The Last Judgement

[Homer]

The idea of a "last Judgement", "Final Judgement", or "General Judgement" of all mankind is said to have prevailed at all times and all places throughout the history of the church. Also known as the "Day of The Lord", this judgement will occur at Christ's second coming. There are many scriptures that speak of this judgement. Some of them are:

Daniel 12:2-3
Matthew 25:31-46
John 5:28-29
Acts 17:30-31
2 Thessalonians 1:6-10
2 peter 3:4-7
Jude 12-15
Revelation 20:11-15

According to Jesus' words, this judgement will be complete in every detail, all sins exposed. Even our words (Matthew 12:36) will be judged. And Paul says all our thoughts will be judged (1 Corinthians 4:5). Which brings up the question: why does God go to all this trouble, to have this great public event with judgement including every detail of our lives, if the result of the judgement is not an irrevocable sentence? Why not judge them as they each die and get on with the business of "correcting" them?

According to the universalist, it is man who ultimately has the final say (if there is any final say). God may give the verdict, but when the condemned says "uncle" ("Jesus is Lord"), then he is done with hell. When man decides he is done, God will annul the verdict.

If this "gospel" is preached, will not a great many say "let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die", knowing that, although the penalty of sin is said to be death, they will not exactly die? That no one dies?

And if the wicked can repent and be saved in hell, why not in sheol? If God desires all men to be saved, is determined to save them all, and his punishments are limited to correction and nothing more, why would He not allow, even readily accept, repentance from such a one as the rich man in the story of the rich man and Lazarus? (Luke 16:19-31). Certainly the rich man was a prime candidate for repentance and conversion, which he hoped for his brothers who remained on earth. Yet Jesus tells the story in a way that precludes that possibility.

Acts 17:30-31, New King James Version (NKJV)

30. Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31. because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

As in so many places in the scriptures all men are commanded urgently to repent now because of the coming judgement. In the judgement passages cited we read of condemnation, death, and destruction, without a hint the judgement is not final.

[steve]

why does God go to all this trouble, to have this great public event with judgement including every detail of our lives, if the result of the judgement is not an irrevocable sentence?

One would hope that, regardless what sentence a criminal was facing, he might receive a careful, accurate and public trial. A man facing a prison term of ten years ought to receive as fair a trial as one facing the electric chair. Fair is fair. I think God values justice.

Why not judge them as they each die and get on with the business of "correcting" them?

Sounds like a reasonable plan. If you create your own universe, you would certainly be entitled to implement it. I think God actually sees value in a public accounting. He needn't give His reasons, though some might be imagined.

According to the universalist, it is man who ultimately has the final say (if there is any final say). God may give the verdict, but when the condemned says "uncle" ("Jesus is Lord"), then he is done with hell. When man decides he is done, God will annul the verdict.

Isn't this precisely what you and I both believe, when it comes to sinners repenting in this life? Isn't this the very complaint a Calvinist would make against your and my theology: "If God didn't unilaterally and unconditionally ordain who will be saved, then the final decision is up to man"? You don't object to this principle when it applies to this life (neither do I, It seems fair to allow a main's destiny to rest upon his own decisions, rather than on someone else's). But what is there about the unfortunate occurrence of death that changes the fairness of this concept?

If this "gospel" is preached, will not a great many say "let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die", knowing that, although the penalty of sin is said to be death, they will not exactly die? That no one dies?

You believe in deathbed repentance, don't you? If so, then why not "eat, drink and be merry" until you are dying? I know the answer: "Because you never know when you might die!" In other words, if you could know that you would live to be old, it would make sense to sin until then, and then to repent just in time. What a waste to have served God all your life, when you could have waited until the last minute! How much more gratifying it would be for a man to get saved with his final breath, realizing that he had successfully cheated God out of all but the final hour of service that He would have desired to have received from him—and still to get the same penny as the guy who labored all day in the heat of the sun! Woohoo! What a deal!

From your many posts on this subject, it seems that your real emotional reasons for objecting to the restorationist idea lie along these lines—this and the idea that, if everyone will someday repent, then you gained no ultimate advantage over Hugh Hefner by your early repentance (you have brought this up many times). In other words, it is a pragmatic (and, one might say, a bit selfish) consideration.

This is where traditionalists always end up when their biblical arguments fail (I know you have said you are not necessarily a traditionalist, but my statement remains true). It amounts to the following: "If God is as good to everybody as He has been to me, then why have I bothered to be obedient all these years?

Good question! Why have you? It might be a good question for any man to ask himself, regardless of his doctrine of hell. Since God will judge the motives of each heart, one might want to check on them in advance of that accounting. "Why am I serving God, if it doesn't put me ahead of a man who misses that opportunity and repents later?" Sounds like an echo of the prodigal's older brother to me. In fact, it is identical.

