There will always be Pharisees, God is on the lookout for disciples.

Amen.

I didn’t hear him say:

“I’m cognizant of the fact that I don’t even say things the same way the true Christians do.

That matter of “word order” manufactured by 18th-19th c. pragmatic evangelical American theology has convicted my heart. Thank God we have no need of the Holy Spirit anymore, now that we have bloggers and radio ministers.

I was rebellious and just plain heretical because I didn’t lay down and take it up the yang while saying thank you to the true Christians who personally reviled me to the glory of God.

What would we all have done if God had not held the “true Gospel” in reserve for all these years until North American fundamentalists could come on the scene and be worthy of taking up the bludgeon of God’s grace alone to the glory of God alone? Really. What. would. we. have. done?”

Now if he said something like that…

Bell’s books are only heretical to a tiny little subset of American Christians who can’t see the theological forest for the trees and think that “true” Christians have only lived sometime after the 1500’s or so.

The fact of the matter is that these people are losing their stranglehold on American Christianity and they don’t like it one bit, and they will kick and scream as they fade into obscurity.

I could very well respond, but unless gives you eyes to see and hear you will not understand. In John 8 and 9, name calling was the first response of the Pharisees towards Jesus.

I could very well respond, but unless gives you eyes to see and hear you will not understand. In John 8 and 9, name calling was the first response of the Pharisees towards Jesus.

Make up your mind pastorboy. You and other ADMs always tell us that Elijah and John the Baptist used harsh name calling in service to God, and so you’re only imitating them. But now you’re telling us that Jesus’ enemies used name calling first.

So which is it?

Oh, right, its whichever you want it to be.

Twisting scripture to suit their personal needs – just one more service offered by ADMs.

That is why I can recognize spiritual sewage

This is the opposite of truth.

Interesting that PB’s entire reasoning for why he thinks he is able to discern his way out of a wet paperbag begins and ends with what he has done (I have studied the Word, I recognize… etc) kind of like his teaching about salvation.

Whatever, Beau.
I do the studying, the Spirit gives the enlightenment.

#14 – Exactly my point. Does Bell believe in personal faith or some strange nuance like that?

Does Bell believe in personal faith or some strange nuance like that?

To me, this is somewhat like asking if LeBron James believes in the game of basketball. Why would Bell even invest time in writing books, preparing sermons, making Nooma videos, etc., if he wasn’t trying to convince people (i.e., individuals) to think or act differently regarding certain things. It seems his whole ministry is based on the idea of nourishing or birthing personal faith in his audience.

I really don’t understand how you could listen to a few a Bell’s sermons and come away with the idea that he’s honestly saying something along the lines of “hey we’re all OK”.

It’s amazing that what one does not say can hold more weight than what their actual words.

Ok Chad, I’ll bite. Just who does Jesus have faith in? “Faith” is “trust in and reliance on “someone or some thing. Faith has to have an object. God, who is all knowing, could ontologically only have “faith” in himself which is a quite unnecessary construct it being totally self evident that God would trust Himself.

And whatever your interpretation of that specific verse the Biblical record leaves no room for doubt in numerous other occurrences that “faith” [in God] is required of people, not God’s faith in anything as there is nothing worthy of faith in the absolute sense except God.

here we go… let the slippery slopes commence!!

#20 – Paul, not sure why you would put “rediscovered” in quotes, as if that was even remotely my intent, nor was it my word.

I love how you disparage everything you can’t understand as “slippery slopes.” You must be a shitty skier.

Ok Chad, I’ll bite. Just who does Jesus have faith in? “Faith” is “trust in and reliance on “someone or some thing. Faith has to have an object. God, who is all knowing, could ontologically only have “faith” in himself which is a quite unnecessary construct it being totally self evident that God would trust Himself.

And whatever your interpretation of that specific verse the Biblical record leaves no room for doubt in numerous other occurrences that “faith” [in God] is required of people, not God’s faith in anything as there is nothing worthy of faith in the absolute sense except God.

I’m not exactly sure what y’all are arguing about, but I don’t think it’s wrong to talk about Christ having faith. The author of Hebrews refers to it in several places:

Hebrew 3:1-6
1Therefore, holy brothers, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, the apostle and high priest whom we confess. 2He was faithful to the one who appointed him, just as Moses was faithful in all God’s house. 3Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, just as the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself. 4For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything. 5Moses was faithful as a servant in all God’s house, testifying to what would be said in the future. 6But Christ is faithful as a son over God’s house. And we are his house, if we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast.

So it seems Jesus, the Son, did have faith in the Father. In that sense, Christ was walking ahead of us, blazing the path that would lead us to the Father.

Mark 11:22: And Jesus answered saying to themhimself, “Have faith in Godin yourself dude”.

When Bell says Jesus is our only hope for finances, marriage, heaven, etc. he makes all things equal to eternity and also states the hope in a general way. I am not interested in burning him at the stake, but I still cannot discern exactly where he is coming from concerning redemption.

When he and others quote the “reconciling all things unto Himself” phrase, I am suspicious when there is no clarifying verbiage that lets me know that he is not a universalist. In the end he may believe exactly as do I, but I honestly cannot be sure.

Friendship with Rollins, Pagitt, and Tickle are also troubling. What does it really matter, though? I have little to no faith in anyone adjusting his or her views on almost anything after age 30.

#32 – That is not always good.

When he and others quote the “reconciling all things unto Himself” phrase, I am suspicious when there is no clarifying verbiage that lets me know that he is not a universalist.

Do you suspect the Apostle Paul of being a Universalist? (sorry, couldn’t help myself…)

#35 – No, Paul has many clarifying statements that make suspicion unnecessary.

John H –
How have I been coy? I explained it quite well and explicitly I think.

You say:

However, in the Ehpesians 8:2 context this is not in any way conceivable that this is the scenario being referred to

How is it not “in any way conceivable” when I have just explained that it is?

Chad,

Thanks for the clarification. As you state the source of the “faith” in Ephesians 8:2 has been debated but many people of good faith. I did not think that was where you were going with that, but that was by the design it appears.

I personally hold that grace is the gift being referred to and not faith, but many Christians of good intent believe otherwise. So peace.

I would point out again that “being faithful” is not the same as “having faith”. A person can be faithful and not have any faith in anything whatsoever. For example, I could faithfully contribute to my son’s education while at the same time not having any faith that he will finish school.

We are saved by grace and through the faith of Jesus Christ

Not sure if this was intentional, but it is little slants like these that tend to pop out. The “faith of Jesus Christ” or “faith IN Jesus Christ.” There’s a world of difference.

Does Jesus have faith when He sits at the right hand of God… all is apparent and open before Him, so faith (the evidence of things not since) is not necessary. It is replaced by knowledge.

#40: Ah yes… this is what I was referring to in my “slippery slope” comment: sooner or later something like Universalism will creep in.

#40: Ah yes… this is what I was referring to in my “slippery slope” comment: sooner or later something like Universalism will creep in.

Take it up with the Apostle Paul then.

#44-

John H, you are welcome to think that. Just know, however, that you are drawing a conclusion based on a prior assumption, namely, that God cannot or will not save all.
When you begin from that presumption then it becomes necessary to interpret all of Scripture through that lens. It becomes necessary to bifurcate reconciliation from salvation or redemption. We have to place “steps” in the order of salvation to ensure that Scripture lines up with our preconceived ideas about God.

It is possible that Paul uses a wide range of words and metaphors to describe what salvation is. It is possible that Paul has salvation in mind when he announces that peace has now been made between God and all the world because of Jesus.

In any event, this “peace” or “friendship” that now exists between God and ALL things renders the argument that PB and others love to announce as their gospel, that God’s wrath remains on a majority of people, silly.

48: True.

So it kind of boils down to our doctrine of God. What do we say about who God is?

My confession is that God is love, that God’s justice and judgment are workings out of God’s love and that God desires that none should perish or be lost. God looks for the lost sheep until it is found and that one day every knee will bow and tongue confess that Christ is Lord.

So yeah, I begin with what I take the entire narrative of Scripture to be stressing: God is relentless in restoring, renewing and redeeming a fallen Creation and in the end God will have the final word.

Chris L #48. You beat me to it.

Chad,

Please address how reconcilation = salvation. We were at odds with and there was great emnity between us and Japan during World War II. We have now been reconciled. We are at peace. How, in any sense of the word does this reconciliation mean that the Japanese are now U.S. citizens? And yet because I am now reconciled to God even while yet a sinner, how does that make me one of His children?

#50 – not sure what you mean by that. You would say the same thing but you would mean it differently than I? How so?

Chad,

My biblical word view incorporates goats and sheep, eternal reward and eternal damnation, sons of God vs sons of Satan and a host of other references to the saved and unsaved. Your worldview totally discounts these copious Scriptures. I agree I interpret all of Scripture through this “lense” but the evidence to my Biblical worldview does not discount or ignore so many pivotal Scriptures. Yes, God will have the final word and part of that word is not pleasant.

56- thanks. That makes sense. I can agree with that, although I would call most if not all of that a byproduct of salvation.

I would say salvation is about what God is doing for the whole world. It began with a people, Israel, and now Gentiles (everyone else) are incorporated into that plan because of Jesus. So salvation is first and foremost about God and about what God is doing for all the world.

Salvation is about wholeness, its about healing, its about Shalom. It’s about making peace with what is broken, restoring what is lost to its rightful place. As such, reconciliation is not to be dismissed as non-salvific. I believe reconciliation is very much part of God’s salvation.

Doesn’t the word “salvation” indicate “from something”?

“I’m friends with a rather wide spectrum of folks (including you). While some might find that troubling…”

Your troubling because of your friendship with me pales in comparison to the troubling that I receive from being your friend.

What ship are you on, Phil, the Queen Mary??

The Titanic is sinking. A second boat pulls up alongside and gets the attention of the passengers on the slowly sinking ship. The captain comes on the loudspeaker and offers safety for all who will take it. Then he commands his crew to throw out life lines, life savers and put dingies in the water.

Only a few of the thousands of passengers on the Titanic take up the offer. The rest decline, “Our ship’s OK. Thanks for the offer though.”

Your parable would be biblical if it continued to read…

So the captain boards the ship and dies with the remaining passengers. But the story does not end here. In 3 days the captain is raised from the dead. And it is said of this Captain that in some mysterious way, “in him” resides every passenger that ever lived, both on the boat or off, and in this way death and sin have been defeated.

Or, it might read: One sheep thought his way was the best way and so he wandered off. But the shepherd would have none of that and went looking until he found him and brought him home.

Let us assume that Bell, under sodium pentathol, turns out to be orthodox in every single way. Then we are left with his attempt to make those truths relevant and effective to the modern folk.

However, even in that scenario, the next generation may use even more “modern” terminology but when given that same truth serum we find that they have moved away to some extent to the truths Bell espouses. How can we know which is which if that person never makes himself clear to the entire audience once in a while?

Then you don’t really “agree.” You agree that the creature gets the final say.

Our free will trumps God’s ultimate desire for God’s creation.

I know you know that this is not a Scriptural argument you make, but another one of those presuppositions.

Rick,
What are some reasons that people today might not place their trust in God?

The god of this world has blinded them as well as their own sin.

