Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by CL:
That is called shaping a god in ones own image rather than accepting God for what he actually is, i.e. the god of Me instead of the God of Scripture.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by CL:
Of course it all boils down once more to Chesterton's observation about Christian ideals (that is actual Christian ideals) not being tried and found wanting but rather being found difficult and left untried.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I have a personal "history" with this -- originally, I was going to "narrate" it here. But nobody is interested in my spiritual autobiography, I'm sure! So, I'll leave it at this.

---

I'm interested, and I don't suppose I'm the only one.

Nen - avid lurker on this thread and grateful to everyone who's posting on it.

--------------------
They told me I was delusional. I nearly fell off my unicorn.

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by CL:
That is called shaping a god in ones own image rather than accepting God for what he actually is, i.e. the god of Me instead of the God of Scripture. Of course it all boils down once more to Chesterton's observation about Christian ideals (that is actual Christian ideals) not being tried and found wanting but rather being found difficult and left untried.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CL:
That is called shaping a god in ones own image rather than accepting God for what he actually is, i.e. the god of Me instead of the God of Scripture.

---

I think that's a rather unfair and unkind statement. We all have our own image of God, which can only be seen from our own pov, as we have no other.

There isn't a God of Scripture as far as I can see.

Scripture has many, many Gods - some totally unbelievable and some very tyrannical and unloving.

I would far rather look to Jesus than try and find how God actually 'is' from scripture.

---

Elegant simplicity! Far better than the pompous bluster of my response to CL!

--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nenya:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I have a personal "history" with this -- originally, I was going to "narrate" it here. But nobody is interested in my spiritual autobiography, I'm sure! So, I'll leave it at this.

---

I'm interested, and I don't suppose I'm the only one.

Nen - avid lurker on this thread and grateful to everyone who's posting on it.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CL:
That is called shaping a god in ones own image rather than accepting God for what he actually is, i.e. the god of Me instead of the God of Scripture.

---

I think that's a rather unfair and unkind statement. We all have our own image of God, which can only be seen from our own pov, as we have no other.

There isn't a God of Scripture as far as I can see.

Scripture has many, many Gods - some totally unbelievable and some very tyrannical and unloving.

I would far rather look to Jesus than try and find how God actually 'is' from scripture.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stejjie:
The trouble is, Jesus spoke a lot about judgement, hell, the need to be "saved" etc. He spoke of those who are worthy of the resurrection (implying some are not); he said calling someone a fool made you in danger of the fires of hell; he said if sin is a problem deal with it, however harshly, because it's better enter the kingdom of God maimed than be thrown into hell; he told a parable about the sheep and the goats and said the goats would be thrown into hell for not feeding, clothing him etc ...

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stejjie:
And if we're not going to go with the picture of Jesus in Scripture, then where and to what are we going to go?

---

We're going to go to Jesus Himself. As Christians, we have unmediated access to Him. Jesus doesn't exist and live in "the picture of Jesus in Scripture," and a person whose relationship is with that picture is an idolater.

This means that our interpretation of what Scripture says about Jesus has to be guided by our relationship with Jesus Himself. Jesus said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Matthew 28:18). He didn't say, "All authority ... has been given to Scripture." (By the way, my appeal to Scripture here for Jesus' words shows that I fully affirm the importance and derived authority of Scripture.)

Think about the fact that most "damnationists" (but not IngoB!) end up saying, "I'd really like for universalism to be true; I hope it is; but there's this problem with what Scripture says."

Get a clue, brethren and sistren ! That deep desire for all to be saved, all to be redeemed, all to be made whole, is coming from Jesus, Who lives in your hearts ... and Scripture itself bears witness with the witness of our spirits:

"For God so loved the world, etc." (John 3:16-17).... The world! Not just a few people in it!

"Therefore just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all" (Romans 5:18).... All means all!

"God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:3-4).... Everyone! Not just some!

Scripture doesn't just "dump" an answer on us. It has to be interpreted. It's like a puzzle, and we have to figure out how to put the pieces together. We can put the pieces together to create a picture of millions of people damned for eternity ... and then we have to ask ourselves how that picture makes us feel about God, Jesus, ourselves, and other people. Or we can put the pieces together to create a picture of the ultimate victory of God's love (1 Corinthians 15:28) ... and, again, we ask ourselves how this picture makes us feel about God, Jesus, ourselves, and other people. One of these pictures will be the result of God working through us. The other will be our own human creation.

Which is which?

Stejjie, if you're interested in learning more about a Bible-affirming "evangelical" defense of universalism, I would recommend books and articles by Robin Parry and Thomas Talbott, and the website, "The Evangelical Universalist". Unlike Rob Bell, Parry and Talbott both have serious academic credentials and have engaged in robust debates with well-known evangelical "damnationists."

--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The thing is ...

