Alternative Views of Hell
-
_STEVE7150
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm
Damon, I'm 52 and until 4 years ago the only thing i knew about Jesus was what i was told which was he was the worlds greatest salesman. Fortunately my wifes friend was a born again christian and she had the courage to preach the gospel. But if i would have died 5 years ago according to mainstream christianity i was an unrepentant sinner and deserved eternal damnation in hell. But i did'nt know God or his standards or that his Son died for my sins so i had'nt willfully rejected Jesus since i never knew him. That's the case with most non believers IMHO because most muslims or hindus or buddaists and others really don't have a real understanding of Jesus or God the Father. In 1st Tim 2 it says Jesus Christ will be testified to every man "in due time." Clearly not everyone learns about Christ in this life so if we believe scripture than when is Christ testified?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_STEVE7150
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm
Homer, No there is no salvation outside of the blood of Jesus but where is the time limit stated? There is no clear cut word in scripture for eternal and punishment (kolasis) is more accurately translated as "pruning or chastisement" IMHO. I'm not catholic but i think purgatory is only for the forgiveness of venial sins not mortal sins.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Steve.
I'm not like most Christians who believe that the only opportunity to hear the Gospel is in this life. However, I do believe that people are responsible for acting on what they do know and understand, no matter how much or how little. (Romans 4:15 and 5:13 are corollaries of this.)
The rest is a little more debatable. There are some who believe that Christ preached to the dead during the three days and nights that His body lay in the tomb, for instance (1 Pet. 3:18-19). There are also some that believe in a second resurrection and a final opportunity to hear the Gospel if one had never heard it in this life (Rev. 20:5-6).
In any case, I believe the Gospel to be a vehicle for teaching people how to truly love one another, with Jesus' own life as our pre-eminent example of lovingkindness. Even if people never hear the Gospel in this life, if they at least strive to be loving and kind, I can't see God condemning them to eternal damnation. They can't enter into His Kingdom apart from Jesus, of course (John 14:1-6), but IMHO there has to be some middle ground, some way of dealing with this group of people who aren't incorrigibly wicked but haven't heard the Gospel in this life.
I'm just not sure what that way is... *shrugs*
Damon
I'm not like most Christians who believe that the only opportunity to hear the Gospel is in this life. However, I do believe that people are responsible for acting on what they do know and understand, no matter how much or how little. (Romans 4:15 and 5:13 are corollaries of this.)
The rest is a little more debatable. There are some who believe that Christ preached to the dead during the three days and nights that His body lay in the tomb, for instance (1 Pet. 3:18-19). There are also some that believe in a second resurrection and a final opportunity to hear the Gospel if one had never heard it in this life (Rev. 20:5-6).
In any case, I believe the Gospel to be a vehicle for teaching people how to truly love one another, with Jesus' own life as our pre-eminent example of lovingkindness. Even if people never hear the Gospel in this life, if they at least strive to be loving and kind, I can't see God condemning them to eternal damnation. They can't enter into His Kingdom apart from Jesus, of course (John 14:1-6), but IMHO there has to be some middle ground, some way of dealing with this group of people who aren't incorrigibly wicked but haven't heard the Gospel in this life.
I'm just not sure what that way is... *shrugs*
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Romans 2:14-17 seems to describe a way for those who have never heard the gospel to be saved by the life they live, i.e. doing what the Law requires. But how could they possibly keep the regulations and rituals in the Law if it was not revealed to them somehow? Paul can only have in mind the law of love, the higher law.
I say "seems to describe" because when the passage is taken in the whole context of about the first four chapters of Romans, it is apparently only describing a hypothetical possibility because Paul goes on to show that everyone, Jew and gentile, are sinners and stand condemned apart from faith in Messiah.
I believe the "middle ground or way of dealing" with those who have never heard the gospel is found in another idea: after judgement, God still has the option of mercy. We can be absolutely certain our God will do the right thing!
Like Steve Gregg, I too would be happy if the universalist position is correct but I doubt this very much.
In Christ, Homer
I say "seems to describe" because when the passage is taken in the whole context of about the first four chapters of Romans, it is apparently only describing a hypothetical possibility because Paul goes on to show that everyone, Jew and gentile, are sinners and stand condemned apart from faith in Messiah.
