian. Have you looked up that word in an English dictionary? Go ahead, give it a try. The rest of these translations seem very obscure. Have you looked into any of them, or are you just cut and pasting from Tentmakers?
Finally, regarding your article (another cut and paste job?) about Universalism being the prevailing doctrine of the early church. I read the abstract and found the article dubious. I can find no evidence, for example, that Theodore of Mopsuestia was a universalist. Clement of Alexandria may have been, but then his theology was out of whack on a lot of things as with most people coming out of the Alexandrian school (e.g., Arius, Apolonarius, Origen, etc.). Those four universalist schools you seem to love mentioning as if they were a silver bullet argument were all in Alexandria. Here’s something I wrote in response to your anti-Trinitarian buddy Phil wrote when he mentioned this:
Now I know this won’t convince you (nothing I have said rarely does), so go and check out the Alexandrian school of theology and interpretation yourself. That school of thought produced as many heretics it seems as orthodox theologians. The rival school of interpretation, Antioch (also in the East), also had its fair share of heretics (Nestorious, Eutyches). Oddly enough, and I know you’ll either LOL or pop a blood vessel when you hear this, you know who was on the side of orthodoxy during all of the theological debates during the first five or six centuries of the Christian church (i.e., debates on the Trinity, the full deity and full humanity of Christ, the nature of man)? Are you ready? ROME! Yes, the Western church was on the side of orthodoxy in ALL those debates, which started in either Antioch or Alexandria. What does that tell you?!?!? You can knock Rome all you want, and I would join you in much of it, but theologically speaking during the early part of church history, they had it RIGHT! That is undeniable! The Eastern half of the church was infested with Greek philosophy and Eastern mysticism, much of which was incorporated into the Christianity of those major cities. This is not to say that everyone who came from those schools was corrupted, but many were. Athanasius was a theological hero who championed Nicene orthodoxy. The Cappodocian Fathers were also mainly orthodox.
Finally, and I am going to pound this argument home continuously because it bears repeating! Eschatology (the doctrine of last things) was not a major doctrine during the early part of Christianity (particularly during the period we’re talking about). They all had their hands full with doctrines such as the Trinity, the deity and humanity of Christ, etc. History demonstrates this that you don’t get firm doctrinal statements unless there is some overriding heresy to combat. You don’t get Nicea (325) unless you have a Arius going around clearly teaching what is heresy. You don’t get a Constantinople (381) without the Arians and Apolonarius, etc. There just wasn’t a clear outright heresy regarding eschatology, at least not anything that would require a church council to clear up. So it doesn’t surprise me in the least that in that period you have universalists, annihilationists and eternal damnationists all floating around at that time. That doesn’t PROVE you’re right and I’m wrong. Maybe if you had someone denying the bodily return of Jesus you might have had a theological battle, but eschatology doesn’t get firmed up until later in church history.
As far as this discussion goes, I’ve said all I feel I need to say. So unless you want to directly answer the two questions I posed earlier (an exposition on the passages you think teach your POV or an exposition on the passages I think teach my POV and why you think I’m wrong), I’m not planning on continuing this discussion because I think we’ve gone waaaaay beyond the scope of my original post and this is just the continuation of our unending debate on your pet theology.
Which leaves me with a closing thought I would like to share with you. Here and on facebook, you post a ton of stuff proselytizing your doctrine of universalism. I mean, one could say you’re almost obsessed with it (along with anti-Calvinism and King Crimson videos). Have you thought of diverting some of that energy to actually presenting the gospel that salvation is through faith in Christ alone? Seriously, if you spent as much time spreading the gospel as you do peddling universalism, you’d be an effective evangelist. Did you also know your buddy Phil (the anti-Trinitarian) also doesn’t believe in evangelism? He mentioned it in one of his comments. No Trinity and no evangelism. WOW! And you laugh when I say that universalism tends to retard evangelism.
“…if we leave out the message of sin and its accompanying miseries, then we are editing the gospel message.”
This is sadly all too common.
I enjoyed the post.
Thanks Bill. BTW, how are the wedding plans coming along?
William. NO ONE is leaving out the message of sin and its accompanying miseries. Well, I take that back. Some do, but I’m not & I’m pretty certain that Phil isn’t either.
I think you’ve argued the case well Carl.
You’ve got me wondering if death is the final cut off for forgiveness, and, if so, why.
And is it really God’s prerogative, as you put it, that people should go to hell? Does God have a choice? Is there a deeper magic from before the dawn of time that even the great Emperor must obey?
There used to be this idea that ‘accepting Jesus Christ as your Personal Lord and Saviour’ got you a free pass into heaven. Done and done. And then you’re watching the news one night, and you see the remains of tortured bodies on a prison floor; tears are rolling down your cheeks; you wonder if these people had a chance to accept Jesus as their PLS: you suspect not; so you turn your face to heaven and ask ‘why?’
