"Hell doesn't last forever"..God is merciful

[StanJ]

• There are more than one meaning for words.
• The context, either written or unwritten, reveals which of those meanings are correct.

Those are my main two points.

Dictionaries generally ignore connotations though some will just insert them as another meaning to a word , Ignorant is an example since it is defined as "lacking knowledge or information" but is taken as an insult due to negative connotations.

I am convinced some meanings are derived from the loose application of others.

In some way you are correct but your choice of words to express that correctness in not.

1. English or any language is not that simplistic as far as any word is concerned and the meaning is based on the context which is shown. The same holds true with whether or not the word is a verb or noun and what connotation fits the context. A simple rule of grammar.
2. Context is never hidden.

Again you're basically confirming what I already told you and also avoiding my very pointed questions.
God's word is inspired and as such that means it was perfect when it was written down so there is no vagueness or innuendo or uncertainty about it, only by the people who deliberately or unknowingly misinterpret it. Proper biblical hermeneutics avoids those issues.

 

[OzSpen]

It is of course possible that your human reasoning is less frail than mine and even less frail than Moltmann’s and von Balthasar’s. But if you actually want to convince me of your superior human reasoning, you may want to come up with some arguments countering the ones I’ve given.
As for the “emotional essence – with limited insight ”: Why is it that you seem to look down on Christian compassion that does not allow us to wish hell on anybody, not even on our worst enemies? I see this as a central fruit of living faith!
IMHO, if we read Scripture with Christ at its center we’ll clearly see that God is the “father of compassions” (2 Cor. 1:3) and that we ourselves are to put on compassion and love (Col. 3:12-17). In fact Scripture clearly gives love supreme value over all else:
“If I speak in the languages of humans and angels but have no love, I have become a reverberating gong or a clashing cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can understand all secrets and every form of knowledge, and if I have absolute faith so as to move mountains but have no love, I am nothing. 3 Even if I give away everything that I have and sacrifice myself,[a] but have no love, I gain nothing. (…) Love never fails. Now if there are prophecies, they will be done away with. If there are languages, they will cease. If there is knowledge, it will be done away with. 9 For what we know is incomplete and what we prophesy is incomplete. 10 But when what is complete[c] comes, then what is incomplete will be done away with. (…) Right now three things remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love.” (1 Cor. 13:1-3 + 8-10 + 13)

“Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” (1 John 4:8)
How does love operate?
“She bears up under everything;
believes the best in all;
there is no limit to her hope,
and never will she fall.”
(1 Cor. 13:7)

Sadly there still seem to be very many Christians around who can muster so little love that not only have they abandoned hope for the salvation of all their fellowmen, but actually want others to roast in hell. They would not be glad but disappointed if hell was empty. Mind: If our own salvation only seems worthwhile to us as long as others aren’t saved and suffer, we are probably still a long way away from being saved ourselves. But I trust Christ will open all our hearts one day and make us complete.
Be blessed,
junobet

junobet,

I'm in good company with eminent early church father, St Augustine. In City of God, he wrote:

“But eternal punishment seems hard and unjust to human perceptions, because in the weakness of our mortal condition there is wanting that highest and purest wisdom by which it can be perceived how great a wickedness was committed in that first transgression.” (City of God, Book 21, chapter 12)

St Augustine continues concerning eternal life and eternal punishment and one of the passages we are discussing, Matt 25:46 (ESV):

They who desire to be rid of eternal punishment ought to abstain from arguing against God, and rather, while yet there is opportunity, obey the divine commands. Then what a fond fancy is it to suppose that eternal punishment means long continued punishment, while eternal life means life without end, since Christ in the very same passage spoke of both in similar terms in one and the same sentence, These shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal! Matthew 25:46 If both destinies are "eternal", then we must either understand both as long-continued but at last terminating, or both as endless. For they are correlative—on the one hand, punishment eternal, on the other hand, life eternal. And to say in one and the same sense, life eternal shall be endless, punishment eternal shall come to an end, is the height of absurdity. Wherefore, as the eternal life of the saints shall be endless, so too the eternal punishment of those who are doomed to it shall have no end (City of God, Book 21, Chapter 23).

Human perceptions are hard to take in light of the reality proclaimed by Jesus himself in Matt 25:46 (NLT), 'And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life'.

