Evangelical Universalism - True or False Doctrine?

[Guest ninhao]

 

Based on your answer, I don't think you even understand what a word study or what investigating the etymology of a word involves. Etymology involves finding out the history and derivation of a word in order to find out its true meaning. In terms of words in scripture, (in this case aionios/aionion) it involves examining all of those passages where it occurs in the NT to determine its contextual usage as well as determining whether any equivalent Hebrew words exist in the OT to further help determine its meaning. In addition, extra-biblical sources such as other ancient secular writings can be examined to determine the word usage. What you have done instead is to take a single scripture verse and based on that single verse, have predetermined that aionion means eternal. While I didn't expect you to do a full blown word study, what you have done is underwhelming to say the least. It is like saying the English word "bill" means an "invoice" while ignoring other meanings of the word determined by its context such as a duck's bill, the bill of a cap, a dollar bill, his name is Bill. That is not acceptable and makes for poor hermeneutics.

If you read my previous posts you would know that I believe in the lake of fire where all of the unsaved end up. There they will receive punishment or chastisement according to God's righteous judgment but not for an eternity but instead for an age of time so that they may repent in order that God will one day reconcile all to himself. The choice for the unbeliever is to repent and trust/obey in Christ in this life or be forced to enter the lake of fire in the next.

 

 

I'm still confused why you are diverting to a word study of aionios when Jesus used the word to describe the fate of the righteous ( eternal life ) and the wicked in the same sentence. Whether aionios has several applications maybe relevant in other verses but in Matthew 25:46 it is undeniable that the meaning is eternal

 

My questions stand awaiting your reply ( using etymology of aionios if you choose )

• Do you accept aionios in Matthew 25:46 when referring to the righteous means eternal ?
• If so; why don’t you accept aionios, in the same sentence, when referring to the wicked means eternal ?

At this stage I can only assume you believe Jesus used the same word but meant 2 different things in Matthew 25:46.

 

I haven't seen anything you've presented in support of Universalism as plausible thus far which includes the long time falsified "harrowing of hell" and blatant misunderstanding of "all Israel.

If you wish to present why the etymology of aionios allows for this word to be applied differently to the righteous and the wicked in Matthew 25:46 I will assess this premise.

 

Oh yes as well. Could you address the juxtaposition of eternal life for the righteous with destruction of the wicked by Jesus In Matthew 7 please.

 

Mat 7:13-14  "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.  (14)  But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

 

[Elhanan]

Based on your answer, I don't think you even understand what a word study or what investigating the etymology of a word involves. Etymology involves finding out the history and derivation of a word in order to find out its true meaning. In terms of words in scripture, (in this case aionios/aionion) it involves examining all of those passages where it occurs in the NT to determine its contextual usage as well as determining whether any equivalent Hebrew words exist in the OT to further help determine its meaning. In addition, extra-biblical sources such as other ancient secular writings can be examined to determine the word usage. What you have done instead is to take a single scripture verse and based on that single verse, have predetermined that aionion means eternal. While I didn't expect you to do a full blown word study, what you have done is underwhelming to say the least. It is like saying the English word "bill" means an "invoice" while ignoring other meanings of the word determined by its context such as a duck's bill, the bill of a cap, a dollar bill, his name is Bill. That is not acceptable and makes for poor hermeneutics.

If you read my previous posts you would know that I believe in the lake of fire where all of the unsaved end up. There they will receive punishment or chastisement according to God's righteous judgment but not for an eternity but instead for an age of time so that they may repent in order that God will one day reconcile all to himself. The choice for the unbeliever is to repent and trust/obey in Christ in this life or be forced to enter the lake of fire in the next.

 

I'm still confused why you are diverting to a word study of aionios when Jesus used the word to describe the fate of the righteous ( eternal life ) and the wicked in the same sentence. Whether aionios has several applications maybe relevant in other verses but in Matthew 25:46 it is undeniable that the meaning is eternal

 

My questions stand awaiting your reply ( using etymology of aionios if you choose )

• Do you accept aionios in Matthew 25:46 when referring to the righteous means eternal ?
• If so; why don’t you accept aionios, in the same sentence, when referring to the wicked means eternal ?

At this stage I can only assume you believe Jesus used the same word but meant 2 different things in Matthew 25:46.