This idea, that questioning God is judging him, is in error. Man has always questioned the fairness of things. Sometimes these questions, questions of judgement and hell, arise from the very best of human nature, not his fallen self.
Hey Matthew. Well said.
@Matthew:
Thank you.
If you believe what the bible plainly teaches without engaging in eisegesis or tortured logic, then yes, death is the final cut-off for forgiveness. “And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). There is no forgiveness after the grave. Why? Because that’s the way God ordained it, and that’s the way he clearly outlined it in his revelation given to us. If you deny the bible or twist what it means, then it’s no wonder why you have odd teachings like universalism.
Does God have a choice? Of course God has a choice — it’s God’s sovereignty we’re arguing for here. We believe that God is a God of justice, holiness and righteousness. We also believe that God is a God of love, mercy and grace. Given the fact of Adam’s sin and the falleness of the human race, God’s choices are these:
1. Exercise justice and condemn everyone to eternal punishment at the expense of his love, mercy and grace
2. Exercise mercy and grant salvation to everyone at the expense of his justice, holiness and righteousness
3. Grant mercy and salvation to some and exercise justice on the rest, thereby displaying the full range of his glory which is the manifestation of all his attributes (love, mercy, grace, justice, holiness, righteousness, etc.)
Maybe I haven’t made myself clear. There is a distinct difference between questioning God and judging God. The Psalms are loaded with individual psalms that question God seeking wisdom to make sense of the world. For example, Psalm 73 is a great psalm in which the psalmist questions God as to how the wicked can prosper and the righteous suffer. The psalmist cannot make sense of the world around him and he basically says, “God? What’s up with all this?” However, the psalmist takes his refuge in God: “But when I thought how to understand this, it seemed to me a wearisome task, until I went into the sanctuary of God; then I discerned their end.” (Psalm 73:16-17). The psalmist turned to God and took refuge in his knowledge of God. He didn’t seek to redefine God to fit his preconceived notions, but instead he went to God to get his own mind right. That’s the difference between questioning God and judging him. The problem I have with my (few) universalist friends is that they seek to redefine God. They don’t like the idea that God would judge the wicked with eternal punishment, so they redefine God. They reject his revelation, or worse, re-interpret it to fit their preconceived notion of how God should act. Clearly there is a difference between the two.
Thanks for visiting and taking the time to comment.
Well, I’m late to the party as usual. I won’t be able to address everything tonight, but I’ll get started. First a little clarification on my own beliefs, which are similar to Scott’s. I believe the fires are for purification. In my own study of the fires throughout the scripture they are always for burning away the impurities, and when they are applied to his people it is for the purpose of bringing them to a place of holiness. I have studied my church history and also the history of hell. Universalism is a new belief for me, although I have always seen hints of it in my bible reading. I started out holding it as a hope, since it IS the stated will of God I saw no harm in hoping for his will to be done (on earth as it is in heaven.) I figured those who weren’t saved simply perished, since that is what scripture teaches.
“unnoticed, they perish forever.” Job 4:20
“But the wicked will perish.” Ps 37:20
“the foolish and senseless alike perish”Ps49:10
“and he who pours out lies will perish”Pr19:9
“and those who forsake the Lord will perish.”Is1:28
“But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” Lk13:3 and 5
“that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” Jn3:16
“I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish.”Jn 10:28
“all who sin apart from the law will also perish…”Rom2:12
The original warning: “The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.’” Gen 2
There was never…never…any hint of eternal torment for punishment. The grave was understood to be where sleeping souls hopefully awaited their future redemption. Any study in Jewish history will affirm this. Hell crept in from Babylon, Assyria, Egypt (although theirs was temporal) and other pagan belief systems. The one I think had the ultimate influence on the Christian community was the Etruscans of Italy. The reason I say this…perhaps Scott has mentioned this to you before…there were six early schools of the early Christian church. Four taught Universal Reconciliation, one taught annihilation, and one taught the belief system of hell. That one was the church in Rome, which just happened to also be the one to marry the political regime and gain power to wipe out all the other beliefs that didn’t go along with them. But in the beginning of Christianity, hell was a teaching of the Pharisee’s. They picked it up in the first or second century B.C. When Jesus taught in public, he ALWAYS taught in parables, and in terms the Pharisee’s and their followers would understand. For instance, in the Lazarus story, notice the rich man wearing purple robes. The Pharisee’s would have noticed he was talking about them.
So now let’s look at the verses you posted. I like to use the NIV, because I’m used to it, but I’ve started using the Concordant Literal quite a bit and it’s easier to post with. Mt 18:8 “8 Now, if your hand or your foot is snaring you, strike it off and cast it from you. Is it ideal for you to be entering into life maimed or lame, or, having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the fire eonian?”
