There are two facts which I believe make a strong argument in favor of post-resurrection repentance. It seems to me that those who argue against it seem to think people will die and be resurrected with the same attitudes, propensities and frailties they had on this earth. I don't think so.
Firstly, consider the fact that everyone will see Christ as He truly is.
Revelation 1:7
Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.
Faith will no longer be required in the resurrection as it will be replace by sight.
Secondly, we will not have our fleshly bodies anymore in the resurrection along with all the fleshly desires that go with it. We'll all be changed.
1 Cor 15:50-54
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”
I believe the change in everyone in the resurrection will remove any barrier one might have to willingly subjecting himself to Christ. When the body is redeemed (Rom 8:23) everyone will be delivered from the "bondage of corruption" (Rom 8:21) into the same glorious liberty in Christ. "For this corruptible must put on incorruption."
Todd
Barclay was convinced (UR)
Re: Barclay was convinced
1 Cor 15:50-54
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”
Todd,
Is Paul referring to everyone resurrected or only believers because he calls his listeners "brethren", and he uses the phrase "we". If he does mean everyone whether believer or unbeliever it would eliminate the CI view as he says "this mortal must put on immortality."
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”
Todd,
Is Paul referring to everyone resurrected or only believers because he calls his listeners "brethren", and he uses the phrase "we". If he does mean everyone whether believer or unbeliever it would eliminate the CI view as he says "this mortal must put on immortality."
Re: Barclay was convinced
I'm curious, what is the UR take on Hebrews 6:4-6? How does the "impossible...to renew them to repentance" fit in with the idea that eventually everyone will repent?
-
jriccitelli
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
Re: Barclay was convinced
I think universalists are pouring way too much into the word 'all'. Paul uses the same word in 1 Corinthians verse 1:2 and qualifies 'all' by saying; "with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ"
Romans 1 verse 7; "...to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called saints"
Romans 4 verse 11; ..."so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised"
The writer has to expect you have been understanding 'all' that he has written 'before'. Biblical prophets have already qualified 'who' will be saved, and 'how' they will be saved. It would make 'all' writing long and cumbersome to have to 'redefine' everything you have already gone over each time the 'subject' is brought up again. The context for being saved, justified and receiving immortality has been laid out, spelled out and driven home since Joshua crossed the Jordan. You cant wipe away 'all' that Paul taught by suddenly resurrecting 'all' to the blessed 'hope' of immortality, after having read through hundreds of pages of prophets warnings of punishment and death;
"You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 "Therefore bear fruits in keeping with repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, We have Abraham for our father, for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham (Luke 3:7-8)
Since I am new to this forum, I have tried to read some of the past (many) forum discussions on this, I don’t want to use the same answers and arguments again so I am going off your recent questions. I have not yet heard all the arguments for UR I’m sure. So, I am interested in what they are, especially if people not holding to ET are swayed to UR.
I was born again while I was attending a Mormon church, so I am relating many of the answers I had to their doctrines of a ‘second chance’, ‘purging in hell’, ‘immortality of all souls’ ‘fatherhood of God’ ‘atonement’ etc.
Of course you cannot have middle ground, anymore than a statement that says everyone will be saved but some will not be saved. (I suppose we were kidding on a middle ground)
Scripture doesn’t say God needs every human born 'saved' to make Him happy, it says He ‘desires’ they all 'repent'.
God does things, and allows things, that do not bring Him pleasure, yet ultimatly he will fullfill His goal of a new man.
God cannot really 'enjoy' any (earthly) suffering, but He allows it, He even causes it.
He establishes the curse, the thorn, the sting, the bite, so if God uses pain to bring about his ‘purpose’ I do not see why the loss of something he knew was temporary, is going to affect Him eternally.
That is; the loss of people, many people. God kills and God makes alive.
The idea that every human conceived must have, or is entitled to eternal life, comes from where?