 

I haven't seen anything you've presented in support of Universalism as plausible thus far which includes the long time falsified "harrowing of hell" and blatant misunderstanding of "all Israel.

If you wish to present why the etymology of aionios allows for this word to be applied differently to the righteous and the wicked in Matthew 25:46 I will assess this premise.

If you haven't gotten it by now despite my lengthy explanation, I rather doubt that you will ever get it. I just pointed out to you that it is shoddy homework to determine the meaning of a word based on a single scripture verse yet you persist in doing just that. As far as the harrowing of hell is concerned it is not convincing at all to make the "long time falsified " harrowing of hell as your claim. Who falsified it? Was it you? How long ago did it get "falsified." If you want to make your case against by all means do so instead of resorting to unreferenced and unsubstantiated generalizations. As for the meaning of aionios stay tuned and I'll get to it as my time permits.

[Guest ninhao]

 

If you haven't gotten it by now despite my lengthy explanation, I rather doubt that you will ever get it. I just pointed out to you that it is shoddy homework to determine the meaning of a word based on a single scripture verse yet you persist in doing just that. As far as the harrowing of hell is concerned it is not convincing at all to make the "long time falsified " harrowing of hell as your claim. Who falsified it? Was it you? How long ago did it get "falsified." If you want to make your case against by all means do so instead of resorting to unreferenced and unsubstantiated generalizations. As for the meaning of aionios stay tuned and I'll get to it as my time permits.

 

 

I accept you insist aionios may have different applications that isn't the issue. In Matthew 25:46 Jesus applied aionios in the same sentence to both the righteous and the wicked. I'd like to hear your explanation for this. Also you haven't yet explained the juxtaposition of destruction of the wicked with eternal life of the righteous in  Matthew 7:13-14

 

Mat 7:13-14  "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.  (14)  But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

 

I addressed the long falsified harrowing of hell doctrine in  post #55 but I'll elaborate. It has been presented that in 1 Peter 3 Jesus, while in the Tomb, went and preached to dead people in "prison". ( unbelievers in hell etc ). Let's look at the entire passage to be clear of the context.

 

  1Pe 3:12-17  For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.  (13)  And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?  (14)  But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;  (15)  But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:  (16)  Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.  (17)  For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

 

We can see initially the issue is suffering for Christ and standing strong in the face of adversity.

 

1Pe 3:18-20  For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:  (19)  By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;  (20)  Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

 

Now we see this suffering for righteousness presented in Noah's day. Noah had the same persecution as we do and God was longsuffering in allowing Noah 120 years to preach by the Spirit. The Holy spirit preached to the pre-deluvians through Noah.

 

Gen 6:3  And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

 

  Notice when the preaching took place

 

 "..when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing,.."

 

We can see from 1Peter 1 the Spirit of Jesus was in Noah.

 

1Pe 1:10-11  Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:  (11)  Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

 

 

When accepting the harrowing of hell doctrine don't you wonder why only those in Noah's day are mentioned ?

 

[OneLight]

 

OneLight - While referring to a lexicon for the meaning of a word in beginning a word study is a start; it is by no means the end. As my reply to ninhao indicated, a word can have a range of meanings which may be determined by its context. A lexicon is only a tool to help the reader determine how a particular word has been translated. It does not determine for us whether the translators were accurate in translating the original language - that job is left to you and me (if we wish to undertake such an endeavor). But even a casual glance of the meaning of G165 presents a peculiar problem in that we are presented with a word that has completely opposite meanings. How can aion possibly mean both an "eternity" and also a "period of time?" It is a contradiction of terms. Also, in citing Rev 20:10 one interesting question or aspect of the verse is that if eternity in the lake of fire is the final destiny of the Devil, the beast and the false prophet, does this by necessity imply that the unsaved incur the same limitless penalty? To argue in the affirmative is to make an argument from silence which is a weakened position to begin with. I submit that more study is required rather than citing a single verse to prove the meaning of a word. I don't have the time now but will attempt to elaborate more in a future post.

 

 

I explained the meaning at the end of my post by how it was used., but I see you do not accept the meaning of scripture, plainly stated, because yo don't want it to mean what it does, not that is means what you say.  It is say when anyone refuses to accept scripture for what scripture means, but tries to make scripture fit their doctrine.  We all do this from time to time, but those who are growing in Him are acceptable to correction.  There are so many places in scripture where it tells us it will be forever.  Because you refuse to accept what it does say, you try to reject the true meaning by saying the argument is from science, which weakens the argument?  That is not true and only weakens your argument.

