The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

God still destroyed Sodom and Gormorah. Moses led Israel out of Egypt only to have Joshua and Caleb enter into the promise land. ( a type and shadow of salvation) My God is not committing atrocities otherwise He would not be God. His judgments are righteous and just whether you agree with them or not. Good-hearted atheists (if they die an atheist) will open their eyes and found out how wrong they were while being tormented not refined by the flames of Hell as the Richman.

Extrapolating beyond what Scripture clearly reveals and assuming something in a text by human reason and logic does not make it true, Allan. :wink:

My prayers and preaching the gospel to the lost can and will make a difference to some but it doesn’t violate their will. They have to make the choice in the end. Life or death. God says choose life!

PS I’m want to hear your biblical response to my OP not my response to Caroleem’s accusations that lead to off topic rabbit trails. :wink:

So how do you deal with the passage that says that S&G will be restored to their former state?

What passage are you talking about, Jeff?

Ezekiel 16:53 'However, I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them,

Aaron,
Do you believe God doesn’t love the impenitent?

Sonia

What does this verse have anything to do with my OP?

I posted what you were asking Jeff about…

You then asked…

And i posted the verse in which i assumed Jeff was referring to, which was…

Ezekiel 16:53 'However, I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them,

Hope that explains it for you… :sunglasses:

Of course not, Sonia. God not loving the impenitent is not the issue. Only erroneous exegetical methodology birthed out of false premises rooted in human logic and subjects Scripture to these false premises so that it appears to yield what the false premises demand says “God loves the impenitent unbeliever so much that He chastises them for remedial purposes either in this life or the afterlife to bring them eventually to salvation.” yet no where in God’s word supports this and it contradicts other scriptures.

This is very true except i wouldn’t have posted the rolling eye smilie. :wink:

:confused:

I don’t even have any idea what you’re talking about there. :confused: I am going by what the word of God says, not any of that mumbo jumbo. We here at EU are going by God’s word, not what you believe we are going by. :wink:

Of course not, you just ignore the context of my post to Sonia( and my OP) like you do with scripture and you make comments. :unamused:

What is your goal here Revival? Why are you, and why have you been in various reiterations, on this forum?

I could have sworn some of us have said that same thing about you. :wink:

THis is what I learn from those stories: Evil will be destroyed and the good will be saved. But this has little to do with the question at hand.

Righteous men argued with God. They would not tolerate injustice from his hand and were bold enough to say so. Moses didn’t follow your line and and say, “God is righteous by definition. Therefore if he wants to kill all Israel, it must be right.” Abraham didn’t say, “God is immutable. Therefore, if he wants to destroy Sodom there’s nothing I can (or should) do about it.” Job didn’t say, “God is inscrutable and can do no wrong. Therefore I must have sinned. I’ll shut up and take it on the chin.”

When was the last time you sat in the dust, speechless and horrified at the thought of a single soul suffering boundless torment? Have you no imagination? Do you suffer from some sort of psychopathy that renders you incapable of empathy? When did you last pray, “Far be it from the judge of all the earth to do wrong! Lord God, do not do this appalling thing! Rather, have mercy. Show the world your glory by saving even your enemies. Any tyrant can destroy, but only you can save.”

That’s a useless argument because it can be used by anyone to justify anything. “Moloch is not committing atrocities otherwise He would not be God. His judgments are righteous and just whether you agree with them or not. Now obey his infallible word! Throw your baby into the sacred fire!”

What a thrilling prospect, having your enemies tormented forever. That’ll show 'em who’s boss.

The rich man represents Israel and the poor man represents the Gentiles. That parable has nothing to do with punishment after death.

Here are two things scripture clearly reveals: “God is love”, and “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.”

How does a God who always perseveres, who keeps no record of wrong, who seeks the other, and who never fails… fit into your miserable conception of hell?

You speak of human logic. I think you extrapolate your own emotional reaction towards your enemies and project it onto God. You want to hurt those who hate you and construct a God who does the same.

Can you drop the emoticons please? I rarely like being winked at. It makes me feel I’m being patronized.

God won’t violate our precious wills, but he’s quite prepared to drop us into everlasting fire. Would *that *violate our wills, I wonder?

Some of the greatest Church fathers, godly men speaking Greek from birth, were outspoken universalists. That’s all I need to know.

No biblical response to my OP just off topic human reasoning, huh Allan? :wink: No thanks.

That’s all you have to say about Allan’s heartfelt and honest post? :confused:

Heartfelt and honest opinions are not biblical truth. I want sound biblical refutations not off topic opinions, Caroleem. :astonished:

Unless I’m mistaken Revival, you were the one who in this thread first mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah. Allen was simply responding to your comment.

Concerning the OP, frankly it doesn’t surprise me that the specific words you chose are only used in regards to believers. Most, if not almost all, passages concerning judgment and the punishment of sin are addressed to believers. And judgment is almost always spoken of as being based on how one actually lives, not just what one professes to believe. Not only shall we all face judgment, but judgment even begins with the elect, those chosen by God to know Him in this life. And to whom much is given, much is required. So it doesn’t surprise me or in any way seem contradictory to UR if as you say the words you selected are only used to warn of chastisement for the penitent and not the impenitent.

What I do find telling is that not once in scripture does God inspire any biblical author to specifically warn of Hell, using a word that specifically meant Hell in either Hebrew or Greek. People read Hell/ECT into many passages, but if Hell was truly a worry, then it seems that the Lord would have inspired at least one direct reference to it in scripture. People read Hell into the lake of the fire and the burning brimstone, but like any good painting, people read into such what they already believe, what is in their hearts. And though the Jews did not have a word that meant Hell, the Greeks certainly did - Tartarus. But not once does Jesus, Paul, Peter, or any of the authors of the NT warn of people being cast into Tartarus. It sure seems to me that Paul would have at least once warned of Tartarus/Hell specifically. In Greek mythology, Tartarus was the hellish realm in/underneath Hades. So IF Jesus, Paul, or the other writers of the NT believed in Hell, ECT then it’s only reasonable that they would have at least warned of it once specifically, and not left it to be necessary for people to read it into what they wrote or said.

Sherman

"It is very remarkable that the terms in Greek which would carry the meaning of punishment for the good of the offender are never used in the New Testament of the infliction which comes upon the impenitent; these are paideia and paideuo, and they are frequently used of the “chastisement” of believers, but not of the impenitent.

This totally refutes your theory of impenitent unbelievers receiving remedial punishment! Hebrews 12:5-8 refutes your theory as well. Also “Timoria” is used for the punishment for the sinner in Heb 10:29.

Your unbelief in the existence of Hell or the LOF doesn’t make them any less true, Sherman. :wink: