"Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess the Lord

[Guest]

I'm interested in reading what Fudge has to say, TK. I'm curious, who does he consider "the wicked"?

[_Paidion]

Paidion,

Incidentals:

Whether you agree that gehenna may be about 70 AD or not is moot.

Whether I agree is not moot. I definitely disagree. You probably meant that the statement that Gehenna refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, is moot.

Thanatos is the NT word for "death"---not hades. Hades is the NT equivalent of the OT sheol: the realm of the dead.

I’m sure you are aware that there are synonyms in Greek. Yet you seem to make your statement as if it is an absolute fact ---- a statement, it seems, which you don’t consider moot. Then how do you account for the fact that in I Corinthians 15:15, the second occurrence of “thanatos” has a variant reading of “hades”? The earliest extant manuscript which contains the sentence (papyrus46), which has been dated as the middle of the second century), has “thanatos” in both places. So why would the manuscripts from which the King James was translated, use “hades” in place of “thanatos” in the second occurrence? I speculate that O Death, where is your sting? O Grave, where is your victory? has a better literary ring, by personifying both “death” and “grave” rather than repeating “death” in both places.
In any case, which of the two was the original does not have much or any relevance to this discussion. I do not question that “grave” is the primary meaning of “hades”. Yes, “hades” is the place of the dead. That is certainly what graves are for. But there is no consciousness there --- unless a person is buried alive. The English word “hell” is a good translation of “hades”. The English word means “a hidden place.” Some early English novels used the word in that way. They mentioned lovers seeking a hell. At one time, people were said to hell their potatoes. I’m not sure when or why the phrase got changed to “hill potatoes”. In Greek thought, hades became a place where the dead existed in some sort of conscious state ---- similarily in Judaism, if the Discourse on Hades was a genuine writing of Josephus. Jesus used this belief as a basis for his parable of “the rich man and Lazarus”.

Particulars:
Okay, let me rephrase it:

"Some posters on this forum" do in fact believe that there are at least two ways people can be saved, which are stated as:
1. Through currently believing the Gospel: the merits of the cross of Christ on our behalf to save us (which is what 'orthodox Protestant Christians' believe as well) and,
2. Through undergoing a post-mortem meritorious punishment that atones for the current sin of unbelief (bold, for emphasis); I don't believe the Bible teaches this; that after death salvation can be merited, earned, paid for by personal suffering, atoned for by personal suffering, or even acquired, as it will no longer be offered! For those who who had rejected the Gospel about Jesus---which is preached (proclaimed, offered) only during this present age---it will be too late.

Your rephrasing doesn’t help. I don’t know of even one poster on this forum who believes your bolded #2. Could it be that your supposition that Reconciliationists believe this, helps you to reject the position? For it is clearly a non-Christian belief that there is any other way to be reconciled to God, than the Way of the Cross.

I, for one, believe that those who will be corrected in Gehenna will need to repent and submit to Christ just as everyone else does in order to become disciples. There is no difference. The death of Christ gives grace all who will submit. In this present life, God takes steps to influence people to surrender to Christ. In some cases, He creates circumstances which do so; in others He speaks the gospel through His disciples. It will be the same in Gehenna. The corrective fires are simply a further and more effective influence to induce the occupants to submit of their own free will. Of course, if we have a restrictive concept of “free will” we will say that they are “forced”. The same may be said of the influences God exerts in this present life. Indeed, the Augustinians do say this very thing.

What is the "severe mercy to be avoided" you're talking about?

Gehenna is God’s severe mercy. Not many question its severity. It is merciful, because God knows it is the only way in which those who rebel against Him all their lives can be corrected. And He intends to correct all.
It should be avoided if we wish to escape the pain of it. On the other hand, if there's no other way for God to deal with us to set us right, then it should be welcomed.

You haven't provided one single verse that says the Gospel includes that salvation can be obtained after death. Not one sermon from Acts, one saying by Jesus in the Gospels, and no teaching about it in the rest of the NT. I submit you can't provide it because it isn't there!

It is there, but your predisposition toward the view of eternal torture does not seem to allow you to accept it. So you must reinterpret it. The verse is:

For to this end we toil and strive, because we have set our hope on the living God who is the Saviour of all people, especially of those who believe. {I Tim 4:10}

So if one cannot because of prior beliefs, accept it at face value, he must explain it away. “All” does not always mean “all” in the Scripture, and so it doesn’t mean “all” here ---- only “some”. Or, He is the Saviour of all potentially, but is actually so, of only of those who believe.

1. The lost sheep that Jesus sought and found had not died. etc. etc. etc.

My point in quoting these passage was not in support of post-mortem reconciliation, but in showing that the New Testament’s use of “lost” and “destroyed” does not always mean “irretrievably lost” or “utterly annihilated”.

Quote:
I wrote:
Don't you think John should have made at least some sort of remote "hints" in this most Primary of Gospel Verses?

You replied:
The argument from absence is not valid.

I strongly disagree: An Argument from Absence (or silence) is QUITE valid. The burden of proof is in your court!

