Why not Universal Reconciliation?

[steve]

For observe this very thing, that you sorrowed in a godly manner: What diligence it produced in you, what clearing of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what vehement desire, what zeal, what εκδικησις! In all things you proved yourselves to be clear in this matter.

Would it make any sense to translate the word as "vengeance" in this sentence?

It might make no sense to you, but since I grew up with the KJV, where it translates this word as "revenge" (which is also its apparent meaning in all the other occurrences in the New Testament—especially evident in Acts 7:24),* it never seemed weird to me. Paul is commending the church for ousting a member who was unrepentant and was bringing reproach upon Christ. Their action was seen as an "avenging" of God's honor. It was not an avenging of themselves, of course, since they were not the injured parties.

Please quote my discreditation of Peter, Paul, Luke, and others.

Please note our recent exchanges (I don't know which thread was the most recent, but there have been several). You may recall that you opted to call off our discussions rather than attempting to answer the unanswerable challenges I posed to your position.

I don't remember everything I wrote there, nor where that discussion took place, but I remember you let yourself off easy by saying you preferred not to answer any further. Because of my affection for you, I chose not to point out the obvious with reference to your integrity in the discussion. The fact that you repeatedly restate the same claims again and again—seemingly after you feel enough time has elapsed for us to forget that you found your views on this topic indefensible in every previous discussion of them—surprises me.

Just off the top of my head, you discredited Luke, who said that an angel of the Lord struck down Herod (Acts 12:23)—one of the many instances where you claimed to know more about the matter (and more about the character of God!) than did the biblical writers.

You acted as if Peter, in attributing the flood and the fire that destroyed Sodom to acts of God (2 Pet.2:4-9)—following Christ's own precedent in this (Luke 17:26-30)—was deluded in thinking that God would do such a thing.

Paul obviously took the Book of Numbers seriously when it spoke of God sending plagues on the rebellious Israelites (1 Cor.10:7-11). To say that Paul believed the plagues occurred, but that he did not think (as Moses did) that it was God who brought them, would be to engage in special pleading, and to show a total absence of willingness to let the Bible writers speak for themselves when they disagree with you.

Your implicit claim to know more about Jesus than did those who lived with Him, and whom He selected to speak on His behalf—and more than Moses, who spoke to God mouth to mouth; and more than the directly-inspired prophets—is not convincing. There seems to be no biblical writer whom you will trust with the doctrine of God's character—including Jesus, if His words are taken at face value. You need to either recant your position, or write a new Bible to support it.

The fact that you (the leading advocate of universal reconciliation at this forum) discredit the scriptures every time they disagree with your one-dimensional view of God, does not give critics of your universalism the impression that the view is drawn from honest scriptural exegesis, but rather from your a priori emotional decisions as to what you will or will not allow the Bible to reveal.
-----------
* Agreeing with the lexicons—e.g., Arndt, Bauer, Gingrich; Thayer; Kittel; Zodhiates; Vine

[Paidion]

Is it your view that Moses, the presumed author of Genesis, coloured the Garden of Eden narrative in like projective fashion?

I am not sure. Moses wasn't there, of course. He gave the story of creation as it was handed down for many centuries. However, I suspect that he told the story as he had heard it, and I am inclined to believe the story is true, just as Moses recored it. I'm not sure why you find the story as contradictory to God's character, as I see it. Since Adam and Eve were "infants" (except in body) that had to grow spiritually. From their creation, they had lived in Eden with the tree of life in the garden, God waiting until they had matured and discovered it. But they never did. They rebelled against God's one requirement, eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil instead. God's driving them out was NOT a punishment; it was to keep them from eating from the tree of life, and so live permanently in their fallen state, as Moses recorded.

Perhaps you are asking why God could not have done something about their regeneration instead of driving them out of Eden. I don't know, but I suspect that that wouldn't have rendered them perfect and/or sinless, since that seems to be the case with regenerated people throughout Christian history right to the present time.

