Does death end our ability to choose?

[Guest]

If Universal Reconciliation will take place at some point after the resurrection of the dead, why does the writer of Hebrews refer to the jugdment as eternal in nature (instead of lets say maybe temporal judgment

I've heard that when eternal is used as an adjective in scripture for something (ie. life, death, judgment, etc) it might not descriptive of a length of time, but rather pointing to the source of the thing by referencing a property of God.

For instance, eternal judgment might not necessarily mean judgment that never ends. It might mean judgment that comes from the Eternal God.

Just a thought that might give a different perspective.

Dave

[Guest]

Dave,

Your quote in response to JN 5:24

"This statement by Jesus declares the simple truth that those who hear the Gospel and believe in God because of it have entered the family of God through faith, and have passed from death to life. There is nothing in this verse or the surrounding context that would close this offer at physical death."

Ok. Are you saying Jesus doesn't say enough? The Apostles don't say enough.The book of Revelation doesn't say enough, with regard to the SECOND DEATH? In other words in support of the CU position, you are suggesting there is insufficient truth in the Bible regarding the disposition of the wicked dead, that we cannot really come to any clear conclusions?

My friend, God does not leave us any better evidence than His Word.
There is obviously a hudge disparity going on in this discussion on how we understand the terms "dead, death, second death, first resurrection, and the second resurrection. Ultimately, the Justice of God and his character are what's on trial here. This is the central issue that even a "blind man" could see! Here in this debate, the devil has been at his deceptive best.
Cudos to the Serpant. Do I hear a "hisssssssss" from the choir?

If we used your approach in this debate, we would not be able to arrive at
any conclusions to any truth! There "are no absolutes" in todays world view on anything! We can make an argument from silence and turn into a doctrine! Unfortunately, the "Church" of today mirrors society in many ways. A spirit of Relativism is certainly here in this discussion.

Frankly, it matters little what Rick, myself, Benzoaic, Homer and others bring to bear in this debate to those who hold a CU's view. They are convinced by the devils deception. But, I am interested in the "lurker" who is undecided and the young Christian who may become confused by this debate.

God in His Word has made it abundantly clear, that those who reject Jesus and the Gospel, will perish. They will be seperated. At a root level of meaning, the word death means "seperation". The Lake of Fire is the place where people who hate God can thave their wills honored.
This is the Second Death. There is no "EXIT". The Master of the House will shut the door while those "outside" will be weeping and gnashing of teeth".
They are not repenting. They are angry! There is no redeeming portrait offered in any imagery used in the Bible that I know of that would suggest,
even remotley suggest, that those who will suffer in "eternal torment" have any hope whatsoever. Their fate will be sealed.

Blessings to you and your newby!
In Jesus,
Bob

[_Rick_C]

Greetings,

We've just recently had a new baby (Lucy Elaine, our third child, but our first girl) on 11/7 and have been busy, as you can imagine).

Congratulations, Dave!
(and I can see how "changing diapers", and so on, might interfere with "theology time" so to speak)....

Hebrews 9:27-28
And just as people are appointed to die once, and then to face judgment, so also, after Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many, to those who eagerly await him he will appear a second time, not to bear sin but to bring salvation.

I've heard this verse offered many times as a prooftext for this topic, yet it doesn't seem to prove what people say. It is a simple statement that says that generally, humans will die only one time, and after they die they will be judged. Note that it doesn't say anything about whether we have no further opportunity to choose Christ, perhaps as a result of corrective judgment. Instances of judgment throughout Scripture show that in many cases, the judgment is not final, but meant to bring about repentance.

To summarize, I still haven't found a verse in Scripture that closes the offer of salvation in Christ at the point of physical death. While this may be true, it also may not be true, but Scripture is silent on the question.

Your last paragraph sums up the Primary Universalist Error, imo. Namely, that true beliefs can be "found" from what the Bible is completely silent about. This represents the main logical fallacy of universalist theology. To wit, in universalist belief it goes like this, "Since the Bible is totally silent about universal salvation, therefore universal salvation is true." I don't base my beliefs on what the Bible is silent about, therefore I continue to maintain universalism is false.

John 5:24
“I tell you the solemn truth, the one who hears my message and believes the one who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned, but has crossed over from death to life."

This statement by Jesus declares the simple truth that those who hear the Gospel and believe in God because of it have entered the family of God through faith, and have passed from death to life. There is nothing in this verse or the surrounding context that would close this offer at physical death.

