Let's address this in a new post.
1. When the question is posed, a number of elements spring to mind. In Matthew 25, Jesus separates the sheep and goats and sends the goats to the fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
2. The Book of Revelation and its references to the Lake of Fire that burns forever. (Here may be where your definition of aeon comes in, Gary?)
3. The people who are eager at present to dispense with an eternal hell tend to be groups full of error that raise my ire: JW's and the Emergent Church come to mind, among others.
Who is proposing a hell that does not last forever? Clearly there is one. I presume annihilation is not an option here. Also, I am supposing we believe that the soul exists eternally, so unbelievers just don't cease to exist. Are we talking about a temporary hell?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What would be the alternative???
ReplyDeleteHere are some “quick” answers to the questions that have been posed. They all probably deserve a lot more attention.
ReplyDelete1. When the question is posed, a number of elements spring to mind. In Matthew 25, Jesus separates the sheep and goats and sends the goats to the fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
>>Keep in mind you are speaking to a partial preterist. Mat 25 is in the context of Mat 24—the end of the aeon (the Old Covenant). The Jews became the cursed fig tree which would bear no fruit through the coming aeon/age. Their entire system was thrown down. Lazarus (of the parable from Luke) was a gentile who found himself dining at “Abraham’s bosom”, while the Jews who had enjoyed God’s favor (the rich man) were cast out. I am not saying that all judgment occurred in 70AD but for them I see a double whammy. Pay now and pay later.
Regarding the Devil and his angels, what does it mean to either perspective that "aeonian punishment" was not intended for human beings? Can we say humans don't truly belong there?
3. The Book of Revelation and its references to the Lake of Fire that burns forever. (Here may be where your definition of aeon comes in, Gary ?)
>> For ever and ever is a poor translation. Again I ask, how many evers are there? Once you say for ever, is that not eternal enough? But to add "and ever" means more eternity? In fact the word aeon as a noun is found here, which may literally mean (as some literal translations have it ) “unto the ages of the ages”.
4. The people who are eager at present to dispense with an eternal hell tend to be groups full of error that raise my ire: JW's and the Emergent Church come to mind, among others.
>> I did not know those groups believed differently on eternal torment, but we have to look at these issue objectively. The Catholic church believes in the virgin birth, but I don’t discount it because they hold other false beliefs.
5. Who is proposing a hell that does not last forever? Clearly there is one.
>> On the surface it seems quite clear. Looking more deeply it is not as clear. The Bible has a number of seeming conflicts; doctrines that seem juxtaposed. To me, one of the greatest conflicts is free will vs. God’s election, love and providence. Another conflict is eternal torment vs. God’s election, love and providence. Could we rather resolve two enormous conflicts in one single swoop? I see these two conflicts possibly being resolved if the doctrine of hell has been misunderstood.
Soon I want to spend a lot more time introducing scriptures that seem to indicate something other than eternal torment.
6. I presume annihilation is not an option here. Also, I am supposing we believe that the soul exists eternally, so unbelievers just don't cease to exist. Are we talking about a temporary hell?
>> Yes there would have to be another way to understand what scripture is teaching. I don’t know that it teaches the concept of annihilation, but I am willing to re-examine the position of scripture. However, the belief that the human soul is inherently eternal needs support. I would start by saying that since the Fall, we (being unregenerate) are clearly mortal, not living beyond the capacity of this body (apart from Christ).
Well, before I answer most of this I need to examine this word, "aeon" in the context of preterist/partial preterist doctrine.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing I clearly comment on is the curious objection to the phrase "forever and ever." It is clearly a literary device used for emphasis. Is this really a problem? One may as well ask Jesus, "How many "Verilys" are enough. The language says, "Stop, take a look. I am emphasizing something." In this case the eternal or the "foreverness" of what is being discussed. I think you may have bought into an argument here that is misdirected or uniformed from a literary critical perspective.
Here is a bit of context for your study on aeon/165:
ReplyDeleteMat 24:3 And as He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, Tell us, when will these things be? And, What is the sign of Your coming and of the END of the AGE?
Heb 6:5 and tasting the good Word of God, and the works of power of a COMING AGE,
Also keep in mind that aeonian or aeonios is the adjective of the noun aeon. Their meanings should be in harmony.
