The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Scriptural Support for Postmortem Salvation?

The death spoken about, in my opinion is the covenant relationship between God and Israel. So no there does not seem to be a problem. The problem is that you seem to take all the verbiage of a thousands of years of old group of documents and not only apply it to your life, but question others when they see it differently. (though we all do the same thing)

The death was the covenant with God and Israel, the judgment was the 70 ad onslaught to those who did not take the narrow way and realize that Jesus was Messiah, and such the road to destruction was mighty large.

How do you come to be of this opinion, my dear fellow?

Luther wanted to get rid of Hebrews and didn’t believe it carried authority. Along with James, Jude and Revelations.

So someone in the 1500s who founded, basically the Reformation thought that. It should give pause to anyone who wants to claim God used Luther to bring about the truth… I mean, if your founder basically doesn’t believe the way of many now in Reformation, can he really be seen as a founder? Seems so two-sided to me. They claim Luther was a great, yet expound something they consider heretical. It would be like believing Marcion was wrong, yet claiming your lineage through him… Boggles the mind, my mind at least.

If the Christian greats of the past could so readily dispute things in the canon, I feel the utmost freedom to do the same. And, to be clear, we have evidence of many different canons prior to the forced one in the 4th century and of course evidence after the forced canon as well… It is cognitive dissonance to believe that this is a Hallmark of a Christian; that is, that they must believe in the 39/27.

The Reformation was of its time, but it forgot its own motto : Always Reforming.
It got stuck.

I am sorry, My dear fellow, but I have come to believe what I believe, by reverse engineering of scripture. I had to some how figure out why Christ’s atonement was actual and not conditional. The Idea that we are all floundering as to what scripture really means and says was huge to me. There are aprox. 40,000 CHRISTIAN denominations. Think about that.

Then I had to take on the Idea that I believed GOD IS LOVE, so to believe in the evangelical idea of hell was ludicrous at best. So I learned about the four words that are unfortunately translated to ‘hell’ in our English translations. So then I had to deal with the verbiage of ‘if you don’t believe thus and thus you are going to that place translated as hell’

So, long story short I have come to realize ALL of the verbiage of the scriptures deals with God’s dealing with Israel. At first it was a bummer. “You mean I’m not involved?” but as I studied I realized that yes GOD does love all of humanity, and through the story of Israel, and the reconciliation that happened through Christ, that ALL OF HUMANITY is in a great position with GOD. I could go on but I am sure you get the meaning.

Hope I answered your question.

Love you


That is basically self defeating if you want to retain a singular book. You can’t reform perfect can you? You either have to admit what we have is not perfect, and never will be if you want to posit that the Reformation is a living and evolving thing. Fine by me, but by that very viewpoint, your canon is imperfect.

Here below I’ll lay out a totally different take on this Hebrews passage from a pantelist perspective…

Heb 9:27-28 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

So, taking a pantelist or inclusive prêteristic approach and considering the Greek text so as to not just read right over this passage with preconceived presupposition, consider this…

“Traditionally” verses 27-28 have been rendered as given above. Accordingly, this translation is mostly understood to assert… a post death individual judgment, but is this what is really being said? — the pantelist view does not believe so. Read in the larger context of verses 23-28 the focus of this passage is in accordance with the perpetual sacrificial ministry of the high priests, typifying and in contradistinction to the once for all atoning death of Christ.

The conventional reading does not reflect the true intent of the passage, nor the flavour of the book of Hebrews as a whole of a better priesthood—sacrifice etc. Between the words “it is appointed for” and “men to die once” is the Greek definite article and IF correctly parsed reads “those” <τοῖς> tois. This specific parsing actually occurs twice in this passage and in the very next verse concerning… “those who eagerly wait for Him…” — thus the passage can be rightly read accordingly…

Heb 9:27-28 And as it is appointed for those men (the high priests) to die once (ceremonially), but after this the judgment (acceptance—acquittal), so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those (the firstfruits) who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

Read in this fashion gives those two little words as and so their proper and essential contextual meaning and application. It was in this foreshadowing ministration of the Old Testament priesthood of those men that the pattern was laid for Israel’s Messiah to come and perform the ultimate sacrifice, of Himself, “to put away sin” by His better and more perfect offering that now sees all redemptive and prophetic history sealed — for the Great High Priest has returned!

