Something I have Noticed

[jriccitelli]

You see? This sentence makes sense by itself, but it clearly makes no sense in the context of the debate, since it makes no point that your opponents would be unwilling to make themselves. Universalists are very aware of God's track record of judgments, and generally would agree that there are lessons to be learned from them. There is nothing in this information to challenge restorationism in any way. Your inability to recognize this, after so many patient attempts on the part of others to inform you of this, is what concerns many here (Steve)

You keep ‘contending’ UR believes in Judgment, punishment, and hell, and UR does, but UR is avoiding and redefining the mortal implications of the language and intentions of God, who demonstrated exactly what He will do to sinners if they do not repent and believe. CI believes God wrote, warned, and followed through with His Judgments so there could be no mistake in understanding Him.

UR, and yourself contend that all these OT verses can’t be taken as serious statements about Gods eternal intentions, since UR says they only refer to the temporal, or specific situation, or whatever. Ironically, UR utterly wipes out all verses that imply God will indeed wipe out and utterly destroy with complete destruction those who refuse His command to repent, yet this is exactly how God defines His own character. UR says Gods everlasting love and patience means His offer to repent will be for ever and ever, all the while denying that (punishment or) death is everlasting. Yet the context of the quotes again are from the 'supposedly' temporal context of the OT (?). What does this mean? Well it means you don't reinterpret by picking and choosing what you like, if you want the blessings and promises of the OT to apply post-mortem, you need to accept the curses and warnings have application and intent for the post-mortem also (otherwise they are meaningless, or reduced as you say: "to lessons to be learned from them" above).
You cant remove all the promises of future blessings and promises from the OT, if you start dissecting bits and parts from the contexts referring to utter destruction and keeping only parts of restoration and punishment, they are tied together.
The only way to keep it all in tact, context, and order is to believe what God says;
"But from eternity to eternity the Lord’s faithful love is toward those who fear Him, and His righteousness toward the grandchildren 18 of those who keep His covenant, who remember to observe His precepts. Enter His gates with thanksgiving, and His courts with praise. Give thanks to Him, bless His name" (Psalm 103)
"We are His people and the sheep of His pasture... For the LORD is good; His lovingkindness is everlasting, and His faithfulness to all generations" (Psalm 100)
Note forever, yes, but God makes a point to say: to those who fear, keep His precepts, keep His covenant, and note that they are already his sheep and they enter the courts which is synonymous with gates, which speak of belief. You can't avoid the additional conditional part of the everlasting love verses when you try to apply them to the post-mortem. Conditional immortality (like ET) on the other hand has no problem taking every single verse describing Gods intention and character in the Old Testament and ‘believing it truly’ does indeed describe Gods character and intentions, for ever and ever.

Eternal death on sinners, UR contends it can’t be taken literally, why not?
You are ignoring the fact that God does not change. That the judgments and punishment are coming from the same God. God does kill and at times violently. The wicked, are depicted as getting worse and more stubborn, but somehow this all changes post-mortem?.
The killing, violence and language is pretty consistent all throughout scripture, from Genesis all the way through to the last prophet. The same language is picked up again by John and Jesus and repeated by the apostles. The warnings include implications of utter annihilation. You don’t seem to comprehend that since God is the one doing the judging and punishing in the OT, and since God will be the one doing the judging and punishing in the future, then you can expect it to be just the same. God didn’t change from 1500 BC to 700BC, or from 500BC to 300BC, or from 300BC to 70AD, and God hasn't implied He will change at anytime from now to eternity, or has He?

The persons being judged and killed by God throughout scripture all have something very much in common – they were all sinners, and many disbelieved Gods warnings.

I suppose if I read all the UR writers arguments and your book also, it will convince me I was wrong to believe that God does not change, and that His character and intentions will not change either. I suppose I have been foolish for believing 'all' that the Prophets and Moses have spoken, I suppose a new God awaits me on the otherside when I become so enlightened. And yes I am ordering your new book, I suppose there I will find why God keeps Himself hidden, how there is a ruling class in heaven, why death means life, and why there is but there is not a final judgment, etc.

[steve]

UR, and yourself contend that all these OT verses can’t be taken as serious statements about Gods eternal intentions, since UR says they only refer to the temporal, or specific situation, or whatever.

Why do you lay this at the door of UR? Every responsible OT scholar I have found for as long as I have been studying the Bible has said the same thing about these OT passages—though none of them, to my knowledge, is a universalist. Your problem, in this case, is not with universalism, but with simple facts that anyone without a commitment to a theological agenda can observe. Why can't you simply let the passages speak for themselves, without forcing them into a theological box that they were never intended to occupy?

Ironically, UR utterly wipes out all verses that imply God will indeed wipe out and utterly destroy with complete destruction those who refuse His command to repent...

The question is not whether "UR" does such a thing or not. The real question is: "What does exegesis of the passages yield?"