Here Jesus is speaking of the coming judgment on Jerusalem, and the fires would be the fires of Gehenna which he referenced a half dozen times or so, where the bodies during that famine and siege were burned.
Mt 25:41,46 These are parables, not teachings of eternal torment. They are stories the Pharisee’s would understand. To assume he is teaching eternal torment, when nothing in scripture ever taught such a thing, is to miss the real meaning of what he is saying. I’ll leave that for you to figure out.
Mk 3:29. Interesting, did you read vs 28? “28 “Verily, I am saying to you that all shall be pardoned the sons of mankind, the penalties of the sins and the blasphemies, whatsoever they should be blaspheming” Doesn’t that verse alone tell you that God is forgiving ALL men of ALL sins and blasphemies (with the one exception he goes on to stipulate?) Being guilty of this sin, he doesn’t suggest they will then be tormented for eternity. Take note of that, there is NO suggestion of it at all. Only that they will not be forgiven of that sin. What that sin is…another discussion.
Jn3:36…This does not say eternal damnation either. Only that God’s wrath remains as long as they remain in unbelief.
2Thes1:9 “9 who shall incur the justice of eonian extermination from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of His strength -” The word is NOT everlasting.
Heb 6:2 “2 of the teaching of baptizings, besides the imposition of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, and of judgment eonian).” Again, the word is NOT everlasting. In fact I believe this is a reference to the coming judgment on the Jews as well.
Jude 1:7 “7 As Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them in like manner to these committing ultra-prostitution, and coming away after other flesh, are lying before us, a specimen, experiencing the justice of fire eonian.” Are we sensing a theme here? The church has forfeited the doctrines of the ages…something that was understood once, but now our leaders don’t even know what it is. And by the way, Sodom will be restored.
See Ez chapter 16.
Is33:14…let’s back up to 30:27…”his tongue is a consuming fire.”
The fires…you should take the time to study them, it’s a very interesting study.
Revelations 14:11…you can’t take something like that out of it’s context. It’s a description of the judgment on Jerusalem and the Temple and the end of the age of the law. But since you wandered into Revelations, let’s take a look at something else there. In all the bible, the words most often translated as hell are Sheol and Hades, which are the Hebrew and Greek terms for the grave. KJ used those words as hell something like 54 times. And yet, when he got to the lake of fire, suddenly he doesn’t want to translate it to hell any more. Why? Because Hades (hell) is destroyed in the lake of fire, ALONG WITH DEATH. And yet, death is the penalty for our sin. DEATH. Jesus mentioned Gehenna in reference to the judgment on Jerusalem maybe four or six times (twelve when you account that stories are repeated in other gospels).
Peter mentions Tartarus, the pagan hell, once as a place for the demons.
Paul, he never mentions any of these, not once. Because he wasn’t speaking to the Jews who this stuff applied to.
As for determining if eternal punishment is really eternal or age-long…here’s a common sense determination for you… God’s punishment would be corrective in nature. If you have any kind of relationship with him at all you know that to be true and you cannot deny it. Punishment has a purpose, and it is not vindictive. No loving father punishes their child forever. They punish to correct a problem the child has. All one need do to know the truth of “eternal” torment is look to his father, and know that could never be true.
Look up the word “fire” as used in the Lake of Fire, if you have a Greek Lexicon. In my Thayer’s, it starts like this: “(prob. fr. Skr. pu ‘to purify’…”
“he will cleanse the bloodstains from Jerusalem by a spirit of judgment and a spirit of fire.” Is 4:4
“The Light of Israel will become a fire, their Holy One a flame; in a single day it will burn and consume his thorns and his briers.”Is 10:17
“For you, O God, tested us; you refined us like silver. You brought us into prison and laid burdens on our backs. You let men ride over our heads; we went through fire and water, but you brought us to a place of abundance.” Ps 66:10-12 The fires are the trials that refine us.
I’ll be gone to a family gathering tomorrow, I’ll be back though:)
@Phil: I will respond to your points in separate comments, otherwise our responses will just grow outrageously large.
First off the argument that there “never” any hint of eternal torment (or punishment) in the OT is both demonstrably false and fails to recognize the progressive nature or revelation. By that argument, we can say that there’s no hint of the Trinity or salvation by faith in Christ in the OT either. Are you going to jettison those beliefs too? Then there’s Daniel 12:3 (which I cited in an earlier comment).
Secondly, this argument that eternal torment being imported from Babylonian or Assyrian origin is a nice theory, but unless you have some hard evidence that suggests this importation, that’s all it remains…a nice theory. Anybody can make the assertion of syncretism, but they offer little (or nothing) by way of proof. Notice the argument that many atheists make regarding Jesus and the resurrection. They argue that the concept of Jesus’ resurrection is merely the importation of various dying and rising god myths from Greece, Rome, and the Ancient Near East. The problem is, like your theory, there is no evidence of syncretism to back it up.