 

I have studied scripture for well over 30 years.  I began with your understanding of life after death, but allowed the truth to form my understand from scripture and did not waste my time trying to make scripture fit my understanding.  I submit you check on how you approach your studies.

[enoob57]

 

OneLight - While referring to a lexicon for the meaning of a word in beginning a word study is a start; it is by no means the end. As my reply to ninhao indicated, a word can have a range of meanings which may be determined by its context. A lexicon is only a tool to help the reader determine how a particular word has been translated. It does not determine for us whether the translators were accurate in translating the original language - that job is left to you and me (if we wish to undertake such an endeavor). But even a casual glance of the meaning of G165 presents a peculiar problem in that we are presented with a word that has completely opposite meanings. How can aion possibly mean both an "eternity" and also a "period of time?" It is a contradiction of terms. Also, in citing Rev 20:10 one interesting question or aspect of the verse is that if eternity in the lake of fire is the final destiny of the Devil, the beast and the false prophet, does this by necessity imply that the unsaved incur the same limitless penalty? To argue in the affirmative is to make an argument from silence which is a weakened position to begin with. I submit that more study is required rather than citing a single verse to prove the meaning of a word. I don't have the time now but will attempt to elaborate more in a future post.

 

 It does not determine for us whether the translators were accurate in translating the original language - that job is left to you and me (if we wish to undertake such an endeavor). But even a casual glance of the meaning of G165 presents a peculiar problem in that we are presented with a word that has completely opposite meanings.

The Holy Spirit of God reveals the Word to the children born from God... we call Him The Teacher! As your dilemma above is revealed to us 

by this comment I must tell you the obvious: when you come to a place in Scripture where the path of understanding splits and you know by

Scripture there is only one path in the unity of Scripture-> one must wait upon The Teacher to further the understanding! It is understandable

that the fear of eternal punishment all would like it to be eliminated from our minds and reality but is it allowed by God in His Word and that 'IS'

a resounding 'NO' by The Theology of God presenting His wrath an abiding fuel to the place of the rejecters of Him....basically I as His son do

not want this as ever an acceptable idea to reject the only 'LIFE' that 'IS'... and hell is this resounding eternal no as there 'IS' no other Way, truth,

Life only but that which 'IS' provide the lake of fire which is an eternal dwelling for those who refuse Jesus...

 

As ninhao has pointed out God places The Word with those with Him (and that we want to be forever) but also with those in hell (which by

the very fear of it we want to explain it away). In this reality we see the effort is spent to eliminate the very necessary fear of God as this fear

is the beginning of wisdom and wisdom is not an element of ending

1 Cor 13:8-10

8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues,

they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. 9 For we know in part and we

prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be

done away.

NKJV

It is the reality that God answers to no one! Yet has given His Word, in It's eternality of substance, to foundation us in that self same eternity... 

The true fire we pass through is all that is of us in death will pass though the Scrutiny of Scripture and all that does not comprise the unity of

God's Holy Word  shall suffer loss-> yet we also shall be saved by That Self Same Living Word of our Lord...   Love, Steven

[Floatingaxe]

 

Reason why I accept Evangelical Universalism:

(God Is strong enough to save everyone) + (God does want to save everyone) = Everyone is saved

 

 

This is a lie of the devil.

 

God is able to save everyone, and wants everyone to know Him, but His plan is not to intervene and save everyone beyond what He has already done---which is to give His own Son's life as a ransom for us all! It is for each person to either accept or reject that perfect sacrifice.

[Elhanan]

If you haven't gotten it by now despite my lengthy explanation, I rather doubt that you will ever get it. I just pointed out to you that it is shoddy homework to determine the meaning of a word based on a single scripture verse yet you persist in doing just that. As far as the harrowing of hell is concerned it is not convincing at all to make the "long time falsified " harrowing of hell as your claim. Who falsified it? Was it you? How long ago did it get "falsified." If you want to make your case against by all means do so instead of resorting to unreferenced and unsubstantiated generalizations. As for the meaning of aionios stay tuned and I'll get to it as my time permits.

