Why not Universal Reconciliation?

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by steve » Wed Jul 30, 2014 9:59 pm

Long ago you maintained that the burden of proof is always on the person presenting an unorthodox position. And the universalist falls far short of that standard.
I don't deny that universalism fails to meet the burden of proof. So do the other two views. None meets the burden of proof adequately to eliminate the other two as valid contenders. If I were teaching universal reconciliation without meeting the burden of proof, I would indeed be out of line. This why I do not do so.
I do not see how anyone can be considered to be unwilling to see a doctrine taught when presented with a series of proof texts, some of which are parts of sentences.
Surely you are not referring to the texts I listed two pages back—since none of them are "parts of sentences" (though a great deal of meaning can legitimately be derived from "parts of sentences"). I daresay that whatever view you hold will be largely supported by mere "parts of sentences"—whether the parts are terms like "eternal punishment" or whole phrases.
In Hebrews 6:1-2 we find a short list of elementary doctrines of Christianity. one of them is eternal punishment. Another is repentance. If some teacher(s) came along an taught something diametrically opposed to the necessity of repentance, and you or I failed to see it in scriptures, we could hardly be said to be unwilling, I would think.
As for your comments about aionios judgment, I believe that you have been shown a dozen times here, if not more often, that aionios does not necessarily mean everlasting or eternal. Most scholars are comfortable saying that the word means "pertaining to, or enduring for, an age." You know this, but always act as if you have forgotten when bringing up pseudo proof texts against universal reconciliation.

I also believe that aionios judgment is a foundational doctrine, and no evangelical universalist would have any difficulty agreeing to this. Therefore, they do not need to meet any burden of proof against it. That the eschatological judgment pertains to the coming age is admitted by all.
If the doctrine of eternal punishment is apparently taught in scripture in ways diametrically opposed, it would seem to call into question the capability of those who wrote the scriptures.
Given the confusion over the doctrine of the deity of Christ for the first three centuries of Christianity, one might argue that such confusion over such a central question "would seem to call into question the capability of those who wrote the scriptures."

Contrariwise, it might call into question whether we read the scriptures with traditional biases that the original readers did not possess, so that they did not have the same difficulty as we have in understanding the language and idioms of their time as we have. Alternatively, the writers may have remained unclear on subjects that they never intended to expound in the detail that we desired for them to expound them. Perhaps they believed, as I do, that there is no need for believers to concern themselves with the exact nature of God's judgment on the lost.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by Homer » Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:32 am

As for your comments about aionios judgment, I believe that you have been shown a dozen times here, if not more often, that aionios does not necessarily mean everlasting or eternal. Most scholars are comfortable saying that the word means "pertaining to, or enduring for, an age." You know this, but always act as if you have forgotten when bringing up pseudo proof texts against universal reconciliation.
My error was in putting "punishment" in place of judgment. "Eternal" is the translation commonly used and I was not trying to again start a discussion regarding the Greek word. What I was focused on is the diametrically opposed view that the wicked will face the "second death", or be destroyed, as opposed to the idea that every last one will be saved. Quite a difference as the interminable discussion attests.
Given the confusion over the doctrine of the deity of Christ for the first three centuries of Christianity, one might argue that such confusion over such a central question "would seem to call into question the capability of those who wrote the scriptures."
I do not think that the doctrine of the trinity is fundamental to the faith, and the passage in Hebrews refers to belief Jesus is the Messiah as fundamental. And Romans says belief in Jesus as Lord and the resurrection is the standard. I would not think Paidion's ideas in this regard as being diametrically opposed to yours or mine.

Be blessed brother. Enough for now.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by Paidion » Thu Jul 31, 2014 10:56 pm

Can't you be humble enough to admit that the apostles might have understood Christ as well as you do? I feel uncomfortable being this direct in confronting a friend...
Hi Steve,
Since we're getting personal here, I suppose I could say that I once thought of you as humble, but now I am not so sure. However, I will make no attempt to defend my own humility because I am too humble to do so. ;) I am glad to know you consider me as a friend. I'll never forget meeting with you for lunch in Thunder Bay. That personal contact led me to regard you very highly.