The slippery slope continues… see you guys (400 comments later) at the bottom of the hill.

This is reminiscent of the discussion last week where Chad argued vehemently that God has never engaged in violence for about 300 comments, only to acknowledge, “Naturally” at comment #346, that indeed He had.

Just like in that discussion, he started with a false premise then argued his point, rather than starting with the whole of scripture (as opposed to conveniently selected verses).

The god of this world has blinded them as well as their own sin.

Ok. I would call those obstacles to grace, wouldn’t you? In any event, what do you think would happen if those obstacles were removed? What might happen when “the god of this world” and “sin” are defeated once and for all?

Are those who then fall to their knees and worship doing so because they are “robots”? Is God “forcing” them to love Him? Or are they merely doing what they were created to do from the very beginning but could not?

If God was so intent on getting the last word, why create beings with free will at all? Ironically, a Universalist model fails at the same point as a Calvinist one from my point of view.

There’s a a part of me that really wants to believe in some sort of universal salvation, honestly. But I just can’t get past the Scriptural warnings against worshiping that which isn’t God. Yes, God’s overwhelming love for His creation is a huge theme throughout Scripture, but the consequences of idolatry are also pretty clearly shown as well. I guess where I would tick off fundamentalists is that I’m not so quick to say where the line is drawn between who’s in and who’s out. But I can’t comfortable say everyone’s in.

If all obstacles are removed, including one’s own sin, and everyone is given the chance to proclaim Christ in His presence, everyone probably will. I see no scenario like that in the future

Really?

So you disagree that sin and evil will be defeated once and for all?

Declaring Jesus as Lord does not necessarily imply love of him (going back to the example of the demons).

Interesting, if only Paul had not also said that to be saved one need only declare Christ as Lord.

I think given the context it is difficult to say that Paul was just thinking of verbal acknowledgment of Christ as Lord.

Even the closing chapters of Revelation reveal that the “kings of the earth” and all the “nations” will enter into the holy city (a city, mind you, whose gates are never closed). This is an astonishing announcement given that the entire Apocalypse is devoted to showing just how anti-Christ the “kings of the earth” and the “nations” are. They, too, tip their swords to the Lamb as they “bring their glory” into the very place where nothing unclean can or will enter.

Noting that this all occurs after Rev 20:11-15, which means that the “kings of the earth” in Rev 21 are likely not the same, specific “kings of the earth” noted in Rev 19.

So you take Revelation to be a chronological ordering of end time events? Hmmm

88: Which translation are you using? I’d get a new one. The Greek has no mention of “those that are saved.” That sounds like your own interpretation.

But in any event, if they are the ones that are saved then same question to you as to Chris L – what need is there of a tree for the healing of the nations? (or maybe your Bible omitted that?)

Paul,

That may be the case. But that still leaves the question of why a river and tree are needed for the “healing of the nations” unresolved.

But to your point, I find it doubtful that these kings and nations are those who have never heard of Christ before. They might be, but given the scope of Revelation and the way “kings” and “nations” have been portrayed throughout I think this is those who have been utterly opposed to the Lamb – they are the ones that the churches this letter is directed to are presently in fear of. John is saying, in essence, that even they will one day come to their senses.

I simply say this….

In Ken Silva’s discernment ministry, Ingrid’s discernment ministry, Steve Camp’s discernment ministry, my church, my discernment ministry God may be working somewhere and to disagree with what God is doing is blasphemy. Be very careful entering into discussions about our ministries…

Just using Rob’s words to say that what we are saying as we discern Rob’s words and ministry is there is a great possibility…we may have it right…..and if you disagree you could be committing blasphemy.

95 – Good grief, PB. You are a piece of, um, work. Do you apply this to yourself? You, by railing against the likes of Rob Bell and many other Christians are most likely committing the very blasphemy you have the audacity to warn us about.

you are too funny.

And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

I would link this to Micah 4 and Is 2. Seeing as the city (New Jerusalem) is not really a city (but the Bride of Christ), therefore the river and the tree might not be literal items either. I would see this particular verse nicely paralleling Micah 4:2:

Many nations will come and say,
“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the house of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us his ways,
so that we may walk in his paths.”

So, in other words, they will have the opportunity to truly be acquainted with the Lord at this time – to learn of his ways (Micah) or to be healed (Rev).

The reference to swords being plowshares demonstrates that the “knowledge of God” will finally cover this earth as the waters cover the sea.

Nation will not take up sword against nation,
nor will they train for war anymore.

This hope of the kingdom is really our hope. The curse is lifted, death has died, life reigns and the veil between heaven and earth forever done away with. Praise God!

I think it is fascinating in this entire sermon there is no quotation of scripture, no exposition….this is all about Rob Bell defending himself and his church and calling people pharisees.

He says he loves the scripture….

But He does not quote it.

Yep.

Ruach

“There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job.”

Discuss.

“Truth is not just selected verse bites.”

Rick Frueh circa A.D. 2009

PB,
are you now signing your comments with your Hebrew name “Ruach” ?

I’ve been reading the thread, trying to figure out where my question would fit. Guess I’ll just throw it into the pot.

Chad, how does your theology regarding universal reconciliation deal with such texts as 2 Thess 1:6-10 which speaks of punishment for those who reject the Lord Jesus Christ. Veering clear of discussion of conscious eternal torment over against annihilation, etc. – how are we to deal with such passages which seem to suggest that some people will be punished and shut out (NIV rendering) from the Kingdom of God?

113: CSC – good question.

A couple points.
First, I do not deny that there are passages in Scripture that speak of punishment for the wicked and that even some of those might give the impression of some eternal torment (”impression” is a key word). I hope you can also admit that there are many passages that speak just the opposite, that express God will redeem the whole world in some way. So in one sense there is this ongoing dialog in Scripture that is not unlike the OT banter over whether or not it is a good idea to have a king. Some authors are very positive about it, some are extremely negative. Scripture is in many ways a conversation -one we are invited to take up and be part of.

Second, most of the strident language used about punishment is directed towards Israel and/or the church – to Christians. They are calls to persevere in times of trial and persecution and warnings against forsaking the true lord of the universe for some “lie” being told them by Rome and their mystery religions. So these are words of caution meant to jolt a complacent church so that they will not choose a road that leads to death – a path that is not one of “abundant life” that only Jesus can give.

Lastly, with regards to your specific verse, olethron aionion (from vs. 9) obviously cannot mean extinction or that would render the adjective “aionios” as superfluous. Aion is a period of time – it’s duration is not exactly known. But the destruction of the wicked is qualified as being a “destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power.”

Understanding that “aion” does not mean eternal but a period of time is crucial here (as it is elsewhere). It think Paul is saying here that the wicked will experience a period of separation from the Lord between the time of his coming in victory and the time of their judgment. We aren’t told how long this period will last, but as with other time periods that the wicked are separated we might assume it is for their pruning and for their chastisement (Matt 25:46).

Here’s the concern regarding Universalism:

Dictionary of Theology: “the teaching that all people will eventually be saved through the universal redemption of Jesus. Some Universalists teach that even the devil, after a time of punishment, will be redeemed.”

This means, irrespective of a person’s acceptance of Christ or even out-and-out rejection, he or she will still be saved. In essence, confessing and professing Christ is a ‘nice-to-have’, discipleship is not required and we can essentially live however we want. It is completely false and dangerous doctrine.

In reality, this doctrine takes the same unbalanced view of God as those on the other end of the spectrum, like Phelps.

Jesus said “Your father the devil”.

I’m sure, as in all verses, there are many interpretations of that statement. However anyone would be roundly criticized for making such a slur and lie – unless, of course, it was true.

Jesus Christ didn’t just sign a peace treaty on our behalf with God.

What Jesus did was tear down the wall of partition, thereby becoming a bridge in which we Gentiles could – for the first time – pass over and have relationship with God. We who sat in darkness have seen a great light.

We cannot get into relationship with the Father some other way (ie: outside of Jesus).

We were all “in him” and his life, death and resurrection have restored us to the “heavenly places” where we belong.

Christ has made it possible – to as many as receive Him – for us to receive life, where before we were resigned to death. The key being that we must receive Him and believe in Him.

Paul puts it this way to the Corinthians: You ARE reconciled!

Is he speaking to the mankind or is he speaking to a church – people who have received Christ already?

This is what is so GOOD about the Good News- the world because of Jesus Christ IS saved – therefore, repent!

Wrong. This is not a biblical message. Read John 3. The offer is made, God’s love demonstrated, but the acceptance and rejection is up to us.

Paul, such an attitude you describe would speak of a person who does not truly know the Lord who saved them and has called them to be ministers of reconciliation in the world. They are also people who do not understand that “to those who have been given much, much will be required.” That is us. Punishment is real. We will be judged. Just because this judgment is not eternal torment of the hell-fire variety does not make it any less severe or something to be fearful of.

The person who think they can just live however they want because it doesn’t matter in the end is one who does not really know the one who saved them. We must disciple such people and teach them the way of our Master. That is all part of the discipleship process. Perhaps this is why Jesus sent his band out to make “disciples” not “converts.”

Punishment is real. We will be judged.

Elaborate please.

Just because this judgment is not eternal torment of the hell-fire variety does not make it any less severe or something to be fearful of.

I don’t believe in hell-fire torment… BUT, whether something is forever or for a period of time absolutely does make it less severe. If I kill someone, there is a difference between given a 5 year sentence and the death penalty.

The person who think they can just live however they want because it doesn’t matter in the end is one who does not really know the one who saved them.

So what? There’s nothing I can do to lose out on life eternal, or so your argument goes. I am saved.

We must disciple such people and teach them the way of our Master.

But does it matter whether they learn it? According to you, no.

Phil – You cannot reconcile this. Even if people like Chad are not encouraging people to live any way they want, their theology still openly teaches that the way you live, or what you believe, will not preclude everyone from living eternally with Jesus Christ.

If Jesus tarries, the universal view will eventually become the majority view if it isn’t already as such.

Well, first, I think there are a good number of people who would have no interest in living eternally with Christ even if you out-and-out told they were going to. I think sometimes Christians overestimate the amount that people think about such things. I think it speaks to our failure as presenting the Kingdom as something that is happening now and not just a pie-in-the-sky thing.

Secondly, I think that our calling as Christians leading others is somewhat like Paul’s – follow me as I follow Christ. So if we are following Christ, our lives should show something different to those around us. These discussions about who’s out and who’s really become somewhat unimportant as long we all agree that we want as many people to follow Christ as possible.

I guess I do see somewhat of a difference between Chad’s universalism and Unitarian Universalism, which openly says “anything goes”. I’m not saying I agree with Chad on it – I’m not a Universalist. I guess I dislike seeing everyone trying to put words in his mouth. I guess the real way to judge the dangerousness of his views would be to talk to a few of his congregants. I’d be interested to hear things from their perspective.

Rick and Paul –

Discipleship is not an easy process. There are no cookie-cutter answers as you know. Just because there may be some who abuse the grace of God does not make it any less true. We accept God as God has revealed himself to us rather than make consequentialist arguments like yours and insist that God cannot do it this way or else… If this is how God has chosen to redeem the world who are you or I to find fault with it?

