Does death end our ability to choose?

[_Rick_C]

Hello Rob,

Rather than answering you here, I'm sending you a PM.

To the topic:
"Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come" (Jesus, in Matt 12:32).

Re: the two ages Jesus mentions.
Though the Bible talks about a past and/or ages; since Jesus' time, the age He lived in has passed and we have already been ushered into 'the age to come'. Many, if not most, people think that when Jesus returns another age will begin (and that it will be the 'age to come'). But I think the Bible teaches that this age is the age to come already. The below linear time chart illustrates how the two ages Jesus spoke about 'overlap' while having three separate categories (the 'person' is Jesus and His Church, He is the Head, we His Body, the dotted-lines are His Two Comings):
Article that goes with graph:
The Two Ages and Redemptive History

No longer:
are we in "B.C time" though time has gone on.
Already:
are we [believers, 2 Cor 5:17] in the Age to Come which began when Jesus came and was exalted on high. The Age to Come in the 'already' is also "The A.D. Church Age" till Jesus comes again.
Not yet:
has Jesus returned to judge the world, bringing fullness of salvation and immortality to His Church; and triumphing over all of His enemies, executing their final condemnation and destruction.

To speculate there might be more ages other than these two Jesus mentioned is only that: speculation. While it could be possible that there are more, in terms of 'guessing or imagining' they could be is one thing; but going by what Jesus said is another. We have no reason to presume, imagine, or guess, there will be more ages than Jesus said. If there were He would have told us so, imo.

Re: universalist teaching about "aion" or "aionion" (with Greek derivatives: "an age, to the ages, age-enduring", etc.).
Universalists say "an age" is never forever and ever and/or eternal. Yet Jesus said there will be only one 'age to come'. We have no reasons to think that that age will end and another one will start.

Re: no forgiveness in this age or the age to come for blasphemers of the Holy Spirit.
Universalists say every person who ever lived, who didn't do it while they lived, will 'accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior'. This will happen after they are judged and sent to Hell till 'they give in to His Lordship', they say. Since Jesus said blasphemers of the Holy Spirit wouldn't be forgiven during His lifetime nor in this 'age to come' we live in now; universalists are 'adding an extra age' to the two Jesus told us about. They're also adding that blaspheming against the Holy Spirit WILL be forgiven when Jesus said it never would. If he had taught about a 'third age' and that this forgiveness would be possible then....but He didn't.

In anticipation of a universalist reply.
One will say, "But sinners will pay for their sins while they are in Hell and don't need to be forgiven now! They will just need give in and accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior and become a 'Christian'."
There are so many flaws in this reasoning I'm starting a new thread about it! For now, I'll make a list:
A. a Christian is, by definition, one who believes and knows he/she has been forgiven by God through Jesus Christ; faith in God = required. If the Bible says anything, it says we are sinners who need forgiveness yesterday-already!
B. People who will be sent to Hell will have been the enemies of God when they lived. And now, suddenly in universalism, they have a chance to become "saved" by not being saved from God's wrath and judgment!?!?
C. Which is totally at variance with the biblical doctrine of salvation as,
D. A "Christian" is someone who is 'Already Saved' (in this Church Age), and also 'Will Be Saved from the Not-Yet Wrath of God to Come' on the Last Day: Romans 5 (ESV), 9Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.
1 Thess 5 (ESV), 9For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him..

What we have in universalism is a strange "salvation" that says people can become a 'Christian' (become saved) after they die; that these are those who: aren't saved nor will be from God's wrath...which is what the Biblical Doctrine of Salvation is primarily all about! though it has many other meanings. Christians "will live with God" through one way: because they got saved (1 Thess 5:10); and the unsaved dead, who get "saved"? while in Hell? for not getting saved? will "live with God" through these other means? In what sense is this the Gospel? Good News that you can go to Hell and get-saved because you didn't get saved? (but they never will be saved as they never had to be)? How much more confused can this be? How much more fantastic and "highly imaginative" can this GET???

To quote a TN Brother I knew in Bible college, "I question...the mentality....".
(much more effective with his southern drawl, "minnn-talla-teh")....

