How Will They Be Saved?

[steve7150]

Homer,
I don't want to appear to be piling on as i was going to write this anyway. You have every right to find CU offensive to your sense of justice and you should honestly acknowledge that belief. Instead you choose to make what are clearly ridiculous statements that CU has no evidence or as much as Purgatory despite the facts there are entire books written about the evidence for CU. You choose to continually mock CU and phrase it disrectfully as "universalism" which removes any Christian linkage with it, as you certainly are aware. While you continue to mock it, keep in mind it is God's stated will and you are in effect mocking God's ability to bring about his will.

[Homer]

Hi Steve7150,

I don't want to appear to be piling on as i was going to write this anyway.

Well, you appear to be piling on. I am used to it. Pile on all you want, its probably cathartic.

You have every right to find CU offensive to your sense of justice and you should honestly acknowledge that belief.

I can not acknowledge that because that is not my concern. I am not a competent judge of what is just. That is God's business. Seems to me the universalists are the ones who have brought up the just punishment argument. I say we are not competent to determine that. I only contend for what I am convinced is scripturally true, and against what I believe to be a dangerous doctrine. I know some of you believe otherwise but Origen, who is cited often by the universalists, thought so. The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia says of Origen:

He also raised the question whether after this world there perhaps would be another or others in which this instruction would be given (De principiis, II. iii. 1), and interpreted Paul’s teaching respecting the subjection of all things to God as implying the salvation of the “lost” (De principiis, III. v. 7). These beliefs and speculations he based on Bible statements (especially on Ps. cx. 1; I Cor. xv. 25 sqq.), but declared that the doctrine would be dangerous to disseminate (Contra Celsum, vi. 26).

Instead you choose to make what are clearly ridiculous statements that CU has no evidence or as much as Pergatory despite the facts there are entire books written about the evidence for CU.

There are books written about many things, including purgatory. Catholics cite scripture in support of the doctrine. The reason I mentioned purgatory is that Paidion's statements about people being refined in hell as gold is refined sound very much like purgatory except that the Catholics do not believe a person who is condemned can be saved in purgatory. They also believe, as I do, that judgement is final.

You choose to continually mock CU and phrase it disrectfully as "universalism" which removes any Christian linkage with it, as you certainly are aware.

I am sorry if you feel mocked. My apology. No ad hominum intended, although I must say I am feeling some. I do intend to mock in the sense of challenging what I am convinced is a false and dangerous doctrine.

I did not realize that "universalist" was a pejorative or disrespectful. It was once commonly applied to liberal Christians who believed in universal salvation; they did not seem to be ashamed of it but I can see how you might object seeing as how most of them joined with the Unitarians.

While you continue to mock it, keep in mind it is God's stated will and you are in effect mocking God's ability to bring about his will.

I agree it is God's will that all be saved. I am not a Calvinist. But it is also God's will that people freely choose to believe Him during this life. You do not deny that, do you? It is His will that those who disbelieve will be condemned. I believe God has a desired will, a determined will, and a permissive will. Sometimes those are in conflict.

John of Damascus, regarding God's will in this matter, said that God antecedently wills the salvation of all, i.e., prior to a consideration of sinners who die unrepentant, but that God consequently wills the salvation only of those who freely accept and persevere in divine grace. Salvation is a divine gift that only God can confer; but God only wills to give it to everyone who does not refuse it. John may have gotten it right.

[Homer]

Hi Mike,

I feel bad for you because I sense that this is an obsession.

I think I have gotten the message that you feel bad for me. But I must say I am surprised that you think I am obsessed with this topic, especially since you have posted only a handful of times on anything other than the "views of hell". But that's OK, I am not easily offended.

I wish you could humbly admit you could be wrong, and continue the dialog with a more gentle and humble spirit. This is also the problem I had with this other person who posted against UR, of whom you mention.

