No doubt you believed he was pretending (and for the reason you gave), but you were oblivious to the actual point of his satire–or you wouldn’t have agreed with it against yourself.
(Or maybe you did accept his critique against what you had been doing, but if so you gave no clear sign of accepting his critique against you and your behaviors. Which is why he kept at it.)
I’ll be curious to see if he requires you to disavow your extreme disavowal of the forum and its purpose first.
Also, as amusing as it is to see a claimant of pope-level inspiration disavow the pope’s claim to authoritatively inspired teaching , the “Roman Catholic Church” per se didn’t invent the general notion of purgatory. The doctrine, though not in the form that the RCCs eventually developed it, goes back at least as far as the 100s, far before the RCC and the Eastern Orthodox separated, and even far before the (rather fitful) rise of the Imperial Church in the 300s. (Naturally, we would say it goes back to Jesus and the canonical apostolic texts, too, as well as set up by God though at least some of teh OT prophets going back at least as far as Moses.)
Moreover, the RCC version of purgatory isn’t at all universalistic, and so isn’t held by any universalist (including among the Eastern Orthodox); consequently, it isn’t the kind of purgatory being “sold” by Sherman. (Also, I don’t think anyone here is proposing a universalistic version of the typical RCC notion of having to reverse-work-off sins in purgatory, including Sherman.)
If you’ll notice Aaron37, I didn’t appeal to either the pope or the Catholic church, but only referenced scripture that speaks of remedial punishment. Even the word *Kolasis *used in Mt.25.46 in Classical Greek specifically meant “remedial punishment” (punishment meant with the purpose of positive change in the one being punished), as opposed to *Timoria *which meant vindictive punishment (punishment meant to vent the anger and vengence of those who were sinned against).
Furthermore, just because the pope and Catholic Church believes and teaches something doesn’t mean it is wrong. You know, it’s one thing for you to speak reproachfully of me, it’s another thing for you to speak reproachfully of an entire group of our brothers in Christ. If you can’t help being so negative of others, I suggest that you stop discussing scripture with anyone except those who share your beliefs and attitudes.
Agreed. Thanks for pointing that out Jason. I actually have not studied what the RCC affirms concerning Purgatory. My belief in Remedial Judgment and Punishment for us all, believer and unbeliever alike, comes from studing scripture and attempting to understand it based on its context, particularly its cultural context. As you know, “A Text without a Context is a Pretext.”
Handing us over to Satan and announcing that we must be condemned sinning heretics could count as “graceful”, in some technically obscure ways (as universalists should be very well aware), but not in any fashion normally meant by the phrase “a graceful exit”. I strenuously doubt that, had any of us left a forum of yours in that manner, you would have consider it a graceful and quiet exit on our part.
You would have done better to try to spin it as a “stern” or “forceful” exit.
You already slammed the door pretty loudly. Had you closed it quietly, you would have just left without making a show of announcing you were leaving. Or, announcing you were leaving because you felt called to spend more time evangelizing than discussing or debating doctrine would have been more quiet, too–that would have even been respectable and admirable. Lambasting us for (supposedly) not doing the same thing, much moreso as sinners on the same level as the Stepmom-Sleeping Guy from 1 Cor 6? Not quiet. Or graceful (in any aesthetic sense related to the term “quiet”.)
You haven’t been keeping it closed so far. Which wouldn’t be so bad, if you were acknowledging you were majorly wrong about at least some of your declarations in that post. Whether you slammed the door on your butt or not (and no one here was impressed with the supposed ‘grace’ of your departure), you have surely slammed it on your own foot, since by the criteria you insisted on in that post you must be sinning against God by participating here.
And yet, here you still are. Trying to convince us you plan to set up “a serious discussion” with Gene, no less.
Had you stuck with only saying something like this, that would have been a graceful, quiet exit, by the way.
That’s good advice in the sense that, say, C. S. Lewis meant it (where any of us might be sheep or goats, “There will be surprises”.) But no one here (among us universalists anyway) was pretending that we know who are sheep and goats in that sense.
Otherwise, your first quote up there depends entirely on having a good idea in principle yourself who the sheep and who the goats are. Other people here also believe we have a good idea in principle who they are. If you aren’t thus “pretending” to know, neither are we by the same ground.
