I've become an Evangelical Universalist

[Dream]

Basically, I believe in the evangelical fundamental message of salvation, including the doctrine of hell (though not necessarily in a literalist form), only I do not believe Hell is permanent.

I also believe this to be scripturally supported.

And so, what do you think about that?!

Dondi,

I'm not saying I agree with your concept of hell either but see if this contributes:

Fire, though sometimes destructive, is also symbolic of purification in many places in the Bible and other canonical Christian literature. In Esdras, an early Catholic apocryphal book, the author plainly says fire is figurative of a judgment that purifies. (I've quoted it below since not everybody is familiar with it.) In both Deuteronomy and Isaiah, Egypt is called a 'Furnace of affliction', and in many places the LORD's judgment is referred to as fiery -- often referring to purification rather than destruction, though there can be destruction by fire as well. There are the 'Fiery' arrows in Psalms, the Fiery ordeals, and other forms of purification all styled as fiery. In some places fire is associated with judgments the LORD says, so his breath is fiery (Job 41:19). Isaiah's lips are purified in a vision with burning coals, not destroying but enabling him to be a prophet. In Ezekiel the city Jerusalem is purified with burning coals, but not destroyed. Also, in the NT hell is not always permanent to every being put into it. There are the angels held there until they can be judged, for instance. I Peter 3:19 says Jesus preached to them when he died.

Esdras 13:37 And he, my Son, will reprove the assembled nations for their ungodliness (this was symbolized by the storm), 38 and will reproach them to their face with their evil thoughts and the torments with which they are to be tortured (which were symbolized by the flames), and will destroy them without effort by the law (which was symbolized by the fire).

 

[Dondi]

That reason is simple: Man has a tendency to ignore potential consequenses unless there is sufficient fear of such consequences that we can not ignore them, thus change in order to avoid them, particularly the permanent ones.

Where have I lacked in the fear factor? Nothing I have implied ignores the consequences. Just how much fear is needed to change a person? We don't really know what hell is like. Oh, he can imagine being burned in a fire, but no one alive has experienced the perpetual torment where the fire is not consumed for any length of time that hell promises. What make you think that the threat of the permanence of hell is sufficient to change peoples minds? It certainly hasn't for the majority of people in the world. Moreover, some actually expect to end up in hell, but do they really know what they are in for?

Second: If Jesus is the human manifestation of the Universal God, then it stands to reason that he can not lie. This means that what he told us must be absolutely true. Ergo, hell is real and permanent, just as heaven is real and permanent. The reason this must be, to the one who believes in Jesus, is because he said so, over and over again.

I'm not arguing that hell isn't real. Our God is a consuming fire. My contention is that it isn't permanent. Jesus paid for our sins in the span of three hours, and stayed dead for 72 hours. If He was really supposed to be a substitute for sin, wouldn't He have to suffer forever? What kind of equality is in a permanent hell?

Have you looked up the word 'aion' in your Greek concordance or lexicon. It doesn't always mean 'forever', it can mean 'age' or 'an unspecified period of time. There are numerious examples in scripture of this, as in Romans 16:25 for one.

 

[iBrian]

A reveiw of scripture reveals that Jesus spoke of hell far more often than of heaven. I am also of the opinion that he did such for a specific reason.

Indeed, I was really surprised to notice that when a few years back I edited down the KJV Gospels to show only the words attributed to Jesus.

However, Jesus spoke in parables - and the word Hell used is usually translated from "Gahenna", referring to the area of burning rubbish in the Valley of Hinnom.

Because Jesus's message is primarily aimed at an errant Jewish society, it's easy to interpret many of his comments on Hell as figurative for the direction of society and its individuals in that time and place.

In other words, a people going wayward by being lead and holding onto legalism, instead of the spirit of law and their convenant with god, leading them astray into a meaningless and empty way of life without realisation of the reality of that convent - that they were becoming living "damned":
http://www.interfaith.org/articles/jesus_hell.php

If we therefore place the words of Jesus into a proper context, when Jesus warns of Hell he is warning the Jews that they have strayed from YHWH, and therefore their rituals and customs no longer have association with YHWH. Due to the perceived base corruption of the whole Jewish nation under the Caesars, Jesus is warning that the covenant with YHWH has been broken, and their offerings worthless before YHWH.

Just 2c.

 

[Faithfulservant]

Have you looked up the word 'aion' in your Greek concordance or lexicon. It doesn't always mean 'forever', it can mean 'age' or 'an unspecified period of time. There are numerious examples in scripture of this, as in Romans 16:25 for one.

Yes then you would have to apply that same word to eternal life since Jesus used that word in the same sentence for eternal punishment AND eternal life.

Matthew 25:46 "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life"

 

[Dream]

Yes then you would have to apply that same word to eternal life since Jesus used that word in the same sentence for eternal punishment AND eternal life.

Matthew 25:46 "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life"

Consider that it says what it says; but the context is a direct reference to Deuteronomy 4:26 and 5:33, which are about long happy life, vs short unhappy life. Since Jesus is talking to Jews in the speech, it makes sense that this is how they would have understood what he was saying. Throughout the Law there is a strong emphasis upon long fulfilled living vs. short unfulfilled lives. Jesus is making a reference to the promise of long life for those that live right (take care of the poor and weak) but a short and perilous life to those that don't.

 

[Dondi]

Yes then you would have to apply that same word to eternal life since Jesus used that word in the same sentence for eternal punishment AND eternal life.

Matthew 25:46 "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life"

I'm not saying that 'aion' cannot ever mean neverending, but in many instances it would not make sense to.

In the particular example you provided above, I would argue that the subjects of this verse are the nations separated as the sheep and the goats, as indicated in Matthew 25:32. So even if one were to use 'eternity' to mean never-ending it would be applicable in a national sense. Earlier in Matthew 11, Jesus is seen as judging whole cities, condemning them on the day of judgement (vs 22) and cast down into hell (vs 23). Nations that do right by the criteria described in Matthew 25 will survive into the Millenium, those that do not will be destroyed, never to be built again.

If we were to take Matthew 25 on an individual basis, then you have a works-based salvation. Those who fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty, visited those in prison and the infirmed, etc. would be granted eternal life, whereas those who didn't will get eternal punishment. So how do you explain that?