"Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess the Lord

[Guest]

One recurring argument I keep seeing from the 'orthodox' side is: "How can the wrath of God save you?" Isn't that an oxymoron? If you suffer God's wrath, then you are not saved from it. Right?

Those who place their faith in Christ, and follow the leading of the Holy Spirit are saved from God's wrath. Those who don't suffer it.

But here's the whole point. God's wrath is according to our works. We are told this over and over again. It is proportional.

Luke 12:47-48
47 And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few.

So, no one is "saved" in Gehenna (an oxymoron), they are suffering God's wrath because they didn't place their faith in Christ.

But the end of the matter is described in Romans 8:21 which states that all of God's creation will share in the same glorious liberty with the sons of God.

Todd

[Guest]

One recurring argument I keep seeing from the 'orthodox' side is: "How can the wrath of God save you?"



Does'nt God chastise those whom He loves? Did not God love the world that He gave His Son?
Could'nt wrath be severe chastisement/proportional punishment?

[Guest]

Danny, et al;

I put a link in an earlier post that discusses the Greek word "aionion", and if you scroll through the sections on "universalisim", you will find most of the common views found within this system of belief and reasons for believing that it is in error.

Here it is again: http://www.carm.org/uni/eternal_hell.htm

In Jesus,
Bob

[Guest]

Rick,

Quote: "If the Gospel message is that salvation is automatic, that ALL are predestined to salvation; I see your point."

It was my point! I am taking the twisted logic of the Christian Universalist view to its true logical conclusion. The Calvinist's view of pre-destination is far more logical (if you believe this view) than Christian Universalisim's
that all are pre-destined to salvation. Sounds nice. But it "smells like smoke".

Peace to You
Bob

[Guest]

...that all are pre-destined to salvation.

Bob,

All will share in the glorious liberty of the sons of God, according to Paul. All are not destined to be saved from God's wrath. See my last post.

Todd

[Guest]

Good post, Danny!

There is one little matter at which I look a little differently:

There will be no such thing as gospel extant. Faith will be fruition, hope lost in sight, and the aiónion gospel, like the aiónion covenant of the elder dispensation, will be abrogated, not destroyed, but fulfilled and passed away.

I think of the aiónion gospel as continuing throughout the ages, as it continues to be brought by the fully mature sons of God to those who are being corrected in Gehenna. Those in the Lake of Fire are said to be "tested" (basanizó) day and night for ages of the ages."

The primary meaning of "basanizó", according to the Online Bible Greek lexicon is "to test (metals) by the touchstone, which is a black siliceous stone used to test the purity of gold or silver by the colour of the streak produced on it by rubbing it with either metal." The English word "basalt" is derived from this verb.

Something is tested to determine it present state. Could this mean that those who will be in the Lake of Fire will be continuously tested to see whether they are yet ready to be servants of God?

[Guest]

To All:

I submit the following:

Here are things we all agree on (I think).

1. We all agree that those who do not place faith in Christ will suffer God's wrath.

2. We all agree that the faithful, who follow the leadership of the Spirit, will be forgiven and be saved from God's wrath.

Here's where the disagreement starts:

3. The 'orthodox' camp believes that God's wrath against the unfaithful continues to be executed forever and that it has no end.

4. The Universal Reconciliation camp believes that the execution of God's wrath is according (proportional) to works, and is completed before the end. The 'end' follows and is described in these scriptures:

a) God will be all in all (1 Cor 15:28 )
b) All creation will join the sons of God in glorious liberty (Rom 8:21, Rev 5:13)
c) Every knee will bow and praise God (Is 45:22-25, Phil 2:9-11)
d) Death will be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26, 54-55)

I apologize if I have misrepresented someone's view.

Todd

[_Mort_Coyle]

Hi Bob,

But, as I said in my last post to you, Jesus is the savior of all men, in the sense that all sin has been forgiven men from Adam to the present, with possibly two exceptions I mentioned. To benefit from Christs redemptive offer however, one has to recieve Him.

So then, what you are saying is that Jesus is only potentially the savior of all men.