The corresponding word in the Hebrew is olam. The LXX translates this word as aeon. Olam has to do with being veiled and is characterized by that which disappears beyond our horizon. So a road that extends beyond our sight is like an olam or aeon. It is beyond our sight; beyond our realm. God is also beyond the scope of this realm, as are his divine life and his divine judgment. I think the word supernal fits for aeonian (the adjective). Thus, earthly life is superseded by supernal life. Earthly judgments are superseded by supernal judgments made by the supernal God.
I am inclined to believe God's judgments are just and not out of balance with the crime. Some will receive many stripes and some will receive few (Lk 12). An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth was his law. Human sins are finite. Even Hitler's crimes were finite. He did not harm infinite numbers for infinite duration. So how could his punishment be infinite? I also wonder why Jesus would sit and oversee this torment forever (Rev 14:10, Lk 19:27).
Since we have a bit of a lull let me offer another aspect to consider.
ReplyDeleteJesus told the Pharisees that if they did not believe in him they would die in their sins. This we can agree means certain judgment. But if they are eternally lost how can Paul say this:
Rom 11:25 For I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, lest you should be wise within yourselves; that blindness in part has happened to Israel, UNTIL the fullness of the nations has comes in. 26 and so ALL ISRAEL SHALL BE SAVED: as it is written, "There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob. 27 For this is My covenant with them, when I have taken away their sins."
How can ALL Israel be saved? He is talking about those who have stumbled upon this Stumbling Stone of Christ. How did Israel become blind?
Rom 11:8 even as it is written, "GOD GAVE to them a spirit of slumber, eyes not seeing, and ears not hearing" until this day.
God caused their blindness in order to bring about mercy to the Gentiles. But he says this blindness is UNTIL the Gentiles come in. Then he shares a mystery, ALL ISRAEL WILL BE SAVED. They have stumbled but they have not fallen…
Rom 11:11 I say then, Did they stumble that they might fall? Let it not be! But by their slipping away came salvation to the nations, to provoke them to jealousy.
He goes on to explain that though they are enemies of the gospel, yet the promise given to their fathers cannot be revoked; they will still receive mercy. (Abraham received the promise, but they tried to claim righteousness through Moses).
Rom 11:28 Indeed as regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes [so the gentiles can receive mercy]. But as regards the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. 29 For the free gifts and calling of God are without repentance. 30 For as you also then disbelieved God, but now have been shown mercy through their disbelief, 31 even so these also have not believed now, so that through your mercy they may also obtain mercy.
And this is a most amazing verse, showing that it is all God’s doing, and he has in mind and will to demonstrate his mercy to all--the same “all” which he bound up in disobedience.
32 For God has shut up all in unbelief, so that He might have mercy on all.
There is no one this does not include. This is how Jesus can say this to the unbelieving Jews:
Mat 23:39 For I say to you, You shall not see Me from now on until you say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord."
Have the disbelieving Jews ever said this? Did they not die in their sins? When would they see Christ again? I can’t answer that question, but if, at that time, they are to undergo eternal torment, how can they say “Blessed is he coming in the name of the Lord”? WOuld they not be terrified? Also, what point is there in forcing the lost to bow and confess Christ as Lord, if it is under duress, and if he does not take ownership of their plight? That would be a hollow victory, since Satan would apparently win billions of lost humanity.
I will be brief and perhaps expound later. The apparent contradiction disappears when we understand that when "all Israel" is referred to here it means the remnant or the stump. It is not all of Israel that ever existed. (see for example Isa. 11:11-12).
ReplyDeleteOr better yet, Isa. 10:12
"THOUGH THE NUMBER OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL BE LIKE THE SAND OF THE SEA, IT IS THE REMNANT THAT WILL BE SAVED; ..."
By applying this simple truth, which is in perfect accord with what one would expect from the rest of scripture this apparent problem completely disappears. The key factor is, "At what time will God save all of Israel?" The answer is all of the remnant after the full number of the Gentiles has come in.
One answer to your last questions: No one will be "forced" to bow to Christ out of compulsion per se. They just will. See Revelation 1:17. Jesus' closest earthly friend who leaned against his breast at table fell at the feet of the glorified Christ not because he was commanded but because Christ is holy, magnificent, beautiful and blows away the senses.