 

I accept you insist aionios may have different applications that isn't the issue. In Matthew 25:46 Jesus applied aionios in the same sentence to both the righteous and the wicked. I'd like to hear your explanation for this. Also you haven't yet explained the juxtaposition of destruction of the wicked with eternal life of the righteous in  Matthew 7:13-14

 

Mat 7:13-14  "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.  (14)  But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

 

I addressed the long falsified harrowing of hell doctrine in  post #55 but I'll elaborate. It has been presented that in 1 Peter 3 Jesus, while in the Tomb, went and preached to dead people in "prison". ( unbelievers in hell etc ). Let's look at the entire passage to be clear of the context.

 

  1Pe 3:12-17  For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.  (13)  And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?  (14)  But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;  (15)  But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:  (16)  Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.  (17)  For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

 

We can see initially the issue is suffering for Christ and standing strong in the face of adversity.

 

1Pe 3:18-20  For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:  (19)  By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;  (20)  Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

 

Now we see this suffering for righteousness presented in Noah's day. Noah had the same persecution as we do and God was longsuffering in allowing Noah 120 years to preach by the Spirit. The Holy spirit preached to the pre-deluvians through Noah.

 

Gen 6:3  And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

 

  Notice when the preaching took place

 

 "..when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing,.."

 

We can see from 1Peter 1 the Spirit of Jesus was in Noah.

 

1Pe 1:10-11  Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:  (11)  Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

 

 

When accepting the harrowing of hell doctrine don't you wonder why only those in Noah's day are mentioned ?

 

Your claim that Jesus through the Spirit preached the need for repentance to those who disobeyed while the ark was still being built is a view that first originated with Augustine. This is not surprising since it was Augustine who also popularized the idea of eternal punishment which cosequently became an established doctrine within the church. This happened despite Augustine’s own self-admitted dislike of the Greek language, lack of fluency with it and his need to rely on Latin translations to aid his understanding. How ironic then that we get our present day understanding of aionios as eternal from someone who was not even well versed in his comprehension of the Greek language.

In terms of your understanding of when Jesus’ preaching took place, you claim it occurred during the days of Noah as the ark was being built. However you neglected to cite the whole verse and context. “18For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.”

The word “when” does not reference Jesus’ preaching but it refers to when God was patient to those who were disobedient in Noah’s day. This is confirmed by the plain statement of the verse that he preached to those who were “imprisoned” and made proclamation AFTER he was put to death. Thus your view is contradicted by the text itself.

As far as Matt 7:13-14 is concerned, I recall that several months ago you asked me for some references on how to parse the Greek language. I referred you to a few reference materials and this is a case where those materials would have benefitted you in understanding these particular verses. The key to this passage is the word “find” which comes from the Greek word euriskontes in v.14. This verb is written in the present tense. Therefore the word “find” as found in most Bible translations should actually be “finding.” Young’s Literal Translation accurately renders these verses as:

13 `Go ye in through the strait gate, because wide [is] the gate, and broad the way that is leading to the destruction, and many are those going in through it;

14 how strait [is] the gate, and compressed the way that is leading to the life, and few are those finding it!

Jesus is describing a present tense action – not an action that will occur in the future. Hence Jesus was saying to his listeners that few are FINDING the narrow way at that time (Present tense) and not that few would EVER FIND the narrow way (future tense).

As for Matt 25:46, I’ll tackle that in my next post to you.

[Elhanan]

OneLight - While referring to a lexicon for the meaning of a word in beginning a word study is a start; it is by no means the end. As my reply to ninhao indicated, a word can have a range of meanings which may be determined by its context. A lexicon is only a tool to help the reader determine how a particular word has been translated. It does not determine for us whether the translators were accurate in translating the original language - that job is left to you and me (if we wish to undertake such an endeavor). But even a casual glance of the meaning of G165 presents a peculiar problem in that we are presented with a word that has completely opposite meanings. How can aion possibly mean both an "eternity" and also a "period of time?" It is a contradiction of terms. Also, in citing Rev 20:10 one interesting question or aspect of the verse is that if eternity in the lake of fire is the final destiny of the Devil, the beast and the false prophet, does this by necessity imply that the unsaved incur the same limitless penalty? To argue in the affirmative is to make an argument from silence which is a weakened position to begin with. I submit that more study is required rather than citing a single verse to prove the meaning of a word. I don't have the time now but will attempt to elaborate more in a future post.

