The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

It does not display a precedent of people who are in hell being restored.These verses are not salvific to the sodomites who are in hell. You are taking this verse out of context and making it say that. I have not studied these passages enough to tell you what they exactly mean and I have no desire to do so and I will not force an interpretation for the sake of responding to you but I do know these verses do not mean what you say they mean. :wink:

Same old same old…

Heb. 10 was also for believers, not unbelievers, along with Heb. 12. That’s my point. Again it seems that you either totally ignored my post, or maybe it is that you are truly confused as your smiley face indicated. And btw, who is it “impossible” for to renew these people to faith? Is it impossible for God? Of course not. But there does come a point where it is “impossible” for man, a point where no more discussion or intervention will help. There comes a time when one realizes that only God can bring a person to repentance.

Also, even timoria does not imply ECT. Going back to my original point, I find it very interesting that not one word in scripture used to warn of the punishment of sin for humans specifically means ECT and can be rightly interpreted as Hell. Sheol and Hades mean grave or realm of the dead, not Hell. Gehenna means Hinnom Valley, not Hell. And even though Greek mythology had a place similar to Hell, Tartarus, not once is Tartarus used to warn of punishment of sin for humans. The only place it is used is in 2 Peter where he says that sinning angles are held in Tartarus until judgment - a present place of punishment for them, not for humans, and apparently only until judgment. Even Revelation’s “lake of fire” correctly interpreted is “the lake of the fire and the burning brimstone” likely was a reference to the Dead Sea.

It seems to me that if Hell, ECT was a real threat, that it would have been specifically named in scripture at least once and not left up for people to read it into scripture. Even the Greeks had a word that meant a place of conscious torment in the afterlife that was potentially endless - Tartarus. Why did not the NT authors at least warn of such once! Shoot, even St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate did not translate Sheol, Hades, or Gehenna as Tartarus in Latin, but instead translated Sheol and Hades as “Infernum” meaning pit not Hell/ECT, and transliterated Gehenna as Gehenna. In other words, even St. Jerome, a proponent of ECT did not mistranslate Sheol, Hades, or Gehenna; that was not done until scripture was translated into English, where Sheol, Hades, and Gehenna were all mistranslated as Hell, 110 times in the 1610 Catholic Douay Rheims, and 54 times in the 1611 KJV.

If there is a Hell, why is it not warned of specifically in scripture. If Hell was a real threat then it seems to me that it would be specifically and repeatedly warned of in scripture from Gen. through Rev. Instead of “in the day you eat of it you will surely die”, if Hell was a real threat it seems God would have warned “in the day you eat of it you will surely die and go to Hell if you don’t repent”. And surely Moses would have warned of it in the Law, but he doesn’t even once. Surely Luke (wrote to a Greek) and Mark (wrote to Romans) would have translated Ga Hinnom as Tartarus (Hell) instead of only transliterating it as Gehenna (a real place, Hinnom Valley). And surely if Paul believed in ECT, surely he’d have at least once specifically warned of such in his writings, at least once. For example instead of writing “the wages of sin is death”, he’d have written “the wages of sin is Tartarus/Hell”; but of course he didn’t!

I find it amazing that people, Christians continue to insist on there being a real Hell when Hell is not warned of by name in scripture even once! But tradition is hard to overcome, especially when most English translations mistranslate Sheol, Hades, and Gehenna!

Also, why would you imply negative motive in others, as in “try to spin it”? There really is no need for such. A key to growing in the grace and knowledge of the Lord together is mutual respect for one another. And such statements show a lack of respect and negative assumptions of others. Just because people understand scripture differently than you do does not mean they have negative motives and are “trying to spin” anything.

So you haven’t studied them enough to know for sure what they mean, but you’re for sure what they don’t mean. Isn’t that a good example of approaching scripture with one’s mind already made up.

It reminds me of what would have been a good motto concerning salvation of the church I was raised in, “I don’t know for sure that I’m saved, but I’m very certain you aren’t!” Because of our extreme focus of salvation being about getting into heaven, one was not “saved” until one died and finally passed mustard at the judgment and was admitted to heaven. Until then, one really had no assurance of salvation.


That’s very true… :slight_smile:

…and amen. :slight_smile:

Nothing there indicates they are repentant yet; and what is there indicates they are not only unreprentant but shipwrecked as thoroughly (if not moreso) as in Hebrews 10, which is also about ex-believers (not about pre-Christian unbelievers) as you are very well aware.

