Barclay was convinced (UR)

[Colin]

In the lake of fire, we do not know what happens, but the UR theory suggests that people may yet repent and be released to dwell under the reign of the saints. In my opinion, these who were not faithful in life have forever forfeited their opportunity to reign with Christ (because they refused to suffer with him). If there is any return from the lake of fire to the new earth, it is to the environs outside the city gates of New Jerusalem.

The more I read this, the more I think that your view of UR is not as radically different from the traditional view as I first thought:

- Both views believe that everyone becomes immortal
- Both views believe that there will be a judgement, and at that judgement those whose names are not in the Book of Life get thrown in the LOF
- Both views believe that there will be some kind of punishment/correction in the LOF
- Both views believe that only those whose names are in the Book of Life at the judgement can enter the New Jersusalem, which is where the Lord will dwell
- Both views believe that those cast into the LOF will not be allowed entrance into the New Jersulamen and to the presence of the Lord.

Did I get that all right? If that is the case, the only effective difference I see is the nature and duration of the "punishment". I guess there may also be a difference as to how close to the presence of the Lord those released from the LOF can get. It would seem to me that never being allowed entrance into the New Jerusalem is an everlasting punishment. I've heard many people who basically hold the traditional view say their view is that the "everlasting punishment" is nothing more than eternal separation from God (I think that would cause most people torment, eh?).

[steve]

Just musing here, but my thought was that those who have repented in the lake of fire and were allowed to inhabit the new earth (outside the city) would do so as fully reconciled to God, not excluded from access to Him, but fully accepted as formerly-rebellious children who have been redeemed by Christ (like ourselves). In this sense, they would not differ from those inside the city. The difference would be one of station or function. Those who have faithfully suffered for Christ in their earthly lifetimes will reign with Him. Those who have suffered (in hell) for their rejection of Christ will be reigned over. But that does not mean eternal torment or exclusion from the presence of God. The idea of reconciliation precludes that.

I do not press for a literal approach to the imagery of the city. I believe the New Jerusalem is the spiritual fellowship of those in Christ, who have become members of His body, the Church (Heb.12:22-24). That there is a difference between those who have entered this fellowship (which can only be done in this life, as near as I can tell) and those who have not done so. In my opinion, this difference can be metaphorically imaged as those who live in the royal city and those who live outside it. But even those outside it may be reconciled with God (that is, no longer on bad terms with Him), and living in a curse-free world. Thus, they suffer eternal loss themselves, but God does not suffer the eternal loss of them.

There is a large measure of speculation in all of this, so I don't expect anyone to find it compelling. It is simply a view of universal reconciliation that would, to my mind, answer to all of the data of scripture, and would satisfy the objections that initially arise in people's minds when they hear of universal reconciliation.

[TheEditor]

Greetings,

I am enjoying greatly this discussion. I want to thank the Original Poster for reminding me of Ken Allen's website. I used to correspond with him in the mid 1990s when I was making my exodous from the Watchtower Society. He had linked a site I was running under geocities at the time and had linked articles, and etc. Having had to do a great deal of rethinking along these lines after disassembling my previous paradigm, I haven't fully come to the UR view as of yet. I still find an appeal in CT Russell's views (whose views, btw are nothing like contemporary JW views) which are an incorporation of CI and future probation. I always felt it nicely allowed for the maximum amount of opportunity and fairness for people to accept the Gospel, without having their hand forced.

I have also never quite understood the resistance to using our concept of mercy and justice to affect how we view God's dealings with His creation. Agreed that His ways are higher than our own, but does He not appeal to us based upon our sense of right and wrong? Consider Abraham's attitude toward God's justice:

"Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the LORD. And Abraham came near and said, “Would You also destroy the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there were fifty righteous within the city; would You also destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous that were in it? Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” -- Genesis 18:22-25.

Abraham had his own conceptions of right and wrong and went so far as to suggest that God's so doing would constitute 'not doing right'. (More could be added about God's sparing of Zoar because Lot didn't want to flee to the mountains).

The Rich Man and Lazarus has been made mention of in this thread. I have posted before on this, so I'll just provide the link, should any be interested in giving it a look see.

http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=3410


Regards, Brenden.

