Resurrection and Judgment

[Guest]

Perhaps the universalist view is partially correct in that there will be another chance to repent when God is seen more clearly and a more sober decision can be made. Maybe it's those that are just so bent on hating God and could not stand the idea of spending eternity with Him, that will be annihilated. We know that some



Well said Christopher.

[Guest]

Maybe God wants us to know what He would do by His revealed character rather than simply the scriptures used to support this view or that.

Christopher,

I certainly agree with this statement. The most clear scripture to me which defines God's attitude toward his enemies is this one. You will find no ambiguity here...

Matt 5:43-48
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Here Christ tells us to exhibit the same perfect love that He does. We are to do good unto all. We can be certain that any correction that is sent from God to usward is done for our good - not vengence, spite, or retribution. As Paidion has said, "All God's punishments are remedial." It has a purpose. Never-ending punishment has no purpose. Punishing for a short time and then annihilating also serves no purpose. To say it satisfies God's justice makes no sense. Does God derive pleasure from suffering? Of course not.

Todd

[Guest]

Punishing for a short time and then annihilating also serves no purpose. To say it satisfies God's justice makes no sense. Does God derive pleasure from suffering? Of course not.

I'd say one purpose would be that God wouldn't have to strive forever with obstinate people who will not respond favorably to His goodness. As the article pointed out, there are many OT examples of this (the flood, Canaanite conquest, Sodom/Gomorrah, etc.)

Once He has exhausted all attempts at reconciliation, what more can He do than to give people what they want? I truly think that there are those that would choose extinction over eternal life with God and I can see God giving them what they want.

[Guest]

Punishing for a short time and then annihilating also serves no purpose. To say it satisfies God's justice makes no sense. Does God derive pleasure from suffering? Of course not.

I'd say one purpose would be that God wouldn't have to strive forever with obstinate people who will not respond favorably to His goodness. As the article pointed out, there are many OT examples of this (the flood, Canaanite conquest, Sodom/Gomorrah, etc.)

Once He has exhausted all attempts at reconciliation, what more can He do than to give people what they want? I truly think that there are those that would choose extinction over eternal life with God and I can see God giving them what they want.

Christopher,

But what is the purpose for punishing them first? If they are to be annihilated why not just let death have it's final say? Why resurrect them only to punish them and then annihilate them. This makes no sense.

Todd

[Guest]

Punishing for a short time and then annihilating also serves no purpose. To say it satisfies God's justice makes no sense. Does God derive pleasure from suffering? Of course not.

I'd say one purpose would be that God wouldn't have to strive forever with obstinate people who will not respond favorably to His goodness. As the article pointed out, there are many OT examples of this (the flood, Canaanite conquest, Sodom/Gomorrah, etc.)

Once He has exhausted all attempts at reconciliation, what more can He do than to give people what they want? I truly think that there are those that would choose extinction over eternal life with God and I can see God giving them what they want.

Chris,

I would agree with you that it would be more merciful and just for God to cease striving with a stubborn person who refused to repent, and to allow them to cease to exist. What is hard for me to imagine (although it may be true), is that any sane person, confronted with the truth, would choose such an option. As you say in your signature "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

If a person were deceived about the truth about God and His love and mercy, or if a person were deceived about the end results of sin and rebellion, would not God reveal the truth to such a person? Confronted with the truth, would not such a person (if sane) choose the good over the evil, choose light over darkness? If the person were not sane, would God not heal him/her?

I realize we are (or should I say: I am) in speculation mode. One thing that keeps me thinking along these lines is the verses:


Eph 3:20 Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us,
Eph 3:21 to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen.


I can imagine and ask for God to bring all to repentance, to finally save all people. (And I know He desire this too, cf: 2 Pet. 3:9, 1 Tim. 2:4). If I can imagine and ask for it, and He wants it too, and He is able to do abundantly more than what I ask or think, perhaps it will come true.

Wouldn't that be awesome!


Rom 11:32 For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.
Rom 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!
Rom 11:34 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR?
Rom 11:35 Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN?
Rom 11:36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.

Mike

[Guest]

Derek wrote:

I am curious, how do you interpret "eternal destruction" in 2 Thes. 1:9? How is one "destroyed" for ages and ages without ever being...well...destroyed?

Thank you Derek, for asking this excellent question that needs to be asked...and answered!! I have encountered this in the past, and I think I have the answer. I think the answer lies in the way "destroy" is often used in the NT. I'll be more explicit in my next post. (and of course the word "aiōnios" should not have been translated as "eternal").

As for your quote from Fudge's paper, he seems to proceed with his reasoning on the assumption that "aiōnios" means "eternal". It never does. "Aidios" is the true Greek word for "eternal"; it occurs just twice in the New Testament. One of them is Romans 1:20 which speaks of God's "eternal power and Deity".