This is the question you cannot answer honestly without giving up some of your tenaciously-held ground—so you just don't answer.

Well it means you don't reinterpret by picking and choosing what you like, if you want the blessings and promises of the OT to apply post-mortem, you need to accept the curses and warnings have application and intent for the post-mortem also

Huh? Which of the blessings of the OT have I or anyone else applied to post-mortem destinies? Your arguments get more and more bizarre! When will you see the obvious fact that any view that requires such nonsensical argumentation to bolster it against unassailable contrary arguments is not worth the eventual ulcers it will require to maintain it?

The persons being judged and killed by God throughout scripture all have something very much in common – they were all sinners...

Interestingly, the same can be said for all who have been and ever will be saved. Many of these will have previously suffered under God's judgments. Examples would include King Manasseh (2 Chron.33:10-13), and, possibly, Nebuchadnezzar (Dan.4). Please look these up before gratuitously dismissing them. They are instances of OT judgments, too.

I suppose if I read all the UR writers arguments and your book also, it will convince me I was wrong to believe that God does not change, and that His character and intentions will not change either. I suppose I have been foolish for believing 'all' that the Prophets and Moses have spoken, I suppose a new God awaits me on the otherside when I become so enlightened. And yes I am ordering your new book, I suppose there I will find why God keeps Himself hidden, how there is a ruling class in heaven, why death means life, and why there is but there is not a final judgment, etc.

Yes, reading my book can definitely do you some good—but only if you love the truth more than you love your opinions. There is some good scriptural exegesis there. It would be good for you to expose yourself to as much of that as possible. You apparently have not encountered it often enough to know what it is. Your arguments all employ eisegesis, which means reading into texts the meanings that you hope to find in them. You might make some effort to learn some exegesis. If you hope to become a "workman who does not need to be ashamed" and who is "thoroughly equipped for every good work," you will need to learn how to read from the text what it actually says—not what you wish it said.

[steve]

SOMETHING SOME HAVE NOT NOTICED

The basis of universal reconciliation is not that there is post-mortem repentance. It is that God has stated His eternal intentions to reconcile all things to Himself in Christ (Col.1:20). These "all things" appear to be the same "all things" that He has created (Col.1:16). It is the affirmation that Christ's justification has affected for good as many people as Adam's sin affected for harm (Rom.5:18-19). It is the affirmation that this is no mere pipe-dream of God's, but that the very thing He purposed is what will be accomplished (Isa.45:22-23; Phil.2:10; Rom.14:11). It is the affirmation that God is much more like Jesus than Christians have traditionally allowed themselves to believe.

If the reaching of His stated goals requires God's allowing post-mortem opportunities for sinners to repent, so be it. Who are we to object? On the other hand, if He can pull this off without such post-mortem opportunities, then so be it. If one says, "But this could not be accomplished without post-mortem repentance for many," then one would seem thereby to establish the validity of post-mortem repentance for many. Thus, post-mortem opportunity is not the wellspring of the teaching, but a tributary of it. The central issue is not post-mortem oppotunities, but God's declared purposes. The only reason for doubting that He will accomplish this purpose would be if somewhere in scripture, he declared that He will never, in all eternity, be able to reach His goals.

The task of the opponents of universalism is thus two-fold:

1) To demonstrate that God does not purpose to save all, and thus is a God whose character is very different from that of Jesus; and/or

2) To find actual statements in scripture that undeniably declare that God's purpose will be thwarted eternally.

A corollary of this second point is that verses which may appear, at first blush, to make such declarations need to be able to be harmonized with the plain teachings of the Bible about God. If a reasonable exegesis of these passages can naturally bring them into such harmony, then universal reconciliation seems to win by default.

There are many such passages, which are brought forward by opponents of restorationism. Most of them are flat-out red herrings, as can be seen simply by making honest inquiries into their grammar and context. Some verses are harder to dismiss. The words of Christ about the fate of Judas and about the (so-called) "unpardonable sin," are among them. These can be explained only with difficulty by universalists. However, there are a far larger number of statements in scripture that are even more difficult to explain from any other viewpoint.

It does no good for an opponent of universal reconciliation to continue posting (for the 100th time) statements about judgment which, in their context, cannot be tortured into pronouncing one way or another on the question under dispute. The real issue is: What is the character of God, revealed in Christ and in scripture? This must be the arbiter of all peripheral doctrinal affirmations.

It is not convincing when an opponent of restorationism says he is simply concerned that the doctrine misrepresents the truth. Such a conviction, if genuine, would be accompanied by a sincere desire to exegete scripture and to be sure that what one is defending is in fact the truth. This is not the approach we have seen here in the attacks against the universalists.

On the contrary, when uncooperative scriptures are repeatedly shoe-horned into an argument where they don't belong, in order to resist universal reconciliation at all costs, this evinces a strong emotional or moral revulsion to the teaching. Only a view of God's character which is in tension with that of Christ and His teachings would seem to account for this revulsion.