You've just repeated the Primary Universalist Error.
Jesus affirmed in the above passage what is simply true. But once again, though Jesus was ABSOLUTELY SILENT that salvation can be gained after death; the universalists argue, "If Jesus didn't say universalism is impossible, therefore Jesus taught it is possible" (with no evidence of that whatsoever).

Unfortunately, the Argument From Silence is a logical fallacy and puts words into Jesus' mouth that were never there. Therefore, I submit universalists don't believe what Jesus said and ONLY said.

Just because universalists think, feel, or imagine people can become saved after they die doesn't make it true. Truth is determined by evidence. And that evidence has to be biblical evidence for we Christians. And no universalist who posts on this forum has provided supporting evidence from the Bible that it is possible to be saved after death.

The Bible is crystal clear that salvation is gained before death; no one can miss that. Yet universalists argue that since the Bible is "silent" about universal salvation after death---and it surely is!---that it is therefore possible [Logical Error Number One]. They go further even than this---and propose that it is the Bible's very silence [about universal salvation] that "proves" universal salvation is TRUE! [Logical Error Number Two, naturally following the first error].....

I've noticed (and have mentioned to you before) that you have shown a tendency to mischaracterize what Christian Universalists believe. Paidion, Todd, Steve, myself and others have explained our beliefs, yet when you begin a sentence with "Universalists believe..." or "Universalists teach...", what follows is usually inaccurate.

Danny,

From information gathered that you, and the other universalists (with a possible exception of Todd?), have posted on this forum; I restate that:
Universalists believe the Christian life, and everything it means, is not needed by everyone. You and the other universalists teach that eventually, after the unsaved go to Hell for an unknown length time, they will come out of it and be with God forever. These people, the universalists say, actually bypass having to be "saved." (Todd has admirably admitted to this, if I'm not mistaken).

You oddly and illogically say that the unsaved who go to Hell are also "saved". However, the Bible teaches that NOT going to Hell is exactly what being saved is. The Bible teaches: The saved WON'T go to Hell. So universalists redefine salvation by adding another doctrine that isn't in the Bible. To wit, a non-biblical doctrine of "getting saved by not getting saved".

You and the other universalists on this forum, (including Todd) teach "another way to be with God forever" that is not in the Bible. And you, Danny, along with most other universalists, excepting Todd, have the audacity to call it being "saved". On that basis alone, and coupled with your denial of the need for biblical salvation for all people: Your universalist beliefs are false, Todd's included.

Paidion,

The Hebrews passages that were cited do not teach universalism. You posted about other texts with your interpretations of them, and stated your personal beliefs. But your doing these things didn't prove the Hebrew passages teach universalism! Therefore, based on the internal evidence from Book of Hebrews, I continue to propose universalism is false.

To all universalists:

On this forum you've continually employed a logical fallacy named Argumentum ad Nauseum, "argument to the point of disgust, i.e., by repitition" (as Paidion did in his most recent post). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place.

No one can prove universalism---or any other belief---is true by saying,
"Since the Bible is silent about it, therefore it is true."
This is Universalism's Primary---and repeated---Error.

If we were debating "personal opinions or beliefs alone" that would be one thing.
But since we are supposed to be going by the Bible (I thought we were, anyway); that's something different.

If the universalists on this forum would be willing to admit they do not go by the Bible alone; we wouldn't need further "biblical debate" (about what the Bible says). If they would admit and/or agree to this, it seems to me our debate would be effectively over.

Thanks for reading,
Rick

[Guest]

Congratulations Dave!

I'll be right there with ya in a few weeks....except our is a boy (yes, we peeked ) .

[Guest]

Brothers and Sisters,

I must say with all due respect that Hebrews 9:27-28 has not received the consideration that it should receive in this matter. Perhaps I said too little in regard to the passage and its context.

We need to notice that in Chapters 9 and 10 the writer is at pains to point out the "once for all" of Jesus' sacrifice as compared to the repetitive sacrifices required under the Old Covenant. Note this in the following:

9:12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.


9:25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another—


9:26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.


Then the author says:

27. And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28. so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

And again in chapter 10:

10. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

12. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,


Again and again the author emphasizes the one time only event, not to be repeated. Now let us consider 9:27-28 again. When he writes "And as" prefacing his remarks about our life and judgement, he is clearly linking it to the "one time", not to be repeated, actions of Christ. God has determined that the life we live once will terminate once in death, and after that life we will face judgement once. There is only one life, there is no reincarnation, and there is only one judgement.

In verse 28 the author says "so" God determined a time when one sacrifice would be made by Christ for the sins of the elect, those who are in Christ. In respect to judgement, Christ will return once for salvation. The "and as" and "so" are important. They point to a comparison: as once, so once.

I realize attempts will be made to explain this away. Reincarnation can be as easily asserted with as much support as a second judgement.

And do you say they become saved without being judged? How can this be if they are saved "just like us"? And if they are judged a second time, what are they judged on if not their works, just like us? What works do they do "where there is night and no man can work"? (Someone said that somewhere.)

This whole controversy is like the frogging adventure of Billy Bob and Rufus. Billy Bob and Rufus went frogging one day down at the slough. Had a great day, got a bunch of fat bullfrogs, and took them home and fried up a nice mess of froglegs. What a great feast they had. Rufus was praising God for the fine meal when Billy Bob interrupted to say they ought to thank Eve also.

Rufus: "What does Eve have to do with this?"

Billy Bob: "Dontcha know frogs came from Eve."

Rufus: "That's the silliest thing I ever heard."

Billy Bob grabs his bible: "Says so right here. Genesis 3:20, 'And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living'. Its as plain as day, frogs are living, aren't they?"

Rufus: "You are taking that totally out of context, and besides, Moses had nothing of that sort in his mind when he wrote that."

Billie Bob: "Well you just prove me wrong. You show me one place in the whole bible where it says Eve is not the mother of frogs!"

And their argument went on and on and on and............

[_Rick_C]

Hi Homer,

I must say with all due respect that Hebrews 9:27-28 has not received the consideration that it should receive in this matter. Perhaps I said too little in regard to the passage and its context.

The universalists aren't interested in "passages in context". They've proven this over and over a hundred times, at least....

In verse 28 the author says "so" God determined a time when one sacrifice would be made by Christ for the sins of the elect, those who are in Christ. In respect to judgment, Christ will return once for salvation. The "and as" and "so" are important. They point to a comparison: as once, so once.

I realize attempts will be made to explain this away.

The universalists have been explaining it away. To wit, people can become "saved" after not being saved. How very strange....

And do you say they become saved without being judged?

They say some kind of "salvation" that isn't in the Bible will happen to them. That they "WON'T be saved" and WILL go to Hell (what happens to the unsaved), the universalists acknowledge. Yet they go on to say this is somehow "how they will be saved"...though they won't be saved according to the Bible's definition of salvation. This is where their logic fails from the biblical perspective since they have a "non-salvation salvation" doctrine that isn't in the Bible. Then they go on to call it "salvation" without any biblical basis for doing this whatsoever.

Billie Bob: "Well you just prove me wrong. You show me one place in the whole bible where it says Eve is not the mother of frogs!"

The 'Argument from Silence' can't prove anything in terms of biblical theology. However, it could be used to argue points from a non-biblical theology...as the universalists have been doing.

If they would concede the point that their beliefs come from what isn't in the Bible...our "biblical debate" would be over (as we would, then, be talking about 'extra-biblical things' that AREN'T IN the Bible). In other words, a kind of "truce" could happen if both parties would be willing to acknowledge this. I acknowledge it now (and as I have been).....

But yet again.
It is the very silence in the Bible of universalism that is presented as their Main Argument to prove it. In this sense, our Biblical Debates were over before they even started!

How long will this go around in circles?
Maybe Todd can come forward with a truce option? (Todd)?
Or anyone else?

I have a minimum of at least 10 topics that come from the Bible that I could post in refutation of universalism. Given enough time, I can do it on them all. I'm just wondering if there is a possible agreement we could reach...in order to save us the time and effort. Maybe a summary of how we disagree and why (on almost everything!) on a new thread?
I gotta go.......

Thanks for reading,
Rick

[Guest]

The universalists have been explaining it away. To wit, people can become "saved" after not being saved. How very strange....

Then perhaps Isaiah is a universalist, "For when your JUDGMENTS are in the earth the inhabitants of the WORLD will LEARN righteousness." Isa 26.9


An interesting thing to consider for those with an open mind is that the "FIRE" in the book of Rev is the same "FIRE" that tries the works of believers , 4 different times.
In Rev 3.19 Jesus says "as many as i love , i rebuke and chasten" and who is it that he loves?

[Guest]

Maybe Todd can come forward with a truce option? (Todd)?

Rick,

I'm sure I have no magic words that would end this discussion or provide some compromise position. I'm also not sure that my position is much different from the others....maybe I've just worded it a little differently. I have stated that unbelievers are not saved from the wrath of God; however, I believe that once suffered there is restoration. I have quoted many scriptures which support this (as have others).