I could say the same about those who teach an eternal hell. I could say, “Well, then you’ll just have a bunch of people who follow Jesus because they are afraid of spending eternity in hell. That is not real love. That is love out of fear.” If I follow your theology to its conclusion this is what you get – preachers who teach nothing but fire and brimstone and scare people into coming to the altar to pray for forgiveness and safety from a God who wants to see them burn.

Naturally you will say that is ridiculous. And naturally, I say your “conclusions” of UR is of the extreme variety and is just as ridiculous.

Discipleship is messy and it takes time. No one, certainly not me, is suggesting this is easy. To the person who thinks they can live anyway they like I see that person as a wonderful teaching moment – a person to encourage and lift up and train in the ways of the Lord. This is one of the many reasons Scripture is adamant that there be no solitary Christians – we must gather and live in community with other people of faith for the building of of one another and Christ’s church.

People I know personally who embrace UR are some of the most holy, spiritual, loving, Christ centered people I know. They are overwhelmed by God’s love for not just them but the entire cosmos and cannot help but respond in gratitude. They do not love others or God out of fear but out of thanksgiving. They seek to know this God more and more, with mind, body, soul and heart, because this God has first loved them and has gone to extraordinary means to make that love manifest.

This is the God we confess in Jesus Christ and is truly GOOD NEWS! We cannot help but tell a world that is following the “ruler and spirit of the air” that they don’t have to live this way – there is a better way and his name is Jesus.

Is it messy at times? yes. Is it easy? no. Is it full of joy, peace, hope and love? usually.

130:
And your point?

Rick, you know very well what my point was in saying that. It was simply to say your fear that UR leads to hedonism is not warranted.

OK, I understand. I believe Calvinism and Universalism are book ends that are extreme in different directions

Amen. That is indeed grace. Why would you think I think otherwise?

Because you have argued that even if a person does not believe in Jesus, they will still be saved in the end. Is that your view?

By the way, why do you assume “eternal life” means life after you die?

The better word might be immortality. Right now when we die, we await the resurrection. At that time when Jesus returns, we will be resurrected, death will essentially die and life will reign.

Regarding the guy at the cooler, we actually had a good conversation and will plan to get together for a coffee to have further discussion. Perchance God may touch his heart and mind.

Because you have argued that even if a person does not believe in Jesus, they will still be saved in the end. Is that your view?

“In the end” is very different from what you are talking about by quoting these verses. You are assuming that salvation is about what happens “in the end.”

What happens to a person that does not believe in Jesus on the day of Judgment is for God to decide. Based on what I know about God I have full confidence in God’s judgment and I have very good reason to be very hopeful for all people, even Rick’s Mormons.

The better word might be immortality.

No, that is not the better word either. Are you familiar with the word “aion” and how it is used in Greek? You might be surprised that it does not mean “eternal” or “immortality” or “everlasting,” contrary to many of our translations today.

The better word is “life of the ages.”

Do you know what “life of the ages” meant in the 1st century?

The better word might be immortality. Right now when we die, we await the resurrection. At that time when Jesus returns, we will be resurrected, death will essentially die and life will reign.

Well, I think that’s a pretty unbiblical way to look at it, really. I do believe that there will be a physical resurrection, but our eternal life starts now. Death has no sting, and we are partaking in the life God has for us now. As Chad has said, “eternal” in the NT has less to do with the temporal scope and more to do with the inherent quality of life.

It’s almost as Jesus was saying that only through will we know life the way it was really meant to be. It does have an unending aspect to it, but it doesn’t simply mean “life after death” or even “resurrection”. In Colossians, Paul refers to us already being “raised with Christ”, meaning we are already experiencing resurrection life in some way. So even if we physically die, we will still have life held by God in some way.

Well said, Phil.

Which is why it is silly to accuse people who believe in UR that “anything goes.” Obviously it does not. When we have experienced God’s grace and what it means to live in the Way of Jesus we desire to know this Jesus more fully. Not because we fear some torment after we die but because we have tasted and seen what true life, “abundant life,” is all about. The world feeds us plenty of stories that promise life but really they lead to death. As Hauerwas says (look out, he’s from Duke), evangelism is about inviting people to “switch stories.”

Sigh…

I really don’t want to talk about soul sleep again, so I won’t. But I do find it funny that we have someone who denies the trinity and advocates soul sleep arguing with someone else about universal salvation being unbiblical. I guess heresy is a rather fluid term.

But I do find it funny that we have someone who denies the trinity and advocates soul sleep arguing with someone else about universal salvation being unbiblical.

Why do you find that odd Phil? Do I deny the deity of Christ or his part in the Godhead? Of course not. And I see the Father as a separate entity from Christ.

I’m not really concerned with man-made formulations for heresy. After all, Jesus, the apostles and the early church were regarded as heretics. Dig into the doctrine of the Trinity and you will find it rather weak – but it’s just accepted as the norm.

care to address my post 137?

I understand that once death has died, only life is left. The promise of the gospel is that Jesus will return, establish a kingdom or world without end, the curse will be lifted and God’s way will permeate creation forever.

They have to do with today.

Please explain how the scripture I quoted in 1 Cor 15 has to do with today?

147: I was referring to your quoting of John 3:16 as refutation of UR. Will you answer the questions I asked you in 137? Or at least admit that Jesus is not speaking of life after death?

As for the view of salvation being about “today” and what salvation is about and for, I line up pretty well with NT Wright in “Rethinking Salvation.“

However, it is my experience that many times a universalist is very ecumenical, somewhat nebulous in the gospel, and many times not as aggressively evangelistic.

And what should we care of your experience?

How many Christian universalists do you know personally, Rick? I’m just curious. And I don’t mean online.

In what ways are they “nebulous” about the gospel? Be specific, please.

Do you evangelize because God commands us to or because you feel without you the world would go to hell?

Chad, the “we” is not all of mankind

You are right – it’s actually far more generous and broader than just “mankind.”

…as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth. Eph 1:10.

The rest of your post I generally agree with. The issue is whether “salvation” is about some eternity after death or if it is about life in the present age. Paul’s good news to the Corinthians and to us is that because of Christ all the world has been reconciled to God. This is the truth about you whether you recognize it or not. Paul is exhorting us to live as people reconciled – for as he says elsewhere, TODAY is the day of your salvation.

Reconciliation is a big part of God’s plan for all the world – God has drawn close to us. This is our salvation.

Just by definition a person who believes in an eternal hell has more motivation than others.

By whose definition? That certainly is not biblical. Why isn’t this the motivation for the apostles? Or Jesus?

The “good news” is NOT that you don’t have to go to hell if you believe the right things. The “good news” is that Christ Jesus has defeated death and hell. The “good news” is that God loves you and desires that you have life in the fullest sense of the word, even now.

Your version of the gospel and the motivation to spread it is not “good news.” It’s only potentially good news.

Chad: Reconciliation is a big part of God’s plan for all the world – God has drawn close to us.

Agreed.

This is our salvation.

No. God’s drawing close (reconciliation) makes our salvation possible, but does not effect it. We must believe.

Without faith it is impossible to please God, for he that comes unto God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder to them that diligently seek Him.

No. God’s drawing close (reconciliation) makes our salvation possible, but does not effect it. We must believe.

It most certainly does “effect” it in an ontological way. The truth about you, whether you know it or not, is that you are saved. This is what has happened because of Jesus.

It has nothing to do with you. It is all God.

And this is so that no one may boast.

To say “we must believe” is to say that for us to live in this present life in truth, yes, we must believe. Many do not know the truth about them. They live lives of ignorance. It is our task as the church to be the light to the world and point the way to the savior of the world.

Though I would note that N.T. Wright believes in a literal hell, and that it will not be empty for eternity…

He’s sort of on the fence. From my notes on Surprised by Hope…

Our God is full of surprises. We must not assume we know to whom God’s grace can extend. Revelations leaves us with these fascinating, if not frustrating, hints of future purposes…
Rev. 21& 22 is clear that there are some categories of people who are “outside.” But then, just as we have in our minds a picture of two cozy categories of those who are in and those who are out we find that there is a river of life that flows out of the city and growing on either bank is the tree of life, not a single tree but a great many and that the “leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.” There is a great mystery here, one which should humble us and help us recognize that God is full of surprises.
Most importantly…
The goal of all of life is NOT about going to heaven or hell. What happens to us after we die is not the central point of the New Testament. Rather, the NT picks up with the same themes of the OT, insisting that the major, central question is Gods purpose of rescue and re-creation of the entire cosmos, which just so happens to include us as individual humans.
Thus, the whole point of being saved in the present is so that we can play a vital role in this larger picture (what Paul calls being “fellow workers with God”).

Just heard an excellent statement:

“We often think of grace as a commodity to cover our sins. Grace is not a commodity to cover our sins, it is power to remove our sin and to help us live like Jesus.”

What makes you think you are saved, Paul?

The Lord touched my heart and my understanding. I believe in Jesus Christ as my redeemer and savior. By His sacrifice, He erased my sins and paved the way for my adoption into the family of God. He started a work in my life, has made me a steward of His grace and offers me life.

The good news, Paul, is it doesn’t matter if you don’t yet believe it

Right… no matter what we believe, we’re all OK. Forget about Paul’s, Peter’s, James’, Jude’s warning about false teachings. It all doesn’t matter.

Actually, the man in that situation would’ve lived, but the firstborn would die…just sayin’…

Right – my mistake… but you get the point clearly. It wasn’t arbritrary or a nice-to-have. It wasn’t something the was recommended. And that’s what Chad is arguing with statements like this:

To say “we must believe” is to say that for us to live in this present life in truth, yes, we must believe.

Notice the subtlety here?

I have a responsibility, once I’ve accepted Christ, to walk – however feebly – according to the measure of grace He’s given me.

And I suppose when it comes down to it, I’m simply not as optimistic as Chad.

But that’s not what we’re debating here. We’d ALL love to believe people will turn to Christ. What we are debating is what the scriptures say. Chad has taken less-than-a-handfull of scriptures and created a cobbled-together doctrine that informs his day-to-day life and the way he presents the gospel to people.

God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and LIVE. Why will you die, O Israel? (Ezek 33). God is just. God is good and full of compassion, but there are consequences to how we – in and out of the church – live.

Jesus is not your tool, Paul.

You are straining at gnats and swallowing camels here. I have had a personal experience with Christ coming into my life, and He continues to help me daily. Call it what you will.

When you’re driving in the bush somewhere in Africa, so far out there’s no cell phone range, you might not see a car for a week and then you get a flat tire, but can’t prop up the car because the roads are so uneven that it might collapse, you have your wife and 2 young girls along with no one else, and know that when night comes you will be robbed or killed, what do you do? We prayed as I continued to drive, and much to my amazement (and limited faith, I admit) and before our eyes, the tire re-inflates. What do you call that? Personal? Experiental? Hell, yes!

But He has done much more than that, starting a good work and offering life forever. He opened my eyes and continues to do so.

But God’s punishment is for our pruning and our refinement.

Punishment for refining is called chastisement (like a father with his disobedient child). There is also wrath – don’t forget this aspect or conflate the two.

There is also wrath – don’t forget this aspect or conflate the two.

My hunch is you don’t understand God’s wrath anymore than you understand aion.

