The Narrow Path Ministries

Hi, all those who hold to the universal reconciliation doctrine.

At times I’ve had the impression that some posts are made in an attempt to re-affirm the poster’s own belief, (?in case of doubts creeping in?). I may be wrong, just the sense I’ve had occasionally.

(I’ve previously stated my own position, but briefly, I don’t believe in ‘eternal torment’ being scriptural, and am undecided between the other views).

I’ve been curious, if anyone wishes to respond:

How firmly convinced are you of the truth of your position?

How much do you think it may be a matter of hope, rather than cast-iron belief, and has this always been the case? i.e. What led you to this belief – purely the objective interpretation of certain passages, or did you at some stage look for evidence of something you hoped to find, for whatever reason? (not making a judgement call on hope being invalid or an inadequate reason).

Do you ever have any doubts of your position, especially when discussing with others of a different view, particularly conditional immortality?

Are you open to the possibility of your interpretation being incorrect –
Is your view:

“UR is obviously taught in scripture & clearly correct”
or
“UR is most likely the best interpretation of the whole of scripture, but it’s possible that one of the other views may turn out to be the more correct”

Or something other?

thanks,

How firmly convinced are you of the truth of your position?



Thank you for your interesting question Suzana. I'm not totally convinced that UR is true but i think it's a valid possibility as is CI or the most likely which is somewhere between the two , meaning the majority of mankind will ultimately be saved. I am convinced that there is no scriptural reason man can not be saved after death and that is the primary purpose of the lake of fire. I've heard it repeated numerous times that there is no scriptural evidence of how anyone can be saved after death and sometimes i feel like i'm reading a different bible. Simply reading past Rev 20 through to Rev 22.17 , it is clear to me that from the descriptions of the lake of fire being a lake as opposed to an abyss and the New Jerusalem having open gates and allusions that the ones in the lake are sinners who continue sinning to Rev 22.17 being an invitation to anyone to drink from the water of life , that this allows for repentence and forgiveness.
Will everyone accept Christ as Lord or are there people with completely hardened hearts, i don't know but i suspect when people's minds are not blinded by the devil (2nd Cor 4.4) the majority would fall on their faces and repent and be eternally grateful.

Suzana,

I will be glad to explain my position on this subject. First, I must say that the vast majority of scriptures on this subject are either metaphorical or parables, which leaves much room for interpretation. I suppose if the scriptures were plain there would be no argument. I find this to be somewhat unfortunate, but perhaps this is by design. Each view has some scriptural support (depending on your interpretation). Although many of my posts may sound dogmatic, I know that I have changed my mind before, and I may do it again.

I first became exposed to other views of Hell about four years ago, and through much study and meditation have come to strongly lean toward some form of UR (although there is one form of CI that may have some merit as I will explain).

Eternal Torment
The main reason I oppose this view is the very fact that unending torture is unjust. While it may be true that the Bible teaches that "everyone will receive for the wrong they have done", unending torture is unbalanced, and the punishment received for wrongs done would be infinitely greater than the wrongs. In addition, as we are made in God's image, our society views any torture as unjust and seems to be a reflection of the conscience that was put in us by our maker.

Conditional Immortality
This view has more merit than ET. However, the common understanding is that the unjust will be raised from death (at the resurrection), then punished porportionally according to their sin, then annihilated. This makes no sense to me. There is no purpose to raising the dead only to destroy them again. Also, there is no purpose in punishment without an opportunity to correct oneself and repent.

The only form of CI that would make sense is if God chooses to raise only those who He deems worthy (the just), and the leaves the unjust to remain dead forever. This would be much more merciful than the former. There are a couple of scriptures which might support this.

Luke 20:34-36
34 Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection.

1 Cor 15
22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

But there are also verses which seem to go against this idea. Paul plainly states in Acts 24:15 that both the just and the unjust will be raised. So, if this is the case, then I can only assume that any punishment which may take place in that age will be remedial, leading to repentance for all.