[steve]

God's driving them out was NOT a punishment; it was to keep them from eating from the tree of life, and so live permanently in their fallen state, as Moses recorded.

Let's tease out this principle: God made man and woman mortal—having the processes of aging, decay and agonizing death factory-installed in their bodies. Only the eating of the tree of life could prevent these forces from taking over and resulting in the agonies of aging, sickness and inevitable death. Allowing your view, God did not punish them with death—He only left them to the mercy of lethal forces at work in their bodies that He Himself built into them.

To prevent them from living forever in their fallen state, God deprived them of the tree of life, and left them to suffer the processes that He Himself had created to take them out. In other words, He killed them. This is true every bit as much as if you or I were to deny water (which we could supply) to a man in the desert, and watched him die of thirst. It would be a niggling point to say, "I didn't kill him! He died of dehydration!"

Adam and Eve deprived themselves of the tree of life by sinning, but the processes that killed them were God's design and creation. Because God did not want fallen creatures living forever, He engineered their deaths (for all we know, they may have been painful deaths—we know that many of the deaths of their offspring were horrendous).

So, if God, in order to prevent sinful people from living forever and fouling His creation, killed Adam and Eve, exactly what, in principle, is different about His killing Noah's generation, the people of Sodom, the Canaanites, Ananias and Sapphira, Herod Agrippa, and others (as the Bible says He did) for the very same reasons?

Whenever you admit to anything the Bible says about these subjects, you take the risk of allowing everything else the Bible says on them.

[Paidion]

Would it make any sense to translate the word as "vengeance" in this sentence?

It might make no sense to you, but since I grew up with the KJV, where it translates this word as "revenge" (which is also its apparent meaning in all the other occurrences in the New Testament—especially evident in Acts 7:24),* it never seemed weird to me. Paul is commending the church for ousting a member who was unrepentant and was bringing reproach upon Christ. Their action was seen as an "avenging" of God's honor. It was not an avenging of themselves, of course, since they were not the injured parties.

I must admit I was greatly surpised to find the word translated as "revenge" in the Douay, AV, Darby, and Geneva Bible. Is it your view that by shunning the offender, the church was getting revenge upon him? The whole purpose of their action was to help him to see his wrongdoing, so that he might repent (have a change of heart and mind). This treatment of the man had just the positive effect that they had hoped for. He repented, was forgiven, and received again as a brother.

There seems to have been other translators who saw the matter as I do. The translators of the HCSB and Weymouth rendered the word as "justice". In JB2000 and in the NKJV which you use, we find the word translated as "vindication". The latter is certainly possible since Paul also wrote in this verse, "What eagerness to clear yourselves!"

In the online Bible Greek Lexicon, one of the entries refers to 2 Cor 7:11, indicating that in that verse, "εκδικησις" is used as "meeting out of justice; doing justice to all parties."

[steve]

Is it your view that by shunning the offender, the church was getting revenge upon him? The whole purpose of their action was to help him to see his wrongdoing, so that he might repent (have a change of heart and mind). This treatment of the man had just the positive effect that they had hoped for. He repented, was forgiven, and received again as a brother.

From the standpoint of the man himself, in this case, the thing turned out well—though it might as easily have turned out badly. From the standpoint of the church's actions, they acted to avenge the honor of Christ against one who was heinously taking His name in vain. When vengeance is meted out, it may result in repentance on the part of the punished party (usually it doesn't). It is good when this happens. However, the church acted without any guarantees of the outcome. They simply did what justice required.

There seems to have been other translators who saw the matter as I do. The translators of the HCSB and Weymouth rendered the word as "justice". In JB2000 and in the NKJV which you use, we find the word translated as "vindication". The latter is certainly possible since Paul also wrote in this verse, "What eagerness to clear yourselves!"

I don't go much by translations in cases where there is great diversity of opinion. The lexicons all mention vengeance as a meaning of the word—most of the ones I have consulted put it as the first meaning.

In the online Bible Greek Lexicon, one of the entries refers to 2 Cor 7:11, indicating that in that verse, "εκδικησις" is used as "meeting out of justice; doing justice to all parties."

