"Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess the Lord

[Guest]

The Universalists, at least some of them, maintain that in the hereafter those who are unsaved will undergo an indefinite period of "correction", which is not punishment.

Homer, on what basis do you say that "correction" is not "punishment"?
Do you consider retributionism to be the only theory of punishment? What about the deterance theory of punishment? And the reformative theory? You may want to google "theories of punishment" in order to enlarge your perception. Here's a good one to get you started:

http://www.bigissueground.com/philosoph ... ment.shtml

Furthermore, as I understand their position, this correction shall last until repentance, i.e., "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess", takes place.

All right.

It has been suggested that it will take perhaps a million years or so for a person like Hitler to be "corrected". How does the Universalist know this?

I don't know what "the Universalist" thinks he knows about that matter. But as I understand it, the length of time is determined more by the obstinacy of a person than by the degree of his wickedness.

Is there some supposed link between the number or seriousness of sins committed in this life and the length (amount?) of "correction" required?

Jesus seemed to think so! He shared with His disciples a descriptive
parable concerning how three classes of Hia servants would be treated at His coming [Luke 12:35-48]:

"Let your loins be girded and your lamps burning, and be like men who are waiting for their master to come home from the marriage feast, so that they may open to him at once when he comes and knocks. Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake when he comes; truly, I say to you, he will gird himself and have them sit at table, and he will come and serve them. If he comes in the second watch, or in the third, and finds them so, blessed are those servants! But know this, that if the householder had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have left his house to be broken into. You also must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an unexpected hour."

Peter said, "Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?"

And the Lord said, "Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing. Truly, I tell you, he will set him over all his possessions.
But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will punish him, and put him with the unfaithful.

And that servant who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating.

But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating.

Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.

At this point, Jesus makes one of the most signifant statements He had ever made concerning His purpose to correct:

The Baptism of Fire:
"I came to cast fire upon the earth; and would that it were already kindled! I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished! Luke 12:49,50

Here Jesus expressed His intense desire to carry out the fiery, purifying, baptism.

How is it known that a good person who is a convinced atheist or agnostic (I know such a person) will not be more difficult to bring to repentance than a person like Hitler?

It is not known. Indeed, it may even be more likely that Hitler will more readily repent. Do you know someone who thinks otherwise?

Is the reason you think it will take so long to "correct" Hitler an emotional response to the great and numerous sins he committed in this life?

Again, do you know someone who is making this claim? Or are you attacking a straw man here?

It would seem the greater suffering inflicted would be related to the degree or amount of sin as punishment, but not correlated to "correction".

It doesn't seem so to me.

Also do you Universalists believe that all through the process of "correction" that the subject has free will?

I don't know what Universalists believe, but I believe so. But a person can be persuaded so that he will freely choose that is against his original intention. Such persuasion influences his choice, but does not negate his free will.

Do you have any scriptures to support your position on this?

On what? On man's possession of free will? On being influenced to change one's intention? On being corrected? Please specify.

[Guest]

Paidion,

As you must be aware, there are various ideas expressed here by universalists, from the idea that all suffering for sin is incurred in this life to the idea that a person such as Hitler must suffer for an enormously long time.

As I understand you, your belief is that the unsaved are punished in the hereafter, not with the purpose of satisfying justice, retribution, etc., but for correction only, i.e., until repentance is brought about.

If that is your position, and you are correct, I fail to see how Jesus' story about the rich man and Lazarus makes sense.

Luke 16:19-31 (NKJV)

19. “There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. 20. But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, 21. desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22. So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23. And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24. “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ 25. But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. 26. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’
27. “Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, 28. for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ 29. Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30. And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31. But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”

Is not the rich man being punished for some purpose other than correction? He has obviously been brought to repentance, for he desires repentance for his brothers. And this repentance by the rich man has been brought about in no more than a few years, for his brothers are still living, and the final judgement has not come. Why do you think Jesus depicts him still being in an agonized state of torment, given his obvious change of heart? And what of the impassible gulf? There is no hint his state is temporal, and the great gulf would certainly imply an unchangeable state.

You maintain that upon repentance (and baptism) we are right with God and in the process of being conformed to his image. In the hereafter, do the unsaved, in your view, have to undergo some further process after being brought to repentance and prior to their being restored to God?

I am interested in how this story fits within your view.

[Guest]

I am interested in how this story fits within your view.