Systematic theologian and apologist, Dr Norman Geisler, further confirms this position:

If destruction did mean "annihilation" when used of the unbeliever's post-death state, it would not be "everlasting" destruction, for annihilation is instantaneous; annihilation does not stretch over a long period of time, let alone forever, but only takes an instant and then is over. If someone undergoes everlasting everlasting destruction, then they must have an everlasting existence. (Analogously, just as the cars in a junkyard have been destroyed but are not annihilated - they are beyond repair or irredeemable - so the people in hell are not extinguished but are simply irredeemable and irreparable.) [Geisler 2005:396, emphasis in original]

I'm sticking with Jesus' firm word on Matt 25:46 (ESV) - with sound support from St Augustine of Hippo and Norman Geisler - that eternal punishment for unbelievers is as long as eternal life for the believers. Trying to interpret from a contemporary Western perspective or using an emotional response doesn't stack up with the biblical evidence.

Oz

Works consulted

Geisler, N 2005. Systematic theology: Church, last things, vol 4. Minneapolis, Minnesota: BethanyHouse.

 

[junobet]

junobet,

I'm in good company with eminent early church father, St Augustine. In City of God, he wrote:


St Augustine continues concerning eternal life and eternal punishment and one of the passages we are discussing, Matt 25:46 (ESV):




Human perceptions are hard to take in light of the reality proclaimed by Jesus himself in Matt 25:46 (NLT), 'And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life'.

Systematic theologian and apologist, Dr Norman Geisler, further confirms this position:

I'm sticking with Jesus' firm word on Matt 25:46 (ESV) - with sound support from St Augustine of Hippo and Norman Geisler - that eternal punishment for unbelievers is as long as eternal life for the believers. Trying to interpret from a contemporary Western perspective or using an emotional response doesn't stack up with the biblical evidence.

Oz

Works consulted

Geisler, N 2005. Systematic theology: Church, last things, vol 4. Minneapolis, Minnesota: BethanyHouse.

Yes Oz, we very much owe the doctrine of hell to Augustine. But with all due respect to this great theologian, we must not forget that his Greek was notoriously bad and that other (greek-speaking) churchfathers such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa … did not agree with him in this point but believed in apokatastasis/universal restoration instead and viewed punishment for the damned as temporally limited and curative. Church historians hold this to have been the predominant view in early Christianity up until the 5th/6th century. In fact Augustine himself notes: “There are very many who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments." (Enchiria, ad Laurent. c. 29) And St. Basil the Great (c. 329-379) in his De Asceticis wrote: "The mass of men (Christians) say that there is to be an end of punishment to those who are punished."
So modern theologians, such as Barth, Rahner, von Balthasar or Moltmann … , are neither ‘unorthodox’ nor ‘unbiblical’ when they express hope for universal salvation. What I ask myself is why you and many other evangelicals seem to find this hope so scandalous.
Why is it that you so happily ignore that Matt 25:31-45 clearly has an educational intent (care for the least) and that according to the Gospel of John Jesus Himself declared "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (John 12:32)?

 

[kerwin]

1. English or any language is not that simplistic as far as any word is concerned and the meaning is based on the context which is shown. The same holds true with whether or not the word is a verb or noun and what connotation fits the context. A simple rule of grammar.
2. Context is never hidden.

Again you're basically confirming what I already told you and also avoiding my very pointed questions.
God's word is inspired and as such that means it was perfect when it was written down so there is no vagueness or innuendo or uncertainty about it, only by the people who deliberately or unknowingly misinterpret it. Proper biblical hermeneutics avoids those issues.

Do you read Scripture? It is full of "vagueness and innuendo" that is not even that already inherent in using a human language and mystery serves God's purpose. That is why Jesus hid the truth in parables and Peter instructs us some of both Paul's writings and Scripture in general are hard to understand.

That was controversy in the church over what Paul wrote even while they still wrote and spoke the original language in which his letters were written. Peter addressed in one his letters.

The Historic Principle of exegesis is about discovering the unwritten context of a source. It would not be needed if understanding Scripture was easy as you claim.

You might also want to consider than both Matthew and the writer of Hebrews use a form of "anagogical" interpretation but nowhere near some of the extremes that some now use.. I almost say it is a hybrid to "allegorical" interpretation as it resembles that except they are prophesy.

In conclusion, we need to listen to the Spirit in order to understand it correctly.