[robbyyoung]

The basis of universal reconciliation is not that there is post-mortem repentance. It is that God has stated His eternal intentions to reconcile all things to Himself in Christ (Col.1:20). These "all things" appear to be the same "all things" that He has created (Col.1:16).

Hi Steve,

In the case of UR, doesn't this understanding/interpretation contradict Matthew 12:31-32? "All Things" would include blasphemy of the Holy Ghost- but Jesus said, no forgiveness in this age or the one to come.

It seems "All Things" reconciled would need further exegesis than what is proposed IMHO

[steve]

but Jesus said, no forgiveness in this age or the one to come.

I am aware of it (in fact, I mentioned it in my post). Some universalists say that a sin that will not be forgiven in this age or in the age to come may yet be forgiven in one of the many succeeding ages mentioned by Paul. Others say that a person who goes to hell for his sins cannot be said to be "forgiven" of them (if they had been forgiven of them, they would not have been sent to hell), any more than a criminal who serves his time in prison and is released can be said to have been "forgiven" of his crime. Being forgiven, and doing the time in prison, are two alternative options.

[steve7150]

Being forgiven, and doing the time in prison, are two alternative options.

User avatar
steve

Posts: 2357
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm






OK so you do your time in prison but as i understand it, you can't actually pay for your sins yourself, so eventually doesn't this person still need forgiveness?

[Roberto]

but Jesus said, no forgiveness in this age or the one to come.

I am aware of it (in fact, I mentioned it in my post). Some universalists say that a sin that will not be forgiven in this age or in the age to come may yet be forgiven in one of the many succeeding ages mentioned by Paul. Others say that a person who goes to hell for his sins cannot be said to be "forgiven" of them (if they had been forgiven of them, they would not have been sent to hell), any more than a criminal who serves his time in prison and is released can be said to have been "forgiven" of his crime. Being forgiven, and doing the time in prison, are two alternative options.

Is it possible that the sin against the Spirit is simply unrepentance and is unforgivable until repentance, or is that unwarranted? Could it be similar to the saying of Jesus that if you don't forgive your brother, God will not forgive you, yet upon repentance He would?
Or is that just what I want emotionally to be true? Folks want to weigh in?

[robbyyoung]

I am aware of it (in fact, I mentioned it in my post). Some universalists say that a sin that will not be forgiven in this age or in the age to come may yet be forgiven in one of the many succeeding ages mentioned by Paul.

Steve,

As you know, the greek word used to quote Jesus was "aiōn" undoubtedly referring to His eternal Kingdom age that has no end. If you are referring to Paul's statement in Eph 2:7, he used the greek word "aiōn" as well, but there is no justification for the translation to be plural. Paul actually makes it perfectly clear how to interpret this greek word in the following chapter and verse, 3:21 by using the correct greek word for generations "genea" that will forever exist within the eternal Kindgom age "aiōn" that has no end.

The only plurality that harmonizes with scripture is "genea" which exist in the only "aiōn" that has no end (Christ's Kingdom). Therefore, Matt 12:31-32 stands firm, no forgiveness in this "aiōn" or the "aiōn" which was about to come "mello". UR falls flat on it's face concerning Matt 12:31-32, at least for those guilty of this sin.

[Roberto]

I am aware of it (in fact, I mentioned it in my post). Some universalists say that a sin that will not be forgiven in this age or in the age to come may yet be forgiven in one of the many succeeding ages mentioned by Paul.

Steve,

As you know, the greek word used to quote Jesus was "aiōn" undoubtedly referring to His eternal Kingdom age that has no end. If you are referring to Paul's statement in Eph 2:7, he used the greek word "aiōn" as well, but there is no justification for the translation to be plural. Paul actually makes it perfectly clear how to interpret this greek word in the following chapter and verse, 3:21 by using the correct greek word for generations "genea" that will forever exist within the eternal Kindgom age "aiōn" that has no end.

The only plurality that harmonizes with scripture is "genea" which exist in the only "aiōn" that has no end (Christ's Kingdom). Therefore, Matt 12:31-32 stands firm, no forgiveness in this "aiōn" or the "aiōn" which was about to come "mello". UR falls flat on it's face concerning Matt 12:31-32, at least for those guilty of this sin.

Here are some questions that came up when I read your post (thanks for posting!)
1: How do you know that: "the greek word used to quote Jesus was "aiōn" undoubtedly referring to His eternal Kingdom age that has no end"? It would seem that the word itself doesn't mean endless if He refers to an age and then another one *after* that one.
Roberto

[steve7150]

UR falls flat on it's face concerning Matt 12:31-32, at least for those guilty of this sin.












Perhaps but later on Jesus said on the cross "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" which likely includes those Pharisees he had warned.