Working definitions of UR, CI, and TV

[NevadaDad]

Hi everyone.

I'm new to this site and became familiar with Steve Gregg through a web-based search of arguments for and against Calvinism (Steve does an excellent job). I noticed some very brief comments in his bio at thenarrowpath.org regarding traditional and non-traditional views of hell, and it intrigued me. Hence, my arrival at this site.

To get started, if I understand correctly, there are 3 prevailing views of hell as follows:

• 1. Traditional View (TV):
  The human soul/spirit is by nature, eternal. It cannot be extinguished and must continue to exist in either one of two places: with God in heaven or separate from God in hell. The only way to spend eternity with God is to accept the redeeming work of Christ while in the body in this life. There are no “second chances” once death has occurred and after death comes two judgments: a judgment of works, that determines degree of punishment or reward, and a judgment of salvation, that determines where one will spend eternity (but not to what degree one will suffer in the place prepared for Satan and his angels, or conversely, the degree to which one will rule and reign with God and his saints).
  
  2. Universal Reconciliation (UR):
  The belief that God will reconcile all people to himself, whether before or after death. A period of punishment in hell will follow the unsaved, but they will be redeemed eventually.
  
  3. Conditional Immortality (CI):
  The belief that immortality is only granted to those human beings who are saved, and that the unsaved are not immortal. They will suffer torment in hell for a finite period of time, after which they will cease to exist in all aspects – body, soul, and spirit. The question is not whether the wicked go to a place of torment – this is made clear by scripture. It is instead a question of how long the wicked exist in that place of torment before they finally and totally cease to exist.

Please confirm that I have captured this reasonably accurately, and note that these are my own definitions...I did not actually take the time to look up "official" descriptions by the adherents of each. I am simply trying to get my arms around some easy-to-understand, working definitions.

Regardless of the definitions used, my first question would be in regards to the general contention I have seen posted in numerous places here that “fairness demands finite punishment for finite transgression.” On the surface, it is hard to disagree, especially when our appeals are made to God’s character, which we know to be just, fair, and true. However, in Rev. 19:20 and 20:10 we read that at least 3 of God’s created beings are thrown alive into the Lake of Fire and remain there for an infinite duration: the devil, the beast, and the false prophet.

It seems to me that no created being, by definition, would be capable of truly infinite transgression. Thus, no matter how heinous the crimes (including Lucifer’s, the Beast's, and the False Prophet's), the torment would have to stop after some length of time in order to satisfy the demand that "finite transgression = finite punishment." Yet, the Bible seems to state quite clearly that the torment of at least the 3 listed above will go on “forever and ever.”

I submit this primarily to at least question the premise that infinite punishment cannot be consistent with finite transgression. It would seem to me that there are at least 3 exceptions based on the above verses.

It also suggests that the rebellious entities, in some form, will go on existing forever, but I don’t see this as inconsistent with passages like 1 Cor 15:28 where some seem to demand that even “an infinity of tortured quarantine” would not satisfy the sprit and intent of the passage about all things being subjected to Christ.

Thanks in advance for the responses I'll get. I'm looking forward to the discussions that I’m sure will ensue from my post.

[steve7150]

It seems to me that no created being, by definition, would be capable of truly infinite transgression. Thus, no matter how heinous the crimes (including Lucifer’s, the Beast's, and the False Prophet's), the torment would have to stop after some length of time in order to satisfy the demand that "finite transgression = finite punishment." Yet, the Bible seems to state quite clearly that the torment of at least the 3 listed above will go on “forever and ever.”




We have had these discussions many times and it boils down to a few interpretations of certain greek words and to how one sees God's character. The traditional bible translations usually translate "aion" into eternal as well as "aionios" which is part of "forever and ever." Some newer translations like Rotherham & Youngs Literal & The Concordant Literal Translation translate "aion" into age and "aionios" into "pertaining to the age". In addition other key greek words are "hades" and "gerhenna" traditionally translated as hell but "hades" really means "the grave" and "gehenna" is the valley of hinnom, a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem.
So when you say "the bible clearly says" it really depends which translation you are using.