The only sin that won't ever be forgiven is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. The only sins that will ever be forgiven---anywhen---happens when people become Saved-Christians which is possible to anyone; but only before they die. This is what the Bible teaches, imnsho!

Have a good weekend everyone,
Rick

P.S. oO! I think I just gave away my new thread!

[Guest]

A. first and foremost, all of the people who got sent to Hell were the enemies of God when they lived. And now, suddenly they have a chance to become "saved" by not being saved from God's wrath and judgment,


I was reading Steve G.s bio and he mentioned he had the incalculable advantage of being born into a Christian family and he is right about this being an "incalulable advantage." I only heard about Jesus about six years ago and it reasonated with me as soon as i heard it.
Was i an enemy of God the day before the gospel was preached to me, would i have spent eternity in hell?
No i was not an enemy of God, i just did'nt know God yet but i wanted to. My story is much more typical then not and clear thinking people have to consider the incredible disparities people have in knowing Christ in this lifetime depending on a myriad of circumstances.
This is not something insignificant when we realize God is just and God is not a respecter of persons.
Folks who end up in the lake of fire (pur) are subject to the very same fire (pur) that refines believers in this life. And the brimstone in the LOF, there is no better purifying agent then sulfer.
No CU has said there is any way other then Christ, other then forgiveness , other then making him Lord and Savior only that God will is going to be done in the fullness of time.
His time not our time.

[Guest]

Hi Rick,

First of all, I should say that I’m not a universalist, nor am I leaning that direction. I have not yet heard arguments that convince me that it is so. So I have no interest in defending that position. Actually, I’m rather agnostic on the subject because none of them are iron-clad IMO and it’s not something I care to focus on.

However, I will say, that I wouldn’t be surprised if, in the end, universal reconciliation turns out to be true. I think God’s revelation to us (in scripture that is) is ambiguous enough as to leave room for universal reconciliation. And it is just like God to unveil His plan a little at a time. Just as it was a “mystery” (until the unveiling of the New Covenant) for Gentiles to be equal partakers with Jews of God’s promises in Christ (Eph 3), so might we find many other “mysteries” of God’s plan as He unfolds it. I’ll leave room for that. How naïve we can get sometimes to think that God gave us His whole story in our Bible and then try to pigeon-hole his entire plan into the theology we deduce from it. Even the Bible itself says similar things (John 21:25, Acts 1:7, etc.).

The main point I wanted to make to you was, Dave asked a specific question and you unfairly reversed it to make him prove the opposite. True, he quoted your assertion from another thread, but how does that make it unreasonable to spin-off a new thread from that? I see that you are passionately opposed to universalism, and that’s fine, but if someone is going to participate in a new thread that has just opened, I think it’s bad form to derail the discussion from the get go (it’ll do that on it’s own…naturally ). That’s just my opinion. His question is a fair one if we make the positive assertion (as most Christendom does) that death is the last chance to submit to God. He just asked for scriptural support for that assertion, that’s all.

Now, the reason I said that:

I don't think an iron-clad case can be made (contextually) that they necessarily have the meaning we usually ascribe to them.

..is because neither of those passages appear to be primarily intended to make the point that death is the last chance to repent. That is a secondary deduction that people make from the passages. Let me explain what I mean.

Luke 16, in it’s context (esp. v15), appears to me to be more about outwardly religious Jews (portrayed by the rich man) being unmerciful to outwardly spiritually destitute people (portrayed by Lazarus) when in reality their pride makes them more spiritually destitute in God’s eyes than the sinners they scorn. It’s not primarily about the state of the saved and the lost souls after they die IMO.

Looking at the oft quoted Hebrews 9:27 passage, the author is making a comparative statement to make the point that Christ died once as a sacrifice for many as opposed to the annual observance of Yom Kippur. Look at what the passage says:

Heb 9:27-28
27 And as [i.e. “just like”] it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so [i.e. “in the same manner”] Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many.
NKJV (brackets mine)

So what boggles my mind is, just how is it that Jesus’ death is “as” men dying once and then being judged? I don’t have the answer to that. But, like everyone else, I can sure speculate.

We tend to look at the “judgment” here as meaning what we have been conditioned to think…the FINAL judgment. But I think it’s also at least possible that the judgment here is exactly what God said it would be.

