God's Wrath

[Todd]

But what is the point of raising the dead only to destroy them again?...

if conditional immortality is the correct conclusion from scripture, then to fulfill what God said he would do concerning the judgement and the execution of justice.

as an ultra-universalist, do you affirm a resurrection of the dead as would be construed by so called orthodoxy of today? i'm only seeking clarification on your position...
grace and peace...

I believe as Paul said, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust. So if conditional immortality is correct, then I still don't understand why the unjust would be raised only to subject them to some limited punishment and then destroy them again. Since God is the Father of Mercies, it seems to me the merciful approach would be to let the unjust stay dead. But, according to Paul, all are raised, so conditional immortality makes no sense (to me).

What does make sense is that Paul's description of the resurrection in 1 Cor 15 applies to both the just and the unjust. The corruptible puts on incorruption; the natural becomes spiritual. Though one was overcome in sin during his natural existence, he is raised so that sin tempts him no more. He sees Christ for who He is, and every knee bows and every tounge confesses Jesus as Lord.

Todd

[Todd]

You seem to fail to take into consideration the quality of the person sacrificed. Jesus was sinless, the "lamb without blemish". By comparison with me, I think He was a more than adequate sacrifice for the total of humanity.

Acutally, I considered that point, but it still doesn't measure up in my mind. Infinite torment can never be just, IMO.

Todd

Homer,

My initial answer to your post missed the main point I was wanting to make. According to common teaching I hear today, Jesus took my sin upon him on the cross and was punished in my stead. Therefore, the punishment for my sin was suffering and death. There is no hint of any post-death punishment that Jesus endured as a payment for my sin. This is consistent with Paul's statement that the wages of sin is death.

Todd

[Todd]

I suppose I will come across as too dogmatic on this issue (I am what Barney Fife might refer to as 'spirited').
Understand that I do appreciate the Universalist view and sentiment but I personally cannot square it with Gods warnings of wrath and punishment in scripture.

I meant that righteous punishment always has benefit; if only for the benefit and a lesson to the 'other' created beings. The benefit is to instill a surety of Gods wrath and displeasure with sin and sinners, the audience is those who will live eternally with Him.

So, in your view, the promise of a future punishment is meant as a deterrant. Yes, there is some logic in this view. But, if you notice, the example you gave from Numbers of Korah, the punishment was death only. There is no mention of post-death punishment. Ultra-universalists would agree that premature death can be a result of sin. The principal of warning against the devastating effects of sin also apply to an ultra-universalist mindset. It is just that we believe that one reaps what he sows either in this life or in a premature death.

Todd

[Perry]

(I am what Barney Fife might refer to as 'spirited').

[Perry]

Todd,

First off, let me say that I'm a little bit on the fence about the presentation I'm about to make here. I'm still in a state of flux on the three primary "views of hell". My leanings are toward annihilationism. I would love it if universalism were true. I personally find eternal punishment abhorrent to consider, except for those pesky scriptures that seem, in some ways, to suggest it.

Your main objection with annihilationism is that it seems illogical to you that God would resurrect someone just so He could turn around and destroy them. If I'm clear on your position it is that, there seems to be a logical inconsistency (in practical terms) between annihilationism and the ressurection.

The view of annihilationism that I'm familiar with is held in conjunction with soul sleep. Soul sleep is the idea that there is nothing particularly immortal about the soul (naphesh), and that during the time between the first/natural death from this life and judgment day, we are, essentially, non-existant, much like we were before we were born. In this view, judgment day is something like a final ceremony, in which each person comes before God and passes either into life or condemnation. This condemnation, for those who don't make it, is the "second" death. (Rev 20:13-15).

Now from the standpoint of what "seems" logical, this may not be very satisfying to you, and I can understand that. However, the idea of, "just let them stay dead" is hardly more satisfying to an annihilationist, since, in that case, those who died "in their sins", would never even know it. Someone like, say, Isaac Asimov, who lived a long and pleasant life (by earthly standards), would die eternally, without ever having even known how wrong he was to promote atheism, or even that there was an opportunity for him to have a shot at eternal life. This seems to be very violent against the idea of justice.

You may think, from the above, that I've argued that there is therefore no logical basis for annihilationism. But that would presuppose that you're already convinced that annihilationism is incorrect. For an annihilationist, there is nothing illogical or unjust about supposing that a lost person should be informed about the error of their ways, (and, dare I say it, even perhaps given an opportunity to reform) prior to going to their final fate. There seems to be some annoying scriptures that suggest that there will be some, hopefully very few, who will make an informed decision NOT to continue into eternity.

[Todd]

Now from the standpoint of what "seems" logical, this may not be very satisfying to you, and I can understand that. However, the idea of, "just let them stay dead" is hardly more satisfying to an annihilationist, since, in that case, those who died "in their sins", would never even know it. Someone like, say, Isaac Asimov, who lived a long and pleasant life (by earthly standards), would die eternally, without ever having even known how wrong he was to promote atheism, or even that there was an opportunity for him to have a shot at eternal life. This seems to be very violent against the idea of justice.