[steve7150]

Hi Nevada Dad,

RE your three hell examples , i hope God has something more constructive then just punishment , not that justice should'nt be served but God is also merciful and chastises those he loves so that they develop maturity and compassion. I hope the purpose of the lake of fire is that ultimately most people will be saved and again this greek word for "torment" can mean "refinement" or possibly purification. The word "fire" in the lake of fire comes from the greek word "pur" which is the base of the english word "purification."
My view is just my view, you will find varying views here.

[NevadaDad]

I have (within the last month) done a pretty thorough study of the words "gehenna" and "Hades," but the text here does not use either of those. Instead, it uses "lake of fire" where lake is the same word used to describe the "Lake of Gennesaret" and "fire" is the same word used in Luke 22:55 to describe a fire for warming oneself.

I'll readily agree that punishment often has a teaching purpose in scripture, and certainly fire is described many times as having a "purifying" purpose. However, it is very difficult for me to find any scriptural basis for the belief that hell does have (as opposed to could have) a refining or redemptive purpose. There seems to be no argument here that hell has at least some element of punishment. The question is: is that hell's only purpose? Biblically, I'm hard-pressed to show that hell is merely a detention center that is used until the occupant "gets it" and has a change of heart. Instead, it seems to be purely a place of punishment prepared originally for the devil and his fallen angels. If there are scriptural references to it serving other purposes, I'm certainly open to them. However, I'm currently unaware of them.

The question for me is not so much one of hell's purpose, but rather of its duration. And as I pointed out in my initial post, the words in Rev 20:10 seem clear enough to me - including the original greek. It strikes me as a bit of a stretch to conclude that "aion" is of limited duration in Rev 20:10, but to not likewise conclude the same in a passage like Rev 22:5 where the saints' rewards are discussed.

I never hear anyone complain that infinite reward for finite obediance is unjust, yet for some reason the converse is unacceptable.

P.S. Hades simply seems to mean "abode of the departed" while gehenne clearly has connotations of "place of burning." While the Valley of Hinnom may indeed be a present day garbage dump outside of Jerusalem, it was once the location of child sacrifice to the god Molech, as described, for example, in Jer 32:35. There would thus seem to be strong connection to gehenna as a "place of fire" rather than merely a trash repository outside Jerusalem.

[NevadaDad]

Perhaps it is worth noting that I lean more strongly towards CI than TV. When one really reviews what TV teaches, it becomes apparent that much of it is based on tradition -- what we have been taught -- as opposed to what the Bible actually says.

Thus, it seems to me that there may well be more scriptural support for CI than for TV, and that CI does a better job of being consistent with God's justice than does UR.

UR strikes me as having a very difficult time explaining how a God of love and mercy could legitimately refuse reconcilition to one class (the devil and his fallen angels) but not another (mankind). If His immutable nature is to ultimately show mercy, why would He single out only one class of created beings (us) for universal mercy, but not fallen angels as well? This is one of the problems I have with UR, which (at least upon my initial readings) seems to base too much of its arguments in appeals to the character of God rather than in what the Bible actually says.

Or, perhaps I am misinformed even about that, and UR adherents believe that even fallen angels (including Satan) will one day be reconciled?

[steve7150]

The question for me is not so much one of hell's purpose, but rather of its duration. And as I pointed out in my initial post, the words in Rev 20:10 seem clear enough to me - including the original greek. It strikes me as a bit of a stretch to conclude that "aion" is of limited duration in Rev 20:10, but to not likewise conclude the same in a passage like Rev 22:5 where the saints' rewards are discussed.

I never hear anyone complain that infinite reward for finite obediance is unjust, yet for some reason the converse is unacceptable.