Thirdly, this argument about the four theological schools is borderline “red herring.” I looked up this theory when Scott first mentioned (after parroting it from Tentmakers) and do you know where those four theological schools that taught universalism were located? In the Eastern part of the old Roman Empire. most notably around Alexandria. Considering that Alexandria was known as a center of learning long before Christianity came on the scene as well as being a cosmopolitan city, it is more likely that your theory of syncretism originated here than in the West. Alexandria was the center of Hellenization in the old Greek empire and remained a major center of learning when Rome took over. Alexandria has always been home to various philosophical views — including universal reconciliation (borrowed from Greek philosophical thought, most notably Plato). An alexandrian Jew by the name of Philo resided in Alexandria and he started what became to be known and the Alexandrian school of interpretation, which employed a high use of allegory and incorporated Greek philosophical thought with a fair dose of Eastern mysticism. Alexandria was also the home of Origen, the main figure in church history who taught universalism; his list of heresies is long and varied (including a very defective Christology). So, you might want to check your sources before you make arguments like this.
@Phil: Reply to main point #2
Actually, Jesus didn’t ALWAYS teach in parables when teaching in public; that is another demonstrably false statement. He began speaking in parables when opposition from the Pharisees began to escalate, AND he taught in parables so that “seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand” (Matthew 13:13). The Pharisees may have picked up on the particulars of Jesus’ parables — they I will grant — but they would not have understood the meaning of the parables unless Jesus revealed it to them. Jesus’ parabolic ministry was a form of judgment on the unbelieving crowds and Pharisees.
Secondly, the context of Matthew 18:8 is not in parable, so this has no bearing on the argument at hand. Here is the passage in its context:
Jesus is warning his disciples about sin and temptation to sin. In v. 6, Jesus says the one who causes on of His little ones (believers) to sin is worthy of great condemnation. He then warns that temptation to sin will always exist, but woe to the one by whom temptation comes (v. 7). Then in vv. 8-9, he warns his disciples about the seriousness of sin and dealing with it quickly and radically. There is no parable here, just straight teaching; and the implication is quite simple, the one who does not deal radically with sin will face “eternal fire.”
Now it is VERY interesting you use a translation that was, first, created by a single individual (which is dubious to begin with), AND created by someone who — lo and behold — adheres to universalism. Be that as it may, have you looked up the English word “eonian” (or “aeonian”)? Dictionary.com yields the definitions of “eternal” and “everlasting.” Very interesting…
Um, check again. This is NOT a parable. Matthew 25 tells the parable of the Ten Virgins (vv. 1 – 13) and the parable of the Talents (vv. 14 – 30). Then he concludes the chapter with a preview of the eschaton (which the aforementioned two parables illustrate) with the words “When the Son of Man comes in his glory…” If you think this is a parable, then you have issues with interpretation. Jesus is prophesying about the events that will occur at his return.
This does NOT say that ALL sins of ALL men will be forgiven, but “all sins of the children of men.” In other words, the blood of Christ can forgive ANY sin, EXCEPT the sin of blasphemy agains the Holy Spirit — i.e., attributing the work of the Holy Spirit (through Jesus at this point in time) to Satan. Jesus was working miracles, and the scribes and Pharisees were accusing him of being possessed by Satan. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is referred to as “eternal sin.” I find it hard to see how one can be ushered into the glories of heaven with eternal sin.
Correct, I will grant that the explicit words, “eternal damnation,” are not in this verse. However, the wrath of God remaining on someone is being contrasted with eternal life. The one who rejects (“does not obey”) the Son of God “shall not see life,” but God’s wrath remains on him. Again, how does one get into eternal life with the wrath of God on him? Furthermore, there is no hint that some future “second chance” offer after death is available.
See the aforementioned comment about the definition of aeonian.
First off, interpretations of Revelation vary, so you cannot dogmatically assert (without exegetical proof) that this is a judgment on Jerusalem. There are just as many biblical scholars who see the reference to Babylon as a reference to Rome. Basically, Babylon is a reference to anything that is pitted against God. The reference to eternal torment is made to anyone who allies themselves with the forces of Babylon and worships the Beast (i.e., the Anti-Christ).