The idea that people die in their sins without knowing it, needs further discussion. I find it hard to believe that a person overcome in sin would not suffer some consequence in his life as a result. Paul says, "Do not be decieved, God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." If man sows to his flesh, he will reap corruption. I suppose a person may not realize he has been corrupted, but he still has to suffer the consequences of that corruption (e.g., distrust, fear, envy, strife, broken relationships, anxiety, etc.). Does he need to have God spell it out for him? To what end? For what purpose? Does this glorify God?

Rather, I think it makes more sense to me that Jesus is indeed the Saviour of the World. Though some may die in their sins, having suffered the consequences thereof, yet He is able to raise them up in a changed way so that they no longer have the natural propensity to sin. Paul says, "we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed."

1 Cor 15:51-57
51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” 55 “O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?” 56 The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Perry, I appreciate your position as you presented it. But it seems to me that if some are annihilated, they are dead - death, therefore has not been destroyed. The last enemy is death, which will be destroyed.

Todd

[Perry]

Perry, I appreciate your position as you presented it. But it seems to me that if some are annihilated...

Well, just for the record, it's not my position as such. Comes right down to it, I hope you can persuade me to your view. As I said earlier I'm still on the fence. This is just the view I've held the majority of my life. I'm not as dogmatic as I used to be.

In you're view, how do you explain this passage referenced earlier? In particular, what do you think is meant in verse 15?

[wwalkeriv]

Todd,

I'll throw this out there for consideration. Doesn't Paul describe two men? The first is Adam, who sinned. Because of his sin, death followed as the punishment. All who remain in him are guilty and receive their punishment which is death. The second man is Jesus, who was without sin. All who remain in Him are justified and do not receive the punishment of death. Instead they have eternal life. Now since all Christians physically die, the death that is the punishment for sin can't be physical death. It must be the second death, described in Revelation 20:14-15.

Edit: Well, I guess in a way I'm asking the same thing Perry is asking above.

[Todd]

Todd,

I'll throw this out there for consideration. Doesn't Paul describe two men? The first is Adam, who sinned. Because of his sin, death followed as the punishment. All who remain in him are guilty and receive their punishment which is death. The second man is Jesus, who was without sin. All who remain in Him are justified and do not receive the punishment of death. Instead they have eternal life. Now since all Christians physically die, the death that is the punishment for sin can't be physical death. It must be the second death, described in Revelation 20:14-15.

Edit: Well, I guess in a way I'm asking the same thing Perry is asking above.

There are several possible answers to this question; however, due to the symbolic language in Revelation I am open to other ideas about its interpretation.

First I'd like to say that Paul says death is to be destroyed as the last enemy. Is that the first death, the second death or any and all death? I think Paul is referring to all death. If not, why would God destroy death only to reestablish it? Besides, it wouldn't really be destroyed if souls are about to be killed; it would only be interrupted.

Second, consider that the "second death" may be referring to spiritual death as is mentioned in the following scriptures.

1Tim 5:6
But she who lives in pleasure is dead while she lives.

Eph 2:1
And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,

This interpretation of the second death makes some sense in the following two ways. Firstly, the fact that spiritual death is commonly used in the New Testament to refer to those who are lost or overcome in sin. Secondly, in Rev 20, we are told that the "dead" stood before God...

Rev 20:12a
And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God,...

If these people had just been resurrected, why are they still called dead? I think it is possible this is not referring to a post-resurrection event. This symbolic language could be referring to something that is happening now; that is, those who sow after the flesh reap corruption (corruption or spiritual death would be the second death).

Paul, in Romans Chapter 1 gives us a description of what this may be referring to. He says, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness". He further explains that God gives these people up to uncleanness (v24), vile passions (v26), and a debased mind (v28). Is this a picture of Rev 20:11-15?

Finally, maybe the best answer to this question has been explained by a fellow ultra-universalist friend of mine. I posted this earlier. It can be found here.

http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=3180

It is a rather lengthy post. Here is one of the concluding paragraphs. If this interests you, I encourage you to read his essay in its entirety.

Thus, the Babylonian captivity was the “first death,” during which time the whole house of Israel was said to be (figuratively speaking) dead and in their graves for 70 years. The “second death” was God's judgment of Israel through the instrumentality of the Romans, which culminated in the total destruction of the city of Jerusalem, the desolation of the Temple, and the exile of the people from their land (incidentally, the Jewish era of Jesus’ day is referred to by scholars as “Second Temple Judaism”). Having been raised from their "first death" and returned to their land, their nation was ultimately destroyed by another Gentile people a second time. Much of the Jewish population was killed in this judgment, and the rest were scattered among the nations (Deut 28:64; cf. Luke 21:20-24).

Todd

[wwalkeriv]

Todd,

I haven't read the post at the link you provided yet, but I wanted to throw one more thing out for consideration related to the use of the term "dead".

Is it possible that when the bible refers to the "dead"; or someone who is "dead in their trespasses and sins"; or someone being "dead while they live" that it is using the term metaphorically to describe the future state of that sinner. For example, if someone punched me in the nose I might say, "Oh you've done it now. You are dead!" Of course, that person is not physically dead, but they do face some wrath that I plan to dish out. Maybe that's a bad analogy, but hopefully you see my point.