(Similarly, Paul hands over the Stepmom-Sleeping Guy (who might actually be either Alexander or Hymaneous) to Satan for the destruction of his flesh in 1 Cor 6, with an expectation that the SSG’s spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord to come. Not before the coming of the day of the Lord, but in the day of the Lord: the salvation then is contrasted to his punishment now.)

Rev 3:19 uses the same term in regard to people who, although nominally Christian, are still clearly being impenitent about their sins or Christ wouldn’t be threatening them with vomiting them out of His mouth! “Be zealous then AND REPENT!!”

Paul exhorts fathers to be nurturing their children in the discipline (same term) and the admonition of the Lord. (Eph 6:4) The term admonition {nouthesia} is used where people are impenitently and even gravely sinning, such as in Paul’s instructions at Titus 3:13, “A sectarian man, after one and a second admonition, refuse, being aware that such a one has turned himself out, and is sinning, being self-condemned.”

And in Heb 12, where you started with all this in another thread, the context of discipline is not merely that of training or exercise, but of punishment, as the Hebraist’s own reference to the Proverb indicates. (The same term for “exposing” is used here, too, as in Rev 3:19 where Christ warns impenitent Christians to repent or be vomited from His mouth. And the term for “scourging” is the same as just previously in 11:36 where the Hebrew prophets and fathers were scourged by unbelievers among the Jews, in punishment.)

Your challenge was met and answered (by Paidion, quite appropriately) out of the gate; and now I’ve added to it.

Meanwhile, your own attempt elsewhere to argue that {kolasis} means the same at both Matt 25 and 1 John 4, resulted in you eventually arguing that the term when used at 1 John 4 has nothing to do with hopeless punishment or even punishment from God at all, while still insisting that the same meaning must be applied at Matt 25 as at 1 John 4. (In order to avoid discussing the actual narrative and thematic contexts of the judgment there, which I went to the trouble to post in detail.)

So you’re running out of words for punishment. Time to give up on {paid-} and move on to {timo-} without bothering to check around on site for what people have argued about it first. (And without bothering to check what the Hebraist’s OT citations involved, for checking what he meant by {timoria}.)


Actually, Tartarus where sinning messengers are thrust down into, is apparently the same place that human sinners will be put by God, as the scriptures talk elsewhere of sinners being put into a place reserved originally for Satan and his angels. The contexts of Peter’s epistles and of Jude’s epistle (which dittos a lot of the Petrine) bear this out.

(I’ve been occasionally mentioning this myself since the forum was founded.)

Couldn’t have put it better myself.


Though I may yet post it again, if I feel the need to.

I’m pretty sure Revival doesn’t believe the agnostic seventeen year old in hell will ever repent of her sins, Leif. (Because God loves her free will so much that He takes it away from her or allows her to destroy it, whichever AaronC thinks will get the result of hopelessness for the girl.)

So you might as well modify your description, since he’s going to complain about that.

More to the point, I’m working on permission to set up a thread (or two) where members can talk about beliefs that those who are Christian universalists or non-universalists will be punished by God for that. So if Rev wants to stop hinting around it in order to avoid a ban he can discuss it there, and if you want to stop hinting around it you can discuss it there.

(It’s a touchy subject, to say the least, which is why I can’t promise I’ll be able set up a thread or two on the topic.)

Until then let’s stay on topic for the thread, and not make such threats against each other. The ad/mods would rather not see even hints about that, although we tolerate it a little when the hints are at least in topic for the thread.

That goes for you, too, Aaron.

My point is describing the torture the girl will experience, at the hands of God. If he wants to defend the doctrine, he best feel, see, know, at least a sample of its consequences. Maybe then he’ll stop his grinning and winking.

However, if necessary - I’ll delete the post.

It is possible that Mt.25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels" is an allusion to the concept of Tartarus and is thus related to 2 Peter 2:4, " For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to Tartarus and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment". “IF” this is the case then, even Tartarus should not be interpreted as Hell because based in 2 Peter 2.4 it is a present reality that lasts until judgment, and is not something that comes after judgment. And if one believes that demons, spiritual evil principalities and powers of today are now being held in Tartarus, then we are in Tartarus with them. Could this be the “present evil age” that Paul says God saves us from in Gal.1.4? If so, the present reality of Tartarus is very different from a future reality of endless conscious torment, Hell.