Okay, if the argument from silence is valid, then I argue that there is nothing in the Bible that says a person cannot repent and establish a relationship with God after death. So, according to you, the burden of proof that they can’t is in your court.

Or how about this one? Cancer doesn't cause lung cancer. For there is nothing in the Bible which says it does.

The Bible teaches all who are in Adam die and all who are in Christ will live; this is for sure.

Untrue. You have changed the order of the words to make it say what you believe. It actually says:

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

I think Paul is saying much the same thing here as he said in the following:

Romans 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. NASB

I would appreciate direct answers.

You shall have them.

Lastly,
Do you---or do you not---believe that those who reject Jesus (the Gospel) before they die will be punished for this after death?

Not inclusive enough. I believe they will be judged and punished for all of their sin, as the Bible teaches.

And do you---or do you not---believe this sin can [then] be atoned for by those who had committed it?

I do not believe this or any other sin can be “atoned for by those who commited it.” ---- if by “atoned for”, you mean “made amends for” (the usual meaning of “atone”). But when Jesus delivers us from sin, no amends have to be made for past sin. We are forgiven. When we are on the road to perfection or completion as disciples, to ultimately be conformed to the image of Christ, God justifies us, counts us as righteous now, even before the process of salvation from sin is completed.

So in conclusion, I would affirm that those who reject Jesus must and will, of their own free will, submit to Him as their Lord (whether ante or post mortem).

[mgarrett]

I'm interested in reading what Fudge has to say, TK. I'm curious, who does he consider "the wicked"?

Of course it is God who decides who is "wicked" or "evil" or even who "willfully and continually rejects Christ," but it seems to me that these desciptions only apply to a very small minority of people (maybe 5%???).

So what is the end of those who don't fit this description yet have not placed their faith in Christ? Are they rewarded according to their works or is it 'one size fits all'?

Todd

[Guest]

Thank you Paidion, you have accurately described my views.

[Guest]

Hi TK,

On Edward Fudge; http://www.edwardfudge.com/gracemails/h ... nt_of.html

There is some of his insght here without having to pay for it.

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

I hear within Christian Universalism the 'hiss' of the Snake..."you shall not surely die"...



Pardon me Bob, but the eternal torment doctrine believes the sinner never dies but is tortured alive forever, speaking of the hiss of the snake.

[Guest]

I was pleased to hear Steve G. on his radio show admit that he had read some very well written universalist material. I know most people on this forum have a lot of respect for Steve. We who know him, know him to be a well-read, deep thinking person. I know he does not claim to be a universalist (yet!), but the fact that he sees some merit in the position should at least, I think, give pause to those here who would belittle the position

Hi Mike, If i remember correctly Steve said one of his reservations against universalism was that it sounds like that there are some people in the bible who won't be saved.
I agree that it does sound that way about a few but why must every last person be saved?
My desire is that everyone have a fair chance to know Jesus and if some reject him, then so be it.
Since there is much hyperbole in the bible why could'nt the word "all" mean "great majority" or "great multitude that no man can number"? (Rev 7)

[Guest]

Just thinking out loud


Paul says "death is the last enemy to be destroyed"

The Lake of Fire is called the second death. "This is the second death, the lake of fire" Rev 20.14

Therefore if death is the last enemy to be destroyed isn't the lake of fire A/K/A "hell" destroyed, at some point?

[Guest]

Bob,

God's mercy ultimately benefits only those He has redeemed. Not the wicked.

Yet Paul wrote that Jesus is the Savior of all men, and especially those who believe (1 Tim. 4:10). Paul also wrote that Jesus' one act of righteousness resulted in justification that brings life for all men (Rom 5:18). John wrote that He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).

I agree that God's mercy ultimately benefits only those He has redeemed. Jesus has redeemed the whole world.

Yet there is nothing remedial in the Flood story for the wicked, even if you view it as an "epic myth".

This is true, but only if you assume that God's remedial abilities are only effective to the point of physical death. Because the wicked experienced God's wrath and paid with their mortal lives are we assuming that they will also suffer eternally? Or was the taking of their lives a remedy for their wickedness (which is ultimately self-destructive) so that their souls might be saved.

Rick & Bob,

The reason I brought up Hanson's "Aion - Aionios" piece again was for two reasons:

1. He does a good job of laying out the meaning of the Hebrew word olam, which is translated to aion or aionios in the LXX. He also points out that in the worldview of the ancients, olam/aion wasn't thought of in terms of time without end but in terms of that which is beyond what can be seen (over the horizon, so to speak).

2. Hanson speaks directly to your objection that if aionios punishment is not everlasting than neither is aionios life:

A COMMON OBJECTION NOTICED.

"Then eternal life is not endless, for the same Greek adjective qualifies life and punishment." This does not follow, for the word is used in Greek in different senses in the same sentence; as Hab. iii:6. "And the everlasting mountains were scattered --his ways are everlasting." Suppose we apply the popular argument here. The mountains and God must be of equal duration, for the same word is applied to both. Both are temporal or both are endless. But the mountains are expressly stated to be temporal --they "were scattered," --therefore God is not eternal. Or God is eternal and therefore the mountains must be. But they cannot be, for they were scattered. The argument does not hold water. The aiónion mountains are all to be destroyed. Hencethe word may denote both limited and unlimited duration in the same passage, the different meanings to be determined by the subject treated.

