Evangelical Universalism - True or False Doctrine?

[Elhanan]

 

 

 

Your claim that Jesus preached to the disobedient during Noah's day rests upon the assumption that the predulivians are "now in prison."  However that is a forced assumption since the word now is absent from  the Greek text.  To me the flow is clear and in order of occurence - Jesus was put to death, made alive in the spirit, and went to preach to the spirits in prison.  I don't believe that Jesus only preached to the prediluveans as 1 Pet 4:6 declares that the gospel was preached to the "dead" which includes both preduluvians and postdiluvians up until Christ's death.

 

 

 

The pre-deluvian non-believers are of course "now in prison" because judgement is at the GWT after the Millennial Reign of Jesus. All dead non-believers are in prison. 

 

Again in 1 Peter4:6 the subjects are "now dead".  The gospel was preached to people who believed and they suffered in the flesh, died,  but have inherited eternal life. ( live according to God ) The passage again is about suffering in the flesh with the hope of resurrection and salvation as encouragement.  We see this theme begin in 1 Peter 3

 

1Pe 3:13-14  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;

 

And continues to the end of 1 Peter 4

 

1Pe 4:12-13  Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you:  (13)  But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.

 

None of the content is about Jesus preaching to dead people but is solely encouragement for believers who suffer in the flesh.

 

May I ask you why you insist on basing your argument on the word "now" when that word is not present in the Greek text?  If you would just reference a Greek interlinear you will find that the Greek word for now is absent from 1 Pet 3:19 as well as 1 Pet 4:6.  You are adding to the text in order to support your view which is not a good thing to do.

 

 

 

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

 

You have made a serious mistake here.  You have confused the root word heurisko with its participle form heuriskontes - they are two different words.  The root means "/found" but its participle form does indeed mean "finding."  I don't know where you learned or got your parsing information from but if you doubt what I say I refer you to the same source that you provided.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=7&v=14&t=KJV#s=t_conc_936014

Click on the parse button for heurisko and you will find:

εὑρίσκω heuriskō

Tense: Present

Voice: Active

Mood: Participle

 

Yes I did make a mistake sorry about that.  It doesn't change the intention of Jesus words if we translate "that find" as "are finding" ? It still places an emphasis upon finding the narrow gate to the reader and is valid for us. I don't understand what your point is here.  

 

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).

 

 

Whether people are finding the narrow way in Jesus time or now the intention is the same.

 

I don't understand why you are asking me to explain your own argument back to you?  Nevertheless, you first proposed that Matt 7:13-14 proves universalism to be wrong.   

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.

At first glance this verse appears to contradict the premise of universalism that ALL will eventually be saved since it states that only a FEW FIND the narrow way.  However as I pointed out the word find is more accurately translated as finding.  Therefore, Jesus is saying to his audience that only a few are finding the narrow way at that time.  Jesus did not say that only a few will ever find it.

[Guest ninhao]

 

Elhanan, on 26 Sept 2013 - 7:10 PM, said:

May I ask you why you insist on basing your argument on the word "now" when that word is not present in the Greek text?  If you would just reference a Greek interlinear you will find that the Greek word for now is absent from 1 Pet 3:19 as well as 1 Pet 4:6.  You are adding to the text in order to support your view which is not a good thing to do.

 

 

 

I am interpreting (dividing) the passages correctly inline with the context provided by the Author.  Do you agree the verses from 1 Peter 3 & 4, that we’re discussing, are about encouragement for believers who suffer for the sake of righteousness? If not give me your interpretation of the context of these verses.

 

 

 

I don't understand why you are asking me to explain your own argument back to you?  Nevertheless, you first proposed that Matt 7:13-14 proves universalism to be wrong.   

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.

At first glance this verse appears to contradict the premise of universalism that ALL will eventually be saved since it states that only a FEW FIND the narrow way.  However as I pointed out the word find is more accurately translated as finding.  Therefore, Jesus is saying to his audience that only a few are finding the narrow way at that time.  Jesus did not say that only a few will ever find it.

 

 

This argument that Jesus didn’t say “ few will ever find it” is irrelevant considering the  intention from  Matthew 7.  Jesus is telling the listener/reader that few find (or are finding if you like ) the narrow gate but many find ( or are finding ) the gate to destruction. The intention is clear.  