If the any of the authors of the NT wished to convey the idea of "the eternal torment of the lost" why did they not choose the word "aidios" to do so?

[Guest]

I would agree with you that it would be more merciful and just for God to cease striving with a stubborn person who refused to repent, and to allow them to cease to exist. What is hard for me to imagine (although it may be true), is that any sane person, confronted with the truth, would choose such an option. As you say in your signature "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

If a person were deceived about the truth about God and His love and mercy, or if a person were deceived about the end results of sin and rebellion, would not God reveal the truth to such a person? Confronted with the truth, would not such a person (if sane) choose the good over the evil, choose light over darkness? If the person were not sane, would God not heal him/her?

It seems that Jesus/John said this is exactly what people do:

John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

Not only that, Jesus purposely withheld the meaning of His teachings by speaking in parables:

Mark 4:10 But when He was alone, those around Him with the twelve asked Him about the parable. 11 And He said to them, “To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, 12 so that
‘ Seeing they may see and not perceive,
And hearing they may hear and not understand;
Lest they should turn,
And their sins be forgiven them.’

While it is unclear exactly why Jesus did this, even so He did withhold the very thing needed to forgive sins from people. It seems that this was part of God's judgment in some way. But the point still remains that Gods character is one of love, one that includes an aspect of judgment that is hard to understand.

[Guest]

Steve7150 wrote:

And I give them eternal (aionios) life, and they shall never perish;
If never perish doesn't mean eternal, then what does?

And that's the beauty of the word because in this context it does mean eternal by explaining itself as in "never perish."

Steve, the word Greek word "aiōnios" never means "eternal". This is not my opinion. This is a fact. It is a word that primarily means "going from age to age" but figuratively mean "permanent", and that which is permanent is not necessarily eternal. Consider your permanent driver's license. It is permanently yours, but you won't have it forever.

The words "they shall never perish" is an interpretive translation. The words are literally "They shall no way perish into the age." We know that Jesus' sheep have perished from Jesus' time to the present, and continue to perish. None of them are yet immortal. But this perishing shall not continue "into the age", that is, into the next age, the kingdom age.
For on the last day of this present age, Jesus shall return and raise each one of his sheep to life, and they shall enter the kingdom age immortal.
So they shall in no way perish into the next age. That is, they may perish now, but they won't stay dead. They will be raised to life!

I appreciate the explanation. I strive to understand other views as best I can. I still cannot see around John 10:28 though. Accepting your definition of aionios doesn't answer the point, at least for me. The "and they shall never perish" explains the type of life given, an un-perishing kind.

If that is the case, those who don't receive this kind of life, perish. From age to age or eternal doesn't change the outcome of perish. There are those who do not perish, and those who do face "destruction".

To say that those who believe don't perish, and those who reject Christ also don't perish, but live on eternally in the lake of fire until they have been corrected doesn't seem to jive. The ultimate outcome is still the same, believer or unbeliever (If all things being reconciled to Christ means all eventually believe). I don't see Jesus offering this explanation. That the wide and narrow ways both lead to same place eventually.

That said, I don't have a problem if God does save all somehow. I mean, look at the amazement expressed in the Gospel being preached to the Gentiles! The Jews thought they didn't have a chance either, but God surprised everyone. I just don't know if one who rejects the Gospel will ever get an "easier" offer that they will accept.

[Guest]

To say that those who believe don't perish, and those who reject Christ also don't perish, but live on eternally in the lake of fire until they have been corrected doesn't seem to jive. The ultimate outcome is still the same, believer or unbeliever (If all things being reconciled to Christ means all eventually believe). I don't see Jesus offering this explanation. That the wide and narrow ways both lead to same place eventually.

That said, I don't have a problem if God does save all somehow. I mean, look at the amazement expressed in the Gospel being preached to the Gentiles! The Jews thought they didn't have a chance either, but God surprised everyone. I just don't know if one who rejects the Gospel will ever get an "easier" offer that they will accept.

Sean,

What if "perish" means: To be overcome in sin to the point of spiritual death....To suffer the conviction of the Holy Spirit and suffer the natural consequences of sin (including the tribulation and anguish that accompanies it).

Everyone seems to take for granted the "established" meaning of these words. If they mean something else then it changes everything.

Todd

[Guest]

Todd wrote:

What if "perish" means: To be overcome in sin to the point of spiritual death....To suffer the conviction of the Holy Spirit and suffer the natural consequences of sin (including the tribulation and anguish that accompanies it).

i dont have a problem with this if you can show that this is what jesus meant, and what he understood his hearers to understand.

TK