Okay. I will explain how this parable fits my view. By calling it a "story", you are not implying that it is an account of actual events, are you? For surely one's "eternal destiny" does not depend on the state of one's finances, does it? For when Dives calls to Abraham to send Lazarus to cool his tongue with the amount of water clinging to his finger [Would that help at all?], Abraham gives the reason why Lazarus is in a place of comfort, and he is in agony:

In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. He called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.’

But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony. Luke 16:23-26 NRSV

Does our "eternal destiny" depend on whether we were blessed with material things, or we had to endure hardship? In the parable, Abraham seemed to have said so.

In Luke's account, this parable almost immediately follows the parable of the Loving Father (or prodigal son, if you will) and the parable of the Shrewd Manager.

The purpose of this parable is to warn the Pharisees, who were lovers of money (vs 14) of the dangers of wealth, and to show them that if Moses and the prophets cannot convince them to repent, nothing will (even if a person rises from the dead and warns them).

Jesus uses a common belief among the Jews of His day, to illustrate what He wished to bring across to the Pharisees. That this was a common belief is indicated by the discourse of Josephus (the great Jewish historian)concerning Hades. You can read the first part of it here:

http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/hades.htm

You will notice how closely his description matches Christ's parable, except that it goes into greater detail.

Now I know that some deny that it was indeed Josephus who wrote The Discourse, and there's no way I can prove that he did. Nevertheless, I believe he did.

Now the question arises, "Would Jesus use an untrue belief of the Jews in order to produce a parable against the Pharisees concerning their love of money and their lack of taking Moses and the prophets seriously?

I say, "Yes, He would." He used something they believed ---- started where they were at ---- to teach a truth.
This is not the only time He did this kind of thing. Remember the young man who asked Him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

If you were asked such a question, would you respond as Jesus did?

"You know the commandments: ‘Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’" Mark 10:19

We all know --- and Jesus knew --- that this is not the way to eternal life.
But the young Jewish man believed it was. Even though he had always kept these commandments, he felt a lack. Jesus used the young man's belief to lead up to letting him know what he really lacked. The young man had to let go of the self-life and become a disciple of Christ:

And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." Mark 10:21

The way to life is the same today as it was then. We must die to self, that is, let go of the self-life, and submit to the authority of Christ as His disciples.

In conclusion --- the parable is not a description of the after-life at all, but only a description of the Pharisees beliefs about it. Thus there is no conflict with my views.

[Guest]

Bretheren,

I have been watching this discussion with great interest. I must admit my
ignorance on the subject of "universal salvation". It is very appealing to think in the end, God's mercy will ultimately be granted to all and that the idea of "eternal seperation" is in reality, not "eternal" as in unending duration. "Hell" or the "Lake of Fire", Gehena, and whatever else it may really mean, apparently does not carry the idea of everlasting judgement.
Are the ideas of eternal torment, weeping and gnashing of teeth, being outside the camp, mere metaphors whose intended meaning is simply to "scare us" into the Kingdom? It seems to me such views are in reality, like little children being woke up from a bad dream! Its not real, but a dream! God will not punish sin, but simply "correct". The "fires of Gehena" are simply a corrective measure in bringing the "obstinate" to repentence and purifying them. I say it all sounds good, but is it really true?

Would God be any less 'loving" if He does in fact punish with out end those who refuse Jesus?

In Jesus,
Bob

[Guest]

Hi Bob,

Are the ideas of eternal torment, weeping and gnashing of teeth, being outside the camp, mere metaphors whose intended meaning is simply to "scare us" into the Kingdom?

No, they aren't. But see what you have done in this sentance: You have equated "weeping and gnashing of teeth" and "being outside the camp" with eternal torment. This is something that the scriptures themselves don't do. "Weeping and gnashing of teeth" and "being outside the camp" are clearly metaphors of judgement and punishment. No one would deny that. The Christian Universalist would deny that they are without end and without a redemptive purpose.

It seems to me such views are in reality, like little children being woke up from a bad dream! Its not real, but a dream! God will not punish sin, but simply "correct".

What, in your view, is the purpose of punishment?

The "fires of Gehena" are simply a corrective measure in bringing the "obstinate" to repentence and purifying them.

The fires of Gehenna were an actual reality to the people Jesus spoke to. He used the garbage dump of Gehenna as a metaphor for ruination and ignomy. In a similar way, the garden of Gethsemene was an actual place, but it is sometimes used by Christians as a metaphor for being at a point of choosing to obey God despite the consequences. Jesus used places, events, popular beliefs, etc., as fodder for metaphors about spiritual things. In 70 A.D., Jerusalem quite literally became an extension of its garbage dump and many Jewish corpses were quite literally cast into Gehenna.