The God of everything/everywhere/everywhen is continuous with the God of Scripture, or how do we form any knowledge of him?

---

quote:

---

Our own internal experiences are just as subject to error as our readings of Scripture can be, so I hesitate to take them as a guide. It is possible to be sincerely wrong.

---

quote:

---

I really prefer to hedge my bets and let Scripture correct my personal preferences. Particularly when Jesus showed such a high view of it.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
My question for universalists who have a more-or-less traditional Christian view of what salvation (but disagree with the "traditional" argument as to what we know about who will be saved) is, "What did/does Christ save us from?" I don't believe that anyone ever could deserve to be put in an inescapable state of suffering forever. So saying that we are all born deserving eternal damnation, but Christ saves us all, doesn't really make sense to me.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
My question for universalists who have a more-or-less traditional Christian view of what salvation (but disagree with the "traditional" argument as to what we know about who will be saved) is, "What did/does Christ save us from?" I don't believe that anyone ever could deserve to be put in an inescapable state of suffering forever. So saying that we are all born deserving eternal damnation, but Christ saves us all, doesn't really make sense to me.

---

Death. See Roman 7:24-25; 1 Corinthians 15:26.

I'm tying out the brisk one-line approach to posting! Obviously, at some point I'm going to need to come back and "unpack" this.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
I see salvation as meaning a process that I think may have began at the first moment of creation that leads to the end of all suffering, all wrong, all hate, etc., and anything that separates creatures from God.

---

quote:

---

I just don't understand how anyone ever didn't have access to salvation. So everything Christ did in the Gospels must have affected all human history starting with the creation itself.

---

quote:

---

The thing that I have the hardest time understanding is the Fall - as I said earlier I think it may just describe the transition from being instinctual animals (who are sinless) to being free-willed humans (who sin unless they let God help them (knowingly or not)).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
My question for universalists who have a more-or-less traditional Christian view of what salvation (but disagree with the "traditional" argument as to what we know about who will be saved) is, "What did/does Christ save us from?" I don't believe that anyone ever could deserve to be put in an inescapable state of suffering orever. So saying that we are alborn desrving eternal damnation, but Christ saves us all, doesn't really make sense to me.

---

Death. See Roman 7:24-25; 1 Corinthians 15:26.n

I'm tying out the brisk one-line approach to posting! Obviously, at some point I'm going to need to come back and "unpack" this.

---

But what kind of death? The spiritual death that people who do a lot of bad things can live in in this life? Annihilation when we die? Or an afterlife that is equivalent to a living death? How is this last option different than eternal damnation?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
I see salvation as meaning a process that I think may have began at the first moment of creation that leads to the end of all suffering, all wrong, all hate, etc., and anything that separates creatures from God.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
I see salvation as meaning a process that I think may have began at the first moment of creation that leads to the end of all suffering, all wrong, all hate, etc., and anything that separates creatures from God.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
We could argue again about the use of language the gospel writers chose. For me, the thing that is remarkable is that they had a whole raft of contemporary, unending-retributive-punishment words to choose from, eirgmon aidion, timoria adialepton, athanaton timorion (eternal imprisonment, unending torment, deathless torment). Instead, they (Jesus?) chose aionion kolasin, age-enduring discipline.

---

I'm surprised that this hasn't already come up on this thread. Those who claim that the plain words of Jesus talk of eternal punishment often overlook the liguistic arguement that he may have said no such thing. I have little doubt that those who die in need of correction may suffer for their sins. Perhaps Hitler has to suffer for every one of the 45 million deaths he's alleged to have caused. But even that could have an age-enduring limit. I'm not at all convinced that Jesus meant that punishments are eternal.

---

quote:

---

For there are partial corrections (padeiai) which are called chastisements (kolasis), which many of us who have been in transgression incur by falling away from the Lord’s people. But as children are chastised by their teacher, or their father, so are we by Providence. But God does not punish (timoria) for punishment (timoria) is retaliation for evil. He chastises, however, for good to those who are chastised collectively and individually.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
That's awesome, Marvin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I'd not read this quote from Clement before, which I think puts the language distinction very well:

quote:

---

For there are partial corrections (padeiai) which are called chastisements (kolasis), which many of us who have been in transgression incur by falling away from the Lord’s people. But as children are chastised by their teacher, or their father, so are we by Providence. But God does not punish (timoria) for punishment (timoria) is retaliation for evil. He chastises, however, for good to those who are chastised collectively and individually.

---

How ironic that the only place timoria is used in the whole of Scripture is to describe the judgement of Christians, of the Church (Hebrews 10:29). Every other place in scripture, God's 'punishment' is chastisement, discipline - for the benefit of the disciplined, and that includes Hell.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
That's awesome, Marvin.

