The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Matthew 7:21 never enter heaven?


To the OP: I think that in most cases, this sort of question is based on an erroneous “understanding” as to what “the Kingdom of Heaven” means. We assume that “Kingdon of Heaven”=“The place you go after you die if you’ve prayed the sinners prayer and really, really meant it.”

A kingdom is a region in which a king reigns. If the King doesn’t reign in any man’s life, then that man is not ruled by the king’s authority. He hasn’t entered into the Kingdom of God. This would not, as I understand it, be as difficult a concept for a Jew of Jesus’ day. To me, a kingdom is a country with physical borders. To most of us, God’s kingdom is a sort of place…the place we think of as Heaven.

Jesus was sort of stating the obvious, but it still needed saying. “If you’re not obeying the King, then you’re not under his authority. You ought to be. He has a right to your obedience, but you’re not giving it, so you’re not in (subject to) the kingdom of God.

The hopeful part of this is that anyone, at any time, can repent and believe the gospel (good news) that Jesus Christ came to save sinners… from what? From their SINS. And sin consists in, basically, disobeying the commands of God. We are, through Him, saved from our sins. When anyone accepts this and stops sinning through the power of Christ, then he is in the Kingdom of God. He doesn’t have to pack up his suitcase and hop on a plane to get there. Just obey the King and you’re in the Kingdom right now. You don’t even have to die (physically). Obedience puts you there.


Perhaps the Kingdom of Heaven is simply wherever the will of the King is done.


Nonsense. That has already been addressed in post 14 (see also posts 1 & 12) here:

.Luke 16:19-31 rich man in "hell"

And by Tom Talbott in post 13 here:

.Luke 16:19-31 rich man in "hell"


Even if the rich man and Lazarus was about the geography of the postmortem destination Hades (which I don’t think it was), “Hades” ends up being cast into the LOF. Whatever happened in Hades (and there’s no hint in the parable that the rich man would be saved as a result of some moral “correction”) cannot be said to also happen in the LOF, without evidence that what happens in the LOF is merely a continuation of what happened in Hades. IOW you can’t appeal to a verse about Hades and apply it as true about the LOF.


Throughout the Scriptures God’s punishments/torments/wrath etc are often clearly corrective. Why would His nature of love suddenly change with the lake of fire punishment. The burden of proof is on those who disagree to provide evidence otherwise. Moreover the word “punishment” in Mt.25:46, which is parallel to the tormenting punishment in fire of Satan & humans in the lake of fire (Mt.25:41; Rev.20:10; cf. 14:9-11), can mean corrective chastening for the good of the offender.


That’s not how it works… You are making a positive claim: That the LOF is corrective. The onus is on YOU to prove it. What you’re doing is akin to saying someone beats his wife, and then telling other people it’s their job to disprove it, as opposed to it being your job to prove it.


The question is: are the torments in the lake of fire corrective or not. I’ve provided Scriptural evidence (in multiple posts above) that it is. You’ve provided nothing that it isn’t. If you think it isn’t, then do you think Love Omnipotent is a sadist?


Nonsense!? You’ve got that down pat and mastered to a tee! From your linked post above you come out with this drivel…

You are falsifying the text… it NOWHERE says such separation was… “Only that at that moment in time it was so.” You can put all the words you like into Jesus’ mouth BUT he didn’t speak ANYTHING like your weak argument claims… NOTHING NOWHERE!!

And as for this…

No you have NOT! You [mis]quote given texts attaching YOUR own meaning and spin claiming this to be “evidence”, cough — it is NOT! IF you actually had any such text plainly stating as you errantly claim you’d have given it, period… you never do and you have will BECAUSE you can’t — as always your claims are nothing more than mere conjecture and supposition.


You can’t provide any scriptural evidence of the LOF “correcting” people because none exists.


The Lake Of Fire is called the Lake of Fire And Brimstone (Sulfur)

HELPS Word Study states:

4442 pyr - fire. In scripture, fire is often used figuratively - like with the “fire of God” which transforms all it touches into light and likeness with itself.

The Greek word for sulfur is theion and is described as divine incense, because burning brimstone was regarded as having power to purify, and to ward off disease. The Jewish culture used sulfur in purification rites: … 2303&t=KJV

In the Bible God can and does use fire not only to punish and correct but to purify. The word usage and meanings in “The Lake Of Fire” make that likely. The other reason why is because the Bible elsewhere states that God is the savior of all people. Especially of them that believe. Some are saved by grace in this lifetime others by fire without faith in the next. Indeed the whole creation is said to be destroyed by fire and then made new. Moreover, the word for fire is pur which is where we get the word purify. The word for torment comes from the word basanos and means a touchstone (a dark stone used in testing metals). HELPS word study has this to say about it:

Cognate: 931 basanos - originally, a black, silicon-based stone used as “a touchstone” to test the purity of precious metals (like silver or gold. ad 288)

Basanos can easily be replaced with the word test instead of torment because fire was used to test and purify metals as it tells us in Corinthians. The fires of God’s wrath of holy hatred destroy but the scriptures say that His anger is only for a moment but His love endures forever. What we see at the cross in the death of Christ is a destruction judgment followed by resurrection. Given His substitutionary atonement I conclude this is what the lake of fire does. It kills but then makes alive.


…which transforms all it touches into light and likeness with itself.

And yet again NO texts provided to back the claim… by all means make the claim if one wishes, BUT DON’T couch it in language purporting to be scriptural WHEN IT’S NOT and no texts supplied saying otherwise.

