Any Hope?

[steve7150]

Can someone who doesn't believe in universal reconciliation please post an answer?

Thanks,






I thought i did. I simply believe post death salvation is not precluded scripturally but i'm not sure about CU.

[Homer]

Hi David,

You asked:

So you are answering "no" to my original question, correct? That dead unbelievers have no hope of salvation?

Yes, I believe they have no "hope". But in some ways I am perhaps more liberal than my Universalist friends. I say they have no hope but they do have a possibility. Perhaps the person who lives in some remote part of the world never heard of Jesus, but would have believed had he heard the gospel. I would not be surprised that God would grant mercy in that case. I believe we will all be judged according to the "light" we have received. At least some of the universalists believe that such persons will be cast into the lake of fire until they are reformed, which will take a very long time.

The Universalist position is hard to define; they are a rather motley group, and I suppose that must be so as they have so litttle to base their doctrine on as to how people might be saved out of hell.

As I understand the scriptures, those who trust God in this life will be saved and those who reject Him will have no further chance in the last and final age. I do not find those who never hear being addressed as to their fate.

[steve7150]

I would not be surprised that God would grant mercy in that case. I believe we will all be judged according to the "light" we have received. At least some of the universalists believe that such persons will be cast into the lake of fire until they are reformed, which will take a very long time.

The Universalist position is hard to define; they are a rather motley group, and I suppose that must be so as they have so litttle to base their doctrine on as to how people might be saved out of hell.



Interesting thought Homer but i don't think being judged according to the light we receive is really scripturally saving faith but i do agree God is merciful and it is his will that everyone should be saved and come into the knowledge of the truth. Jesus prayed that the Father's will be done and in Isaiah it says God will in effect will be accomplished by God himself.
Therefore we know God's will and we know he will intervene to get his will done , yet you claim CU has little support though it is God's stated will. We also know few people are really saved in this life here, so yes we must deduce the rest but the possibilities left are very limited even if Universalists are a rather motley group.

[Homer]

Hi Steve 7150,

You wrote:

Jesus prayed that the Father's will be done and in Isaiah it says God will in effect will be accomplished by God himself.
Therefore we know God's will and we know he will intervene to get his will done , yet you claim CU has little support though it is God's stated will. We also know few people are really saved in this life here, so yes we must deduce the rest but the possibilities left are very limited even if Universalists are a rather motley group.

But surely you will agree that it is God's will that all men should be saved now, and yet they are not. So, at least in some sense, God's will can be frustrated as long as He does not overturn free-will. And is it God's determined will or His desired will you refer to? Scripture quotes are helpful, such as your Isaiah reference.

Do you believe God will overturn free-will to save all?

You indicated you are undecided between the UR and CI positions, yet I do not recall you posting an argument for CI. Why is that? If I were to decide CI was the correct view, would you agree with me? Perhaps you are only testing my arguments without actually disagreeing with them.

God bless, Homer

[steve7150]

You indicated you are undecided between the UR and CI positions, yet I do not recall you posting an argument for CI. Why is that? If I were to decide CI was the correct view, would you agree with me? Perhaps you are only testing my arguments without actually disagreeing with them.





The reason i don't argue for CI Homer is my understanding of the traditional view like that of the 7th Day Adventists is that it does not allow for any salvation after death. As you know i believe scripture does not preclude this therefore it is up to God if any and how many may be saved post mortum.
Maybe i'm a sort of humanist at heart but i hope most of humanity is ultimately saved and as far as i can tell it would be through the lake of fire after justice is served.
Incidently i don't see you argue much for CI , only for eternal punishment unless i missed some of your postings. I'll answer the rest of your post as soon as i can.

[steve]

David wrote:

1Th 4:13 Now we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve like the rest who have no hope.

Either Paul was saying:
(a) living unbelievers grieving for dead unbelievers are the ones who had no hope, or
(b) dead unbelievers had no hope

Under either scenario, Paul's point was that unbelievers had no hope, correct? If so, then how can you say there's no specific biblical data to answer the question?

I was traveling all weekend, without opportunity to post, but Todd answered quite correctly on this. Paul is not saying anything about dead people having or not having hope. He is addressing the mood of survivors. Christian survivors, informed by the Gospel, have hope for their dead. The belief systems of non-Christians (these are the others) do not provide them with any such hope about their dead.

[Jess]

Although not explicitly stated in the verse, I agree that Paul is talking to the Thessalonians about THEIR dead (those who died "in Christ") and not THE dead (anyone who might have died, either in or out of Christ).

Jess

[DavidinWichita]

I was traveling all weekend, without opportunity to post, but Todd answered quite correctly on this. Paul is not saying anything about dead people having or not having hope. He is addressing the mood of survivors. Christian survivors, informed by the Gospel, have hope for their dead. The belief systems of non-Christians (these are the others) do not provide them with any such hope about their dead.

