Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children

[steve]

In Universalism the fire, destruction, and killing that God does is reinterpreted as 'corrective'.

Possibly. However, since these things are not said to pertain, necessarily to the next life, it may be that they are the temporal judgments at the end of this present lifetime. The correction might begin afterward—that is, postmortem. Who knows? I don't. Certainly you don't either. You just think you do.

Punishment can be corrective and educational, but that does not automatically make the fire, destruction, and killing that God does 'corrective'. It makes no sense to kill someone if you are planning to 'correct' them.

Huh? Are you saying that God is finished with people after they die? Why would you believe this? Is there no postmortem resurrection and judgment? These are the things we are discussing—not death. The wicked often die a "bad death" because they die under God's judgment. This (or some other kind of death) would happen regardless of what God intends to do with them "on the other side." Everyone dies—the good and the bad. It is what follows that we are debating here. Hadn't you picked up on that?

(And I do think an executioner would resist putting to death a son, as it has happened).

Unless he was like Abraham, who was indeed prepared to execute his son, because he knew that death could not be the end of the story (see Heb.11:17-18). Since we are talking about God as a Father, and what fathers might or might not do, this story seems instructive—even determinative. It proves your point to be wrong.

There is nothing corrective about fire or destruction. The intent and purpose of putting something in fire is to destroy it. That is what anyone in the ancient world would think and anyone associated with getting rid of piles of rubbish and unwanted items would know (And anyone who has surveyed the scene of a fire).

I would count myself as one who has surveyed the scene of a fire on more than one occasion. It is not exactly as you describe it. Some things burn up, and others don't. The latter remain (often melted or otherwise altered) when the fire is gone.

If I put trash in the fire, you are right. I hope for the trash to be burned. If I put ore in the fire, I do not expect it to be burned up, but I do expect to eliminate the dross. If one sticks a knife into the fire, he probably plans to sanitize it for some work. If I place a pot of water in the flames, I hope that neither the pot nor the water will be consumed. I may well be making the water pure and safe to drink. Are you not aware of the fact that fire has numerous purposes—many of which are mentioned in scripture?

Destruction kind of speaks for itself, if God says He is going to destroy I think His intention is clear, that is what you do when you do not even want the thing around anymore. Sounds rough, but that is what you do with dead animals, God writes this out in detail - I do not see how God could make it any more 'clear'.

This is irrelevant, if the destruction spoken of is temporal. The verses you have quoted are virtually all describing temporal judgments. This has been pointed out to you several times, but you act as if it has not, and you continue in what seems almost a deliberate ignorance of what any objective person can see to be obvious. Do you really think the Old Testament prophets were describing postmortem judgments?

The only clear reference to eschatological destruction, for which I can see no likelihood of it being historic-temporal, is 1 Thess.1:9 (If there is any other, it is slipping my mind. Feel free to point it out). This would be the best verse to serve your purpose. But in order for it to do so, certain assumptions need to be in place about the meaning of aionios, which, of course, has been discussed here sufficiently to give any reasonable person pause in assuming a certain knowledge of its meaning.

[john6809]

Question for Steve,
To great degree, I tend to agree with the understanding of universalists. There are a few questions that give me cause for pause. One question comes from a teaching you presented.

Less than a year ago, I listened to your teaching on the Lord's Prayer. I don't know how long ago you taught it. When you were discussing the section where it says, "Your kingdom come, Your will be done," you pointed out (accurately), that God's will is not always done on earth, hence the need for us to pray that His kingdom would come in greater way today than yesterday. Since it is true that God lives with the fact that His will is not done now, why would it be so much more difficult to concede that He might also be unwillingly resigned to the same fate for eternity? After all, the period of human history that is marred by sin is one that will never be undone, and will always mark a period in time when His will was not done.

