"Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess the Lord

[Guest]

Todd,

I would agree with your descrption with only one exception; What will God do to those who refuse His offer of mercy?

[Guest]

STEVE wrote:
"because we have put our hope in the living God , who is the Savior of EVERYONE ESPECIALLY of those who believe" 1 Tim 4.10

Here is a distinction between believers and unbelievers yet both are clearly included. Is this an isolated verse, not at all.


My IMOs on 1 Tim 4:10:
1. God is the Savior of everyone potentially and,
2. is the Savior of believers in particular.

In both cases God is THE Savior of humanity in actuality. But it is only to believers that His salvation is realized (personally embraced or experienced



I'm afraid God is the Savior of humanity only if God is the Savior of humanity not potentially the Savior and not to a chosen few, Rick.

Let's see if we can find the word "potential" here!

"For as in Adam all die , even so in Christ all shall be made alive" 1 Cor 15.22
Consider that Paul could have said "all in Christ shall be made alive" if he wanted to give the impression of "potentially all."
Yet he used the word "all" the same for "all in Adam" as "all in Christ."

[Guest]

I don't think Todd really has any idea what I've been saying! about Romans 10:14, anyway.

Hi Rick,

I reread your last post re:Rom 10:14. I understand what you are saying; I just disagree with your conclusions. For me, this is a 'big picture' issue and I do not believe God has left the vast majority of His children without hope. Therefore, the conclusion you have drawn from these verses regarding those who do not have an opportunity to hear the gospel must be incorrect. That's my opinion anyway.

1 John 2:2
And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

Todd

[Guest]

Todd,

You haven't shown that you understand what I believe Paul is saying in Romans 10. You've said you disagree with my "conclusions" about it but what you are calling my "conclusions" isn't what I think Paul was saying, at all.

This being the case, I don't see why we need further discussion. You don't appear to understand much of what I say and I don't know what else I can do to correct it.

It's clear that you and I interpret the Bible differently. I prefer to take it all into account and interpret individual verses from within it, while you think certain verses are the most important and the rest of the Bible is 'around' them and less important. With just these differences we aren't going to agree on many things.

STEVE (and Todd),

Steve: You & I also have differences that are similar to what Todd & I have.

I have no idea about how [both of] you come to what you believe other than you take some verses very literally, seeing them as the most important verses in the Bible, that how you see them interprets the rest of the Bible for you, and 'difficult' verses don't have the same weight as the most important ones and/or they can be interpreted in ways to fit how you see things.

If [either of] you disagree with this assessment I apologize in advance because I don't want to debate about it.

I can't interpret the Bible in the ways you guys do because I think it leads to wrong conclusions. So again, we're going to keep having very strong disagreements (over & over).

Due to all of the above, I'm taking a break from this thread. But it's been a good debate/study. I've never studied universalism in much detail till lately and have learned a lot.
Thanks for that,
Rick

P.S. Paidion: if you want to debate with Bob...well, I'm taking a break (so no need for you to reply to me).

[Guest]

Steve: You & I also have differences that are similar to what Todd & I have. I have no idea about how [both of] you come to what you believe other than you take some verses very literally, seeing them as the most important verses in the Bible, that how you see them interprets the rest of the Bible for you, and 'difficult' verses don't have the same weight as the most important ones and/or they can be interpreted in ways to fit how you see things.


Thank you for your kind manner Rick. I try to weigh everything in scripture when interpreting doctrines like eternal hell for unbelievers. So when i don't see it in the OT i ask myself ,why? When i don't see it in the Apostles writings , again why not? When Jesus uses the word "gehenna" did he mean it differently then the way the Pharisees would have understood it? Thank you for your dialogue.

[Guest]

12. “And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work.

Sounds like the "sheep and goats" judgement has not yet happened.

13. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”
14. Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15. But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.