I believe the "middle ground or way of dealing" with those who have never heard the gospel is found in another idea: after judgement, God still has the option of mercy. We can be absolutely certain our God will do the right thing!
Like Steve Gregg, I too would be happy if the universalist position is correct but I doubt this very much.
In Christ, Homer
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
-
_Some Partial-Pret guy
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:35 pm
I am watching this thread with great interest.
So far, seems like the "traditional" view is the way it is,
BUT,
I am still open to correction by the actual scripture.
I've been wrong before, so I wouldn't be *shocked* if I am wrong again.
I hope to see more of Steve's thoughts on this, his previous posts on the subject have got my attention.
Here's a suggestion...
Maybe we can make a list of all the references to damnation, judgement, and Hell (but NOT where it's used for "grave"),
and make a point-by-point to see if anything interesting stands out about this.
Just thinking.
So far, seems like the "traditional" view is the way it is,
BUT,
I am still open to correction by the actual scripture.
I've been wrong before, so I wouldn't be *shocked* if I am wrong again.
I hope to see more of Steve's thoughts on this, his previous posts on the subject have got my attention.
Here's a suggestion...
Maybe we can make a list of all the references to damnation, judgement, and Hell (but NOT where it's used for "grave"),
and make a point-by-point to see if anything interesting stands out about this.
Just thinking.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
I don't profess to have much insight or authority to pronounce the final verdict on this topic. I have said most of what I know about it, and have been willing to let others who are more committed to one view or another discuss their differences.
When we look for a list of verses about hell, we meet with a problem. Is there actually a word in the Hebrew or Greek Testaments that actually corresponds with our English concept of this term? Most people, when they think of the English word "hell," mean the place of eternal damnation for the lost. But which of the available Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible speak of this place?
All references to "hell" in the Old Testament are translating the word "sheol." All Hebrew scholars agree that this word does not refer to the special place of damnation of the lost, since it is used to speak of the state of death, both for the wicked and of the righteous. Sometimes it is best translated as "the grave." I don't think I have encountered any scholars that believe that sheol means very much other than the undifferentiated place of the dead, without specifying persons as saved or lost, or even referring to anyone's eternal destinies.
When we come to the New Testament, we find the word "hades" is often translated as "hell," but also as "the grave." IN fact, "hades" seems to be the exact Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word "sheol." We can be certain that, whatever hades may mean, it does not refer to the place of eternal torment, because that place would more naturally be identified with Revelation's "lake of fire," and we read that hades itself will be cast into the lake of fire, which clearly differentiates the two (Rev.20:14). Thus the traditional rendering of hades as "hell" is misleading, if by the latter term we are thinking of eternal destinies of the lost.
The word "tartarus" is translated as "hell" one time in the New Testament (2 Peter 2:4), but it is only there stated that tartarus is where the fallen angels are currently being held in chains awaiting the judgment day. This clearly indicates that tartarus is not the place of eternal torment, but a place of temporary imprisonment.
The only remaining Greek word that has traditionally been translated as "hell" is "gehenna." This word actually does not mean hell at all, but literally is translated "the Valley of Hinnom." I was always taught that the real Valley of Hinnom, outside Jerusalem, because of its perpetual fires burning garbage night and day, served as a picture of the eternal flames of hell, and was thus used to mean hell. This explanation could be true, but one needs only reflect carefully on the data to realize that, if the term gehenna were consistently translated literally, we would find in scripture only statements about the wicked being cast into the Valley of Hinnom and no clear references to hell at all.
The term gehenna, in scripture, was never used other than by Jesus and James, addressing the Jews living in their day (i.e., before AD 70). In the Old Testament, God had said that the Jews who succumbed to the Babylonian invaders would be slaughtered and cast into Tophet, which is also identified as the Valley of Hinnom (Jer.19:6-7, 11-13). If this threat was fulfilled (whether literally or figuratively) when Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 BC, Jesus might have used the like threat to refer to the fate of those who perished when Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70, as well.
Therefore, it is impossible to certainly identify any of the biblical words, in the original languages, with the concept of hell as it has come down to us. As I said, the "lake of fire" is probably the only biblical term that can be equated with the traditional concept of hell, but it is still better translated as "the lake of fire" than by the word "hell." In light of this data, it raises serious questions as to whether "hell" is even a biblical word (though the concept may possibly be scriptural). There is simply no word in the original languages that can justifiably be translated with this English word. This was very strange to me, when I first learned it. I assume it will be strange and difficult for others as well.
