Paidion & Perry on EE and ER

[john6809]

Paidion wrote, Jesus concluded his parable of the three slaves with these words:

I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished! (verses 49 and 50)

Jesus wished with all His heart that the fire of purification were already started — so deep was His love for people. He wanted to see that baptism of fire started! He even had great distress while waiting for it to be accomplished!

I freely admit that non-traditional views of hell are new to me and as such, I have not made up my mind as to what I believe. If I could, I would like to ask a few questions that would help me to understand the various views, as well as offer my 2 cents where I do have an opinion.

I have always understood these words of Jesus as a reference to His own suffering. Jesus anticipates His suffering and this is the event which is causing Him great distress. The fire cast on the earth that Jesus wished were already kindled, seems to be missing one ingredient before it can come, namely, His suffering on the cross.

Other passages that would seem to support my view are as follows:

Matthew 20:17-23
17 Now Jesus, going up to Jerusalem, took the twelve disciples aside on the road and said to them,
18 "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death,
19 and deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock and to scourge and to crucify. And the third day He will rise again."
20 Then the mother of Zebedee's sons came to Him with her sons, kneeling down and asking something from Him.
21 And He said to her, "What do you wish?" She said to Him, "Grant that these two sons of mine may sit, one on Your right hand and the other on the left, in Your kingdom."
22 But Jesus answered and said, "You do not know what you ask. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" They said to Him, "We are able."
23 So He said to them, "You will indeed drink My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with; but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father."

Here we see Jesus again predicting His own suffering when James and John (or their mother, or James and John, through their mother – depending on which narrative you read) ask that they may sit at the right and the left hand of Jesus in His kingdom. He asks if they are able to, “…drink the cup that I am about to drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am to be baptized with?” In light of the fact that He was telling them about His own impending suffering, it seems that the language of baptism and the cup are understood to be synonymous with His suffering (at least to Jesus).

Indeed, they did share in His sufferings. Apparently James became the first apostle to be martyred. John, according to tradition, died of natural causes, but suffered much in the intervening years and was eventually exiled to the island of Patmos.

Further, in Matthew 26:36-46 we find:

36 Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane, and said to the disciples, "Sit here while I go and pray over there."
37 And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and He began to be sorrowful and deeply distressed.
38 Then He said to them, "My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even to death. Stay here and watch with Me."
39 He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, "O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will."
40 Then He came to the disciples and found them sleeping, and said to Peter, "What! Could you not watch with Me one hour?
41 Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."
42 Again, a second time, He went away and prayed, saying, "O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done."
43 And He came and found them asleep again, for their eyes were heavy.
44 So He left them, went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.
45 Then He came to His disciples and said to them, "Are you still sleeping and resting? Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners.
46 Rise, let us be going. See, My betrayer is at hand."

Here we see the same element of Jesus’ distress, combined with the same language of the cup that He was soon to drink. No need to belabour the point, as you can see for yourself the two references to the cup.

Lastly, I am not convinced of your decision to connect Luke 12:49-50 to the preceding parable of the three slaves. To me, it stands as it’s own section when connected to verses 51-53. The fire that is cast down seems to speak of the division that is brought when His work on the cross is done. Indeed, the word “fire” from verse 49 is described as, “…since fire disorganizes and sunders things joined together and compact, it is used to symbolize dissension…” in The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon. This understanding would lead to me to associate Luke 12:49-50 with verses 51-53. The disagreement within Jewish families after the death and resurrection of Jesus, (many were saved and added to the church and others stayed the course with Judaism), must have led to considerable dissension. In my understanding, this is what this passage means.

Thus it would read as follows without direct reference to the parable of the three slaves:

49 "I came to send fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!
50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am till it is accomplished!
51 Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division.
52 For from now on five in one house will be divided: three against two, and two against three.
53 Father will be divided against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."

All in all, I don’t suppose it will have great bearing on how you view hell and God’s use of hell in the afterlife, but maybe this shows that the two verses you quoted can’t necessarily be used as a proof text for your views. Again, I submit this respectfully, as you have obviously spent much more time and effort studying this matter than I have.
Grace and peace.