Second, I’m glad you made reference to Sheol/Hades. Yes, Sheol/Hades refer to the abode of the dead; with that I have no problem. This is where the comment I made regarding progressive revelation comes in. The doctrine of eternal damnation is something that was revealed in the fullness of time with the coming of Jesus (even though, it is hinted at in the OT). Sheol/Hades is the place where ALL the dead await their FINAL determination. And as Jesus says in his gospel (echoing the words of Daniel 12:3), “[28] Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice [29] and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment. (John 5:28-29 ESV)” You may want to argue that the word “eternal” isn’t present here, but the concept of FINAL judgment is quite evident here. When it is all said and done and Christ returns to culminate the kingdom, there will be a general resurrection and then a separation. Which is what Jesus taught at the end of Matthew’s gospel and what you see in Revelation. Once the eschaton has been closed, there is no need for Sheol/Hades because all who were dead have either been raised to eternal life or eternal judgment.
I agree that God’s punishment, or chastisement, of HIS CHILDREN is corrective in nature, but you err if you think ALL MEN are his children (John 1:12-13 is amply proof against that foolish thought). Furthermore, consider what the writer of Hebrews says, “[7] It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? [8] If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. (Hebrews 12:7-8 ESV)” Not all people are his children, God clearly distinguishes between those who are His, and those who are not. Your argument fails miserably.
Finally, I am SOOOOO glad you brought this argument up. Scott tried this one on me until I pointed out to him that the lexicon says NOTHING of the sort (he even accused me of editing Strong’s on the internet). The Greek word is πυρ, and it is the normal Greek word for “fire.” Look it up in any reputable Greek lexicon — e.g., Strong’s, BDAG, Leow-Nida, etc. It does not mean “purify,” but if you transliterate πυρ, you get the English word “pyre,” which means…FIRE.
This just illustrates why people who have no experience in working with the Greek language should avoid acting like they do. Just because you have a Greek lexicon, that doesn’t make you a Greek scholar. I know a little bit of biblical Greek, and I know enough to NOT just assume I have a lexicon means I’m qualified to perform sound exegesis from the Greek text. I still haven’t heard back from Scott after presenting him with this evidence regarding πυρ.
Hey, I enjoy the interaction.
For all I know, the duration of the Lake of Fire could be but a moment…the length of time it takes someone to realize God is real, everything they’ve thought about him was wrong, and having real regret bow and confess Jesus as Lord. Like Thomas.
1. Our sins have been taken care of, our transformation is a process. He has perfected forever those who are being made holy. The fires we face, serve the purpose of removing our earthly views and bring us to a point of seeing in the spirit. What you are suggesting, is that once God went to the cross, men are no longer their own decision maker…another discussion.
2. There IS mention in scripture of the restoration of souls in Hades. Including those who lived in this life rejecting God. “18 seeing that Christ also, for our sakes, once died concerning sins, the just for the sake of the unjust, that He may be leading us to God; being put to death, indeed, in flesh, yet vivified in spirit,
19 in which, being gone to the spirits in jail also,
20 He heralds to those once stubborn, when the patience of God awaited in the days of Noah while the ark was being constructed”
3. Because their rejection is out of ignorance. Jesus forgave ignorance on the cross.
4. I am not a believer in evangelism, but that’s me. I believe the great commission was fulfilled, and in fact the scripture backs that up. The Holy Spirit is the one to do the evangelism now, and he will use us in the process.
Consider: Jesus didn’t die to save us from punishment. He died to save us from our sins.
I do have to go now…Peace.
“* And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. (Revelation 20:10; and lest we be confused, the wicked at the White Throne Judgment are also thrown into the lake of fire)”
The translation gives you a misunderstanding in this verse. The word for “torment” is NOT torment. The devil, the wicked, the beast, the false prophet, these are all parts of us that will be burned away if they haven’t been burned away as yet.
Look this word up for yourself. You might be surprised by the meaning in this verse after doing so.
“First off the argument that there “never” any hint of eternal torment (or punishment) in the OT is both demonstrably false and fails to recognize the progressive nature or revelation. By that argument, we can say that there’s no hint of the Trinity or salvation by faith in Christ in the OT either. Are you going to jettison those beliefs too? Then there’s Daniel 12:3 (which I cited in an earlier comment).”
Then demonstrate it. Daniel 12:3 is not talking about damnation, it’s talking about contempt, and the specific event is done and over with 1900 years ago. I do not hold to the trinity…unless you are going to make it with four instead of three…whatever you would call that. The trinity is church doctrine not substantiated by scripture, which clearly teaches that Jesus will himself become subservient to God. That is another debate which I don’t care to get into, but I mention it because you brought it up and I don’t want to mislead you about where I stand.
“Secondly, this argument that eternal torment being imported from Babylonian or Assyrian origin is a nice theory, but unless you have some hard evidence that suggests this importation, that’s all it remains…a nice theory. ”
Not so, because it’s clear that it was never a Jewish belief until sometime in the first or second century B.C. I do not know, nor does anyone, exactly how it infiltrated the Pharisee’s doctrines but it’s not hard to connect the dots now is it? Just like with the Christian inclusion of it by the Roman church and the Etruscans. And you can slander Clements all you want by dogging his teachings as heresies, but in my view it was the church in power that were the heretics and strayed from the truth.