Steve,
Thanks for your reply. I agree that he is referring to survivors, not dead unbelievers. But I have three questions for you (and anyone else who'd like to answer:

Q1: How do you know that Paul was referring to the mood of survivors as opposed to their eternal fate? Is it just your opinion?

Q2: What about this verse:
Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

You'll might say, "this again is referring to the mood of the unbeliever." I would disagree, because Paul isn't talking about grieving for the dead in this passage, but rather about the Ephesians status before they were in Christ. If so, the question becomes how can unbelievers while they are living have no hope, but after they die, all the sudden have hope of repenting under a universal reconciliation scenario? Why would they have no hope while living, die in their sins, and then have hope?

Q3: What about this verse:
Joh 3:36 The one who believes in the Son has eternal life. The one who rejects the Son will not see life, but God's wrath remains on him.

If the one who rejects the Son will not see life, how can he have any hope of repenting and then having life after death? Seems pretty clear to me that not seeing life means not ever seeing life.

Always desirous of the truth, and looking forward to your reply,
David

[steve]

Q1: How do you know that Paul was referring to the mood of survivors as opposed to their eternal fate? Is it just your opinion?

To me it is somewhat inescapable. Paul is talking about Christians not needing to grieve as others do, who have no hope. That is, those who do not cherish any hope of resurrection grieve differently than do those who do have such hope. It is the lack of hope that dictates the depth of their grief, meaning that the not having hope is a state of mind.

Q2: What about this verse:
Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

You'll might say, "this again is referring to the mood of the unbeliever." I would disagree, because Paul isn't talking about grieving for the dead in this passage, but rather about the Ephesians status before they were in Christ. If so, the question becomes how can unbelievers while they are living have no hope, but after they die, all the sudden have hope of repenting under a universal reconciliation scenario? Why would they have no hope while living, die in their sins, and then have hope?

I believe that "having hope," in the New Testament is always a reference to a subjective state of mind (i.e., positive expectation, or the opposite of despair), not a reference to objective circumstance. "Hope" in scripture (along with faith and love) are states of mind, not objective conditions. Unlike the New testament writers, we use the word "hopeless" to refer to a circumstance in which nothing good can be expected.

Q3: What about this verse:
Joh 3:36 The one who believes in the Son has eternal life. The one who rejects the Son will not see life, but God's wrath remains on him.

This means that the unbelieving one will not see life while persisting in the state of unbelief. John obviously knew that some of those who were currently rejecting Christ might have a change of heart, stop rejecting, start believing, and stop depriving themselves of life. In fact, he wrote the gospel in order to bring about just such a change in such people (John 20:31). The question that universalism raises is only one of whether this change of heart can only occur in this life, or whether it may occur to some after death. This aspect of the question is untouched by the statement in John.

[Sean]

Concerning the 1 Thes 4 question about hope, what about 1 Thes 5? If we continue to read in context and do not stop at the chapter division we read this:

1 Thes 5:1 But concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, you have no need that I should write to you. 2 For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night. 3 For when they say, “Peace and safety!” then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman. And they shall not escape. 4 But you, brethren, are not in darkness, so that this Day should overtake you as a thief. 5 You are all sons of light and sons of the day. We are not of the night nor of darkness. 6 Therefore let us not sleep, as others do, but let us watch and be sober. 7 For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night. 8 But let us who are of the day be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet the hope of salvation. 9 For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 who died for us, that whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with Him. 11 Therefore comfort each other and edify one another, just as you also are doing.

It seems that Paul's statement in 1 Thes 4:13 about those who have no hope could indeed refer to their condition in the "afterlife". Paul speaks of the things that happen to those who are not saved at that time. Destruction of a type they will not escape. Wrath contrasted with the salvation "we" obtain. It seems that if UR were true, Paul could not make this statement, since UR teaches salvation through the wrath of hell-fire. Paul seems to say it's one of two groups. Those who suffer wrath and those who obtain salvation. UR seems to make the illogical statement that "a" ultimately equals "b", when Paul seems to say it either "a" or "b". Then he says comfort each other with his words. Possibly to give them hope (the hope mentioned in 1 Thes 4:13?), a hope the lost do not have? Paul does not seem to hold out hope to those who suffer wrath, but we should? I don't get it.

I, like Homer (apparently) have had a hard time seeing any biblical merit to UR (Universal Reconciliation). I've read many of the posts on the subject here and have posted little. I just don't get it. The typology throughout the OT is one of judgement to the wicked and saving of a few (believing remnant). I fail to see any biblical or logical merit to salvation granted after the time of judgement. If the judgement is on the last day and consists of those who are "raised to life" (John 6:40) and those who are "condemned" (John 12:48), then how can it be said their will be more "days" after the last "day" where the condemned are rahabilitated and raised to "eternal life"? Kind of like missing graduation so you take summer school to make up for it. The problem is that in multiple places it is stated that there will be a singular judgement where all "fates" are decided.

But who knows, I'll continue to read and consider the issue.