Again, the path is narrow to salvation (Matt. 7:13), and the path is broad that leads to destruction. When Jesus says destruction, do you think he means only this life? Wouldn't that be misleading?
It reminds me of the people who insist on baptism saving you because of 2 or 3 verses, but ignoring the hundreds of references to salvation by faith alone with no reference to baptism.
The interpretation you suggest strains and buckles the structure of scripture. Again, you argue against the clear sense of the language, but this time, you also argue against what it has clearly meant to all orthodox believers who have gone before us.
What an irony that Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Aquinas,Whitefield, Warfield, Spurgeon, all missed it. They all blathered on about eternal destruction and yet, as you say, no one will pay eternally. No one seems to have got this until now.
When you read a novel, I am sure you get the nuances when the author makes broad references or subtle and implied distinctions. Why do you--in this case-seem oblivious to them in the scripture?
This point of all Israel being saved begs another question. If God's chosen nation is to be saved, what about all the other nations (Gentiles)who for many ages were kept in the dark and alienated form God?
ReplyDeleteNo lost person can be saved apart from Christ. So how did even those Jews who followed the law of Moses have opportunity to be saved?
1Ti 2:3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 who would have [wills] all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.
If God wills to save all, why did so many centuries pass before anyone could know Jesus?
There are some very curious scriptures that I believe MAY address this question.
1Pe 3:19 He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 to disobeying ones, which once the patience of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared
1Pe 4:5 But they shall give account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. 6 For to this end the gospel was preached also to the dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the Spirit.
ALso, how is it Sodom and Gomorrah's inhabitants will have a better standing than those Jews who rejected Christ? And how will it be more tolerable for Sodom and Gommorah in the judgment?
Mat 10:15 Truly I say to you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.
Mat 11:23 And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to the heaven, shall be brought down to hell {hades]. For if the mighty works which have been done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you. 25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank You, O Father, Lord of Heaven and earth, because YOU HAVE HIDDEN THESE THINGS from the sophisticated and cunning, and revealed them to babes.
Luk 10:13 Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which have been done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented a long while ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.
God did not promise to save all the Gentiles. They were not kept in the dark (Romans 1). Man's sin is not God's fault and His judgment is just and righteous and glorious--not cruel or harsh.
ReplyDeleteYou make an excellent point and bring up good "scriptural support for the point that there will be degrees of judgment. I agree. There will be for both the righteous and the wicked.
Unfortunately for your argument we are not talking about degree but of duration.
II Thess. 1:8-9
8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power.
Paul does not need in this place to explain that "everlasting" or "eternal" means forever because he adds "shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power."
And he does not add "for at time" or "until the time when God will finish unleashing his wrath." And this omission would not be telling except that there is never a clear exposition of it anywhere.
The very point of our Colossians study is that there is no secret or hidden knowledge that is privy to few. There is a depth and mystery in scripture as you have said on more than one occasion, but is it really true that suddenly, "Oops, hell is not forever," pops out in the 20th century for the first time? (except for certain cults) Such an important truth would surely be clearly explained in the New Testament.
I hope you are not inferring that Jesus means in Matt. 11:23-25 that the degrees of judgment should be apparent to babes. Please enlarge your context if you do.
"If God wills to save all, why did so many centuries pass before anyone could know Jesus?
There are some very curious scriptures that I believe MAY address this question."
You miss two critical points here. People of faith always knew Jesus. Job is likely the oldest book in the Bible:
"For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he will stand at the latter day upon the earth"
--Job 19:25
Again, also I must mention that scripture talks about saving lost sinners who are self-condemned, not about how God should mitigate his wrath according to our worldly, conditioned sensibilities. (Rom 3:10-12)
Salvation is more like Noah's family in the flood, or Moses pleading for Israel on the mountain. It is a wonder that he mercifully saved those who are so righteously condemned.
Next salvo please.
"I am inclined to believe God's judgments are just and not out of balance with the crime." I believe you underestimate the staggering size of the crime.
ReplyDelete"If you eat of it, you shall surely die." The disobedience of a single command.
"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."
-James 2:10
Hitler broke all of the law and so did I. Unless you, like Luther, would prefer to give James an inferior position among the scriptures. By hating I have committed murder. Your degrees of guilt break down here.
