"Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess the Lord

[Guest]

Danny'

In reponse to your quote:" 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."

This is a favorite "proof text" in favor of those who support Christian Universalism. But, as I said in my last post to you, Jesus is the savior of all men, in the sense that all sin has been forgiven men from Adam to the present, with possibly two exceptions I mentioned. To benefit from Christs redemptive offer however, one has to recieve Him. John 1:12
If Jesus and His Gospel are rejected, a mans sin remains. John 3:18
Vs 21 of the same refers to those only who live by the truth and come to the Light are the beneficiaries of what God does through them. There
is always a class or category distinction being made between the Sons of Light and the Sons of darkness.

So, yes I agree Jesus is the savior of all men. But not all men are saved. Not because Jesus doesn't want them to be saved, but that men refuse to come to His Light and be saved!

I can imagine that some would say; 'why should I repent and deny myself to follow Jesus if in the end he will save me anyway. Why not eat, drink and be merry?'

Now I don't know about you, but when I was 'unsaved', I had a blast! 'I smoked pot, drank and ran around with the girls that do too'. No 'preacher" with the run of the mill "turn or burn" approach wouldn't have made (and didn't make) a difference either. Like Solomon, I denied myself no pleasure. But also like Solomon, I began to see an absolute meaninglessness to lfe in general, and my own in particular. In fact, it was the book of Ecclesiastes God used to get my attention. Thats another story.

I believe in the preservation of the Lord, not the perservernce of the saints. I believe in particular salvation, not universal salvation. I believe election in Christ is a particular class of believer who will inheret His promises. Not all men will "eat at His table". All are invited, but most have excuses as the Parable of the Banquet demonstrated. I think the "torture" of eternal damnation is not from the hand of God, but by men who have been made to realize they have wasted their lives by rejecting His will for them. I believe God sent His Son into the world that all who believe will not perish...The logic follows that some will not believe
and therefore perish. Otherwise the statement is meaningless and the warning empty.

[_Rick_C]

Greetings Paidion, et al,

Re: textual variants on thanatos (death) and hades. As you say, it makes no essential difference to the discussion.

Re: the English word Hell. On page 5 I posted: Etmyology of Hell. Yes, it originated from "to cover" but also came to mean basically what Hades meant, as you posted.

I wrote:
"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.

You replied:
1. I don’t know of even one poster on this forum who believes your bolded #2.

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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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..

1. So, you're saying the sin of unbelief (rejecting Jesus) is a sin that Jesus didn't die for?---in terms of those who did it while they were alive? Or do you mean that Gehenna will be punishment for 'all other sins' but with the one exception of the sin of rejecting Jesus?

2. The Cross of Jesus pays the price for forgiveness of sins and ushers us into God's Kingdom. There is no other Way: Not any (so-called) "corrective Gehenna" which Christ didn't teach. No, Paidion. Either Jesus paid THE price or no one has. The Bible says we will be saved from God's wrath through Him and Him alone. There's no other way than the precious blood of the Lord Jesus Christ to pay for forgiveness of sins. Nor is there any other 'meritorious' thing anyone can do---like 'earning salvation' by suffering in Hell---that will pay that price:
Romans
5:8 But God commends his own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we will be saved from God's wrath through him.
5:10 For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we will be saved by his life.

Paul says presently reconciled believers will be saved from God's wrath. But you say God's wrath is an actual VEHICLE OF SALVATION!!! Neither Paul nor Jesus taught 'reconciliation by going to Hell' and I cannot possibly disagree with you more. If there's such thing as disagreeing 110%...I'm right at 111%!!!!

3. Where does Jesus specifically state Gehenna is corrective? Where does the Bible say people can repent after they die? Where do the Scriptures explicitly say that becoming a disciple is [even] possible after we die? Become a disciple in Hell, for what purpose? to preach the Gospel to other people in Hell? Do you believe Jesus will go to Gehenna to teach the people there? Will they go into fire-proof classrooms? Is this science fiction? Chapters and verses, please!