It’s possible that at some previous time when discussing this judgment (which happens a lot on our forum ), I or someone else mentioned that the word there is neither “goat” {aigeios}, nor even “he-goat” {tragos}, but “baby goat” {eriphos} or {eriphion}.
But since I don’t recall that happening before, I thought I should mention it now. (Sorry if I never mentioned this before. To be honest, I can’t say I ever noticed it before myself.)
Baby goats are young and weak, and so make for tender eating compared to mature goats–in fact the only other NT use of the term is near the end of the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 15:29), where the older brother (who insists on the younger brother continuing to be rejected after figuratively dying, going to hell, repenting, and returning–ahem ) complains that despite his loyalty the father has never even given him a baby goat as a gift for him and his friends to have a party with.
So, if the {kolasis} of the Lord’s punishment is supposed to be hopeless and final (instead of remedial, as the term was typically used in Greek, such as for the scourging of misbehavior at a synagogue, with which the leaders were threatening Peter and John in Acts 4:21), then our Lord is hopelessly punishing people He thought best described as helpless baby goats!
It would make far more contextual sense for the poetic imagery combination of “baby goat” and “kolasis” to imply a training regimen instead, so that the naturally willful baby goats would behave better.
(I would be curious to see what OT refs there are to baby goats as well!)
As to the other two types of usage in the NT (none of which are at all common), it’s true that faithful believers are never described as goats. Then again, rebel believers are sometimes described as sheep!–the parable of the 100th sheep being perhaps the most famous such example. The species of goat local to the region most usually had a black coat, but the NT texts never make an explicit analogical reference to this (even at Matt 25, where one might have most expected it–and where it may still be expected as an implied visual generalization.) On the contrary, the one and only reference to “goat” (as a general term) in the NT is at Heb 11:37, where the prophets themselves wander about in goatskins. (There may also be a pun intended there in Greek, since the term for goat and the term for holy are closely related!–both have to do with being set apart.)
He-goats, meanwhile, are also never used as a figure for faithful believers. They and their blood are only used instead in the NT as God-sanctioned pre-figures for the sacrifice of Christ! Heb 9:12, 13, 19; and Heb 10:4.
So, while Brian Stoffregen is technically correct that “Goats are not used in the image of this relationship”, it doesn’t mean quite as much as he’s trying to make out of it. It may be impossible for a goat to become a sheep (although that may also be pushing the poetic imagery of the judgment too far), but it isn’t impossible for a bad goat to become a good goat; and apparently goats were good enough to be very positively used in scripture, both OT and NT, up to and including as representations for our Lord.
Actually, “vindictive” punishment was also supposed to be remedial; the point was to eventually be able to pronounce the one being punished as righteous. Technically it would be the same as the proper meaning of “re-tribution”, bringing someone back into loyal tribute relationship.
At least, this is the reference one of the only times the term is used in the NT, Heb 10:29, which leads (at verse 30) into quotations from Deut 30:35-36, where the Lord is judging His own people with an explicit goal (even prophesied to be accomplished) of bringing His rebel people back into loyalty with Him–once He has destroyed them as utterly as possible. (Only after that will they repent and so be restored by God.)
So, even though Aristotle and Plato agree on the distinction of remedial vs (merely) penal punishment when comparing kolasis with timoria (respectively), the only time the term is used by an NT author when teaching doctrine, the context is still remedial hope. (Admittedly, the distinction of who is in view in each term-use may still apply, with the punished in view for kolasis and the punisher’s satisfaction in view for timoria–as the two Greek philosophers also agreed on–but the satisfaction of our Lord is in restoration of those who rebel against Him, even when He has to severely punish them. Which is altogether what we can expect if our God is essentially love.)
I’ll be curious to see you answer this post from firedup2000:
Universalism is a radical shift in thinking from the traditional approach to hell. It is very appealing and seems to resolve a number of apparent contradictions that a belief in “eternal torment” produces.