When we look for a list of verses about hell, we meet with a problem. Is there actually a word in the Hebrew or Greek Testaments that actually corresponds with our English concept of this term? Most people, when they think of the English word "hell," mean the place of eternal damnation for the lost. But which of the available Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible speak of this place?
All references to "hell" in the Old Testament are translating the word "sheol." All Hebrew scholars agree that this word does not refer to the special place of damnation of the lost, since it is used to speak of the state of death, both for the wicked and of the righteous. Sometimes it is best translated as "the grave." I don't think I have encountered any scholars that believe that sheol means very much other than the undifferentiated place of the dead, without specifying persons as saved or lost, or even referring to anyone's eternal destinies.
When we come to the New Testament, we find the word "hades" is often translated as "hell," but also as "the grave." IN fact, "hades" seems to be the exact Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word "sheol." We can be certain that, whatever hades may mean, it does not refer to the place of eternal torment, because that place would more naturally be identified with Revelation's "lake of fire," and we read that hades itself will be cast into the lake of fire, which clearly differentiates the two (Rev.20:14). Thus the traditional rendering of hades as "hell" is misleading, if by the latter term we are thinking of eternal destinies of the lost.
The word "tartarus" is translated as "hell" one time in the New Testament (2 Peter 2:4), but it is only there stated that tartarus is where the fallen angels are currently being held in chains awaiting the judgment day. This clearly indicates that tartarus is not the place of eternal torment, but a place of temporary imprisonment.
The only remaining Greek word that has traditionally been translated as "hell" is "gehenna." This word actually does not mean hell at all, but literally is translated "the Valley of Hinnom." I was always taught that the real Valley of Hinnom, outside Jerusalem, because of its perpetual fires burning garbage night and day, served as a picture of the eternal flames of hell, and was thus used to mean hell. This explanation could be true, but one needs only reflect carefully on the data to realize that, if the term gehenna were consistently translated literally, we would find in scripture only statements about the wicked being cast into the Valley of Hinnom and no clear references to hell at all.
The term gehenna, in scripture, was never used other than by Jesus and James, addressing the Jews living in their day (i.e., before AD 70). In the Old Testament, God had said that the Jews who succumbed to the Babylonian invaders would be slaughtered and cast into Tophet, which is also identified as the Valley of Hinnom (Jer.19:6-7, 11-13). If this threat was fulfilled (whether literally or figuratively) when Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 BC, Jesus might have used the like threat to refer to the fate of those who perished when Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70, as well.
Therefore, it is impossible to certainly identify any of the biblical words, in the original languages, with the concept of hell as it has come down to us. As I said, the "lake of fire" is probably the only biblical term that can be equated with the traditional concept of hell, but it is still better translated as "the lake of fire" than by the word "hell." In light of this data, it raises serious questions as to whether "hell" is even a biblical word (though the concept may possibly be scriptural). There is simply no word in the original languages that can justifiably be translated with this English word. This was very strange to me, when I first learned it. I assume it will be strange and difficult for others as well.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Steve,
Do you think the bible is purposefully ambiguous on this subject? It seems that the more I learn and study scripture, the more ambiguous some things become, even though I once believed them to be air-tight. I can only conclude that God doesn't want us to know for certain what his plans are for some things. But my questions is, why is there an intellectual tease if we're not meant to know for sure? It troubles me a great deal when I spend months or years studying a topic of scripture and I'm left more confused in the end than I was at the beginning.
We Christians have been called to deliver a message of good news to the people of the world. The modern church says that message is "accept Jesus as your lord and savior or be eternally tomented in a lake of fire." However, when I read how the aposltes delivered the gospel it was more like "turn from sin and follow the teachings of Jesus in everything." I don't remember Paul, Stephan, or Peter witnessing the way the modern church does. Am I being wrong-headed here? What message are we to deliver to the lost? If I tell an unbeliever that they will suffer in hell for not "accepting" Christ I am being a hypocrite because I don't know that to be true. I know to reject Christ is a very bad thing, but I have no idea what that person's fate will be.