Our reward is based on Christ's sacrifice not because of our finite obedience. "Aion" is repeatedly used by Paul as an "age" within a time frame ,
"not only in this age but in the one to come" Eph 1.21 , 2nd Cor 4.4 "the god of this age." There are many more examples if you want but "aion" is often used as a timeframe. Forever and ever is "ages upon ages" i believe , it may be a very long period of time but i do not believe it means eternal. IMO there are many allusions that folks can leave the lake of fire if you read it sequentially "the gates are open day and night" culminating in Rev 22.17 "the Bride and the Spirit say come if you thirst and drink from the water of life." The Bride are the saved & the Spirit obviously is the Holy Spirit so who are they speaking to other then the unsaved in the lake of fire, at least that's how i see it. As far as duration goes we simply are not told , only God knows.

[steve7150]

UR strikes me as having a very difficult time explaining how a God of love and mercy could legitimately refuse reconcilition to one class (the devil and his fallen angels) but not another (mankind). If His immutable nature is to ultimately show mercy, why would He single out only one class of created beings (us) for universal mercy, but not fallen angels as well? This is one of the problems I have with UR, which (at least upon my initial readings) seems to base too much of its arguments in appeals to the character of God rather than in what the Bible actually says.





My own view is between CI and UR as there are so many people who never have the opportunity to really know Christ in this age why should'nt God allow this possibility after death. At death we are judged "krisis" but a judgment can include restoration. After all why not? Are not all things possible with God? The angels are servants of God whereas we are children of God and animals are creatures of God so there are different classes of living things, this is God's perogative. Re the character of God, where do we know about his character except what the bible actually says.

[steve7150]

Or, perhaps I am misinformed even about that, and UR adherents believe that even fallen angels (including Satan) will one day be reconciled?NevadaDad





Some may.

[Todd]

NevadaDad,

There is a subset of UR which was called Ultra-Universalism back in the 19th Century. A man named Hosea Ballou wrote some books on it. Some basic principles of this are:

1. There is no post-death punishment for anyone. New Testament Biblical references to "hell" are metaphors for the punishment or consequences of one's sins on his life prior to his physical death. A good example of God pouring out His wrath in this life is found in Rom 1:18-32. Also, post-death punishment is not found in the Old Testament; all of God's warnings and punishments were for the present life.
2. Eternal Life is literally translated "the life of the age" and refers to the spiritually blessed life enjoyed by those who place their faith in Christ (John 17:3). Eternal Life is often contrasted with perished, destroyed, or dead which refer to one who has been overcome in sin and is suffering the consequences thereof.
3. At the resurrection, the dead are changed, and all are made subject to Christ immediately as they are raised from the dead (see Rom 8:18-23, 1 Cor 15:25-28, Eph 1:9-10). The "last enemy" is death; once death is destroyed, God has no enemies. Christ's death gave Him the power and authority to subject all things to Himself.

Todd

[NevadaDad]

1. There is no post-death punishment for anyone. New Testament Biblical references to "hell" are metaphors for the punishment or consequences of one's sins on his life prior to his physical death. A good example of God pouring out His wrath in this life is found in Rom 1:18-32. Also, post-death punishment is not found in the Old Testament; all of God's warnings and punishments were for the present life.

Thanks for the reply, Todd. I'm not sure if your beliefs align with Balfour's, or if you were merely providing input on what "Ultra" adherents believe. However, I have a difficult time reconciling the statement that post-death punishment is not found in the OT.

For example, it is very difficult (read: impossible) to understand Psalm 73 without some concept of retribution in the life hereafter. The psalmist complains bitterly that he nearly lost his faith when he considered the prosperity of the wicked...and that they often even felt no pain in death. It is only in verse 17 where the psalmist's lament turns around - because he has considered the sinner's end. While perhaps not the strongest passage in the OT to discuss post-death punishment, I am quite certain I can find others given a bit of time to search. And, I really don't know how one could read Ps 73 and not come to the conclusion that the psalmist found some consolation in the fact that the end of the unrepentant sinner (i.e., what happens after death) was not going to be simply a continuation of a life without any consequences or some type of ultimate reconciliation.

In fact, the whole point of Ps 73 seems to be that not all consequences for sin are borne in this life. When we forget this (like the psalmist almost did), we can become exceeding discouraged at the apparent "unfairness" of life. But the psalm ends quite differently than it begins, as we are reminded that reward of any kind does not await the sinner. Instead, it is destruction.