PAUL SAID:
ReplyDeleteThe apparent contradiction disappears when we understand that when "all Israel" is referred to here it means the remnant or the stump. It is not all of Israel that ever existed. (see for example Isa. 11:11-12).
Or better yet, Isa. 10:12
"THOUGH THE NUMBER OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL BE LIKE THE SAND OF THE SEA, IT IS THE REMNANT THAT WILL BE SAVED; ..."
By applying this simple truth, which is in perfect accord with what one would expect from the rest of scripture this apparent problem completely disappears. The key factor is, "At what time will God save all of Israel?" The answer is all of the remnant after the full number of the Gentiles has come in.
GARY:
Actually, I think this is incorrect. Remnant means a small portion; all would mean the whole. Yes Isaiah says the remnant will be saved. In Romans 11 Paul starts by addressing the remnant in v.5, that is, those of Israel who have placed faith in Christ. He then turns his discussion to address the nation at large, who stumbled at Christ.
Further on he mentions the mystery. He reveals that beyond the initial remnant of that time, the lump will also be saved (eventually), saying that if the root is holy, so also the branches. Paul says that Israel was hardened (by God’s will and predestined plan) in order to show mercy to the Gentiles. But what is more, he says that by the same mercy shown to the Gentiles, the hardened part of Israel will be given mercy (v.31).
Rom 11:7 What then? Israel has not obtained that which it seeks...
This CANNOT be referring to the remnant; for the remnant DID obtain.
"...but the election obtained” The remnant were saved.
"...and the rest were hardened." It was the large portion of Israel that was hardened--NOT the remnant.
He continues to speak of the Israelite nation at large. Every verse from 8 through 15 is dealing with larger Israel, who was hardened; not the remnant. But beginning in v. 16 he contrasts the remnant with the whole lump:
Rom 11:16 Now if the firstfruit [REMNANT] is holy, so also the lump [LARGER ISRAEL]. And if the root is holy, so also the branches. 17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree [GENTILES] were grafted in among them, and became a sharer of the root and the fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, it is not you that bears the root, but the root bears you. 19 You will say then, The branches were broken off [LARGER ISRAEL] that I might be grafted in.
Verses 23- 26 cannot be speaking of the remnant. He says they are in unbelief; broken off:
Rom 11:23 And those also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in. For God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut out of the natural wild olive tree, and against nature were grafted into a good olive tree, how much more these being according to nature will be grafted into their own olive tree?
Then he speaks in v. 25 of their becoming hardened, This cannot be talking about the remnant. We know the remnant/the elect of Israel are saved.
Rom 11:25 For I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be wise within yourselves, that hardness [CAUSED BY GOD] in part has happened to Israel UNTIL the fullness of the nations comes in;
In the above he says hardness happened in part (the large part) to Israel. In the next breath he states what will happen to all Israel; "all" meaning the whole.
Rom 11:26 and so ALL Israel will be saved, even as it has been written, "The Deliverer will come out of Zion , and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob.
31 so also these NOW have disobeyed, so that they also may obtain mercy by your mercy.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteAbove is just a portion. I will repsond to your other points later.
PAUL SAID:
ReplyDeleteAgain, the path is narrow to salvation (Matt. 7:13), and the path is broad that leads to destruction. When Jesus says destruction, do you think he means only this life? Wouldn't that be misleading?
GARY:
The word "destruction" (#684) can simply mean loss or ruin. It is based on #622 which is often translated "lost" (Jesus came to seek and save that which was lost).Here is what Vine's says about #684: apoleia akin to apollumi, and likewise indicating "loss of well-being, not of being," is used.
Here are some verses that use #622:
1Co 8:11 (ISV) In that case, the weak brother for whom Christ died is DESTROYED by your knowledge.
Mat 10:6 But rather go to the LOST sheep of the house of Israel.
But rather fear Him being able to DESTROY both soul and body in Gehenna.
Mat 18:11 For the Son of Man has come to save that which was LOST
Joh 18:14 Caiaphas was the person who had advised the Jews that it was better to have one man DIE for the people.