You forget that it’s the “wrath” of the “slaughtered Lamb.” The one who is the Man of Sorrows, the Servant of the World, the one who while hung on a tree uttered, “forgive them, for they don’t know what they are doing.”

My hunch is that you have a very human understanding of wrath and vengeance and think God must act like you would act – only to a greater degree.

God’s ways are not your ways.

My hunch is that you have a very human understanding of wrath and vengeance and think God must act like you would act – only to a greater degree.

OK Chad. There’s no such thing as the wrath of God I guess. Of course, if you believe that God never acted violently at any time throughout history – like you argued last week – despite the landslide of evidence to the contrary… well then, what can I say?

Or if you don’t believe in a future time of wrath, then what can be argued?

Just like last week (as I said earlier in the comments in this thread) you enjoy hand-selecting a few verses, thereby ignoring all the rest, to derive your position. It is unbalanced.

#174: Rick, how dare you claim to have had a personal, experiential interaction with Christ! That’s very Western, 21st Century thinking rooted in post-modern gnosticism.

Everyone who knew me thought I had lost my mind. Most people still are persuaded of that today!

Same boat!

Here comes the amateur shrink.

and here is where Paul resorts to “asshole” mode for lack of anything intelligent to say.

Rick,
Who said anything about not experiencing God in their life?

Chad: just a question. Were you even born when Rick had his experience?

Ahh, yes. And this is relevant how, exactly?

It is when we see who Christ is for the first time that we begin to understand a little about who we are. Otherwise, we sit in darkness.

Agreed. One day, all of creation will see Christ – many for the first time.

Martin Luther was amazed at my conversion.

Rick, we were clearly typing (and thinking) at the same time…scary.

A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with just an argument.

The man who argues that man never walked on the moon may have a very convincing argument. Neil Armstrong was there!!

Thanks for the conversation Chad. I think I understand your position although I strongly disagree with it. I guess I’m through unless you have any further questions of me.

Best Regards.

And unfortunately, for many it will be too late.

Paul, you are an interesting conundrum. And you call me slippery!

Did you not say earlier (much earlier) that you believe those who have never heard of Jesus in this lifetime will be offered the chance to enter into the kingdom?

#192: Phil, it was a joke.

Chad: Did you not say earlier (much earlier) that you believe those who have never heard of Jesus in this lifetime will be offered the chance to enter into the kingdom?

I said that God will judge them equitably. He will judge them as He sees fit, keeping in mind He has given to every man a conscience.

This doesn’t mean ALL will be saved. Far from it. Hence my statement, “for many it will be too late.”

No, what you said was:

I believe that it is not as black-and-white as many suppose and resurrected people and nations (ie: Nineveh or the Queen of Sheba as per Christ) will be given opportunity to turn to God, though in their lifetime their knowledge of God was limited. God will judge justly. People who never heard the name of Christ or who existed prior to Him will be judged equitably by our Father.

Interesting that you would believe that even after death, those who never knew about Christ may be given the opportunity to turn to God. Why would they be given this opportunity?

Is it such a far stretch for you to think that perhaps everyone might be given this opportunity? If not, how do you reconcile this?

Is it impossible to imagine that God’s judgment in the final day is for the purpose of bringing about repentance?

Is it impossible to imagine that when the entire cosmos stands before a holy, sovereign, mighty God who loves them that they might not in that moment experience what may feel like the very fires of hell, purging them and making them white as snow, even to the point where they must, like Thomas, exclaim, “My Lord and my God”?

If you find it possible that the nations and those who never heard of Jesus may be given a chance I find it illogical and inconsistent of you to claim the above may not be just as possible given what we know of God as revealed to us in Jesus.

Why would they be given this opportunity?

Because God is just and judges with equity. But I believe He will judge people personally according to their conscience. God has given every man a faint glimmer of knowledge between right and wrong (though we can definitely go to extremes of evil).

Is it such a far stretch for you to think that perhaps everyone might be given this opportunity?

Yes.

If not, how do you reconcile this?

By reading the Bible.

Is it impossible to imagine that God’s judgment in the final day is for the purpose of bringing about repentance?

Yes. It is a time of reaping the harvest of our age. Judgment means we will stand to give account.

If you find it possible that the nations and those who never heard of Jesus may be given a chance I find it illogical and inconsistent of you to claim the above may not be just as possible given what we know of God as revealed to us in Jesus.

You can create a caricature of Jesus that is unbalanced. While He came as a lamb, He is returning as a lion.

For example, I would bet you would have a hard time reconciling the Jesus you have created in your mind with a quote like this:

“He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty.

or this:

“I have trodden the winepress alone;
from the nations no one was with me.
I trampled them in my anger
and trod them down in my wrath;
their blood spattered my garments,
and I stained all my clothing.

4 For the day of vengeance was in my heart,
and the year of my redemption has come…

…and my own wrath sustained me.

6 I trampled the nations in my anger;
in my wrath I made them drunk
and poured their blood on the ground.”

I do find a common phenomenon today: more or equal time is often spent poring over commentaries and scholarly accounts than actually reading the scripture for yourself. When this is the approach you take, you undoubtedly find ‘evidence’ to support your theories.

Chad is well-meaning I’m sure, but when you have to cast away or discount hundreds of scriptures to prove your point, I think it’s dangerous. I have no problem discounting a philosophy or theory of a theologian, but we shouldn’t discount scripture.

Remember, we spent over 400 comments last week discussing whether or not God actually committed any violent acts in history. Chad insisted that He hadn’t, but what do the scriptures show? That was baffling.

Today we are discussing whether ALL will be saved, when scripture shows this is not the case.

What conclusion can I arrive at?

I’m sure Chad never does that… I actually heard his next sermon will be taken from this week’s issue of People Magazine.

People magazine is often factual in its reporting. Keep in mind I’m a Dukie and a Methodist. The Enquirer is more our speed. You know, itchy ears and stuff. We like that.

This kind of sums up my thoughts on this thread:

Chris L-
And yet, Wright still holds that there is a great mystery about the tree of life giving healing to the nations. He sums up by insisting our God is full of surprises.

This is why I say he is somewhat on the fence. He can’t be right about everything.

One of the most famous passages often used to suggest an eternal hell is Matt. 25:46. In actuality, it is one of the strongest passages supporting what I have been saying here.

The word often translated “everlasting” is aionian, which I have already argued does not mean “eternal” but is a period of time – an “age.” The word “punishment” here is the Greek word kolasis. This word in the Greek literature of the day was a word that originally meant the pruning of trees to make the grow better. Barclay notes that in all Greek secular literature the word “kolasis” is never used of anything but “remedial punishment.” i.e. it is meant to bring about a response of repentance and growth.

Thomas Talbott writes:

According to Aristotle, there is a difference between revenge and punishment; the latter (kolasis) is inflicted in the interest of the sufferer, the former (timoria) in the interest of him who inflicts t, that he may obtain satisfaction. Plato also appealed to the established meaning of kolasis as support for his theory that virtue could be taught: “For if you will consider punishment (kolasis) and what control it has over wrong-doers, the facts will inform you that men agree in regarding virtue as procured.”

So according to Jesus in Matthew, the righteous go on to an everlasting life while the wicked go to an indeterminent period of punishment meant to build virtue, to prune, to correct.

PB: Whatever, Beau.
I do the studying, the Spirit gives the enlightenment.

I think you need to add that you then forget the enlightenment as that is a bit too “mystical” and then you just revert to worldly tactics to attack others.

There are many “spirits” out there giving enlightenment, but if you are listening to one that tells you to lie… then I doubt that is The Holy Spirit… but The Spirit of Anti Christ…

Liars, slanderers will not enter the Kingdom of God…

Feel free to rebuke me everyone… I don’t care. see you in another month or so.
iggy

I don’t understand why people think that copying and pasting the same verses over and over (and over and over and over and over) will result in any new direction in the discussion. Seriously, do we have nothing better to do than constantly re-tread the same ground?

My guess is that this represents some sort of catharsis for some. After making the same argument two or three times though, why keep on trying? At least in this forum.

Haven’t we beat this dead, decaying, skeleton of a horse long enough?

#215
Typical reaction to the scripture. Just like the Pharisees who willfully did not believe what Jesus said, turning instead to their way of thinking, their own bias.

I guess we like Rob Bell because we like discussing dead philosophy instead of studying just what the truth is found in the Word of God.

Any Christians here? Surely there must be those who love the Word here.

Ruach.

#213

May God bless and keep you, Iggy.

Chad – serious question: Why do you think that NT Wright, obviously someone you admire, rejects the doctrine of Universalism, as much as he’d like to believe it?

Universalism is, in a wierd sort of way, just as fatalistic as Calvinism.

George Costanza’s advice for beating a lie detector:

“It isn’t a lie if you believe it.”

Frueh’s Bible dictionary:

“These words mean what you believe they mean.”

Rick,

“These words mean what you believe they mean.”

I’m not sure what your cryptic message is meant to convey or who it is to. I hope it is meant for Paul but I suspect it is for me. If that is the case, you couldn’t be further off the mark.

Words matter. Paul has taken great liberty in his cutting and pasting. Each time I point out how the verse he quotes doesn’t mean what he believes it to mean he moves on to something else.

Chad, can you answer #219 please?

It would be interesting to get your take on why – despite his wish to – he rejects your theories.

Paul,

Um, it is not my theory. It’s been a teaching within the church from the very beginning.

I have a lot of respect for NT Wright. That does not mean I think he is infallible. I’ve read enough of his works to think using language like “rejecting” universalism is a bit strong. But he doesn’t go as far as I wish he would.

As to his reasons? Ask him.

Now, will you address 228?

I’ve read enough of his works to think using language like “rejecting” universalism is a bit strong.

As per Chris L’s quote:

Theres part of me that would love to be a universalist, and say, itll be alright. Everyone will get there in the end.

I didn’t know you could be a partial universalist. Isn’t it all or nothing?

Wrath doesn’t mean…

World doesn’t mean…

All doesn’t mean…

Kingdom of God vs. kingdom of heaven…

sin, iniquity, transgression…

Simplicity, people, please.

#234, for an in-depth answer as to whether I’m buying one iota of what you’re selling, please see my in-depth analysis in comment #230 (regarding your remedial eternal life classes for people who missed school). This is rich – and dramatically off the mark.

I guess Mr. Wright missed this insight as well.

Simplicity, people, please.

Yes, all this ‘re-imagining’ and strange ‘re-inventing’ is getting out of hand here. Goodness me.

Chad: nevermind if it isn’t truth.

Isn’t that your statement of faith?

I begin to suspect that Pastor Boy has never actually listened to Rob Bell preach. His continued insistence that Bell doesn’t use scripture can only come from severe ignorance, or perhaps he’s a visitor from an alternate reality of some sort.

The more I read blogs in general, but also ADMs in particular, the more I think Hinduism’s teaching on the death of ego is probably a lot closer to Christ’s teaching than many Christians.

Chris L. – My differences with Bell aside, with his affection for Wright does that indicate that he nelieves in an eternal place of judgment as well? If I am going to ascribe things to Bell because of his friendship with Rollins, is it safe to assume he agrees with Wright on this issue?