In this post, I will address just one of your objections to my position. Eventually I hope to address each one of the others.
You wrote:[If Jesus is your authority], then you have no problem with Jesus depicting God as a King who sent His armies to destroy Jerusalem (Matt.22:1-7)
How can you be so certain that this parable is a prediction about God sending his armies to destroy Jerusalem? However, even if I concede that point, Matthew may be saying that “The King sent his armies” in the sense that He would do nothing to save those in Jerusalem from that which the Romans had chosen to do.
For Paul wrote:Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. (Rom 13:1-5 NKJV)
The idea seems to be that God is in control, and appoints all governments. So, since He appointed the Roman Government, then what they choose to do is God's doing, so that when they destroyed Jerusalem, it was God who did it [indirectly] since He appointed the Roman Government. This seems also to have been the position of Irenæus, who wrote:
He sent His armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.” He says here, “His armies,” because all men are the property of God. For “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and all that dwell therein.” Wherefore also the Apostle Paul says in the Epistle to the Romans, “For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive unto themselves condemnation. For rulers are not for a terror to a good work, but to an evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same; for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, the avenger for wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also; for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.”—Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book 4, Ch XXXVI, Sec 6
Some claim, for the same reason, that it was God who wreaked the holocaust and “punished” 6 million Jews by destroying them in a most gruesome way. For God had appointed Hitler's Nazi army to carry out that atrocity. For example, Art Katz (who was himself Jewish) believed precisely that.

By the same reasoning, I suppose God punishes countless women in Muslim countries where they are stoned to death for adultery in accordance with Sharia Law. For God appointed these Muslim governments.

Many believe that since nature has been established by God, and He controls nature, that tsunamis, earthquakes, etc. are God's punishing the people who have died or are in great distress as a result of these natural disasters.

But the big question is, “Does God pick and choose whom to 'punish' through governments which He has appointed, or through natural disasters? For there are millions who are just as evil or more so, who go unpunished.

Jesus had something to say about this:
Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. And Jesus said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." (Luke 13:1-5 NKJV)
Is Jesus suggesting that God was punishing those Galileans by putting them to death, and those eighteen persons on whom the tower fell? No. Quite the contrary. He clearly stated that they were no worse than any other sinners, and that other sinners would die too unless they repented. The fact is that people are continually dying from the hands of other people, or from natural disasters. God does not kill these people. God can be held responsible only indirectly in that He did nothing to prevent their deaths.

There is no statement by Paul, Peter, or Jesus which indicates that God directly administers penalties or acts with vengeance. Rather his direct actions toward people, though sometimes quite uncomfortable or even distressful, are for the purpose of correction, even as a good father corrects his children, and in one sense, all people are God's children. All of God's judgments are remedial.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by steve7150 » Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:28 am

Is Jesus suggesting that God was punishing those Galileans by putting them to death, and those eighteen persons on whom the tower fell? No. Quite the contrary. He clearly stated that they were no worse than any other sinners, and that other sinners would die too unless they repented. The fact is that people are continually dying from the hands of other people, or from natural disasters. God does not kill these people. God can be held responsible only indirectly in that He did nothing to prevent their deaths.










But what do you think Jesus meant by "unless they repented"? Even repentant people die from natural causes as much as unrepentant people. Can "perish" mean something spiritual, like apart from God?

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by Paidion » Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:47 am

But what do you think Jesus meant by "unless they repented"? Even repentant people die from natural causes as much as unrepentant people. Can "perish" mean something spiritual, like apart from God?
Perhaps... though it seems odd to speak two cases of physical perishing (dying), and then use the word "perish" in connection with each case, to mean spiritual perishing. It is because I don't know that I didn't comment on that possible use of "perish". But the Greek word is not the word for "die", but the word "απολλυμι" which means "to destroy" or sometimes "to lose". It is the word which, in the parable of "the prodigal son", the father used when he said, "My son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found." Perhaps in the parable in question, the word should be so translated so that it would read:

"Unless you repent, you will all likewise be lost."
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
john6809
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:40 pm
Location: Summerland, B.C.

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by john6809 » Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:53 am

steve7150 wrote:Is Jesus suggesting that God was punishing those Galileans by putting them to death, and those eighteen persons on whom the tower fell? No. Quite the contrary. He clearly stated that they were no worse than any other sinners, and that other sinners would die too unless they repented. The fact is that people are continually dying from the hands of other people, or from natural disasters. God does not kill these people. God can be held responsible only indirectly in that He did nothing to prevent their deaths.










But what do you think Jesus meant by "unless they repented"? Even repentant people die from natural causes as much as unrepentant people. Can "perish" mean something spiritual, like apart from God?

