zaitzeff

are you asking that someone present a counter-argument to you?
it seems as if you are right. Oh, and in addition to Paul, John in the gospel and letters and the Pastorist, we should include I Peter, whose author seems to believe in post-mortem preaching and salvation.

Peter Kirby

Yes, or any additional argument or commentary.

best,
Peter Kirby

Notsri

Hey, Peter. I just wanted to quickly offer some alternative interpretations to a few of your verses.


I think "all" in v. 32 = Jew & Gentile, not mankind's every individual. Of course, the whole of ch. 11 concerns the issue of the ultimate salvation of Israel, i.e. the Jews will eventually accept Jesus as Christ. In 11:13 Paul specifies that he's actually addressing (in ch. 11) the Gentile Christians of Rome : "...I am speaking to you who are Gentiles" (v. 13). Then, in vv. 30-32, still writing with a view to the Gentile audience, Paul says: "30 For just as you [Gentiles] once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their [i.e. the Jews'] disobedience, 31 so these [the Jews] also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you [Gentiles] they [the Jews] also may now be shown mercy. 32 For God delivered all [i.e. Jew & Gentile] to disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all [i.e. Jew & Gentile]."


"In Christ shall all be brought to life," i.e. resurrected; but not necessarily saved.


IIUC, the vast majority of early Christians were lower-class individuals; which fact I think is made fairly explicit even in the NT itself: e.g. 1Cor. 1:26ff.: "For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth; but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are..."

I would suggest, then, given the fact that the author of 1Tim. asks Timothy to pray even "for kings and all who are in authority" (2:2), that the "all men" or "everyone" in 2:4 alludes to the extension of God's saving grace not only to the lower classes among men, but to those from all walks of life: the rich and the poor, the wise and the foolish, etc. - even kings.

I think essentially the same interpretation applies to Titus 2:11 as well: John Calvin commented: "that [salvation] is common to all is expressly testified by [Paul] on account of the slaves of whom he had spoken [in 2:9,10]. Yet he does not mean individual men [by "all men" in 2:11], but rather describes individual classes, or various ranks of life."


To draw from Calvin again, he suggests that "swthr is here a general term, and denotes one who defends and preserves. He means that the kindness of God extends to all men. And if there is no man who does not feel the goodness of God towards him, and who is not a partaker of it, how much more shall it be experienced by the godly, who hope in him?"

Similarly, John Gill interpreted: "'Who is the savior of all men' - in a providential way, giving them being and breath, upholding them in their beings, preserving their lives, and indulging them with the blessings and mercies of life."

Regards,
Notsri

NearNihil Experience

If grace (God given escape from Hellfire) is universal, then having exceptions like "holy ghost blasphemy" make it NOT universal.
You torture one good person in Hell for some metaphysical quibble, and you loose the right to call it universal...loosely applied maybe, but not universal.

Jaguar Prince

To the Gehenna and Hades passages, one has to add all the scriptures in the NT that speak of being rejected in outer darkness (see Matt 7, 21ff). This means that alongside the fire metaphor we have a darkness metaphor for the place of separation and condemnation.

If you add up all the quotes with honesty, what you get is an impressive case for believing that hell is part and parcel of Biblical doctrine, which doesn't mean that you have to believe it. That's a different question altogether.

But let's be serious and stop re-inventing Xtianity in our own supposedly liberal and enlightened image! If there wasn't hell, why would Paul and Jesus and Timothy and all the others fulminate constantly against sinners and unbelievers? Why? If everybody was going to heaven in the end, why reproach people for being idolatrous, lecherous, incredulous, greedy, quarrelsome and all the rest of it? Why preach the Gospel at all? Why the Incarnation?

Therefore, like it or not, hell is an indispensable part of the system. Take it away and the whole thing collapses. It doesn't matter whether it is a hell of fire or a hell of darkness or a hell of ice. Hell is absence, rejection, condemnation, loneliness, pain. And all of that for ever, with no possibility of getting out. This is what the Bible teaches.