I say it all sounds good, but is it really true?

I have become convinced that it is. I realize, of course, my own fallibility and that I could be wrong about anything. But I believe this as surely as I believe anything else. I have become convinced from a study of scripture as a whole (the meta-narrative), as well as from an examination of individual texts and Greek words. Added to that are historical opinions of early church fathers, arguments from logic and philosophy , etc. I have found the Christian Universalist position to be the most consistent and least problematic. I have also found it to be extremely motivating, not only to share the Good News, but also to live a holy life.

Would God be any less 'loving" if He does in fact punish with out end those who refuse Jesus?

Yes, actually. What purpose would endless punishment serve? How proportional would endless suffering be to the sins of the average person, or even the sins of the most wicked person?

How many people who "refuse Jesus", do so with full knowledge of who Jesus is? As the hymn says, "I was blind, but now I see." If, apart from Christ, we are blind and "darkened in our understanding" (Eph 4:18), then how can refusing Christ be an informed and rational decision? Likewise, how can accepting Christ be anything other than a work of grace? What if I took a group of blind children to the edge of the Grand Canyon and told them to wander freely but stay away from the precipice? If one strayed too close, lost her balance and fell into the canyon, who does it reflect poorly on? Me as the one who placed them so close to danger, or the blind child who didn't follow my instructions? Don't you agree that if any person saw Christ as He truly is, they would immediately fall to their knees in worship before Him?

Love, especially pure and true love, seeks reconciliation, restoration, healing, happiness and fulfillment of the beloved. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.

[Guest]

Are the ideas of eternal torment, weeping and gnashing of teeth, being outside the camp, mere metaphors whose intended meaning is simply to "scare us" into the Kingdom? It seems to me such views are in reality, like little children being woke up from a bad dream! Its not real, but a dream! God will not punish sin, but simply "correct". The "fires of Gehena" are simply a corrective measure in bringing the "obstinate" to repentence and purifying them. I say it all sounds good, but is it really true?

Have you ever actually read in Rev about what happens to unbelievers after they are thrown into the lake of fire? If you read it with an open mind i think there are allusions that unbelievers can leave the LOF after some point which only God knows. Finally the culmination is in Rev 22.17 which IMHO is an invitation to those remaining in the LOF , five verses before the end of the bible.

[Guest]

Mort Wrote:

What purpose would endless punishment serve? How proportional would endless suffering be to the sins of the average person, or even the sins of the most wicked person?

God has acted in the past in ways that seem to our mind to be completely out of proportion to the offense. A well known case is that of Uzzah when he touched the arc.

Consider this:

Romans 5:12 (NKJV)

12. Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—

Think of the result of Adam's sin of merely eating some fruit he wasn't supposed to eat! All the suffering and death, the lot of every one of us. Children dying of horrible disease. Billions suffer and die. But perhaps we are the ones without a proper sense of what is proportional. Perhaps we do not have a proper regard for the seriousness of sin. Perhaps to God sin is so horrible that eternal punishment is the only fitting consequence. And perhaps He loved sinners so much that He considered the suffering and death of His Son a worthwhile sacrifice.

And Mort wrote:

How many people who "refuse Jesus", do so with full knowledge of who Jesus is? As the hymn says, "I was blind, but now I see." If, apart from Christ, we are blind and "darkened in our understanding" (Eph 4:18), then how can refusing Christ be an informed and rational decision? Likewise, how can accepting Christ be anything other than a work of grace? What if I took a group of blind children to the edge of the Grand Canyon and told them to wander freely but stay away from the precipice? If one strayed too close, lost her balance and fell into the canyon, who does it reflect poorly on? Me as the one who placed them so close to danger, or the blind child who didn't follow my instructions? Don't you agree that if any person saw Christ as He truly is, they would immediately fall to their knees in worship before Him?

You lost me there on that one. Are you saying its God's fault people "are blind" and fail to accept Jesus? Sounds Calvinistic.

And:

I have found the Christian Universalist position to be the most consistent and least problematic. I have also found it to be extremely motivating, not only to share the Good News, but also to live a holy life.

This is most puzzling to me. If eternal punishment does not mean endless, but means ending, the Universalist can not prove from scriptures that the "corrective" punishment of unbelievers will, in any particular case, last for even one day before repentance, before the bowing of the knee and confession of Jesus as Lord. I suspect the confession will come rather quickly.

[Guest]

Hi Homer, thanks for the reply.