Do you think the bible is purposefully ambiguous on this subject? It seems that the more I learn and study scripture, the more ambiguous some things become, even though I once believed them to be air-tight. I can only conclude that God doesn't want us to know for certain what his plans are for some things. But my questions is, why is there an intellectual tease if we're not meant to know for sure? It troubles me a great deal when I spend months or years studying a topic of scripture and I'm left more confused in the end than I was at the beginning.
We Christians have been called to deliver a message of good news to the people of the world. The modern church says that message is "accept Jesus as your lord and savior or be eternally tomented in a lake of fire." However, when I read how the aposltes delivered the gospel it was more like "turn from sin and follow the teachings of Jesus in everything." I don't remember Paul, Stephan, or Peter witnessing the way the modern church does. Am I being wrong-headed here? What message are we to deliver to the lost? If I tell an unbeliever that they will suffer in hell for not "accepting" Christ I am being a hypocrite because I don't know that to be true. I know to reject Christ is a very bad thing, but I have no idea what that person's fate will be.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
JCDV, Steve and, er...Steve,
One of the reasons I began studying the cultural context of the bible was to clear up messes like this. Several years ago, I felt exactly the same way that JCDV does, about how to properly interpret biblical symbolism. It just didn't make any sense to me that symbols that meant one thing in one context should mean something very different in another. It was like the authors of the bible were speaking in some other language of symbols and idioms that I just couldn't comprehend.
But looking at things from the perspective of the cultural context of the bible does a lot to clear up this confusion. For instance, why should a mountain have something to do with kings and governments? (Rev. 17:9; Isa. 2:2-3; etc.) Because there was a common theme among the peoples of the ancient world of a mound of earth or mountain which rose out of the waters of creation. This place figuratively became the city where the king ruled from, and also represented a link between heaven and earth. The Babylonians represented this concept with a ziggurat - an artificial mountain with several 'steps' or levels by which one might ascend to heaven. The Egyptians used a pyramid. In the bible, we see symbolic connections between a mountain and a government, and we also see Jacob's 'ladder' (actually a stairway) linking earth and heaven.
So you see, the symbolism of these other nations wasn't really any different from that of ancient Israel, which is why we can learn quite a bit by looking at it. The difference with Israel was in the God they worshipped, and in the ethical standards that God demanded from them.
So what can we learn of the fate of the dead, as JCDV asked?
The other ancient peoples didn't properly understand the fate of the dead, although the Egyptians knew that there was an afterlife of some kind. But what we can learn from them are the keys to understanding the biblical fate of the dead.
To begin understanding this, we have to go back to the beginning. The Garden of Eden was a holy place where God dwelt on this earth - much like the Tabernacle and the Temple later on in history. When man was exiled from Eden, he figuratively 'died'. One could interpret God's statement in Genesis 2:16-17 to mean this, but that's not where I'm getting it from.
The bible - as well as these other ancient peoples - use certain symbols to represent death. One of them is darkness (cf. Job 10:21-22; Isa. 9:2; Mat. 25:30; John 1:4,9, 8:12; etc.). This was a common one for the Egyptians, who believed that the setting of the sun and the period of nighttime symbolized the afterlife, and that the rising of the sun in the morning symbolized a rebirth after death. Another common symbol is exile (Deut. 30:1-4 and Eze. 37:1-14 explain that God would regather His people after having scattered or exiled them, even from the utmost parts of heaven, or from the grave, if they had died!). Jeremiah 4:23-26 even ties both concepts of darkness and exile together using language copied directly from the Creation acount.
Genesis 1-3 is a progression from darkness and chaos to an ordered creation climaxing with the Sabbath day, then regressing backwards once again to end at exile from the Garden into an uncultivated land that represented the state of the world prior to creation. To simplify, we go from a state of death or non-life, to life, then again to 'death'.
In order for Adam and Eve to re-enter the Garden of Eden and the presence of God, their sins had to be paid for. How? THEY PAID FOR THEIR SINS WHEN THEY DIED. After all, isn't that what God said the penalty for their sins was? So after they died, then they would be able to re-enter God's presence! And since the Eden on earth is simply a reflection of the Eden in heaven (2 Cor. 12:2 and 4; 'paradise' is just the Greek term for Eden), then a person's death clears the way for re-entering the presence of God in heaven!
