Does death end our ability to choose?

User avatar
_Rick_C
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:14 am
Location: West Central Ohio

Post by _Rick_C » Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:58 am

Hi Derek,
You wrote:It would seem that it wouldn't matter one way or the other if Universalism were true. I could understand if it said He doesn't wish anyone to be punished, but it says "perish". Do Universalists have a different understanding of "perish"?

Thayer Definition: (Greek, apollumi)
1) to destroy
1a) to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin
1b) render useless
1c) to kill
1d) to declare that one must be put to death
1e) metaphorically to devote or give over to eternal misery in hell
1f) to perish, to be lost, ruined, destroyed
2) to destroy
2a) to lose
I can answer for at least some of them.
Several if not most or all universalists who post here have taken the "to lose" meaning as THE ONLY meaning. In other words, though the Greek word actually has more than one meaning which is determined by its usage (context) like with the "lost sheep" (where it obviously doesn't literally mean destroyed): They argue it NEVER means 'to be destroyed, will perish, be put to death', etc., in terms of the fate of unbelievers.

Interesting note.
The Jews of Jesus' day thought that when someone couldn't be found after they were intently looked for [being lost] or if someone didn't return after leaving some place [were missing]; they assumed they were dead. This is seen in the story of the Prodigal Son.

Luke 15, picking up at the return
20"So he got up and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion for him, and ran and embraced him and kissed him.
21"And the son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.'
22"But the father said to his slaves, 'Quickly bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet;
23and bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us eat and celebrate;
24for this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost {Greek, apolwlws, from apollumi} and has been found.' And they began to celebrate.


What I'm pointing out is being lost/missing can, and did, indicate that someone was dead to the Jews of Jesus' day: Lost/missing = dead, till proven otherwise.

Apollumi (and its derivatives, taken in context as in the above passage) can mean something or someone could be lost and, also, may no longer exist or be dead. Therefore, The Prodigal Son Story shows that apollumi doesn't ALWAYS point to an existing thing or person that is lost or missing and can be found...as the universalists say.

Take Care,
Rick
Last edited by _Rich on Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth

__id_1679
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by __id_1679 » Sun Nov 25, 2007 1:43 am

Paidion,

Sorry for not challeging this comment earlier, but I must make one nevertheless;

Your comment: "For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries.

The author says "if we..." He seems to include himself as among those who might be cast into the fire which will consume the adversaries (that is, destroy them in their original form, and purify them by fire)."

This verse has sooooo been taken out of context by both "hard core fundies" to keep their congregations in line, and cults for the same purpose. Now CU's are using it as another "proof text".

Who is the "WE" in the text Paidion? To whom was the letter of Hebrews intended? Is the writer speaking of *all* manner of sin, or a specific sin?
The text says "if we sin delberately"... Now I don't know about you, but there aren't too many sins that aren't deliberate. So the writer must be talking about something more specific than sin in general. At least this sin
is enough "to get your pants on fire" up to and including being consumned by it. So it must be a really serious sin!

Obviously, the destination of the letter of Hebrews was written to Jewish believers in Jesus. The central issue was concerning Jewish transition from the Law of Moses with its sacrificial system, to one of a completed Law and Atonement under Christ, i.e. the New Covenant. To "fall away"
from the New Covenant in Christ, and fall back into the sacrificial system under Moses was the "deliberate sin". To do so, empties the infinate value
of Jesus sacrifice and as the writer continues, would mean "trampleing the Son of God underfoot, treating the blood of the covenant as unholy, even insulting the Spirit of Grace....

This is the context of Hebrews 10. Just thought that needed to be cleared up.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Mort_Coyle
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:28 am
Location: Seattle, WA

Post by _Mort_Coyle » Sun Nov 25, 2007 2:46 am

Hi Derek,

Re: 2 Peter 3:9, you asked, "Do Universalists have a different understanding of "perish"?"

As Rick pointed out, one of the primary meanings of apollumi and its variants is lost. Another is destroyed, yet that doesn't necessitate eternal destruction. For example, 2 Peter 3:6 says that "By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed." Yet the world remained.

Luke 19:10 is particularly interesting. Zacchaeus was alive and not missing. Yet in the climax of the story of his repentance and restoration, Jesus says "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost [apollumi]."

In Matthew 10:6, Jesus tells His disciples to go to "the lost [apollumi] sheep of Israel". Obviously, the lost sheep of Israel were alive and their whereabouts were known (how else could one "go to" them?).

What do we Christians commonly call non-Christians nowadays? "The lost". We could just as easily call them "the perishing" or "those being destroyed" (although that last one doesn't roll off the tongue too well).

Regardless of whether we translate apollumi in 2 Peter 3:9 as "perish", "be lost" or "be destroyed", as a Christian Universalist I don't believe that the condition is terminal.

While we're discussing 2 Peter 3:9, we can't ignore the clear statement that God's "wish" (boulomai; intent, will, desire) is that all come to repentance and are saved. This begs the question, is God able accomplish what He intends?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Rick_C
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:14 am
Location: West Central Ohio

Post by _Rick_C » Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:17 am

Danny,

I have some stuff on Noah/Genesis but maybe later.
Anyway, you wrote:What do we Christians commonly call non-Christians nowadays? "The lost". We could just as easily call them "the perishing" or "those being destroyed" (although that last one doesn't roll off the tongue too well).
Technically speaking, referring to non-Christians as "the lost" may not be accurate. That is, if we would be taking it from "the lost sheep of Israel". Israel was God's Elect people to serve his purposes on earth, ultimately bringing the Messiah. The lost sheep of Israel were in the Elect Nation but had strayed from its God. They weren't in the Remnant till they were found and/or believed.

At the same time the Elect today come from any nation or people. And while non-Christians can become one of the Elect and/or realize they are an Elect after having believed, I'm not sure we could say they are lost in the same sense the lost sheep of Israel were. The Church is God's Israel today. But a person who has never been in it can't be said to be "lost" from it or to have drifted away from it. This gets into "Calvinistic" type stuff that's confusing for obvious reasons, imo, :lol:

I'm thinking there are other texts whereby it would be reasonable to call non-Christians the lost. I bet N.T. Wright says we can and has Bible for it. I just can't think of any verses right now and have Google wore out! In Acts 17 non-Christians are encouraged to "find God" which is sort of the opposite. They had a statue to an Unknown God. Well, never mind......

Otherwise.
I don't and can't refer to non-Christians as "those being destroyed". I can and do say they're "those destined for destruction". In this present age of grace God is deferring judgment till the Last Day in order than many more might be saved. Though non-Christians are "those under God's [current] wrath" they are not being destroyed by God now. They live a "destructive life/style" and receive the current penalty of their living like that in themselves. But this isn't God's doing. It is theirs. God's not destroying anyone.

Just an aside,
Rick
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth

User avatar
_Father_of_five
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 12:37 pm
Location: Texas USA

Post by _Father_of_five » Sun Nov 25, 2007 11:40 am

Derek wrote:Peter says that the reason Jesus has not returned, is that He doesn't want anyone to perish. I would think that this meant when He does come back, those that haven't repented at that time will perish.
This passage in 2 Peter is often used to refute CU. I would like to point out that the language used here is apocalyptic and is very much like the following passage from Zephaniah.

Zeph 3:8-9
8 Therefore wait for me," declares the Lord, "for the day I will stand up to testify. I have decided to assemble the nations, to gather the kingdoms and to pour out my wrath on them-- all my fierce anger. The whole world will be consumed by the fire of my jealous anger. 9 "Then will I purify the lips of the peoples, that all of them may call on the name of the Lord and serve him shoulder to shoulder.

Notice here that...
1. The nations were assembled
2. God's wrath poured out
3. The whole world comsumed by fire
4. All the people were purified to serve the Lord.

One possible connection here is the "new heavens and new earth" mentioned by Peter may be referring to item 4 above (vs 9).

2 Pet 3:13
But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.

Todd
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Derek
Posts: 291
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:27 am
Location: Marietta GA

Post by _Derek » Sun Nov 25, 2007 1:39 pm

This passage in 2 Peter is often used to refute CU. I would like to point out that the language used here is apocalyptic and is very much like the following passage from Zephaniah.
I don't agree that this language is apocalyptic. Maybe two sentences lean that way, but for the most part, I take this literally, regardless of the meaning of perish. I believe that God will litterally destroy this world, and create another.

God bless,
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Derek

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7

User avatar
_Derek
Posts: 291
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:27 am
Location: Marietta GA

Post by _Derek » Sun Nov 25, 2007 1:42 pm

While we're discussing 2 Peter 3:9, we can't ignore the clear statement that God's "wish" (boulomai; intent, will, desire) is that all come to repentance and are saved. This begs the question, is God able accomplish what He intends?
Of course He is capable. He has done everything short of forcing us to follow Him by sending Jesus to die for us.

God bless,
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Derek

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7

User avatar
_Mort_Coyle
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:28 am
Location: Seattle, WA

Post by _Mort_Coyle » Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:34 pm

Hi Derek,
Of course He is capable. He has done everything short of forcing us to follow Him by sending Jesus to die for us.
This brings up several interesting questions:

I agree that He is capable, but can you really say He has presently done everything short of forcing us? Why did He make Himself known to me (in a rather supernatural fashion), but hasn't to others? Why do so many never hear the Gospel (or hear it in a very distorted fashion)? Why were you and I given such an advantage (in terms of hearing the Gospel) over the millions in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or elsewhere?

Short of forcing us, do you believe that God is capable of convincing (or wooing) everyone to follow Him?

The CU position is that God is capable of ultimately drawing everyone into relationship with Him, not by force, but by love, even if it is love manifested in wrath. I believe the wrath of God has more to do with realizing and reaping the fruits of one's own sin rather than God intentionally and vindictively applying violence.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Derek
Posts: 291
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:27 am
Location: Marietta GA

Post by _Derek » Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:00 pm

I am undecided as to what the fate of one who has not heard the gospel is. I believe that God is just. He will do what is right.
Short of forcing us, do you believe that God is capable of convincing (or wooing) everyone to follow Him?
Well, I am not sure. I think anything is possible with God, but History bares out the fact that He has gone to great lengths to woo many who would have nothing to do with Him. The majority of the children of Israel for instance.

He revealed Himself to them supernaturally, punished them, withdrew His presence from them, spoke to them through the prophets, warned them of their need to repent, and more, yet they would not have Him. When finally He revealed Himself so perfectly in Christ, they hung Him on a cross. What could He do for them that He has not already done? Just punish them supernatuarlly in hell until they give in and come around?


That's not to say that I find Universalism completely ridiculous or anything. It certainly has some support, and I certainly would like for it to be true, but as of now, I am unconvinced. I am planning to buy some of the books mentioned on this forum though, to study it more thoroughly.

God bless,
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Derek

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7

User avatar
_Mort_Coyle
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:28 am
Location: Seattle, WA

Post by _Mort_Coyle » Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:07 pm

Derek, I appreciate your cautious openness, which strikes me as very Berean.

As far as books, I would recommend "The Inescapable Love of God" by Thomas Talbott and another book called "Universal Salvation?: The Current Debate", which also features Talbott.

A freebie you can get online is Hope Beyond Hell: http://www.hopebeyondhell.org

- Danny
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

Post Reply

Return to “Views of Hell”