 

[OzSpen]

Yes Oz, we very much owe the doctrine of hell to Augustine. But with all due respect to this great theologian, we must not forget that his Greek was notoriously bad and that other (greek-speaking) churchfathers such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa … did not agree with him in this point but believed in apokatastasis/universal restoration instead and viewed punishment for the damned as temporally limited and curative. Church historians hold this to have been the predominant view in early Christianity up until the 5th/6th century. In fact Augustine himself notes: “There are very many who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments." (Enchiria, ad Laurent. c. 29) And St. Basil the Great (c. 329-379) in his De Asceticis wrote: "The mass of men (Christians) say that there is to be an end of punishment to those who are punished."
So modern theologians, such as Barth, Rahner, von Balthasar or Moltmann … , are neither ‘unorthodox’ nor ‘unbiblical’ when they express hope for universal salvation. What I ask myself is why you and many other evangelicals seem to find this hope so scandalous.
Why is it that you so happily ignore that Matt 25:31-45 clearly has an educational intent (care for the least) and that according to the Gospel of John Jesus Himself declared "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (John 12:32)?

If you are going to ascribe the doctrine against hell to other church fathers, at least extend to us the courtesy of providing links (with references to chapter and verse) of the quotes you give.

• Karl Barth is neo-orthodox
• Karl Rahner was a mystical theologian;
• Hans von Balthasar was an eclectic theologian whose works are difficult to categorise;
• There were influences of liberation theology in Jurgen Multmann.

Why are you introducing the issue of universalism when I haven't raised it?

Are you supporting universalism - all will be saved?

Oz

 

[StanJ]

Do you read Scripture? It is full of "vagueness and innuendo" that is not even that already inherent in using a human language and mystery serves God's purpose. That is why Jesus hid the truth in parables and Peter instructs us some of both Paul's writings and Scripture in general are hard to understand.

That was controversy in the church over what Paul wrote even while they still wrote and spoke the original language in which his letters were written. Peter addressed in one his letters.

The Historic Principle of exegesis is about discovering the unwritten context of a source. It would not be needed if understanding Scripture was easy as you claim.

You might also want to consider than both Matthew and the writer of Hebrews use a form of "anagogical" interpretation but nowhere near some of the extremes that some now use.. I almost say it is a hybrid to "allegorical" interpretation as it resembles that except they are prophesy.

In conclusion, we need to listen to the Spirit in order to understand it correctly.

There's no innuendo in scripture and it's only fair to those who need it with their own doctrinally colored glasses. Proper hermeneutical exegesis prevents people from misinterpreting scripture. If they're not using it then they can't possibly interpret scripture properly especially if they have not received the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Feel free to show us where any Scripture does not reveal its context? I think you're simply reading stuff online and then paraphrasing it for us and not really understanding what you're reading or even what you're saying.

 

[kerwin]

There's no innuendo in scripture and it's only fair to those who need it with their own doctrinally colored glasses. Proper hermeneutical exegesis prevents people from misinterpreting scripture. If they're not using it then they can't possibly interpret scripture properly especially if they have not received the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Feel free to show us where any Scripture does not reveal its context? I think you're simply reading stuff online and then paraphrasing it for us and not really understanding what you're reading or even what you're saying.

The third heaven is mentioned in 2 Corinthians and yet there is no written context to tell us what teaching that came from.

The book of Enoch mentions seven heavens of which the third one is indeed a paradise.

In short the man that Paul testified of witnessed in accordance with a know first century doctrine. The seven heavens teach ancient and traced back to Mesopotamian; out of which Abram was called.

That is one reason why there is a historical principle is exegeses.

 

[junobet]

Oz, I find your answers to my posts increasingly erratic. Is it possible that you are just trying to avoid my questions because you’ve never ever given any thought to how your reading of Matthew 25:46 squares with verses such as John 12:32? How can Jesus draw all people to Himself when there are still some that are eternally damned to hell?

If you are going to ascribe the doctrine against hell to other church fathers, at least extend to us the courtesy of providing links (with references to chapter and verse) of the quotes you give.

For an overview you on the subject you may want to check out Ilaria Ramelli: The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis - A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGE3QNt0T7w

• Karl Barth is neo-orthodox
• Karl Rahner was a mystical theologian;
• Hans von Balthasar was an eclectic theologian whose works are difficult to categorise;
• There were influences of liberation theology in Jurgen Multmann.

