Alternative Views of Hell

[Guest]

Hmm, the question is, can someone reject this reconciliation? I believe the bible says they can.

Or perhaps it is not a matter of rejecting the reconciliation, but degrees of punishment and reward according to your works. In other words, all have been reconciled but all will also be judged according to their works - not as a heaven/hell scenario but a suitable recompense where every person gets some punishment and some reward - then Christ delivers up the kingdom to God so that He can be All in all. And in that Kingdom is all of creation.

Todd

[Guest]

not as a heaven/hell scenario but a suitable recompense where every person gets some punishment and some reward - then Christ delivers up the kingdom to God so that He can be All in all. And in that Kingdom is all of creation. Very Happy




Well now we're gonna get back to imputed righteousness are we I think Paul anticipated being with the Lord upon his death although even if you believe it would be at the resurrection "being with the Lord" sounds like heaven to me.
Regarding rejecting the Lord , we should consider that Satan blinds the minds of unbelievers and if they get an opportunity after death without their minds blinded i would think that most would see the light.

[Guest]

Hmm, the question is, can someone reject this reconciliation? I believe the bible says they can.

Certainly they can, Sean. People are rejecting it all the time!

The real question is: "Can someone continue to reject this reconciliation forever?"

Theoretically they can, but practically they won't. It's a little bit like throwing a coin (A coin, of course, is not conscious and has no free will; nevertheless this illustration may help a little).

If I throw a coin, it can turn up heads. If I throw it again, it can turn up heads again, but we say the "chances" are fewer that it will turn up heads a second time, and even fewer that it will turn up heads a third time.

Theoretically, it could turn up heads every time, for as long as I toss the coin. But practically it never does.

A person undergoing the cleansing fires of God's wrath may resist for 5 minutes, or an hour, or a month, or a year, or 10 years, or a century, or a million years. But practically, can he hold out forever? I don't think so.

[Guest]

Paidion Wrote:

Quote:
Where in Romans 5 does it say justification is given to all men.


It says it in verse 18:

18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. NASB

Quote:
I see Paul using the word "many" and i think his letter is directed to Paul's brethren so when he says "we" he means fellow believers.


19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. NASB

Even here, he doesn't say "many" but "the many".

Through one man's disobedience (Adam's), "the many" (all other people) were made sinners. Through one man's obedience (Christ's), "the many" (all other people) will be made righteous.

Another clear reference for universal reconciliation.

Yep, clear if you neglect context, such as the preceding verses:

17For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.


I believe Paidion's position is untenable. The "therefore" in v. 18 points back to what was said in v. 17. The two groups referred to must be those in the flesh contrasted with those in Christ. Consider Romans 5: 1-2:

1. Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
2. through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.

Here we see the description of those in v.18 who have "justification in life", and those "made righteous" in v. 19. Justification is a gift through faith.

Again Paul informs us, Galatians 3:22:

22. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

And:
7. Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.

8. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

[Guest]

Yep, clear if you neglect context, such as the preceding verses:

17For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.


I believe Paidion's position is untenable. The "therefore" in v. 18 points back to what was said in v. 17. The two groups referred to must be those in the flesh contrasted with those in Christ. Consider Romans 5: 1-2:

1. Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
2. through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.

Here we see the description of those in v.18 who have "justification in life", and those "made righteous" in v. 19. Justification is a gift through faith.

Again Paul informs us, Galatians 3:22:

22. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

And:
7. Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.

8. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

Homer, I must disagree with you again.

First of all, I do not see anything in the verses you quoted that would trouble someone who believed in the reconciliation of all to God in the ages to come.

You say that the 2 groups Paul is referring to are those in the flesh contrasted with those in Christ. (Which, if true, would not bother the "universalist" at all). However, Paul seems to be contrasting the results of the first Adam's action with the results of the second Adam's actions. I suspect you would agree that is the main point in vs. 12-21.

So Paul says, in vs. 17 (YLT):

"for if by the offence of the one the death did reign through the one, much more those, who the abundance of the grace and of the free gift of the righteousness are receiving, in life shall reign through the one--Jesus Christ."

I notice a couple of things:

1) It says "are receiving". This is an ongoing process (present active participle) that Paul is talking about. This is contrasted with the aorist tense of the reign of death.

2) Where as death reigned prior, those who are receiving grace shall (future active indicative) reign through (because of?) Christ. Notice death reigned before, but at a time in the future the ones receiving the grace will reign. I wonder who they will reign over? Just an interesting thought.

In any case, why would a universalist find this difficult? The universalist does not claim that everyone will reign in the age to come. Rather, those who receive the grace in this age will reign (should I say serve?) in the next age, as the latter harvest (versus the first fruits) are gathered.

The verses from Galatians are equally satisfying to the universalist. One slight translational correction.

"22. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe."

It is not "faith in Christ", but "faith of Christ". This is mis-translated several places in some of the newer translations. Again, YLT:

"but the Writing did shut up the whole under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ may be given to those believing."

I am not aware of a position being taken by a universalist where believing was not a prerequisite for apprehending the promises of God granted to us because of the faithfulness of Christ. And certainly we all agree that the results of living according to the flesh results in ruin. I believe I have even quoted from these verses myself in establishing the point that a universalist can believe that the age to come will see much agony as unrepentant people continue to reap what they have sown.

I know it is upsetting to you that some can read the same verses as you do and draw different conclusions, but what seems obvious to you does not to me and some others.

But we all agree that Christ is Lord, eh? Praise Him!

Mike

[Guest]

Rom 5:17
For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

As I was reading Homer's post I noticed that v17 speaks of reigning "in life." According to common thinking, salvation is mostly about the "afterlife" rather than "this life." Could it be that this verse is specifically referring to receiving God's spiritual blessings in this life? This verse mentions the "gift of righteousness." This could be speaking of the changed lives of those who follow Christ in faith and walk "not after the flesh, but after the spirit."

And, speaking of the Spirit, those who are obedient to the Spirit (which is at work in the hearts of all people) will receive this same "gift of righteousness" and "reign in life."

Just some thoughts.

Todd

[Guest]

Mike,

You said:

The verses from Galatians are equally satisfying to the universalist. One slight translational correction.

"22. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe."

It is not "faith in Christ", but "faith of Christ". This is mis-translated several places in some of the newer translations. Again, YLT:

"but the Writing did shut up the whole under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ may be given to those believing."

Apparently it can be translated either way. According to Lange, both Ellicott and Alford take the genitive "of Jesus Christ" as both objective and subjective; the Object of and Giver of faith. I have no ax to grind either way.

Will you be able to see Steve this week?

God bless, Homer

[Guest]

Will you be able to see Steve this week?

Yes, I plan on going to the meeting in Camas on Saturday.
Maybe Steve can straighten me out, eh? At least there is hope

Blessings,
Mike