[Paidion]

Homer, my position has been and is now (no inconsistency) that the purifying fires of God's love will be neither more nor less than is necessary to help each person to repent. Throughout that process, the free will is never touched. That's why I say that God never interferes directly with man's free will, that is, manipulates it so that the man will do good things instead of evil. Nor will He manipulate man's will to cause him to repent (have a change of heart and mind). Every person who repents or will repent will do so of his own free will.

God's influence toward repentance for the lost may be very strong. But it's still not causation. Even if someone holds a gun to your head and demands your money, he doesn't cause you to give him the money. You haven't lost your free will. You can choose to withhold your money, if you are willing to face the likely consequence. I am sure that many will resist God's correction for a long time. But others will need little persuasion.

So I do not say that all people will require "ages of ages" of correction. I also think the severity of the correction will vary. Origen (185-255 A.D.) indicated that there would be a variation as to the response to God's loving correction. He wrote:

This restoration to unity must not be imagined as a sudden happening. Rather it is to be thought of as gradually effected by stages during the passing of countless ages. Little by little and individually the correction and purification will be accomplished. Some will lead the way and climb to the heights with swifter progress, others following right behind them; yet others will be far behind. Thus multitudes of individuals and countless orders, who were once enemies, will advance and reconcile themselves to God; and so at length the last enemy will be reached. De Principiis, III. vi. 6

[Homer]

Paidion,

You wrote:

To my mind this "similar" question is essentially different in that, in the scenarios you describe, God would need to intervene with man's free will, .......

This ability implies that man is autonomous and can make choices for good or for evil. God wants people to freely choose to submit to Him. He isn't interested in a race of robots who will carry out His will, or He would have created robots instead of free-will agents. Thus God normally doesn't interfere in any way with man's free will. So he would never "make" a person repent or "distill compassion" in a man who doesn't have it.

I find your reasoning very difficult and surprisingly inconsistent. In your previously expressed scenario of conversion in hell, you have pictured an agonizing correction by fire which will take a very long time. I have never seen you admit that it might be very brief, or take place immediately when people realize what they have missed, who Jesus is, and what they face. The picture you have presented is one of pumishment which is certainly more severe than "water-boarding" which, though terrifying, actually causes no physical harm. No thinking person would say people who are water-boarded are not coerced. So how can your universalism be any less determinitive than Calvinism? It would seem to be more determinative since in Calvinism God only has to do nothing to determine the fate of the lost. Your universalism is Calvinism writ large, and contradictory of what you said above.

[jeremiah]

paidion,
i fully agree with your explanation of God not making robots. where i thought both were similar was that if God wished, he could prevent suffering for the innocent regardless of the ultimate fate of the wicked. maybe "make" was too broad a word to use. if we replace "make them repent" with "influence them to repent", i see no difference. not that i think influence is also infringing free will, but that i didn't mean "force them despite their will" by that. sure, God zapping someone before he could commit some horrifying act against another would prevent that act, but so would God influencing the same man unto repentance and faith towards Him prevent the same act. either way, both persuasions have to admit, God chooses not to prevent an immense amount of suffering perpetrated on innocent humans. therefore i don't think either of these questions or their answers say much to what happens after we all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

you said God would never distill compassion in a man who doesn't have it. i would never say all grown people have an inclination or propensity for compassion, and more broadly, love. but neither would i say some people don't have compassion or love at all. i think these are part and parcel to us bearing God's image. it seems to me that people develop through sin, and so a once tender heart hardens, and any residue of God's character becomes overshadowed in darkness. i was thinking of distilling water, which (in theory anyway) takes dirty water and boils away all the impurities and distills the purified water vapor back into liquid. i thought you might appreciate the allusion, but maybe that depends on whether you think people are born morally good/bad/neutral. i think humans are born good, we learn to do evil (some much more than others), so then we must learn to do good. and like you, i think it's only by the enabling grace of God that we learn to do that good.

grace and peace...