Universal Reconciliation
Based on the reasoning for discounting the other two views, this is the most likely scenario for me. I will not go into the specific scriptural arguments for this view, because there are numerous threads which detail them. But I will say that Jesus was called Emmanuel (God with us) for a reason. We can learn more about the character of God through reading what Christ did than anything. Christ so loved the world that He died for us (even while we were sinners). Christ died for all - not a select few. The fact that the vast majority of mankind has lived and died never hearing the Gospel is reason enough to believe that God has a plan of redemption for everyone.

Finally, as I mentioned in another thread regarding the meaning of the term "eternal life", it is my opinion that until we can reach a concensus about the meaning of this term we'll never agree which view is correct. Because if this term is about "this life" rather than the "after-life" then all the scriptures in which it is used must be re-examined. It is my position that "immortality" is the term used for the "after-life" and "eternal life" is the term used for this life.

Todd

Fair questions, Suzana. I'm going to attempt a brief answer to each one of them.

Hi, all those who hold to the universal reconciliation doctrine.

Well, I guess that includes me. Initially, I wasn't going to respond to the title "A Question or two to Universalists", because I refuse to accept that label. For, the majority of people understand a "universalist" as one who believes that God unconditionally takes everyone to spend eternity with Himself, either immediately upon each person's death, or at the resurrection. I don't think anyone in this forum holds that belief except Todd --- who understands that we are punished for our sins in this life, so that all of us are ready to be with the Lord in the next.(Todd, if I have misrepresented your position, please correct me).

At times I’ve had the impression that some posts are made in an attempt to re-affirm the poster’s own belief, (?in case of doubts creeping in?). I may be wrong, just the sense I’ve had occasionally.

Don't we sometimes "reaffirm our beliefs" in any theological topic? That doesn't imply that there are "doubts creeping in". We have all arrived at our various positions through scriptural study over the years, albeit, we have interpreted that scripture in multifarious ways.In my case, I just like to bring to the forefront a few new scriptures which I have just noticed, or a few of my recent thoughts about a subject.

I’ve been curious, if anyone wishes to respond:
How firmly convinced are you of the truth of your position?

100%

How much do you think it may be a matter of hope, rather than cast-iron belief, and has this always been the case? i.e. What led you to this belief – purely the objective interpretation of certain passages, or did you at some stage look for evidence of something you hoped to find, for whatever reason?

Until I was about 40, I totally believed in eternal torment. I began to associate with a Christian group which held to many of the practices of the early church, which I had been reading about in Acts, and in the second century Christian writings. I was amazed. I didn't think such groups existed today.

One time I attended a summer camp of this group. I overheard one of the leading brethren talking to another over the dinner table.

"I never could believe in an eternal hell," he was saying. And he went on to explain that all would be reconciled to God. It was as if I had been struck by a lightning bolt.

"What have I gotten into?" I asked myself. "I've gotten myself into a CULT!" I walked around that camp ground in a daze, and deeply distressed. Then I felt the calming hand of God upon me as surely as I have ever experienced Him. Words seem to come out of nowhere and settle into my mind, "Don't worry about this. Just leave it alone. All will become clear." So I relaxed and enjoyed the rest of the camp.

After I got home, I noticed that as I read the Bible for the next few weeks, I began to see the reconciliation of all to God almost wherever I happened to read! I took this as evidence that God was showing me that it was true!

When I came to the point that I accepted it, my whole outlook on two important matters changed dramatically!

1. My love and appreciation for God took a mighty leap! His character was total LOVE, such as I never had dreamed ---- and not a wishy-washy sentimental love, but a love which corrects all mankind, so that we all become what He expects us to be. My admiration for God knew no bounds! I realized that He was capable of fulfilling His great Plan of the Ages, that of reconciling all rational beings to Himself. He would do that without ever compromising the free will which He gave to the rational beings which He created.

2. My love for people increased dramatically! Prior to that it was us versus them, Christians versus non-Christians, disciples versus non-disciples, believers versus unbelievers. They were an entirely different class from us. We were the children of God; they were the children of the devil. I had noticed that some non-Christians were kind, considerate and helpful to others, ready to lend a helping hand. I couldn't understand how the children of the devil could be that way.

Now I saw everyone, not as they are, but as they SHALL BE, when they will be completely conformed to the image of Christ! Every once in a while I would see a glimmer of that in every person I contacted! Non-Christians no longer seemed so wholly other as previously. Because of my own changed attitudes, I had far more spiritual influence on others than I had when I thought that over 99% of people would end up in eternal torment.