I can always be wrong, and have been wrong many times, but I like to be shown I am wrong. I have "switched sides" before here at the forum when faced with a compelling argument. But on this subject I have moved toward the annihilationist view because of the arguments presented. The universalist arguments have not moved me at all.

One of the things that makes me hesitant about other views of hell than the traditional one is that I can find no record of the others in the church before 200CE. Why would this be?

I suspect you have the wrong person in mind, but it is best to drop it.

It seems you have taken a couple of descriptive texts and tried to make them "laws". Like the writer of Hebrews "definition" of faith. It seems to me he was describing what faith is like in this life, rather than giving a comprehensive definition.

Perhaps, but the scriptures are all we have to go on, and the definition in Hebrews seems comprehensive to me. Do have have one that is morer comprehensive?

You take a couple of verses, interpret them in a wooden, literal fashion and combine them to prove something unrelated to what the author was trying to say.

It would be good if you would say which verses and how they might be explained otherwise.

It may seem that this is the only subject I am interested in but I have posted hundreds of times on other topics, most recently on divorce. But I am the only one left who challenges the universalist view, which I believe to be false. It has never been the orthodox position in whole history of Christianity.

It is probably not fruitful to continue this discussion. Emotions have taken over and it is moving in the ad hominum direction.

May God blees you on this Lord's day! Homer

[steve7150]

I agree it is God's will that all be saved. I am not a Calvinist. But it is also God's will that people freely choose to believe Him during this life. You do not deny that, do you? It is His will that those who disbelieve will be condemned. I believe God has a desired will, a determined will, and a permissive will. Sometimes those are in conflict.





Homer,
Though i am not a Calvinist i have said many times here i don't believe we have free will here in this age. If we had free will why would Paul say the devil blinds the minds of unbelievers? That's a strong statement, you can't be blinded and have free will simultaneously. Free will is never explicitly stated , being blinded by the devil is. If we had free will why does'nt God destroy the devil right now?
If we have free will why do some folks have the enormous advantage of being born into a strong Christian family while most do not. The ones who are born into other religions are heavily influenced by their family and culture, that is not free will. I was blessed to have a godly women preach the gospel to me 10 years ago but before that i did'nt understand who Jesus is, i thought he was some kind of prophet. What if i never met her, did i reject Christ prior to meeting her?
Is my case so unique so unusual?

[Roberto]

Why should we assume that humans cannot repent after death? Do they no longer have free will?

[steve7150]

Why should we assume that humans cannot repent after death? Do they no longer have free will?





Orthodox Christianity has taught that at death we are judged for heaven or hell eternally. However the actual greek word for judgment (krisis)IMO allows for a guilty verdict mixed with mercy allowing for a process of reconciliation.
Homer considers this a dangerous heresy teaching since the traditional teaching has resulted in maybe 1- 2 % of the world's population being saved over history. I think the track record of orthodox Christianity can not be more miserable.
Fortunately Jesus said "all things are possible with God" and it's God's will that everyone should be saved and come into the knowledge of the truth "in due time."
Obviously this "due time" will be beyond this present evil age.

[mdh]

Homer,

I apologize to you for making you feel I was attacking you rather than your argument. Actually, all I am interested in from you is a more respectful attitude towards those you disagree with. If, in asking for this, I crossed a line of civility or was in any way inappropriate, I am deeply sorry.

You said you were surprised I thought you were obsessed with this topic. What I think is that you seem passionate (bordering on obsession) with proving it wrong. I glanced through the most recent two pages in the Views of Hell forum and you had created approximately 12 new topics on this subject.

But I welcome you doing this, and you will find that I have responded in very few of them. In the several years since I joined this forum this will be my 26th post. I seldom see any reason to contribute (even though I read through this forum daily, and read virtually every post written). About the only times I do jump in is when it either seems like no one else is going to respond, or if I think someone is not being fair.