Let me try to sum up my understanding with an example....

In our country (USA) if someone commits a felony he is brought before the judge and sentenced to pay for his crime in prison (a correctional facility). He does not get forgiven for his crime unless he is pardoned by the governor or president - he must suffer the penalty. After he serves his time in prison he is released (restored) and is able to begin anew; although, he has lost his right to vote. This man was judged according to his works and suffered the wrath of the governing authorities. But, in the end, was restored.

So it shall be for mankind. Every transgression and disobedience will receive its just reward, unless one is pardoned (through faith) by the Judge (Christ). Once the penalty has been paid or served, there will be restoration. However, just as the felon lost his right to vote, those who must suffer God's wrath, receive no inheritance, but will share in the same glorious liberty with the sons of God.

I find nothing in this scenario that is in conflict with the arguments presented from the scriptures in opposition to CU (or UR).

Todd

[Guest]

All,

I need to clarify. My point in this thread was not to start another Universal Reconciliation (UR) debate, but to address a claim that has been made.
My original question, rephrased for clarity:

Are there Scripture references which show that a person's choice of Christ or otherwise is eternally fixed at death?
I'm not trying to prove any positive claim, but rather looking to understand the positive claims that I've heard made by many; specifically that after physical death, a person cannot choose salvation anymore. In my study, I've found this to be an assertion without any explicit defense from Scripture.


I was hoping to address this question disconnected from UR, but the thread took on a life of its own. My response here will address the question at hand without bringing UR into the discussion.
To clarify, I'm not trying to prove UR true because Scripture is silent on this question. I'm just trying to determine if Scripture is actually ambiguous on the above question.


From what has been posted here (and what I've heard elsewhere), the reference that makes the strongest case is in Hebrews 9:27, but I have to maintain that I still don't see that it proves the above positive assertion. The verse states that we physically die once (no reincarnation allowed here), and then we face judgment. Judgment can be final, but it also might corrective in nature. This verse doesn't define the "judgment" either way; only states that it is to be expected.

IMHO, my honest approach to this verse has to be that it is silent on my above question.


Thanks all for your feedback.

[Guest]

Hello Steve7150,

Quote: "An interesting thing to consider for those with an open mind is that the "FIRE" in the book of Rev is the same "FIRE" that tries the works of believers , 4 different times.
In Rev 3.19 Jesus says "as many as i love , i rebuke and chasten" and who is it that he loves?"

Steve, we are not talking about the specific use of a metaphor. We are not talking about the nature of fire. But the same "fire" used in one sense
as a "purifiing" agent , is not used in the same sense when applied to the wicked and their eternal fate. Context always must determine a metaphors meaning and application.

Your use of Rev 3:19 as a universalist "proof text" is another case of a
"pretext" looking for a context! Jesus is addressing believers in the Churches who were alive. He is not addressing the wicked dead, nor calling them to repentance out of the Lake of Fire!

Earlier in ch 3, Jesus addresses the Church at Sardis. In vs 5, He councils
them, he who overcomes will like them, be dressed in white.I will never blot out his name from the Book of Life, BUT WILL ACKNOWLAGE HIS NAME BEFORE MY FATHER AND HIS ANGELS."

Even earlier in Rev 2:11, the language is pointed at believers.
"He who overcomes will NOT BE HURT AT ALL BY THE SECOND DEATH".

Consider also Rev 20:6;
"Blessed and Holy are THOSE who have part in the FIRST RESURRECTION. The SECOND DEATH HAS NO POWER OVER THEM..."

Continue down to vs 10;
And the Devil who decieved them. was thrown into the LAKE OF BURNING SULPHUR, where the Beast, the False Prophet had been thrown.
THEY WILL BE TORMENTED DAY AND NIGHT FOREVER AND EVER.

And the Fate of the "WICKED" is the same as the Devil's; Rev.21:6-8
" He said to me: IT IS DONE. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. TO HIM WHO IS THIRSTY I WILL GIVE TO DRINK WITHOUT COST FROM THE SPRING OF THE WATER OF LIFE. HE WHO OVERCOMES WILL INHERIT ALL THIS, and I will be his GOD, and HE will be my son.
BUT, to the cowardly, THE UNBELIEVING, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters, and all liars-THEIR PLACE WILL BE IN THE FIERY LAKEOF BURNING SULPHUR.
THIS IS THE SECOND DEATH."

Not clear enough? There is no redeeming or purifing value of the "fire" being described here my friend.

Let he who has an ear hear!