God's Wrath

[steve7150]

Todd and Paidion,
I don't want to kick a dead horse here, but, one last time just to be sure. Do you think all references in scripture to "damnation" and "condemnation" refer to this present life only? I understand that both of you feel that you're doing your best to champion God's honor, character, mercy, grace, forgiveness. I applaud you for that.









Paidion and i feel condemnation and redemption happen in the lake of fire after the end of this age & Todd believes it happens in this life. BTW "damnation" is not really a correct translation, it's really "judgment."

[Perry]

"Judgment means nothing to Universalists" ? I really honestly don't get this logic.

Actually, that's not what JR just said... you gut his quote a bit short. He said

if all verses of death punishment and judgment mean nothing to Universalists but stress in this life...

That last bit is important, and does seem to be the position that Todd is advocating.

EDIT: Ha! We're on and posting past each other at the same time!

[jriccitelli]

I have already stated in our debates together Steve 7150, that I do not teach Eternal fire or ET (fire destroys and quickly) so you should know that, and I already stated with you how no one knows what eternity is when we previously discussed aeonios and Plato.

This life is but a vapor compared to eternity. The ones truly suffering in this life are the ones who are being abused by the wicked people, not necessarily a result of their own doing. These need justice done to their oppressors.

It is always dangerous when such a huge content of scripture is changed from what is so clear.
God made a big deal out of Judgment and wrath, and it becomes meaningless in Universalism, and if it wasn't so we wouldn’t be having this debate.
Many people I know do not believe there is a hell or judgment, and live their lives accordingly, the fear of God it says is meant to keep us from evil, it is scriptural.
Why am I wasting my breath if it isn't true? Somebody tell me.
Todd, Universalists, tell me why do 'you' fear God?

[steve7150]

Actually, that's not what JR just said... you gut his quote a bit short. He said

jriccitelli wrote:if all verses of death punishment and judgment mean nothing to Universalists but stress in this life...



That last bit is important, and does seem to be the position that Todd is adv







Yes but he didn't make any distinctions in the CU positions, he just grouped everyone in one basket.

[steve7150]

I have already stated in our debates together Steve 7150, that I do not teach Eternal fire ET (fire destroys and quickly) so you should know that, and I already stated with you how no one knows what eternity is when we previously discussed aeonios and Plato.










I didn't say you did JR. As far as eternity goes Paul uses "aion" to actually mean "age" in his writings and i think "aionios" is unlikely to mean eternity if the root of it is "aion."

[Paidion]

What do we make of the wrath of God abiding on a person?
He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." (John 3:36)

Why do you not answer his question? You know the Greek. If you think the future tense is irrelevant to what Jesus meant you could explain why rather than making general statements about God's love and desire that all will be saved, which is not in dispute.

When Jesus says that in the future God's wrath will remain on a certain class of people then you ought to be able to show how that is consistent with your paradigm.

Why did I not answer this question? Because I didn't see it as very relevant to the matter of which view of hell is correct — unless it is assumed that "will not see life" means "will never see life" and "to abide" means "to abide forever." But if John meant the latter, he would have said so as he did in chapter 8 verse 35:

The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever.

That is, IF the Greek "into the age" means "forever."

But back to the phrase in question:

The one not being persuaded by the Son will not see life....
I hope you can excuse my "personal translation" but that's what the Greek clause means. Notwithstanding, what I am about to say doesn't depend on this translation.

It is stated that he will not see life. It is not stated that he will never see life. It seems to me that the implication is that a person who continues not to be persuaded by the Son (or continues "to disobey the Son") will not see life. It does not directly address the matter of whether or not that person will have the opportunity to be persuaded in the after life.

"... but the wrath of God remains on him."

Again, it does not say that the wrath of God remains on him forever. I see it as saying the wrath of God remains on him as long as he is not persuaded (or as long as he "disobeys"). God's wrath (unlike ours) has the effect of bringing people to repentance. Again the clause does not directly address the opportunities which will be available after death.

