Gehenna - Literal or Figurative?

[Homer]

Steve,

You wrote:

If universal reconciliation is to be rejected, it will have to be upon the basis of better objections than those offered here.

You made a strong case on the radio program today for the idea that the soul is not inherently immortal, that God alone is immortal, and we can have immortality only in Christ. This argument, if correct, would be fatal to universalism as much as to eternal punishment.

Are you convinced of your argument regarding immortality?

[steve7150]

You made a strong case on the radio program today for the idea that the soul is not inherently immortal, that God alone is immortal, and we can have immortality only in Christ. This argument, if correct, would be fatal to universalism as much as to eternal punishment.






If Paul is speaking literally and the devil blinds the minds of unbelievers in this age , but then is tossed in the LOF where either he or his power is destroyed then folks may understand and see Christ for the first time after the resurrection, is it not possible that all would repent. Does God not have the authority to accept them and grant immortality if that is his will?

[steve]

Homer wrote:

You made a strong case on the radio program today for the idea that the soul is not inherently immortal, that God alone is immortal, and we can have immortality only in Christ. This argument, if correct, would be fatal to universalism as much as to eternal punishment.

Are you convinced of your argument regarding immortality?

It seems to me that Steve7150 has made the point I would have made. No one can become immortal, except on condition of being joined to Christ. Thus it is possible that many will be lost for all time. On the other hand, we do not know whether Christ will allow those who have died in unbelief to have any additional opportunities after death to become joined to Christ. If so, the possibility exists that all would eventually do so.

[Homer]

Steve,

You appear to have missed my point.

You wrote:

No one can become immortal, except on condition of being joined to Christ. Thus it is possible that many will be lost for all time. On the other hand, we do not know whether Christ will allow those who have died in unbelief to have any additional opportunities after death to become joined to Christ. If so, the possibility exists that all would eventually do so.

If the underlined sentence is true, then universalism, as promoted at this site, is impossible. Consider the following illustration:

"A" is a faithful believer in Jesus; faithful until death. "B" is an unbeliever who rejects Christ until death. Both are resurrected and face judgement, the believer goes to heaven, the unbeliever goes to hell. The believer has immortality in Christ. But the unbeliever, according to universalism, can not cease to exist; he is undergoing "correction" continually until he repents and then goes to heaven also. So the existences of "A" and "B" are coeval, both equally immortal.

[steve]

I am not seeing the problem you are seeing. The hypothetical person in the hypothetical corrective hell need not be regarded as immortal. He may have his life prolonged in order to give him space to repent (I think God even grants this to some people this side of the grave). If someone lives beyond the grave, this would not tell us whether or not he will live forever or not. Immortality needs to be sought. Some seek it in this life. We do not know whether or not those who neglect to do so will be given opportunity to do so beyond the grave. It seems to me that the scripture is silent on this matter.

[look2jesus]

Homer,

It seems to me that God is the one who upholds all things by the word of His power and that anyone's continued existence, whether before death or after, will be due to God's sustaining them in whatever state of existence they are in. I don't follow why it is necessary to think that because an unbeliever is allowed to experience some form of existence after death that we should infer that this means he is immortal--only God possesses immortality. There seems to me to be an obvious difference between possessing life through the Immortal One, which believers do/will enjoy and merely existing in a state of unbelief, all the while, perhaps, suffering greatly.

Now, if you are saying that strictly from a universalist perspective, that there is no significant difference between the believer who is immortal--because of his position in Christ--and the unbeliever (who, though he is not yet joined to Christ will, nevertheless, at some point be joined to Him in the future), then I think you should have to ask the unbeliever in that situation whether he is enjoying what you are calling his immortality.

I think you are confusing 'sustained existence' with 'life in the Son'.

l2j

[Paidion]

According to Plato, we possess an immortal soul which is our personality, and which survives death to be reincarnated as a human being, if we have lived a good life, but as an animal if we haven't. Somehow the concept of our possessing an immortal soul has crept into Christianity. Perhaps it was because of Platonism that the apostle Paul indicated that God alone has immortality (I Tim 6:16), and that in the resurrection, "This mortal must put on immortality." ( I Cor 15:53). In that chapter, Paul appears to be writing about all people putting on immortality when they are resurrected. But I am not fully certain of this. Perhaps he is talking only of disciples of Christ, so that the rest will merely have "sustained existence" when they are raised to a "resurrection of judgment" (John 5:29). Whether the latter are mortal or immortal does not seem clearly indicated in the NT.

I wonder if Homer's point is that if they are resurrected to a mortal state, then universal reconcilation cannot be true, since at least some of these will continue to resist God until they die again in a second death.

However, it may be that even if they are not raised immortal, that God will sustain them no matter how long it takes until they submit to the authority of Christ and are thus reconciled to God. Then perhaps at that time, they will become immortal.

[jerry62]

If those who made the earliest available translations of the scripture are correctly translating the words owlam/αιωνιον as "eternal/endless" (in those obvious passages that are most often debated, Daniel/Septuagint, Matthew, etc.), then truly most of this line of argumentation is moot. I believe that Hans Scharen states the most self-evident view in his paper "Gehenna in the Synoptics"...

There is little doubt that contextually αιωνιον means "eternal," "endless," or "forever," since the state contemplated in Gehenna in the sayings of Jesus is contrasted with "entrance into life," or being in the kingdom of God, which shall endure forever, or eternally. The New Testament views "entrance into life" or the kingdom of God as entering "the age to come" (αιων μέλλον), the new and everlasting creation representing the final order of things. Thus a strong case can be made in support of the view that suffering in Gehenna will be endless or everlasting.

[steve7150]

Thus a strong case can be made in support of the view that suffering in Gehenna will be endless or everlasting





Jerry you seem determined to believe that unbelievers will suffer endlessly, so don't let any of us deter you.
If you think it's God's will then believe it, if it's not God's will then i wonder what the power of God's will really is?

[jerry62]

I'm determined to KNOW God more, and to continue seeking Him, continue asking Him to change me, and to encourage others to know Him and seek Him. I believe the scriptures provide more than enough reasons to encourage all individuals to come to God before they die the physical death that all men will experience (except perhaps Enoch/Elijah and those alive on earth during Christ's return).