Even so, is Jesus talking to all people of all ages in Matt 7:13? I think he was referring to the pending (then) physical destruction upon the Jews because of their negligence in the spirit of the law. Notice the temporal type of destruction Jesus refers to in Luke 13:
2 And answering, Jesus said to them, Do you suppose that these Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans because they suffered such things? 3 I tell you, No. But unless you repent, YOU WILL LIKEWISE PERSIH. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were sinners above all men who lived in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, No. But unless you repent, YOU WILL ALL LIKEWISE PERSIH perish. 6 He also spoke this parable: A certain man had a fig-tree [SEEMS TO ALWAYS INDICATE ISRAEL] planted in his vineyard. And he came and sought fruit on it, and found none.
What I want to show here is that Jesus says unless you repent you will likewise perish. The likewise in these examples refers to natural calamity: the falling of a tower and an indiscriminate slaughter. Is he leaving out an important point? What about the more severe penalty of eternal torment? Also notice how he immediately goes into the parable of the fig tree. This one is speaking to the Jews, and perhaps Matt 7 is also.
To the first of your latest points:
ReplyDeleteI think we need to agree on what "the remnant" refers to in scripture. I have always seen it as the future population of Israel that will be saved in toto. That is, at some future point God will save all Israel. That total population of Israel will be the remnant (what is left) after the full number of Gentiles have come in. This definition seems to be borne out in the Book of Revelation. This interpretation also makes a lot of sense for the interpretation of Romans 9-11. That is, for a time God will focus on including the Gentiles in salvation before returning his focus to save the nation of Israel.
All this happens to people here on earth while they are alive and not after death in some other realm.
You seem to define the remnant as the Jews who accepted Christ during Paul's time. Where did you get this idea? What am I missing. I think all that you have said depends upon this unusual interpretation of "remnant." Please clarify for me.
Gary,
ReplyDeleteMy opinion is that Jesus is not just referring to an earthly destruction in the report of the falling tower. I think he is making a larger point about calamities. It wasn't because of any unusual depravity they had over anyone else. In other words, we all are subject to destruction and judgment, and we need to repent for the sake of our eternal souls.
Think of what God said to Adam: "When you eat of it you shall surely die." Adam did not die physically right away. What did God mean? He was talking about spiritual death. We are now born into sin and all in need of God's redemption. We are all spiritually dead, just as some day our bodies may endure physical death.
There is a larger point here that bothers me. If all of this is true: that there is no eternal punishment, that eventually everyone will get a pass--doesn't that call into question both the forthrightness and integrity of God. After all, it is eminently clear that both the Jews for all of their history, as well as the vast majority of Christians for the past two thousand years have not questioned the eternal and finality of the judgment of the wicked.
Couldn't we accuse God of being obscure or misdirected here? Even Catholics who believe(d) in Purgatory also believed in a literal and eternal hell.
Is there any record of Christians before the twentieth century who held to this belief of a redemption of all Israel past and future and the temporality of hell?
Please let me know if there are, I would be interested in studying why they believed the way they did.
The only group I know advocating anything like a non-eternal hell would be the 19th century (and present day) Jehovah Witnesses, who believed in the doctrine of annihilation.
But as you know, I am not all-knowing. :-) Looking forward to your response and continued discussion. I hope I am not being as pugnacious or insensitive as before, my brother.
Paul said:
ReplyDeleteYou seem to define the remnant as the Jews who accepted Christ during Paul's time. Where did you get this idea? What am I missing. I think all that you have said depends upon this unusual interpretation of "remnant." Please clarify for me.
Gary said:
Paul, please see the verse below for the source of this view.
Rom 11:5 So then, also in the present time a remnant according to election of grace has come into being.
It was all present tense to Paul.
Paul said:
ReplyDeleteThere is a larger point here that bothers me. If all of this is true: that there is no eternal punishment, that eventually everyone will get a pass--doesn't that call into question both the forthrightness and integrity of God. After all, it is eminently clear that both the Jews for all of their history, as well as the vast majority of Christians for the past two thousand years have not questioned the eternal and finality of the judgment of the wicked. Couldn't we accuse God of being obscure or misdirected here? Even Catholics who believe(d) in Purgatory also believed in a literal and eternal hell.