Hell in my view is quite real and its existence needs to be emphasized and realized by each individual if any change is to occur in our life. Dark and fiery hell is our present and future life of separation, the pain caused by the sense of being an isolated ego who has to struggle with the whole universe in order to survive materially and spiritually. It isn't something God imposes on us as a punishment, it is something we create ourselves through our delusions. When Buddha said that all life is suffering, he just meant that: all life is hell. Hell yesterday, hell now and hell tomorrow.

Unless one awakens...

Jag says: If you don't like hell, write your own Bible. :devil3:

Chili

Not at all. Hell is never separation or all Buddhists would be in hell while in fact they can have their version of heaven on earth.

The pain of the isolated ego trying to compete in the universe for survival is called Limbo wherein only the limbic system is used for orientation.

Catholics have the added benefit of the communion with the saints in heaven and the fellowship of believers. There is no separation here nor is there a direct connection with the divine but a mystical communion is perceived thru our participation and observance of the rules of engagement. This is called the consecration of the unleavened bread that is the body of Christ.

Things go wrong only when yeast is added towards a premature awakening (we call it bible study) and that is about the time that all hell breaks loose.

Chris Weimer

But really only in Matthew. I think I covered the rest adequately.

It is inappropriate to question other posters motives on this board. Please refrain from doing so in the future.

False dichotomy. No hell = Heaven for all. We have other options, one being the gnostic interpretation that only those who receive the special knowledge (mystery in Paul's letters) will see the Kingdom of God, a staple in Markan thought.

I have yet to see where the Bible says that the condmened will suffer eternal tortue explicitly. You can refer to here for a reference on aion etc...

Well, you have a right to believe whatever you wish, but your bias isn't welcome on a academic understanding of the teachings of the Bible.

Already have, but once again this has nothing to do with the Bible's doctrine on Hell.

zaitzeff

re universalism:

I am well aware of the verses used to argue against universalism:
Mt 25:46, mk 13:21, luke 16:26, II Thess 1:9, rev 14:11, rev 20:10, rev 22:11.

I contend as follows:
1) Universalism is taught in the 7 genuine letters of Paul, most clearly in I Cor 15:24-28;
2) Universalism is taught in the gospel of John;
3) Universalism is taught by the Pastorist;
4) Universalism is taught in Colossians, whether we ascribe Colossians to Paul or a student of his;
5) The doctrine of predestination is taught by Paul and the doctrine of predestination leads either to universalism or the conclusion that God is a psychopath unworthy of worship;
6) The doctrine of God's foreknowledge leads to the doctrine of predestination;
7) However, even without admitting the doctrine of predestination, God's foreknowledge prior to creation leads either to universalism or the conclusion that God is a psychopath unworthy of worship;
8) the solution first proposed (and since adopted by many) by Origen to the anti-universalistic verses that they can't or shouldn't be taken literally because eternal punishment can't be believed of a loving God is inadequate; nor is the so-called "age-lasting" translation adequate to explain the anti-universalistic passages;
9) that the solution lies in the following: recoginizing that the New Testament teaches both universalism and eternal punishment, and it can't be right in both of those teachings. Mt, Mark, Luke, II Thess and Rev must be regarded as Luther regarded Hebrews:
that they contain many useful things, together with wood, hay and stubble. That is, these books, when they deny universalism, teach theological error.

Chris Weimer

Mark 13:21? How do you get hell out of that is far beyond me. And revelation can't count since the genre is Apocalyptic, not dogmatic. Big BIG difference there.

zaitzeff

Mark 13:21 has Jesus saying of Judas that it would have been better for him not to have been born. If this statement attributed to Jesus is true, then, Judas can't be going to heaven and this statement therefore entails a denial of universalism.

As for Revelation, it says that the beast and false prophet and the devil are tormented forever and ever and it says that the smoke of torment of those who worship the beast ascends forever and ever. The end of the book tells us of those who are excluded from the city of God and says, "Let those who are filthy remain filthy." However, universalism says, "Let those are filthy return to God and be received." Even if you claim that much of Revelation is figurative, that doesn't solve the problem. The statements are figurative of eternal torment in hell and deny universalism.