But that wasn't good enough, and that's why Jesus came and died for our sins, giving us the symbol of baptism. Symbolically, baptism represents death and rebirth, so that one is cleansed of one's past sins. Therefore, one doesn't have to be dead to re-enter the presence of God in heaven. Rather, one is able to dwell with God in this life - or rather, have the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.
But more than that, baptism allows a person to be resurrected from the grave! One may die, but because one has been baptized, then the penalty has already been paid. One must then be restored to life because there's no need for a further penalty.
This also explains one of the most controversial passages in the whole of the bible - that of being baptized "for the dead" (1 Cor. 15:29). What this means is that the saints who have died before Jesus came cannot be resurrected from the dead unless they are baptized by proxy (Heb. 11:39-40). It has nothing to do with just baptizing anyone at all by proxy, which is what the Mormons do.
With all of this in mind, we can read the rest of the Scriptures on the state of the dead and come to a pretty good understanding. For instance, the reason that the Valley of Hinnom (or Tophet) was used to represent a place of death was because it was the valley immediately to the east of Jerusalem, and it was considered to be the place of departure or exile from Jerusalem (and hence, a place of symbolic 'death') for those who went into the Babylonian captivity! The bible also ties in elements of torment into this as well (ex. Mark 9:42-48 ), so death for some will be a period of torment.
As I had mentioned in another thread, there will come a time when the glory of God will fill the earth (Num. 14:21). The glory of God is the Holy Spirit, which burns like a fire (Mat. 25:31; Isa. 66:15-16). But it's also the Spirit of Love (2 Tim. 1:7)! So, any mortal on the earth at that time will be burned up, but any spirit being who has love already dwelling within them will not be affected by this fire. However, at that time, any spirit of anyone who has sinned and died will be supernaturally given 'love' - sensitivity to the pain that they have caused others. This is why they'll suffer when the fire of the Holy Spirit comes.
Will some be able to repent after that? Maybe. That's up to God.
Hopefully, though, this makes sense of the state of the dead.
Damon
One of the reasons I began studying the cultural context of the bible was to clear up messes like this. Several years ago, I felt exactly the same way that JCDV does, about how to properly interpret biblical symbolism. It just didn't make any sense to me that symbols that meant one thing in one context should mean something very different in another. It was like the authors of the bible were speaking in some other language of symbols and idioms that I just couldn't comprehend.
But looking at things from the perspective of the cultural context of the bible does a lot to clear up this confusion. For instance, why should a mountain have something to do with kings and governments? (Rev. 17:9; Isa. 2:2-3; etc.) Because there was a common theme among the peoples of the ancient world of a mound of earth or mountain which rose out of the waters of creation. This place figuratively became the city where the king ruled from, and also represented a link between heaven and earth. The Babylonians represented this concept with a ziggurat - an artificial mountain with several 'steps' or levels by which one might ascend to heaven. The Egyptians used a pyramid. In the bible, we see symbolic connections between a mountain and a government, and we also see Jacob's 'ladder' (actually a stairway) linking earth and heaven.
So you see, the symbolism of these other nations wasn't really any different from that of ancient Israel, which is why we can learn quite a bit by looking at it. The difference with Israel was in the God they worshipped, and in the ethical standards that God demanded from them.
So what can we learn of the fate of the dead, as JCDV asked?
The other ancient peoples didn't properly understand the fate of the dead, although the Egyptians knew that there was an afterlife of some kind. But what we can learn from them are the keys to understanding the biblical fate of the dead.
To begin understanding this, we have to go back to the beginning. The Garden of Eden was a holy place where God dwelt on this earth - much like the Tabernacle and the Temple later on in history. When man was exiled from Eden, he figuratively 'died'. One could interpret God's statement in Genesis 2:16-17 to mean this, but that's not where I'm getting it from.
The bible - as well as these other ancient peoples - use certain symbols to represent death. One of them is darkness (cf. Job 10:21-22; Isa. 9:2; Mat. 25:30; John 1:4,9, 8:12; etc.). This was a common one for the Egyptians, who believed that the setting of the sun and the period of nighttime symbolized the afterlife, and that the rising of the sun in the morning symbolized a rebirth after death. Another common symbol is exile (Deut. 30:1-4 and Eze. 37:1-14 explain that God would regather His people after having scattered or exiled them, even from the utmost parts of heaven, or from the grave, if they had died!). Jeremiah 4:23-26 even ties both concepts of darkness and exile together using language copied directly from the Creation acount.