Gary said:
This is understandable. But the question would be better if framed this way: If this is all true, and God’s judgment is not eternal, will everyone get a pass…
I think the root of your question is, then what did Jesus save us from? Yet the answer still comes, he saves us from our corrupt nature, from mortality and from God’s wrath. There is still wrath. It is still a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God.
Being a dad, I would rather spare my children from punishment. I would also rather they not grow up to be criminals and spend their lives in jail. So we believers, having been given grace (which is more of a “pass” from judgment), will not suffer harm from second death. Maybe we have already experienced second death—once in the first Adam, and once in the second Adam.
Paul said:
Is there any record of Christians before the twentieth century who held to this belief of a redemption of all Israel past and future and the temporality of hell? Please let me know if there are, I would be interested in studying why they believed the way they did.
The only group I know advocating anything like a non-eternal hell would be the 19th century (and present day) Jehovah Witnesses, who believed in the doctrine of annihilation.
But as you know, I am not all-knowing. :-) Looking forward to your response and continued discussion. I hope I am not being as pugnacious or insensitive as before, my brother.
Gary said:
I will see what I can find on this. Thanks for entertaining my views. I appreciate your patience. Since you have a class to prepare for, don’t feel like you have to respond to everything now, if at all. More posts coming.
PAUL SAID:
ReplyDeleteIt reminds me of the people who insist on baptism saving you because of 2 or 3 verses, but ignoring the hundreds of references to salvation by faith alone with no reference to baptism.
GARY:
There is a significant supply of passages that relate to limited judgment. I will supply a list soon.
PAUL SAID:
What an irony that Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Aquinas,Whitefield, Warfield, Spurgeon, all missed it. They all blathered on about eternal destruction and yet, as you say, no one will pay eternally. No one seems to have got this until now.
GARY:
Actually this is not at all a new idea, and it did not originate in cultic groups. I am still learning about the historical aspect but I have found sources that suggest Origen and other church fathers did not hold to eternal torment. Regarding Calvin, Wesley and the like, orthodox Christianity often puts boundaries on doctrine based on what these pillars of the faith established, as if we have fully obtained truth from them and can look no further. We seem to forget just how dark things were in the Mother church which is the source of all our false doctrines.
PAUL SAID:
The interpretation you suggest strains and buckles the structure of scripture. Again, you argue against the clear sense of the language, but this time, you also argue against what it has clearly meant to all orthodox believers who have gone before us.
When you read a novel, I am sure you get the nuances when the author makes broad references or subtle and implied distinctions. Why do you--in this case-seem oblivious to them in the scripture?
GARY:
Yet there is a strong current of scriptural support in which I suspect the truth of limited punishment is seen, whether in subtleties or otherwise. I will again refer to a list of scriptures later. Too often we gloss over or explain away whatever does not fit established doctrines so that the weight of evidenced is overlooked. And, yes, I may be guilty of that too, but I have seen this from both sides, having once held confidently to the accepted view of hell.
PAUL SAID:
ReplyDeleteGod did not promise to save all the Gentiles. They were not kept in the dark (Romans 1). Man's sin is not God's fault and His judgment is just and righteous and glorious--not cruel or harsh.
GARY:
I may have overstated the case. While God clearly blinded the eyes of the Israelites, I applied that to Gentiles. Romans 1 says the Gentiles were without excuse in that they did not acknowledge God. We still have to balance this with what Paul said to the Athenians: Act 17:30 Truly, then, God overlooking the times of ignorance, now He strictly commands all men everywhere to repent. So in times past God did overlook their idolatry. They were without excuse, but he overlooked it.
But in Romans 1 he does say they were darkened, perhaps on their own. But how could they not be darkened? They were born in a corrupt state.More important, he says God gave them over to a reprobate mind. And then you have Romans 11 again: Rom 11:32 For God has shut up all in unbelief, so that He might show mercy to all.
As well as: Rom 8:20 For the creation/creature was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption
Romans 1 sets the stage for God’s mercy. You cannot have mercy without guilt. I believe he wants us to realize we are born in depravity, unable to save ourselves; unable even to generate saving faith without his grace, and even that comes by his own choosing, election and timing.
"(1Ti 2:3) For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior 4) who WILL HAVE ALL MEN TO BE SAVED and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5) For God is one and there is one Mediator of God and of men the Man Christ Jesus 6) who gave Himself a A RANSOM FOR ALL to be testified in [their] due times [times - plural].
