THis is what I learn from those stories: Evil will be destroyed and the good will be saved. But this has little to do with the question at hand.
Righteous men argued with God. They would not tolerate injustice from his hand and were bold enough to say so. Moses didn’t follow your line and and say, “God is righteous by definition. Therefore if he wants to kill all Israel, it must be right.” Abraham didn’t say, “God is immutable. Therefore, if he wants to destroy Sodom there’s nothing I can (or should) do about it.” Job didn’t say, “God is inscrutable and can do no wrong. Therefore I must have sinned. I’ll shut up and take it on the chin.”
When was the last time you sat in the dust, speechless and horrified at the thought of a single soul suffering boundless torment? Have you no imagination? Do you suffer from some sort of psychopathy that renders you incapable of empathy? When did you last pray, “Far be it from the judge of all the earth to do wrong! Lord God, do not do this appalling thing! Rather, have mercy. Show the world your glory by saving even your enemies. Any tyrant can destroy, but only you can save.”
That’s a useless argument because it can be used by anyone to justify anything. “Moloch is not committing atrocities otherwise He would not be God. His judgments are righteous and just whether you agree with them or not. Now obey his infallible word! Throw your baby into the sacred fire!”
What a thrilling prospect, having your enemies tormented forever. That’ll show 'em who’s boss.
The rich man represents Israel and the poor man represents the Gentiles. That parable has nothing to do with punishment after death.
Here are two things scripture clearly reveals: “God is love”, and “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.”
How does a God who always perseveres, who keeps no record of wrong, who seeks the other, and who never fails… fit into your miserable conception of hell?
You speak of human logic. I think you extrapolate your own emotional reaction towards your enemies and project it onto God. You want to hurt those who hate you and construct a God who does the same.
Can you drop the emoticons please? I rarely like being winked at. It makes me feel I’m being patronized.
God won’t violate our precious wills, but he’s quite prepared to drop us into everlasting fire. Would *that *violate our wills, I wonder?
Some of the greatest Church fathers, godly men speaking Greek from birth, were outspoken universalists. That’s all I need to know.
Unless I’m mistaken Revival, you were the one who in this thread first mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah. Allen was simply responding to your comment.
Concerning the OP, frankly it doesn’t surprise me that the specific words you chose are only used in regards to believers. Most, if not almost all, passages concerning judgment and the punishment of sin are addressed to believers. And judgment is almost always spoken of as being based on how one actually lives, not just what one professes to believe. Not only shall we all face judgment, but judgment even begins with the elect, those chosen by God to know Him in this life. And to whom much is given, much is required. So it doesn’t surprise me or in any way seem contradictory to UR if as you say the words you selected are only used to warn of chastisement for the penitent and not the impenitent.
What I do find telling is that not once in scripture does God inspire any biblical author to specifically warn of Hell, using a word that specifically meant Hell in either Hebrew or Greek. People read Hell/ECT into many passages, but if Hell was truly a worry, then it seems that the Lord would have inspired at least one direct reference to it in scripture. People read Hell into the lake of the fire and the burning brimstone, but like any good painting, people read into such what they already believe, what is in their hearts. And though the Jews did not have a word that meant Hell, the Greeks certainly did - Tartarus. But not once does Jesus, Paul, Peter, or any of the authors of the NT warn of people being cast into Tartarus. It sure seems to me that Paul would have at least once warned of Tartarus/Hell specifically. In Greek mythology, Tartarus was the hellish realm in/underneath Hades. So IF Jesus, Paul, or the other writers of the NT believed in Hell, ECT then it’s only reasonable that they would have at least warned of it once specifically, and not left it to be necessary for people to read it into what they wrote or said.
"It is very remarkable that the terms in Greek which would carry the meaning of punishment for the good of the offender are never used in the New Testament of the infliction which comes upon the impenitent; these are paideia and paideuo, and they are frequently used of the “chastisement” of believers, but not of the impenitent.
This totally refutes your theory of impenitent unbelievers receiving remedial punishment! Hebrews 12:5-8 refutes your theory as well. Also “Timoria” is used for the punishment for the sinner in Heb 10:29.
Your unbelief in the existence of Hell or the LOF doesn’t make them any less true, Sherman.