 

I explained the meaning at the end of my post by how it was used., but I see you do not accept the meaning of scripture, plainly stated, because yo don't want it to mean what it does, not that is means what you say.  It is say when anyone refuses to accept scripture for what scripture means, but tries to make scripture fit their doctrine.  We all do this from time to time, but those who are growing in Him are acceptable to correction.  There are so many places in scripture where it tells us it will be forever.  Because you refuse to accept what it does say, you try to reject the true meaning by saying the argument is from science, which weakens the argument?  That is not true and only weakens your argument.

 

I have studied scripture for well over 30 years.  I began with your understanding of life after death, but allowed the truth to form my understand from scripture and did not waste my time trying to make scripture fit my understanding.  I submit you check on how you approach your studies.

I think my approach to studying the scriptures is quite fine thank you. While it is commendable that you have been studying the Bible for over 30 years – your experience nor mine for that matter – are germane to this discussion. If it were, then I would also claim that I’ve studied the Bible since first becoming a believer over 30 years ago in addition to having graduated from seminary with honors. But all of that is irrelevant as rightly dividing the word is what matters – not our personal qualifications.

I don’t know whether you read my reply or correctly understood it. Am I to assume that your idea of doing a word study is to simply accept at face value what a Bible dictionary states and believe what it says without doing any additional study on your own? Since you are a self-described Bible student of over 30 years I can only assume that is not the case. As I stated earlier, using a lexicon or a word study dictionary is only the beginning. It is incumbent upon you to investigate those instances where the word and its equivalent, if applicable occurs in both Testaments in order to determine its contextual usage so as to correctly determine the meaning of a word. You have certainly not done undertaken that task and essentially all you have done is tell me what your Greek word dictionary says which is unconvincing to say the least.

Also you say I make an argument from “science.” Again I give you the benefit of doubt and assume you meant “silence” which is what I actually wrote. I also assume you know what an argument from silence implies so please elaborate and tell me how an argument from silence does not apply in this situation.

The basic problem with your argument is that you take an a priori position assuming from the outset that “there are so many places in scripture where it tells us it will be forever.” If this is the case, why does your word study dictionary give an alternative translation as “Age, an indefinitely long period of time or lapse of time?” I submit that you have somehow overlooked that outstanding detail so allow me to supply the details for you. Consider if you will the New Testament use of aion. Does “eternity” make any sense in the following passages?

♦ What will be the sign…of the end of [eternity] (Mt. 24:3)?

♦ I am with you…to the end of the [eternity] (Mt. 28:20).

♦ The sons of this [eternity] are more shrewd (Lu. 16:8).

♦ The sons of this [eternity] marry (Lu. 20:34).

♦ Worthy to attain that [eternity] (Lu. 20:35).

♦ Since the [eternity] began (Jn. 9:32; Ac. 3:21).

♦ Conformed to this [eternity] (Ro. 12:2).

♦ Mystery kept secret since the [eternity] began but now

made manifest (Ro. 16:25-26).

♦ Where is the disputer of this [eternity] (1Co. 1:20)?

♦ Wisdom of this [eternity], nor of the rulers of this [eternity]…

ordained before the [eternities]…which none of the

rulers of this [eternity]… (1Co. 2:6-8).

♦ Wise in this [eternity] (1Co. 3:18).

♦ Upon whom the ends of the [eternities] have come

(1Co. 10:11).

♦ God of this [eternity] has blinded (2Co. 4:4).

♦ Deliver us from this present evil [eternity] (Ga. 1:4).

♦ Not only in this [eternity] but also in that which is to come

(Ep. 1:21).

♦ Walked according to the [eternity] of this world (Ep. 2:2).

♦ In the [eternities] to come (Ep. 2:7).

♦ From the beginnings of the [eternities] (Ep. 3:9).

♦ Hidden from [eternities]…but now…revealed (Col. 1:26).

♦ Loved this present [eternity] (2Ti. 4:10).

♦ Receive him [for eternity] (Phil. 1:15). Forever or until

Onesimus, Philemon’s former slave, dies?

♦ Powers of the [eternity] to come (He. 6:5).

♦ At the end of the [eternities] (He. 9:26).

♦ We understand the [eternities] have been prepared by a

saying of God (He. 11:3)."