So there is nothing at all in the verse which is inconsistent my paradigm. But if "...the wrath of God remains on him" means "remains on him forever", it seems inconsistent with yours. For how can the wrath of God remain on people who have been annihilated? There's no one there for God's wrath to remain on!

[Todd]

I don’t mean to only argue philosophically, but it seems that if all verses of death punishment and judgment mean nothing to Universalists but stress in this life then I am left with nothing.

I realize that ultra-univeralism requires a paradigm shift in one's thinking from a traditional view of judgment. Most Christians believe that salvation is all about being saved from hell. But salvation is really about being saved from sin and its consequences.

Matt 1:21
And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.

Think of the prodigal son. He had destroyed his life through self-indulgence, but he repented and was saved and was delivered from his circumstance back into the grace of his father. Was that worth while? Think of people suffering as a result of their self-inflicted sinful ways. Do they need deliverance from that? People are hurting due to their own self-destructive lifestyles. What if turning to Christ will deliver them from unhappiness and frustration unto joy and peace in the Holy Spirit. That would be excellent. Jesus said, "I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly" (John 10:10b).

Evangelism still has meaning. People are self-destructing and need Christ. Salvation in life is conditional and requires repentence and faith. Salvation from death is unconditional: Jesus is the savior of all men and will ultimately destroy death which is the last enemy.

Todd

[Perry]

But salvation is really about being saved from sin and its consequences.

But if those consequences of sin apply to this present mortal life alone, (isn't that more or less what you've been saying?) then that really doesn't amount to very much. It's infinitesimally small, in fact. Or, as Paul put it, hardly even worth bringing up. (Rom 8:18). I don't mean to belittle or be insulting, I really don't. But what you're suggesting seems to me to regulate the gospel to just another kind of self-help prosperity doctrine, and the bible just another self-help book on how to make this present life a little better.

[kaufmannphillips]

Todd wrote:
What is justice? It seems to me most folks equate justice with punishment. I don't. Think of it this way. What is an injustice? It is when someone has wronged another, right? Conversely, justice is when someone does the right thing; therefore, justice is synonymous with righteousness. Here's another example. When we read, "He was a just man" we automatically think he was a good man, or a righteous man. It certainly doesn't mean he went around punishing people.

So what does this have to do with judgment? Well, Godly justice is doing the righteous thing, doing that which is good. I don't see it as punishment as so many people assume.

Thank you for responding, Todd.


"[J]ustice is synonymous with righteousness" - this seems to draw upon biblical diction.

Please allow me to nuance here and articulate the equation justness = righteousness , with "justice" being activity that redounds to the furtherance of justness/righteousness.


Punishment is an optional tool that may be employed toward the furtherance of justness/righteousness. Punishment is not absolutely necessary to justice, but in some instances it might be practically necessary. The practical necessities of a situation will determine whether or not punishment redounds to the furtherance of justness/righteousness.

In order for G-d to be just, G-d must act justly. And in order for G-d to act justly, at times G-d must act to further justness/righteousness in the world. In such times, in order for G-d to act justly, G-d might need to punish - or G-d might need to not punish.

So at times, divine justice might require punishment; and at other times, divine justice might require absence of punishment.

[Todd]

But salvation is really about being saved from sin and its consequences.

But if those consequences of sin apply to this present mortal life alone, (isn't that more or less what you've been saying?) then that really doesn't amount to very much. It's infinitesimally small, in fact. Or, as Paul put it, hardly even worth bringing up. (Rom 8:18). I don't mean to belittle or be insulting, I really don't. But what you're suggesting seems to me to regulate the gospel to just another kind of self-help prosperity doctrine, and the bible just another self-help book on how to make this present life a little better.

Perry,

Firstly, I don't know how you draw that conclusion from reading Rom 8:18. Secondly, I don't see how the reconciliation of all mankind to God is akin to a self-help book.

Todd