[jriccitelli]

I am enjoying this discussion too, today I asked another worker if he thought ‘all’ people might get to go to heaven, it’s a good conversation starter. I am really very light hearted at work, but I ask these questions because deep down I know they are a matter of life and (eternal?) death.
I said in my post; If God does not punish sin he would be unjust.
And the answer I got was ‘well that’s your opinion’
Yeah it is my opinion, and I thought it was Gods opinion.
How can it be fair, and how can you have civilization unless you condemn evil?

If one of my children picks up a shoe and hits my other kid on the back of the head,
I will sit him in the corner, but if later on that same kid picks up a stick and hits my other kid in the face with the stick, what should I do? What would you do?
To not do anything would be unjust, and dysfunctional.
If my son raped a neighbor’s daughter what should I do, just forgive him?
I know there are men who would kill and think nothing of it. They don’t believe there is a thing called hell, and they really think they are going to get away with it, and just die.

We forgive wrongs done to us not because we simply think it is the right thing to do, we forgive because we believe God gave His son, who was beaten and hung on a cross.
We forgive others to ‘show’ them that ‘we have’ received forgiveness, and that ‘they too’ can receive forgiveness, ‘if’ they believe. Scripture says whoever does not believe is judged already. I ‘believe’ God will do justice, so I need not do so.
If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. (Romans 12:18)

Yes, sin ‘demands’ a punishment that’s what God demanded, if punishment wasn’t necessary; why did it please God to crush Him? (Isaiah 53:10)

[steve7150]

I said in my post; If God does not punish sin he would be unjust.
And the answer I got was ‘well that’s your opinion’
Yeah it is my opinion, and I thought it was Gods opinion.
How can it be fair, and how can you have civilization unless you condemn evil?









Where do you get the idea God does not punish sin in the UR view? Unless you think the only punishment that's just, is eternal destruction but in the traditional UR view sinners reap what they sow. God judges justly and sinners receive a punishment that fits the crime, not for salvation but for justice.

[steve7150]

I haven't fully come to the UR view as of yet. I still find an appeal in CT Russell's views (whose views, btw are nothing like contemporary JW views) which are an incorporation of CI and future probation. I always felt it nicely allowed for the maximum amount of opportunity and fairness for people to accept the Gospel, without having their hand forced.










I'm also sympathetic to Russell's view and he has unfairly been connected to the JWs which he did not start as they began after his death and were a breakaway group from the Associated biblestudents.
I had asked whether anyone thought about a endgame between CI and UR which is really what Russell believed but no one responded.

[Michelle]

I had asked whether anyone thought about a endgame between CI and UR which is really what Russell believed but no one responded.

I'm sure my voice is insignificant, but I didn't realize I had slid to no one status. I truly believe that the midpoint between universal reconciliation and conditional immortality would look, for all intents and purposes, like eternal conscious torment, provided the model for UR was torment in hell until the individual repents. I even quoted a verse (2 Peter 3:9) as proof-text.

[steve7150]

I'm sure my voice is insignificant, but I didn't realize I had slid to no one status. I truly believe that the midpoint between universal reconciliation and conditional immortality would look, for all intents and purposes, like eternal conscious torment, provided the model for UR was torment in hell until the individual repents. I even quoted a verse (2 Peter 3:9) as proof-text.









Sorry Michelle,
For some reason i thought you were kidding, my bad. I doubt that God torments people until they repent , i just don't see that as a method used by Jesus or the Apostles. Real repentance IMHO has to be a desire of the heart, not a way to avoid torment from God.

[Michelle]

I'm sure my voice is insignificant, but I didn't realize I had slid to no one status. I truly believe that the midpoint between universal reconciliation and conditional immortality would look, for all intents and purposes, like eternal conscious torment, provided the model for UR was torment in hell until the individual repents. I even quoted a verse (2 Peter 3:9) as proof-text.









Sorry Michelle,
For some reason i thought you were kidding, my bad. I doubt that God torments people until they repent , i just don't see that as a method used by Jesus or the Apostles. Real repentance IMHO has to be a desire of the heart, not a way to avoid torment from God.

Yeah, I actually agree with you. If, however, the idea that hell is for correction is true, could it not seem like torment to the person being corrected?

[Homer]

Steve,

Several posts back I replied partially to your list of 74 proof-texts for universalism. Perhaps you missed the post; I thought you were interested in comments on them, but perhaps you are not.