So how does this all work? The High Priest once a year in entering the Tabernacle went in “not without blood” signifying death (or a dying) on his own behalf and then Israel’s… he died in the sacrifice ceremoniously, figuratively speaking, and then by extension the people likewise died. This was laid out in the ceremonial garb and practice as established under the Aaronic Priesthood (Ex 28:30b; 30:10) where the High Priest bore the judgement and made atonement on behalf of the people. Thus were “those men” <τοῖς ἀνθρώποις> tois anthrōpois, i.e., the high priests appointed to die once — annually, and as it turned out, repetitively.

The high priests alone were “appointed” — NOT all the men of Israel, but only specific ones…

Heb 5:1, 3 For every high priest taken from among men is appointed for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins. — Because of this he is required as for the people, so also for himself, to offer sacrifices for sins.

Heb 8:3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer.

Again… in terms of the high priest’s ceremonial death consider the context:

Heb 9:16-17 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator (Moses). For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.

The old covenant was the first testament… and Moses was its testator. But that testament was in force obviously before Moses died, temporally, i.e., ceremonially/figuratively; thus the type of sacrificial death in view.

Heb 9:18-20 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. For when Moses (the testator) had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.”

Thus “the shedding of bloodprefigured the death of Moses — the testator of the first testament and subsequent high priests being duly appointed once, that is, annually, to offer said sacrifices, as Moses did on their own behalf and then the people. Hence it can be said… they were appointed to die, as had Moses the testator of the first testament, figuratively speaking. And so it was… with the high priests’ function fulfilled the atonement then flowed to all Israel.

Now this pantelist position of mine is not so unique however so if you doubt my thoughts then check out this Universalist of 170yrs ago from the 1800’s, Erasmus ManfordHERE pg. 85-86, and HERE pg. 111-112, who in-kind notes the “those men” of Heb 9:27 was applicable to the then Judaic priesthood and is NOT broadly nor universally applicable to postmortem ‘judgement’ realities.

It was finding this particular parsing of the definite article “those men” <τοῖς ἀνθρώποις> tois anthrōpois that first grabbed my attention, and so to be drawing the same conclusion that I subsequently found Manford held has solidifying for me this rendering. It surprises me somewhat that present day ‘universalists’ can’t grasp these clearly prêteristic overtones of scripture given the strong prêteristic theology of past 18-19th century Universalists, i.e., the history is there in your own writings.

1 Like


[quote=“davo, post:43, topic:2751”]
— thus the passage can be rightly read accordingly…

Heb 9:27-28 And as it is appointed for those men (the high priests) to die once (ceremonially) , but after this the judgment (acceptance—acquittal)…[/quote]

Davo, “τοις”(tois) is the dative plural of the article “ὁ”(ho). The article means “the” and the plural means “the” and not “those.” Also “ανθρωποις” means “men” only in the sense of “people.”

I think the best translation might be:

Just as it is appointed for the people once for all to die, and after that—judgment, so the Anointed One, having been offered once for all for the many to bear sins, will appear a second time without sin to the ones eagerly awaiting Him—with a view to salvation.

On this matter I’m afraid you are just ill-informed. Being the dative as you note, you would be aware that the definite article <τοῖς> tois is quite specific in meaning relative to the noun, that is… ‘to the [ones]’ i.e., those. Even a cursory look at some of the copious amounts of text referencing <τοῖς> tois proves this, as is well demonstrated below…

Rom 2:7-8 …eternal life to those (τοῖς) who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those (τοῖς) who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath.

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those (τοῖς) who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to those (τοῖς) who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.

1Cor 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those (τοῖς) who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

2Cor 2:15 For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those (τοῖς) who are being saved and among those (τοῖς) who are perishing.

1Cor 14:22 Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those (τοῖς) who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those (τοῖς) who believe.

Matthew 25:34, 41 Then the King will say to those (τοῖς) on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. … “Then He will also say to those (τοῖς) on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Thus is the parsing of <τοῖς> tois = those — and so I stand by my original post above. And as if there doesn’t need to be any further witness from the text there is this…

Heb 9:28 …so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those (τοῖς) who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

IF ONLY the translators of verse 28 were consistent and properly render verse 27 as they do verse 28…

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed for those (τοῖς) men to die once, but after this the judgment,…

Well when it comes to “those men” <τοῖς ἀνθρώποις> tois anthrōpois of Hebrews 9 IF consistency is allowed its place THEN the “men” in view were clearly the priests and in particular the high priest — even the two chapters before and the one following prove this point.

Thus I contend and maintain that Heb 9:27-28 speaks NOT to a generic postmortem condition concerning all humanity, but rather, quite specifically speaks to the antemortem ministry of the high priest… and thus in how Jesus and in finality, we have the Great High Priest.