This bit in your post is particularly confusing to me. I could not imagine why you stuck these weird labels on these eminent theologians until I started clicking the links and got the impression your intent was to somehow discredit them. Which took me by surprise, because I distinctly recall that you once enthusiastically thanked me for drawing your attention to a book review on “The God Delusion” in which Eagleton names both “Rahner on grace”and “Moltmann on hope” as Christianities “toughest case” that Dawkins is ignorant of. Remember? http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching
Funnily enough your links mostly criticize the very things in Barth, Rahner and co. that I happen to like about their theologies. In contrast I find some ‘fundamentalist evangelical’ theologians’ claims to fully know “truth” totally lacking of the humility that scripture calls for (Isaiah 55:8-9; Romans 11:33-36). Would you not agree that it is better to approach God with questions rather than answers and to respect that He is indeed a ‘mystery’ that our human theologies can get near to, but never fully grasp (1 Cor. 13:12)? As for Liberation Theology: Moltmann most certainly had an influence on it. If you dislike its "preferential option for the poor", I suggest you take another hard look at Matt. 25:31-46.
However, if what you want to say is that you only regard ‘evangelicals’ as credible theologians you may want to check out this site: http://evangelicaluniversalism.org/faith.html

Why are you introducing the issue of universalism when I haven't raised it?

The connection is obvious, isn’t it? When you insist on eternal punishment, you obviously deny the possibility of universal salvation.

Are you supporting universalism - all will be saved?

Oz

I should have thought that my personal position on this issue has transpired by now: I’m a universalist in the sense that my faith makes me hope everybody will be saved. But I don’t claim universal salvation is to be taken for granted and that everybody including myself must be saved and will most definitely be saved. Reverence for God’s sovereignty forbids such a bold claim: “I’ll be gracious to whom I’ll be gracious, and I’ll show compassion on whom I’ll show compassion.” (Exodus 33:19; comp.: Romans 9). But: Reverence for God’s sovereignty also forbids to rule out the possibility that God will have mercy on everybody. Does Scripture give us reason to hope that He’ll have mercy on everybody? Most certainly yes! That’s why we call its accounts of Jesus’s life, death and resurrection “Good News”!

 

[Born_Again]

Oz, I find your answers to my posts increasingly erratic. Is it possible that you are just trying to avoid my questions because you’ve never ever given any thought to how your reading of Matthew 25:46 squares with verses such as John 12:32? How can Jesus draw all people to Himself when there are still some that are eternally damned to hell?


For an overview you on the subject you may want to check out Ilaria Ramelli: The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis - A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGE3QNt0T7w

This bit in your post is particularly confusing to me. I could not imagine why you stuck these weird labels on these eminent theologians until I started clicking the links and got the impression your intent was to somehow discredit them. Which took me by surprise, because I distinctly recall that you once enthusiastically thanked me for drawing your attention to a book review on “The God Delusion” in which Eagleton names both “Rahner on grace”and “Moltmann on hope” as Christianities “toughest case” that Dawkins is ignorant of. Remember? http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching
Funnily enough your links mostly criticize the very things in Barth, Rahner and co. that I happen to like about their theologies. In contrast I find some ‘fundamentalist evangelical’ theologians’ claims to fully know “truth” totally lacking of the humility that scripture calls for (Isaiah 55:8-9; Romans 11:33-36). Would you not agree that it is better to approach God with questions rather than answers and to respect that He is indeed a ‘mystery’ that our human theologies can get near to, but never fully grasp (1 Cor. 13:12)? As for Liberation Theology: Moltmann most certainly had an influence on it. If you dislike its "preferential option for the poor", I suggest you take another hard look at Matt. 25:31-46.
However, if what you want to say is that you only regard ‘evangelicals’ as credible theologians you may want to check out this site: http://evangelicaluniversalism.org/faith.html

The connection is obvious, isn’t it? When you insist on eternal punishment, you obviously deny the possibility of universal salvation.

I should have thought that my personal position on this issue has transpired by now: I’m a universalist in the sense that my faith makes me hope everybody will be saved. But I don’t claim universal salvation is to be taken for granted and that everybody including myself must be saved and will most definitely be saved. Reverence for God’s sovereignty forbids such a bold claim: “I’ll be gracious to whom I’ll be gracious, and I’ll show compassion on whom I’ll show compassion.” (Exodus 33:19; comp.: Romans 9). But: Reverence for God’s sovereignty also forbids to rule out the possibility that God will have mercy on everybody. Does Scripture give us reason to hope that He’ll have mercy on everybody? Most certainly yes! That’s why we call its accounts of Jesus’s life, death and resurrection “Good News”!

If it's God's intent to save everyone, then there is no need for the consequence of damnation. The only reasonable logic is that there are those who will not be saved. Given the opportunity, yes. Taking God up on His offer? Some wont. There really isnt a whole lot of breathing room in this matter.