Who knows? I think Bell has been somewhat ambiguous in his answers for a few reasons. First, I think the doctrine of hell has been abused by many ministers, and I think there is natural desire to distance yourself from that. Also, I think Bell is intellectually honest enough to admit that he doesn’t have all the answers.

If you would have asked me ten years about who was going to hell and what it would be like, I would have given you a pretty straightforward answer, I would have been pretty confident in it. Now if someone asked me, I would have a harder time answering that question. It’s because I don’t think there’s an answer at all. It’s just because I don’t know that I’d be able to answer it without significant conjecture on my part.

I think I’d try to turn the question around a bit and see what was motivating it. I think a lot of times when people ask a question like, “is so-and-so in hell right now”, it’s based on a something other than pure curiosity.

I also think that the threat of hell isn’t really a motivation that “works” in the long run as an evangelistic tool. I can think of dozens if not hundreds of people I grew up with who sat through hellfire and brimstone messages, and most of their conversions didn’t “stick”. So I think if we can’t give a positive motivation, our evangelistic is inherently anemic.

I also think that the threat of hell isn’t really a motivation that “works” in the long run as an evangelistic tool. I can think of dozens if not hundreds of people I grew up with who sat through hellfire and brimstone messages, and most of their conversions didn’t “stick”. So I think if we can’t give a positive motivation, our evangelistic is inherently anemic.

Something we can agree on. Converts should be tear filled, not fear filled. They should weep over their offense towards this Kind God who gave himself for them. They should be thankful that Jesus paid the penalty by taking the punishment for our sins, making us right with God. They should rejoice in the resurrection that demonstrates God accepted this sacrifice.

Ruach.

Phil / Chris L: a serious question as I tend to think we might be on a similar page here. Do you see any references in the OT at all hinting at hell?

It seems that the word ’sheol’ is used – the abode of the dead – but the concept that many have today of a place of torment and fire doesn’t appear, at least as far as I can see.

Since you seem conversant in the Greek perhaps you will do what Paul C refuses to do and comment on kolasis and what it means?

Waiting with baited breath…

Just an observation:

If there is indeed a place of extreme torment where unsaved souls spend eternity, without the possibility of release, that in and of itself would be a supreme motivation for deliverence/salvation/redemption. This issue is no trifle and has far reaching implications.

It must be painfully noted that men like Chad are more faithful to their view than are we who hold to a place called hell. Ambiguousness and uncertainty about hell, as well as making a once in a while aside to it in preaching, is counter productive to the truth itself, assuming that the place of eternal torment exists and souls are both there now and souls are headed there today.

Again, if it exists as an eternal place of torment, it must be preached with conviction. Many cults believe in anhiliation, and the doctrine of hell will soon find no place in evangelical creeds, much less teaching.

Again, if it exists as an eternal place of torment, it must be preached with conviction.

But is hell – in terms of fire and brimstone – even a biblical concept? If so, do you see it present in the OT at all? Or do you see it in the epistles? What about in Acts?

All the references to the word ‘hell’ in the OT are simply the word ’sheol’ – where both the righteous and unrighteous go upon death.

Also, everyone would acknowledge that Jesus’ references to Gehenna were parabolic, not literal.

So, is it a place?

I would contend that the hope of the gospel is not between heaven and hell, but life and death.

we will also realize how tepid and ambivilent the church was concerning that truth.

I would say that the reason the church is so tepid here is that the concept is not really supported.

I would ask you:
1. where do you see it in the OT?
2. where do you see it in the epistles? Does Paul speak of it?
3. does Christ speak of it outside of a parable?

Isn’t it an interesting omission for so grave a consequence?

No doubt, the tares are gathered in bundles to be burned, the foolish virgins are cast into outer darkness, the slothful servant is stripped of his talent and bound hand and foot. I do not argue there are no consequences – I believe there are and they are very dire. The second death: beyond recovery, forever gone.

We trust God, we follow him now, He gives us grace now, and we trust Him to continue walking with us beyond what we can see (the grave).

Yes, I agree.

there is a thread through the Bible which points to a road of eternal destruction

Yes, absolutely.

Interesting that on the day of Pentecost when Peter is preaching, the word ‘hades’ is recorded as he quotes directly from Psalms:

Acts 2: Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will live in hope,
27because you will not abandon me to the grave,
nor will you let your Holy One see decay.

Obviously, in the OT, the word used is not Hades (basically the Greek underworld that most people relate to more than anything else), but Sheol. To me this demonstrates that Hades/Sheol/Grave is not what Christianity (started with the RCC) has made it out to be, but simply the abode of the dead – if you will, we all go to “hell” (sheol) when we die, awaiting the resurrection when Jesus returns as promised.

John 5: “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.

All mankind goes to the grave/sheol/hades. But that’s not the end of the story. For those who believe, life awaits on the other side.

Chris L – see my post 211.

It does mean “punishment” but it is for a desired outcome. It is not to be confused with “damnation” or “condemnation” as it is often translated.

God’s punishments are not arbitrary, as my comment 211 argues.

Karl Barth, when asked whether or not he believes in hell, responded, “No! I believe against it!”

262:

And yet, surely you agree that we will all be judged (individually). I don’t see how you can make the first part of John 5:29 individuals and then the last something else. John is rather specific: those who have done good and those who have done evil.

those who have done evil (whether it be individuals or the whole) are punished. Yet this punishment is not damnation as some translations suggest. Nor is it condemnation. It is for the sake of restoration. And it is not eternal. It has a time period befitting the subject.

264: To compare the likes of Karl Barth, one of the greatest theological thinkers in the last few hundred years, to that list is something I would expect from PB or Paul C, but not you, Chris.

“These are not the ‘driods you’re looking for”…

same goes for dismissive comments like this one.

270: As my comment 211 does.

Kolasis is just as accurately rendered as “chastisement” or “correction.” As my comment 211 points out, the bulk of Greek literature in that day (and prior) uses kolasis as a means for correction. It is not condemnation or damnation. If you have evidence to the contrary I’d be happy to see it.

The “plain meaning” is not synonymous with the translation you are reading from, Chris, nor with the interpretation you would like it to be.

“one of the greatest theological thinkers in the last few hundred years”

Statements from Barth in a Biblical discussion usually detract from the search for truth. He was a thinker, on that alone I will agree.

I mean, heck, you don’t even have to go further than a Greek lexicon to find that kolasis means: correction, punishment, penalty

add this in with the common use of the word in the 1st century (as my comment 211 does) and it is quite clear what the “plain meaning” ought to be.

Weird that you would cite a source that argues “aion” is eternal and without end. You know very well that is wrong. “aion” does not mean eternal. Although I admit there are many people who believe it does (due to mistranslations).

From Word Studies in the New Testament, Marvin Vincent, Professor at Union Theological Seminary, defines aion as : a period of longer or shorter duration, having a beginning and an end, and complete in itself. Also, the length of an aeon is dependent upon the subject to which it is attached.

As Chris would no doubt argue where it suits him, “aion” is best rendered as “age.” Not, as the sloppy google article argues, something that is eternal.

And this:

Moulton & Milligan, BAGD, and Thayer list dozens of occurrences of KOLASIS in late classical and early Christian documents, and cite “punishment” as the proper translation in each case.

…Is just misleading. Aristotle and Plato use the term (as well as other Greek texts in antiquity) and define it as corrective punishment for the purpose of building virtue.

it depends on the usage and context as to whether aion is eternal or an age.

it depends on the subject to which it refers. When the subject is God it can be viewed as an “everlasting age.”

God is not the subject here.

The punishment is.

And kolasis is not damnation but correction. So the aion refers to the punishment and it is an age befitting the correction needed. It is “complete” in itself. Yet it is not eternal.

n the case of Matthew, particularly, eternal kolasis (cutting off) is paralled with eternal life – both using aion for eternal. So, I’ll tell you what – I will agree that the duration of the kolasis (cutting off) and the duration of the zoe (life) are both of the same duration – aionion – as indicated by Jesus in the same sentence…

That would be a mistake as well because you are forgetting that the aion refers to the subject.

Two examples:

Rom. 16:25,26 adn Hab. 3:6. Both use the word eonian twice in them.

“In accord with the revelation of a secret hushed in times (eonian), yet manifested now…according to the injunction of the eonian God.”

An eonian secret revealed at some point cannot be eternal even though it is revealed by the eonian God. Eonian does not make God eternal, but God makes eonian eternal.

Hab. 3:6 “And the everlasting mountains were scattered…His ways are everlasting.”

Mountains are not eternal, though they will last a very long time. God’s ways, however, are eternal because He is eternal. Again, same word used in the same sentence but speaks to different times.

In Matt. 25:46 you have the same thing. One aionian has as its subject “life” and the other has as it’s subject “corrective punishment.” In the first case, “life” makes the aionian timeless – it has no definitive end here. But in the latter case, the time (aion) is dependent upon the correction being given. It need not be thought of as eternal.

Madness. And utter eisegetic bs

That’s funny. You should have no problem disproving what I wrote then, instead of just dismissing it as bs.

What do you make of Hab 3:6? Or the Romans passage?

Just because Augustine got this one wrong (along with other things) and many people followed suit doesn’t give us the license to be lazy in our exegesis.

Nor does it mean that coming to a different, more truthful conclusion that is faithful to the text is “eisegesis” or “bs”.

All I see you doing now is exactly what you are trying to pin on me – you are forcing a meaning onto the text based on your presuppositions about hell.

Madness. And utter eisegetic bs

That’s funny. You should have no problem disproving what I wrote then, instead of just dismissing it as bs.

Chad, I like you, I do.
But to make a statement like this when Chris just spent considerable time engaging you on this topic is just plain silly.

You both clearly have different conclusions.
You think his conclusions are bs.
He thinks yours are and said so.

But to claim that he’s just writing you off and not engaging the topic is silly…in my opinion.

nathanael,

I’m sorry but I disagree. Chris is welcome to disagree with me. As I him. But I would not and have not called his conclusions “bs.” And I most certainly would not do that without first addressing his argument point by point. He has not done that – he just wrote the whole thing off.

That’s rather unfair of him. There is no way any reasonable person could look at what I just argued and call that eisegesis. He’s grasping for straws.

Just a few other passages to support my, um, eisegesis (and also refute the idea of annihilation)

I kill and make alive; I wound and heal (De. 32:39)

The Lord kills and makes alive; He brings down to the grave and brings up (1 Sam. 2:6)

We must die. But God does not take away life; instead, He devises was so that a banished person may not remain estranged from Him. (2 Sam 14:14)

All who go down to the dust shall bow before Him. Ps. 22:29

He will swallow up death forever and will wipe away tears from ALL faces (Isa. 25:8)

For men are not cast off by the Lord forever. Though he brings grief, he will show compassion, so great is his unfailing love. (Lam 3:31-32)

I will ransom them from the power of Sheol; I will redeem them from death. O Death, I will be your plagues! O Sheol, I will be your destruction! (Hos. 13:13-14)

You will by no means get out of there until you have pain the last penny (Mt. 5:26). [think kolasis ]

His master delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all. So My Father also will do to you. (Mt. 18:34).