Do you ever have any doubts of your position, especially when discussing with others of a different view, particularly conditional immortality?

No.

Are you open to the possibility of your interpretation being incorrect –

I am no more open to that "possibility" than I am to the "possibility" that Jesus was not the Son of God, but an ordinary human being with an inflated ego. Another way of saying this is that I am as certain of God's great Plan of the Ages to reconcile all to Himself as I am of any other Christian truth.

Is your view:
“UR is obviously taught in scripture & clearly correct”
or
“UR is most likely the best interpretation of the whole of scripture, but it’s possible that one of the other views may turn out to be the more correct”

The former

This view has more merit than ET. However, the common understanding is that the unjust will be raised from death (at the resurrection), then punished porportionally according to their sin, then annihilated.

Just a small note to consider. Not everyone that believes in CI believes this view.

Thank you all for your responses, I really appreciate the time & effort; I'm sure that others also will find your thoughts and convictions interesting.

As I said, I'm still undecided as to which view is scripturally correct, so I'll keep studying.
There's a few points that have been raised that I wouldn't mind discussing further, but will probably come across them elsewhere some other time; right now I can't think properly, it is so hot here I feel my brain is quite addled.
I can touch type (normally) but have had to do so many corrections just in this post, who knows what nonsensical thoughts I might come out with.

Paidion, sorry about the thread title & thanks for replying anyway.

Hi Suzana,

Let me start out by saying I have always appreciated your posts. They seem thoughtful and refreshing. I am glad you are a part of the dialog going on here at this forum.

I would consider myself a "hopeful universalist", hopeful in that I do not feel I can demonstrate unequivocally from scripture that it is true. However, for me it is the only one of the 3 major views on the judgment after this life that makes sense. When I stop and think about why God created the universe, what His intentions are, and why it is in the "mess" we see it in, I either have to believe that God is not very kind, or that His purposes go much beyond what we can see. Since I believe that His intentions were never more clear than on the cross of Christ, I find myself able to trust in Him, that His intentions are for good.

And when I consider the differences in opportunity to find and know God between the people of our time, not to mention the people prior to Christ, not to mention the people before Abraham, I have to conclude that there will come a time when this will all be "evened out". Since God has revealed in scripture (clear to me, anyway) that His desire is for all people, and that He is able to accomplish all His purposes, it just makes sense to me that His goal of reconciliation with all of His creation is the most likely outcome.

I am not dogmatic on this (or almost any other of my beliefs). I recognize my fallibility. Who am I to know anything. I do derive comfort from what I believe to be a growing sense that God is good, and wise, and powerful (yet gentle, and humble, and merciful, and patient, ...), and that His ways are so much beyond our own. We will one day (I believe) look back and say, "Wow - He is sooooo awesome - I had no idea!".

Thanks for the great questions!

God Bless!
Mike

Mike, I have always appreciated your posts and your humble spirit. I wish you would post more often.

I have a little philosophical question which your statement presented to my mind.

You wrote:Who am I to know anything.

In the discipline of epistemology, Person A is said to know that Proposition P if and only if:

1. A believes that P.
2. P is true.
3. A has sufficient evidence that P.

Of course, the third one is the sticky one. For it is not clear what constitutes "sufficient evidence".

My question is:
Is it possible to believe that P without claiming to know that P?

For example, is it possible for me to believe that the earth is spherical (or nearly so), and yet not claim to know that the earth is spherical? The way I am using "believe" is having 100% confidence that the earth is spherical.

Is it possible to have 100% confidence in the proposition that the earth was created less than 10,000 years ago, but yet not claim to know that it was created less than 10,000 years ago? It seems to me that if you don't hold to the knowledge claim then you don't really have 100% confidence.

I'd love to know that God won't cast anyone into the burning flames of hell for all eternity.

I'd like to hear some more thoughts on this.

Paidion wrote:Mike, I have always appreciated your posts and your humble spirit. I wish you would post more often.

I agree!

(The rest of your post, Paidion, was thought provoking as well, but I've always thought to myself exactly what you said to Mike)