The Narrow Path Ministries

Rather than post this tangent response under ‘The Logical Fallacy of Christian Universalism’ thread, I posted here. Not simply so my name is not defamed, but because I do not want people get the wrong idea about someone who defends scripture, in opposition to the supposedly ‘loving’ inspirations behind Universalism;

As a side note, My exwife who was older than I was, had two children at the time (my step kids, who are both in their thirties now) who I still have a great relationship with, which my current wife encourages out of her own heart, because my current wife is a Christian, and since both the kids had different dads, and neither of them knew their dad. I was my first wife’s third or fourth marriage by the way (it was my first) and I was the only dad they knew.

My exwife, who is still my friend (because of the kids), and who my current wife has also befriended, so anyways, there is no hard feelings between ‘anyone’ here. My ex is living happily in another county with a man I admire and get along with also, and pray for since they both are going through chemo and both have heart problems. Because my exwife wished that I would be there for the kids, and because I was now a Christian I knew God had actually healed everything, and continues to work in our lives of our loved ones.

My main focus and motivation of all my relationships (my stepson and ex are not believers) with those who have not yet believed in Jesus or the Bible is that they believe, because they really have made a choice already, I do not ‘know’ for sure they have more time, or ‘if’ they even would change their mind, or ‘want’ to know God. They are admittedly stubborn, some have made verbal decisions to not want to know God, and are not interested in God, I fear for them as God has set a day, God has sent his Word, He has Warned, He has tested them (and us), and God made a mandate.

I can see the point in ‘entertaining hope’ that they get a second chance, but find it would be horrible to teach or endorse second chance, especially to the redefinition of Biblical terms and Gods warnings, people must know, trust and believe what God has actually said and meant, and He meant it. All hope that there is a second chance is not ours to promote, because God did not promote it.

I can see the point in ‘entertaining hope’ that they get a second chance, but find it would be horrible to teach or endorse second chance, especially to the redefinition of Biblical terms and Gods warnings, people must know, trust and believe what God has actually said and meant, and He meant it. All hope that there is a second chance is not ours to promote, because God did not promote it.

User avatar
jriccitelli





I agree that that promoting it is counterproductive since God wants people to repent now. However since the question inevitably comes up about those who never heard Jesus or don't understand his message or had him misrepresented to them etc etc, i would express what i do believe about it if i'm asked, which is that postmortem repentance is possible if God chooses to give this opportunity. I would have to include "if" because though i think the weight of evidence is for postmortem repentance i can't say for certain nor do i want to.

On the other thread, I thought that you expressed not only pleasure, but hope, that all mankind will not be reconciled with God and with one another - I found this very disturbing, but I see, from what you have written here, that that is quite possibly not the case. I am glad for all your sakes that you do have good relationships - especially with the children. So your remark on the other thread was kind of like a jest or a joke, I take it. Or perhaps you meant that you would not want to have to be married once again to her now that you are happily remarried. I don't have to know, it is not my business. . . .

The thoughts came, which seem appropriate to this thread, why would a Christian not want or even hope to be reconciled with all those with whom he has had a falling out? Did Jesus not tell us to pray for our enemies, and are we not interested in his very good reason?

I find your remark "supposedly ‘loving’ inspirations behind Universalism'' off-putting to anyone you might hope to approach with your view.

So let me ask how many on here who do not believe the Bible teaches reconciliation are glad they won't have to face certain people in the future (they think)? I do not demand a response, but I think it is good to examine our gut feelings in regard to our theological beliefs and be sure our motives are not clouding our minds.

We have close relatives who are not believers. It would be a happy ending if CU is true. My wife is inclined to it but said "who can read their bible and believe it?" Well, some can and do; to me it is about the most poorly supported doctrine I have come across, much weaker than Calvinism.

My interest in this matter is the truth. As this debate has continued over the years I have become more convinced than I was in the beginning that universalism is false. I believe it is wrong to give false hope where Jesus gave none regarding post resurrection conversion and salvation. His teachings point to a final judgement.

It is implied (and more than implied) tiresomely that those who do not believe in univeralism are spiritual inferiors; after all who would not want to believe such good news (that Jesus and the apostles did not think to teach)? Well, might as well believe in eternal security and combine that with universalism - now you've got something!

“… those who never heard Jesus or don't understand his message or had him misrepresented to them etc etc” (7150)

That’s it, I agree it is plausible that those who really never had a good chance may get a chance to respond. I can tell people that after death there ‘could’ be a first chance to hear and ‘possibly’ a second chance to ‘respond’ to the Gospel, and repent. But note the group you noted isn't those who reject, or worse.

