Universalism - any good books?

[Guest]

This is great action! I thought for sure Danny had the point and then Homer came back with a diving save and set up a great return. I'm making a quick trip to the concession stand. I don't want to miss a thing!

PS....thanks for the feedback on the book Danny. It would be cool to hear Talbott, Gulley and Mulholland in the same room discussing universalism in the NT and how they see it differently.

[_TK]

i was going to say that i am getting whiplash from this great back and forth. like they say at the Open- who's going to make the first mistake?

TK

[Guest]

all the ends of the world shall remember, and turn unto the Lord; and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before him." (Psalms 22:27)

all kings shall fall down before Him (Christ), all nations shall serve Him,--men shall be blessed in Him, all nations shall call Him blessed." (Psalms 72:11,17)

All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord, and shall glorify thy name." (Psalms 86:9)

[Guest]

Homer,

Oh, I thought, based on your previous post, that we were just flinging proof-texts. Now you want to provide exegesis? Ok, in that case, are you positing that the phrase "the face of the Lord is against those who do evil" refers to eternal separation? Quite clearly it refers to God's opposition to those who do evil and His allowing temporal punishment to come upon them. This is particularly obvious in the Psalm you quoted since everyone pretty much agrees that they had no doctrine of an afterlife at that time, much less eternal torment or separation. Rather than separation though, God is actively involved with the object of his wrath. Same applies to the quote from Peter.

God is omnipresent. Who can doubt that? What has that to do with separation from God?

Ok, you're pulling my leg, right? What does God's omnipresence have to do with separation? Well, if people can be separated from God's presence than God cannot be omnipresent. This is one of the fundamental contradictions within the doctrine of eternal punishment as it is typically taught.

2 Thessalonians 1:9 (New International Version)
9. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power

Didn't we already flog this one to death in the great Universalism debates? The phrase "everlasting destruction" would more accurately be rendered "an age (or time) of destruction (olethros)". It has already been pointed out that olethros refers to a type of destruction that brings about renewal. The phrase "shut out from" should simply be rendered "from". Take a look at it in the Greek if you don't believe me. The words "shut out" were added by translators to support their doctrinal bias. In other words (literally) the text reads, "They will be punished with a time of destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power." The "from" in this case, I believe, means that the olethros comes from God, not that it is away from God.

So are you saying that no amount of wickedness can separate a person from the love of God even for a little while (Paidion's aionios time out, whatever that is). Are you sure of that?

Well, it's Gulley & Mulholland's statement; not mine; but I do concur with it. I'll extrapolate further:

A) If we can be separated from the presence of God then God is not omnipresent.
B) If God is love (in other words, if love is a core aspect of His nature) than to be in His presence includes being in the presence of His love.
C) We are often not aware of God's presence, but this doesn't make Him less present.
D) God's love may be manifested in ways that appear negative to us such as wrath, silence or the withdrawel of protection. This does not, however, diminish His love.

As Paul affirmed to the pagan Greeks, "In Him we live and move and have our being."

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 8:38-39

Thanks Mort! This is a teachable moment demonstating how Universalists make use of the scriptures! Those interested might wish to read the previous thirty-seven verses of Romans 8 and see if we can determine who the "us" is in reference to? Universal application or not?

I just wanted to show you that I could fling proof-texts without regard to their context too! I am well aware of who Paul was speaking of. Yet, based on A,B,C & D above, I believe this text has application beyond its immediate context of followers of Jesus; ie, if nothing in all creation can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus, does that include unbelief?

[Guest]

Hi Mort (or do you prefer Danny?),

You wrote:

Ok, you're pulling my leg, right? What does God's omnipresence have to do with separation? Well, if people can be separated from God's presence than God cannot be omnipresent. This is one of the fundamental contradictions within the doctrine of eternal punishment as it is typically taught.

And:

A) If we can be separated from the presence of God then God is not omnipresent.
B) If God is love (in other words, if love is a core aspect of His nature) than to be in His presence includes being in the presence of His love.

I'm not sure physical location is what is meant regarding separated from God and His love. I know a couple who divorced and continued for some time to attend the same church, sat in the same room. They were certainly separated, yet in close physical proximity.

Strong's Number: 5563 xwriðzw
Original Word Word Origin
xwriðzw from (5561)
Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling
Chorizo kho-rid'-zo
Parts of Speech TDNT
Verb None
Definition
1. to separate, divide, part, put asunder, to separate one's self from, to depart
2. to leave a husband or wife
of divorce
3. to depart, go away


Speaking of the Christ in His present office of High Priest, the author of Hebews says:

Hebrews 7:26 (New King James Version)

26. For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate (chorizo) from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens;


You also wrote:

Ok, in that case, are you positing that the phrase "the face of the Lord is against those who do evil" refers to eternal separation? Quite clearly it refers to God's opposition to those who do evil and His allowing temporal punishment to come upon them. This is particularly obvious in the Psalm you quoted since everyone pretty much agrees that they had no doctrine of an afterlife at that time, much less eternal torment or separation. Rather than separation though, God is actively involved with the object of his wrath. Same applies to the quote from Peter.

You picked a rather unfortunate example to make your case. You assert they knew of no afterlife. God saw to it they (His people, the Jews) were carried away into captivity. And God eventually brought them back and restored them, but not individually, only a remnant, the great majority died in captivity and many chose to stay there. Were those that died there and chose to stay not separated from God?

It would appear then, from your assertion, that in David's eyes their separation (the great majority of them) was was without remedy.

if nothing in all creation can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus, does that include unbelief?

The "us" is, as you know from the context, inclusive of believers only. Non-believers weren't "on Paul's radar".

God bless, Danny (ducking )

[Guest]

Were those that died there and chose to stay not separated from God?



When we say they "chose" to be separated from God it always reminds me of Paul's words "the god of this world BLINDS THE MINDS of unbelievers." 2 Cor 4.4
Could Paul have put it in any stronger terms , yet this factor is almost universally ignored, that Satan is the strongest most deceptive evil force in this world.
So yes they "chose" separation but when your mind is blinded what are the choices you can see when you are blinded?

[Guest]

Hi Mort (or do you prefer Danny?)

My friends call me Danny. I'd prefer if you called me Danny.

I'm not sure physical location is what is meant regarding separated from God and His love. I know a couple who divorced and continued for some time to attend the same church, sat in the same room. They were certainly separated, yet in close physical proximity.

You're not sure physical location is meant by whom? Gulley & Mulholland? Paul? The Psalmist?

I would agree, a separation of physical location from God makes no sense since He is omnipresent and spirit.

I assume that the couple that you know are physically separated most of the time, especially in regards to their former level of proximity when married. I also assume that neither of them are omnipresent. I'm further assuming that what you mean when you say they "were certainly separated" is that they no longer love each other.

So are you saying that God stops loving us when we do evil?

Speaking of the Christ in His present office of High Priest, the author of Hebews says:

Hebrews 7:26 (New King James Version)

26. For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate (chorizo) from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens;

Again, I'm having trouble understanding how you are applying this to God.

Mort: Ok, in that case, are you positing that the phrase "the face of the Lord is against those who do evil" refers to eternal separation? Quite clearly it refers to God's opposition to those who do evil and His allowing temporal punishment to come upon them. This is particularly obvious in the Psalm you quoted since everyone pretty much agrees that they had no doctrine of an afterlife at that time, much less eternal torment or separation. Rather than separation though, God is actively involved with the object of his wrath. Same applies to the quote from Peter.

Homer: You picked a rather unfortunate example to make your case. You assert they knew of no afterlife. God saw to it they (His people, the Jews) were carried away into captivity. And God eventually brought them back and restored them, but not individually, only a remnant, the great majority died in captivity and many chose to stay there. Were those that died there and chose to stay not separated from God?

It would appear then, from your assertion, that in David's eyes their separation (the great majority of them) was was without remedy.

No, I don't believe they were separated from the love of God. They were physically separated from the Temple (once it was rebuilt) and from what they believed to be the presence of God in the Holy of Holies (of course, we know that God wasn't physically confined to the Holy of Holies), but they continued to worship Yahweh, as is evidenced by the reams of writing (such as the Babylonian Talmud) which they produced.

Also, are you saying that this Psalm was written as a prophecy about the Babylonian exile? That's a new one on me. Or does it have a more general application? I believe it is the latter (although David may have had Abimelech and Saul in mind too). The original hearers of the Psalm (and subsequent generations) would have understood the phrase "the face of the Lord is against those who do evil" to mean that God opposes evildoers. Balaam comes to mind. Or the Jews wandering in the wilderness for forty years. Or Pharaoh. Or various kings of Israel, Judah, Assyria, etc.

Mort: if nothing in all creation can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus, does that include unbelief?

Homer: The "us" is, as you know from the context, inclusive of believers only. Non-believers weren't "on Paul's radar".

This brings up some very interesting questions:

A. If a believer stops believing, will they become separated from God?
B. Since we've established that physical separation isn't an option, what do you think "separation from God" means?

[Guest]

Hi Danny,

You wrote:

This brings up some very interesting questions:

A. If a believer stops believing, will they become separated from God?
B. Since we've established that physical separation isn't an option, what do you think "separation from God" means?

A. Yes
B. See below

We seem to have difficulty understanding each other due to misunderstanding our respective ideas regarding the meaning of separation from the love of God.

Understanding God's love (agape) as affection, love, charity, benevolence, &c, it is readily admissable that He loves everyone in the sense Jesus mentioned in Matthew:

Matthew 5:44-46 (New King James Version)


44. But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,] 45. that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?


However, sin separates people from God and His love in another, relational sense as the scriptures make plain. He will not even hear their prayers:

Isaiah 1:15 (New King James Version)

15. When you spread out your hands,
I will hide My eyes from you;
Even though you make many prayers,
I will not hear.
Your hands are full of blood.

Isaiah 59:1-2 (New King James Version)

1. Behold, the LORD’s hand is not shortened,
That it cannot save;
Nor His ear heavy,
That it cannot hear.
2. But your iniquities have separated you from your God;
And your sins have hidden His face from you,
So that He will not hear.


You seem to have overlooked the implication of the quotes in my prior post from Peter and the psalmist. If God will not hear your prayers, would this not be a relational separation from God's love?

Again here we see a relational separation from God:

Ephesians 2:11-13 (New King James Version)

11. Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12. that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ

So we can see that when Paul said nothing can separate us from the love of God, he spoke of love in a sense that was inapplicable to mankind in a general sense and irrevelent to the Universalist argument. The statement of Gulley & Mulholland is incorrect.

[Guest]

Here's my 2 cents about what it may mean to be "separated from God" as it relates to this discussion.

It could be that being separated means that there is a disconnect between what one is doing in his life as opposed to what God would desire. If one is pariticipating in selfishness, rudeness, covetousness, etc. he has separated himself from God's ideal and become ineffective and even detrimental to Godliness and justice. It doesn't mean God no longer cares for this person. I believe God cares for an individual in this condition and desires repentance for him knowing that he is missing out on great blessings and is doing himself and others harm.

As far as God "not hearing the prayers" as Homer mentions, it could be related to the following verse from James.

James 4:3 (NIV)
When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.

One who's motives are incorrect will not receive what he asks for; effectively, God does not "hear" those prayers.

Todd

[Guest]

The word "perish" comes from the Greek word apollumi which means to destroy utterly, kill, slay, to demolish, waste, to perish utterly.

Was the prodical son destroyed utterly, killed, slain, demolished? Did he "perish utterly"?

Not according to his father:

Luke 15:24 ...for this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost [apollumi] and has been found.’ And they began to celebrate.