Homer, You bring up very good points as these verses sound like flashbacks John is having or perhaps a summary of the whole church period. Maybe that's true yet it does'nt exclude Jesus speaking to folks in the LOF at all.
When Jesus says he is "coming quickly" i see that as a phrase referring to "judgement" on unbelievers at any time without excluding anyone in the LOF which happened previously.
Then Jesus says "blessed are those who do his commandments" which could be translated "washed their robes" which is indisputedly true at any time.
When Jesus refers to "the churches" i don't think it literally means churches from 2,000 years ago but rather the Bride of Christ , the ones reigning with him. Reigning with him over who BTW?
So judgement is on the unbelievers and this judgement happens after the great white throne judgement and to repeat, "coming quickly" is a symbolic phrase for a continuing judgement which culminates with the final call in Rev 22.17 to "whosoever thrists".

[Guest]

STEVE (and Todd),

Steve: You & I also have differences that are similar to what Todd & I have

BTW Rick, just for the sake of clarity unlike Todd i don't see God's wrath occuring in this life alone , but i see it being played out in the lake of fire after the white throne judgement. I just don't see it as eternal and only for punishment, but ultimately for the purpose of reconciliation.

[Guest]

I'm sorry I've been absent from this discussion for a little while. So much ground has been covered, I'm not quite sure where to jump in!

I don't normally do this, but I'm hoping you guys will forgive me if I cut and paste something (actually, I'm not cut & pasting, I'm typing it verbatim from the book, but the end result is the same). It just seems sooo germane to the discussion at hand, particularly in regards to the "now/not yet" nature of God's wrath.

This is an except from the book “The Evangelical Universalist” by Gregory MacDonald. The section is entitled "Divine Wrath":


"Hell is usually seen as the full manifestation of God’s wrath. The theological issue concerns the nature of that wrath. God is not like some pagan deity with a bad temper who may “lose it” at any moment. New Testament scholar Chris Marshall writes that wrath

designates God’s fervent reaction to human wickedness. God’s refusal to tolerate, compromise with, or indulge evil … wrath is not a chronic case of ill temper on God’s part but a measured commitment to act against evil and injustice in order to contain it and destroy it … it is not so much a matter of direct, individually tailored punitive intervention as it is a matter of measured withdrawal of his protective influence and control, a refusal to intervene to stem the deleterious effects of human rebellion.

A key biblical foundation for the idea that wrath is primarily God’s withdrawing his protection is found in Romans 1:18-32, where God’s wrath is revealed from heaven when God gives people up to pursue their self-destructive sinful desires. The wrath is God’s letting them slide down the path to destruction. In Joel Green’s words, "wrath is … God … handing people over to experience the consequences of the sin they choose (Rom 1:18, 24, 26, 28; cf. Wis 11:11-16; 12:23)."

If we think of hell as the state in which God allows the painful reality of sin to hit home, then we can understand both the terrible imagery used in Scripture to portray such a fate and the urgent warning to avoid the wide road that leads in that direction. It also removes the objection that God is being presented as a cosmic torturer hurting people until they agree to follow him. God does not torture anybody – he simply withdraws his protection that allows people to live under the illusion that sin is not necessarily harmful to a truly human life. The natural (though none the less God-ordained) consequences of sin take their course, and it becomes harder and harder to fool oneself into believing the seductive lies of sin anymore. In this way hell is educative and points us towards our need for divine mercy.

Divine wrath is experienced now (Rom 1:18-32) and in the future (Rom 2:5, 8; 1 Thess 1:10; 5-9; Col 3:6). It is John’s Gospel that really brings out the connections between the two. John writes that “whoever believes in [the Son] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already …” (John 3:18). The eschatological condemnation that stands over those who are not born from above (John 3:1-15) is not only their future destiny but also their present experience. This means that we should not set God’s present and his future wrath up as if they were totally different kinds of things. God’s wrath in the present is a foretaste of the same phenomena that some will experience in the future. So understanding something of the nature of wrath now will give us some theological orientation for better understanding future wrath.

