Universalism and not inheriting the kingdom of God

Post by **_Ely** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:06 pm

I was just wondering, what do those who hold to universal reconciliation make of the following passages:

"9 do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6

"19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." Galatians 5

"5 For this you know with certainty, that (K)no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God." Ephesians 5

These pasages (along with passages like Matthew 8:10-12, 25:34-34, 41, 46) sound to me like those who are unrighteous in this age will not have any inheritance in the eschatological ("not yet") Kingdom of God which will be inaugurated at the parousia of Jesus the Messiah.

Based on passages like Isaiah 9:6-7, Daniel 7:13-14, 12:3 etc, I understand that this phase of the Kingdom of God will last forever and ever and will be without end.

All of this would appear to rule out Universal reocniliation. So, what am I missing?

Post by **_Derek** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:09 pm

They (I am not a universalist) may say that all of these people will one day (after they die) repent and will no longer be practicing these behaviours, and will then be able to enter the kingdom. Just a guess though. Sorry if I am misrepresenting any of you guys.

Post by **_brody_in_ga** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 12:15 am

Derek wrote:They (I am not a universalist) may say that all of these people will one day (after they die) repent and will no longer be practicing these behaviours, and will then be able to enter the kingdom. Just a guess though. Sorry if I am misrepresenting any of you guys.

I think you are right in that they would respond this way, but it begs the question....where does the bible say this? Jesus spoke of a certain sin that "would not be forgivin in this age, or the one to come" Matthew 12:31-32

It would be a nice thought to think the bible taught such, but I find no clear scriptures that say this.

Just my thoughts. Add a buck to it and you could buy a burger and shake.

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 12:49 am

I think you are right in that they would respond this way, but it begs the question....where does the bible say this? Jesus spoke of a certain sin that "would not be forgivin in this age, or the one to come" Matthew 12:31-32

I apologize if i sound sarcastic because i don't mean to be but sometimes i wonder if i'm reading a different bible. There are lots of verses that say,imply or allude to the fact ultimately everyone or at least the majority of people will be saved, most apparently through the lake of fire.

Here's a couple and there are plenty more but i know what the response is, which is the word "all" really means "potentially all."
"As in Adam all die , even so in Christ shall all be made alive" 1Cor 15.22
Now the response is that only those in Christ will be made alive and you could read that into this verse but it simply does'nt say that. It says "IN CHRIST SHALL ALL", "not shall in Christ" , this says all will be in Christ, at some point in time. And it's contrasting the same ALL IN ADAM to the same ALL IN CHRIST.
"because we trust in the living God , who is the savior OF ALL MEN, ESPECIALLY of those who believe." 1 Tim 4.10
Here Paul separates the salvation toward believers and unbelievers yet he says they all will be saved. I don't see the word potentially here.

How do people escape the lake of fire? Rev 22.17. BTW i'm not a universalist but as i think JJ put it, a hopeful universalist.

Post by **_Ely** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 7:58 am

Thanks guys,

I asked this because these are the passages which seemt o speak clearest against against universalism. I read through one of the elongated "views of hell" forum threads and saw that although the same question was asked there (by Homer I believe), it was not answered - at least not by dealing with the texts themselves.

Steve7150, for me there are perfectly reasonable ways of interpreting those texts you raised (though you might not be impressed by them!). What I'm after is an exegesis of the passages concerning inheriting the kingdom of God which could still allow for universalism.

Ely

Post by **_TK** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:18 am

it seems that what derek and brody suggested is the only possible way that the passages could be interpreted from a universalist standpoint. yes, it is true that the unrighteous, impure, immoral etc will not inherit the kingdom of God. but a universalist believes that those who are unrepentant at the time of their death, and are sent to the lake of fire, will ultimately repent of those acts so that they wont be unrighteous, immoral or impure any more. traditional evangelicalism requires that the repentance of these bad acts takes place on THIS side of death in order to inherit the kingdom of God; universalists simply dont see it this way-- they say that one can inherit the kingdom of God even after death, when they ultimately repent, albeit after much suffering.

ely, the verses you quote, in and of themselves, if you want to get technical, do not necessarily negate the universalism viewpoint. in other words, a universalist would not have a problem agreeing with every word of those verses. the verses do not say that idolaters, etc will NEVER EVER inherit the kingdom, rather the context could be taken to mean that AS LONG AS they live this way, they will not inherit the kingdom. this may be a tad of a stretch, but does not do great violence to the verses.

i am not a universalist, BTW. yet!

TK

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:36 am

ely, the verses you quote, in and of themselves, if you want to get technical, do not necessarily negate the universalism viewpoint. in other words, a universalist would not have a problem agreeing with every word of those verses. the verses do not say that idolaters, etc will NEVER EVER inherit the kingdom, rather the context could be taken to mean that AS LONG AS they live this way, they will not inherit the kingdom. this may be a tad of a stretch, but does not do great violence to the verses.

TK, That's exactly right in that it refers to unrepentent sinners The two key points IMO are what does the word "judgement" mean or the greek word "krisis" and the other point is that scripture says it's God's will that all men shall be saved therefore when all is said and done , whose will is going to prevail , man's will or God's will?
Jesus prayed that God's will be done, will his prayer be answered or will the works of the devil NOT be destroyed?

Post by **_Ely** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:15 am

Thanks for the summary TK and everyone. I have to confess, I'm stuggling to find very strong reasons to reject universalism (I've already given up on eternal torment). These passages were the strongest ones I could think of but looking again, I can see how they can still be harmonised into a universalist paradigm.

Universalism seems to have so much in it's favour like...

- It makes God the ultimate winner
- It removes the problem of Him having created people ultimately just to destroy them (as with Calvinism and Arminainism)
- It explains why God commands us to give unlimited forgiveness to those who tresspass against us (why should we have to do something that Gods Himself won't do?)
- It would remove the problem of glorified saints remembering their lost loved ones.

I'm going to do some reading on that studying of that http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/univart.html site. Having had a quick look, I've been made aware of another pretty universal sounding statement:

"21 My mouth will speak the praise of the LORD, and all flesh will bless His holy name forever and ever." Psalm 145

Yoiks!

Post by **_TK** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 11:16 am

the problem, as brody pointed out, is that universalism is not directly stated in scripture; it must be inferred from various passages. the problem i have with this is that it would seem that something so important would have more direct teaching. for example, why didnt paul write something like: "the immoral and the idolators and the fornicators who do not repent before they die will suffer in the lake of fire until they repent. so repent now, to avoid the wrath of the Lord."

know what i mean?

TK

Post by **_JC** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 11:46 am

I call myself a "hopeful universalist." I use the term hopeful because Jesus commanded that I love all people, including my enemies. That love compels me to want to see them reconciled to God. I also use the term hopeful because it's not a clear teaching of scripture, therefore I can't rightly call myself a "universalist" in the same sense that I call myself a "Christian."

Regarding your question, I think the Kingdom concept is what's in question here. I see the Kingdom as having been inagurated at the first coming of Christ and has been growing like a mustard seed ever since. That's the kingdom those passages are refering to, in my opinion. The kingdom is the invisible church of God. Therefore murderers and the like are excluded from the kingdom. Heaven, or the place where God lives, is not the focus of Jesus' teachings, nor was it central to the apostles' teachings in the book of Acts. The only clear thing we know for sure is that the Kingdom Jesus started will inherit the earth.