So, yes I agree Jesus is the savior of all men. But not all men are
saved.

If not all men are saved, then He is not the savior of all men.

Not because Jesus doesn't want them to be saved, but that men refuse to come to His Light and be saved!

So He is incapable of accomplishing His will? Man trumps God? The ultimate victory belongs to sin and evil?

I can imagine that some would say; 'why should I repent and deny myself to follow Jesus if in the end he will save me anyway. Why not eat, drink and be merry?'

This reminds me of a story. Hosea Ballou, a famous 19th century Universalist, was riding one day in the hills of New Hampshire with a Baptist minister. They were arguing theology as they traveled. At one point, the Baptist looked over and said, "Brother Ballou, if I were a Universalist and feared not the fires of hell, I could hit you over the head, steal your horse and saddle, and ride away, and I'd still go to heaven."

Hosea Ballou looked over at him and replied, "If you were a Universalist, the idea would never occur to you."

I find that because Univeralism does away with notions like, "Once saved, always saved", it fosters a much more serious attitude towards sin. Sure, God will ultimately save everyone, but how one lives one's life will have a direct bearing on how severe that mercy will have to be. I could lead a wanton and wicked life, but as a result my salvation might be "as though through a fire." The more hardened and twisted by sin one's heart is when they stand before God, the more severe the wrath will be that is necessary to soften and straighten their heart.

I find that it's actually the "once saved, always saved" mentality that leads to a de-emphasis on the importance of living a holy life.

Let me reuse the analogy in a slightly different way: What if I decided to begin drinking heavily, taking drugs, visiting prostitutes, smoking cigarettes, etc. with the intention of quitting it all in twenty years. So I can have twenty years of "eat, drink and be merry" and then quit before it kills me. Of course, we all know that even if that lifestyle doesn't kill me, it will exact a heavy price on my health; physical, emotional, mental and spiritual. Maybe, twenty years from now, I will be able to quit all of these vices and addictions, but it won't be easy or pleasant, and I'll still have to deal with the after-effects. Why not instead just avoid them altogether and live a fuller life beginning now?

In the same way, why not begin living in the Light now rather than later? Why not begin the relationship with Christ now while the cost is relatively cheap? Why not get in on the ground floor, so to speak?

And those of us who have become followers of Jesus are the first fruits of His salvation. Our task is to proclaim this Good News.

I believe in particular salvation, not universal salvation. I believe election in Christ is a particular class of believer who will inheret His promises.

So are you a Calvinist? A moment ago you sounded Arminian.

Not all men will "eat at His table". All are invited, but most have excuses as the Parable of the Banquet demonstrated. I think the "torture" of eternal damnation is not from the hand of God, but by men who have been made to realize they have wasted their lives by rejecting His will for them.

This charge of men (and women) "rejecting" Christ is a common one, but if you think about it, how many people are really given an opportunity to make an informed decision to "reject" Christ? Surely some do, but most people don't really know who Christ is. As the hymnist wrote, "I was blind, but now I see." If he was blind, then how could he see what he was doing? If people hear the Gospel at all nowadays it very often has so much garbage piled onto it (ala TBN) that it's barely recognizable. How about the devout Mormon who faithfully followed his whole life the only representation of Christ he ever encountered? How about the billions who never even heard the name of Christ? Did they "reject" Him? I used to get into debates with hardcore atheists. Invariably what I found was that what they were rejecting was fundamentalist Christianity (or Catholicism) which they assumed represented Christ. "If that's Jesus," they reasoned, "I don't want to have anything to do with Him!" I once felt the same way and probably would never have come to Christ if I had not had a direct encounter with Him.

Let me ask you this: You know what an awesome, beautiful, merciful, compassionate, kind and loving person Jesus is. Do you think that anyone who really sees Him for who He is rejects Him? Look what happened to Saul of Tarsus when he really saw Jesus for who He is!

I believe God sent His Son into the world that all who believe will not perish...The logic follows that some will not believe and therefore perish. Otherwise the statement is meaningless and the warning empty.

Or, there is some misunderstanding about how the word "perish" is being used. When basing so much upon a single word, I find it useful to go back to the Greek (or Hebrew, as the case may be).