 

Are you suggesting Jesus is saying only the people in His day were going to enter the gates to life or destruction?  

Your argument also seems to omit the gate that leads to destruction, why ?

[Elhanan]

 

 

 

Your claim that Jesus preached to the disobedient during Noah's day rests upon the assumption that the predulivians are "now in prison."  However that is a forced assumption since the word now is absent from  the Greek text.  To me the flow is clear and in order of occurence - Jesus was put to death, made alive in the spirit, and went to preach to the spirits in prison.  I don't believe that Jesus only preached to the prediluveans as 1 Pet 4:6 declares that the gospel was preached to the "dead" which includes both preduluvians and postdiluvians up until Christ's death.

 

 

 

The pre-deluvian non-believers are of course "now in prison" because judgement is at the GWT after the Millennial Reign of Jesus. All dead non-believers are in prison. 

 

Again in 1 Peter4:6 the subjects are "now dead".  The gospel was preached to people who believed and they suffered in the flesh, died,  but have inherited eternal life. ( live according to God ) The passage again is about suffering in the flesh with the hope of resurrection and salvation as encouragement.  We see this theme begin in 1 Peter 3

 

1Pe 3:13-14  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;

 

And continues to the end of 1 Peter 4

 

1Pe 4:12-13  Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you:  (13)  But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.

 

None of the content is about Jesus preaching to dead people but is solely encouragement for believers who suffer in the flesh.

 

 

 

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

 

You have made a serious mistake here.  You have confused the root word heurisko with its participle form heuriskontes - they are two different words.  The root means "/found" but its participle form does indeed mean "finding."  I don't know where you learned or got your parsing information from but if you doubt what I say I refer you to the same source that you provided.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=7&v=14&t=KJV#s=t_conc_936014

Click on the parse button for heurisko and you will find:

εὑρίσκω heuriskō

Tense: Present

Voice: Active

Mood: Participle

 

Yes I did make a mistake sorry about that.  It doesn't change the intention of Jesus words if we translate "that find" as "are finding" ? It still places an emphasis upon finding the narrow gate to the reader and is valid for us. I don't understand what your point is here.  

 

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).

 

 

Whether people are finding the narrow way in Jesus time or now the intention is the same.

 

The “context provided by the Author” does not include the word “now” so it is very questionable to claim that you are interpreting according to the Author’s intent.  Instead what you have done is insert the word now in order to support your view – not the Author’s.  I still ask you why have you inserted “now” into the text?

The context has to do with what Jesus did when he descended into hell. If you contest the notion that Jesus preached to the spirits in hell according to 1 Pet 3:19 then you are at odds with the earliest known written creed with its tenets of the Christian faith:

Apostles' Creed

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; he descended into hell. On the third day he rose again; he ascended into heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.  Amen.

What message did Jesus preach?  1 Pet 4:6 declares that Jesus preached the gospel.

 

In terms of Matt 7, you are the one who made a big deal out of the word “find” and when I pointed out to you that the word “find” is incorrect, you now minimize your own argument.  Your intention may be clear to yourself but it is certainly obscure to me.  In Matt 7:13-14 Jesus is simply saying that in his day, many are going through the broad way that is leading to destruction and contrastingly only a few are finding the narrow way which leads to life. He makes no reference whatsoever as to what happens in the future. If Jesus wanted to reference what would happen in the future, the verb construction of the verse would reflect a future action - which it does not.  

In addition you neglect the context of this passage as Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount is addressing those under still under the Old Covenant.  The New Covenant has not yet been established.  The Old Covenant proved that man was unable to abide by it, thus Jesus is simply saying that under the OC only a few are finding the narrow way while many are going down the broad way.

[Guest ninhao]

 

Elhanan, on 28 Sept 2013 - 09:47 AM, said:

The “context provided by the Author” does not include the word “now” so it is very questionable to claim that you are interpreting according to the Author’s intent.  Instead what you have done is insert the word now in order to support your view – not the Author’s.  I still ask you why have you inserted “now” into the text?

 

 

The context provided by the Author shows us why the people in Noah’s day are introduced. It is encouragement to the people being addressed ( the elect/ believers ) to not be discouraged in the face of adversity. We know Jesus preaching to the pre-deluvians was during the time the Ark was being built from this context because it shows how Noah was able to endure with the help of Spirit of Jesus.