He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live to Him (Luke 20:38)

If their [Israel] being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? (Rom. 11:15)

The last enemy that will be destroyed is death (1 Cor. 15:26)

Jesus tasted death for everyone (Heb. 2:9)

Death is swallowed in victory. O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory? (1 Cor. 15:54-55)

Christ abolished death (2 Tim. 1:10)

He destroys him who had the power of death (Heb. 2:14)

Fear not…I have the keys of Hell and of Death (Rev. 1:17-18)

There shall be no more death (Rev. 21:4)

Christ went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah…the gospel was preached also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit…He ascended on high…led captivity captive…descended into the lower parts of the earth…the he might fill all things (1 Peter. 3:18-20;4:6-7; Eph. 4:8-10).

There’s a lot of “eisegetic bs” for you to wade through, Chris. I look forward to what I hope is an honest discussion dealing with the text rather than slinging judgments.

A good explanation of kolasis and aionios can be read HERE.

234

I thought I answered you earlier, no?

Yeah, in 237 and 230. More of Paul’s ass-i-ness. I think it’s best if I continue to ignore you. If not for your own good, then mine.

Chad, in Acts 2, Peter mentions the word “Hades” (in reference to Jesus). He was quoting directly from the Psalmist David whose words are recorded in Hebrew as “Sheol.”

Are we to assume that Peter now believed in the Greek underworld simply because he used the word Hades in quoting the scripture, at least as Luke recorded it?

Similarly, if Jesus was not speaking Greek (almost 100% likely it was Aramaic, possibly Hebrew) in Matthew 25, isn’t it possible the same thing is happening?

You have to look at the whole of scripture rather than get bogged down and build your entire theory on basically a single Greek word.

Again, “the wages of sin is death.” How do you get around it?

Chad, you’ve thrown your fair share of jabs around as well. Forgive me for offending you with these comments.

Not sure why you’re willing to debate with Chris L who called your theory bs yet not with me. Odd.

Rick, I don’t think we’re debating a burning hell at all here.

Chad is still contending that ALL with eventually be saved and the condemnation that is referred to in the Bible (for the disobedient/unbelieving world) is not condemnation/destruction, but chastening. After chastening, all will be OK and they’ll be invited into the eternal Kingdom.

I disagree with this. Not everyone will be saved, the wages of sin is death and there is something called the second death which an unrecoverable state. Unfortunate but true.

Additionally, I think I offended Chad in my earlier comments and that might have flowed over to where we are now.

Considering Chad’s intermittent wandering off the etquite reservation I would think he could give some space to others.

A boxer? You don’t scare me Paul!!

“Asymetrical parallelism”? Really? I suppose I could agree if I tossed out basic hermeneutic principles and literary criticism

.

Ok. At least you are offering an alternative view (sort of).

What you are tossing out is the key rule in translating aion. It is always in reference to its subject. Can you acknowledge this much? The same word (aionios) is used in Hab 3:6 to describe mountains and God. Both times in modern translations it is translated as “everlasting.” Yet mountains are not eternal, right? The same concept is being employed here in Matt. 25:46. Corrective punishment is not eternal. It is “for an age” to bring about the desired result.
Thus, you cannot understand what aion means until you understand kolasis.

And you really can’t say “life” is eternal either. It is more properly rendered “life of the age.” Much like John’s use in his gospel. It often gets translated “eternal life” but really means “life of the ages.” I know you know all this. What’s weird is how you suspend your knowledge of all that to argue for this.

As for the passage in II Thess, I addressed that in comment 115. Here is a snippet:

Lastly, with regards to your specific verse, olethron aionion (from vs. 9) obviously cannot mean extinction or that would render the adjective “aionios” as superfluous. Aion is a period of time – it’s duration is not exactly known. But the destruction of the wicked is qualified as being a “destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power.”

Understanding that “aion” does not mean eternal but a period of time is crucial here (as it is elsewhere). It think Paul is saying here that the wicked will experience a period of separation from the Lord between the time of his coming in victory and the time of their judgment. We aren’t told how long this period will last, but as with other time periods that the wicked are separated we might assume it is for their pruning and for their chastisement (Matt 25:46).

You, on the other hand, seem to fall for most of the truly new schemes under the sun (particularly out of a euthenized version of “love” that begins with an anthromorphism of a god that says “a good and loving God would never …” and then works backward to make the text fit the presupposition).

That’s just false, Chris. You know fully well that UR has been a report within the Church from the beginning. A minority report since Augustine, but a report all the same. If you’d like I can give numerous names to support that fact.

As for the rest of your comment, that’s just silly. It is true though that we know God best as revealed to us in Jesus Christ. I think you believe that too. While I admit that there are some problematic passages of scripture when it comes to fully accepting UR, I believe it best captures the whole tenor of Scripture.

When it comes down to it there are 2 characters of God on display here:

One is a God who holds an eternal grudge and seems content to have an eternity with a hell present, full of people God could not or would not save. He’s a God who sends to an eternal torment those who have offended him, refusing to forgive or rehabilitate.

Two is a God who is slow to anger and rich in mercy. A God who is just, will punish the wicked but desires that none should perish. He is the God who cannot stand to allow even one sheep go missing. He’s the God who even prayed forgiveness for those who killed him. He’s the God whose presence is like an all consuming fire (purging) and who IS Love. He delights in his creation and has a plan to redeem and restore ALL of it, and will not rest till this is done.

I think God #2 is the God Scripture puts forth most of the time. I think there is an element that desires and longs for God #1 to be their God, just like there was a voice in the OT claiming a king is a good idea. I think God #1 resembles us more than anything else.

That’s a real powerful born again experience when you don’t even know you are saved. Real life transforming.

That’s a real powerful born again experience when you don’t even know you are saved. Real life transforming

Rick,
God did not do all God did through Jesus Christ just so that you can get some warm fuzzy about how fortunate you are that you are one of the lucky few to hear and believe and therefore avoid an eternity in hell.

God did what God did because he has a plan far bigger than just you and your feelings.

However, once you get over that and you realize just how big that plan is, and that you of all people can be a co-laborer with God in that plan, it is quite transforming and is quite emotional.

God did what God did because he has a plan far bigger than just you and your feelings.

What I find inconsistent here Chad is that you moan and gripe at real or even perceived jabs (ie: #324), yet you dish out condescension, sarcasm, mockery, swear words and the like as it suits you.

Now I have no problems with a debate that gets heated and sarcasm and such are used. But if you’re a tender-foot (which you seem to be) when you’re in the cross-hairs, but a Rambo when you feel to retaliate, that’s not good.

Treat others as you would have them to treat you. I remember reading that somewhere.

What I find inconsistent here Chad is that you moan and gripe at real or even perceived jabs (ie: #324)

how am I “moaning and griping” Paul? Did I not ask Chris to further explain himself? I would like to know what he means by that. you call that moaning?

Read again Chad. Sarcasm is not what I’m against. And actually Rick’s quip doesn’t seem so sarcastic in light of your teaching. It’s actually bang on: you neuter a born again experience.

I am saying you get upset say, with me and some sarcastic points I made to prove out the fallacy of your argument, but proceed to go beyond that in your interaction with others. Be consistent or get tougher skin.

Actually Chris L and I usually get into scrapes here and there, but his response to you was perfect and measured. I’m surprised you need further explanation of anything.

But in the Hebrew, the “everlasting” is past-tense, applying from the beginning up until the present when they collapsed. Additionally, you have a poetic literary form, which also has rules of tense & paralellism, as well.

I’m not sure you understand what I am saying. I’m not talking about the Hebrew but the LXX. In Greek they saw fit to render the Hebrew as aionios in both cases.

Same for Jonah when he is describing his time in the belly in 2:6 – the Greek aionios is used. Is that eternal? Of course not – it was 3 days.

In the case of Matt 25, there is no reason…

There are all sorts of reasons, and minds much smarter than I agree. Calling it eisegesis does not make it so, Chris. I’m beginning to wonder if you know the meaning of the word. Aionios is conditioned to the word it modifies. In both cases a different word is modified – one is zoe and another is kolasis. You are welcome to keep them the same. I’m not opposed to that. But to do so would mean it is a “a time pertaining to corrective punishment” and a “time pertaining to life” or better, yet (since this is a common idiom), “life of the ages.” It may or may not mean eternal. Aionios is only rightfully rendered as eternal when it is modifying something about God.

You’ve not addressed kolasis or the origins of that word. Even the Greek lexicon offers “correction” as one of the first possible translations. Barclay notes that it is always a word used in greek secular literature to denote “remedial punishment.”

Now, you are welcome to disagree with these conclusions and offer your own translations. But stop calling the argument eisegesis. You gut any real meaning of that word and only come off sounding like someone who doesn’t have anything intelligent to counter with. I can appreciate your argument as one that has merit and has some historical veracity. You could at least be respectful of mine.

When used in the past time, it is definite, and in the future and in the indefinite tense it is infinite.

HUH? Where are you pulling this out of? “indefinite tense”?

Aionios is not defined by its tense, Chris. I don’t know where you would get that idea. It is an adjective and it is is dependent upon the noun it is modifying to get its meaning. It simply and only means “an age.” IT DOES NOT MEAN ETERNAL

Fine. Call my argument eisegesis if it makes you feel better about yourself.

I also notice you have not touched the word kolasis.

convenient.

No, it is defined by the tense used in the sentence that it is contained in. Yes, it refers to age, and in this case, the same “age” as in “life age-during”. So, I’m willing to go with the punishment lasting as long as the age of the life in this particular passage as the valid translation.

This is still wrong. If both kolasis and zoe were meant to have the same age applied to each than there is a very easy way to say it: you say both and end with the plural of age: aionioi

Matthew is deliberate. He places one age next to kolasis and one age next to life. Aionios is an adjective that modifies its noun. Two nouns. Same adjective for each. One noun means a corrective punishment. One noun is life.

That is all we can say on that passage. They need not be the same duration – there is nothing literarily that would suggest this. Unless, of course, your trying to squeeze your theology into the text

What I meant to add above is adjectives and nouns don’t have tenses, Chris. Verbs have tense. And tense has nothing to do with determining what an adjective that modifies a noun means.

I’m trying to figure out if your just making this stuff up as a rabbit trail or if you are using some screwy online source for your information.

Quack.

lol. I love the sound of a person whose argument is reduced to this.

regarding kolasis

But not so much in contemporary literature to the gospels

The only way to get this is to dig back to Plato or to borrow from Philo, while ignoring Josephus, Maccabees and other contemporary literature

You mean kinda like ignoring 2 Mac. 6:14?…

For not as with other nations, whom the Lord patiently forbeareth to punish, till they be come to the fulness of their sins, so dealeth he with us, 15 Lest that, being come to the height of sin, afterwards he should take vengeance of us. 16 And therefore he never withdraweth his mercy from us: and though he punish with adversity, yet doth he never forsake his people.

Kolasis, once more, shown to be a punishment used to bring about a desired result. Not just for the sake of punishment itself.

But not so much in contemporary literature to the gospels.

I’d be happy to take a look at all this contemporary literature you reference. Perhaps there is some morphing of the word that goes on over time. I know William Barclay stated that the bulk of the secular literature of the day regarded kolasis as “remedial punishment.”