[Paidion]

... If God is so willing to annihilate those who commit atrocities, why doesn't He wipe them out physically in this life BEFORE they get a chance to do these evils? Why did He allow that horrible suffering and death for little Esther, when He could have zapped the one who raped and murdered her?...

Respectfully, couldn't one ask a similar question: if God's ultimate intent is to restore those who commit atrocities and never repent in their life, why doesn't He make them repent before they get a chance to do these evils? why did he allow such horrible suffering and death for that poor little girl, when he could have distilled compassion causing that man to shudder in horror the moment such an atrocious thought invaded his mind?

To my mind this "similar" question is essentially different in that, in the scenarios you describe, God would need to intervene with man's free will, whereas in mine, He would merely need to annihilate them just prior to their actions, as some claim that He will do some day, anyway.

God created man in His image. Surely this would not be in His physical image since He is not physical but spirit. So He must have created man in his mental image, and a very basic part of that image is the ability to choose. This ability implies that man is autonomous and can make choices for good or for evil. God wants people to freely choose to submit to Him. He isn't interested in a race of robots who will carry out His will, or He would have created robots instead of free-will agents. Thus God normally doesn't interfere in any way with man's free will. So he would never "make" a person repent or "distill compassion" in a man who doesn't have it. Rather He uses His servants to help prevent atrocities or to influence the hard-hearted person.

However, if He will annihilate evil people some day, I see no reason for Him not doing so now, and prevent all that suffering. On the other hand, if He will bring all to repentance some day by various means (not "making" them repent, but influencing them to do so), then He will continue to be patient with them, hoping that they will repent even now. This seems to be consistent with the statement in 2 Peter 3:9.

The Lord is ... patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

[Perry]

My post looked a lot better in my text editor. The neat outline didn't copy over very well.

Perry, here is the first installment of many in response to your thoughts about my statements.

Oh boy! I'm looking forward to your future installments.

I consider you as one of my sincere fellow-seekers after truth and reality.

Thank you for saying that Paidion. I appreciate it. It's hard to judge how I come across sometimes. I fear I sometimes come across a bit more caustic than I should.

It appears that we must go with a thesis which I have heard repeated a number of times throughout the years, "I was saved, I am being saved, and I will be saved." To which aspect of salvation each of these tenses apply, is worthy of discussion.

Well, in the spirit of what I hope is a worthy discussion, I will use this framework for addressing my current view on these things. I will also bring in some of the difficulties I see in some of the things you have mentioned.

I. I was saved.
1. Christ performed a saving work for my benefit on the cross. That is a completed work to which my efforts cannot add. Thus I was saved by Christ's actions on the cross.

2. There was a point in my life when I repented and was baptized. At that time I entered into relationship with Christ that made it possible for His saving work to be applied to me. We colloquially use expressions like, “I was saved when I was a teenager.”

3. I don't see how, from an ER standpoint, you could agree with 2 (immediately above), since, if ER is true, then, ultimately, (say billions of years from now) it really wouldn't matter if I repented or not. Everyone will enjoy ER anyway. If that's so then all that my repentance really accomplished was to avoid some of the negative consequences of sin in this life. This seems to be Todd's position, as best as I can understand it. (See II.2 below). I suppose you could possibly say that my repentance at least gives me a leg up on whatever finishing work must be completed in the next life, but I have problems with that idea too. (See III.2 below.)

4. By the way, I don't see that this terminology implies that salvation is a done-deal. I might say that by Christ's sacrifice I was saved, in the same way I might say, by falling in the river I got wet. That doesn't mean my wetness is a permanent condition. I must remain in the river to stay wet. I must remain in Christ to stay saved.

II. I am being saved.
1. Christ is working with me now and leading me, as I submit, into a life of greater righteousness. So I agree that Christ is saving me (i.e. I am being saved) from sin in the here-and-now. At least in so much as I successfully engage with Him in this effort. I'm not sure I feel comfortable applying the label “salvation” to this process. Some of the scriptures you listed did indeed seem to be applying the term “saved” to this. I certainly agree with you that it is happening.

