You cited (as if carrying some weight):
You also cited Tertullian, in favor of such a bizarre interpretation.Matt. 5:26,18:34; Luke 12:58-59 – Jesus teaches us, “Come to terms with your opponent or you will be handed over to the judge and thrown into prison. You will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” The word “opponent” (antidiko) is likely a reference to the devil (see the same word for devil in 1 Pet. 5:8) who is an accuser against man (c.f. Job 1.6-12; Zech. 3.1; Rev. 12.10), and God is the judge. If we have not adequately dealt with satan and sin in this life, we will be held in a temporary state called a prison, and we won’t get out until we have satisfied our entire debt to God. This “prison” is purgatory where we will not get out until the last penny is paid.
This interpretation is absurd in the extreme. It lifts the relevant passage entirely out of context (a context where Jesus is talking about maintaining justice in relationships) and turns it into a teaching about the afterlife. Jesus is talking here (as in the previous verses) about getting along with hostile neighbors. In this case, as in verse 40, Jesus is talking about disputes that are legally actionable. In this place, He is clearly saying, "if you are at fault, go and make it right (make restitution and reconciliation) before it comes to court—because, if it comes to court, you will get what you deserve." This teaching fits neatly into the flow of thought in the sermon where it appears. To turn it into a statement about the postmortem judgment is typical of those interpreters who think Jesus was as obsessed as we are about matters of the afterlife.
Tertullian was no theologian or exegete. He was an apologist, who had a number of weird ideas. The word "adversary" means a legal opponent. It is used metaphorically of the devil, it is true, on one occasion, but that is because he, too, is a legal opponent of a sort. That does not turn the ordinary word "adversary" into a technical term for Satan. Jesus said to "agree"—the word means to be well-disposed, of a peaceable spirit (Thayer)—"with your adversary." How absurd to suggest that Jesus is recommending such an amicable relationship with the devil! Yet how typical of His teaching to be kind to those who persecute you.
This sounds like a statement of rather firm conviction. I have read the statements of Jesus on the judgment, and have considered the various exegetical alternatives. I have the impression that I have considered them more dispassionately and more objectively than you have. Which of the "judgment statements" of Christ rule out both purgatory and universalism? I don't mean, which of the statements give the initial impression in the English translations of ruling them out, but which of them do so by solid exegesis ?Yet Jesus' judgement statements seem to rule [purgatory] out, the same as they do universalism.
I wrote:
To which you wrote:The entire argument, in each case, relies on the speculation that "A" cannot occur in heaven, and "B" cannot occur in hell. I don't see how these speculations can be scripturally justified.
There is a difference between (a) the assumption of a universal negative and (b) the assumption of a positive possibility. The former would require proof, whereas refutation of the latter would require disproof.And neither is repentance and conversion in hell anything more than speculation. Where is it stated in scripture? Why does Jesus make no mention of it in His judgement statements? I see speculation in both of their positions.
(a) If I wished to assert that there can be no repentance in hell, I would be claiming to know all that may or may not go on in hell (or at least to know more than we have been told). If I can prove from scripture that no repentance can or will occur there, very well. But if I cannot do so, there is no reason for anyone to pay attention to my false claim to knowledge.
(b) If I say, there is the possibility that persons in hell might have opportunity to repent, I am not claiming to know anything beyond what we have been told. Until the impossibility of such occurrences can somehow be demonstrated, the possibility remains a legitimate consideration—especially if such a possibility is agreeable with everything we know about the character of God.
Many universalists do not claim to know that everyone will repent, but would label themselves as "hopeful" universalists. Since God Himself desires all men to be saved, we can include Him among those who are "hopeful" universalists. Of course, since God actually knows more about the matter than we do, it is possible that His hopefulness amounts to actual certainty.