Anyone who really thinks the sinner is better off than the man serving God in this lifetime has not the knowledge of God that even David or Asaph had (e.g., Psalm 27:4; 73:28)—and we have no evidence that they knew anything about an afterlife. There is such a thing as loving God and serving Him for His glory, rather than for our advantage.

And if the wicked can repent and be saved in hell, why not in sheol?

Almost everybody who is not a traditionalist would probably answer that the same way: In sheol nothing is going on at all. There is not much in the way of biblical testimony to indicate that the lost are even conscious in sheol.

If God desires all men to be saved,

Is this something you are now doubting?

is determined to save them all,

Would you have difficulty finding scriptural support for this notion? I wouldn't.

and his punishments are limited to correction and nothing more, why would He not allow, even readily accept, repentance from such a one as the rich man in the story of the rich man and Lazarus? (Luke 16:19-31).

If that man really existed (which is doubtful), then we do not know whether God would accept his repentance or not. The matter is not discussed in the parable. We are not given any basis for a negative conclusion on this point.

Certainly the rich man was a prime candidate for repentance and conversion, which he hoped for his brothers who remained on earth.

You are right. It is somewhat commendable of him to be concerned about others while being himself tormented. Many would not have this much compassion. I accept your point. Such a man may not be as far from the kingdom as are some others.

Yet Jesus tells the story in a way that precludes that possibility.

I don't think Jesus did anything of the sort. The man did not repent in the parable, but we are not told that he never could do so, nor that he could do so. It is not the point of the parable to discuss this. It is not a parable about the nature or duration of the final judgment. It is a parable about the fact that the Jews who are not of the remnant (that is, "do not believe Moses and the Prophets") will be unimpressed (and remain unconverted) even by the resurrection of a man (Jesus) from the dead (cf., the similar point made in John 5:46-47).

Acts 17:30-31, New King James Version (NKJV)

30. Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31. because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

One can certainly believe this verse, without the slightest modification, and adhere to any of the three views of hell.

As in so many places in the scriptures all men are commanded urgently to repent now because of the coming judgement. In the judgement passages cited we read of condemnation, death, and destruction, without a hint the judgement is not final.

You are mostly correct. The "judgment passages" are not usually concerned to discuss the duration of the judgment, nor what its end may be for various individuals. The wicked are cast into the lake of fire. Their story is generally followed no further.

However, some think they see evidence, in some passages, that this is not necessarily permanent, since a man may (as they argue) escape, upon having "paid the last penny" (Matt.5:26), or when he has paid "all that is due to him" (Matt.18:34).

I myself do not use these passages this way, since I see no evidence that either of them has a postmortem situation in view. However, you do see them as references to hell, so, from your perspective, there may indeed be "a hint" there, for you.

[Homer]

Hi steve,

You wrote:

Isn't this precisely what you and I both believe, when it comes to sinners repenting in this life? Isn't this the very complaint a Calvinist would make against your and my theology: "If God didn't unilaterally and unconditionally ordain who will be saved, then the final decision is up to man"? You don't object to this principle when it applies to this life (neither do I, It seems fair to allow a main's destiny to rest upon his own decisions, rather than on someone else's). But what is there about the unfortunate occurrence of death that changes the fairness of this concept?

No, during our sojourn on this earth, after our conversion, we are continually to stay on the narrow path, and that is what judgement at the end reflects. Have we been "faithful until death", however much time we have? That is the question, God remains the "decider", and this is shown in all the judgement descriptions, always based on what we have done, good or bad. And this is eminently suitable as the abstract condition can only be shown to be present by the objective behaviour. How is there any comparable judgement of the supposed repentant in hell? What works do they do there to show their conversion is real? Someone said "night is coming when no man can work". But then there is no possibility of their having faith as we do; it has been replaced by sight.

From your many posts on this subject, it seems that your real emotional reasons for objecting to the restorationist idea lie along these lines—this and the idea that, if everyone will someday repent, then you gained no ultimate advantage over Hugh Hefner by your early repentance (you have brought this up many times). In other words, it is a pragmatic (and, one might say, a bit selfish) consideration.

You are very wrong; I do not envy Hugh Hefner. My concern, and it has been from the beginning, is what the hypothetical lost person, considering this matter, will think. After all, they are not converted and we can not expect them to think as though they are. Their concern is self. Paul is the one who brought up the "eat and drink for tomorrow we die" business. And I think that is what a great many will say if they are given the idea that there will be an unending opportunity to escape hell, to the degree that they have any concern that there is a hell.

[Singalphile]

I think that people on all sides of the debate might as well admit that their view has some difficulties.

All of the views lack a passage of scripture that definitively explains the matter as clearly as we could imagine. Likewise, all of the views can be reasonably objected to with questions (like Homer's) that often start with some form of, "But why would God...?", or, "But it doesn't make sense that..."