Just a note on why the reference of future aionioi (or the use of the adjective Aionios applied to something in the future) in Scripture is considered to be eternal -

This is just more of same nonsense, Chris. Where are you getting this information? Aionios is just an adjective. It’s meaning does not change based on the tense of the sentence (sentences don’t have tense anyways – verbs do). The length of time is dependent on the noun it modifies. In certain cases, where it is modifying God or something of Christ, a concept of eternal may be inferred. But it doesn’t hold up when modifying a noun like kolasis – or any number of other things.

The UR view is utter (and dangerous) crap

lol. Again, the sound of someone without an argument.

quack.

Matthew is deliberate. He places one age next to kolasis and one age next to life. Aionios is an adjective that modifies its noun. Two nouns. Same adjective for each. One noun means a corrective punishment. One noun is life.

in 34o you “quack” at this for no good reason. Everything I stated there is a fact about the actual TEXT. Which part do you disagree with? Are you disagreeing that the word aionios appears twice? Do you disagree that there are two nouns, one for life and one for punishment? Are you disagreeing with the rules of grammar which state the adjective modifies the noun it is attached to?

The UR view is utter (and dangerous) crap

hehe. spoken like a red-blooded Republican who when in a corner will resort to fear mongering.

This is just a baseless, unsubstantiated claim with no grounding in reality. Like the rest of your quacking.

I am amazed: a complete doctrine built upon a single Greek word that:

1. Jesus NEVER spoke Himself
2. was used in a parable
3. was used only once elsewhere in the entire Bible (sorry, the references to it being used in the OT are inaccurate as it was in Hebrew originally)

You then proceed to give grammar lessons for goodness sake!

Chad, your doctrine is false doctrine. These aren’t just matters of differences of opinion but the teachings of someone who has been duped and now is proceeding to dupe others (thinking he’s helping).

There is a pattern here, if you will acknowledge it. In the couple weeks you have been back you have pushed false teachings consistently.

I would suggest that you put down the ‘new age’ historian / theologian books your reading and read the Bible. Stop looking for things that aren’t there.

quack.

The one helpful thing in this argument is that we have covered the entire spectrum: Hebrew, Greek, English and now Duck.

BUT, before you go further, let me head off the next argument at the pass, so to speak, and clarify. If you look at the word “Quack” carefully and discern its origins, it will quickly become apparent that this phrase (’Quack’ didn’t originate with the duck, but rather the Greylag Goose in the 4th century B.C. Listening to ducks closely will reveal not the ‘quack’ we have attributed to them, but a more guttural sound that is harder to imitate. Do your research guys.

I am amazed: a complete doctrine built upon a single Greek word that:

Not at all. You know better. We just happen to be discussing this one verse at the moment.

1. Jesus NEVER spoke Himself

whooaaa. Careful. You sound like Bart Ehrman or the other Jesus Seminar quacks. Are you suggesting you can know what Jesus said and did not say? Are you disbelieving the record Matthew hands us as well as all the gospel writers?

2. was used in a parable

so parables aren’t true????

(you are sounding very liberal, Paul)

3. was used only once elsewhere in the entire Bible (sorry, the references to it being used in the OT are inaccurate as it was in Hebrew originally)

Actually, how the Greeks thought best to translate the Hebrew is very instructive.

Chad – you are a closet Calvinist, since they dissect every word as if Biblical truths hinge on one word.

Chad – you are a closet Calvinist, since they dissect every word as if Biblical truths hinge on one word.

Not at all, since I don’t see it hinging on this “one word.” However, a more truthful understanding of a text like this is certainly helpful in helping to see how other passages about judgment should be weighed.

I find it weird that people who love the Bible would rather stick their heads in the sand than be faithful to what is really might be saying to us. Even if it dares to upset our assumptions and cherished doctrines (idols)

“I find it weird that people who love the Bible would rather stick their heads in the sand than be faithful to what is really might be saying to us. Even if it dares to upset our assumptions and cherished doctrines (idols)”

Well, now that you put it that way, I see your point.

After 358 comments the argument on the “other side” has dissolved to the following summation:

Chris L: Quack.

Paul C: Since Jesus didn’t speak Greek we can’t trust anything he supposedly said (by the way, Paul, Bart Ehrman teaches just up the road at UNC. If you’d like I can ask him if he is in need of a research assistant).

Rick F: It is better to avoid suspicion of being a Calvinist than to mine the treasures of the gospels, which are trumped by the epistles, anyways.

don’t build your doctrine on a SINGLE WORD

this is laughable. To be completely honest, I only discovered this about Matt. 25:46 this week in my studying and reading. I found it only gave further credence to what I have come to believe over the last couple years.

But Paul, you really do need to be cautioned about trying to use an argument that suggests what you are saying.

“I am the way the truth and the life…”
“Love your enemies…”
“Love God and neighbor…”
“There was a Samaritan robbed and left for dead on the side of the road…”

None of this really means anything since Jesus didn’t speak Greek.

You see the danger in your argument?

The problem you arrive at with 2 Mac. 6:14 is that it is applied to Israel, not those apart from Israel. Context, context. Let’s examine the entire passage from 2 Mac 6:

You are smarter than this, Chris. The meaning of “kolasis” does not change just because it is used for Israel here. The WHOLE point is that it proves the word has a corrective intent behind it. So what if it is being used of Israel here? Is not Israel a foretaste of what God is doing for ALL the nations?

So the point still stand: kolasis is a word that is used for corrective punishment in the literature of the day.

Oh, and (haha!) who is Matthew’s gospel most directed to?? Jews! Thank you, really, for making this point. It drives it home all the more.

(think: what would a Jew who hears the word “kolasis” think? Maybe they would think of their call to repent and be chastised like the Israel in Macc. 6?)

For it to be so, you’d have to ascribe to works-based salvation (or at least works-based-salvation-after-death).

Scripture is pretty clear we will be judged by our works. But that is not what procures our salvation – Jesus does.

The only point to pointing out the two other Matthean texts is to illustrate how God’s judgment is righteous and has a redemptive purpose.

But for you to reduce the Sermon on the Mount to simply orthropraxy is again to miss the point. Scripture is first and primarily about God. It is about us only secondarily and even then derivatively. The Sermon is about God’s kingdom and what it looks like. Don’t reduce Jesus to just some moral guide giving people handy ways to live.

But again, if the underlying speech was Hebrew (or Aramaic), then we must use those conventions in interpreting the Greek, rather than go back to Plato for textual criticism.

I’ll ask Ehrman if he has two spots available.

The danger of what Chris and Paul are advocating in this “hermeneutic” they are putting forth is the same danger the Jesus Seminar succumbed to. It was an attempt to get behind the text, to find out what Jesus REALLY meant underneath the Greek translators (who obviously couldn’t be trusted to accurately convey Jesus’ teachings or story).

Eventually you are left with some mysterious gospel that is yet to be discovered that might contain a few terse sayings of the original Jesus and we are meant to trust this “seminar” as to what those saying really are. The rest is just commentary added on by sympathetic and distraught disciples.

The Church has affirmed from the beginning that this is the faithful story of our Lord. It doesn’t matter what language Jesus spoke. We trust that the Holy Spirit has inspired and kept this grand story for us.

Gee, I’m sounding like a flippin fundy

They (along with Brad Young and others) make a very good case that Hebrew was the common language for the religious Jews (not Aramaic), but (also as you note) that Greek was probably only used in limited occasions (to Pilate, in the Decapolis, etc.) and not with Jewish audiences.

It’s certainly possible he spoke Hebrew, but I still lean toward Aramaic – but my main point is that Greek was limited and definitely not spoken in the parables to His disciples. Not that it matters over much, but there are several points Jesus’ words are given in Aramaic, for example:

“Talitha cum” (Mark 5:41, “Little girl, get up!”);
“Abba” (Mark 14:36. “Father”);
“Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?” (Mark 15:34, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).

In these cases the actual Aramaic words of Jesus were remembered and passed on even by Greek-speaking Christians. Of course, when debating the law, He probably spoke Hebrew. Again – the point is that Greek was used sparingly.

CONCLUSION: don’t build your entire frame of doctrine on a single scripture, made all the more dubious because it flies in the face of 100 others and when the word itself was never even used.

#361: LoL – I was getting tired of Chad going to Plato (???) and other sources to corroborate his argument… which actually ended up decimating it – but we’ll leave that for another time.

Perhaps he chose it because he liked the letter “k”. We can hypothesize all sorts of crap, but I’ll take the historical majority report on this one, passed down since the first century…

Interesting that you elevate tradition over scripture, here.

The writers of the NT were Helenized. It’s why they wrote in Greek rather than Hebrew, even though they were Jews

So for the FIFTH time Chad – why not address comment #309?

The Church has affirmed from the beginning that this is the faithful story of our Lord.

So why are you doing your utmost to distort it?

You are preaching false doctrine: you would have been warned about by Paul, James, Jude, John and Peter.

Again, since you’ve been back you’ve warped and misrepresented scripture terribly (ie: Universalism, God has never acted violently, the SoS was the most preached from book in NT times, on and on it goes).

Next thing you know you’ll be saying you have the Ark of the Covenant in your basement.

I think I’ll trust the translators on this one…

You argument is nonsensical, Chris.

You are going to “trust the translators” while at the same time insisting we need to know the underlying expressions in their original languages?

Ok, if you want to trust the translations why not these modern literal ones:

Young’s Literal Translation: “Punishment age-during”
Rotherham Translation: “age-abiding correction”
Weymouth Translation: “punishment of the ages”
Concordant Literal Translation: “chastening eonian.”

Translation of Chris L’s argument: I’ll trust the translation that best suits my theology, nevermind the facts surrounding the original Greek.

As for the early church I’d be happy to post several comments by some of the following

If you can’t even draw accurate conclusions from the scriptures… If you attribute things to NT Wright that are misrepresented… How are we to believe that your ‘cut-and-paste’ job from these men will:

1. be accurate
2. reflect scripture anyways

Why not use scripture rather than your bastardized quotes? After all, who cares what Origen said if it doesn’t mesh with the truth?

Any luck on comment #309 (seeing as you’re insisting people address your comments, might you pass along the same courtesy)?

Why not use scripture rather than your bastardized quotes?

I’ve tried that. But your rebuttal is “yeah, but Jesus didn’t really say that.”

Chris brought up the report of the church through history. I’m merely pointing out that this report is not one-sided.

Take into account that kolasis is for correction (as you admit it can mean) and it all fits.

still waiting on your response to 343 and 344.

But for now I am off to lead others astray with my false and “dangerous” teaching. Cause of course, everyone knows that to be a real Christian and to be saved one must confess a literal and eternal hell.

Other people saying the same thing I have been saying:

The entire concept of eternal or everlasting punishment hinges primarily on a single verse of Scripture–Matthew 25:46. This is the only place in the entire Bible where we find these two words together AND only in some Bibles. There are over a dozen English translations which do NOT contain the concept of “eternal punishment” on ANY of their pages, NOR the pagan concept of Hell.

The Greek form for “everlasting punishment” in Matthew 25:46 is “kolasin aionion.” Kolasin is a noun in the accusative form, singular voice, feminine gender and means “punishment, chastening, correction, to cut-off as in pruning a tree to bare more fruit.” “Aionion” is the adjective form of “aion,” in the singular form and means “pertaining to an eon or age, an indeterminate period of time.” (Note: the two words in many, not all translations become reversed changing the Greek into English.)