1Co 15:22 for as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own order:
PAUL SAID:
You make an excellent point and bring up good "scriptural support for the point that there will be degrees of judgment. I agree. There will be for both the righteous and the wicked. Unfortunately for your argument we are not talking about degree but of duration.
GARY:
There clearly are degrees of duration in the example of many stripes versus few stripes. If one receives a few stripes his punishment will be completed before the one who receives many stripes. Both few and many must have limited duration. Jesus could have said severe blows versus lighter blows to be compatible with endless punishment.
PAUL SAID:
II Thess. 1:8-9
8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power.
Paul does not need in this place to explain that "everlasting" or "eternal" means forever because he adds "shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power."
And he does not add "for at time" or "until the time when God will finish unleashing his wrath." And this omission would not be telling except that there is never a clear exposition of it anywhere.
GARY: I see some problems here. First, this passage says these people being judged will not be in the presence of Christ. But traditional hell passages, Rev 14:10 and also Luk 19:27, say that the punishment is carried out before Him, or in His presence.
Also, notice that when Jesus warns of the coming age-ending judgment in the gospels, he is directly warning his listeners, the Jews. When Paul issues his warning with very similar language, he is not addressing his audience, the Thessolonians, with the warning, but their persecutors. I would strongly argue this means the Jews in Thessolinica are in view, based on Acts 17 and the clues in 2 Thes 1:6, “to repay tribulation to those who trouble you.”
PAUL SAID:
ReplyDeleteThe very point of our Colossians study is that there is no secret or hidden knowledge that is privy to few. There is a depth and mystery in scripture as you have said on more than one occasion, but is it really true that suddenly, "Oops, hell is not forever," pops out in the 20th century for the first time? (except for certain cults) Such an important truth would surely be clearly explained in the New Testament.
GARY:
I addressed this above, but how long did the Roman church prevail with such hideous doctrines before the Protestant movement reclaimed the message of grace and the things that go with it? By then the hell doctrine was firmly established and whoever took it upon themselves to translate the Bible brought an indoctrinated bias to the work. The Hell doctrine has been said to have roots in paganism, as with many things that became mixed with Christian belief. I have yet to study this out.
PAUL SAID:
I hope you are not inferring that Jesus means in Matt. 11:23-25 that the degrees of judgment should be apparent to babes. Please enlarge your context if you do.
GARY:
My point was that God hid his message from the Jews in order to show mercy to the Gentiles, based on the discussion of Romans 11, especially v. 8-10.
Joh 9:39 And Jesus said, I came into this world for judgment, that the ones not seeing may see, and the ones seeing may become blind.
PAUL SAID:
You miss two critical points here. People of faith always knew Jesus. Job is likely the oldest book in the Bible:
"For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he will stand at the latter day upon the earth" --Job 19:25
GARY:
At first I was inclined to agree because of the faithful ones discussed in Hebrews 11. But then I recalled this:
1Pe 1:10-12 Concerning which salvation the prophets sought and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: (11) searching what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow them. (12) To whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto you, did they minister these things, which now have been announced unto you through them that preached the gospel unto you by the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven; which things angels desire to look into.
But even if Job, David, Isaiah or the like understood what they wrote, those who did not have the spirit of prophecy were still in the dark as to Christ. That would be a lot of Israelites through many ages.
Paul and Gary, I have not read every word of this thread and I have been very slow about discussing this topic. "Is Hell eternal?" Is the unbelievers punishment? I'm sure you have already refered to Rev. 20:15 "If any man's name was not found in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." First question then is this eternal. The "lake of fire is first mentioned in vs 10 to be "forever and ever". I can not see it any way other than eternal for those whose names are not found in the book of life. The context of vs 14 and 15 should follow vs. 10 with out question to be the same place and duration. Verse 14 "This is the second death, the lake of fire." Death is definite and final for this life. Then to encounter it a second time for eternity in torment. We need to get busy and stop people from going there. Troy
ReplyDeleteGlad to hear from you Troy,
ReplyDeleteI understand where you are coming from, but aren’t you already pretty busy? ; )
This has become a very complex and intricate discussion. I hope you can take some time to understand what is being said. Most of what you brought up has been addressed to some degree.