... but find it would be horrible to teach or endorse second chance (My statement)

And I explain to the person asking that it would be like walking down the middle of the freeway blindfolded, you might make it sure, but it would be stupid, and from all we can observe not much of a chance, and we have been warned.
Again I remind them that we have all been given a choice, a choice many have rejected. Many do love their sins more than the truth, many do not fear God, and many have decided this even ‘after knowing’ His Word.
After considering these points, most people are not swayed to 'promote or teach' about a second chance.

Many times, more than below, I have stated that ‘second chance’ is possible though, yet with considerations;

'There is an after death chance of repentance (I am not bent on refuting this idea, although not scriptural, but I am opposed to the notion that 'all' or 'everyone' will repent. This does seem to echo the serpent's line "You shall surely not die" ( )

Question 4) ‘God can do nothing for, and has no interaction with a person after death’
No; God can and does have interaction with a person after death, certainly at the Judgment.
(As I have said; they 'may' have a chance to 'repent', but I think God 'has' tested many 'already', and I would strongly disagree 'all' repent, and that Hell is not final, and neither turned into purgatory) (Ibid Dec 26, pg15)

‘If some die without a good chance to consider and repent, then God will grant them that, but to ignore His words (which most likely describe His intent), and redefine meanings of words to almost eliminate the meaning they convey – that is the work of deception’ (Ibid. Dec 31, pg16)

I believe there is a coming Judgment of ‘all’ people, and everyone* will be at one of the two judgments’
Some, or ‘maybe’ all, will have the opportunity to repent and accept that God provided a sacrifice for sins, I have always maintained that this is ‘possible’. Before embracing this ‘possibility’, there are a couple of biblical considerations/ principles that should be taken into account’ (Ibid. Jan27)

This group of people I am sympathetic towards are those who would be defined as people who;
A. May have embraced the Gospel but never had the chance. And also;
B. Those who may have accepted given better opportunities, or more time to accept the Gospel.
After my father died I have understood the ‘hope’ that many have, the ‘hope’ that a person may find grace with God even if they never actually confessed their faith or belief in the atonement.
I have always kept this hope under a cover, for I know the Bible does not ‘promote’ much hope for the sinner without an atonement made for their sin. And it has been given as a ‘command’ to accept and believe in His sacrifice, that Christ died so that all who would 'Believe' would have forgiveness of sins through 'Faith'. So my ‘hope’ for my Dad is based on two biblical truths, 1. God is Good, and 2. God can do whatever He wants. But these are aspects of Gods character, and not the sum total of His character. God must be Just in the judgment of sin, and True to His own Words of ‘warning’ and ‘commands to repent’ (Compassion when looking backward in time, Oct. 23, 2011)

So I do hope to see my fathers face again, it is my number one hope and desire of heaven (I do not know everyone else’s aspirations). My father would have to repent, believe and accept, I accept that he could still reject God, and I could live with that. The point is that there would be no point in telling my father ‘you may have a second opportunity to repent in heaven’ If I made a statement like that, and my father put ‘hope’ in it, then I would not be able to live with it, because it may not be true, and now I was at fault also for going beyond what scripture teaches, having their blood on my hands.

Secondly, as Homer noted, I have always believed in conditional immortality (CI), and have stated so here numerous times.

Hi Homer,

to me it is about the most poorly supported doctrine I have come across, much weaker than Calvinism.

It may be that for a doctrine to be biblically "supported" means something very different to you than it does to me. If we are to look at proof-texts taken without context or adequate exegesis, then I would say that Calvinism has, probably, a similar number to those that would appear to support universalism (I have collected about 50 verses for each of the two views). This is not what I call biblical support. The Bible is not a collection of "proof-texts" as if it was written to provide the theologically-inclined with a set of debate points. The Bible (and Jesus Himself) is here to reveal the heart and nature of God. All true doctrine must, of course, agree with that revelation. Thus, since Calvinism is diametrically opposed to the revealed character of God, and universalism is entirely consistent with it, I would not agree that Calvinism even approaches being as well-supported biblically as restorationism.

His teachings point to a final judgement.

I accept the biblical teaching that there will be a judgment on the "last day." However, your obvious emphasis on the word "final," which I take to mean there will never in eternity be any further administration of grace or of judgment, I am not sure can be found in scripture. Since this is allegedly emphatically taught (by Jesus?) could you supply the verses from which your convictions about this arise?

I am pretty sure you are basing this, primarily, on your interpretation of Matthew 25:46. You frequently make the argument , repeated by all traditionalists since it was first formulated by Augustine (incidentally, Calvinism's creator), that "eternal life" and "eternal punishment" are exact opposites, proving that the punishment is as "eternal" as is the life. This argument is given by traditionalists and conditionalists alike, though the former usually think it defeats the views of the latter.