No argument with that… but context and accuracy determine everything.


The lexical word study proves you wrong.


No it does not! :roll_eyes:


Don’t be too sure that Revelation says they are tormented.

The Greek word so translated is βασανιζω. Look the word up in any Greek Lexicon. The primary meaning is:

to test (metals) by the touchstone, which is a black siliceous stone used to test the purity of gold or silver by the colour of the streak produced on it by rubbing it with either metal

Attempts will be made to correct those who will be in the Lake of Fire. From time to time they will be tested to see whether they have responded by repenting and becoming pure.


I never said the text uses those words. It does, however, speak in the present tense & says nothing about the chasm being an endless condition or even one that would hinder people from crossing for more than 5 minutes. Furthermore, people get out of Hades. You also ignored post 13 by Thomas Talbott. See also post 14 in that thread re the meaning of words.

I did provide a strong case, as in evidence, not proof, from Scripture. You & qaz have largely ignored all of it. And provided no reasonable Scriptural alternate view. In fact you’ve generally evaded Revelation 20-22 in all discussions I’ve had with you, whenever I’ve commented on those chapters, since they are problematic for your Pantelistic interpretation of the Scriptures. I’ll expect the same here.


According to the following url source, apparently BDAG:


And another lexicon there, LSJ (?), states:


rotflmao you are a laugh!

I wasn’t dealing with TT but you… IF everyone here had to respond to every quote you’ve pilfered from some other author because you yourself struggle to make any cogent argument of your own, THEN we’d be here for a month of Sundays trying to decipher it all.

Utter rubbish! :face_with_raised_eyebrow:


You can rest easy qaz… the Greek word <βάσανος> basanos and cognates including <βασανίζω> basanizō DO equal “torment” etc, which is why the bible uses the term or its equivalents.

To be “tested” was to be put under pressure, i.e., biblically rendered as torment (torture). There is NO skerrick of evidence in the Book of Revelation suggesting purifying correction… at all!

Of course as always no biblical texts are produced that promote this dogma relative to the LoF.

As to the partial definition above, here’s the full quote…

  1. to test (metals) by the touchstone, which is a black siliceous stone used to test the purity of gold or silver by the colour of the streak produced on it by rubbing it with either metal 2) to question by applying torture 3) to torture 4) to vex with grievous pains (of body or mind), to torment 5) to be harassed, distressed 5a) of those who at sea are struggling with a head wind


Again I ask you, what is the purpose of God casting people into the lake of fire where He knows they will be tormented “into the eons of the eons”? If they are not there to be corrected, then does Love Omnipotent have them there for the purpose of His sadistic pleasures? As I’ve already said to you earlier in this thread, the - evidence - of the testimony of the Scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation, is that God’s punishments are often clearly corrective. Nowhere is there a single example where His punishments are said to be non corrective & not for the good of the offender. So why should I consider the punishment in the lake of fire to be any different? Does God change? Does His love have an expiry date?

See also my post 99 to you above:


As I said before, nonsense.

Now your faced, for the third time, with all of the following:

" “So even if we made the mistake of trying to extract from the details of this parable a position on the issue of whether there will be further chances, there still wouldn’t be much cause for taking this passage as supporting the doctrine of no further chances with any force at all. For as long as the [one] who believes in further chances sensibly allows for the possibility that, while punishment is occurring, those suffering from it can’t just end it any time they want, she can make perfectly good sense of the words this parable puts into the mouth of Father Abraham. After all, if a road has been covered with deep enough snow drifts, we’ll tell someone who must drive on that stretch of road to get to where we are, “You cannot cross over from there to us.” We’ll say this quite properly and truthfully, even if we know full well that the road will be cleared in a few days, or that, in a great enough emergency, a helicopter could be used to get across to us even today, if, say, we’re at a hospital. [But doesn’t that show that there is a sense, then, in which they can cross over to us? Yes, there’s a perfectly good sense in which they can, and a perfectly good sense in which they cannot. For enlightening and accessible explanations of the meaning of “can” and related words, I recommend Angelica Kratzer’s “What ‘Must’ and ‘Can’ Must and Can Mean” (Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (1977): pp. 337-355) and example 6 (“Relative Modality”) of David Lewis’s “Scorekeeping in a Language Game” (Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (1979): pp. 339-359.]”

Tom Talbott said:

“As for the unbridgeable chasm of which Jesus spoke in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, not one word in this parable, even if taken as literal history, as some do take it, implies that the chasm between Hades and Abraham’s bosom will remain unbridgeable forever. Do not Christians believe that the cross has already guaranteed the ultimate destruction of sin and death, where the “last enemy to be destroyed,” as we have already noted, “is death” itself? When 1 Peter 3:19 depicts Jesus as preaching to the spirits in prison (or those who were disobedient in the days of Noah) and 1 Peter 4:6 also depicts him as preaching the gospel to the dead, do these texts not illustrate perfectly the view of Elhanan Winchester,13 who wrote: “I believe, that Jesus Christ was not only able to pass, but that he actually did pass that gulph, which was impassable to all men but not to him”?14 Even if one should take the details of this parable more literally than one should, in other words, one can still view the Cross as the means whereby Jesus Christ has bridged this hitherto unbridgeable gulf. By flinging himself into the chasm between the dead and the living and by building a bridge over it, Jesus thus brought his message of repentance and forgiveness to all people, including those in Hades, which is the abode of the dead.”