Any Hope?

[steve7150]

I, like Homer (apparently) have had a hard time seeing any biblical merit to UR (Universal Reconciliation). I've read many of the posts on the subject here and have posted little. I just don't get it. The typology throughout the OT is one of judgement to the wicked and saving of a few (believing remnant). I fail to see any biblical or logical merit to salvation granted after the time of judgement. If the judgement is on the last day and consists of those who are "raised to life" (John 6:40) and those who are "condemned" (John 12:48), then how can it be said their will be more "days" after the last "day" where the condemned are rahabilitated and raised to "eternal life"? Kind of like missing graduation so you take summer school to make up for it. The problem is that in multiple places it is stated that there will be a singular judgement where all "fates" are decided.





Sean, The disciples of Christ always spoke with a sense of urgency when they preached as they should , and that it how i do when the opportunity arises because though i believe salvation is possible after death it is uncertain as to details and may be a difficult road to travel.
The typology in the OT is incomplete IMHO regarding salvation and also with it's contrast which is judgment. All we know from the OT is judgment meant destruction yet the question is in Rev 20 when everyone is raised to face Christ , is there any other purpose other then punishment?
When you think of God's charactor as revealed through Christ the concept of simply punishment alone for unbelievers brings to my mind the song "Is that all there is"?
Just my vision i guess but i think God has a grander plan then "you're in bud or sorry bud you're out."

[Todd]

Concerning the 1 Thes 4 question about hope, what about 1 Thes 5? If we continue to read in context and do not stop at the chapter division we read this:

1 Thes 5:1 But concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, you have no need that I should write to you. 2 For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night. 3 For when they say, “Peace and safety!” then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman. And they shall not escape.

Sean,

How do you know that the "Day of the Lord" as mentioned here is referring to some future day of judgment? The context itself says otherwise when it mentions "thief in the night" and "sudden destruction". If it were speaking of a day thousands of years from when it was written it wouldn't make much sense as there is nothing "sudden" about thousands of years.

God's wrath does not wait for some yet future apocolypse; rather, those who persist in their sinfulness reap God's wrath while they still live (as in Romans Chapter 1). In the old testament God's wrath was always poured out on the living due to their disobedience, not the dead, and the same is true today.

Faith in Christ and obedience to the Spirits' leading provides salvation from God's wrath (devine judgment) that would be suffered in this life. What happens after the resurrection is a different matter and is mentioned by Paul in Romans 8:18-23 and in 1 Corinthians 15. There is no mention in these passages about post-resurrection wrath. In fact, it's quite the opposite - we find that God is "all in all" and that the creation (mankind) is raised to a "glorious liberty".

Todd

[Douglas]

Rev 20:15 "If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, that person was thrown into the lake of fire."

Hi Todd, I was wondering how you would understand this verse and the lake of fire in context of what you said in the previous post.

Thanks.

[Homer]

Steve7150,

When you think of God's charactor as revealed through Christ

In the argument by universalists we are often reminded that God is love, and that His character is more fully revealed in Christ. I have no disagreement with this. Certainly Jesus presents a picture of God that gives us more knowledge about Him, but would you argue that the Old Testament picture of God presented false or misleading information as opposed to incomplete? We may think that a loving God can not send people into eternal
punishment or resurrect them just to punish and then anihilate them. That is a philosophical argument. Where is there the exegetical argument to support the assertion?

The oft quoted 1 John 4:8 says:

1 John 4:8 (New King James Version)
8. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

The person using this text as support of universalism ought then to consider Hebrews Hebrews 12:29:

Hebrews 12:29 (New King James Version)
29. For our God is a consuming fire.

And Deuteronomy 4:24:

Deuteronomy 4:24 (New King James Version)
24. For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.

Sounds pretty consistent to me. The word consuming (Grk. katanalisko) means to "consume utterly, wholly". If you consider the context:

Hebrews 12:25-29 (New King James Version)

25. See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven, 26. whose voice then shook the earth; but now He has promised, saying, “Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also heaven.” 27. Now this, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of those things that are being shaken, as of things that are made, that the things which cannot be shaken may remain.
28. Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may. serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. 29. For our God is a consuming fire.

Awaiting the universalist exegesis of the Hebrews 12 text.

Blessings, Homer

[steve7150]

but would you argue that the Old Testament picture of God presented false or misleading information as opposed to incomplete? We may think that a loving God can not send people into eternal
punishment or resurrect them just to punish and then anihilate them. That is a philosophical argument. Where is there the exegetical argument to support the assertion?







