matthollycart:...what I am referring to is not that everyone gets saved in this lifetime but that perhaps there is not punishment for ever and ever and that eventually these will be reconciled to God. In this life no one can be saved (and being saved has to do with this life) without being born again and have faith in Jesus.
The claim that "being saved has to do with this life" is completely unsubstantiated. Of course, being saved can be and is now a present reality for many in this life, but it seems that for Matthew's remarks to have any value to his own position, he must demonstrate that it pertains only (or merely)to this present state. So, I take Matt to mean there are two categories of people in the following sense. Category 1 consists of those who receive salvation and are at some point reconciled to God. Rconciliation to God and salvation are two distinct concepts. One does not imply the other. Category 2 consists of those who do not receive slavation and go on to be reconciled to God at some point after death.
Of course, so far, this is nothing more than wild speculation. Romans 8:29-30 and John 3:18 (aside from a hundred other texts) present salvation as extending beyond our mere earthly, temporal life and as something that encompasses reconciliation to God (see Acts. 16:30 where belief is tied to salvation). 1 Cor. 1:18 contrasts "those who are perishing" with those who are being saved. Since even the saved a perishing in a physical sense, the contrast must be more than simply an observation of physical, temporal death. In othe words, salvation extends beyond the mere physical, earthly state (see also 2 Cor. 2:15). Matthew 10:22 doesn't make much sense if salvation is only a temporal, earthly state.
But maybe Matthew means something else. Maybe he means there are two categories of people in this sense: category 1 consists of those who are reconciled to God (saved) in this life and category 2 consists of those who are reconciled to God in the next life (this category would include everyone who doesn't fall into category 1). This is the normal universalist position. But in Matt. 25:46 the duration of the punishment of the wicked is directly parallelled to the duration of the life of the righteous. So when he speculates, "perhaps there is not punishment for ever and ever and that eventually these will be reconciled to God" on what grounds does he do so? If eternal punishment for the wicked doesn't mean for ever and ever, then neither does eternal life for the righteous mean for ever and ever. If his argument is predicated on "αἰώνιος" being temporal, then he will be hardpressed to argue for eternal life.
matthollycart: Nowhere in my post did I say that being thrown into a lake of
fire is symbolic for universal salvation. But what I am saying is that it
perhaps does not mean what we have always imagined it means.
I didn't say he made that connection, I simply used it as an example. I fail to see how "perhaps [it] does not mean what we have always imagined" is an adequate alternative to how the text is usually understood. It's like someone says "I espouse X because of A, C, and D" and another person responds "But maybe that's not the case." Well... okay, but you haven't offered much of an alternative by simply saying "maybe it's not that's not right." Matthew doesn't provide any argument, just conjecture. And of course to phrase it "what we have always imagined" is simply a rhetorical spin. As though all the theologians who believe in a literal, eternal hell are doing so on the basis of their imagination.
matthollycart: The overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah was earthly. People were killed physically, not tortured forever and ever.
First of all, what makes Matthew think the fact that S & G was earthly is the parallel the author wants to draw in 2 Peter 2? In that case, maybe paradise is acidic since it's in Abraham's bosom. The entire chapter makes little sense under Matthew's reading (see esp. vs 9, the end of vs. 12, 17b, & 21).As the Bible Knowledge Commentary points out, "God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire is a classic example of universal destruction of the ungodly." For proof of this see Jude 7.
Furthermore, if Matthew is correct and the passage teaches that the ungodly will receive punishment in this life, it is obviously false (since many do not: see Job 24).
matthollycart: Matthew 5:30 The word is Ghenna, which was an actual place in the
time of Jesus. He was talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and those who
would be killed would be thrown in Ghenna. John 3:14-16, John 6:40, etc.
In typical universalist fashion, Matthew committs the etymological fallacy.
Mat. 5:27-30 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that jeveryone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye lcauses you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into the garbage dump when Rome destroys Jerusalem in 70 A.D. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into the garbage dump when Rome destroys Jerusalem in 70 A.D. (P.S. most of you will have probably died before then anyway).
Does this interpretation really warrant a response? Did only adulterers and lustful persons get thrown into the dump? I guess if you were one of the Christians who happened to be killed and thrown into the dump your piety didn't really work out so well, huh? Oops, Matthew 18:8 makes the contrast of "eternal fire" with "entering life"... Guess that blows the whole "Ghenna is just a spatio-temporal place" fallacy out of the water.
matthollycart: Eternal life is God's life. It is not referring to a period of
time. Those who do not love their brother do not have "eternal life" in them.
Eternal life is something that is in you, not living forever in heaven.
To bad no one told that to John when he contrasted perishing with eternal life (Jn 3:16). Not to mention the fact that this makes nonsense out of Jn 4:36; 6:27; 10:28; 12:25; 12:50; 17:2; Rom. 5:21; 6:23; or Jude 21, to give just a few examples.
Matthew hints that this is coming from 1 John where we read: the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us (2:1). But has it not occured to Matthew that there are different senses in which the apostle speaks of eternal life? After all, at 5:11 John says, "is in his Son." So which is it? Is Christ eternal life (2:1; 5:20) or is eternal life simply something that is with/in Christ (5:11)? Or perhaps eternal life is something Christ gives (Jn 10:28)? After all, 1 Jn also says God is love. Does this mean that we go back and read that sense into every instance of the word love so that it becomes "Love is God"? It should be obvious that "love is God" is a different proposition than "God is love," as is the case with eternal life.
matthollycart: Its not as simple as you are implying otherwise there would not
be a debate and many of the early church fathers would not have believed it.
If it is simple, there is no debate over it and there is unanimity amongst the church fathers on it? So, basically, there is no personal variable that factors into these issues... No comment.
matthollycart: Jude verse 7 actually support my points and hurts your view Red
Monkey. It says that Sodom and Gormorrah suffered (past tense) the vengence of
eternal fire. Again, we have a misunderstanding of the word eternal. From all
the years and conditioning in our minds that "eternal" is referring to living
forever, we make wrong interpretations of scripture. Jude is basically saying
that Sodom and Gormorrah received divine judgment from God in heaven.
Of course, Matthew is here to reveal to us all the true meaning of "eternal," (via the etymological fallacy) which has escaped majority notice for the last 2000 years. And in Jude 7 Matthew simply imports his meaning into the text which says "just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire." Notice that "ὑπέχουσαι" (undergoing/suffering) is present active, but Matthew wants it to read "underwent" or "suffered." Someone has certainly had their mind conditioned.
Of course, salvation or damnation doesn't make much difference in this view. We all get a taste of heaven for a time and then disappear, I guess. Let us eat and drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.
No comments:
Post a Comment