If you had not read dozens of posts here in which the meaning of aionios (eternal) was discussed, it would be easier to see how you could think this a strong argument. The argument only works, of course, if aionios can be shown to mean "endless." It seems to me that it has been abundantly proven in multiple posts here that at least four very different meanings of aionios ("endless," "long-lasting," "of divine origin," and "pertaining to the age") can be ably defended by Greek scholars—three of which (equally likely as your definition) would completely undermine your argument (by the way, "pertaining to the age" does not necessarily describe something that endures the length of that age).

It doesn't matter how often Jeremias or any other authors may be quoted on your point, when a large number of scholars of equal credibility can be brought to support alternative readings as well. Your interpretation of aionios, or any of the three other interpretations, may possibly be correct. Neither you nor I really knows for sure. You have about 25% chance of being the one in the right—yet it seems to me that your entire argument depends upon the correctness of your favored translation. If you are right, then universalism would seem to be debunked, despite what the Bible said on the subject elsewhere. When I am debating theology, I don't wish to base my entire case on a scripture of which my interpretation stands a 25% chance of being valid. If any conviction of mine rests upon such flimsy exegetical ground, I would never enter the arena to debate its merits against opposing views.

jriccitelli wrote:

That’s it, I agree it is plausible that those who really never had a good chance may get a chance to respond.

What is a "good chance"? Is it plausible that anyone would reject Jesus without being severely ignorant or deceived by the enemy about Him? Wouldn't virtually every unbeliever fit this description? For example, you may think someone you preach to is rejecting Jesus if they don't succumb to your persuasion. What if that person has seen or heard only a twisted version of Jesus (e.g., that He is a vindictive god who could annihilate or save all his creatures, but would rather torment them forever)? Is it possible that that person is not rejecting Jesus, and would in fact embrace Him if these misconceptions were removed? Perhaps what that person is actually rejecting is "another Jesus." This might even be commendable (2 Cor.11:4). God only knows the hearts, of course, which means that we do not. I confess it is hard for me to imagine anyone not wishing to know Christ, if they really knew what He is like.

I was thinking maybe it would be good to have a thread where we agree that emotions are high and that we agree to not be offended, like on a pirate ship (admittedly I like pirate ships)

What is a "good chance"?

Are you implying that no unbeliever has had a fair chance to believe, or that everyone who has rejected will have the defense; I did not have enough correct information? Remember UR and Universalism implies that ‘everyone’ will get a second chance, and eventually ‘all’ will be saved. I said I am not opposed to ‘some’ getting a fair chance, but I am opposed to thinking that ‘all’ unbelievers have not had fair warning, and enough evidence for God to test their heart and make a decision. It seems to me that God thinks this was a Good plan, and the Gospel good enough news. I do not think ‘everyone’ has held ET as their rejection of God, as it seems a lot of people I talk to don’t even give the idea of ET much thought, think out, or dwell much on the meanings of eternal hell. Much like the National Debt, some don’t even seem to consider it (?!).

I think it unfair to tie Homers beliefs and convictions to Augustine (the same could be said for anyone’s beliefs, there is always someone who is famous for most doctrines). I think I have not read anything recently where Homer used ET as a defense of UR, I thought Homer was neutral on ET and CU for the time being (?). At least, I know Homer did not bring up the word aionios.

Hi jriccitelli,

Paul describes the lost as "having their understanding darkened...because of the ignorance that is in them" (Eph.4:18) and the gospel "is veiled to them...whose mind the god of this age has blinded..." (2 Cor.4:3-4). One must wonder what such people would believe or choose if these disabilities were removed.

I didn't "tie Homer's beliefs and convictions to Augustine." There were people before Augustine (e.g., Tertullian) who believed as Homer does. I was referring to the argument he was using about Matthew 25:46, based upon the parallel use of aionios. That argument, it is generally acknowledged, was first offered by Augustine, in The City of God. As I said, this vacuous argument has been repeated (apparently without critical examination) by Augustine's disciples ever since. We try to encourage critical cross-examination of longstanding cliches here.

I use to presume that UR thinking held that there is a Day of judgment coming, and that (I would think) a UR would associate this with ‘That Great and Terrible Day’ foretold in scripture, a Day of Judgment, salvation AND punishment (Visiting the… pg.19)

(Am I wrong on this or do some UR’s believe ‘The Final Judgment’, that ‘That Great and Terrible Day’ is not exactly so, or is it full preterisim that says it has happened already?)

“But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. 19“Therefore repent and return… that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, 21whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time… 23‘And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’ 24“And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and his successors onward, also announced these days. (Acts 3:17-24)

(In Acts 3:23) I noticed Peter did not seem to have a problem adding detail to Moses statement of Duet.18:19 in verse 3:23 Peter adds the word – exolethreuomai / cutoff, destroy utterly, annihilate - and clarifies the judgment of Duet.18… In verse 24 Peter says “And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and his successors onward, also announced these days’ (Acts 3:24) I do not know what else you could ‘exegete’ from this passage without reading into it! Any restoration from the Prophets also included the judgments, and Peter does not digress from the warnings of destruction.
How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked,
Nor stand in the path of sinners...
4 The wicked are not so,
But they are like chaff which the wind drives away.
5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment,
Nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.
6 For the LORD knows the way of the righteous,
But the way of the wicked will perish. (Psalm 1)

Are we to assume that this passage does not apply to anyone, or anything post mortem? Are we to think nothing in the Book of Psalms applies to 'anything' post-mortem? The Psalms are replant with promises of joy and salvation yet little could be said of anything in relating to post-mortem. Don’t be upset because the Psalmist really doesn’t say either way, it seems to speak in an all in the same perspective (It is implied).
[side note; I remember you stated once that it was 'not' God who spoke of the 'chaff' being burned up, what about driven away?]

David says the wicked will not stand in the judgment, which goes with my thinking that If God annihilates you once I do not know if he has much else to say to you. We can say that to be fair God will have another final Day of Judgment but it cant get much better if you have already been physically struck down directly by God, as Jesus seems to imply;
“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God”
Either way a judgment is coming where it will be really is of less concern, the main point is that there is a judgment (of all sinners), and God clarifies what the penalty is, repeatedly – death (First the death of the physical body, then the death of the soul, the second death, death) (Visiting the Iniquitys… pg.19)

“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30-31)

God promises that He will Judge the Whole World (World / Tebel in Hebrew).

And He will judge the world (tebel) in righteousness;
He will execute judgment for the peoples with equity…
10And those who know Your name will put their trust in You,
For You, O LORD, have not forsaken those who seek You…
12For He who requires blood remembers them...
16The LORD has made Himself known;
He has executed judgment.
In the work of his own hands the wicked is snared.
17The wicked will return to Sheol,
Even all the nations who forget God.
18For the needy will not always be forgotten,
Nor the hope of the afflicted perish forever.
19Arise, O LORD, do not let man prevail;
Let the nations be judged before You.
20Put them in fear, O LORD; Let the nations know that they are but men’ (Psalm 9)

15Then the channels of water appeared,
And the foundations of the world (tebel) were laid bare
At Your rebuke, O LORD,
At the blast of the breath of Your nostrils’ (Psalm 18)

12 Let the field exult, and all that is in it.
Then all the trees of the forest will sing for joy
13 Before the LORD, for He is coming,
For He is coming to judge the earth (erets)
He will judge the world (tebel) in righteousness
And the peoples in His faithfulness. (Psalm 96)

Let the sea roar and all it contains,
The world (tebel) and those who dwell in it.
8 Let the rivers clap their hands,
Let the mountains sing together for joy
9 Before the LORD, for He is coming to judge the earth;
He will judge the world (tebel) with righteousness
And the peoples with equity. (Psalm 98:9)

Steve I really do not know how ‘you’ view these scriptures, but I have not read any good response to these scriptures (Job, Amos, Isaiah, etc) in any other UR or Universalist defense.

God uses the ‘examples of His previous judgments’ over and over, from his oath to Adam onward His judgments stand, these are Judgments against 'all' sinners (not just Israel) and the judgments are not overthrown by death, rather death is the beginning of The Judgment, and death or life is the result and the end of The Judgment. One or the other.
God can continue to make Judgments in the future, but it will be final for those who's Judgment is death, the second death surely. Nothing says He ‘cannot put to death’ those who refused, in fact God does put to death those who refuse, and He will again, and He can do it again. But scripture does not imply or suggest that the dead souls come back to life.

I am not sure what your last post is about. It is not hard to multiply Bible verses about judgment—whether historical or eschatological. I do not know what your question is. Are you asking if universalists believe in a judgment? The evangelical ones do. Those who go to hell will go there because they were sentenced there at the judgment. This is the view of traditionalists, conditionalists and restorationists. It is what the Bible teaches.

I also don't know what the block quotes in your last post were about, or who they were from (are they from former posts of yours? They seem to exhibit your style). It would be helpful if you could provide some explanation of your use of citations when their point to a discussion is not something most readers would discern, and that you let us know whom you are quoting.