No doubt this is "one of" the meanings of the word. It is not clear that it means anything less than vengeance in the New Testament, however. Second Corinthians 7:11 does not present a case of justice having been done to all parties. The man whose wife had been violated, and the woman herself, had not received anything like a just settlement, as near as we can ascertain. The church does not have the authority to put people to death, but this would have been the strictly just resolution to a case of adultery, as Paul himself declares in Romans 1:32.

But I don't want this discussion to get far from the challenges I pointed out earlier. Please address them before addressing any new issue to me. As I recall, in previous discussions on this topic, answering my challenges got "postponed" in favor of side discussions until you declared that you ran out of time to spend on the subject.

[Paidion]

But I don't want this discussion to get far from the challenges I pointed out earlier. Please address them before addressing any new issue to me.

I'm not sure what you have in mind with this request. Do you think that the discussion of "εκδικησις" is a new issue? It seems to me that discussion of this word addressess the main issue, whether God practises vengeance or whether He practises justice and vindication of the oppressed. By the way, I was replying to Ian's question when I explained my thinking concerning Adam and Eve in Eden, and you saw fit to get involved. That wasn't necessary, was it, if you want to address only my replies to your "challenges".

I have some difficulty is seeing how you intergrate your thinking about the character of God. You made a remark about my "one dimension view of God", and yet your own view of his loving character permits you to entertain the possibility of the reconciliation of all persons to God which seems a bit one dimensional. Indeed, I find that Homer's objections to your view that universal reconciliation is theologically and Biblically sound, are quite similar to your objections to my view that God does not punish in a penal sense, but only in a restorative sense. Believers in eternal torment protest universal reconciliation on the view that its proponents entertain a "one dimension view of God". With their two dimensional concept they affirm, "Yes, He is a God of Love, but He is also a God of justice," and "justice" in their view is retributive and/or penal punishment. It's okay to torment people forever because they "deserve" it. The only difference I can see between their view of a schizophrenic God and yours, is that you see God's vengeance as coming to an end at some point—either at death, or some time in the coming ages, whereas in their view his vengeance continues forever. However, I acknowledge that there is a very great difference between the two—infinitely great, in fact.

And now I will address one of your challenges.

You acted as if Peter, in attributing the flood and the fire that destroyed Sodom to acts of God (2 Pet.2:4-9)—following Christ's own precedent in this (Luke 17:26-30)—was deluded in thinking that God would do such a thing.

Firstly, in “Christ's own precedent”, Jesus did not say that God brought on the fire that destroyed Sodom. And so it is not a precedent at all. The passage to which you referred follows:

Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed. (Luke 17:26-30 ESV)

Where in this passage do you find that Jesus attributed to God the destruction of people in the flood?
Jesus' point in this passage was that just as many people were destroyed by the flood, so many people would be destroyed “when the Son of Man is revealed.” He said nothing about God doing the destroying in either case.

Secondly, I think it grossly unfair and false of you to say that I “acted as if Peter, in attributing the flood and the fire that destroyed Sodom to acts of God...was deluded in thinking that God would do such a thing.”

I would like to know how you think I acted as if this were the case without actually stating such.

What follows indicates a good possibility that Peter didn't write this book. Very early, there were a large number writings which claimed to be apostolic but which were forgeries. Most of them were composed by gnostics, and though to my knowledge there is no evidence of gnosticism in second Peter, the idea that the heavens and earth will be annihilated and new heavens and earth replace them (a concept also found in Jude) seems to contradict Isaiah 65, where Yahweh's creation of a new heaven and earth appears to be a changed or restored heaven and earth rather than a replacement for one which is annihilated.

The writer of second Peter definitely does affirm that the flood as well as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was God's doing. But here's the rub. In spite of the fact that the author describes himself as the apostle Simon Peter, a number of the second-century Christians considered the book to be a forgery. Origen (185) and Eusebius of Caesarea doubted that Peter was its author. There are no exact quotations of it in the Apostolic Fathers, though there may be some veiled references to it. The Muratorian Fragment does not contain it. Irenaeus (130) did not mention it, though he did use the phrase “a day of the Lord is as a thousand years” which is also found in 2 Peter 3:8. However, this saying could have been derived from a common source.