I recognize that my own views are quite probably wrong in many ways. Why would anyone want to know what I think? My view is just one of over 6 billion on the planet

I remember asking you one time why you thought your views are correct and others are wrong. You responded because you take the time to thoroughly study the subject (or something to that effect). This seemed like an interesting response, since it implies that you think others do not do this.

Blessings to you Homer!
Mike

[steve7150]

I recognize that my own views are quite probably wrong in many ways. Why would anyone want to know what I think? My view is just one of over 6 billion on the planet








I think you underestimate yourself Mike. I think you have a passion for God and people and are thoughtful so i hope you post more often, blessings Steve.

[Paidion]

No, Homer, I am not a "works plus faith" advocate. I am a "repent and be baptized" adovocate. I believe this is followed by faith in order to appropriate the enabling grace of God, which has "appeared for the salvation of all people, training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and to live sensible, righteous, and pious lives in the present age." And how does this grace save people? As Paul indicates, by training us to renounce sin and to live righteously!

How do you see the lost doing "works of righteousness" in hell? They are "dead".

Since you put "dead" in quotes, I presume you mean "spirtually dead in trespasses and sins". First, I believe that everyone who has died is physically dead, and will remain dead until they are raised from the dead. There is a resurrection of the righteous and a resurrection of the unrighteous. Calvinists claim that even in this life it is impossible for anyone to work righteousness, without God working unilaterally to do the works through him. But Paul says, " Working together with him, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain." (2 Corinthians 6:1). So Paul believed in synergism. He used the verbal form of this very word in the sentence just quoted.
And as Steve has so often pointed out many non-disciples do good works, assisting the needy, etc.

Those who are lost can be found. The prodigal son, greatly humbled, chose to return to his father, who welcomed him joy. "This my son was lost (or "destroyed" — same Greek word απολλυμι), but has been found!" When the lost who are resurrected and are cast into Gehenna, they will still have free wills, just as they had while on earth. They can still choose to repent and be baptized in the purifying fires of God. They can still choose to submit to Christ. There is not a single verse in the bible that states that death is somehow a cut-off point after which none can be saved from their sins.

As for the Greek preposition "εις", it indeed is commonly used to refer to the movement from outside something, to within that something. In other words it means "into" when used in this way. But the word also is used to indicate purpose, as any good lexicon will state. An example is found in Romans 3:25. εις ενδειξιν της δικαιοσυνης αυτου. This would be rather meaningless to translate this phrase as "into a demonstration (or 'showing forth') of his righteousness". It is more likely to be translated as "for a demonstration of his righteousness", the word "for" in this came indicating purpose. The word is used in this way quite frequently throughout the NT.

[Homer]

Paidion,

You wrote:

No, Homer, I am not a "works plus faith" advocate. I am a "repent and be baptized" advocate.

We have no disagreement there.

When the lost who are resurrected and are cast into Gehenna, they will still have free wills, just as they had while on earth. They can still choose to repent and be baptized in the purifying fires of God. They can still choose to submit to Christ. There is not a single verse in the bible that states that death is somehow a cut-off point after which none can be saved from their sins.

The argument is that the lost can be saved post-mortem just as those in Christ in this life will be saved. I say they can not be saved in the same way we are.

Romans 4:1-3
New King James Version (NKJV)
1. What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? 2. For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."

Abraham is the prototype for those saved in this life. He was saved by faith; by believing God. After resurrection those in Gehenna will not be able to believe, in the biblical sense of faith, the testimony about God. They will have apodictic knowledge of who Jesus is, of His death and resurrection, His Lordship: in short, all the testimony about Him that we believe by faith. And they will have no faith to be tested as is our common lot. No "faithful until death" for them.

Another thing: this apodictic knowledge will be immediate after the resurrection. There will be no repentance regarding the facts about God because they will know beyond question. It might be claimed that their repentance will consist of yielding to God - that will save them. But that is not being saved by faith. And there is nothing to prevent their immediate yielding and thus an immediate "ticket to heaven". And according to the universalist view, what reason would God have for keeping them there any longer?