2. I still have the to deal with the consequences of sin, both my own sin, and the sin of others, in the here-and-now. My worldly observation suggests to me that there is no direct correlation between the consequences of sin that many people must endure in this life, and their own personal sinfulness. Some seem to be dealing with more consequence than they deserve, while others, who appear to be sinning willfully and blatantly, seem to be getting off pretty easy. If in this life only we have hope, we are screwed.

3. I still have free choice. I could (unimaginable as it seems) choose to reject salvation. At least it certainly feels this way. I'm not a believer in once-saved-always-saved. Ultimately, I would say that the relationship entered into in I.2 above is, indeed, a relationship, and that I can therefor remain in the relationship, or abandon it. This would, in my opinion, require a knowing rejection from the heart. I'm not talking about lapsing under pressure or temporary backsliding.

4. The idea that “I am being saved” means that my efforts with Christ in this life are helping me avoid bad things in this life only, sounds uncomfortably close to a health-wealth type doctrine to me. That loops me right back to my observations in II.2 above.

III. I will be saved.
1. An eschatological event. This occurs at the resurrection when Christ returns. This mortal must put on immortality. Once death is dead, all are saved or have ceased to exist.
2. I haven't yet seen Biblical evidence that this is a continuance of II.1 above. I do see biblical evidence that seems to suggest the contrary. Metaphorically, I don't expect there to be mustard stains on my robe at the wedding feast. At that point the corruptible will have put on incorruption and the robes provided (i.e. righteousness) will be white as snow. No finishing touches necessary.

3. I see from your post that you mention two resurrections. I'm familiar with this concept and have held this view. Some of Steve's lectures have me questioning this idea. I'm assuming you would say that those involved in the second resurrection would not be participants in the feast mentioned in III.2 above. In the version I'm familiar with, the second resurrection would be a time for those who never had an opportunity to know of Jesus, (e.g. the Australian bushman who never heard of him). This second resurrection comes at the beginning of a one hundred year period (Isa 65:20), after which, everyone who ever lived will have had a fair shake at knowing Christ, but some will still choose to be sinners. (as the verse suggests).

4. From your perspective, will those involved in the second resurrection, be resurrected to immortal bodies, or to mortal ones? If mortal, then how does that work? Mortal implies that they can die. That doesn't make sense from an ER perspective. How many times must one die and be resurrected before they can finally be transformed? On the other hand, if the second resurrection is a resurrection in an immortal condition, yet there are still “finishing touches” that need to be applied, then we have the situation of a post-resurrection immortal being who is still struggling with sin. That doesn't seem right either.

[jeremiah]

... If God is so willing to annihilate those who commit atrocities, why doesn't He wipe them out physically in this life BEFORE they get a chance to do these evils? Why did He allow that horrible suffering and death for little Esther, when He could have zapped the one who raped and murdered her?...

hello paidion,
respectfully, couldn't one ask a similar question: if God's ultimate intent is to restore those who commit atrocities and never repent in their life, why doesn't He make them repent before they get a chance to do these evils? why did he allow such horrible suffering and death for that poor little girl, when he could have distilled compassion causing that man to shudder in horror the moment such an atrocious thought invaded his mind?

this isn't in the least meant to mock your question, i appreciate (and am often edified by) your perspective on many things, and wondered what you might think.

grace and peace...

[Paidion]

Perry, here is the first installment of many in response to your thoughts about my statements. I am quite grateful for your input, as it helped me to think more deeply. It never occurred to me that you were "nitpicking". I have always found you very respectful, and I consider you as one of my sincere fellow-seekers after truth and reality.

I, like Todd, also believe that salvation is essentially salvation from sin...