Romans 9:22

22What ifGod, intending to show His wrath and make Hispower known, bore with great patience the vesselsof His wrath, prepared for destruction? 23What if He did this to make the riches of His glory known to the vessels of His mercy, whom He prepared in advance for glory—…


So the possibility is there.....

 

[kerwin]

...

The connection is obvious, isn’t it? When you insist on eternal punishment, you obviously deny the possibility of universal salvation.

I should have thought that my personal position on this issue has transpired by now: I’m a universalist in the sense that my faith makes me hope everybody will be saved. But I don’t claim universal salvation is to be taken for granted and that everybody including myself must be saved and will most definitely be saved. Reverence for God’s sovereignty forbids such a bold claim: “I’ll be gracious to whom I’ll be gracious, and I’ll show compassion on whom I’ll show compassion.” (Exodus 33:19; comp.: Romans 9). But: Reverence for God’s sovereignty also forbids to rule out the possibility that God will have mercy on everybody. Does Scripture give us reason to hope that He’ll have mercy on everybody? Most certainly yes! That’s why we call its accounts of Jesus’s life, death and resurrection “Good News”!

He tells is he rules out the possibility of everyone inheriting the reign of God. Some will be destroyed after a time of torment but that does not mean we should not hope each and every individual will be saved because God hopes all will come to him and Jesus sacrificed himself for the whole world.

 

[OzSpen]

Oz, I find your answers to my posts increasingly erratic. Is it possible that you are just trying to avoid my questions because you’ve never ever given any thought to how your reading of Matthew 25:46 squares with verses such as John 12:32? How can Jesus draw all people to Himself when there are still some that are eternally damned to hell?


For an overview you on the subject you may want to check out Ilaria Ramelli: The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis - A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGE3QNt0T7w

This bit in your post is particularly confusing to me. I could not imagine why you stuck these weird labels on these eminent theologians until I started clicking the links and got the impression your intent was to somehow discredit them. Which took me by surprise, because I distinctly recall that you once enthusiastically thanked me for drawing your attention to a book review on “The God Delusion” in which Eagleton names both “Rahner on grace”and “Moltmann on hope” as Christianities “toughest case” that Dawkins is ignorant of. Remember? http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching
Funnily enough your links mostly criticize the very things in Barth, Rahner and co. that I happen to like about their theologies. In contrast I find some ‘fundamentalist evangelical’ theologians’ claims to fully know “truth” totally lacking of the humility that scripture calls for (Isaiah 55:8-9; Romans 11:33-36). Would you not agree that it is better to approach God with questions rather than answers and to respect that He is indeed a ‘mystery’ that our human theologies can get near to, but never fully grasp (1 Cor. 13:12)? As for Liberation Theology: Moltmann most certainly had an influence on it. If you dislike its "preferential option for the poor", I suggest you take another hard look at Matt. 25:31-46.
However, if what you want to say is that you only regard ‘evangelicals’ as credible theologians you may want to check out this site: http://evangelicaluniversalism.org/faith.html

The connection is obvious, isn’t it? When you insist on eternal punishment, you obviously deny the possibility of universal salvation.

I should have thought that my personal position on this issue has transpired by now: I’m a universalist in the sense that my faith makes me hope everybody will be saved. But I don’t claim universal salvation is to be taken for granted and that everybody including myself must be saved and will most definitely be saved. Reverence for God’s sovereignty forbids such a bold claim: “I’ll be gracious to whom I’ll be gracious, and I’ll show compassion on whom I’ll show compassion.” (Exodus 33:19; comp.: Romans 9). But: Reverence for God’s sovereignty also forbids to rule out the possibility that God will have mercy on everybody. Does Scripture give us reason to hope that He’ll have mercy on everybody? Most certainly yes! That’s why we call its accounts of Jesus’s life, death and resurrection “Good News”!

juno,

You find my answers in my posts to you to be 'increasingly erratic'. You are flaming me and I object strongly that you, a moderator, should be doing that to me. Let's deal with the issues and not have you use an ad hominem fallacy against me. Don't you understand the seriousness of what you did with that kind of flaming statement against me?

There is no contradiction between my understanding of Matt 25:46 (ESV) - unbelievers to eternal punishment and believers to eternal life - and John 12:32 (ESV). This latter verse states, 'And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself'.