---

Awesome as in "a highly selective reading of the bible in order to confirm a strongly held prior opinion"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Since this one keeps coming up: it is plain false to say that there is some kind of scholarly agreement that "kolasis" in Koine Greek meant "discipline" as opposed to (retributive) punishment.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Well, as far as I remember Marvin's previous thoughts on this subject, he seems to have changed his mind on it. I'm sure he can speak for himself, but I'd say his prior opinion was closer to yours, but has gradually shifted.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The reality of aionios kolasis being necessarily translated as "eternal punishment" is that it is entirely misleading. We have countless contemporary and biblical examples of aionios referring to a limited amount of time (even explicitly in relation to Gehenna / Hell!), and countless examples of kolasis referring to disciplinary punishment.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I am certainly no expert in Greek language. But the more I've read about it, the more I'm persuaded that it did. The distinction is there, made by Clement and others (not just modern day scholars).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The article you linked to spends a lot of time (rightly, IMO), against an annhiliationist translation of "cut off", which comes from the pruning etymology of kolasis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The reality of aionios kolasis being necessarily translated as "eternal punishment" is that it is entirely misleading.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
We have countless contemporary and biblical examples of aionios referring to a limited amount of time (even explicitly in relation to Gehenna / Hell!), and countless examples of kolasis referring to disciplinary punishment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Even if aionios could at times be a euphemism for 'eternal' (it probably was), and even if kolasis could at times mean 'retributive punishment', it is very clear that they didn't have to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
To debunk a limited-duration-chastisement interpretation of those verses, you need to show that aionios necessarily meant infinite (and never finite) and kolasis necessarily meant retributive punishment (and not discipline). You can't, and pointing out even a few places where aionios seems to be talking about eternity and kolasis seems to be talking about vengeance isn't enough.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
This is probably a different thread topic for purgatory or kerygmania, but is the true meaning of a verse of Scripture the same as the understanding of the meaning of it that existed in the mind of the human, divinely inspired author at the time of composition?

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
This is probably a different thread topic for purgatory or kerygmania, but is the true meaning of a verse of Scripture the same as the understanding of the meaning of it that existed in the mind of the human, divinely inspired author at the time of composition?

---

You're asking the "million dollar question" of many biblical scholars!

[We may need a Host to give us a judgment on this, but I think this "tangent" belongs here, because it is germain to the main topic, which is evidence, including biblical evidence, for and against universalism. But, I'm not a Host, so had better "shut up"! ]

... I'll just note, for now, that the New Testament frequently quotes and uses verses from the Old Testament with meanings that could not have been the ones in the minds of the original authors and readers. The best example is Isaiah 7:14 -- there is no way that Isaiah was thinking of a virgin-born Messiah when he penned that verse! Just look at it in context, and that fact becomes obvious. This doesn't, however, mean that the meaning Matthew gives to the verse is invalid--it's simply (as Mousethief noted) that biblical verses have multiple possible meanings, some of which only become obvious on the basis of later readings.

This is relevant to our discussion of universalism, because I will affirm, without apology, that I believe this hermeneutical principle is necessary for universalist arguments.

[ 11. April 2014, 16:02: Message edited by: Dubious Thomas ]

--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Again, for what it's worth, I just pulled Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (the BIG one!) off of my office shelf and opened it up to "kolasis" (darn, I wish I had the hang of typing in Greek characters!) .... This lexicon is the standard English-language work in Greek lexicography, still the first "go-to" for students and scholars. Here are the relevant bits of the entry: first, the literal meaning, "checking the growth of trees." Then, the more common metaphorical usages: "chastisement, correction" ... "divine retribution" (in this case, citing Matthew 25:46 as an example). No "punishment" here! Again, this is the English-language reference work.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Again, for what it's worth, I just pulled Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (the BIG one!) off of my office shelf and opened it up to "kolasis" (darn, I wish I had the hang of typing in Greek characters!) .... This lexicon is the standard English-language work in Greek lexicography, still the first "go-to" for students and scholars. Here are the relevant bits of the entry: first, the literal meaning, "checking the growth of trees." Then, the more common metaphorical usages: "chastisement, correction" ... "divine retribution" (in this case, citing Matthew 25:46 as an example). No "punishment" here! Again, this is the English-language reference work.

---

My link in fact has LS as having the meaning "punishment" listed for "kolasis", but that is from the "intermediate" dictionary. I have checked with Amazon's "look inside" feature that you are likely both correct (here there is no explicit "punishment" in the entry, whereas here there is, unfortunately the "intermediate" one here does not give me access to the right page). "Divine retribution" will of course do nicely for my purposes. But in fact so does "chastisement". In old usage that is a synonym for punishment, in particular beatings. And if we consider the more modern meaning of "severe rebuke", then I'm quite happy with the translation that people are being "eternally castigated" by God. What it looks like to be castigated by God in the afterlife, practically speaking, is after all detailed elsewhere in scripture most clearly.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
It first spends a lot of time showing that "punishment" is a perfectly adequate, even preferred, translation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The reality of aionios kolasis being necessarily translated as "eternal punishment" is that it is entirely misleading.