“Aionion,” as shown above, is the singular form of the adjective of the Greek noun “aion.” Many people unfamiliar with the Greek do not realize that the endings of the same word change (inflection) to indicate its mood, case, gender, etc. Therefore, “aionion” may appear with different endings. “Aionion, aioniou, aionios,” for example, are all different inflections of the adjective form of the noun “aion.”

The noun “aion” in Greek literature has always meant “an indeterminate period of time. It could be as short as the time Jonah spent in the belly of a fish (three days or nights), the length of a man’s life, or as long as a very long age.

The Bible speaks of at least 5 “aions” and perhaps many more. If there were “aions” in the past. This must mean that each one of them have ended for they are now past! The New Testament writers spoke of “the present wicked aion” which ended during that very generation. Obviously, it was followed by another “aion”– the “aion” in which we presently live. If there are “aions” to come, it must mean that this one we live in will also end.

There is a verse which says “the consummation of the aions” showing that each “aion” ends. So how can they be eternal?

There is “the coming eon” (Matt.10:30, Luke 18:30
There is “the present wicked eon” (Gal.1:4)
There is “the oncoming eons (future)(Eph.2:7)
There is “the conclusion of the eon (present) (Mt.13:39,40)
There is “the secret concealed from the eons (past) (Eph.3:9)

Plainly, the Greek word “aion” transliterated “eon” cannot mean “eternal.” A study into the Greek of the Biblical period and before will bear this out.

“Aionion” is the adjective of the noun “aion.”

Since grammar rules mandate an adjective CANNOT take on a greater force than its noun form, it is evident that “aionion” in any of its adjective forms (ios, ou, on) CANNOT possible mean “everlasting” or anything remotely indicating eternity or unending time.

For example, “hourly” cannot mean “pertaining to days, weeks, months, or years. The word MUST mean “pertaining to an hour.” Therefore, “aionion,” the adjective form of the noun “aion” which clearly means a period of indeterminate TIME, CANNOT mean, “forever and ever, eternal, everlasting, eternity, etc) or other words which connote timelessness or unending ages.

Therefore, those many Bibles which do NOT contain the teaching of everlasting punishment or Hell are true to the original languages of Greek and Hebrew and those which teach everlasting punishment or Hell are false. Scholars are just as easily subjected to the “traditions of the elders” as the rest of us. It’s time to let the original Greek and Hebrew languages of the Bible break down the traditions of men. For a list of the many English translations of the Bible that do NOT contain these pagan concepts and for an article explaining why the punishment in Matthew 25:46 does NOT have to be the same length as the life spoken of in that verse, write to us (Tentmaker–118 Walnut–Hermann, MO 65041) and ask for:

Matthew 25:46 Commentary

Full translation: “And these shall go away into the Punishment of the Ages, but the righteous into the Life of the Ages.” I’ll go with that. Punishment? check. Same duration? check.

As the above more than generously points out, none of this means “eternal.”

the duration of the “age” is tied to the subject. You can keep calling it “pathetic” or “wacko” or “quacky” all you like, but you cannot just dismiss this fact.

BTW, we might all do well to take this overall exchange as a warning against ecumenism. When people preach different gospels, and therefore different Jesuses, it just makes for utter confusion, but good PR and photo ops.

I would disagree – ecumenism

I have no problem discussing and debating. I don’t consider that ecumenism. I am referring to working together – like a witnessing campaign. With distorted / conflicting gospel messages, I just don’t see how that’s possible. Truth must be held closely, especially in the day we’re living in; not simply discarded for fellowship.

In this particular case, I would not see so much that Chad is condemned,

Correct. None of us are in a position to draw a final conclusion. But it is troubling that someone rejects the plainness of scripture to embrace almost new-age-type Christianity. The author of these false doctrines he is promoting is not the Lord.

Correct. None of us are in a position to draw a final conclusion. But it is troubling that someone rejects the plainness of scripture to embrace almost new-age-type Christianity. The author of these false doctrines he is promoting is not the Lord.

Oh pleeeease, Paul. YOU are the one who won’t accept the “plain meaning” of Scripture but insists that Jesus never said this. You guys are the ones hiding behind the wrong way to translate the original text.

The author of these false doctrines he is promoting is not the Lord.

Paul, if you can refrain from making ridiculous accusations/comments like this one I will answer your questions after we finish discussing this. I told you I would answer you later and I intend to. Trying to stay focused on one thing at at time to prevent more rabbit trails.

Chad I made that comment with all seriousness. God is not the author of confusion and Jesus is not the author of universalism. Would you like me to pretend that He is?

Re 396, it appears we were typing at the same time.

But actually, if you had addressed #309, we might have avoided getting to 400 comments.

Gee, Paul, thanks for pointing this out. I only wish you had done it sooner so as to avoid all this discussion about something that can’t possibly be true.

Chad, I am not mocking your here but making a statement in all earnest. I mean, this statement is utterly ridiculous to the point of absurdity:

Will you at least admit that a viable translation of Matt. 25:46 can read:

Raised the wicked to a corrective-punishment age and the righteous to a life of the age.

I know you are desperate to prove your point and you are pulling out all the stops, but I suggest you pause at the moment, stop defending, personally reflect and consider honestly the validity of your argument.

Paul,

It’s a perfectly cogent argument that is true to the text. You have not really added anything to the discussion other than side commentary. If you want to ignore the meaning of kolasis and what “an age” means, fine. At least have the guts to admit you are just dismissing the text in favor of your own interpretation of kolasis aionion.

OK Chad – you’re correct. I don’t know what came over me – now I see the light. It’s as clear as day now.

I should refer you to the prophecy in Comment #73 – amazing.

to continue the thought of #400…

In Matt. 25:46 I believe Jesus is saying that when judgment comes the wicked will go away to an age of correction/punishment. The “essence” of this age will be one of judgment and purging, much like God had done to and for Israel again and again. There is no way to know how long this age will be. It is dependent upon the noun (kolasis) which means it depends on the correction/punishment being given.

Likewise, the righteous will go on to a “life of the ages.” This is not to mean “eternal” but is a life in God. It is not to say that the wicked are no in God, for God is “all in all.” There is no being apart from him. But these righteous will go on to their inheritance as is talked about elsewhere in Scripture (Eph. 2 for example) while the wicked will endure an age of something else.

It’s not a difficult argument to grasp. If you can disabuse yourself of the notion that your modern English translation is always right and understand that “eternal life” is not exactly correct, this makes perfect sense. It fits the Greek perfectly.

Rather than shouting “NO IT DOESN’T” until you are blue in the face (as if saying it enough makes it true), then prove that this is not the right way to read the Greek or that “life of the ages” is not the proper way to think about zoe aionion.

All right ENOUGH! Chad believes in Christian Universalism, Chris L, and Paul don’t. This thread has gone on long enough. We don’t look all that much like Christ with our snippets and pot shots at each other.
MOVE ON!!!

In the past week, I’ve learned via EF that (gasp) Rick Warren spoke in front of a group of Muslims to promote civility between Muslims, Christians and Jews without teling the Muslims they were headed to hell (the typical knock on Warren being more about what he didn’t say than what he did say) from some woman who seems to think Warren owes her some accountability.

Chris, I’m having a hard time reconciling what you defend in Warren and yet warn others of about me.

The way you are arguing against me and the things you are warning are “dangerous” about UR would lead one to believe that you would be the first one sounding the alarm on Warren for not talking and teaching about the reality of hell. Why aren’t you?

Your theology makes little sense to me. You talk a big game about hell but you really don’t care to use it in your evangelism. Hell, if I believed there were literally going to be millions of people being punished and tormented for all ETERNITY and that only believing in Jesus could save them from that terrible destruction I would make that MY FIRST POINT AND MAYBE ONLY POINT. I’d shout it from the rooftops. I’d be on the street corner like PB telling everyone they are going to hell unless they repent.

So I guess my question to you is: Why aren’t you doing that? Why do you give Warren a free pass for not preaching about hell, fire and brimstone? Shouldn’t we all be doing that if this is the fate that awaits the bulk of humanity unless they turn in this lifetime?

So then, is there a conspiracy against UR? Like, it’s the truth, however, 99% of Christian have suppressed it for 2000 years and continue to suppress it? Or God was vague enough that most Christians have never and will never figure it out, even though it’s…well…pretty darn important.

I know I know, 99% of the world believed it was flat at one point, didn’t make them right.

Well, at least if you’re right Chad, we won’t burn for disagreeing with you. It’s a better deal than most Christians would give you for believing in UR.

Joe

99% of Christian have suppressed it for 2000 years

Chad – please don’t bring in the Illuminati, the Templars or Jesuits.

o conspiracy. We should be a tad suspicious of grand theories that reorient the entire plan of God when they are conjured up late at night in someone’s basement – about 1 week ago (according to Chad’s unraveling of the Matt 25:46 mystery). Until then it was hidden and we literally the first people on the planet to interact around this new revelation.

Though Jesus did not speak Greek at all (properly addressed in #309 in terms of Greek vs Hebrew), this word kolasis is only used TWICE in the entire Bible and the entire weight of scripture goes against the teaching Chad is purporting… we have a new biblical doctrine.

UR ignores the import and impact of the eternal.

No, that isn’t true. UR puts the eternal in God’s hands and God’s alone, where it belongs. UR insists that Jesus is Lord and that God has a plan for ALL of creation, not just a few.
There are eternal rewards but there are also ages. There is an age of punishment and an age of life. The age of punishment is not “eternal.” There is no reason from the Greek to suppose it is. (but of course, you are ignoring all the comments which deal directly to that point).

But that is not its usage in John or in Matthew. Punishment also brings about justice for creation. In the case of the final judgment, the punishment received IS corrective – to God’s creation (not those to whom it is applied). As John notes, perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment (kolasis). This makes no sense if kolasis is simply chastisement.

I have already shown that it does make sense in another comment (as well as on my blog). In any event, it’s odd that you would argue where it suits you that kolasis can have a different meaning depending on context and yet insist that it must have the same meaning in both Matthew and 1 John.

With no scriptural support to justify such an “age” after the “age to come”- when in fact, we do have Scriptural support that the “age to come” is the final age.

Obvioulsy you didn’t read 386. Here is the pertinent part:

As to man’s reward and punishment, man is both rewarded and punished according to the life lived IN THE AGES. If he has done well (while living in the realm of time), he will receive the life of God, which manifests itself in the ages. If he has done badly (while living in the realm of time), he will receive punishment which will manifest itself in the ages. And when the time of the end shall come and God has become “all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28), all rewards and punishments, which are only applicable during the ages, will cease.

At some point, perhaps the reason that 99.9% of Christendom doesn’t line up to buy what you’re trying to sell isn’t because 999 of 1000 people are stupid…

Well, truth does not lie in a majority.

I disagree with the bulk of American christianity that believes there is a literal rapture or that the Left Behind books are gospel. Or those that think what is good for America is good for God. Or that believe that what it means to be a Christian is that when you die you go to heaven instead of hell.

So what?