Genesis 1-3 is a progression from darkness and chaos to an ordered creation climaxing with the Sabbath day, then regressing backwards once again to end at exile from the Garden into an uncultivated land that represented the state of the world prior to creation. To simplify, we go from a state of death or non-life, to life, then again to 'death'.
In order for Adam and Eve to re-enter the Garden of Eden and the presence of God, their sins had to be paid for. How? THEY PAID FOR THEIR SINS WHEN THEY DIED. After all, isn't that what God said the penalty for their sins was? So after they died, then they would be able to re-enter God's presence! And since the Eden on earth is simply a reflection of the Eden in heaven (2 Cor. 12:2 and 4; 'paradise' is just the Greek term for Eden), then a person's death clears the way for re-entering the presence of God in heaven!
But that wasn't good enough, and that's why Jesus came and died for our sins, giving us the symbol of baptism. Symbolically, baptism represents death and rebirth, so that one is cleansed of one's past sins. Therefore, one doesn't have to be dead to re-enter the presence of God in heaven. Rather, one is able to dwell with God in this life - or rather, have the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.
But more than that, baptism allows a person to be resurrected from the grave! One may die, but because one has been baptized, then the penalty has already been paid. One must then be restored to life because there's no need for a further penalty.
This also explains one of the most controversial passages in the whole of the bible - that of being baptized "for the dead" (1 Cor. 15:29). What this means is that the saints who have died before Jesus came cannot be resurrected from the dead unless they are baptized by proxy (Heb. 11:39-40). It has nothing to do with just baptizing anyone at all by proxy, which is what the Mormons do.
With all of this in mind, we can read the rest of the Scriptures on the state of the dead and come to a pretty good understanding. For instance, the reason that the Valley of Hinnom (or Tophet) was used to represent a place of death was because it was the valley immediately to the east of Jerusalem, and it was considered to be the place of departure or exile from Jerusalem (and hence, a place of symbolic 'death') for those who went into the Babylonian captivity! The bible also ties in elements of torment into this as well (ex. Mark 9:42-48 ), so death for some will be a period of torment.
As I had mentioned in another thread, there will come a time when the glory of God will fill the earth (Num. 14:21). The glory of God is the Holy Spirit, which burns like a fire (Mat. 25:31; Isa. 66:15-16). But it's also the Spirit of Love (2 Tim. 1:7)! So, any mortal on the earth at that time will be burned up, but any spirit being who has love already dwelling within them will not be affected by this fire. However, at that time, any spirit of anyone who has sinned and died will be supernaturally given 'love' - sensitivity to the pain that they have caused others. This is why they'll suffer when the fire of the Holy Spirit comes.
Will some be able to repent after that? Maybe. That's up to God.
Hopefully, though, this makes sense of the state of the dead.
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
You know the second greatest commandmemt is "to love your neighbor as yourself" and we all like to think we can do this. So if we really believed this in our heart and we really loved our neighbor like ourselves would'nt we be thrilled at the possibility of universalism? Would'nt we be ecstatic that perhaps someday our unbelieving neighbor might be saved? Alas i don't find much enthusiasm for universalism in Christianity and i wonder why? Why do we look at verses like 1 Tim 4.10 "we have fixed our hope on the living God who is the Savior of ALL men ESPECIALLY believers." Here Paul contrasts believers from unbelievers yet he says God is the savior of BOTH. There are many verses similar to this in scripture yet Christians assume it can't mean what it says. Do we read verses likethis with 'spiritual eyes" or "carnal eyes" ? Do we really want everyone to be saved? Do we really "love our neighbor like ourselves."
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_STEVE7150
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm
Is the fire in the book of Revelation different from the fire that tries the works of believers in the book of 1 Cor? No the word "fire" used in the 4 examples concerning believers is the same FIRE used in Revelation concerning non believers. In Strong's NEW Expanded Exhaustive Concordance the greek word "PUR" or fire means divine judgement testing believers, divine judgement upon the rejectors of Christ, producing what will glorify the Lord. Now i ask you does eternal torment glorify the Lord? Steve 7150
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: