Barclay was convinced (UR)

[Paidion]

As Barclay pointed out:

... one of the key passages is Matthew 25:46 where it is said that the rejected go away to eternal punishment, and the righteous to eternal life. The Greek word for punishment is kolasis, which was not originally an ethical word at all. It originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better. I think it is true to say that in all Greek secular literature kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment

What he says about kolasis is correct. The word was first used to indicate the pruning of trees to correct their growth. Later on, it was used figuratively to indicate the correction of people with regards to their behaviour. Barclay also realised that aionios is not a simple word for "eternal". Indeed, as I have affirmed many times, the word NEVER means "eternal"; rather it usually means "lasting", and was used by Diodorus Siculus to describe the stone used to build a wall. The word seems to have been used as meaning “lasting” or “durable”. However, the word can APPLY to things which are not only lasting, but also everlasting, such as God Himself, and the life we have in Christ. So Christ said that the sheep go into lasting life, but the goats into lasting correction.

This might be a good time to quote again another verse which I quoted before. This verse states as clearly as possible that God reserves the unrighteous for a day of judgment with a view to being corrected.

The Lord knows how to rescue the devout from trials, but to keep the unrightous for a day of judgment to be corrected (κολαζομενους, the present passive participle of κολαζω —to correct— the verbal form of κολασις) 2 Peter 2:9

[Homer]

Paidion,

So you think those Jews in Acts 4:21 were only interested in "correcting" Peter and John? That they threatened to "correct" them? And poor Paul sure endured a lot of correction.

Barclay was quoted as saying:

I think it is true to say that in all Greek secular literature kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment

What does Greek secular literature have to do with the issue? The scriptures were not written by secular Greeks. My TDNT says both Philo and Josephus used kolasis for divine retribution.

I'm reading a very interesting book, The New Testament World, Insights from Cultural Anthropology, by Bruce J. Malina. Malina points out that reading a translation of the bible, and even knowing the meaning of the Greek words will, in many cases, only tell you what was said but not what was meant by the writer if we do not understand what the words meant in the cultural setting. And Jesus and the apostles were not secular gentiles.

[RICHinCHRIST]

Paul says, "Here there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free man; but Christ is all, and in all." Taking the phrase "Christ is all and in all" by itself, you might say that it taught universalism: "Christ is all and in all human beings without exception." But we know that is not what he means, Christ is in those who have faith in Him, and them alone. We are a "new creation"; in the new humanity that Christ is creating, He is all and in all.

I agree with you here. I would also interpret this phrase the same way in Eph 1:23 and 1 Cor 12:6. However, 1 Corinthians 15:28, in the context, might be speaking of a universal "all in all"... I'm not sure.

Look again at how the paragraph, 1:16-20 is organized. The scope of verse 15-17 is all creation. The whole universe is in view. And the point is that Christ is preeminent over all creation, because He made it and he holds it all together. But then in verses 18-21, the focus appears to shift and the scope is no longer the whole universe but the new creation, namely the church. Notice how verse 18 turns from creation to the church: "He is the head of the body, the church." in this context of the church, we read verse 20, that "he will reconcile all things to himself in heaven and on earth." So how can it be shown that the "all" in 1:20 is universal while it is obviously limited in 3:11? I think the "all things" in verse 20 should be limited the same way the "all" in 3:11 was limited - to the church.

Perhaps you're right. But the phrase 'all in all' is not used in 1:16-20. Also, what you're saying sounds very Calvinistic. If Paul is really saying that the "all" is the Church, why should we not interpret the other reformed proof-texts in that same way? The Church is part of the 'all things'. I don't see why we must make the Church the only 'all' even when a split second earlier Paul had all the created order in mind. I don't know if he would allow us to parse his thoughts in that way. It seems that he has a universal reconciliation in view as he broad-brushes all of God's work from creation to restoration in a few sentences.

What about Paul's phrase, 'who is the beginning'?

Why would Paul classify the church as 'the beginning'? The beginning of what? The reconciliation process? Are we the firstborn from the dead? Is God planning on restoring the rest of humanity at a later time? Hebrews 12:23 has similar language in reference to the Church. If the Church is the firstborn, is it possible that the lost world might be our little brother (the prodigal from the parable)? Will we wonder why God didn't kill the calf for us? Will we complain if they get a denarius too (even though they only work an hour, but we worked the whole day long)? Perhaps we'll need some correction ourselves, if we think so stubbornly!

However, it might be that Christ is who is referred to as 'the beginning, the firstborn from the dead'. If so, then my theory collapses. There are other verses which speak of Christ in this way (Col 1:15, Rom 8:29).

I am surprised you stopped at Colossians 1:20 and apparently did not consider what Paul said in the following verses:

Colossians 1:21-23
21. And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22. in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight— 23. if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

So those to whom Paul wrote were already reconciled, but it was conditional, dependent on their continuing faithfulness.

Yes, their reconciliation is dependent upon their connection to Christ, evidenced by their perseverance. But this does not falsify that God may reconcile His other 'alienated enemies' at a future time period. If God plans to reconcile those who deny Him in this life, then that will be the case whether or not they are currently experiencing that reconciliation. The work may have been done at the cross, but they have not yet 'entered into' that reconciliation.

This question really comes down to whether God's love is limitless or if there is an end to it. If His mercy endures forever, then I do not see why He would not be able to reconcile others after death through the meritorious work of Christ. Whether or not the lost are currently reconciled is a moot point. Does God intend to reconcile them is the question. I do not see why I must answer no.

[RICHinCHRIST]

This is where the mystery lies (for me) in the UR idea-- if what Jesus did on the cross automatically reconciled all things, then why the need for a hell at all for those who do not "accept Christ" during their lifetime? They are reconciled, after all.

I have thought the same thing. But then I began thinking about my own salvation. Salvation is a process. Sanctification is not automatic. I have to yield to God's work in my life in order to work out my salvation. He will work in me, but I must work out what He works in (Phil 2:12-13). I've also thought about my own life post-mortem. Will God just automatically 'give me an A' on all the tests I didn't pass in this life? Or if I get a "B", or even a "C+", will that be good enough? Will He just, whoosh, in an instant, turn this caterpillar into a butterfly? Perhaps so (by grace we are saved, no doubt, but do I miss out on learning more just because I die?). But I've also considered the possibility of needing to further grow in holiness in the intermediate state before the resurrection. The problem I have with the idea of becoming perfectly like Christ at death is that I feel that I might lose part of my personality. If there are more lessons to learn after death, how will I learn them? Does my mind become automatically renewed to perfection at the moment I die? Would that mean that I'd have to skip a few levels? Won't we be learning of the Lord throughout all eternity? If I become immediately everything I need to be, then I feel like I miss out on some of the journey getting there.

If UR is true, my point is that it's possible that God may find use in the corrective process more than what we would think. If reconciliation is just an automatic thing, then why didn't God just rapture us when we converted? If we could be changed in an instant to what we need to be as His image-bearers, why do we have to wait? And why would God wait to do it in us? Even if He didn't want to rapture us, but would rather have us stay here and serve Him... why not just make us super-Christians once we get saved? If He can automatically transform us because of the finished work of the cross, then wouldn't we be a lot more successful if the Church was full of spiritual giants? I think the answer is that free-will is involved, and that God intends to use our trials and temptations as spiritual exercises which mature us. If the unregenerate will be corrected post-mortem, I don't see why their experience would necessitate a different process than the process of our own sanctification (other than its post-mortem realization).

[steve7150]

I think His will is complex. In regard to salvation I believe it is His will that people come to Him through faith - they believe Him, and trust in Him. Apodictic knowledge is not faith. After the judgement it is too late for faith as defined in the scriptures. Salvation is conditional.





His will is that all be saved, and has been pointed out many were saved by seeing the resurrected Christ such as Thomas or Paul or the rest of the Apostles who Jesus upbraided in the upper room for their lack of faith.
Without faith it's impossible to please God but apparently he can be merciful without being pleased first.

[Homer]

Rich,

If reconciliation is just an automatic thing, then why didn't God just rapture us when we converted? If we could be changed in an instant to what we need to be as His image-bearers, why do we have to wait?

Seems to me He left the Church with instructions about accomplishing some stuff, like saving some folks before its too late. But then according to what you are speculating, its never too late, so back to your question. What, then, is the purpose of life anyway?

There is no end to where speculation can take us. We strive mightily to have a God who is congruent with our ideas about what He should be like, when the scriptures are full of facts (Genesis to Revelation) about what He has done and will do.

When we consider a statement "God is love" and decide from that general subjective idea what God ought to do based on our thoughts and feelings, and overlook the great number of particular facts and statements of what God will do in the future, we are likely to be in error.

[RICHinCHRIST]

Rich,

If reconciliation is just an automatic thing, then why didn't God just rapture us when we converted? If we could be changed in an instant to what we need to be as His image-bearers, why do we have to wait?

Seems to me He left the Church with instructions about accomplishing some stuff, like saving some folks before its too late. But then according to what you are speculating, its never too late...

If there was a verse which explicitly stated what you have just mentioned, I wouldn't have the liberty to question it. Jesus did leave us with a mission to complete (make disciples of the King), but He did not mention whether it would be too late for certain individuals who fail to join us in submitting to Him (unless we read that into His words). I don't know of any explicit passage that says death is the end for the lost. I used to always quote Hebrews 9:27, but then I realized how incredibly weak that verse is to prove that point.

so back to your question. What, then, is the purpose of life anyway?
There is no end to where speculation can take us. We strive mightily to have a God who is congruent with our ideas about what He should be like, when the scriptures are full of facts (Genesis to Revelation) about what He has done and will do. When we consider a statement "God is love" and decide from that general subjective idea what God ought to do based on our thoughts and feelings, and overlook the great number of particular facts and statements of what God will do in the future, we are likely to be in error.

I agree that we should not impose our own subjective preferences upon the text. If all we had was the statement, "God is Love", I could see why we might be in error to think He must be obligatorily lenient in the afterlife (even though this is not the evangelical UR position). But we have many passages in reference to God's will to save all, and that He intends to do so. We cannot just overlook the evangelical UR texts and dismiss them. It's possible for an advocate of any view of Hell to pick up proof texts and say, "You see? This is the way it's gonna be". Perhaps a more holistic understanding of the character of God and His stated will will help us to see more clearly. I have often thought about many of the Calvinistic mantras like, "God always does His pleasure." "He will always get His way." "His will is unshakable". I must say that it is difficult for me to disagree with those statements. My thoughts on the three views of soteriology would be as follows:

1) Calvinism - God will do all His pleasure. His will, in the end, will be completed because He is God and He will be sovereign in salvation. But, God does not take pleasure in saving all people because He does not love all people. He only desires to save relatively few.

2) Arminianism - God loves all people, and desires to save all people, but cannot do so because of the stubbornness of man. If man does not choose freely in their short lifespan, God's love will stop for them and He will punish them without any chance of restoration. His will was to save all people, but He could not accomplish His will.

3) Universal Reconciliation - God does love all people, and He wills that all will be saved. He will do all His pleasure, and the free will of man and the seeming finality of death will not hinder His will from being accomplished.