“Actually, Jesus didn’t ALWAYS teach in parables when teaching in public”
I stand corrected. The references most often referred to as hell teachings were in parables. Mt 18:9 I believe to be a reference to the coming judgment on them. “There is no parable here, just straight teaching; and the implication is quite simple, the one who does not deal radically with sin will face “eternal fire.”” That is not the implication here. The implication is they will go to corrective fire. God is not a sadist.
Mt 25:41,46…is within a parable. It’s also talking about an event which is now in our history, and it’s also talking about the judgment we all face, and it’s also a teaching of who our brothers and sisters are and how to treat them. Eternal punishment is not a correct translation. There is no such animal.
You wish to deny the doctrine of ages, I won’t argue with you. You obviously have decided that everything King James said was eternal, means eternal. Your error. It isn’t necessary to debunk the myth of hell, which can be done by the character of who God is all by itself.
“I agree that God’s punishment, or chastisement, of HIS CHILDREN is corrective in nature, but you err if you think ALL MEN are his children”
“…This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants ALL men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for ALL men – the testimony given in its proper time.”
What testimony?
“…that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and EVERY tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
“For he ‘has put everything under his feet.’ Now when it says ‘everything’ has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be ALL in ALL.”
Quickly: “…This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants ALL men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”
“for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.” Is 11:9
“…because they will ALL know me, from the least of them to the greatest.”
I guess there’s no point debating. If hell is something you want to believe in, you’re going to believe in it and see it. Personally, if hell is real, than my opinion is the gnostics must have been correct in their creation story…it wasn’t really God who created us, but one of the ‘gods’, and Jesus came to straighten the matter out. Because God is love, and perfect love at that, which drives out fear. Jesus died to save us from our sins. Not hell. That is the most evil thing ever taught about God.
Carl. What are you talking about? When I accused you of changing Strong’s, I was KIDDING.
I didn’t respond back? Yes I did.
I said something like this. WOW. I know what I saw, but now when I check it, it says ‘pur’ ‘fire’. LOL. But I also saw ‘pu’ ‘to purify’, but now I can’t find it. What did you do Carl? lol
Hope that clears that up. I thought I was CLEAR.
Now in your reply to me, you said this:
“I asked you two simple questions in my last comment to you…
Why won’t you do this simple thing for me?”
Carl. Why have you twice now ignored my main argument against eternal torment? Why are you asking me to give you a dissertation? I showed you verses that teach salvation beyond the grave. Read them yourself & draw your own conclusions. What would any dissertation by me resolve? Nothing. It would only give you a reason to argue against it, so I’ll pass.
I’m glad you basically agree with me then about the word hell. Now we can deal with the real issue, that of “eternal torment” and “everlasting punishment” and the phrase “forever and ever”
I will hopefully soon write an article about this.
First I have to wait for God to tell me what to write.
He told me to “hold my horses”, cause He’s “BUSY”! LOL
About ROME & the 4 theological schools. I’m glad you told me where those doctrines came from. That seriously calls into question the truth of those doctrines then, for ROME is the Babylon in Revelation, IMO.
The Church at Rome used the Latin text from Jerome (if that doesn’t make you seriously question everything you believe, then nothing I say ever will.
I have no problem with the FACT that Origin taught heresies & others did too. Heck, Universalists today are full of heretical beliefs. So what? So are TONS of Non-Universalist Christians, as you already know.
Why not use evangelism & preach ‘faith in Christ’ instead of pounding away at Universalism and attacking other beliefs?
Cause Universalism brings people to ‘faith in Christ’ and exposing false teaching does also.
In some of my articles, I’m very clear that salvation is only through ‘faith in Christ’, so I AM doing what you suggest, but I do it through Universalism, as you do it through Calvinism.
I’d say more, but I’ll leave it at that.
My blog is at lightmane dot posterous dotcom, for anyone interested.
I hope you’re okay with me promoting it here.
If not, tell me to take it off & I’ll copy & paste this response & remove it.
Oh, speaking of ‘copy & paste’, yes, I did ‘copy & paste’ stuff for you.
Is there something wrong with that?
I know you were kidding. It was a kind of tongue-in-cheek response to Phil.
I tend to agree that Rome is Babylon in REvelation, however please take into account when John wrote revelation. Most scholars place the writing of Revelation ca. 95 AD, while a minority place it in the early 60′s AD. That means John couldn’t have been referring to the Roman Catholic Church because it didn’t exist yet.