 

 

The context has to do with what Jesus did when he descended into hell. If you contest the notion that Jesus preached to the spirits in hell according to 1 Pet 3:19 then you are at odds with the earliest known written creed with its tenets of the Christian faith:

Apostles' Creed

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; he descended into hell. On the third day he rose again; he ascended into heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.  Amen.

What message did Jesus preach?  1 Pet 4:6 declares that Jesus preached the gospel.

 

 

 

The context of the passages is provided by the passages themselves. Let’s look again at the progression from 1Peter 3:14- 1Peter 4

 

1Pe 3:14  But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;

 

1Pe 4:14  If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.

 

 

It’s obvious this section of scripture is to encourage believers not to be dismayed in the face of adversity. Amid these scriptures are some difficult to understand passages which some people interpret to imply Jesus preached to dead people. The context explains quite clearly that this isn’t the case.

 

It’s interesting you cite, and support, the Apostles’ Creed considering it’s origins and fundamental basis to the Catholic Church’s eternal punishment in hell. They use this interpretation of 1Peter 3 to show how Jesus released believers from hell and unbelievers are doomed in hell and await eternal damnation.  Maybe you should find a different corroboration.

 

Also notice, from this Creed, that it only states that Jesus descended to the grave/dead. It only later was manipulated to imply preaching to the dead.  

 

 

In terms of Matt 7, you are the one who made a big deal out of the word “find” and when I pointed out to you that the word “find” is incorrect, you now minimize your own argument.  Your intention may be clear to yourself but it is certainly obscure to me.  In Matt 7:13-14 Jesus is simply saying that in his day, many are going through the broad way that is leading to destruction and contrastingly only a few are finding the narrow way which leads to life. He makes no reference whatsoever as to what happens in the future. If Jesus wanted to reference what would happen in the future, the verb construction of the verse would reflect a future action - which it does not.  

 

 

Ok now I see your point. You are missing that Jesus states that many go through the wide gate that leads to destruction.

 

 

Mat 7:13  Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

 

If Jesus intention is that all  people will eventually go through the narrow gate why does He say many go through the wide gate and are destroyed ?

 

 

 

 

In addition you neglect the context of this passage as Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount is addressing those under still under the Old Covenant.  The New Covenant has not yet been established.  The Old Covenant proved that man was unable to abide by it, thus Jesus is simply saying that under the OC only a few are finding the narrow way while many are going down the broad way.

 

 

Jesus was presenting the New Covenant from the time He began to preach. You are really grasping at staws here.

We can see corroborating scriptures where Jesus presents the 2 options to people of Eternal life ( the narrow gate ) or Eternal destruction ( the wide gate ) and who these people are ( sheep/believers and goats/non-believers ).

[asper]

Hi elhanan,

 

Are you saying that everything in the Geek New Testament that is in the present tense is not applicable to today because it would the future tense if it was?

 

 

Let me know,

 

God bless,

Tony

[Elhanan]

Hi elhanan,

 

Are you saying that everything in the Geek New Testament that is in the present tense is not applicable to today because it would the future tense if it was?

 

 

Let me know,

 

God bless,

Tony

No, that would certainly be an overly broad generalization. I'll give you an example using a well-known verse - John 3:16. This verse contains the word pisteuon which most Bibles translate as "believe." However the verb pisteuon is a present active participle and should be properly translated as "believing." Therefore the relevant part of this verse should read everyone believing in Him may not perish but may have eternal [age-abiding] life. Thus, what this means for us is that ongoing, continuous belief is necessary for salvation - not just a one-time moment of belief in the past.

[Floatingaxe]

 

Hi elhanan,

 

Are you saying that everything in the Geek New Testament that is in the present tense is not applicable to today because it would the future tense if it was?

 

 

Let me know,

 

God bless,

Tony

No, that would certainly be an overly broad generalization. I'll give you an example using a well-known verse - John 3:16. This verse contains the word pisteuon which most Bibles translate as "believe." However the verb pisteuon is a present active participle and should be properly translated as "believing." Therefore the relevant part of this verse should read everyone believing in Him may not perish but may have eternal [age-abiding] life. Thus, what this means for us is that ongoing, continuous belief is necessary for salvation - not just a one-time moment of belief in the past.

 

 

 

Here is a prime example where a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. While it is a good thing to help in the understanding of certain passages, in some people it serves to distort the meanings of others.