In UR, it seems that the best aspects of Calvinism and the best aspects of Arminianism join together in harmony. Not only that, but it makes sense of many more passages than just "God is Love". It also helps us to understand that God will be victorious in salvation in the end, and that the devil or mankind will not beat God. It is not appealing to me just because I don't want to see people suffer in hell (because even if I became a universalist, I would still believe in the judgment of hell). It is more appealing to me because it seems to make more sense of the character of God, and His victory in the end. The other views do disservice in some way to either of those considerations. However, God may be well pleased in being a Calvinist or Arminian, and with that, I cannot question His sovereign justice (Calvinism) or willingness to get beat in the end (Arminianism). I just admit it is hard to accept.

[Paidion]

So you think those Jews in Acts 4:21 were only interested in "correcting" Peter and John? That they threatened to "correct" them?

Yes, I think they were interested in correcting Peter and John of their "heretical" position. No they didn't "threaten to correct them". Nowhere does the text say that.

Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus. But seeing the man who was healed standing beside them, they had nothing to say in opposition. But when they had commanded them to leave the council, they conferred with one another, saying, “What shall we do with these men? For that a notable sign has been performed through them is evident to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. But in order that it may spread no further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to anyone in this name.”

So they called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge,for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.” And when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding no way to punish them, because of the people, for all were praising God for what had happened. (Acts 4:13-21)

So the text clearly indicates that they warned or "threatened" them, in order to prevent them from spreading their teaching further. But Peter and John refused. If all the people had not been praising God — supporting what Peter and John had done, these Jews would have done what was necessary to convince Peter and John to change their minds. This convincing may have involved physical violence.

The idea of "punishment" suggests revenge or retaliation. Did Peter and John do anything which the Jews would perceive as requiring vengeance?

[Paidion]

The following is not meant as a justification for the universal reconciliation point of view. It's simply a quote from George MacDonald's book Robert Falconer, that I thought some of you might find interesting:

'Father,' repeated Robert, 'you've go to repent; and God won't let you off; and you needn't think it. You'll have to repent some day.'

'In hell, Robert,' said Andrew, looking him full in the eyes, as he had never looked at him before. It seemed as if even so much acknowledgment of the truth had already made him bolder and more honest.

'Yes. Either on earth or in hell. Would it not be better on earth?'

'But it will be no use in hell,' he murmured.

In those few words lay the germ of the preference for hell of poor souls, enfeebled by wickedness. They will not have to do anything there--only to moan and cry and suffer for ever, they think. It is effort, the out-going of the living will that they dread. The sorrow, the remorse of repentance, they do not so much regard: it is the action it involves; it is the having to turn, be different, and do differently, that they shrink from; and they have been taught to believe that this will not be required of them there--in that awful refuge of the will-less. I do not say they think thus: I only say their dim, vague, feeble feelings are such as, if they grew into thought, would take this form. But tell them that the fire of God without and within them will compel them to bethink themselves; that the vision of an open door beyond the smoke and the flames will ever urge them to call up the ice-bound will, that it may obey; that the torturing spirit of God in them will keep their consciences awake, not to remind them of what they ought to have done, but to tell them what they must do now, and hell will no longer fascinate them. Tell them that there is no refuge from the compelling Love of God, save that Love itself--that He is in hell too, and that if they make their bed in hell they shall not escape him, and then, perhaps, they will have some true presentiment of the worm that dieth not and the fire that is not quenched.”

[Homer]

Paidion,

So in your attempt to show kolazo can not mean punish you say the Jews in Acts 4 were only interested in "correcting" Peter and John?

If all the people had not been praising God — supporting what Peter and John had done, these Jews would have done what was necessary to convince Peter and John to change their minds. This convincing may have involved physical violence.

I think you misjudge the mindset of the Jews who persecuted the Christians, but then you have to to support your belief. I doubt if they thought much differently than Muslims today when someone tries to covert a Muslim to Christianity.

Paul's story is a good example of their thinking. By his own testimony he persecuted to death. He protected the clothes of the men who executed Stephen and was himself stoned in an attempted execution because of his belief. And the crowd cried out for his death upon hearing his testimony (Acts 22). And yet you say these were merely attempts "to change their minds"? Not very effective when they are dead.