Universalists are quick to point out that hell is never mentioned in the Old Testament. However, if Universalism is true, it is also striking that the New Testament, and especially the book of Revelation, does not mention souls repenting and being redeemed from the lake of fire.The mere mention of one person being plucked from their torment, having their name added to the Lamb’s book of life, and entering the city of God would shed so much light on this subject.
Why doesn’t God explicitly state that such a thing will necessarily happen?
Does not the absence of such a statement undermine the Universalist view?
Wow, Jason! I can’t believe I never saw that before!
The word for sheep in this passage is ‘probaton’, which is apparently a general word for small livestock, and always translated “sheep” in the NT. Can you tell me if there’s a particular reason (other than tradition) for translating it this way?
Otherwise it looks to me like it should read that the King separates his people, as the shepherd (which also appears to be a general term for “herdsman”) gathers his stock and separates out the young.
On another note, if anyone is interested … while looking for info on traditional herding practices, I came across this interesting pdf article. The particular group which this study focused on divides it’s herd into 3 groups to optimize coverage of the grazing ground, while allowing all to return to base twice a day for water. The mature goats are the fastest movers and utilize the farthest areas, the sheep move at moderate speed–both young and mature, and goat kids are the slowest and are grazed in circles in certain areas nearby.
Well, there is some justification for translating it that way in Matt 25, I guess, since the imagination would tend to look for something more particular than “flock” (which could be sheep or goats) in comparison to baby goats. But yes, it might be intended to contrast mature and immature souls.
And no, off the top of my head there is no particular reason why {probaton} has to be translated as “sheep” in most (or any??) of its NT occurrences. The parable of the 100 probata (as at Matt 18:12-14) could just as easily be about goats as sheep, for example. It’s worth looking into anyway.
From what I just looked up in my concordances, when the NT wants to talk about sheep specifically, it always talks about “lambs”, using two different words: {amnos}, a very primary word (not apparently derived from anything else) referring to lambs, and {arnion}, which might be derived from an obscure term meaning ‘male’ (and is exclusive to RevJohn, plus one use near the end of GosJohn). As far as I can tell, there isn’t any specific word for “sheep” compared to “goats” used in the NT. (Although a memory fragment keeps insisting there’s a Greek word eph-something… not to be confused with the term for shepherd, episkopos, which unlike our English term has nothing to do with herding sheep per se. It is, however, always used positively and hopefully in the NT, unless Rev 19 is the sole bizarre exception! )
Actually, Aaron37, not only does the Jewish understanding of Gehenna assume that those who go to Gehenna ultimately rise to Ga Eden (Paradise), Peter actually specifically says that Jesus went and preached the Gospel to the spirits in prison, those who died during the flood, the most wicked of all generations of humans to ever live. And “That is why the Good News was preached to those who are now dead—so although they were destined to die like all people, they now live forever with God in the Spirit.” 4:6. Paul even speaks affirmatively of “baptism for the dead” in 1 Cor.15.
And concerning Hell not being mentioned in the OT, as noted in other threads, it isn’t even noted in the NT. Jesus even specifically says that “the gates of Hades shall not prevail against the church.” And of course, concerning the passage being discussed, Mt.25.46, Kolasis specifically means remedial punishment, which assumes that the one being punished will change, repent.
But these facts have been pointed out to you several times.
No believer will go through any punishment, Sherman, for my Lord and Savior has already bore that for me. Jesus paid the price so I wouldn’t have to. Thanks. Sherman your theology is disturbing and not biblical…
What punishment did Jesus did not bare that I will have to?
Thanks for both your posts, one being on eriphos referring to young goats, and the one of timoria also being retributive. They are both interesting. The shepherd separated his flock based on the needs of the various groups. Those of us (even us believers) who live selfishly need remedial punishment in order to help us change. Those of us who live unselfishly need to be encouraged.
This passage powerully encourages us to be careful how we treat others, especially how we treat those who are less fortunate. When exegetically interpreting parables and metaphors it’s important to not read into them more than the most evident message. Of course, parables often inspire us with messages that are beyond the most evident.
Looks like some believers will be punished and made to wait at the back with the unbelievers (these are all servants not unbelieving outsiders). Either that or you believe it is possible to lose your salvation. Much is going to be demanded of you - I hope you’re not one of those people who find that all the speaking in tongues and stuff has been in vain when you hear the words ‘depart from me…’ and it would be all the more galling when all those folk who haven’t realised that they’ve been doing God’s will all along get in to the party.