Romans 1 verse 7; "...to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called saints"
Romans 4 verse 11; ..."so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised"
The writer has to expect you have been understanding 'all' that he has written 'before'. Biblical prophets have already qualified 'who' will be saved, and 'how' they will be saved. It would make 'all' writing long and cumbersome to have to 'redefine' everything you have already gone over each time the 'subject' is brought up again. The context for being saved, justified and receiving immortality has been laid out, spelled out and driven home since Joshua crossed the Jordan. You cant wipe away 'all' that Paul taught by suddenly resurrecting 'all' to the blessed 'hope' of immortality, after having read through hundreds of pages of prophets warnings of punishment and death;
"You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 "Therefore bear fruits in keeping with repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, We have Abraham for our father, for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham (Luke 3:7-8)
Since I am new to this forum, I have tried to read some of the past (many) forum discussions on this, I don’t want to use the same answers and arguments again so I am going off your recent questions. I have not yet heard all the arguments for UR I’m sure. So, I am interested in what they are, especially if people not holding to ET are swayed to UR.
I was born again while I was attending a Mormon church, so I am relating many of the answers I had to their doctrines of a ‘second chance’, ‘purging in hell’, ‘immortality of all souls’ ‘fatherhood of God’ ‘atonement’ etc.
Of course you cannot have middle ground, anymore than a statement that says everyone will be saved but some will not be saved. (I suppose we were kidding on a middle ground)
Scripture doesn’t say God needs every human born 'saved' to make Him happy, it says He ‘desires’ they all 'repent'.
God does things, and allows things, that do not bring Him pleasure, yet ultimatly he will fullfill His goal of a new man.
God cannot really 'enjoy' any (earthly) suffering, but He allows it, He even causes it.
He establishes the curse, the thorn, the sting, the bite, so if God uses pain to bring about his ‘purpose’ I do not see why the loss of something he knew was temporary, is going to affect Him eternally.
That is; the loss of people, many people. God kills and God makes alive.
The idea that every human conceived must have, or is entitled to eternal life, comes from where?
Re: Barclay was convinced
"with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ"
Romans 1 verse 7; "...to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called saints"
Romans 4 verse 11; ..."so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised"
Actually, all is quite literal in all of these examples, as it is qualified.
Romans 1 verse 7; "...to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called saints"
Romans 4 verse 11; ..."so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised"
Actually, all is quite literal in all of these examples, as it is qualified.
Re: Barclay was convinced
Re: Barclay was convinced
New postby jriccitelli on Sun Dec 04, 2011 12:57 pm
I think universalists are pouring way too much into the word 'all'. Paul uses the same word in 1 Corinthians verse 1:2 and qualifies 'all' by saying; "with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ"
Romans 1 verse 7; "...to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called saints"
Romans 4 verse 11; ..."so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised"
Exactly right, Paul knows how to qualify "all" when he needs to. It sounds like in this age "all who believe" but in the fullness of time we see "as in Adam all die and in Christ all will be made alive." He could have said "all will be made alive if they are in Christ" , but it sounds to me like some of Paul's statements are actually prophetic in nature.
New postby jriccitelli on Sun Dec 04, 2011 12:57 pm
I think universalists are pouring way too much into the word 'all'. Paul uses the same word in 1 Corinthians verse 1:2 and qualifies 'all' by saying; "with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ"
Romans 1 verse 7; "...to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called saints"
Romans 4 verse 11; ..."so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised"
Exactly right, Paul knows how to qualify "all" when he needs to. It sounds like in this age "all who believe" but in the fullness of time we see "as in Adam all die and in Christ all will be made alive." He could have said "all will be made alive if they are in Christ" , but it sounds to me like some of Paul's statements are actually prophetic in nature.
Re: Barclay was convinced
I was born again while I was attending a Mormon church, so I am relating many of the answers I had to their doctrines of a ‘second chance’, ‘purging in hell’, ‘immortality of all souls’ ‘fatherhood of God’ ‘atonement’ etc.
Of course you cannot have middle ground, anymore than a statement that says everyone will be saved but some will not be saved. (I suppose we were kidding on a middle ground)
Paul said only God has immortality but he can give this gift to whoever he chooses. BTW i was'nt kidding about a middle ground when i asked about an end result between CI and UR, it just was'nt really answered.
Of course you cannot have middle ground, anymore than a statement that says everyone will be saved but some will not be saved. (I suppose we were kidding on a middle ground)
Paul said only God has immortality but he can give this gift to whoever he chooses. BTW i was'nt kidding about a middle ground when i asked about an end result between CI and UR, it just was'nt really answered.
Re: Barclay was convinced
I'm curious, what is the UR take on Hebrews 6:4-6? How does the "impossible...to renew them to repentance" fit in with the idea that eventually everyone will repent?