[Guest ninhao]

 

Elhanan, on 24 Sept 2013 - 04:27 AM, said:

Your claim that Jesus through the Spirit preached the need for repentance to those who disobeyed while the ark was still being built is a view that first originated with Augustine. This is not surprising since it was Augustine who also popularized the idea of eternal punishment which cosequently became an established doctrine within the church. This happened despite Augustine’s own self-admitted dislike of the Greek language, lack of fluency with it and his need to rely on Latin translations to aid his understanding. How ironic then that we get our present day understanding of aionios as eternal from someone who was not even well versed in his comprehension of the Greek language.

 

This reference to Augustine’s inadequacy is ironic considering your words to Onelight.

 

“I think my approach to studying the scriptures is quite fine thank you. While it is commendable that you have been studying the Bible for over 30 years – your experience nor mine for that matter – are germane to this discussion. If it were, then I would also claim that I’ve studied the Bible since first becoming a believer over 30 years ago in addition to having graduated from seminary with honors. But all of that is irrelevant as rightly dividing the word is what matters – not our personal qualifications.”

 

 

That the Holy Spirit ( Spirit of Jesus ) preached to the pre-deluvians through Noah  is rightly dividing the word as I have demonstrated in post #95.

 

In terms of your understanding of when Jesus’ preaching took place, you claim it occurred during the days of Noah as the ark was being built. However you neglected to cite the whole verse and context. “18For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.”

The word “when” does not reference Jesus’ preaching but it refers to when God was patient to those who were disobedient in Noah’s day. This is confirmed by the plain statement of the verse that he preached to those who were “imprisoned” and made proclamation AFTER he was put to death. Thus your view is contradicted by the text itself.

 

 

God was patient in Noah’s day to the value of 120 years as we know. Let’s look at the verses concerning the imprisoned.

 

1Pe 3:19-20  By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;  (20)  Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

 

 

The Spirits ( unbelievers in Noah’s day )are in the company of all unbelievers.  They are currently “in prison” and this is how Paul describes them. Paul is saying Jesus preached to the pre-deluvians  who are now “in prison”. ( Ironically according to the harrowing of hell no post-deluvians are presented as being in prison )

Let’s look at why the death of Jesus is mentioned.

 

1Pe 3:18  For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

 

As from post #95 we see the context of the passage regards persecution of the righteous by non-believers.  Jesus suffered as just and was killed ( presented  as example for us to persevere  in the face of injustice  ) but was brought back to life ( quickened ) by the Holy Spirit. The passage then moves on to how this same Holy Spirit of Jesus preached during Noah’s time.  There is no mention of Jesus preaching “after”  He was put to death; and also note Jesus was quickened at the resurrection ( brought back from the dead ).  The intention of the passage  is to illustrate to the audience how they can stand against injustice with the aid of the Holy Spirit of Jesus  in the same way Jesus did and Noah.

 

I’ll ask again this question. Why did Jesus only preach to pre-deluvians ( according to the harrowing of hell )  when millions will have died since the flood ?

 

 

As  far as Matt 7:13-14 is concerned, I recall that several months ago you asked me for some references on how to parse the Greek language. I referred you to a few reference materials and this is a case where those materials would have benefitted you in understanding these particular verses. The key to this passage is the word “find” which comes from the Greek word euriskontes in v.14. This verb is written in the present tense. Therefore the word “find” as found in most Bible translations should actually be “finding.” Young’s Literal Translation accurately renders these verses as:

13 `Go ye in through the strait gate, because wide [is] the gate, and broad the way that is leading to the destruction, and many are those going in through it;

14 how strait [is] the gate, and compressed the way that is leading to the life, and few are those finding it!

Jesus is describing a present tense action – not an action that will occur in the future. Hence Jesus was saying to his listeners that few are FINDING the narrow way at that time (Present tense) and not that few would EVER FIND the narrow way (future tense).

As for Matt 25:46, I’ll tackle that in my next post to you.

 

 

Incorrect. Your parsing of Greek seems to contradict every source I’ve found aside from Universalist websites.  

We can debunk your assessment of Jesus intention in  using  heuriskō in Matthew 7”13-14 by looking at all other times this word is used in the NT. It is used 175 times and without exception they never imply a present imperfect action.

.

Mat 1:18  Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found (heuriskō)with child of the Holy Ghost.

 

Mat 8:10  When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found (heuriskō ) so great faith, no, not in Israel.

 

 

 

I have returned to add an etymology note concerning heurisko which also contradicts your claim.