Now you’re sounding like a Preterist – LOL
If Preterism is correct, or partial preterism, then John wrote Revelation in the 60′s. Otherwise Preterism is wrong. Regardless, even if he wrote it in the 90′s, his reference to Babylon could ONLY refer to ROME &/or the Catholic Church, IF he was speaking of a future event.
Since you believe that the book of Revelation deals with ‘future events’, I don’t understand your point.
I get that ROME already existed and thus it’s possible that he was ONLY referring to ROME. If Preterism is true, then he wasn’t speaking of the Catholic Church.
Perhaps that’s what you meant.
The SDA has a youtube video about the Catholic Church being the beast that came out of the water. It’s pretty compelling.
I’m not saying they’re right. I’m saying it’s compelling.
If I might…Babylon that John spoke of was Jerusalem, scripture points to this although I don’t have it in front of me where. I have personally always seen it as the church in it’s similarities.
As to the timing of John’s writing of Revelations, I don’t think you can discount the internal references in dating it pre-70AD. If it were written after that, it should definately be considered a fraudulent book.
Strong’s Concordance word #4442…Thayers Greek English Lexicon…pur (fire) from the root of pu (purify)…it doesn’t show it in online versions. Maybe I just have a faulty copy.
Thanks Phil. I KNEW that pu meant ‘to purify’.
So ‘pur’ is from the root ‘pu’
There’s a joke in there somewhere, but I can’t come up with one off the top of my head. lol
@Phil & Scott:
Let’s clear this up once and for all. There is no Greek word “πυ” that means “purify.” I told you this already Scott a while back. Πυρ is a root word according to Strong’s; in other words, it is not derived from a more basic word like πυ. If you notice that Phil even admitted that this mysterious word, πυ, doesn’t even appear in the online version of Thayer’s (his source); maybe I hacked into that online lexicon too and changed it
.
If you want to know what the Greek words for “pure” and “purify” are, look no further (from Strong’s):
1. Αγνος (Hagnos; Strong’s #53): 1 exciting reverence, venerable, sacred. 2 pure. 2a pure from carnality, chaste, modest. 2b pure from every fault, immaculate. 2c clean. (It looks like this word speaks more to a moral purity, which makes sense since the root is the Greek word for holy)
2. Καθαρος (Katharos; Strong’s #2513): 1 clean, pure. 1a physically. 1a1 purified by fire. 1a2 in a similitude, like a vine cleansed by pruning and so fitted to bear fruit. 1b in a levitical sense. 1b1 clean, the use of which is not forbidden, imparts no uncleanness. 1c ethically. 1c1 free from corrupt desire, from sin and guilt. 1c2 free from every admixture of what is false, sincere genuine. 1c3 blameless, innocent. 1c4 unstained with the guilt of anything.
3. Ειλικρινης (Eilikrines; Strong’s #1506): 1 pure, sincere, unsullied. 2 found pure when unfolded and examined by the sun’s light.
Just because πυρ looks likes the English word “pure” (without the “e”) doesn’t mean that it means “pure.” You both need to stop trying to make the Greek language say something it isn’t saying. You are both grasping at straws to make universalism appear biblical, when it isn’t. If either one of you can show me proof of a lexicon that explicitly states that πυρ comes from πυ, then you better save that lexicon because you will have the only one and it might be worth something (who knows, maybe that lexicon was also written by a universalist like the Concordant Literal Perversion of the bible).
As a side note, it is interesting what Vine’s has to say about πυρ:
1. pur (πυ̂ρ, 4442), (akin to which are No. 2, pura, and puretos, “a fever,” Eng., “fire,” etc.) is used (besides its ordinary natural significance):
(a) of the holiness of God, which consumes all that is inconsistent therewith, Heb. 10:27; 12:29; cf. Rev. 1:14; 2:18; 10:1; 15:2; 19:12; similarly of the holy angels as His ministers Heb. 1:7 in Rev. 3:18 it is symbolic of that which tries the faith of saints, producing what will glorify the Lord:
(b) of the divine judgment, testing the deeds of believers, at the judgment seat of Christ 1 Cor. 3:13 and 15:
(c) of the fire of divine judgment upon the rejectors of Christ, Matt. 3:11 (where a distinction is to be made between the baptism of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and the “fire” of divine retribution; Acts 2:3 could not refer to baptism): Luke 3:16:
(d) of the judgments of God at the close of the present age previous to the establishment of the kingdom of Christ in the world, 2 Thess. 1:8; Rev. 18:8:
(e) of the “fire” of Hell, to be endured by the ungodly hereafter, Matt. 5:22; 13:42, 50; 18:8, 9; 25:41; Mark 9:43, 48; Luke 3:17:
(f) of human hostility both to the Jews and to Christ’s followers, Luke 12:49:
(g) as illustrative of retributive judgment upon the luxurious and tyrannical rich, Jas. 5:3:
(h) of the future overthrow of the Babylonish religious system at the hands of the Beast and the nations under him, Rev. 17:16:
(i) of turning the heart of an enemy to repentance by repaying his unkindness by kindness, Rom. 12:20:
(j) of the tongue, as governed by a “fiery” disposition and as exercising a destructive influence over others, Jas. 3:6:
(k) as symbolic of the danger of destruction, Jude 23.