[steve]

Paidion,

I am not interested in a debate about the canon of scripture. Suffice it to say that I accept the canon as it is—including 2 Peter. It is enough that you admit that you do not recognize the authority of any scripture that disagrees with you, and that teaches that God punishes sinners. In other words, you have to reject the Torah, the Psalms, the Prophets, and just about every New Testament author. The fact that Paul believed all the Old Testament scriptures were profitable for teaching means that he definitely has to be excluded. Could you tell us which authors of the scripture you would regard as knowing God as accurately as you know Him?

[Homer]

The only difference I can see between their view of a schizophrenic God and yours, is that you see God's vengeance as coming to an end at some point—either at death, or some time in the coming ages, whereas in their view his vengeance continues forever.

I can't say I hold to this view. I see scriptures that seem to support the traditional view and others that seem to support annihilation. I do not see UR taught in the scriptures.

[steve]

I do not see UR taught in the scriptures.

Many people do not "see" conditionalism taught in scripture either. Some do not (and some do) see evidence for the traditional view in scripture. However, supporters of these views see plenty in scripture to support each one's respective position. The inability to "see" any of them by those of other camps clearly has more to do with what they are willing to see than with what is or is not there. I am willing to accept any view taught in scripture, which is why I can "see" that all three are apparently taught there. Obviously, only one of the three can be correct, and really taught in scripture. However, the inability to see the scriptural case for any of the three simply testifies to unwillingness to acknowledge what others see clearly enough.

The inability to see certain things in scripture that are clearly seen by others is usually due to prior theological commitments, which force the re-reading or ignoring of passages that others use to support their positions. For example, it is my contention that only a prior conviction that God mustn't or won't save all people could cause one to fail to see what otherwise would be the plainest sense of passages like the following:

"Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people."
(Luke 2:10)

"Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life."
(Rom.5:18)

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him...For it pleased the Father...by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross."
(Col.1:15-16, 19-20)

"God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself." (2 Cor.5:19)

"He purposed in Himself, that in...the fullness of times He might gather together in one all things in Christ."
(Eph.1:9-10)

"Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus [literally: "in the name of Jesus"] every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
(Phil.2:9-11)

"And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying:
Blessing and honor and glory and power be to Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, forever and ever!”
(Rev.5:13)

"For the Lord will not cast off forever.
Though He causes grief,
Yet He will show compassion
According to the multitude of His mercies.
For He does not afflict willingly,
Nor grieve the children of men."
(Lam.3:31-33)

While those committed to other views might be able to satisfy themselves with alternative, counterintuitive interpretations of such passages, they can do so, not by exegesis, but as a result of prior theological commitments. Whether these prior commitments are valid or not would have to be examined as a separate issue. However, anyone who can say, "I don't see universal reconciliation taught in the Bible" seems to be saying, "I am deliberately blinding myself to the prima facie evidence of the universalist position."

[Homer]

Hi Steve,

The inability to "see" either of them by those of other camps clearly has more to do with what they are willing to see taught than what is or is not there. I am willing to accept any view taught in scripture, which is why I can "see" that all three are apparently taught there.

That is interesting. As I recall you taught through the entire bible something like 35 times before you saw universalism taught there. "Apparently" refers to something that is "open to view, clear or manifest". If that is the case, how did you not notice it for all those years? Did it suddenly become apparent because you noticed it while studying the scriptures, or was it because you read the universalist's arguments and wanted to believe them credible?

I do acknowledge we often believe what we want to believe and resist belief in that which does not appeal to us. But then universalism is more appealing than, say, the traditional view, so why wouldn't universalism have the most Christians in their camp, if they are really Christians and it is apparent in the scriptures? Why wouldn't I believe it? Could it be the non-universalists have bad (hateful) motives?

Be blessed!