God has acted in the past in ways that seem to our mind to be completely out of proportion to the offense. A well known case is that of Uzzah when he touched the arc.

Yes, this has been one of the more confounding stories for Christians. Did God make an example of Uzzah? Did Uzzah commit some grave sin, the full context of which has been lost? In terms of proportionality though, Uzzah's life being taken is nothing compared to a hopeless eternity of torment. Not 1,000 years or 100,000 years or 50 million years but eternity.

Regarding Romans 5:12, I don't believe in Original Sin, so your argument isn't compelling to me. I think the Creation/Fall story in Genesis was an Epic Myth (common in the ancient world) intended to remind the post-Exodus Hebrews about the dangers of partaking of the "fruits" of the civilizations inhabiting the land of Canaan, which they were soon going to enter into.

Did Paul believe the Genesis story to be literal? In the absence of any competing and more plausible story, why wouldn't he?

Rather than "Original Sin", I tend to believe that we suffer from "Chronic Sin". The story of the Fall (as it's called) is an attempt to explain our Chronic Sin (in addition to above mentioned warning to the Hebrews).

BTW, in saying this, I'm not speaking for Christian Universalists, I'm only stating my own view.

Having said all that though, if one is going to bring up Romans 5:18 in the course of a discussion about Universal Salvation, one has to wrestle with the clear statement that the one act of righteousness by Christ has brought life to all men.

Perhaps we do not have a proper regard for the seriousness of sin.

I would tend to agree with this.

Perhaps to God sin is so horrible that eternal punishment is the only fitting consequence.

If so, it brings up some troubling questions.

1) Why was Adam's pronounced punishment only exile and (eventual) physical death and not eternal punishment?
2) Why was Cain's pronounced punishment exile (with a mark of protection no less) and not eternal punishment?
3) Why is the entire Old Testament utterly silent about eternal punishment?
4) Why doesn't Peter bring up eternal punishment in his Pentecost speech in Acts 2?
5) Why isn't Paul recorded as warning of eternal punishment in the Book of Acts, for example when he spoke at the Areopagus?
6) If sin is so horrible to God, why did Jesus (God incarnate) hang out with sinners?
7) Why doesn't Paul teach about Hell in his epistles?
8) If God is omniscient, wouldn't He have known prior to ever creating the universe that sin would be such a horrible problem as to require the endless torment of most of the souls He would create?
9) If a person who led a relatively moral life but never accepted Christ will suffer for eternity in Hell and the person who led an extremely wicked life (say, Ted Bundy or Hitler or Stalin) will also suffer for eternity in Hell, where is the justice? Based on this all-or-nothing logic, if I'm a sinner destined for Hell, I might as well become a mass-murderer, since the end-result will be the same.

And perhaps He loved sinners so much that He considered the suffering and death of His Son a worthwhile sacrifice.

No argument here, although we may have slightly different views on the atonement. The whole point of Christian Universalism is that the death of God's Son was a completely worthwhile and effective sacrifice.

And Mort wrote:

Quote:
How many people who "refuse Jesus", do so with full knowledge of who Jesus is? As the hymn says, "I was blind, but now I see." If, apart from Christ, we are blind and "darkened in our understanding" (Eph 4:1Cool, then how can refusing Christ be an informed and rational decision? Likewise, how can accepting Christ be anything other than a work of grace? What if I took a group of blind children to the edge of the Grand Canyon and told them to wander freely but stay away from the precipice? If one strayed too close, lost her balance and fell into the canyon, who does it reflect poorly on? Me as the one who placed them so close to danger, or the blind child who didn't follow my instructions? Don't you agree that if any person saw Christ as He truly is, they would immediately fall to their knees in worship before Him?


You lost me there on that one. Are you saying its God's fault people "are blind" and fail to accept Jesus? Sounds Calvinistic.

I'm saying that mankind is in a terrible predicament. We are born into a world that is drenched in sin. Besides our own sin and the sins of those around us and the effects of the sins of people we don't even know, even the ramifications of the sins of all who lived before we were born continue to echo like ripples through a pool, effecting us. How then can we, infected by sin as we are, be capable of making any kind of "decision for Christ" without divine intervention? It sounds Calvinistic because Christian Universalism is a middle way between Calvinism and Arminianism. Calvinism says that salvation is entirely a work of God, but God has predetermined to only save a few. Arminianism says that God wants to save all, but is dependant upon our free will. Universalism says that God wants to save all and is able to.