St Clement of Alexandria, a native Greek speaker, Head of the Catechetical School in Alexandria in 189AD. If anyone knew the nuances of certain Greek words in relation to Christian doctrine, it would be this man.
“For all things are ordered both universally and in particular by the Lord of the universe, with a view to the salvation of the universe. But needful corrections, by the goodness of the great, overseeing judge, through the attendant angels, through various prior judgments, through the final judgment, compel even those who have become more callous to repent.
So he saves all; but some he converts by penalties, others who follow him of their own will, and in accordance with the worthiness of his honor, that every knee may be bent to him of celestial, terrestrial and infernal things (Phil. 2:10), that is angels, men, and souls who before his advent migrated from this mortal life.”
For there are partial corrections (padeiai) which are called chastisements (kolasis), which many of us who have been in transgression incur by falling away from the Lord’s people. But as children are chastised by their teacher, or their father, so are we by Providence. But God does not punish (timoria) for punishment (timoria) is retaliation for evil. He chastises, however, for good to those who are chastised collectively and individually.
If in this life there are so many ways for purification and repentance, how much more should there be after death! The purification of souls, when separated from the body, will be easier. We can set no limits to the agency of the Redeemer; to redeem, to rescue, to discipline, is his work, and so will he continue to operate after this life.”
**God does punish (timoria) the sinner in Heb 10:29. ** "It is very remarkable that the terms in Greek which would carry the meaning of punishment for the good of the offender are never used in the New Testament of the infliction which comes upon the impenitent; these are paideia and paideuo, and they are frequently used of the “chastisement” of believers, but not of the impenitent. It is often claimed that the word kolasis used in Matthew 25:46 carries the meaning of chastisement for the improvement of the offender, but although Aristotle, in comparing it with timoria, may seem to suggest that it is meant for the improvement of the offender (what he really says is that it is tou paschontos heneka, “on account of the one suffering it,” “has the punished one in view,” whereas timoria is tou poiountos, “on account of the one inflicting” “that he may be satisfied”), the usage even in classical Greek is predominantly against making the supposed distinction. Both words are used interchangeably by the leading classical authors, including Aristotle himself, and kolasis is continually employed where no thought of betterment can be in question.
What science fiction book did you get this from? because you won’t find it in the word of God.
I believe this is a very strained reach around in the face of Kolasis’ etymological core that makes itself plainly known, that of corrective nuances and remedial usage. As for the uses of paideia and paideuo, it is only valid if one assumes that only “Christians” are God’s children, a position which is violent and strained, but is especially a position that is unworthy of the glorious God.
At any such rate, God’s justice is not vindictive, and as many on this site have shown time and time again - there are vast multitudes of reasons to believe that any form of punishment inflicted on any individual will and always is for that individual’s betterment.
I will be making another thread in answer to this passage, when I have time, and if I decide to do so.
[size=85]*Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
(Matthew 16:24-28 - KJV)
Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life shall lose it, but whoever loses his life on account of Me shall find it. For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world, but forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give as an exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will render to each according to his works. Assuredly I say to you, there are some standing here who will by no means taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
(Matthew 16:24-28 - EMTV)
*[/size]
Everyone will be rewarded according to their work. If we are not saved by our works, then it follows reasonably that the state of our salvation will not be determined by this judgement, rather it is the state of our rewards that will be determined.
This is likewise supported by yet another verse which deals with the same theme;
[size=85]Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
(1 Corinthians 3:13-15 -KJV)[/size]
[size=85]Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
(1 Corinthians 3:13-15 -EMTV)[/size]
Everyone will be rewarded according to their work, everyone’s work will be revealed for what it is, the Day of the Lord will declare it; revealed by fire, and the fire will test everyone’s work of what sort it is. The works which are good shall remain and reward shall be received. The works which are not good shall be burned up and be lost and loss will be suffered; though the worker, everyone, will be saved - yet so as by fire.
As for salvation, if it should be brought up, in regards to the passage I have drawn up a translation of Matthew 16:24-28, “Lefein’s” Version or “LV” if you will.