Or is it possible that this was a call for national (as opposed to individual) repentance in order to avoid the sacking of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans in 70 AD during which many did die in ways that were "likewise" to the examples discussed by Jesus? It wouldn't be the only time Jesus called on Israel to repent or be judged.
"My memory is nearly gone; but I remember two things: That I am a great sinner, and that Christ is a great Savior." - John Newton

User avatar
backwoodsman
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by backwoodsman » Fri Aug 01, 2014 11:02 am

Homer wrote:Quite a difference as the interminable discussion attests.
I just wanted to point out that, its longevity notwithstanding, there really hasn't been much of a discussion. To rise to the level of discussion, each side would have to actually engage the other side's points, and provide counter-arguments. So far, I've seen that only from those who say Christian universalism is a possible Biblical option. Those who oppose universalism have mostly only asserted and reasserted their own position, over and over, while never actually countering any of the points on which they disagree. Most of the time they weren't doing that, they spent setting up and knocking down straw men.

Since 'aionios' has been mentioned, it'll make a convenient example. There's the Heleen Keizer article, which would have to be refuted, or at least given a run for its money, if 'eternal' is to stand as the best (or maybe even a valid) translation. I saw (and still see) no sign that you'd read it, so I asked twice if you had, and to date haven't seen a reply. That makes me think you're more interested in defending your position, than in learning whether it might need a little adjustment.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by steve » Fri Aug 01, 2014 11:14 am

Since we're getting personal here, I suppose I could say that I once thought of you as humble, but now I am not so sure.


I have never claimed to be humble, and have never understood why certain people have described me by that term. I would like to be more humble, but have never believed myself eminent in that characteristic. One mark of humility, however, that we all should exhibit, is the ability to admit it when we have been effectively refuted in an argument. This exhibits both humility and integrity.
How can you be so certain that this parable is a prediction about God sending his armies to destroy Jerusalem?
To what else could it possibly refer? Any suggestions?

The fact that the impending destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was a primary subject addressed in most of Jesus' recorded sayings during the Passion Week (see Matt.21:12-13, 19; 40-41, 43; 22:7; 23:14, 33-36, 38; 24:2ff) adds to this already obvious conclusion. Also, it does seem rather obvious, once the actual words of Jesus are taken in their historical context, that Luke 13:3, 5 ("Unless you repent, you shall all likewise perish") are also about AD 70. Since the perishing of which Jesus speaks could be avoided by repenting (something the Romans would not take into consideration), it seems obvious that the judgment coming on Jerusalem is referred to as God's judgment upon the unrepentant.
There is no statement by Paul, Peter, or Jesus which indicates that God directly administers penalties or acts with vengeance.
You mean besides the ones I quoted in the previous posts, which you do not seem very interested in addressing? In the very post of mine that you are referencing, I presented the following from Paul:

Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who “will render to each one according to his deeds”... to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek." (Romans 2:4-9)

It does not help to quote, as you do, verses that do not mention God's direct judgment of sinners, since nothing in my contention suggests that every verse must mention that subject. What I am pointing out to you is the verses that clearly do speak about this—and your studied avoidance of admitting the fact that you think most of the biblical writers knew God less than you know Him, and were, therefore, unreliable in their narrations and teachings. Could we address these facts more directly?

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by steve7150 » Fri Aug 01, 2014 11:15 am

ut what do you think Jesus meant by "unless they repented"? Even repentant people die from natural causes as much as unrepentant people. Can "perish" mean something spiritual, like apart from God?




Or is it possible that this was a call for national (as opposed to individual) repentance in order to avoid the sacking of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans in 70 AD during which many did die in ways that were "likewise" to the examples discussed by Jesus? It wouldn't be the only time Jesus called on Israel to repent or be judged.







Good thought and seems plausible.

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by TheEditor » Fri Aug 01, 2014 11:16 am

Interesting points. Jesus does use the fig tree illustration directly after, so he may have been referencing the national destruction. But, I think there is the lesson of tragedy and death not being the result of sin directly. Remember their question to Jesus, "Lord, tell us, who sinned, this man or his parents that he was born blind?" They continued to have this notion that hardship was directly related to a punishment for sin, and that wealth and prosperity were a reward for being righteous. Neither were the case.

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

Post Reply

Return to “Views of Hell”