Here's another way to put it, taken from the book "The Evangelical Universalist" by Gregory MacDonald:

1. God, being omnipotent, could cause all people to freely accept Christ.
2. God, being omniscient, would know how to cause all people to freely accept Christ.
3. God, being omnibenevolent, would want to cause all people to freely accept Christ.

It follows then that God will cause all people to freely accept Christ.

Quote:
I have found the Christian Universalist position to be the most consistent and least problematic. I have also found it to be extremely motivating, not only to share the Good News, but also to live a holy life.


This is most puzzling to me. If eternal punishment does not mean endless, but means ending, the Universalist can not prove from scriptures that the "corrective" punishment of unbelievers will, in any particular case, last for even one day before repentance, before the bowing of the knee and confession of Jesus as Lord. I suspect the confession will come rather quickly.

I suspect so also. I feel no compulsion to prove anything regarding the duration of the kolasis. This goes back to the question of the meaning of aion and aionian. It is an indefinite period of time. Perhaps it will be a case of the laborers who only worked an hour being paid the same as the laborers who worked all day, if you get my drift. However, scripture does make it very clear that the judgment and chastisment of God is not something to be taken lightly and is best avoided.

I've used this analogy in the past: I once saw a video of a presentation given by a man who was severaly burned in an industrial accident. He freely admits that the accident was caused by his own negligence and he suffered the terrible consequences. The most gut-wrenching part of the speech was when the man talked about the treatment he had to endure in the hospital's burn unit in order to save his life. The burn victims would be placed into vats of sterilized water and nurses would scrub the infected skin off while the victims screamed in agony. It had to be done in order to save their lives. Obviously, the more severaly burned someone was, the more of this agony they had to endure. Perhaps the judgement is something like that. When one stands before God, the more twisted and hardened one is by the effects of a sinful life, the more agonizing and lengthy the process of removing all of that death will be.

[Guest]

Hello Danny,

Thanks for sharing your views. I find them very attractive. But are they according to Truth? The idea of "punishment fitting the crime"
in contrast to the eternity of Hell, does seem like cosmic overkill when looking at the issue from your viewpoint. Have you fully explored the implications?

If Universal Salvation in Christ is the Ultimate Good and goal of our Father in Heaven, what is the meaning of the constant warning " repent or perish"? What did Jesus really mean when He said: "Truly, truly, I say to you, He who hears my word, and believes Him who sent me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgement, but has passed out of death into life". John 5:24 NASB

Thanks,
In Him,
Bob

[Guest]

What did Jesus really mean when He said: "Truly, truly, I say to you, He who hears my word, and believes Him who sent me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgement, but has passed out of death into life". John 5:24 NASB

Hi Bob,

It seems this question is directed for Danny, but I'll throw in my thoughts.

In the context of the verse you quoted, life and death are not referring to our physical life (or death) but to our relationship with God. The word "eternal" in the term "eternal life" refers not to duration of life but to a certain quality of life. Consider the following statement of Jesus.

John 17:3
And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

Here, Jesus seems to equate eternal life with knowing God and His Son. Those, who through faith in Christ, who walk according to the Spirit are promised great spiritual blessings from God; namely, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, self control, etc. These blessings are a description of that kind of quality of life that God desires for everyone.

Conversely, one who is spiritually "dead" is encumbered in self-seeking ways. Consider the following.

James 1:13-15
13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

The death described by this passage is not physical, it is spiritual, and describes someone who is fully engulfed by sin.

1 Tim 5:6
But she who lives in pleasure is dead while she lives.

"Death" is a description of one who is fully engulfed by sin, the lusts of the flesh, and selfishness. To be spiritually dead is to perish. Someone in this condition can be full of guilt, anxiety, and shame. When the heart is fully hardened against God the life gets fully out of control.

Gal 5:19-21
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like;

It is my view that what Paul descirbes in Romans 1:18-32 is that God's wrath against those who are engaged in these activities is allowing the sin to run its course in their lives. Paul says that....

God gives them over to
vs. 24 "uncleaness"
vs. 26 "vile passions"
vs. 28 "a debased mind"

Rom 1:29-32
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

I see this passage as Paul describing in some detail what God's wrath is against those who become encumbered in sin. It takes place during one's lifetime - not after [physical] death.

Christ's message to us is to flee this wrath of God and have eternal life. To repent and foresake the self-life and inherit the spiritual blessings of God. And he has given us the Spirit to lead us to the path of Life.

Eph 2:5
even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),

Christ has already provided for mankind in the after-life when He reconciled the world unto God. He has also given us The Way to enjoy his blessings in this life if we follow him in faith and walk according to the Spirit.

Todd