 

 

Root Word (Etymology)

 

A prolonged form of a primary heuro {hyoo'-ro}, which (together with another cognate form heureo {hyoo-reh'-o}) is used for it in all the tenses except the present and imperfect

 

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G2147

[Guest shiloh357]

In each of the above verses the Greek for "kings of the earth" reads "βασιλεις της γης". Revelation 21:24 reads "The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it.  In this verse the Greek also reads "βασιλεις της γης."  Thus the same kings of the earth in each of the previous verses are exactly the same kings in Rev 21:24.  I have demonstrated that I have not penciled anything in by directly referring you to the Greek text so your problem is not with me or universalism but with the text itself.

The problem is that you are ignoring context.  Context is more important than linguistics.   Context shows us how words are being used.  Revelation 21 and 22 take place at least one thousand years after the kings of the earth make war with the Lord and are destroyed by Him.

 

The problem with your approach is that you are assuming Universalism and then filtering the text through your assumption.  Your “theology” is driving your interpretation which is putting the cart before the horse.   You have exactly zero biblical support for assuming that the kings of the earth mentioned in connection with the New Heavens and New Earth are the same people the Lord destroys in Revelation 19.   You assume that since Universalism is true that Revelation 19 and Revelation 21 and 22 are talking about the same people.   You simply cannot make a true biblical case for that.

 

 

If you review my posts, I made no such claim.  I never said that the saints rule in the New Heaven/Earth.

Yes, but you did say that it was the kings of the earth who got saved in hell (thus making them saints) who are the kings being mentioned in connection with the New Heavens and New Earth.  My point is that kings or not, they would still be saints by definition.

 

 

However within the context of Col 1:19-20 I believe that all men are eventually reconciled to God.  "For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross."  This verse is not one of mere acknowledgment of who God is in terms of his authority but it unequivocally declares that ALL will be reconciled to him.  There can be no peace unless all are reconciled.  There can be no more curse if there are those still suffering in the lake of fire.

This stems from your rather one-dimensional understanding of reconciliation and the hermeneutics that stem from that.

 

Not even you would argue that all things are reconciled to God at this time.  Yet look at II Cor. 5:19.   It speaks of Jesus on the cross and it says, “to wit that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.”    Now if I take that verse on reconcilation and apply the same interpretative rules you are employing then it would appear that the entire world has already been reconicled to God.   God has already done it given the past tense phraseology of II Cor. 5:19.   Yet, we know that there are many people who have not been reconciled to God.   By your standard of interpretation, there is no need for anyone to go to hell because God has already reconciled the world to Himself.  That eliminates the need for anyone to purified in hell. 

 

Take for example, your approach to Rom. 5:12-21.  According to you Paul employs parallelism wherein if in Adam all men were made sinners, then it must follow that in Christ all men are (or will be saved).   But Paul is again speaking in the past tense.  He doesn’t speak in future terms, but terms of what has already happened as historical fact.  Taken at face value, all men should already be saved.  But not even you are bold enough to claim that all men are already saved, hence the need for them to spend a season or two in hell according to your theology.

 

The use of reconciliation in Col. 1:19-20 is not the same use as is employed in Rom. 5:19 where the context is redemptive.   Col. 1:19-20 has the entire cosmic scope of the created order in view and is not using reconcilation to mean that God is going to save everyone and everything.   You are taking a hyper-literal approach that really creates a lot of problems, theologically and biblically.

 

The reconciliation cannot be in a redemptive sense because Col. 1:19-20 is refering to all things, not merely all people.   There is no place in the Bible that says all people will be saved.   In this passage, it refers to God reconciling inanimate objects, the entire created order, not merely human beings.   This passage is teaching us about the restoration of the created order under the Lordship of Jesus who is the “firstborn” of all creation, meannig that He is the chief, the one to whom all authority over all things has been given.  It is not saying that all people will finally be brought to salvation.

 

 

Your non sequitur argument is quite unconvincing to me especially if you are continuing to base it on the separation of chapters and verses.  As I already pointed out the original Greek manuscripts are not enumerated by chapter and verse.

Sorry but I am not basing anything on separation of chapter and verses.  I am looking at context and line of thought, something that false teachers can’t tolerate because it puts too many restraints and guards the Body of Christ from being sucked into the kind of theological snake oil you are peddling here.