[size=85]*Matthew 16:24 Τότε ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἶπε τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ· εἴ τις θέλει ὀπίσω μου ἐλθεῖν, ἀπαρνησάσθω ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκολουθείτω μοι.
Then Jesus said to the disciples, if anyone is willing to come after me, let him renounce himself and let him lift his cross and let him follow me.
Matthew 16:25 ὃς γὰρ ἂν θέλῃ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ σῶσαι, ἀπολέσει αὐτήν· ὃς δ᾿ ἂν ἀπολέσῃ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ, εὑρήσει αὐτήν.
For who ever may be willing to save his soul, shall destroy [lose] it. Yet who ever should destroy [lose] his soul by reason of me shall find it.
Matthew 16:25 ὃς γὰρ ἂν θέλῃ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ σῶσαι, ἀπολέσει αὐτήν· ὃς δ᾿ ἂν ἀπολέσῃ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ, εὑρήσει αὐτήν.
For what benefits a man [mankind] if ever he should gain the whole cosmos, yet damages his soul? What shall man [mankind] give as ransom [an equivalent] for his soul?
Matthew 16:27 μέλλει γὰρ ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔρχεσθαι ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων αὐτοῦ, καὶ τότε ἀποδώσει ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὴν πρᾶξιν αὐτοῦ.
For the Son of Man [expectantly intends] to come in the glory of his Father, with his Messengers, and then he shall give to each according to his practice.
Matthew 16:28 ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, εἰσί τινες τῶν ὧδε ἑστηκότων, οἵτινες οὐ μὴ γεύσωνται θανάτου ἕως ἂν ἴδωσι τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ.
Amen I say to ye, there are some of the ones standing here who shall never taste death til they percieve the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom.*[/size]
Matthew 16:24-28 gives us the following themes;
If you wish to follow Christ, deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow. If you will to save your soul, you will lose it, or destroy it. If you lose your soul, or destroy it, by reason of (because of) Christ you shall find it.
It doesn’t benefit a man, or mankind, to gain everything, even the whole cosmos, and yet harm his soul in the process. It doesn’t benefit man, or mankind, to have everything and yet have a damaged soul. The man, even if he has everything, has nothing with which he can ransom his soul, and nothing that can take the place of his soul; nothing that is equivalent to it in value or genuine worth. Likewise, the man if he should damage his soul, he has nothing of equivalency to exchange as a ransom for it, or as payment for its healing. It is in this that I can see great revelation for God’s mercy and grace, we earn nothing, but all is given freely.
Everyone will be rewarded according to their works; the works that are built on the foundation of Christ will secure reward, those built on the foundations apart from Christ and all he in fullness of Godhead express and represents, will cause suffering with its loss. But the man, everyone, will be saved though as by fire.
Every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess. Revelation 16:7-9 does not imply a permanent, ceaseless condition. Revelation 20:10-15 likewise does not, for reasons of which many can argue from many angles. Namely the angles dealing with the wrongful translation of “into the eons of the eons” into “for ever and ever”, and the angles dealing with the specific nature of the Lake of Fire in which they are being tormented.
I am quite convinced you are incorrect. They are being tormented in the presence of The Lamb, who is Christ, by reason of whom those cast into it lose their soul, their life, for it is the Second Death. If they lose their soul, are destroyed, lose their life by reason of Christ - then they shall find their soul, their life, and shall find it in him. Christ who shall baptise, immerse, all in the Holy Spirit and in Fire, thus goes the prophecy as given by Saint John the Baptist.
There is Biblical reason to believe that the Lake of Fire describes the very presence of God.
As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
(Revelation 3:19)
William Barclay (who wrote his own translation of the New Testament and so a Greek language expert) make this statement abut kolasis:
<<
The Greek word for punishment is kolasis, which was not originally an ethical word at all. It originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better. I think it is true to say that in all Greek secular literature kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment
The early church had to decide what to do with Christians who crumbled under persecution. When things cooled down, many apostates wanted to rejoin the church. Some argued that these people had blown their chances and should be rejected forever. Others argued that mercy should be extended to them. It’s clear which side of the debate was taken by the writer of Hebrews, and he was wrong. Being led by the Holy Spirit, the church as a whole took the other side. The argument was preserved in Holy Writ so we could learn from his error.
But let’s ignore this context, take this passage at face value and see where it leads.
“If we deliberately keep on sinning…” Have I deliberately sinned since becoming a Christian? Have you? (That’s a tough one…) I need some wriggle room here. How deliberate does this sin have to be to get me into trouble: seriously deliberate, or sort of half-awake, accidentally deliberate? Perhaps I can get away with 5 out of 10 on the Deliberate Scale… (But isn’t God’s love patient and kind? Doesn’t love always persevere? Apparently not. It seems the love Paul commends to us is deeper than the love of God himself.)
“keep on sinning…” Does that mean one single deliberate sin? Logically it must, but that sounds pretty tough. (And here was I, thinking love kept no record of wrong.) Perhaps it means one deliberate sin a month, and one half-deliberate sin twice a week. Or maybe it means I must sin less with every passing year, a bit like paying off a mortgage. If I reduce my sinning by 0.5% a week, will this be sufficient? That’s a 1300% reduction in wickedness compounded over 10 years. Surely that’s enough. How can I tell if I cross the line?
The author helpfully uses an illustration from the Law. I will too. Remember that wicked man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath? They took him out and stoned him to death for his crimes. “How much more severely” will God punish Christians who commit the equivalent sin.
Allowing that passage undiluted force, not one single solitary person will enter the Kingdom. Ordinary human weakness will slam the door in every face.
Answer 2:
There is a part in every Christian that continues to deliberately sin, that treads underfoot the blood of Christ. This is the old man, the body of death, the Adam in us, the enemy of God. This ugly old man is the object of God’s wrath and retribution, and will be eternally destroyed. Just as Israel was purged of its sin in the wilderness, everyone will be purged of their sins in the fire of God. The sooner we join the battle to kill it, the better. Take up your cross and follow. If the sacrifice of Christ loses it’s power to inspire us, the battle will be lost. Even so, if we are faithless, God is faithful. If we fail to kill the old man, God will succeed. It will be painful.
Answer 3:
Your answers come from yourself and not God… the context of Hebrews 10:29 is talking about a Hebrew Christian renouncing Jesus as Messiah and going back under the Law for salvation. If anyone rejected the Law of Moses they died without mercy. How much more severely does a man deserves to be punished (TIMORIA) who has counted the blood of the covenant an unholy thing?
Timoria punishment is the exact opposite of Kolasis punishment. Timoria in classical Greek means vindictiveness of the punishment satisfying the inflicters sense of outraged justice, as defending his own honor or that of a violated law. Its a punishment with finality.
God does punish the sinner via “timoria” punishment as you have repeatedly denied. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of a living God who rejects Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
Allan your comments on this thread (and others) remind me of this scripture:
John 7:17
17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
I discern Allan your doctrine doesn’t come from God but you speak of yourself.
What’s remarkable Revival is that you totally ignored my post and only restated your opening point, and then go on to quote Heb. 10.29 which is not speaking of the punishment of unbelievers, but of believers who continue in deliberate sin, and Heb. 12:5-8 which says that such punishment is from God and for the good of the one being punished. So if anything, your scriptural references only affirm UR and disprove your assertion, even equating in context the word timoria with remedial punishment.
Heb. 10: 26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Heb. 12: 4 In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. 5 And have you completely forgotten this word of encouragement that addresses you as a father addresses his son? It says,
“My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline,
and do not lose heart when he rebukes you,
6 because the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.”
you can try to spin it, Sherman, but the truth remains. Hebrews 10:29 is referring to a Hebrew Christian renouncing Jesus as Messiah and going back under the law for salvation. Hebrews 6:4-6 says it is impossible to renew these people again unto repentance.
Heb 12:5-8 is for the believers not unbelievers and especially those who renounce Jesus!
Employ fallacious arguments. Some of your favorites:
False dilemma
Non sequitur
Begging the question / circular
Example:
X scripture must be understood from it’s context
The context of X scripture is Y
Therefore X scripture proves Y
Repeat the same thing over and over and over and over and over.
I don’t know if you are aware that you do these things or not, although I find it hard to believe you don’t but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
At any rate, these four tactics you use are pointing to a huge vacancy sign.
No thanks.