---

Or rather, you would like it to be so, but you do not have any compelling argument for your case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
We have countless contemporary and biblical examples of aionios referring to a limited amount of time (even explicitly in relation to Gehenna / Hell!), and countless examples of kolasis referring to disciplinary punishment.

---

Nope, you do not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Of course I can demonstrate that, compellingly, at least for Mt 25:46. I only need one additional "assumption", namely that life in heaven is indeed everlasting. If so, then the obviously fully intended parallel structure the author uses in the text without the slightest doubt indicates that also the "kolasis" is everlasting.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I genuinely hope that your theology is not informing your parenting behavior!

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I genuinely hope that your theology is not informing your parenting behavior!

---

If one has uncouth opponents, then cheap shots and personal insults are a sure sign that one has won the argument.

---

You're welcome to call me names and you're free to convince yourself that you've "won the argument."


Anything else I wish to say to you, I'll say in "Hell" ... when I find the time.

--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
This is probably a different thread topic for purgatory or kerygmania, but is the true meaning of a verse of Scripture the same as the understanding of the meaning of it that existed in the mind of the human, divinely inspired author at the time of composition?

---

You're asking the "million dollar question" of many biblical scholars!

[We may need a Host to give us a judgment on this, but I think this "tangent" belongs here, because it is germain to the main topic, which is evidence, including biblical evidence, for and against universalism. But, I'm not a Host, so had better "shut up"! ]

... I'll just note, for now, that the New Testament frequently quotes and uses verses from the Old Testament with meanings that could not have been the ones in the minds of the original authors and readers. The best example is Isaiah 7:14 -- there is no way that Isaiah was thinking of a virgin-born Messiah when he penned that verse! Just look at it in context, and that fact becomes obvious. This doesn't, however, mean that the meaning Matthew gives to the verse is invalid--it's simply (as Mousethief noted) that biblical verses have multiple possible meanings, some of which only become obvious on the basis of later readings.

This is relevant to our discussion of universalism, because I will affirm, without apology, that I believe this hermeneutical principle is necessary for universalist arguments.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
Oh, and I call myself Roman Catholic (despite all of the above) because I think there should be one global bureaucratic and legal institution called the Church and that the Pope should be its leader (with all the provisos above).

---

If I may .... Why? Why should there be "one global bureaucratic and legal institution called the Church and ... the Pope should be its leader"?

Might I suggest that your religious "anarchism" take a further step?!

--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
then I'm quite happy with the translation that people are being "eternally castigated" by God.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
Oh, and I call myself Roman Catholic (despite all of the above) because I think there should be one global bureaucratic and legal institution called the Church and that the Pope should be its leader (with all the provisos above).

---

If I may .... Why? Why should there be "one global bureaucratic and legal institution called the Church and ... the Pope should be its leader"?

Might I suggest that your religious "anarchism" take a further step?!

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Let me ask you to hold in your mind traditional Christian visions of the future, in which many, perhaps the majority of humanity, are excluded from salvation forever. Alongside that hold the universalist vision, in which God achieves his loving purpose of redeeming the whole creation. Which vision has the strongest view of divine love? Which story has the most powerful narrative of God’s victory over evil? Which picture lifts the atoning efficacy of the cross of Christ to the greatest heights? Which perspective best emphasizes the triumph of grace over sin? Which view most inspires worship and love of God bringing him honor and glory? Which has the most satisfactory understanding of divine wrath? Which narrative inspires hope in the human spirit? To my mind the answer to all these questions is clear, and that is why I am a Christian universalist.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:

I genuinely hope that your theology is not informing your parenting behavior!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
It's misleading because to an English reader it explicitly gives an impression of infinity. An impression which, in the original Greek, is at the very least, ambiguous, at the most, simply wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
No, really, we do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The length of time that aionios describes can be anything from minutes, to eternity. It doesn't bother itself with the amount of time, but where that time is. So, for example, NT Wright suggests that, 'eternal life' is much better rendered 'life in the coming age'. The adjective doesn't say anything about how long that life is, but that it is eschatological.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
So, indeed, there is a parallel structure, but it is not of the nature you describe. It is fair to believe that zoe aionion is 'forever', but that belief is from elsewhere, not from the meaning of the words themselves. The parallel structure is contrasting "punishment/discipline in the age to come" with "life in the age to come". It says nothing about the corresponding durations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Incidentally, that passage reminds me of a similar parallel structure, in Romans 5:18-19, where the damnationists try to deny the obvious parallelism by juggling the meanings of 'many' and 'all'. How ironic.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:



But we know that there is no additional age to come after that.

---