'Draw', helkusw, the future tense verb, active voice or helkw, which means 'to draw, to attract' (A T Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol 5, 1932:229). Arndt & Gingrich's lexicon gives the meaning of this verb in John 12:32 (ESV) as, 'figurative of the pull on man's inner life.... draw, attract John 6:44; 12:32' (1957:251).

Is this a drawing attraction of all people that means salvation for all without exception? That is not what the entirety of Scripture teaching. Even in John 3:36 (ESV), it is made crystal clear that not all will be saved: 'Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him'.

R. C. H. Lenski, in his commentary on John's Gospel, states of John 12:32 (ESV):

"And I ... will draw all unto myself."This is the same drawing as that mentioned in 6:44 (compare 6:37), there predicated of the Father, here of Jesus;... This is the drawing exerted by grace through the means of grace (Word and Sacrament), alike in effectiveness and seriousness for all men, not in any way limited on God’s part. Yet here, as in 6:37; 6:44; 10:16; 11:52, and other connections, Jesus is speaking of this universal and unlimited grace only insofar as it succeeds in actually drawing men from the world to himself. All are alike drawn, but by their perverse obduracy many nullify all the power of grace and harden themselves in unbelief (Matt. 23:37), while others, in equal sin and guilt, are converted by this same power of grace. Why some are thus lost and others won, all being under the same grace, constitutes a mystery insoluble by our minds, about which we know only this, that those who are lost are lost solely by their own guilt, while those who are won are won solely by divine grace. Jesus is speaking only of the latter when he says, “I will draw all unto me” (Lenski 1943. Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel, p. 876).

I'm not convinced Lenski is correct in his understanding towards the end of that quote: 'while those who are won are won solely by divine grace. Jesus is speaking only of the latter when he says, “I will draw all unto me”'. When 'all' people are drawn to Jesus after his crucifixion and resurrection, that attraction is for ALL, but Romans 1:18 (ESV) tells us why ALL are not saved and will not be saved, 'For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth'. Human beings who suppress the truth of God (including the Gospel) in their unrighteousness are among those who are attracted to Jesus but refuse to come to him because of their own sinfulness.

Therefore, your 'hope [that] everybody will be saved', is not consistent with verses such as John 3:36 (ESV).

Regarding these theologians that you raised. I can benefit from any number of theologians without agreeing that any or all of them are orthodox in support of biblical Christianity. For example, I have Paul Tillich, Rudolph Bultmann and Karl Barth in my personal library. None of these is orthodox in their theologies but I have benefited from reading them.

Therefore, it is not surprising that I should expose these for what they are:

• Karl Barth is neo-orthodox
• Karl Rahner was a mystical theologian;
• Hans von Balthasar was an eclectic theologian whose works are difficult to categorise;
• There were influences of liberation theology in Jurgen Multmann.

They are not orthodox theologians on the same level as, say, a Charles Hodge, John Miley, Louis Berkhof, Wayne Grudem, Thomas Oden or Norman Geisler. I chose to expose the unorthodox nature of Barth, Rahner, vol Balthasar and Multmann to demonstrate that they were not biblical theologians.

As for liberation theology, I support a fully biblical liberation theology that is not dominated by Marxist ideology. I am not a naive supporter of 'liberation theology' that makes out it is serving the poor while adding an ideological dimension that leads to Communism. I have served the poor and underprivileged for most of my years as a Christian, working in ministry with drug addicts, rebellious youth, disillusioned, poor and destitute families. You don't have a clue about what my ministry involves when you make the following statemetn:

This is why your statement about me is inflammatory: 'As for Liberation Theology: Moltmann most certainly had an influence on it. If you dislike its "preferential option for the poor", I suggest you take another hard look at Matt. 25:31-46'.

Oz

 

[n2thelight]

The lake of fire is the 2nd death,which is the death of the soul,ie cease to exist

 

[junobet]

juno,

You find my answers in my posts to you to be 'increasingly erratic'. You are flaming me and I object strongly that you, a moderator, should be doing that to me. Let's deal with the issues and not have you use an ad hominem fallacy against me. Don't you understand the seriousness of what you did with that kind of flaming statement against me?

There is no contradiction between my understanding of Matt 25:46 (ESV) - unbelievers to eternal punishment and believers to eternal life - and John 12:32 (ESV). This latter verse states, 'And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself'.

'Draw', helkusw, the future tense verb, active voice or helkw, which means 'to draw, to attract' (A T Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol 5, 1932:229). Arndt & Gingrich's lexicon gives the meaning of this verb in John 12:32 (ESV) as, 'figurative of the pull on man's inner life.... draw, attract John 6:44; 12:32' (1957:251).