Hmmm, nothing about “purifying” and an awful lot about “judgment.” Oh well, what does Mr. Vine know anyway…
Thanks Carl. By the way. I’m not trying to make it “say” anything. I have no problem with pur meaning fire.
The Lake of Fire is NOT Literal. This is obvious, though for some reason, SOME people actually think there’s a literal lake of fire that will literally burn people alive in literal fire for literally all eternity.
Surely you don’t believe that Carl, do you?
Cindy doesn’t believe it. MOST Christians don’t believe it.
That’s because they KNOW that the book of Revelation is not to be taken LITERALLY.
Like I said before… unless you actually believe in a literal Sea of Glass, and a literal Beast with 7 literal heads & 10 literal horns.
Now if you believe that they too are literal, then I understand why you’d believe in a literal Lake of Fire.
Of course, the Lake of Fire is actually the literal fire at the earth’s core, right? That’s why when people have drilled deep into the earth, they could HEAR literal screams, and they recorded it too. You’ve heard it on youtube right?
That PROVES that hell is in the earth, right? LOL
I don’t know which is more hilarious. The recordings of those screams or the visions that people wrote about where they say that they went to hell & have come back to “warn us”.
LOL (yeah, right. & it has nothing to do with writing a book & making money)
But I did SEE on the internet that it said ‘pu’ ‘to purify’
But you changed it Carl. dam you to hell (sorry, Hades). : ) LOL
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=4003&id=100001025333524&l=f9edd33c73
Read it for yourself. Perhaps you could tell us what this means then. I KNOW it means fire.
@Phil: Not sure what I was supposed to read, the link gave me a blank facebook page. The point I’m trying to make, and which you seem to be reluctant to grant, is that the Greek word for fire is not derived from any more basic Greek word which means “to purify.” Furthermore, the overwhelming usage of pur in the NT is that of judgment, not purification. So your argument fails.
Furthermore, the overwhelming usage of pur in the NT is that of judgment, not purification. So your argument fails.
Carl. Even IF his argument fails (I’m not saying it does), your argument also fails, in my opinion. For you believe that a Righteous and Just God would be perfectly in line with His Attributes, by burning people alive in fire for all eternity. That’s insane. If THAT is in agreement with God’s character, then what does that say about God’s character? It says it sucks. It says that God is evil. How you can even think that burning people alive for all eternity is just & righteous is beyond me.
But since the bible CLEARLY uses ‘FIRE’ for ‘good’ purposes, your argument here again fails, for nowhere does it teach that people will be literally burned alive. Your assuming that it’s literal, but it’s not.
Mark 9:49 “For we shall ALL be salted with FIRE”
Is this a good thing or a bad thing? It’s GOOD
Hebrews 12:29 “For our God is a consuming FIRE”
Is this a good thing or a bad thing? It’s GOOD
Matthew 3:11 “He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with FIRE”
Is this a good thing or a bad thing? It’s GOOD
1 Corinthians 3:15 “If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through FIRE.”
Is this a good thing or a bad thing? It’s GOOD
FIRE is good Carl. It cooks your food. It keeps you warm. It burns (consumes) garbage. It keeps bugs away (lol), and there is most definitely a purification aspect with fire.
Wow. ‘pur’ purification. ‘pu’ to purify. Coincoidence?
Does ‘pur’ mean Fire. Yes, of course.
God IS GOOD. Therefore, Gods Judgments are GOOD.
Therefore, Gods Punishments are GOOD.
Hence… FIRE… IS… GOOD
1 Timothy 2:4 (slightly paraphrased by yours truly)
For God WILL HAVE ALL MEN BE SAVED… through FIRE
and that’s why God made Marshmallows : )
Oh yeah. Since you might now accuse me of saying that Fire saves “instead” of Jesus, let me be clear.
That’s NOT what I’m saying.
Only Jesus saves. God IS a consuming fire.
Unfortunately, pur doesn’t mean purification and it doesn’t even form the basis for our English word for purification (as I’ve told you already). And there is no Greek word pu.
I’m sorry Carl. I’m still learning some of the nuances of FB. I changed the privacy settings on that album to friends of friends, so you should be able to reach it now. The link, when I posted it, said, “share this with anyone by pasting this link”…I should have known about the settings.
Pingback: Who is the Redeemer of God’s Elect? | New Creation Person