The Best “Proof Text” of Correction After Judgment

[Homer]

Steve7150,

You can call CU desperate or weak or unsupported but there dozens and dozens of verses that support the fact that the ultimate plan of God is in fact restoration of his creation.

The tares and wheat is not the only clear statement regarding this matter, there are others, if a person has "ears to hear". You say there are dozens and dozens that support your universalism. I have yet to see even one clear statement in its favor, one that can not easily be uncderstood in another way. Perhaps you could list your top ten for consideration.

[steve7150]

The tares and wheat is not the only clear statement regarding this matter, there are others, if a person has "ears to hear". You say there are dozens and dozens that support your universalism. I have yet to see even one clear statement in its favor, one that can not easily be uncderstood in another way. Perhaps you could list your top ten for consideration






OK Homer as soon as i can , and i agree with you that many of the statements i'll list can be understood in another way, because if not all Christians would be CUs. So to me it's a matter of where the weight of the cumulative evidence takes us. Also i'm not a hard core CU , i'm only interested in scripture allowing for salvation after death whether it's literally all or most or whoever is meant to be saved but just never had the opportunity during this life.

[Todd]

The tares and wheat is not the only clear statement regarding this matter, there are others, if a person has "ears to hear".

Homer,

I submit that even the tares and the wheat can be understood in a different way. That the tares are to be gathered together to be burned may be describing what happens to someone overcome in sin during their lifetime. A clear example would be those described in Romans 1:18-32 who we are told are given over to uncleanness (v.24), vile passions (v.26), and a debased mind (v.28). These people are allowed to reap the full devastating reward of their error. This wrath against them was dealt out during their lifetime...like tares burning in the fire.

Another example is that of the Prodigal son whose life was ruined as a result of wasteful self-indulgence. We are told that in that state he was "dead" and "lost" (Luke 15:32). The word "lost" is translated from the Greek word apollymi which is also often translated as destroyed. See definitions below:

1) to destroy
a) to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin
b) render useless
c) to kill
d) to declare that one must be put to death
e) to perish, to be lost, ruined, destroyed
2) to destroy
a) to lose

Although his life was ruined or destroyed, he was not dead, but later repented and was restored to his father.

So I believe that passages like the the tares and the wheat can be understood to describe the destruction in one's life due to sin; and that these passages do not offer any commentary about what happens once they have died or in the resurrection.

Todd

[mattrose]

I don't know, Todd. How do you reconcile that interpretation of the wheat and the tares with Jesus' own interpretation. It certainly seems to me like He is talking about things 'after the end of the age' after the true or false growth of our earthly lives comes to a close.

Matthew 13:39
The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. 40 “As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

[Todd]

I don't know, Todd. How do you reconcile that interpretation of the wheat and the tares with Jesus' own interpretation. It certainly seems to me like He is talking about things 'after the end of the age' after the true or false growth of our earthly lives comes to a close.

Matthew 13:39
The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. 40 “As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matt,

The end of which age was Jesus talking about? The age that was in affect when Jesus said this ended 2000 years ago. In this present age, Jesus has been exalted, given all authority and power, and is seated at God's right hand. This is the age of the Kingdom of God with Christ as the Judge - God has placed all things under His feet. Paul's discourse in Rom 1:18-32 is evidence that everything that causes sin and all who do evil are being cast into the fire which causes weeping and gnashing of teeth. This is happening now in this present age, but it refers not to a post-death judgment or even a post-resurrection judgment, but it refers to people reaping what they sow in this present life as they are rewarded according to their works.

Todd

[Homer]

It is stunning to see the lengths people will go to in twisting, distorting, and explaining away scriptures that are so easily understood. No shortage of that around here.

[Paidion]

So this is the best you have! And it is just as I have thought. Statements plain and unambiguous are argued away by the universalist and ambiguous statements, usually of a general nature (God is love), are taken as proof of universalism.

To which plain and unambiguous statements do you refer? The verse I shared is plain and unambiguous in its affirmation that the unrighteous will be reserved for judgment to be corrected.

The Lord knows how to deliver the devout out of trial, but to reserve the unrighteous for a day of judgment, to be corrected. 2 Peter 2:9

So here you have enthusiastically touted a statement that can, according to your admission, be understood in two very different ways.

I admitted no such thing. I simply made reference to how some people would translate it. The word “κολαζω” NEVER means “retributive punishment”!

And the noun form of the verb was spoken of by both Josephus and Philo as meaning "divine retribution".

When I asked how you knew that, you gave no evidence from their writings. You simply provided a quote from a theological dictionary which affirmed it to be the case. I suppose if I were you, I would say at this point, “Surely you can do better than that!”

Why not use the plain, unambiguous statements of Jesus to determine what the word might mean?

As I indicated, to find the meaning of a word, the best way is to look up as many instances as possible of the word. No I can't do better than that, and neither can you. It's ludicrous to suggest that you can determine the meaning of the word by reading the parable to which you referred. If when reading the French sentence, “Qui aime bien châtie bien,” you wanted to determine the meaning of the word “châtie” and didn't trust the French dictionary which you have, what would you do? Would you search for the word in French literature to see how it was used? Or would you read a passage, or an English translation of a passage, in a French text about tribal warfare in which each side carried out revenge killings upon the other side. You would never do the latter to determine the meaning unless you had already made up you mind that the French word means “avenge” and were somehow looking for backing for your idea — though I cannot see how it would back your view in any way!

Such as:

Matthew 13:30
New King James Version (NKJV)

30. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”

What idea do you think Jesus meant to convey? And what do you think those He spoke to would have understood Him to be saying? That the tares, though destroyed in the fire, would somehow afterward be turned into wheat? The answer is obvious.

You say, “The answer is obvious.” In other words you have made up your mind what the answer is. You are asking the question either to show that I have no answer, or to reveal that I will provide a “twisted, distorted” answer which will “explain away” the plain scriptures. Your position seems to be , “My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts!”

There is no need for me to explain what Jesus meant to convey. He explained it Himself:

Then Jesus sent the multitude away and went into the house. and his disciples came to him, saying, "explain to us the parable of the tares of the field." He answered and said to them: "He who sows the good seed is the son of man. The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels. Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. The son of man will send out his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire. there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their father. he who has ears to hear, let him hear! Matthew 13:36-43 NKJV

So it is clear that the parable is speaking of the development of the Kingdom right here on earth, which will grow until the end of the age, when Jesus comes and sends his angels to gather out of His Kingdom those who cause stumbling and cast them into the Lake of Fire. Jesus doesn't suggest that the wicked will be consumed in the Lake of Fire, but that they will wail and gnash their teeth. The righteous will not need to undergo this severe correction, but immediately will shine forth in the Kingdom of the Father.

Homer, suppose for a moment that the reconciliation of all to God were true. How could God convey it through Jesus and His apostles so that it would convince you? Suppose Paul's letter to the Laodiceans were discovered and proved to be genuine (There is extant such a letter but it's authenticity if questionable). Now suppose that God wished to speak through Paul in that letter, telling everyone about the reconciliation of all to God. What could God say, which would convince you? He might say:

1. All things will be reconciled to God.
No, that wouldn't convince you. He has already said that. (Colossians 1:20)

2. In the day of judgment, the unrighteous will be sentenced to correction.
No, that wouldn't convince you. He has already said that (2 Peter 2:9)

3. Christ is the Saviour of all people.
No, that wouldn't convince you either. He has said that as well. (I Timothy 4:10)

4. God has a plan to unite all things in Christ.
Paul already wrote that. (Ephesians 1:9,10). You remain unconvinced.

5. God will have mercy on all people.
That wouldn't convince you. Paul wrote that, too (Romans 11:32)

6. Jesus will subject all things to Himself.
That won't convince you. Paul wrote that, and you weren't convinced. (Philippians 3:20,21)


I can't think of anything which God could say that would convince you. For whatever he might say, you could explain it away. Can you think of anything God could say that would convince you? Anything at all?