4. If people in Gehenna (which you see as 'Hell' and not to dispute that); there would be HUGE DIFFERENCES for people who go there than with us! or any current unbeliever for that matter!!! Right now Final Judgment has been deferred in order that people can be saved. Where do the Scriptures teach salvation is possible in the age to come? Another BIG DIFFERENCE is: the biblical means of salvation is faith in Christ: The Bible teaches no other means: Faith in the unseen God and in His Christ---during this present age---and in this age only---is what the Bible clearly teaches.

5. Please give me an example of "corrective fire" in the Bible. Demonstrate when & where those who were burned alive by the Fire of God gave them instruction. They had rejected instruction: Hence, the Judgment of God fell on them and they were no more!

You say "Gehenna fire" is a further & more effective influence to induce someone to submit of their own free will? I don't know about you---but---put me in a furnace for 0.01 seconds and I would probably submit to about anything! Incidentally, I wouldn't do this on my "free will". It would be pure survival instinct! and it would be highly doubtful that I would have many reasoning powers other than: GET ME OUT OF HERE!!!!

6. Do you mean to say that, take Hitler: When he's burning in the fires of Gehenna he wouldn't be "forced" in any way to repent (of course, I don't believe that's possible). But If he wouldn't be "forced" at all; what else could he be? Don't you think the heat might be sort of persuasive? (again, I don't believe in this in any way).

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

You replied:
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.

Wailing, weeping, the gnashing of teeth, in a fire where worms do not die, and the smoke rises up from it to the ages? >>> People should WELCOME this? In what remote sense of meaning could they?

Some people won't BE corrected. If they don't receive God's correction in their lifetimes; they won't receive it after they die. Or, got chapter & verse?

I wrote::
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!

You replied:
A. 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}

B. 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.

A. I'm almost fully convinced of "Conditional Immortality" (annihilationism). The only predispositions I had was believing in "eternal punishment" as it was the only thing I knew (had been taught). In my objective studies I've come to a different conclusion. If you were to think I'm biased in any way: that would be Ad Hominem.

1 Tim 4:10.
That word "especially" in the Greek means: (e)specially, in particular, chiefly, most (in the greatest degree). God is the Saviour of all people (Guess what? No one Else can do that for them) and is the Saviour of those who have faith in Jesus in particular. Now, you might see this as only one possible meaning. I see it as the ACTUAL meaning; the rest of the Bible fully supports it.

B. Again, God is THE Saviour of ALL.....as no One else is in that Biznis! Also, this verse does NOT say "God WILL save all" but is in the present tense. What you are calling "accepting it on face value" is a wooden literalistic hermeneutic that can't be supported...other than by your beliefs (and at some point we should probably just say "We disagree")?

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.

The Bible isn't silent on the position I've been presenting. But be that as it may....

The Bible IS silent on if I might become a God with my own universe & everything: it's in the Book of Mormon (I hope you see my point).

Sure, the Bible IS silent on a LOT of things...so we can believe whatever we want?

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

You replied:
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

First, your hermeneutic is too literalistic on 'chosen' passages.

Second, I now see more details of your beliefs: You think salvation is possible for those who are NOT IN CHRIST. I cannot possibly disagree with you more.

Thus endeth my post.

Through posting on this thread I've come to see how much I really do disagree with "reconciliationist theology" which is much more than I anticipated. (The same thing happened with me on Calvinism: the more I studied it the more rejected it)...anyway....

Thanks to all for the dialogue,
Rick

P.S. Through a google search I found Thomas Talbott's article:
Universalism, Calvinism, and Arminianism: Some preliminary reflections
If we were to bring this into the discussion I can say in advance that I disagree with him 112% and find his arguments without foundation...that is, if we go into it, Rick (out)

[_Rick_C]

Hello Danny,

Thank you Paidion, you have accurately described my views.

Did you mean in his post to me (that I just replied to though not on every point)?