Salvation from sin, or salvation from the consequences of sin, or both, and in which life? Normally, when I think of salvation, I think of it as a future event that is occurs at the resurrection. However, I also believe that my salvation is already assured, in so much as Jesus has started a good work in me. It's not that I “will be” saved, it's that I “am” saved. We're getting a bit into “once saved always saved here” though, which is and idea that I'm a little uncomfortable with.

Here is the way I have been thinking: Salvation is a process. It's not that I “am” saved, but that I “am being” saved. But there's a “will be saved” in the NT as well. So I am in the process of being saved from sin in this life and I “will be saved” in the next. It is when I am engaged in this process by the grace of God, that I am on the narrow path which leads to righteousness. It is possible that if I am on the narrow path, and have been progressing toward righteousness, that Jesus will put the finishing touches on me and I will be complete or "perfect" and share in the first resurrection (when He comes), and thus I "will be saved" from hell, since I won't need further correction. On the other hand, if Christ doesn't put the finishing touches on me, I may still need some correction in the next life. If my progress in this life is extremely slow or nil, I may have to await the second resurrection (at the end of the millenium). It seems that only the “overcomers” will be in the first resurrection.

Just now, I have looked up all NT instances of salvation where the reference is to the salvation which Christ provided by his death. Here are the verses I found which indicate a process, and which many translations render as “are being saved” :
I Cor 1:18 (present passive participle) … to us who are being saved, it is the power of God
I Cor 15:2 (present passive indicative) … by which you are being saved...
2 Cor 2:15 (present passive indicative) … among those who are being saved and those who are perishing.

The present tense in Greek usually indicates a continuing or continuous action.
1 Peter 4:15 (present passive indicative) If the righteous is scarcely being saved …
1 Peter 3:21 (present active indicative) … baptism which now is saving you.

Passages in the future tense which have been rendered as “will be saved” are too numerous to mention.
But then I found verses which indicate personal salvation as a completed fact:
Romans 8:24 (aorist passive indicative) … in this hope we were saved
2 Tim 1:9 (aorist active participle) … who saved us and called us to a holy calling
Titus 3:5 (aorist active indicative) … in keeping with his mercy, he saved us.

Finally there are two verses which say that we “have been saved” as a completed fact:
Ephesians 2:5 (perfect passive participle) … by grace you have been saved.
Ephesians 2:8 (perfect passive participle) … by grace you have been saved.
A Greek teacher of mine, an Anglican (Episcopalian) priest at St. John's Anglican College in Winnipeg stated that, based upon these two verses in Ephesians, he did not believe that the apostle Paul wrote Ephesians.

The subjunctive mode is also used as in "that you should be saved", etc.

So it seems that neither your thesis ("It's not that I “will be” saved, it's that I “am” saved) nor my thesis (It's not that I “am” saved, but that I “am being” saved) has salvation nailed down. It appears that we must go with a thesis which I have heard repeated a number of times throughout the years, "I was saved, I am being saved, and I will be saved." To which aspect of salvation each of these tenses apply, is worthy of discussion.

[Paidion]

Thank you Perry, for discussing my words in such detail. I hope to be able to devote further time to this discussion. It seems we think alike in many ways. Where it seems we differ, I think it's because we are looking at particular root matters somewhat differently.

He certainly has a history of doing that, destroying many down through the ages because of their sin. Why do that if He is intent on running them through purgatory right after He destroys them?

Well, I think they will have to be raised from the dead first. If that is the case, then the question for annihilationists would be, "Why do that, if they are just going to be annihilated afterward?" Does God just want them to see that they have done wrong? But why? What difference does it make since they won't be corrected anyway. Or is His purpose to be able to tell their victims, "See I am paying them back for what they did to you!" Do you think the victims will feel satisfied to see their abusers "paid back"? It doesn't seem to make them feel satisfied even in this life when "justice" is done. Why do you suppose those Amish people asked that the murderer of their girls not be punished? Surely God is at least as "forgiving" as the Amish.

I'll also ask you the question of the ages. If God is so willing to annihilate those who commit atrocities, why doesn't He wipe them out physically in this life BEFORE they get a chance to do these evils? Why did He allow that horrible suffering and death for little Esther, when He could have zapped the one who raped and murdered her?