In this case, the Greek word translated as "perish" is apollumi. In Matthew 10:28 it is translated as "destroy". Seems pretty straightforward.

The problem is, look how apollumi is used in the following verses:

"Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses [apollumi] one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost [apollumi] sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost [apollumi] sheep.' I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent." (Luke 15:4-7)

"Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses [apollumi] one. Does she not light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? And when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbors together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost [apollumi] coin.'" (Luke 15:8-9)

"For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost [apollumi] and is found.' So they began to celebrate. ... this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost [apollumi] and is found.'" (Luke 15:24,32)

In these examples that which was "lost" (the sheep, the coin, the son) was not destroyed or killed or tormented forever. Further, these analogies where given to describe sinners. Their present state is apollumi. Yet they become "found".

Could it be then that the "lake of fire" is not a place of torment but a place of "lostness"? This, of course, has its own torments but there is the hope of being found.

I read that carm.org link you provided on aion, btw. I found it very weak and unconvincing; especially in comparison to Hanson's very thorough treatment.

[Guest]

Excellent, Danny!

You have expressed my own thinking so accurately, that I felt almost as if I had written your post...... except that I couldn't have done nearly as good a job.

[_Rick_C]

Danny, and all,

"The "Destruction" of the Wicked" by Lorraine Day, M.D. is one of the lamest Greek word studies I've ever seen. Offhand I can't think of any that were worse. But I agree with you that to a Reconciliationist: Day, Talbott, and Hanson make sense (and to we 'outsiders' they make non-sense).....

Imo, Reconciliationist thought is a system essentially just like Calvinism: Both bring philosophical questions to the Bible, assuming those questions are going to be answered. However, if you ask the wrong questions, you're going to get wrong answers.

It's "human" to wonder about things. We all ask the kinds of questions that little children ask, even as adults! There's nothing inherently wrong about asking God-questions and it's good to look to the Bible for answers.

But are there limits to what we can ask the Bible?

Calvinism, by way of Augustine, brought the philosophy of Determinism and laid it over the Bible. Every page was re-interpreted through a deterministic "lens". The natural outcome of forcing foreign ideas over, under, behind, in front of, throughout, and around the Bible made it 'appear' to say things the authors not only did not intend to say; they did NOT say them! These foreign ideas just plain weren't IN their thinking.

Calvinism exceeds the limits. A worldview that is foreign to the Bible asks the wrong questions.

Reconciliationism, in my view, takes the philosophy of Romanticism and forces it onto and into (etc.) the Bible. It is also distinctly post-modern. Texts have no inherent absolute meaning. Rather, it is up to the reader to find whatever meaning they "see". The surrounding context of texts (verses) are minimized at best, if not ignored. Personal beliefs and feelings are what interpret the text to give it its "real meaning".

Reconciliationism exceed the limits. A worldview that is foreign to the Bible asks the wrong questions---and invents wrong answers.

Calvinists and Reconciliationists make another common error. Alternate meanings of Greek words are wrongly used in order to support their personal beliefs. Greek words can and often do have more than one meaning. But when alternate meanings are deliberately selected to "prove" a personal belief or doctrine, this is eisegesis: "reading [foreign and/or your own] ideas into the text".

Imo, historical and literary context, and, original authorial intention and meaning are the criteria for interpretation of the Bible and its Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic words. Personal beliefs, philosophical or "curiosity" questions, presuppositions, and feelings and emotions are decidedly NOT the criteria for biblical interpretation.

I've learned a lot on this thread. What stands out is Reconciliationist thought is erroneous on SO many levels that plainly put; I not only don't believe it was taught by Jesus and the Apostles; it was foreign to their own beliefs and worldview.

I won't go so far as to call Reconciliationists heretics. But I will say it is false teaching and very dangerous. I wouldn't attend nor visit a church that teaches Reconciliationism and will continue to oppose it.

That's all I have right now. My last paragraph was to say that the disagreement is strong and I wonder if this debate will ever end? I doubt it could....

Thanks for reading,
Rick