Is this a drawing attraction of all people that means salvation for all without exception? That is not what the entirety of Scripture teaching. Even in John 3:36 (ESV), it is made crystal clear that not all will be saved: 'Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him'.

R. C. H. Lenski, in his commentary on John's Gospel, states of John 12:32 (ESV):

I'm not convinced Lenski is correct in his understanding towards the end of that quote: 'while those who are won are won solely by divine grace. Jesus is speaking only of the latter when he says, “I will draw all unto me”'. When 'all' people are drawn to Jesus after his crucifixion and resurrection, that attraction is for ALL, but Romans 1:18 (ESV) tells us why ALL are not saved and will not be saved, 'For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth'. Human beings who suppress the truth of God (including the Gospel) in their unrighteousness are among those who are attracted to Jesus but refuse to come to him because of their own sinfulness.

Therefore, your 'hope [that] everybody will be saved', is not consistent with verses such as John 3:36 (ESV).

Regarding these theologians that you raised. I can benefit from any number of theologians without agreeing that any or all of them are orthodox in support of biblical Christianity. For example, I have Paul Tillich, Rudolph Bultmann and Karl Barth in my personal library. None of these is orthodox in their theologies but I have benefited from reading them.

Therefore, it is not surprising that I should expose these for what they are:

• Karl Barth is neo-orthodox
• Karl Rahner was a mystical theologian;
• Hans von Balthasar was an eclectic theologian whose works are difficult to categorise;
• There were influences of liberation theology in Jurgen Multmann.

They are not orthodox theologians on the same level as, say, a Charles Hodge, John Miley, Louis Berkhof, Wayne Grudem, Thomas Oden or Norman Geisler. I chose to expose the unorthodox nature of Barth, Rahner, vol Balthasar and Multmann to demonstrate that they were not biblical theologians.

As for liberation theology, I support a fully biblical liberation theology that is not dominated by Marxist ideology. I am not a naive supporter of 'liberation theology' that makes out it is serving the poor while adding an ideological dimension that leads to Communism. I have served the poor and underprivileged for most of my years as a Christian, working in ministry with drug addicts, rebellious youth, disillusioned, poor and destitute families. You don't have a clue about what my ministry involves when you make the following statemetn:

This is why your statement about me is inflammatory: 'As for Liberation Theology: Moltmann most certainly had an influence on it. If you dislike its "preferential option for the poor", I suggest you take another hard look at Matt. 25:31-46'.

Oz

I’m sorry you perceived my words as inflammatory, they surely weren’t meant to be.
Surely God hates “all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men”. The question is whether He just hates the sin or also the sinner. Personally I don’t think God also hates the sinner. Jesus specifically sought out sinners and said “Healthy people don’t need a physician, but sick people do. 13 Go and learn what this means: ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice,’because I did not come to call righteous people, but sinners.” (Matthew 9:12). Seeing that He is the great physician I do indeed think He can heal us all from ungodliness and unrighteousness, even those of us who aren’t even aware yet that they are in need of a doctor.

Given that we’ve got very different ideas about orthodoxy, it’s unlikely you’ll take Rahner’s concept of anonymous Christians on board (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Christianhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Christian). However, you may want to ponder John 3:36 in the light of the following verses:

“That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.” (1 Tim. 4-10). Especially those who believe, not only those who believe. And those who don’t believe yet, probably will:

“9 Now lifted up by God to heaven,
a name above all others given,
this matchless name possessing.
10 And so, when Jesus’ name is called,
the knees of everyone should fall,[a]
wherever they’re residing.[b]
11 Then every tongue in one accord,
will say that Jesus the Messiah[c] is Lord,
while God the Father praising.”

(Phil. 2:9-11)

This gives me reason to believe that eventually nobody will be able to resist Christ’s attraction now that He’s been lifted up.
So I really think you should give more room for hope, Oz. Remember what Jesus said when His disciples asked Him “Who then can be saved?”: “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible”. (Matthew 19:26)

And please don’t take this appeal as inflammatory but as gentle advice from one Christian to another.

 

[junobet]

If it's God's intent to save everyone, then there is no need for the consequence of damnation. The only reasonable logic is that there are those who will not be saved. Given the opportunity, yes. Taking God up on His offer? Some wont. There really isnt a whole lot of breathing room in this matter.