Well, as far as the church goes, God brings punishment; but it is always to protect them and to rescue the offender. Divine judgments in the present age are usually seen as reformative and educative (Heb 12:5-11; Tit 2:11-12; Rev 3:19; 1 Cor 11:29-32), though they are occasionally destructive (Acts 5:1-11). 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 is an interesting case study. Paul asks the church to hand a consistently sinful church member over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh “so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.” The punishments serve as a call to repentance. Chris Marshall writes that the purpose of God’s punishments is “ultimately redemptive and restorative. The point is not to torment human beings but to enable them to see their moral frailty and their consequent need for God’s healing assistance.” My suggestion is that we see the punishment of hell as fundamentally the same kind of punishment, albeit in a more intense form.

One text that brings out the perspective on punishment I am commending to readers here is Lamentations 3:22-23, 31-33:

Because of the LORD’s great love we are not consumed, for his compassions never fail. They are new every morning; great is your faithfulness … For men are not cast off by the Lord for ever. Though he brings grief, he will show compassion, so great is his unfailing love. For he does not willingly bring affliction or grief to the children of men.

This text of Lamentations reflects on Israel’s exilic sufferings and especially the sufferings of those who have been left behind in the ruins of Jerusalem. Right at the heart of the book lies this word of hope. Yes, the Lord has brought us grief and has cast us off but he derives no pleasure from treating us in this way, and he will not do so forever. Because of the Lord’s faithful, covenant love the final word is Restoration! …

… Once we see that God’s justice is more than mere retribution but is also restorative, and once we see that divine punishments are more than deserved but also corrective, then a way is open to see God’s final punishment as another manifestation of this very same justice and not something qualitatively different. It is retributive but also restorative. It is deserved but also corrective. Divine wrath can be seen as the severe side of divine mercy. It is just as much an act of God’s love as is his kindness. Granted, it is a side of God’s love it would be better not to experience but it is none the less loving for that."

[Guest]

STEVE, Todd, and who's 'been here' this past week,

Thanks, STEVE, for saying how you and Todd differ in your beliefs. I had gathered there were some differences along those lines.

"What Paul was saying in Romans 10" deserves a new thread that I may start but don't know when (so I'm dropping that for now).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Danny, et al,

What you've posted [Danny] could potentially be a new thread too (I'm more used to separate threads from when I used to post @ Beliefnet). But be that as it may; I'd like to discuss/debate what you've posted. I've seen MacDonald's site and read some articles 'pro & con' about his theology. What you've posted here has plenty to talk about.

Though there are different 'camps' within every eschatological view; different types of dispensationalists, pre-, post-, and a-millennialists, and so on; I've not been able to understand how universalists see the future and/or final events, "the last things." While 'time charts' of especially dispensationalists are well, pretty farout; post- and a-millennialists have them too and they are a good tool to show what each 'camp' believes (I considered starting a thread to ask for a 'universalist time chart' but didn't), anyway....

The "now/not yet" yet aspect of eschatology (sometimes called "already/not yet") is not only inherent within eschatology; it's really what it is about in our present age. Earlier I wrote how N.T. Wright describes our present age as the 'in-between' one that yet "overlaps" both back to Creation and over into the New Creation.

Wright, imo, is one of the best if not THE best thinkers in our time who sees the "Big Picture of God's Plan" and what it means for all humanity. He sees and describes these things very well.

Obviously, Wright is not a universalist. But that's not why I'm bringing him up. What he says, and suppose what I'm trying to say is: universalist thinking diverges from Wright's thought (and mine) so much so that it breaks down as a system; not only on eschatological levels but on soteriology (doctrine of salvation), hamartiology (doctrine of sin), and ultimately Christology (doctrine of Christ). Then again, we can't talk about eschatology without having every other doctrine 'in there' as they all relate.

I've read what you posted about five times now, Danny. I'm seeing what I feel are contradictions and don't see how things connect in MacDonald's thought. I could post long comments on just sentences (taken in their context). Yet, imo, MacDonald skips and/or glosses over the Bible's Big Picture. I hope to address at least some of these things but don't know where to begin. I'll probably go chronologically, don't know.

Not to be offensive in any way, but what I'm seeing from MacDonald paints a picture of something like science fiction in my mind. My imagination went 'wild' as I tried to follow his reasoning, bringing up images that to me are foreign to what the Bible really says and, thus, aren't representative good, solid biblical thinking.

