Why not Universal Reconciliation?

JonathanVaughan
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 3:21 pm

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by JonathanVaughan » Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:44 am

I just read Steve's book on Hell, and I am more willing to accept UR as an option. But my question for UR advocates is this:

Can faith be operant in the afterlife, or does it become something else? If so, can a protracted punishment for not having had faith produce faith?

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by robbyyoung » Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:23 am

JonathanVaughan wrote:I just read Steve's book on Hell, and I am more willing to accept UR as an option. But my question for UR advocates is this:

Can faith be operant in the afterlife, or does it become something else? If so, can a protracted punishment for not having had faith produce faith?
Hi Jonathan,

UR must be considered with caution; there is too much speculation against problematic factors. For instance, after death, faith is problematic as a qualifier, we read:

Heb 11:1 "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

Rom 8:24-25 "For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it."

After regeneration, the idea is trust and hope in the unknown/unseen. If you read the entire chapter of Hebrews 11, you will clearly see that the faith which is pleasing to God originates this side of the grave. If UR has an argument, I don't think faith as we know it can be applied.

God Bless.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by Homer » Thu Jan 07, 2016 5:48 pm

Good point, Robby

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by steve » Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:06 pm

Good point, Robby
Not really a very good one, if we allow scripture to inform..

To say that people cannot have faith in God after they have seen Him or seen the resurrected Christ would eliminate Abraham, Moses, the seventy elders on the mount with Moses, Isaiah, and all of Christ's apostles, including Paul, from being able to have faith or to be saved by faith.

Interestingly, it was only subsequently to Abraham's conversations with God that it is said of him that he "believed in the Lord, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." We know he at least saw God with his own eyes, in Genesis 18:1, but it was later than that (Gen.22), when he offered up Isaac, which, we are told, he did "by faith" (Heb.11:17).

Likewise, neither James (brother of Jesus) nor Saul of Tarsus believed in Jesus at all until they saw Him resurrected and glorified. The biblical and historical facts seem to disqualify the theory that faith is only possible for "those who have not seen."

Jesus told Thomas, "Because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed" (John 20:29). Some believe without seeing; others as a result of seeing. Obviously, faith embraces realities beyond the visible realm, but it is not eliminated by one's having seen God or Christ—as all men shall someday see Him.

In speaking of his readers' relationship with Christ, Peter wrote: "Whom, having not seen, you love" (1 Peter 1:8)—but he could not have made the same statement about himself. Nor could John, who celebrated the fact that he and his companions had beheld with their eyes and their hands had handled Christ (1 John 1:1). Yet, he wrote: "We have known and believed..."(1 John 4:16).

Saving faith is not so much a matter of accepting as true disputable propositions (e.g., the existence of God or the resurrection of Christ), as it is placing one's trust in the faithfulness of God and Christ in the course of one's lifelong pilgrimage. Whether choosing to place such confidence in God remains a live option after the grave, or after the judgment, or not, is open to question—even when a sinner has now seen God in the afterlife.

Some here, who reject universal reconciliation, nonetheless maintain a hope (even an expectation) that there may be hope for some who, in this life, have never heard of Christ, never understood Him properly, or have unwittingly served Him according to the dim light afforded in their non-Christian culture. The assumption is that such people will see Him beyond the grave and realize that it is He whom they were seeking and desiring to know all along, and God will accept their postmortem acknowledgement of Him.

Not everyone here would accept this theoretical possibility, but, for those who are open to it, it would seem a small step to acknowledging the similar possibility that God would also accept the postmortem acknowledgement of those who had not served Him due to stubbornness or evil in their souls that had entered and captivated them through foolish decisions made at an early age, which kept them blind to the truth through their whole lifetimes.

The sin of Adam, and every sin of every sinner since Adam, can not be said to have occurred in the absence of some degree of ignorance or blindness. Paul describes the pagans as being (in this life) alienated from God, due to their "having their understanding darkened," and suffering from "the ignorance that is in them" (Eph.4:18). Usually, we consider ignorance and blindness to be factors mitigating guilt, and there is some evidence that God evaluates things similarly (John 9:41; Luke 12:47-48).

God is more merciful than we are (not less so). Most of us would give our children (or even someone else's children) every opportunity to correct their behavior—even if it required punishment to bring this about. That God would be less committed to men's salvation than we would be to our children's is difficult to imagine.

JonathanVaughan
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 3:21 pm

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by JonathanVaughan » Thu Jan 07, 2016 8:26 pm

Steve,

Having been moved by your book, I've come to see that Christian Universalists have something of an uphill battle here, when it comes to getting their views more respected, if not accepted. It seems that tradition is strong, but I don't think that's without good reason; as you know, lots of preachers honestly think they're doing God's work by preaching eternal torment precisely because it's repugnant. What's more, they can't be blamed overmuch for this general tendency, because from its inception Christianity has been assaulted almost continuously by false teaching of things that sounded better, and they believe sincerely that they are the bulwarks against things that "tickle the ears" as opposed to "the truth." One could dismiss them as sincerely wrong, or even pharisaic, but I think this is inadequate to the task at hand.

I wonder if and how the strategies for unity as mentioned in your lectures could be applied within this dynamic. There's so much us vs. them among Christians it is daunting, at times, to process. Do you think the Universalists are ripe to split off or have already split from their assemblies?

User avatar
jeremiah
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:58 pm
Location: Mount Carroll, IL
Contact:

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by jeremiah » Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:45 pm

Hello Jonathan and welcome,
you wrote: Can faith be operant in the afterlife, or does it become something else?...
Of course that depends on what you mean by faith. As I see my faith in Christ and God, I entrust myself to my father's will above my own as entirely as I'm able. So then having entrusted myself to the father is that which began to harmonize my will and being with his. Paul describes this as me who was dead in sins being made alive in Christ. Could this happen in hell? I believe so. Why couldn't it?
then you wrote:...If so, can a protracted punishment for not having had faith produce faith?
Yes, sort of, but I don't believe the bible teaches the judgement of God comes for not having faith first. Trust in our creator is the door through which we receive the father's solution to the real reason for judgement—being dead in our sin. This slavery to sin I believe is at once the origin of and fuel for the continuing disharmony with our father, the same disharmony that Jesus came into the world to heal and restore. If hell is necessary for God to accomplish this restoration of his creature, then "...hell will blaze, and the worm will writhe and bite, until he takes refuge in the will of the Father."
you wrote:Do you think the Universalists are ripe to split off or have already split from their assemblies?
I know you asked Steve this question, but being a universalist myself I'd like to answer as well. I would think most are not, but I don't know. There are only a couple of people in my church who know my position, but I'm certainly not planning nor willing to split over this issue. In fact it is precisely what I learned from Steve in his steps toward unity lecture that keep me focused on the more important things. Though I certainly do not take this issue lightly, and consider what most at my church believe about hell to paint a backward picture of the creator.

Grace and peace to you brother
Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy: for thou renderest to every man according to his work.

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by robbyyoung » Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:41 pm

Homer wrote:Good point, Robby
Hi Homer,

Yea, saving faith for unbelievers in the afterlife is pure speculation against a wall of opposing scriptures. In order for UR to have any grounds for sound doctrine, proponents of the teaching must exegetically prove eternal, everlasting destruction, forever and ever, etc.., means temporary or otherwise in regards to their position.

God bless.

User avatar
backwoodsman
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by backwoodsman » Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:11 am

robbyyoung wrote:Yea, saving faith for unbelievers in the afterlife is pure speculation against a wall of opposing scriptures. In order for UR to have any grounds for sound doctrine, proponents of the teaching must exegetically prove eternal, everlasting destruction, forever and ever, etc.., means temporary or otherwise in regards to their position.
What exactly is it in their exegetical explanation of that point that you don't find convincing?

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by robbyyoung » Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:34 am

backwoodsman wrote:
robbyyoung wrote:Yea, saving faith for unbelievers in the afterlife is pure speculation against a wall of opposing scriptures. In order for UR to have any grounds for sound doctrine, proponents of the teaching must exegetically prove eternal, everlasting destruction, forever and ever, etc.., means temporary or otherwise in regards to their position.
What exactly is it in their exegetical explanation of that point that you don't find convincing?
Hi backwoodsman,

Basically, the position contends forever doesn't mean forever when relating to judgment upon unbelievers. For instance, I would be curious to know how a proponent for UR would exegete the following:

The Bible contends that unredeemed men will dwell forever in hell. Jesus’ own words confirm that the time spent in heaven for the redeemed will last as long as that of the unredeemed in hell. Matthew 25:46 says, “Then they [the unsaved] will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” According to this verse, the punishment of the unsaved is just as eternal as the life of the righteous.

God bless.

JonathanVaughan
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 3:21 pm

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by JonathanVaughan » Fri Jan 08, 2016 8:04 am

jeremiah wrote:Hello Jonathan and welcome,

Thank you, sir.

you wrote:Do you think the Universalists are ripe to split off or have already split from their assemblies?
I know you asked Steve this question, but being a universalist myself I'd like to answer as well. I would think most are not, but I don't know. There are only a couple of people in my church who know my position, but I'm certainly not planning nor willing to split over this issue. In fact it is precisely what I learned from Steve in his steps toward unity lecture that keep me focused on the more important things. Though I certainly do not take this issue lightly, and consider what most at my church believe about hell to paint a backward picture of the creator.

Grace and peace to you brother
I appreciate your comments, Jeremiah. If you are comfortable doing so here, I would like it if you could tell me a little bit about when you started to take the view you now hold. I don't necessarily mean the theological/intellectual side of it, but about your experience itself (I've already heard the Biblical/logical argumentation). Was it a book, or a person, or an event that carried the day with you on this view? If you've already posted this somewhere else, I'll be happy to go read it. And if you'd rather not, I would understand that, too. I am asking only because I am intrigued, and mean you no criticism.

Grace and peace to you also.

Post Reply

Return to “Views of Hell”