Romans 9:22

22What if intending to show His wrath and make His bore with great patience the vesselsof His wrath, for destruction? 23What if He did this to make the riches of His glory known to the vessels of His mercy, whom He prepared in advance for glory—…


So the possibility is there.....

Hi there Born_Again,

there’s very little doubt in my mind that God wants to save everyone, because the Bible tells me so:
“3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to know the truth fully.” (1 Tim. 2:3)

In the text you quoted Paul talks about the salvation of the Jews who did not accept Christ. If you read on, you’ll find that Paul does not think at all that they stumbled as to fall beyond recovery (Rom. 11:11-12). His ponderings on the matter of salvation end with verse 11:32: “For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.”
In this passage Paul also makes it very clear that it is not our choice whether we take God up on His offer or not. We can’t choose to have faith, like everything else our faith is given to us by God’s grace: “It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.” (Rom. 9:16). It is God who hardens people’s hearts (Rom. 11:7+8) and binds them over to disobedience.
So as much as I like the notion of free will, I don’t think our human free will can totally override God’s will. It’s not us who decide whether we’ll be saved or not, but Him.

 

[StanJ]

The third heaven is mentioned in 2 Corinthians and yet there is no written context to tell us what teaching that came from.
The book of Enoch mentions seven heavens of which the third one is indeed a paradise.
In short the man that Paul testified of witnessed in accordance with a know first century doctrine. The seven heavens teach ancient and traced back to Mesopotamian; out of which Abram was called.
That is one reason why there is a historical principle is exegeses.

Again you read scripture without understanding or proper exegesis. In Corinthians 12:2, Paul talks about the third heaven in the sense that he did not know where he was or even if he was in the third heaven which was traditionally known in the Jewish faith as a place where God lived, we just know it is heaven today. Paul is talking about himself here not about somebody else.
He clearly says in this verse, "I do not know". All you really do is look for other rabbit trails to pursue and don't really stick to the issue. Seems to me once you get cornered you start off in another direction, and clearly indicate a resistance and refusal to be properly instructed.

 

[OzSpen]

The lake of fire is the 2nd death,which is the death of the soul,ie cease to exist

You provide ZERO biblical evidence. Therefore, this statement is nothing more than your personal assertion.

 

[OzSpen]

I’m sorry you perceived my words as inflammatory, they surely weren’t meant to be.

The words speak for themselves. They were inflammatory and goading me.

 

[OzSpen]

However, you may want to ponder John 3:36 in the light of the following verses:

“That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.” (1 Tim. 4-10). Especially those who believe, not only those who believe. And those who don’t believe yet, probably will:

juno,

Jesus disagreed with your interpretation:

13 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few (Matt 7:13-14 ESV).

God's compassion and love demand His discipline for the disobedient.

Also, John 3:36 (ESV) agrees with Matt 7:13-14 (ESV) and not your universalism of 1 Tim 4:10. Universalism is regarded as a heresy. See 'How serious a heresy is universalism?' (Roger Olson)

Oz

 

[Born_Again]

Hi there Born_Again,

there’s very little doubt in my mind that God wants to save everyone, because the Bible tells me so:
“3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to know the truth fully.” (1 Tim. 2:3)

In the text you quoted Paul talks about the salvation of the Jews who did not accept Christ. If you read on, you’ll find that Paul does not think at all that they stumbled as to fall beyond recovery (Rom. 11:11-12). His ponderings on the matter of salvation end with verse 11:32: “For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.”
In this passage Paul also makes it very clear that it is not our choice whether we take God up on His offer or not. We can’t choose to have faith, like everything else our faith is given to us by God’s grace: “It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.” (Rom. 9:16). It is God who hardens people’s hearts (Rom. 11:7+8) and binds them over to disobedience.
So as much as I like the notion of free will, I don’t think our human free will can totally override God’s will. It’s not us who decide whether we’ll be saved or not, but Him.

Its like this... Yes, God loves all of His creation. It pains Him that some would choose death over life. But.... If He were to save everyone then John 3:16 needs to be re-written. It say so that those who believe in Him...etc. It does not say everybody. If God went through all of this (the entire bible) just so everyone was saved, then life was just a big game. To think everyone will be saved is completely irrational. Its wonderful to hope everyone should be saved. We all should hope everyone should be saved. But the reality of the situation is that everyone will not. This theology is in complete and total contradiction to the bible. It simply doesn't hold. You cant believe in predestination and universalism at the same time. Oil and water....

 

[Born_Again]

Side note... Remember, we are challenging theology, not the person directly. Make sure we are not insulting each other.