Actually Aaron37, scripture says that Jesus bore the penalty for the sins of us all, all humanity. I am glad that you have faith in the salvation of Christ for yourself, I hope you’ll some day come to have faith in the salvation of Christ for all humanity.
As to remedial punishment, scripture affirms that we shall all face the judgment of God. And Jesus, speaking of Gehenna, says that we shall all be purified as by fire, Mk.9.49. Salvation is completely by grace and none of us get what we deserve - annihilation; but we shall all face the fire of truth concerning our lives, and that truth shall burn the evil from us. Just like when Isaiah saw the Lord, and the Lord to a coal (brimstone?) from the altar and purified him. Such purification is never pleasant; in fact, it’s often terrible - but necessary. In order to recieve God’s forgiveness, we much recognize our need for such and repent. And some day, when we face the Lord in judgment and our lives, everything we did and didn’t do is judged, well, scripture does not say in vain that the Lord will dry every tear for there will be plenty of weeping and gnashing of teeth going on.
Like I said, I’m glad that you trust in the sacrifice of Christ for your salvation; I do hope some day that you’ll have faith in Christ for the salvation of others also. For just like Jesus died for you and me, He died for the sins of all humanity. Or are you a Calvinist believing the Jesus only died for those He chooses to save?
Actually, Sherman, no where in the bible does it record anyone going to Gehenna and ultimately rising to paradise. Your confusing Ghenna with the way Hades was set up before the cross. Do you understand why Jesus went down to the spirits in prison 1 Peter 3:19-20? During the Pre-cross era everyone who died went to Hades as described in Luke 16:19-31.
Hades had 2 compartments one side was for the righteous ( Abraham’s bosom, Paradise) and the other side was for the unrighteous ( Hell) divided by the impassable great gulf fixed. It was set up this way because the OT saints had yet to be born again with life and nature of God and could not go straight to heaven when they died due to their sinful nature and because Jesus had yet to go to the cross to make this born again experience possible. So, after Jesus was crucified and resurrected…he went down to the prison (Hades) where the OT saints and the OT wicked were kept to preach the gospel to the OT saints so they could receive the born again spirit and after they received Jesus as Messiah…Jesus went over to those of the OT wicked who repented from the heart before perishing in the flood ( not all did) and preached to them to receive him as Messiah and receive the born again spirit to get them in heaven.
After Jesus accomplished this he led the multitude of captives and ascended upon high ushering the OT saints into heaven with him. (Eph 4:8-9). Hades is no longer set up the way it was described in Luke 16:19-31 before the cross. Now, all who die a believer go straight into heaven and those who die an unbeliever go straight into hell or hades to await the final judgment in Rev 20:11-15…in which they will be thrown into the lake of fire for eternity. I hope you enjoyed reading this as I did writing it.
No believer will go through any punishment, Sherman, for my Lord and Savior has already bore that for me. Jesus paid the price so I wouldn’t have to. Thanks. Sherman your theology is disturbing and not biblical…
What punishment did Jesus did not bare that I will have to?
So, what it really comes down to is you don’t really understand what actually happened to you when you got born again with the life and nature of God… And you don’t understand your spirit man and what actually happens when you die.
In a nutshell, when you die your spirit man exits your body and your actual spirit looks just like you in the natural without the blemishes and goes to heaven or hell. (Luke 16:19-31) The believers spirit man is perfect because it was created out of God’s own righteousness and true holiness. (Eph 4:24) There is nothing to be purified by fire. I have already received God’s forgiveness when I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior, Sherman.
Jesus paid it all so I wouldn’t have to, my friend.