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

I read his article three times last nite and again tonite. Hanson says "aionios life" is not "eternal" and that salvation can be lost at any time. So your quote didn't answer our objection. Not that I want to belabor the point, just saying....

Other than that, I need a nap.
Take care,
Rick

[_Rick_C]

Bob,

I have to comment on:

I can imagine that some would say; 'why should I repent and deny myself to follow Jesus if in the end he will save me anyway. Why not eat, drink and be merry?'

If the Gospel message is that salvation is automatic, that ALL are predestined to salvation; I see your point. I also wonder how many have followed this path---to their own destruction ...not that it would ultimately matter in reconciliationist thinking other than one wouldn't have to go to Hell to pay for their sins "for a while".

Not asking you, Bob, but:
Where does the Bible say [physically] dead people can be or are elected by God for salvation? Doesn't election [and the resulting participation in it] happen in this current age/ lifetime alone? Was anyone ever resurrected in order to be saved? Where did the Apostles---or Jesus?---or the Bible?---teach anything like this stuff?

I thought I had lots of questions for dispensationalists but think the reconciliationists will top their list (if they already haven't). I won't post them..........at the same time,
gtg, Rick

[Guest]

I read his article three times last nite and again tonite. Hanson says "aionios life" is not "eternal" and that salvation can be lost at any time. So your quote didn't answer our objection. Not that I want to belabor the point, just saying....


"Aionios" life by default is eternal because Paul said we are raised with imperishable,indestructable,incorruptable,supernatural bodies.

[Guest]

danny wrote:

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

unfortunately i cant locate my printed article (maybe i never printed it).

if i remember correctly, the "wicked" were those who were never born again, i.e. those who traditionally would have been sent to hell. he just makes a strong case that hell isnt eternal.

As an aside, I find the most attractive argument FOR universalism is the question "Who is the cosmic winner when all is said and done- Jesus, or Satan?" I am not sure how to answer this question adequately from a traditional or conditional immortality viewpoint.

Using a possibly oversimplified example: if an arsonist sets fire to an animal shelter the intention of killing all animals inside, and the fire department is only able to rescue one kitten, and the rest perish, who "won?"

One possible answer is that it is not a contest, nor is what is going on for men's souls.

TK

[Guest]

Where does Jesus specifically state Gehenna is corrective? Where does the Bible say people can repent after they die?


Where does it say they can't repent after death? Once to die and then the judgement (krisis). The greek word "krisis" does not mean final conviction but leaves open the possiblity of salvation after death.

Here is where it says repentance after death is possible.

"Anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire" Rev 20.15

"I will give of the fountain of water of life freely to him who thirsts. He who overcomes shall inherit all things." Rev 21.7

"Come i will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife" 21.9 The bride already is already in heaven yet in the present tense Jesus speaks of giving the water of life to sinners.

"It's gates shall not be shut at all" 21.25

"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" 22.14

"And the Spirit and the bride say, Come"
"And let him who thirsts come, whoever desires" 22.17

The last verse is 5 verses before the end of the bible, it includes folks in the LOF, imo.

"

[Guest]

One possible answer is that it is not a contest, nor is what is going on for men's souls.


But isn't it TK? Did'nt Jesus come to destroy the works of the devil. Did'nt Jesus say to the Pharisees their Father was the devil. Does'nt their father decide where his children live? Isn't Jesus said to be the "Savior of the world" and was'nt his birth to bring joy to all people?
Maybe the arsonist is the devil but thank God, Jesus is the fireman.
So will Jesus "save men from their sins" or is it just polite wish on God's part?

[Guest]

steve7150 wrote:

and was'nt his birth to bring joy to all people?

yes, only not everyone will buy into it. he came to save all (the whole pie) but only some will accept it (a slice of the pie).

but of course you knew i was going to say that!

once again, i am not 100% convinced at all on this issue either way.

TK

[Guest]

yes, only not everyone will buy into it. he came to save all (the whole pie) but only some will accept it (a slice of the pie).

but of course you knew i was going to say that!

Yes i did just as well as you know my reply.