Gen 2:17
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
NKJV

And after Adam blew it…

Gen 3:19
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return."
NKJV

Maybe it’s the case that this particular judgment is merely physical death itself as a result of the fall. Jesus certainly experienced that, but He certainly did NOT experience eternal death forever and ever (and ever and ever). Maybe dying is the appointment, and being dead is the judgment. This was, of course, undone through the cross and proven by the resurrection of Jesus.

Anyway, I will not pretend to have the answers, I just wanted to explain my statements. As I said, I have no intention of attempting to prove or disprove universalism.

Cheers.

[Guest]

Hello Steve7150,

Quote:
"Folks who end up in the lake of fire (pur) are subject to the very same fire (pur) that refines believers in this life. And the brimstone in the LOF, there is no better purifying agent then sulfer.
No CU has said there is any way other then Christ, other then forgiveness , other then making him Lord and Savior only that God will is going to be done in the fullness of time.
His time not our time.

That salvation in Christ includes the the purging or seperating us who believe from our sins is not in question Steve. We do not question Cu's
elaborate attempts in showing us that they believe Christ "is the only Way" to salvation. But saying and recognizing Jesus as the "only Way" for our salvation obviously means something different to a CU than those who hold a more traditional view.

The oft repeated "banner cry" of CU's is that God is just. By CU's definition of justice, their view insists God will by no means punish the guilty for rejecting His grace in Christ through "unending torment". In the CU's view, this would be a gross miscarriage of God's Justice. God's "punishments" are always remedial with a view towards "Universal Reconcilliation" according to their interpretations.

Afterall, in the CU view, God is always loving and is always consistant within their definition of what His loving character means. The "Traditional View" CU's would have us believe, is deeply flawed if such a view of God's Justice is less than "remedial and restorative". To portray a God who's character is less than "loving" in their belief, God would be incredibily unjust, and certainly not "worthy of our worship". If such a God indeed does exsist, they want no part of Him. The Traditional view of God's character from a CU's perspective would have us believe that those who hold such a view of God, see only an angry potentate who's insatible wrath must be appeased, mollified, or satisfied even with out end, a punishment for those who have in this life have repeatedly and finally up to and including their biological death, rejected the Gospel of Grace through Jesus Christ our Lord. Their view of the Lake of Fire is not one of a defining disposition of a Holy God who's verdict is a 'final' , permanent judgement upon the Devil, his Angels, or the wicked. It is only remedial in nature and only intended to bring those held in its "chains" to an ultimate repentance. "All" means "everyone" who ever lived will ultimately be "reconciled and restored" into the Kingdom of His Beloved Son". God in their view, will ultimately make "no distinctions" between the Devil, and his Angels, nor the wicked because He is not only "loving", He is impartial and no "respecter of persons" in thier understanding of His character. Afterall, any final distinction or seperation of the wicked from the righteous, from a CU's world view is to charge God with "cosmic overkill" .

We who on this forum who hold to a more "Traditional" view of God's character, have supplied our reasons from Scripture why we believe God "will by no means aquit the guilty". That His punishment for those who for an entire lifetime have rejected the Gospel, will not only "die in their sin", but will ultimately "pay for their own sins to the last penny".

CU's really have a problem with God's Justice which is primarily portrayed in Scripture as penal, not remedial. Cu's also have a gross misrepresentation of the vicarious nature of the Atonement of Jesus as the
grounds, means and only remedy for man's estrangement from God. I have on more than one occasion challenged the CU's notion, that if God is less than successful in bringing a sinner to repentance while he yet lives, what would make them think He could do so after they die? How would "torturing" them in the Lake of Fire for a time make a difference?

Do CU's really believe that God's Holy Spirit is "powerless" in this age to bring *any and all sinners* to repentance, if "Ultimate Reconcilillation" is in His purposes and will to do so? I really don't believe CU's have seriously considered the full implications of their belief system. The god of the CU's is nothing more than a god based upon their "feelings". A consideration as Allyn stated in an earlier post, God's Justice in "type and shadow" as portrayed in Scripture as penal, is apparently ignored in the CU belief.
They have apparently "itching ears" and have garnered for themselves teachers who teach herisies" . Cu's belief system relies not upon a sound exegesis of God's Justice in the Bible, but in an ancient lie told to Eve by the Serpent, "you will not die". God really did say, "In the day that you eat of it you shall surely die". Jesus confirmed it," unless you believe in Me and Him who sent Me , you shall die in your sins".