I take it as hyperbole meaning it's very difficult to repent. If you take it literally then it should also not be possible for a rich man to enter heaven unless a camel can walk through the eye of a needle.
I take it as hyperbole meaning it's very difficult to repent. If you take it literally then it should also not be possible for a rich man to enter heaven unless a camel can walk through the eye of a needle.
-
jriccitelli
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
Re: Barclay was convinced
I dont see why Paul, who writes in a very text book style, would be using esoteric language in his 'greeting' section of the letter. And then qualify the word 'all' with a prophetic interpretation, knowing so or not, it would neither then qualify 'those who are saints', because certainly the reader could not interpret 'all' in Rome are 'beloved' by God at that current time. Paul said 'we' verse 5, then in vs. 6; "'you also' are the called of Jesus", vs 7; to "all of God in Rome", then vs. 8; I thank my God through Jesus Christ for 'you all', because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world. etc.
Note the list of saints (some) of Rome gone through at the end of the letter in chap. 16. Certainly it was literal.
To say it is prophetic, is to make an assumption, as i have heard, i would rather not say a verse was prophetic unless another biblical writer 'says' it is prophetic. Universalists are assuming 'all' will believe, you cant give evidence that Paul is being prophetic if nothing tells us all will 'believe'.
In reference to the rich young ruler; After Jesus said "how hard it is for a rich man to enter...", the disiples asked "Well who then can be saved?" Jesus taught the Law, 'by works' it is impossible to enter the kingdom, but Jesus also fullfiled the Law, putting to end a righteousness of works. This was not yet understood when the disciples asked the question. Note Jesus also said things like;
Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matt. 5;48) and "But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions" (Matt. 6:15), these also can only be fullfiled through Christ.
Therefore you can take Hebrews at face value, the Gospel has been clearly revealed at this point in Hebrews, there is nothing not known about the elementary teachings at this point. Hyperbole about what? Is Paul making a comparison of universal acceptance with universal acceptance?
Hyperbole has to have an object or subject of 'some kind of opposite' to even bother with using an hyperbole
(Is Paul saying then it is impossible for them not to be renewed??)
I noticed also in Mark 10:29-30; Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospels sake, 30 but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life.
So is eternal life here, or is it in the age to come?
Note the list of saints (some) of Rome gone through at the end of the letter in chap. 16. Certainly it was literal.
To say it is prophetic, is to make an assumption, as i have heard, i would rather not say a verse was prophetic unless another biblical writer 'says' it is prophetic. Universalists are assuming 'all' will believe, you cant give evidence that Paul is being prophetic if nothing tells us all will 'believe'.
In reference to the rich young ruler; After Jesus said "how hard it is for a rich man to enter...", the disiples asked "Well who then can be saved?" Jesus taught the Law, 'by works' it is impossible to enter the kingdom, but Jesus also fullfiled the Law, putting to end a righteousness of works. This was not yet understood when the disciples asked the question. Note Jesus also said things like;
Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matt. 5;48) and "But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions" (Matt. 6:15), these also can only be fullfiled through Christ.
Therefore you can take Hebrews at face value, the Gospel has been clearly revealed at this point in Hebrews, there is nothing not known about the elementary teachings at this point. Hyperbole about what? Is Paul making a comparison of universal acceptance with universal acceptance?
Hyperbole has to have an object or subject of 'some kind of opposite' to even bother with using an hyperbole
(Is Paul saying then it is impossible for them not to be renewed??)
I noticed also in Mark 10:29-30; Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospels sake, 30 but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life.
So is eternal life here, or is it in the age to come?
Re: Barclay was convinced
I noticed also in Mark 10:29-30; Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospels sake, 30 but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life.
So is eternal life here, or is it in the age to come?
Eternal (Aionios) life. There is an age to come and in fact Paul has indicated pluralized ages in his writings , but as i have said earlier "aionios" IMO means age-lasting but for the the ones in the kingdom of God , "aionios" in effect means eternal.
So is eternal life here, or is it in the age to come?
Eternal (Aionios) life. There is an age to come and in fact Paul has indicated pluralized ages in his writings , but as i have said earlier "aionios" IMO means age-lasting but for the the ones in the kingdom of God , "aionios" in effect means eternal.