I can't see God tormenting sinners for an eternity. I just hoped that one of the arguments in favour of universalism (the one that says that God's will is not done if all are not saved), might be strengthened in my understanding. It seems that God is willing to live an eternity with the memory of man's rebellion during earthly history. If that is the case, I don't know how much strength the above argument of universalists has.

[look2jesus]

Hello John6809,

After all, the period of human history that is marred by sin is one that will never be undone, and will always mark a period in time when His will was not done.

While it is true, I suppose, that "the memory of man's rebellion" might always exist in the mind of God (though there might be a question of whether God actually "remembers" things--being, it would seem, that he is outside of time), were I a Universalist, I would see Christ's work as undoing "the period of human history that is marred by sin". So, God being able to glorify himself as it suits him, and as he has had full knowledge of what the outcome of things would be from the beginning, I doubt that this objection to Universalism bears any weight if it turns out to be true.

Since you are studying the subject, you might be interested in a recent project put together by a brother named Peter Grice, out of Australia, called Rethinking Hell. You can find it at rethinkinghell.com. There is also a facebook group by the same name that I would be happy to add you (or anyone else) to if you would like--just pm me here. The project is dedicated to promoting Conditional Immortality, but respectful interaction and discussion with traditionalists or universalists is certainly welcomed.

Blessings to you in your studies.

l2j

[john6809]

Thanks l2j. I was about to switch gears and study CI for a while. I'll PM you soon.

[jeremiah]

l2j,

cool man, you beat me to it. i was thinking about plugging rethinking hell a couple of weeks ago, but it slipped my mind. are you a "boarder" over there? i want to say i saw your name a few months back at rh and was wondering where i had seen that name before. makes sense now if that was the case.

grace and peace.

[steve]

Hi john6809,

I believe that, whatever may prove to be the case about hell, the next world's economy will differ from this world's in important ways. For one, because this world is (as I understand it) a school and proving ground for the next, there will be no further temptations, sins, or griefs in that world—either for God or man. God may be willing to endure disappointment "for a brief moment" which is earth's history, but it seems unlikely, in His all-wise, sovereign counsels, that He organized the whole of creation in such a manner as to necessarily bring Him eternal disappointment (He may have, but it seems very unlikely).

And it is not God's disappointment alone that is involved, but that of the millions of His children, whose loved ones have been forfeit as a result of God's human experiment. If all this is necessary, then so be it. We can live with disappointment. The question is, "Is that really necessary?" Is it the best plan God could come up with? If He wished all to be saved (and all but the Calvinists accept this premise), could He not set up a system wherein He can continue waiting and providing opportunity for every person to be saved? We think of death as the cut-off point for opportunity, but the Bible does not declare that to be the case, and there is no power above God that could force Him to adopt such a policy if He preferred to do otherwise.

I can understand the thinking of those who doubt or question whether universalism is what the Bible teaches, but what I can't understand is those who clearly find the idea objectionable. To those ones, I always want to ask, "If God is better than you think He is, will you be disappointed?"

This is clearly what the universalists are claiming—and I find them difficult to refute. They are asking, "What if God is actually better than you are giving Him credit for being? What if the Good News is better than you think?" All other views than universalism are essentially saying, "God is good, but not as good as we could imagine or think!" Heck! A God who could adopt a universalist system but chooses not to do so is not even quite as good as most good men—certainly not as good as Jesus commands us to be! Some people believe that God is better (not worse) than our puny and fallen minds have perceived Him to be.

[jriccitelli]

Seems 'to me' that Universalists are asking, "What if God is actually different from what we read in OT scripture?
I definitely do not want to go around imagining what God is like, when it contradicts scripture. I think it is clear what God has said about Himself, UR wants us to believe this was all a temporal revelation about Himself, and that the 'real' Jesus would reveal the actual heart of God. My view does not have any difference between OT and NT God. The only difference is that God has now given His Son as a condition to salvation, this is not unlike the OT sacrifices, thus God is no different now than then.
God as I have said, can do anything. At one time He was ready to give up entirely with mankind. God 'could' do anything yes, but a false hope is just that, if it is false. We cannot say it is true if we have no word or proof to that effect.
You keep painting Jesus as if He is not the God of the Old Testament too, the same Jesus is the Judge and covered with blood who was and is to come. This same Jesus is the Lamb from whom comes wrath, post ascension!