The only time I watch baseball is the World Series...a yearly excuse to be lazy!
"Hey Rocky! Watch me a rabbit outta mah hat!"
(they'd better start pulling out something)!
Be back later some time.
Thanks,
Rick

[Guest]

Hi RickC,

Obviously, Wright is not a universalist. But that's not why I'm bringing him up. What he says, and suppose what I'm trying to say is: universalist thinking diverges from Wright's thought (and mine) so much so that it breaks down as a system; not only on eschatological levels but on soteriology (doctrine of salvation), hamartiology (doctrine of sin), and ultimately Christology (doctrine of Christ).

I disagree. As you know, I've also been very influenced by Wright. One area though were he has been strangely quiet is on the whole topic of Hell. Although he has stated (somewhere) that he is not a Universalist, I haven't seen him clearly state what he does believe about Hell, other than some vague statements in "Following Jesus" that sounded reminiscent of C.S. Lewis.

I haven't read everything Wright has put out (who has?), so perhaps you have something else in mind. Sometimes it seems to me like he's almost avoiding the subject of Hell. For example, look at this excerpt from an interview of N.T. Wright by Dick Staub (source:
http://www.dickstaub.com/culturewatch.php?record_id=693) in which the subject is Hell comes up and Wright seems to dance around it:

Staub: You mentioned heaven so we might as well mention hell and damnation and punishment and fire. These are themes in the New Testament. What does the everyday person need to understand about how those are used in Jesus’ teaching? Because you often hear, in fundamentalist circles, Jesus said more about this and money than he did about anything else and then it converts into a fires of hell, eternal damnation discussion.

Wright: I think part of our difficulty here is that we are still firmly plugged in to a medieval picture of heaven and hell, such as you find in Michelangelo’s painting of the Cistine Chapel, such as you find in Dante’s Inferno in Paradiso. We Protestants miss out the middle bit, the purgatory bit, but you’ve still got a medieval picture which is not a New Testament picture of people after death going either to the one place or to the other.

Staub: What would a Palestinian Jew in the first century have thought when they heard those words?

Wright: A Palestinian Jew, well, would have used the word Gehenna and Gehenna is the rubbish heap on the southwest corner of Jerusalem. I was actually filming part of a television program about the Resurrection in Gehenna just a matter of months ago, and so I know the place quite well. And there was always a to-and-fro between the idea of this smoldering rubbish heap, which was always burning away as they piled more stuff on and the fire never went out, and the idea of sort of an event or a state of being rather like that in that it would serve as a metaphor for the place where the people who rejected God would go eventually, or long term, or whatever. What I think is far more important in all of this discussion is not, you know, whether there are worms in hell, and this kind of thing, which I’ve been asked before, you know, because it says their worm will never die. And you know, so much of the Bible is appropriately metaphorical and we need to know what it actually refers to, as well as how it refers, but much more important than that is to get into our heads what the New Testament really is banging on about, which is resurrection, which is not a synonym for going to heaven when you die, but is what is going to happen after that. As I’ve often said, heaven is important but it’s not the end of the world. And what the New Testament is on about is what I call “life after life after death.” That is, resurrection life after whatever state we go into after death. So the New Testament teaches a two-stage post-mortem eschatology. And it goes on and on about resurrection and says very little about the intermediate state, which we can call heaven if we like. And it’s very interesting that so much western Christianity has focused on the intermediate state so much that it’s forgotten that there is an ultimate resurrection. And it actually thinks that heaven is all there is. And the answer is, no, not according to the New Testament.

The thought has crossed my mind (in more whimsical moments) that Wright could be a closet Universalist. Some have even suggested that he is the "Gregory MacDonald" (a pseudonym) who wrote "The Evangelical Universalist", but I highly doubt it.

You might find this interesting. It is an article (a seminary dissertation actually) on Universalism that includes an examination of N.T. Wright's views, scant as they are, on Hell (see Appendix A): http://www.christianheretic.com/articles/article57.pdf