All the views have the same basic response to these types of questions: It's God's prerogative. Who are you to argue?

The UR view does seem - at least to many people, including me to some extent - to just go against the Bible's core grain, flow, paradigm. That is a problem for the UR view, I think. It's not the only problem (there are objections raised from Scripture, of course) and it's not an insurmountable problem, imo, but it's a legitimate one, and I think UR proponents might as well just say so (and perhaps many have and do).

[Homer]

Hi Singalphile,

You wrote:

The UR view does seem - at least to many people, including me to some extent - to just go against the Bible's core grain, flow, paradigm.

Which, as I recall, is much the same as I commented when universalism began being advocated at this site several years ago. I said that universalism is at variance with the tenor of the scriptures.

[steve]

The only view that seems to contradict the general drift of scripture more than does restorationism would have to be traditionalism. Conditionalism has the most prima facie evidence in its favor. It's case is somewhat (though not fatally) weakened by its heavy dependence upon passages that seem only to describe temporal, rather than eschatological, judgments.

[steve7150]

The UR view does seem - at least to many people, including me to some extent - to just go against the Bible's core grain, flow, paradigm. That is a problem for the UR view, I think. It's not the only problem (there are objections raised from Scripture, of course) and it's not an insurmountable problem, imo, but it's a legitimate one, and I think UR proponents might as well just say so (and perhaps many have and do).

Singalphile








I think the bible's core grain,flow and paradigm is not actually "judgment" alone. I think it is judgment for the purpose of God's will being satisfied in the fullness of time as Paul put it.
The only way God's will is actualized is through Christian Universalism, in other words for Christ to be Lord of all because through judgment people ultimately will see their sin and really understand their need for a Savior.
Lastly i think Paul's statement in Phil 2.11 about the dead proclaiming Christ as Lord is explicitly a statement that post mortem salvation is possible.

[Paidion]

Paul is the one who brought up the "eat and drink for tomorrow we die" business. And I think that is what a great many will say if they are given the idea that there will be an unending opportunity to escape hell, to the degree that they have any concern that there is a hell.

What relevance does the " 'eat and drink for tomorrow we die' business" have to the issue at hand? Let's look at Paul's actual words:

What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? if the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." (1 Corinthians 15:32 RSV)

It seems to me that Paul is saying that if there's no resurrection, then we might as well eat and drink, since there will be no afterlife.

Are you suggesting that Paul actually means, "If the wicked are not destroyed, 'Let us eat and drink, for why should we surrender our whole lives to Him if everyone will be saved tomorrow' "?
Or, "If the wicked are not tortured forever, 'Let us eat and drink, for why should we surrender our whole lives to Him if everyone will be saved tomorrow' "?

[Singalphile]

Steve wrote:
The only view that seems to contradict the general drift of scripture more than does restorationism would have to be traditionalism.

I'm not really sure (I didn't use the word contradict, btw), but I certainly respect your opinion on such matters more than my own.
Both ET and UR agree that everyone will live forever. Perhaps both of those views have a bit of problem with the idea of a final/last judgement, since both views have all these people living on (sinning to one degree or another?) after the supposed last judgement.

steve7150 wrote:
I think the bible's core grain,flow and paradigm is not actually "judgment" alone. I think it is judgment for the purpose of God's will being satisfied in the fullness of time as Paul put it.
The only way God's will is actualized is through Christian Universalism, in other words for Christ to be Lord of all because through judgment people ultimately will see their sin and really understand their need for a Savior.

I think we all agree that God does not want any to perish, and yet there will be a "day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men", which may be merely temporal (1 Peter 3). Which brings things back to this thread's topic.

steve7150also wrote:
Lastly i think Paul's statement in Phil 2.11 about the dead proclaiming Christ as Lord is explicitly a statement that post mortem salvation is possible.

Whether it is or isn't, I don't assert that post-mortem salvation is impossible.

[Jepne]

Homer said - "Paul is the one who brought up the "eat and drink for tomorrow we die" business. And I think that is what a great many will say if they are given the idea that there will be an unending opportunity to escape hell, to the degree that they have any concern that there is a hell."

I must interject how surprised I am that so many Christians believe that atheists out there are shivering in their shoes, having all this FUN, and afraid of going to hell. Fear of Hell is just another fear, which Jesus tells us not to do. I don't think hell is truly revealed to people who are spiritually dead.

Most Christians I know were drawn by the Holy Spirit, by God's love which is meant to lead to repentance - not fear.

Funny, when Homer mentioned Hefner having a life of fun, I was reminded of a woman missionary who cried when she spoke of all she had given up to bring the Gospel to the lost in Africa. She had not gone out by or in the Spirit of the Lord!