Could Luke 20:38 support Universalism?

User avatar
Seballius
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:19 am

Re: Could Luke 20:38 support Universalism?

Post by Seballius » Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:50 pm

Thank you for your response.

I have listened to your teaching on Revelation Chapter 20 and I can see how your view of the soul/body goes with that.

In that teaching, you said that the first resurrection is when the believer converts or becomes born again. Thus, the Spirit of God coming into the person is the coming to life/resurrection (the 1st) of the inner man. The sinner who possess a soul/inner man is not resurrected, and dies or pauses until the second resurrection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2659
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Could Luke 20:38 support Universalism?

Post by Homer » Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:39 pm

Hi Saballius,

You wrote:
I have seen that normally annihilationists tend to believe in “soul sleep” (e.g. SDA, JW, & some Church of God)
You could have included "some Church of Christ" in your list as there are some prominent in the C of C who are known for the position you cite. One is the late Edward Fudge, author of "The Fire That Consumes", who has been published by such as Baker Book House and Christianity Today, and appears to have been held in high regard by leading thinkers in the Church of Christ/Independent Christian Churches.

Fudge wrote:
The most common scriptural picture of death is that of sleep, in both Old and New Testaments. The overwhelming testimony of Scripture leads me to believe that the dead person is thoroughly dead until the resurrection — which, from his or her perspective, seems to be the very next instant. (When we fall asleep, we are next aware of waking, even though several hours might pass between.) For the believer, however, this is a very safe “sleep,” for she or he is “with Christ” (Phil. 1:23), “asleep in Jesus” (1 Cor. 15:18). These phrases make us think of a toddler sleeping peacefully in a parent’s loving arms — unaware of anything that transpires but having no cause for anxiety or concern.

User avatar
Seballius
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:19 am

Could Luke 20:38 support Universalism?

Post by Seballius » Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:18 pm

Hello Homer

You are correct about Fudge. I read and loved his more condensed version “Hell a Final Word” shortly after it came out. That book had me convinced for a time that conditionalism was true, but then I came across Peter Hiett (via youtube) at one of the “Rethinking Hell” conferences. At present, I seriously doubt eternal torment and think either conditionalism or universalism is true. Bro. Steve Gregg has stated that he is fine with not being decided on the issue/matter. I do not share his sentiment. I want to be sure or know it.

After I read Fudge’s book, I signed up on his email list. I throughly enjoyed his emails. He was very open and willing to talk with anyone. I truly miss him.

I was aware of Fudge, but I did not know CC churches were into conditionalism. I followed him, but have very limited contact with that group. According to my understanding of him, Fudge was kind of an outcast because he stood for the grace of God against some of the more legalistic ministers in that group (e.g. to my understanding, Fudge did not believe in baptismal regeneration and most CC ministers do). Have you seen the movie about Fudge?

Conditionalism is growing a lot. Chris Date and his group have really gotten the word out. So much so, that Matt Slick has just created a whole new section (around 10 to 20 articles) trying to show what he (Slick) thinks are the errors of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2659
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Could Luke 20:38 support Universalism?

Post by Homer » Tue Oct 30, 2018 10:55 am

Saballius,

I think the large majority of C of C are of the traditional view but I know Fudge has been involved in a conference at one of their universities and some prof. from Pepperdine (C of C school) also holds the view as does Al Maxey who debates another of the C of C here:

http://www.zianet.com/maxey/MxThrshr.htm

Most in the C of C probably just accept the traditional view without giving it much thought. We attend a C of C (in name, it is actually an Independent Christian Church, which the leadership will acknowledge). We have been at the church for about nine years and I have never heard hell discussed in a sermon or a class, at least as far as I can recall.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2659
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Could Luke 20:38 support Universalism?

Post by Homer » Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:53 pm

It seems that the great problem with universalism is that it appears to be incompatible with free will. How does a person get from point A (unsaved) to point B (saved) post mortem? The scriptures tell us nothing regarding this, neither how or whether possible. The universalist tells us the fires of hell bring the unbeliever to saving faith. How can anyone rationally believe that is an exercise of free will?

Universalism must have every last one saved, not the majority, or almost all, but every last one. It is a deterministic system, as much as Calvinism. But it is natural to hope or believe it is true, and that is where it is based - in a wish.

We read in 1 John 4 that God is love. and that is certainly true. But yet in the context, reading further it appears that the saving result of this love is conditional. The scriptures also inform us, both Old Testament and New, that God is a consuming fire (#2654, katanalisko to consume utterly, wholly) in a context that is a clear unambiguous warning.

User avatar
Seballius
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:19 am

Could Luke 20:38 support Universalism?