God's action and inaction have long been questioned. All thinking Christians try to reconcile what God is said to have done and not done with their understanding of His character of LOVE. They do it in various ways. I do it, too. But one thing I will not tolerate is the denigration of the character of God, by one who says, "Oh yes, God is loving, but He is also just," where "just" means giving people what their evil actions "deserve" whether anyone is helped by it or not. That's the way of legalism. God's ways are the ways of love. Man conquers his enemies by wiping them out. God conquers His enemies by winning them to His side! Which of the two is a greater victory?

Please understand, I'm just rambling on — as one thought tumbles after another. I am not suggesting that you, Homer, or anyone else on this forum, is denigrating God's character. I'm sure you have an explanation for the matters which I have just brought up.

[Homer]

Perry,

Good post!

You wrote:

Repenting of those sins doesn't seem to wipe out those consequences as they apply to this life. For example, if a person commits murder, and then repents, their victim remains dead. That victim's family must continue to deal with the consequences for the remainder of their sojourn in this life. So must the murder himself, in one way or the other, regardless of whether he's convicted and sentenced. The effects of some sins are irrevocable in the here-and now. (That's not to say that no healing can occur at all. The murder victim is still dead though.)

Which reminded me of something I posted some years back:

Last night I was thinking about Andy. Andy, a friend of our two sons, has just lost his battle with brain cancer. Life seems so unfair. Andy was a good Christian, someone that everyone who knew him said what a nice person he was. And I thought of Andy's parents. Although they are Christians, their loss must be immense.

Then somehow an old tragedy came to mind. My wife and I grew up in central California, east of Fresno. We lived not far from the "river bottom" where the Kings River poured out of the Sierras. "God's country" as the people in Fresno said. A place of rivers, streams, and ponds within a few miles, where I spent many happy days fishing.

It was not a happy place for one family. My wife knew them all well, was in their home. They were Christians. Their little girl, Esther Lee Lewis, was waiting near a bridge for her school bus. A wicked man abducted her and she was raped and murdered. You can imagine what else she suffered.

Our universalist friends inform us that it is unjust to suffer unending punishment for "finite" sin. When I think of this little girl and her family, and this idea of her murder being a "finite sin", it almost makes me sick!
How do you measure the suffering of the child? How do you measure the suffering of her parents? Is there a way to determine the height, width, depth, or weight of it? What scale or measuring instrument would you use? I am unable to imagine how bad they must have felt. I can think of nothing more painful than the death of an innocent child, especially one horribly murdered.

In the case of Esther's family, the mother was never the same again. The father turned bitterly against God for years. My wife says there was a pall of sadness over the whole family as long as she knew them. And you speak of "finite" sin.

And it is posited that even Hitler will be rehabilitated and brought into the heavenly fold. Hitler has outdone the wickedness of Esther Lee's murderer by the millions. Let us measure his "finite" wickedness!

paidion wrote:
But God never gives up on anyone...

When stated that way, it's hard to suggest otherwise. In other words, I cringe at the thought of saying, “You're wrong Paidion. God does give up on some people.” God is extremely patient with us. But there does seem to be evidence from scriptures that His patience has its limits. I have a difficult time seeing the parable in Luke 13:6-9 any other way. Once the tree is cut down, it leaves neither “root nor branch”. We see an oft repeated theme here. What do you think Jesus is trying to communicate to us in that parable, except that His patience is great, but that it does have it's limits? In the verses just preceding this parable, He's suggesting that we will, apart from Him, perish. What else does perish mean besides die, leaving nether “root nor branch”.

I do not contend for CI or the traditional view; I think the scriptures are about even regarding the two. I do believe the is a final judgement and see not even a hint in the scriptures of being saved after judgement. In fact, it seems to me that God gives up on some before their life on earth is done. He certainly has a history of doing that, destroying many down through the ages because of their sin. Why do that if He is intent on running them through purgatory right after He destroys them?