But it may be said that this phrase "everlasting" or "eternal life" does not usually denote endless existence, but the life of the gospel, spiritual life, the Christian life, regardless of its duration. In more than fifty of the seventy-two times that the adjective occurs in the New Testament, it describes life. What is eternal life? Let the Scriptures answer. John iii:36, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life." John v:24, "He that believeth on him that sent me hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but IS PASSED from death unto life." John vi:47, "He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." So verse 54. John xvii:3, "THIS IS LIFE ETERNALto know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." Eternal life is the life of the gospel. Its duration depends on the possessor's fidelity. It is no less the aiónion life, if one abandon it in a month after acquiring it. It consists in knowing, loving and serving God. It is the Christian life, regardless of its duration. How often the good fall from grace. Believing, they have the aiónion life, but they lose it by apostasy. Notoriously it is not, in thousands of cases, endless. The life is of an indefinite length, so that the usage of the adjective in the New Testament is altogether in favor of giving the word the sense of limited duration. Hence Jesus does not say "he that believeth shall enjoy endless happiness," but "hehath everlasting life," and "is passed from death unto life."

It scarcely need here be proved that the aiónion life can be acquired and lost. Heb. vi:4, "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance: seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." A life that can thus be lost is not intrinsically endless.

That the adjective is thus consistently used to denote indefinite duration will appear from several illustrations, some of which we have already given. 2 Cor. iv:17, "A far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory," or, as the original reads, "exceeding an aiónion weight of glory excessively." Now eternal, endless cannot be exceeded, but aiónion can be, therefore aiónion is not eternal. Again, Rev. xiv:6, "Theeverlasting gospel." The gospel is good news. When all shall have learned its truths it will no longer be news. There will be no such thing as gospel extant. Faith will be fruition, hope lost in sight, and the aiónion gospel, like the aiónion covenant of the elder dispensation, will be abrogated, not destroyed, but fulfilled and passed away. Again, 2 Pet. i:11, "The everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." This kingdom is to be dissolved. Jesus is to surrender his dominion. 1 Cor. xv:24, "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God even the Father," etc. The everlasting kingdom of Christ will end.

The word may mean endless when applied to life, and not when applied to punishment, even in the same sentence, though we think duration is not considered so much as the intensity of joy or the sorrow in either case.

[Guest]

Hi Danny,

Quote: "11. Luke 16:19-31 - This one has been dealt with before. It is also a parable, using a story that was well known at that time. The point of the parable isn't Hell, it is taking care of the poor."

I agree it is a parable. But I am beginning to believe it was a warning and not about hell in the "traditional" sense. It is a story about Judaism (the Rich man) and the inclusion of the Gentiles (the poorman Lazarus) into God's redemptive plan. It is about a living "hell on earth" for Jewry's rejection of their Messiah. If you don't think so, think of their history since the crucifixtion of Jesus and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 a.d. They have become indeed the "taunt" of the nations and ridiculed, persecuted, tortured and suffered the Holocost. They are not at peace, nor will they ever truly have peace until they say "blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord". The "Rich man" has become "poor" and seeks not the God of Abraham, but calls upon Abraham instead who has no power to deliver him from his "torment".

I once told a friend who objected to a God who used threats of Hell to convince people to follow Him. I told him what I believed about Hell is where there is the complete absense of all we consider to be good from the hand of God. Whatever else it means, God certainly does not desire for His children to suffer what Hell, Gehenna or the LOF involves. And I emphasize His children.

With respect to the parable under discussion, The Rich man and Lazarus shows us in part, what God's judgement looks like in this age. There has been no apparent goodness from the Lord experienced historically by Israel since 70 a.d. They are a nation yet under His judgement. They are not at peace with their neighbors. They only have a "wailing wall" as a mere reminder of their past "glory" and its filled with their tears .
Deuteronomy 28:15-68 is an awesome, terrible, even haunting warning the God of Israel made to His people. We are seeing its fulfillment. But there is hope even for Israel. (Romans 11).

Christian Universalism I don't think takes into consideration what their "wish projections" imply. The implication is that God is not just if His justice demands eternal payment for temporal sin. I think the question should be explored as to what category of "sin" we are talking about.
Some sin is unforgivable and has no apparent remedy. Jesus made that pretty clear. I think since Calvary, with maybe two exceptions, all sin since Adam has been forgiven men. Jesus made exception to "dying in the sin of unbelief", and sinning against the Holy Spirit . Neither sin has remedy. One requires Jesus presense physically and to attribute his work to the devil. The other sin requires a person to have heard the Gospel and have rejected it throughout his lifetime. In either situation, God alone can truly judge.

The other problem I have with Christian Universalisim, is it makes God out to be more of a "school yard bully" rather than a benevolent Teacher.
If this view believe that God will only punish as long as it takes to "reform"
and bring the sinner to repentance, then that sounds like a bully pulling your arm up the middle of your back until you cry "uncle"!
And they accuse the "traditional" view as torturous?