Aside from noting that many (though not all) Christians (as well as most non-Christians) would be disturbed (to say the least) at the idea that God punishes the most innocent of people: even you yourself agree, when it seems convenient for you to do so, that believers will be punished despite Jesus having (supposedly) borne the punishment for at least all believers (if not for in fact everyone), insofar as they continue impenitently sinning. The scriptures are quite clear about this, as you yourself are well aware. The parables leading into the judgment of the sheep and the goats are themselves clearly directed as warnings against lazy and/or uncharitable direct servants of Christ, and there’s a pretty good argument that the (baby!) goats being sent off for some brisk eonian cleaning (or eternal punishment, whichever way you prefer to have it) are also by extension of context lazy and/or uncharitable direct servants of Christ–ones who aren’t surprised at being judged by Him, but are being surprised at the verdict (while the sheep are surprised that they were serving Christ at all).
So the pertinent question is whether you have any sins you’re insisting on holding to, especially laziness or uncharity on your part. Such as insisting on a lack of mercy to the least of Christ’s brothers in prison–which is one of the things that got the baby goats (the least of His brethren, too, in several ways) in trouble with Him.
1.) God intends and acts to save all sinners from sin, but eventually and hopelessly has no mercy on some sinners anyway.
2.) God persistently seeks to save some sinners from sin, but chooses from the outset to have not even some initial mercy on some sinners.
3.) God intends and acts to save all sinners from sin, and persists on doing so for all of them–even the ones who insist on God being finally and hopelessly merciless to at least some sinners.
Which of those is hopelessly unmerciful (sooner or later), and which is always mercifully hopeful? Which of those maximizes the evangelical call, and which of those limit it in one or another way? Which of those fulfills the criteria of God’s own love as emphasized by St. Paul in 1 Cor 13, and which involves hope and true love not remaining?
So, according to your belief, there was more hope for the dead who died without Christ if they died before the Cross, but not after the cross? So the OT actually had more Grace than the NT? Before the cross, all of humanity is saved, but after the cross, most people are consigned to burning in Hell forever. So, according to your belief then, it would have actually been better to live before Jesus died on the cross, because if you were righteous you’d go to Paradise and then to Heaven. But if you were unrighteous, you’d suffer in Hades for a season but ultimately be saved by Jesus. On the other hand, according to your belief, after the sacrifice of Christ, the few who trust in Christ die and go to Heaven, but all others who die not having faith in Christ go straight to Hell. So according to your belief, the unsaved of the OT end up in heaven, but the unsaved of the NT end up in Hell. And how then is the NT better than the OT? Your beliefs just do not line up with scripture.
First note that Hades is a Greek word/concept, not a Hebrew word/concept. The word/concept Hades comes from Greek and Roman Mythology. It was divided into 3 realms - not 2! The Elysium fields were heavenly and for heros. The Asphodel meadows were kinda ghostly, neither real good or real bad. And of course, Tartarus where Zeus consigned the Titans and any mortals who especially ticked him off. The Hebrews used the word Sheol, which simply meant grave or realm of the dead.
And of course, the Jews during the time of Christ used Ga Hinnom (the valey of Hinnom, Jerusalem’s trash dump, transliterated as Gehenna) to speak of a place of Remedial Punishment. As I’ve shared before, Rabbis Shammai and Hillel, the President and Head of the Sanhedrin during and immediately preceeding the time of Christ taught that Gehenna was a place of Remedial Punishment and most people who were consigned there would ultimately rise to Ga Eden after an appropriate and needed period of purification. Matthew records Jesus warning of Gehenna repeatedly, a place of remedial punishment. There was no need for Jesus to speak of people rising from Gehenna to Ga Eden, because such was part of the common understanding of Gehenna. In fact, what we should look for is anything that Jesus said that would differ from the common understanding of Gehenna.
The common Jewish beliefs concerning Ga Hinnom was that most basically good people (Hillel) or the ultra righteous (Shammai) went straight to Ga Eden when they died. Jesus, in Mt.9.49 apparently contradicts this when He warns of the fire of Ga Hinnom, he notes that all need to be salted by fire, thus indicating than none of us are good enough to go straight to heaven, but that all need purification.
The Rabbis also argued over what they believed might happen to those who were especially evil like Herod or Ceasar. Some taught that Gehenna ultimately consumed them 12 months after they died because there was nothing redeemable left in them (annihilation). Others believed that such evil people would continue to suffer in Gehenna indefinitely long, until the demands of justice were met (indefinitely long suffering).