Homer, I would suggest that God in the OT was veiled since Moses only saw his back and only knew the law which leads to death,but through Christ we see his face, we see his fullness we see his grace and we see his charactor through Christ.
He is indeed a consuming fire and he may well be the "eternal fire" in Matt 25 and he may be the "lake of fire" in Rev 20, i think these are real possibilities. The disagreement we may have is what is the purpose of the fire, is it to burn out sin, is it to literally burn the human flesh with fire or is it to annihilate or perhaps some combination?
As you know Homer there is actually a lot of scriptural support for CU like 1 Cor 15.22 "In Adam all died and in Christ all men will be made alive" , without a pre-supposition they certainly sound like the same group, or "Jesus is the Savior of all men especially of those who believe"
1 Tim 4.10 , again without a pre-supposition it's clear, and there are plenty other verses but if you decide to add the word "potentially" before the group yet to be saved then you will see it very differently, which you do and certainly is within the realm of possibilities therefore once again it boils down to understanding the charactor of God.

[Todd]

Rev 20:15 "If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, that person was thrown into the lake of fire."

Hi Todd, I was wondering how you would understand this verse and the lake of fire in context of what you said in the previous post.

Thanks.

Hi Douglas,

I'll be glad to answer that question, but first let me preface my response by saying that I have a different idea of how Universal Reconciliation works than most who post here. Most believe that the Lake of Fire is something that unbelievers are thrown into after the resurrection, and these unbelievers will remain there until they have been suitably corrected, and then are restored. That's not the way I see it.

I see Revelation as a series of independent visions that are not necessarily in chronilogical order. When John says, "then I saw" he is starting a description of a different vision. Such is the case in Rev 20:11.

Rev 20:11-15
11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.


First of all in v.12 it says that "the dead" are standing before God. If the resurrection had already occurred, why are they described as being "dead"? Notice that it is four times that they are described as "dead". As I see it, these people are spiritually dead, as in "dead in sin" and describes the state of people who are overcome in sin.

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

The Lake of Fire is a metaphor describing the wrath of God that abides upon those (the living) who through disobedience are overcome (dead) in sin.

Todd

[steve]

Hi Homer,

You wrote:

Awaiting the universalist exegesis of the Hebrews 12 text.

Though I am not a universalist, I do have an understanding of Hebrews 12 that would fit as well into the universalist's eschatology as into any other. I have no awareness of any universalist who shares my view of this. I believe that Hebrews 12 is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. The "consuming fire" of God that is referred to is the same as the "fire which shall not be quenched" (i.e., God's wrath exhibited in the destruction of Jerusalem) in the following passages:

"Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, mine anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place [the temple], upon man, and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground; and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched." (Jeremiah 7:20)

"But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the sabbath day, and not to bear a burden, even entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath day; then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched." (Jeremiah 17:27)

I realize this identification messes with a favorite proof text for conditional immortality (a view with which I am in considerable sympathy), but, what else can we do? We must exegete honestly. The same is true for other favorite conditional immortality texts, such as Matthew 3:10-12 and Luke 13:3, 5.

[Homer]

Hi Bro Steve,

So you are saying the warning in Hebrews 12 is addressed to Jews only and is inapplicable to gentiles? Or, in other words, God is a consuming fire in a limited sense? I must ponder this some more.

God bless, Homer

[DavidinWichita]

Hi Homer,

You wrote:

Awaiting the universalist exegesis of the Hebrews 12 text.

Though I am not a universalist, I do have an understanding of Hebrews 12 that would fit as well into the universalist's eschatology as into any other. I have no awareness of any universalist who shares my view of this. I believe that Hebrews 12 is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. The "consuming fire" of God that is referred to is the same as the "fire which shall not be quenched" (i.e., God's wrath exhibited in the destruction of Jerusalem) in the following passages:

"Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, mine anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place [the temple], upon man, and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground; and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched." (Jeremiah 7:20)

"But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the sabbath day, and not to bear a burden, even entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath day; then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched." (Jeremiah 17:27)

I realize this identification messes with a favorite proof text for conditional immortality (a view with which I am in considerable sympathy), but, what else can we do? We must exegete honestly. The same is true for other favorite conditional immortality texts, such as Matthew 3:10-12 and Luke 13:3, 5.

Hebrews 12 is referring to the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in 70 A.D.? I can see how perhaps the following verse is referring to an upcoming destruction of Jerusalem and the temple:

Heb 8:13 When he speaks of a new covenant, he makes the first obsolete. Now what is growing obsolete and aging is about to disappear.

But to say Hebrews 12 is referring to that event I believe is a major stretch.

David

[steve]

Hi Homer,

You wrote:

So you are saying the warning in Hebrews 12 is addressed to Jews only and is inapplicable to gentiles?

In the verses we are considering, yes, just like I believe that Jonah's message, "Forty days and Nineveh will perish!" was inapplicable to Jerusalem. The readers of Hebrews are generally assumed to be Jewish. One of the primary messages of the book is the imminent destruction of the temple and its rituals. This is woven throughout the book, and is clearly in view in the culminating chapters of the book—e.g. "Here we have no continuing city..." (13:14).

Or, in other words, God is a consuming fire in a limited sense? I must ponder this some more.

The question is not whether God is a consuming fire "in a limited sense," but whether the judgment referred to in the passage is a specific one or a general one.