Also, the author, audience, and context of 2 Peter 2.4 is completely different than the author, audience, and context of Mat. 25:41. Mt.25.41 speaks of the punishment of people after judgment and that judgment is based on works and was a warning to believers. 2 Peter 2.4 speaks of the current situation of sinning angels until judgment. So to equate the two passages seems to me to be a stretch.

I tried to explain, in the same vein, why I don’t appreciate his smileys in a different thread…

No need to delete the post. Just reconsider that A37 refuses elsewhere to believe the wicked in hell ever repent, so if you’re going to present what he’s defending you shouldn’t include that as part of what will be true if he’s right. As to whether he allows that he will feel grief for the damned then (unlike now), I don’t recall, although from other things he has said (about it being ridiculous that God loves the damned in hell) I doubt he expects to grieve for them then. If not, then he won’t feel any fraction of what they will feel, and so your description of what he’ll feel will be inaccurate.

That would explain why he feels capable of grinning and winking when talking about the shock to come: because he expects not to have any grief over them himself, and so shouldn’t have any grief over them now (and so frankly doesn’t now except when, to his mind, he’s being weak and sinful.)

I agree that he ought to be faced with the fullness of what he is proposing to smirk and wink about, though, so I have no complaints about that. Only someone with no real love for the lost could be so cavalier about them being lost.

The latter part isn’t said one way or another in the Petrines or Jude. The lack of clarification there shouldn’t be read as a denial.

However, granting for purposes of argument that the imprisonment of Petri-Jude is the same as the imprisonment of Matt 25, then that would indicate the same imprisonment goes on beyond the judgment of the day of the Lord to come (as that’s where Jesus is putting the baby goats on that day). A connection between the two needs to be denied for the conclusion not to follow.

Jude and Peter both bring up the punishment of the wandering stars/angels at all as a comparison for what is waiting for false teachers; so there can be no topical division between human sinners and angelic sinners per se in their epistles. (Rebel human Israel and rebel human Sodom are also included in the comparison. Peter and Jude have more to say about rebel human sinners in those portions than about the rebel angelic sinners!)

I may yet need to find new ways then, if the very vision of a sample will not bring him to at least pity, let alone graceful humility. That being said, I’ve emptied the post til another time.

Sadly, i agree. :cry: Wow, that is pretty darn evil and depraved if you ask me…and that’s putting it mildly… :confused:
No wonder so many people hate Christians and the “god” they worship.
And no wonder so many people become atheists. :blush:

I actually recall having that be a problem when I was an evangelical.

I thought to myself: “So if God is just, and does everything good, then all these people going to Hell is a good thing. I should see it as good…” I couldn’t, though. I recall there were many people in church history who talked about how they’ll enjoy knowing others are in Hell, or appreciate Heaven more because of it. :confused:

Tbh, this pushed me from evangelicalism more than anything.

If I’m to believe in Hell I won’t see it as a good thing. “Love cannot bear that, we must pray for all”. - St Siluoan.

Maybe some people don’t like Christians such as yourself and Jason because of your critical judgmental attitude. You don’t know me one bit yet you call me evil and depraved because I use smilies. Both Jason’s and your comments are way out of line! That is what is sad, Caroleem. Who are you to make such comments? I forgive both you and Jason for your unjust judgmental remarks. :blush:

I hate being set upon by a dozen opponents at once, so I can understand you’re feeling hardly-done-by. But you’re not following arguments through to their logical conclusions, and this is very frustrating.

Here’s how I see it.

When Hitler shot himself, people danced and sang in the streets. What could be more natural? The righteous rejoiced at the downfall of the wicked.

Sinners who reject God are far worse than Hitler. They commit an infinite crime against the infinite dignity of God and deserve infinite punishment. The saints in heaven will experience boundless joy at the sight of the boundless torment of the damned in hell. The greater the crime, the greater the punishment, and the greater the joy of the righteous who witness the just suffering of the wicked.

Again, what could be more natural?

Perhaps one day God will give you the supremely joyful task of tormenting a damned sinner…

If you don’t like the thought of rejoicing over the torment of sinners, there are two alternatives. One alternative is to be horrified at their suffering (which is certain to spoil the heavenly party). The other is to have a lobotomy. If you can think of any other way of reconciling heavenly joy with hellish misery, I’d like to hear it.

Actually, there is another way, but you’ll have nothing to do with it. If suffering the just consequences of their sins will make every man, woman and child come to their senses, then one day hell will be emptied and their suffering justified. Then the party can begin in earnest.

So what’s it going to be? Will you rejoice at their misery; lament their misery; forget their misery; or see their misery as redemptive?