It is thus significant to note what Jesus says in Luke 12:4-7, “4 And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. 5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into Gehenna; yes, I say to you, fear Him! 6 Are not five sparrows sold for two copper coins? And not one of them is forgotten before God. 7 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows."
So yes we should fear God who has the power to cast us into Gehenna, but we should also be comforted in that God loves us all, that none of us are so evil as to no longer have any value to God! God loves us so much that the very hairs of our head are numbered - an example of extreme passionate love. God loves all humanity, not just the righteous, but everyone!
Concerning Revelation’s lake of fire and brimstone and those that are “tormented” there note that:
The word “torment” basanizo speaks of purification, as gold is purified by fire - remedial punishment.
The lake of fire and brimstone was first noted to be in the presence of the Lamb (the revelation of the Atonement) and the angels (the revelation of the supernatural benevolance and protection of God) – Rev.14.10. What was it that led you to put your faith in Christ? Wasn’t it the revelation of the love of God as revealed in the Atonement and provision of God for you! This too speaks of Remedial Punishment.
The word Brimstone (theon, divine fire) meant fire from God. And brimstone (sulfur) was burned as incense by the Greeks in Asia Minor - incense for spiritual purification and even physical healing.
Thus when one interprets based on the actual meaning of the words in the Greek text, its literary context, and the Greco-Roman cultural context, even Revelation’s lake of fire and brimstone speaks of Remedial Punishment, punishment meant to bring about spiritual purification and healing - Remedial Punishement - punishment meant to bring about a positive change in the one being punished. Revelation’s lake of fire and brimstone was a metaphor that meant the same thing as the Jewish metaphor Ga Hinnom! Both spoke of Remedial Punishment, NOT endless mindless purposeless torture - hell.
Of course, you are welcome to disregard this verifiable information and stick to your traditional beliefs if you wish, but I do hope that you come to trust in Jesus not only for your salvation, but also for the salvation of others. Jesus came to seek and to save the lost; and I believe that He did not fail but fully accomplished through the cross the salvation of all humanity!
You know, even humans have enough compassion to put a dog deranged by rabies out of his misery. How much more compassion does God have towards us! If Jesus could not save us, heal us from the rabies of our soul, then the most compassionate thing to do would be to put us out of our misery. But praise be to Jesus who conquers all, who is the savior of all humanity, especially (not only) we who believe. 1 Tim.4.10. Jesus does not fail to save anyone, but draws all of humanity to himself through the cross!
Frankly, the traditional doctrine of hell is rooted in pagan Greco-Roman Mythology, not in scripture. If Jesus and the Apostles had intended to convey the concept of mindless endless purposeless torture only meant to vent the anger of God, then Tartarus was the word to use. If Jesus had meant such a place of endless torture, then instead of warning of Gehenna, He would have warned of Tartarus, or at least the Apostles would have warned of Tartarus. But they did not!
Aaron37, I’m glad you enjoyed writing out what you believe, but I do encourage you to study what scripture actually says and not just rely upon your traditions, and the traditional mistranslation of scripture. You know, St. Jerome actually mistranslated Sheol, Gehenna, and Hades 109 times in his Latin Vulgate which sadly became the foundational translation for the RCC. He mistranslated these words as Infernum, which carried the concept of Tartarus - an apparent purposeful mistranslation of scripture. In other words, Hell was mistranslated into scripture; it is not in reality a scriptural concept.
But we’ve been through this before. Thanks though for giving me a reason to share this information again.
, the “Roman Catholic Church” per se didn’t invent the general notion of purgatory. The doctrine, though not in the form that the RCCs eventually developed it, goes back at least as far as the 100s, far before the RCC and the Eastern Orthodox separated, and even far before the (rather fitful) rise of the Imperial Church in the 300s. (Naturally, we would say it goes back to Jesus and the canonical apostolic texts, too, as well as set up by God though at least some of teh OT prophets going back at least as far as Moses.)
), I or someone else mentioned that the word there is neither “goat” {aigeios}, nor even “he-goat” {tragos}, but “baby goat” {eriphos} or {eriphion}.
(Sorry if I never mentioned this before. To be honest, I can’t say I ever noticed it before myself.)