Post by Seballius » Tue Oct 30, 2018 7:18 pm

One of the things that has kept me back from universalism is when Jesus talks about the unforgivable sin (eg Matthew 12:31-32). However, I have not read how they would exegete those passages. But it would be hard to exegete away from this ...”it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or the age to come.”

Here is a link to one of Peter Hiett’s videos. It is worth a consideration.

https://youtu.be/F27jxwHDrzM


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by Seballius on Tue Oct 30, 2018 9:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Seballius
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:19 am

Re: Could Luke 20:38 support Universalism?

Post by Seballius » Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:03 pm

Homer

T. Talbott’s argument

I am not saying that I agree with him, but here is T. Talbott’s (Christian philosopher) argument.



Talbott has offered three propositions which many traditional Christians consider are biblically based but Talbott considers can not all be true at the same time:

1. God is totally sovereign over human destinies.

2. God is entirely loving and wills that all people be reconciled to Him in relationship.

3. Most people will experience endless, conscious torment in hell.[2]

Talbott maintains that both 1 and 2 can be found in the Bible. However, number 3 if it is true causes problems to both number 1 and 2.
——————————————-
Arguments against Talbott's views
However those objecting to Talbott's view note that there are multiple biblical verses describing hell as the fate of the wicked. Traditionally;

Arminians resolve this by disagreeing with #1. Some people will resist the grace of God and choose a life-path that results in everlasting separation from God.

Calvinists resolve this by disagreeing with #2. God graciously elects some to be saved and either passes over the rest in their sin (single predestination) or elects others to be damned (double predestination)—those who are to be everlastingly punished according to the doctrine of double predestination.

Christians who believe in Christian mortalism and conditional immortality, for example Seventh-day Adventists, typically disagree with #3, and propose the doctrine of annihilationism as an alternative solution to Talbott's proposed problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2659
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Could Luke 20:38 support Universalism?

Post by Homer » Tue Oct 30, 2018 11:01 pm

Hi Saballius,

You wrote:
Talbott has offered three propositions which many traditional Christians consider are biblically based but Talbott considers can not all be true at the same time:

1. God is totally sovereign over human destinies.

2. God is entirely loving and wills that all people be reconciled to Him in relationship.

3. Most people will experience endless, conscious torment in hell.[2]

Talbott maintains that both 1 and 2 can be found in the Bible. However, number 3 if it is true causes problems to both number 1 and 2.

Talbott's argument is very weak. Regarding #!, God's sovereignty, which I strongly believe in, does not prevent Him from granting free will to his creatures. His point is only correct in a totally deterministic system. As for #2 it assumes God's will is simple and ignores the possibility of permissive will, which I believe is as real as God's determined will and desired will. If this isn't so, then God isn't as complex as we are.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 4978
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Could Luke 20:38 support Universalism?

Post by Paidion » Wed Oct 31, 2018 2:05 pm

Homer, you wrote:It seems that the great problem with universalism is that it appears to be incompatible with free will. How does a person get from point A (unsaved) to point B (saved) post mortem? The scriptures tell us nothing regarding this, neither how or whether possible. The universalist tells us the fires of hell bring the unbeliever to saving faith. How can anyone rationally believe that is an exercise of free will?
In no way is the reconciliation of ALL to God (Col 1:20) incompatible with free will.
Our God is a consuming fire. (Heb 12:29)
What does God, the Fire, consume? Man's evil. So is not "hell fire" God Himself?
Hell is not penalty; it is correction. Yes, the acts of God will influence the lost, but they will never force the lost.
Even here in this world, God often acts to influence the lost. Does that mean the lost have no free will? I don't think so.
God who loves ALL, will work with all, to bring them to repentance. Whether it takes a hundred years or a million years, God has an eternity in which to do it. They cannot resist God forever, or if they could they would be as powerful as He.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 82.

User avatar
Seballius
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:19 am

Could Luke 20:38 support Universalism?

Post by Seballius » Wed Oct 31, 2018 2:16 pm

Good to hear from you again Paidion; I write this because you have been absent a few days.

What do make of Matthew 12:30-32, Mark 3:28-30, & Luke 12:8-10?

Matthew writes “this age or in the age to come”. The universalist could say - “this age - law of Moses” & “age to come - Church”. If taken in that way, I guess the Lake of Fire would be last those two (2).

Mark writes “eternal sin”.

Luke writes “will not be forgiven”.

The Mark and Luke passages do not seem that they can be avoided/amended towards a universalist perspective.

As a side note: after writing my comment about “unforgivable sin”, I emailed Peter Hiett to ask him his thoughts on the matter. He is a busy guy, but he normally writes back in a few days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Post Reply

Return to “Views of Hell”