Anyway… at the end of the day even though you will still choose not to believe me, which is fine, why not at least consider that prominent Universalist I provided links to from 1848 who basically says in-kind… Erasmus Manford.

If (insert any millions of things) are true, you are toast.

Btw, this forum software really sucks. That said, glad we still have it.

Well, I am GREATLY surprised, Davo, that you have challenged the grammar. I anticipated a reply from you to which I was beginning to prepare a response. But instead, you have chosen to challenge the grammar of the definite article which, in the plural DOESN’T mean “those.” (though it CAN, as you say mean “the ones” where it doesn’t modify a noun). But in this case it DOES modify an noun—namely “people.”

“That” (singular) and “those” (plural) are demonstrative pronouns in Greek as they are in English.
Here are a few examples of the nominative plural use of the demonstrative pronoun(εκεινοι) being so used in the New Testament to mean “those”:

1.Those (εκεινοι) servants (Matthew 22;10)
2. Those (εκεινοι) tenants (Mark 12:7)
3. Those (εκεινοι) eighteen (Luke 13:4)

Demonstrative pronoun all the way. The plural article was NOT used for that purpose.

I haven’t challenged the Greek grammar at all… with regards to the use of <τοῖς> tois in Heb 9 I simply affirm it AND have demonstrated amply via other texts that the rendering of ’those’ is indeed correct and thus contrary to your objection. It seems you have avoided like the plague all those other texts demonstrating in-kind as well — one wonders why?

And as for <ἐκεῖνοι> ekeinoi… well that amongst other options (according to given context) can also be rendered “those” — and yet that simply shows nothing more than that differing Greek words can be understood (again via context) by similar English words; it certainly does NOT mitigate against any argument I’ve made with regards to <τοῖς> tois.

FWIW… to make my post readable I actually deleted a whole swag of references to those i.e., <τοῖς> tois from Paul’s epistles alone, let alone barely mentioning the other epistles or the gospels, i.e., the NT is replete with examples of what I’ve explained.

1 Like

Well…I’ve learned one thing from your post—that in Australia, the word “swag” means “bundle.” I must try to incorporate that word into my own speech. Thanks!

You’re welcome, and I have a query of my own… do Canadians pronounce Z like your neighbours “Zee” or like the Britts “Zed”? Down this way we go with zed.

Canadians pronounce it “zed” as in Britain, for Canada during my childhood was “the Dominion of Canada” being part of the “British Commonwealth.” Later, Canada became independent. Although we still recognize the Queen of England as “the Queen of Canada” she is but a figurehead without any real authority.

1 Like

Canadian band RUSH deals with the zed thing… []

YYZ (zet) is the airport designation for Toronto airport.

1 Like

“Both “zed” and “zee” are acceptable pronunciations for the letter Z in Canada, though “zed” is much more common.”

“The British and others pronounce “z”, “zed”, owing to the origin of the letter “z”, the Greek letter “Zeta”. This gave rise to the Old French “zede”, which resulted in the English “zed” around the 15th century.”

"In most English-speaking countries, including the United Kingdom, Canada, India, Ireland, New Zealand, and Australia, the letter’s name is zed /zɛd/, reflecting its derivation from the Greek zeta (this dates to Latin, which borrowed X, Y, and Z from Greek, along with their names), but in American English its name is zee /ziː/, analogous to the names for B, C, D, etc., and deriving from a late 17th-century English dialectal form…

“Several languages render it as /ts/ or /dz/, e.g. zeta /tsetɑ/ or /tset/ in Finnish. In Standard Chinese pinyin, the name of the letter Z is pronounced [tsɨ], as in “zi”, although the English zed and zee have become very common. In Esperanto, the name of the letter Z is pronounced /zo/.”

It’s not a matter of what anyone “wants”, but what God has said will happen. And who He declares are good, “bad” or ugly, as the case may be.

Even in this life people get 2nd chances. Not only that, but 10th, 100th, 1,000th, etc.

Even - apostates - (1 Tim.1:19-20) were being given another chance:

19 holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and thereby shipwrecked their faith.

20 Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.

Mt.18:21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?

22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not just seven times, but seventy-seven times!

Luke 17:4

Even if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times returns to say, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him."

Love covers a - multitude - of sins.

Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.

“Mercy triumphs over judgement” - Love Omnipotent (God)

You cannot sin beyond the ability of God’s grace to save you:

“where sin increased, grace abounded all the more”

“I tell you, her sins–and they are many–have been forgiven”

If you want to know how much God loves you, look to the incarnation, life, sufferings, and crucifixion of Christ. His love & power for you are greater than the size of the universe: