Barclay was convinced (UR)

[steve7150]

While awaiting a response to them, I would like to enter my own request to those who believe in eternal torment. Please list all of the verses that tell us that God will consign the lost to a place where they will experience eternal torment. I will start the list for you, by listing the only ones I know that I once thought I found to affirm this. Please add to my list, if it is not exhaustive:

Matthew 25:46
2 Thessalonians 1:9
Revelation 14:11
Revelation 20:10

The above, in their contexts, certainly do not affirm the traditional doctrine in any compelling sense. But perhaps there are others?????




If i believed in ET i would add the Rich man and Lazarus, "In hell where he was in torment he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue because i am in agony in this fire. But Abraham replied, "Son remember that in your lifetime you received your good things while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us." Luke 16.25-26


Initially this certainly sounds like eternal hell and if i believed this doctrine before i read this i would naturally see this as affirming my belief. However Abraham goes on to say "They have Moses and the Prophets" as the Rich man pleads for his brothers. So who has Moses and the Prophets? Who looks to Father Abraham
for salvation? Only Israel does . so i think this is a prophecy about the gentiles (Lazarus) taking the place of Israel (the Rich man) as having a relationship with God. We know little about Lazarus or the Rich Man other then Lazarus was poor. Does poverty qualify you for heaven? Another point often made is the gulf that separates hell from Paradise that no man can cross. Is that new information or did we think a man could travel from hell to heaven, but that gulf was because they looked to Father Abraham, but it's Jesus who takes us to heaven. Also the Rich Man had 5 brothers the same ratio as Judah/Benjamin to the ten lost tribes. IMO this is the 5th parable Jesus gave as he ate with the Pharisees alluding to either Israel losing it's cherished place with God or a message directly to the Pharisees as Annas had 5 brothers.

[darinhouston]

If i believed in ET i would add the Rich man and Lazarus, "In hell where he was in torment he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue because i am in agony in this fire. But Abraham replied, "Son remember that in your lifetime you received your good things while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us." Luke 16.25-26


Initially this certainly sounds like eternal hell and if i believed this doctrine before i read this i would naturally see this as affirming my belief. However Abraham goes on to say "They have Moses and the Prophets" as the Rich man pleads for his brothers. So who has Moses and the Prophets? Who looks to Father Abraham
for salvation? Only Israel does . so i think this is a prophecy about the gentiles (Lazarus) taking the place of Israel (the Rich man) as having a relationship with God. We know little about Lazarus or the Rich Man other then Lazarus was poor. Does poverty qualify you for heaven? Another point often made is the gulf that separates hell from Paradise that no man can cross. Is that new information or did we think a man could travel from hell to heaven, but that gulf was because they looked to Father Abraham, but it's Jesus who takes us to heaven. Also the Rich Man had 5 brothers the same ratio as Judah/Benjamin to the ten lost tribes. IMO this is the 5th parable Jesus gave as he ate with the Pharisees alluding to either Israel losing it's cherished place with God or a message directly to the Pharisees as Annas had 5 brothers.

OK, even granting this as a factual scenario, so there's a gulf of division and torment. It has no time cues other than suggesting it is during a time when there are still people on earth who have a choice, so it's most definitely not an example of the afterlife following Christ's return. Besides, there is no indication of permanence as to the gulf -- this story is consistent with any view that I'm aware of even if it is intended to represent the spiritual realm, permanent or not (I have my doubts).

[Ralph]

After reading this entire thread, I add some general comments:

I believe that we must interpret the documented words of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the light of the documented deeds of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If His words and His deeds appear to us to be inconsistent, then His documented selfless rescuing and saving deeds that He performed while walking among us humans on earth must govern how we interpret His documented words, some of which seem to refer to how He will act in the future.

Our personal interpretations of His documented words are sometimes revised during our lifetimes, but our personal interpretations of His documented deeds are stable, because we stably recognize selfless rescuing and saving deeds when we see them.

Jesus Christ selflessly rescues and saves. That is His nature. It always has been and it always will be. It is what draws the world’s needy people to follow Him. It is our message to all of the world.

[jriccitelli]

Rich, I did quote Homers questions by mistake as being someone else’s questions.
None the less the questions were good.
I don’t think I am at fault for confusing Universalism with UR. I’m confused over 'which one' is being supported.
I didn’t think universalism would have had so much support here!
It seems the doctrines have a lot in common, especially the way people are defending Universalism. I am seeing the same arguments used for both. The verses used to defend one are used for the other. My problem with UR is that it ‘seems’ UR holds that unbelievers can (post-mortem) accept Jesus as Lord ‘after’ being punished (Possibly in hell) or ‘before’ being punished in hell.
The more people argue for Unitarianism the more I think they are denying ‘all’ punishment, although UR holds out punishment for some to ‘bring’ reconciliation. It seems ‘all’ are expected to confess Jesus as lord, and thus receive eternal life.

Let me know if I have this correct, or is the ‘Universal Salvation’ doctrine still being formulated?
And who is formulating it?
The most common Universalist debate is over the ‘eternal’ hell idea, I believe in annihilation ‘after’ punishment,
I guess annihilation does not fit into UR, right?

[TK]

Hi JR--

There is one person who posts on this forum (not involved in this discussion thus far) that believes there is no after-death hell but that unbelievers experience a sort of hell on earth. I believe he is the only one who has posted here that holds this position.

The evangelical version of UR that we are talking about here simply holds that physical death is not the cut-off point for a person to repent and turn to Christ. Now, there are varying versions of this, but the most consistent version seems to be that those who die w/o Christ will experience some sort of punishment, perhaps severe, until ultimately all will repent and turn to the Lord. How long this takes depends on the individual. But I think the general idea is that some day hell will be empty of humans. Awesome!

CI, or annihilationism, is a distinct and different idea that UR.

TK

[Colin]

I’m new to this forum, and this is my first post. I certainly chose a hot topic to jump into!

Let me start off by saying that my entire Christian life, I have held the “traditional” view, and hearing of the UR view really disturbed me. That being said, I do believe strongly in testing everything by the word of God, and not by the word of men, and I am open to the idea that things I have believed, even if I have believed them for a long time or have been taught them by folks that I greatly respect, may be incorrect (just in the last month or so I realized with certainty that there is no command that Christians give 10% of their income to their local church, for example. I had held to that belief up to this point). So I have spent the better part of the last two days praying, reading and researching everything I could find on this issue.

I have read every post in this thread at least twice, and I believe it is clear what points are generally agreed upon and which are not. I think we agree that all have sinned and need justification through Jesus. That all will be raised from the dead and will be judged. And that those whose name is written in the book of life will enter into heaven, those whose name is not will be cast into the “lake of fire” (whatever that may be). Where we seem to diverge is what happens at that point.

I would like to focus on a single verse that I believe deals directly on this point. Matthew 25:46 (NKJV) states:

“And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

This translation supports the traditional view, since if the time to be spent in the lake of fire is “everlasting”, no one ever leaves. This on its face disproves UR, which (as it has been described in this thread) states that those in the lake of fire still have the opportunity to confess their sins, accept Jesus as their Lord and savior, receive justification, leave the lake of fire and be reconciled to God. If leaving the lake is not possible then this line of thinking is also not possible.

As I understand it, the UR position is that the NKJV (and other) translations of this verse are incorrect. The UR translation would be approximately:

“And these will go away into correction that will last an indeterminate time, but the righteous into life that will last an indeterminate time” (actually, the second change of “eternal” into “indeterminate time” isn’t really discussed in this thread, but since the same word is used in the same statement in the same context, I don’t see any option other than it should be translated consistently).

So, to get to the point, it seems to me that this is all a question of correct translation.

Based on my research, the Greek word “aionion” comes from the root word “aion” (meaning “age”). However, it is important to note that just because the root “aion” means age, that doesn’t mean that every word derived from the root must mean a definite period of time. The most accepted New Testament Greek lexicons (BAGD, Thayer, TDNT, Louw & Nida, Moulton & Milligan) consistently define “aionion” as “without end” or “eternal”. Vine does allow that this word can, in certain contexts, mean “undefined duration but not endless”, but in the verses that Vine uses this as examples (Romans 16:25, 2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2), the time period may have an end, but has no beginning. (You can look all of these up). Thus, an entirely consistent translation of “aionion” amongst these lexicons would be “a time period with a beginning but no end, or a time period with an end but no beginning”, i.e. eternity past or eternity future.

The word “aionion” is used many, many times in the New Testament, so we are also able to get a great deal of context from other verses which use the exact same word:

John 6:47, "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting (aionion) life.”
John 10:28, "And I give them eternal (aionion) life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.”
Acts 13:48, “Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal (aionion) life believed.”
Romans 2:7, “eternal (aionion) life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality;”
Romans 5:21, “so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal (aionion) life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
Rom. 16:26, “but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting (aionion) God, for obedience to the faith—“
Gal. 6:8, “For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting (aionion) life.”
1 Tim. 6:16, “who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom [be] honor and everlasting (aionion) power. Amen.”
1 John 1:2, “the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal (aionion) life which was with the Father and was manifested to us—“
1 John 5:11, “And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal (aionion) life, and this life is in His Son.“

These verses use the word “aionion” as a descriptive for the length of God’s life, the length of his power, and the length of our post-judgment life. I hope that we all agree that the use of “aionion” in these verses means forever! If "aionion" can mean anything but forever in these verses, we are all in trouble

Getting back to Matthew 25:46, the Greek is:

KAI APELEUSONTAI OUTOI EIS KOLASIN AIÔNION, OI DE DIKAIOI EIS ZÔÊN AIÔNION

The same word (aionion) is used to describe the length of time involved in the “punishment” as is the length of time of our life in heaven, consistent with the verses listed above.

Based on this, there are only two logical possibilities:
1. The NKJV translation of “aionion” is correct, and while those whose name is written in the book of life receive eternal life, those who are cast into the “lake of fire” receive eternal “punishment”, or
2. “Aionion” should be translated to mean for an indefinite, but not eternal time period, in which case the time spent in the “lake of fire” is not eternal, but neither is God eternal, his dominion is not eternal, and our time in heaven is not eternal.

Also, if you choose the second option, you are saying that the works of the New Testament lexicons, with their innumerable hours of research and examination of countless Greek texts (in addition to the Bible) written in the same time period which also use the word “aionion” in context, are all blatantly in error.

Thus, in order to accept UR as described in this thread, you have to ignore the accepted lexicons that consistently translate all uses of "aionion" to mean "eternal", and also concede that God has a limited life and limited dominion, and that heaven is of limited duration. You can't have it both ways!

I was going to write about the translation of the word “kolasis” as meaning “punishment”, not “cutting off”, but I have written more than I thought I would already. I will just say that, yes, kolasis is derived from kolazo, which is a Classical Greek word meaning ”to prune, to cut off”. But, as anyone who has read Shakespeare knows, languages evolve over time. The meaning of the word “kolazo” during the Classical Greek period (about 400-500 BC), had, by New Testament times, evolved to the word “kolasis” meaning “punish”. You can research this and see it to be true.

And finally, how do we reconcile “eternal punishment” with a God who is a God of love? He is a God of love, but he is also a God of justice. All you have to do is read the Old Testament to see this over and over again. He loves, but he also punishes.

[steve]

Colin,

First of all, welcome to the forum! We all benefit from the arrival of new, thoughtful and responsible thinkers here, which you obviously are. I appreciate how much careful consideration you are giving this topic, and how correctly you represent the universal reconciliation view, as well as the issues involved in translating.

My first point would be that, even if UR is not correct, and if "eternal" is the best translation there of aionios,, according to the conditional immortality camp, Matthew 25:46 still does not necessarily support the idea of eternal punishing but of eternal punishment. It is sometimes suggested that the punishment (cancellation of existence) is permanent and irrevocable—and thus "eternal". However, they argue that the punishing (that is, the process) is not eternal. This is something to be considered, if we are inclined to use Matthew 25:46 to support eternal torment, since the verse does not mention (and may not even allude to) any ongoing torment.

As for the lexical definitions of aionios and kolasis, I admit that I do not like to question the standard lexicons, since I am not a Greek scholar, and have neither expertise nor authority to speak on such matters. However, I can recognize when an adjective does not mean "endless" in a sentence. There have been other threads on this forum where people have posted many examples of the use of aionios that were not speaking of eternal durations—e.g., a three day imprisonment, the length of time a bond servant must serve his master, the length of time Jonah was in the great fish, the length of time a wall stood in a certain place, the durability of the doors or gates of the city, etc., etc. It does not require a degree in Greek to recognize, in cases like these, a usage of an adjective which is (for some reason) neglected by many lexicons.

We also don't know for sure that the New Testament writers were not fond of using Greek words in their older manners, e.g., the manner in which the LXX, their Bible, used them—even as I often fall into the use of KJV terms in their older meanings.

Additionally, there may have been a "theological" usage of aionios that was independent of its lexical meaning. If the writers formed a habit of using "eternal" to mean "that which is inherent in, and proceeds from, the eternal God"—as in the case of the fire that consumed Sodom(Jude 7), or the destruction that comes "from the presence of the Lord" (2 Thess.1:9)—then the lexicographers might have missed this. They are, after all, only human.

This latter meaning would then very aptly describe our own eschatological "life" (aionios life), as well as eschatological punishment, fire, salvation, and other divinely-appointed matters, without necessarily intending to address the question of their duration.

These are additional considerations.

[Roberto]

Thanks,Colin. I think that we need to be very thorough when examining this issue. Thanks for holding our feet to the fire! Let's deal with every consideration.
R

[jriccitelli]

I am glad we all agree ‘eternal’ punishment is not biblical. I fully agree.
(Edit; Sorry I was being tongue in cheek here, of course the word aionios is in the Bible)
Great easy to read, well articulated post Colin, welcome.
TK, thanks for the reply. I am aware CI is different than UR.
Yet CI is also different than Annihilation-ism, yet so often spoken of synonymously in Theology. (That bothers me)
The Annihilation I hold to is post-hell, after punishment.
What I am trying to show, is that UR is not the only alternative to ET.
I am trying to show that annihilation is a humane way to eliminate the unrepentant.
But I have to deal with the barrage of Universalists comments instead.
When I see comments that say ‘all’ means everything, or that earthly judgements don’t represent heavenly ones, and the idea that ‘correction brings loyalty’, or ‘punishment brings repentance’, or Hell could result in a person being made righteousness, I think again that without blood there is no Atonement for sin.
I know you’ll say that after punishment and correction they will be eager to accept Jesus as Lord, but I still do not see that anywhere in scripture. It didn’t happen in Isaiah’s time, Nahum, Jeremiah, etc. Like a dog returns to its vomit, people remain rebellious. Unless of course god forces their conversion (Calvinism), or god punishes till he gets a confession (UR), some people may never repent.

Where will you be stricken again, as you continue in your rebellion? The whole head is sick And the whole heart is faint.6 From the sole of the foot even to the head There is nothing sound in it, Only bruises, welts and raw wounds, Not pressed out or bandaged ... 7 Your land is desolate, Your cities are burned with fire, Your fields--strangers are devouring them in your presence; It is desolation, as overthrown by strangers.8 The daughter of Zion is left like a shelter in a vineyard …Unless the LORD of hosts Had left us a few survivors, We would be like Sodom, We would be like Gomorrah. (Isaiah 1:5-9)

It seems like all the punishment still does not convert the sinner. Unless God had allowed a remnant no one would be saved, and of course it is a person’s freewill that responds to the Holy Spirit.

Gods ‘desires’ that all be saved, but they did not repent, too bad for them.
Just because I was made in His image I do not feel I am 'entitled' to live forever.
Universalism offers too much glory to mans flesh and a too lofty an opinion of man.
I think pleasure is not Gods first goal, but righteousness, truth, and (for us) faithfulness to Him.

Stop regarding man, whose breath of life is in his nostrils; For why should he be esteemed? (Isaiah 2:22)

[Roberto]

"I am glad we all agree ‘eternal’ punishment is not biblical"....why do you say that? Colin doesn't agree, I'm still searching, etc,., etc.....