Let him who has ears to hear, hear!
In Jesus,
Bob

[Guest]

Christopher,

Thanks for joining the discussion. From reading what you have to say, I am not sure how different our views are on this. I am perhaps a little more optimistic than you.

I fully agree that none of the positions have an iron-clad argument. I classify myself, not as agnostic, but rather as "hopeful"

I have tried to join the others that are presenting the CU or UR position so as to show that it is not unreasonable to hold to this view. All the while admitting that I could be wrong.

Rick,

The bible speaks of both "the age to come" (as you have noted), and also ages to come:

Eph 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

To me, it does not make sense to talk about how long an age is (or how many there will be) until you know what the age is referring to. For example, the "age of the dinosaurs", or the "age of a man's life". So to say that there is only 2 ages spoken of in the Bible can be both true and not true, depending on what type of age we are talking about.

Bob,

I can see that you feel strongly about your "traditional" view. But feeling strongly about something does not make one right. It may seem obvious to you that those who hold to the CU position have "itching ears" and listen to those who "teach heresies". It is not obvious to me. I wish you wouldn't be so quick to (mis?)-judge your brother in Christ.

I know, for myself, I did not come across CU because I was seeking it. It was over a period of several years that I found myself increasingly open to this view. I read a lot, much of it I discarded as nonsense, poorly written, poppycock. But from time to time I came across something that made sense. I began to believe that it just might be true.

You can say that the "devil" was chipping away at my faith. But I can tell you, that if he did that, he led me to a place where my love for God has grown immensely, and my awe at His great plans for His creation are ever increasing.

Now I do not go out and tell people "Don't worry. If you do not accept Christ in this life, there is always the next one." (I would not think it wise to offer hope to a person that I cannot demonstrate clearly from scripture). But I do have hope in my heart for those who have passed on either without hearing the good news, or who for whatever reason did not choose to trust in Christ during this life. You can say that my hope is foolish. But you may be wrong, just as I may be wrong.

Blessings to all my brothers and sisters in Christ!

Mike

[Guest]

The god of the CU's is nothing more than a god based upon their "feelings". A consideration as Allyn stated in an earlier post, God's Justice in "type and shadow" as portrayed in Scripture as penal, is apparently ignored in the CU belief.


Bob, Not really feelings but just translating the bible more accurately. For example the KJV translated "krisis" as "damnation" instead of judgment. From the greek word "krisis" comes the english word "crisis" which often can be a turning point in a person's life.
And why look to the shadows of the OT for God's character rather then Jesus himself who Paul described as the Father's exact image and fullness?
Why would you not look at Jesus to know God, Bob?

[Guest]

Hebrews 6:1-2
1 Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, 2 instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

This gives an overview of the Christian life. We see three couplets of thought. Repentance and faith deal with entering the Kingdom. Baptism and Laying on of Hands deal with being part of a community of faith where discipleship takes place for the preparation of the call that is on ones life, then is sent out to fulfill their destiny on the earth. Resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment deals with how they lived as a believer, along with the idea that their will be a coming jugment of all mankind. We see that the judgment is an eternal judgment. 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)?

[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)?



Because the word translated as "eternal" is probably "aionios" which is the plural of "aion" which means age. Therefore "aionios" IMHO means "ages" not "eternal."
Thus this description would allow for proportional punishment which would seem rational rather then eternal punishment for the vast majority of mankind regardless of any other considerations.

[Guest]

Steve et al'

No one from the CU positon has cared to define what they would consider "proportional justice" to mean from God's view point as revealed in His Word. Anyone care to be the first?

[Guest]

No one from the CU positon has cared to define what they would consider "proportional justice" to mean from God's view point as revealed in His Word. Anyone care to be the first?



As you know Bob the specifics are'nt revealed but perhaps something like "reap what you sow" or "an eye for an eye" or a "tooth for a tooth" or "judged by our works."
These are phrases from God's Word and they sound like proportional justice to me.