[asper]

 

Hi elhanan,

 

Are you saying that everything in the Geek New Testament that is in the present tense is not applicable to today because it would the future tense if it was?

 

 

Let me know,

 

God bless,

Tony

No, that would certainly be an overly broad generalization. I'll give you an example using a well-known verse - John 3:16. This verse contains the word pisteuon which most Bibles translate as "believe." However the verb pisteuon is a present active participle and should be properly translated as "believing." Therefore the relevant part of this verse should read everyone believing in Him may not perish but may have eternal [age-abiding] life. Thus, what this means for us is that ongoing, continuous belief is necessary for salvation - not just a one-time moment of belief in the past.

 

 

 

Hi elanan,

 

So let me recap what you have said,

 

When it’s a present, active, participle it means a continuous action which is right here and now in relation to when it was said.

 

When it’s a present, active, participle it means a continued action which also applies to those in the future.

 

 

Ok then…

 

I think you are bluffing your way through this.

 

Maybe this will help you in the future to not pivot a point on something you know nothing about but just repeating what someone else has said. 

 

 

Present,

http://www.bcbsr.com/greek/gtense.html#Present

 

Active,

http://www.bcbsr.com/greek/gvoice.html#Active

 

Particple,

http://www.bcbsr.com/greek/gvbls.html#Participle

 

 

 

God bless,

Tony

[Elhanan]

 

 

Hi elhanan,

 

Are you saying that everything in the Geek New Testament that is in the present tense is not applicable to today because it would the future tense if it was?

 

 

Let me know,

 

God bless,

Tony

No, that would certainly be an overly broad generalization. I'll give you an example using a well-known verse - John 3:16. This verse contains the word pisteuon which most Bibles translate as "believe." However the verb pisteuon is a present active participle and should be properly translated as "believing." Therefore the relevant part of this verse should read everyone believing in Him may not perish but may have eternal [age-abiding] life. Thus, what this means for us is that ongoing, continuous belief is necessary for salvation - not just a one-time moment of belief in the past.

 

 

 

Hi elanan,

 

So let me recap what you have said,

 

When it’s a present, active, participle it means a continuous action which is right here and now in relation to when it was said.

 

When it’s a present, active, participle it means a continued action which also applies to those in the future.

 

 

Ok then…

 

I think you are bluffing your way through this.

 

Maybe this will help you in the future to not pivot a point on something you know nothing about but just repeating what someone else has said. 

 

 

Present,

http://www.bcbsr.com/greek/gtense.html#Present

 

Active,

http://www.bcbsr.com/greek/gvoice.html#Active

 

Particple,

http://www.bcbsr.com/greek/gvbls.html#Participle

 

 

 

God bless,

Tony

 

Instead of casting aspersions, why don't you carefully read what I wrote instead of attributing your own meaning to what I wrote.  What you have cited has nothing to do with what I parsed.  If it does, explain to me in your own words how it applies to this verse and I will gladly consider it.  What you have done is offer references without any explanation of your own as to how I am mistaken, so please enlighten me.

4100 [e]

pisteuōn

πιστεύων

believes

V-PPA-NMS

 

In Jn 3:16, the verb pisteuon is in the form of a present participle active as indicated by the V-PPA parsing guide. Therefore the verse should read:

 

for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during. (YLT)

 

Do you deny the meaning of this verse and if so how?

 

[Elhanan]

 

 

Hi elhanan,

 

Are you saying that everything in the Geek New Testament that is in the present tense is not applicable to today because it would the future tense if it was?

 

 

Let me know,

 

God bless,

Tony

No, that would certainly be an overly broad generalization. I'll give you an example using a well-known verse - John 3:16. This verse contains the word pisteuon which most Bibles translate as "believe." However the verb pisteuon is a present active participle and should be properly translated as "believing." Therefore the relevant part of this verse should read everyone believing in Him may not perish but may have eternal [age-abiding] life. Thus, what this means for us is that ongoing, continuous belief is necessary for salvation - not just a one-time moment of belief in the past.

 

 

 

Here is a prime example where a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. While it is a good thing to help in the understanding of certain passages, in some people it serves to distort the meanings of others.

 

Likewise, parse the verse for yourself floatingaxe and tell me what you come up with. Your generalizations are otherwise useless.