Thanks for the post 2Jesus, I never thought of that angle - God did know in advance the outcome of Creation and salvation, so although it is sad that many people may not repent, none the less it is no surprise. I think mans rebellion, freewill to sin, and eventual Judgment will forever be the purpose of this unforgettable chapter in mans history, so that for eternity this time (the time from Adam till Judgment day) will be the reminder of what man did with his freewill. A reminder for 'all of eternity' of Gods attitude and feelings about rebellion and sin (Just in case anyone in the future gets any ideas or complains about God pushing His will on everyone)

This is my point about the Bible, starting with the Old Testament - God clearly lays out His plans and methods - 'If' you repent, 'Then' you will be saved ('If - Then' are a predominant theme). Everything in the Bible describes God's will, manner, and process.

All the New Testament writers refer to the Old Testament to clarify everything. God wrote out His ways and plans with real history real people flesh and blood.

You cannot pick out or apply the verses that describe Gods love and promises only, then write off all the warnings of Judgment, wrath and doom as not applicable, Jesus and the New Testament writers have no problem quoting 'all' sections of Gods Word (all they had was the Old Testament). It all of course is understood in the context of Faith, God demanded faith and faithfulness from Israel and God demands Faith and Faithfulness from His Church. The Law (and His Word) has it's purpose to bring us to Christ, but if you do not come to Christ nothing has changed, the Jew is still under the Law, and the Gentile is without hope, awaiting only the inevitable, Judgment and the second death.
Anything beyond that is eisegesis. (Philosophizing and hoping are fine but the Biblical emphasis is to repent 'now' and do not put it off. This would seem to imply that if God is not mentioning post-mortem repentance, then I should not be teaching it. God 'could' do anything, God might give us all a pony, but why defend such a position with such a overwhelming amount of scripture warning us of the urgency to repent now, believe and fear for others who are not repenting and believing now.
(For example, as a bible teacher I am not telling people; they might be 'married' in heaven, I do love my wife, and 'some' may want to continue in marriage, as I do, but because one verse tells me 'not' to entertain the idea, and no other verse tells me to 'hope' for marriage, I will not defend such a position)

Again, I cannot write off the Old Testament verses of Judgment and hold only to the verses of promise and reward, all the verses were performed and demonstrated as an 'example' to us (please excuse me for posting the whole text and underlining, it is much easier to refer to it this way, and to be 'sure' I am not quoting out of context);

'For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and all ate the same spiritual food; 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness. 6 Now these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not crave evil things as they also craved. 7 Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written, “THE PEOPLE SAT DOWN TO EAT AND DRINK, AND STOOD UP TO PLAY.” 8 Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day. 9 Nor let us try the Lord, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents. 10 Nor grumble, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer. 11 Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. 12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall' (1Corin.10:1-12)

All these things are types and models of things to come; The rock was Christ, the people sinned 'as some of us do', as Moses lifted up the serpent, as Abraham offered up Issac, as Adam hid and covered himself with a leaf, as Eve fell for the lie, all these things were written as an example for our instruction, and to not do as they did, or else as some of them were destroyed by the destroyer.

4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; 7and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men 8(for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), 9then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, 10and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. (2 Peter 2:4-13)

I never got to explain what I meant by dual fulfillment within scripture, I mean that from Adam to Malachi God presents types and similies and examples over and over sometimes to serve as illustrations of Himself, His judgments, His Holiness, His ways, etc. Many things are done twice sometimes thrice, Old Testament scripture is rarely not an example and warning of things to come. The offering of Able, the rejection of Cain's sacrifice, the sacrifices in general all types and examples of what was to come. The Law, circumcision, priests, all types and shadows and demonstrations of what was to come. The Temple was first a tabernacle, then a Temple or two, then Christ Himself. The Holy of Holies is not only now Christ but it is also the shape and type of the New Kingdom in heaven (Rev.21:16), Melchizedek, Joseph, David, Isaiah's son, Hosea' wife, Crossing the Jordan, the Promised land, the Passover, Elijah (who may come again?), by Faith Rahab and Enoch and Gideon etc. By faith concurred kingdoms, performed acts of righteousness, obtained promises shut the mouths of lions, etc, was not this 'all' for our example? We cannot discard the verses of doom and destruction and determine they have no purpose for us in understanding what God means to do come Judgment Day. Most especially when He says and quotes Old Testament language and verse to describe the eschatology of post Resurrection revelation as;

He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. 15From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. 16And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”
17Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and he cried out with a loud voice, saying to all the birds which fly in midheaven, “Come, assemble for the great supper of God, 18so that you may eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of commanders and the flesh of mighty men and the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them and the flesh of all men, both free men and slaves, and small and great.” … 21And the rest were killed with the sword which came from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse, and all the birds were filled with their flesh. (Rev.19:17-21)

This is the same God who spoke in the Old Testament, and it is the same God still, He uses the same language, the Only thing different is that Christ has already suffered and made the sacrifice, but woe to them who do not keep the testimony and believe in His sacrifice for them, their future 'is' told, it is no mystery;

Then He said to me, “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost. 7“He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son. 8“But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” 9Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and spoke with me, saying, “Come here, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” (Rev 21:6-9)

He says it is done, Jesus seperates the believing from the unbelieving, their part is in the Lake that burns with fire (whatever it is, it is as bad as fire and brimstone, and it is a second 'death'. Not much more can be said really for them, as the Angel immediately continues with the invitation to come and see the Bride.

I do not see how anyone can determine all will repent when we have determinations set for us like this and verses just previous that say;

The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands, so as not to worship demons, and the idols of gold and of silver and of brass and of stone and of wood, which can neither see nor hear nor walk; 21and they did not repent of their murders nor of their sorceries nor of their immorality nor of their thefts. (Rev.9:20-21)

Then the fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his kingdom became darkened; and they gnawed their tongues because of pain, 11and they blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores; and they did not repent of their deeds (Rev16:10-11)

Jesus is the One wielding the sword and ruling over this blood bath of unbelievers, not a schizophrenic ogre. They were given whatever chance to repent, and it does 'not' give any indication that they will. In fact the Saints rejoice over the Judgments and the fate of the wicked, even singing hallelujah, I think Universalists are painting their own God as one without backbone and a sense of Justice. I read of a God who has determination to move on and put an ending to this chapter of man and rebellion, and get on with the Marriage Supper;

(Revelation 18:20) "Rejoice over her, O heaven, and you saints and apostles and prophets, because God has pronounced judgment for you against her."
(Notice this is in contrast to the world crying over the loss of Babylon)

(Revelation 19:1) ... "Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God; 2 BECAUSE HIS JUDGMENTS ARE TRUE AND RIGHTEOUS; for He has judged the great harlot who was corrupting the earth with her immorality, and HE HAS AVENGED THE BLOOD OF HIS BOND-SERVANTS ON HER." 3 And a second time they said, "Hallelujah! HER SMOKE RISES UP FOREVER AND EVER." 4 And the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God who sits on the throne saying, "Amen. Hallelujah!" 5 And a voice came from the throne, saying, "Give praise to our God, all you His bond-servants, you who fear Him, the small and the great."

I don't have time to explain what fire is, and that Fear really means fear, as in yes respecting God 'can' destroy, Judge and Save. Fear is the correct meaning of the Word.

[steve]

Seems to me that Universalists are asking, "What if God is actually different from what we read in scripture?

Then you need to listen better.

What the universalists are asking is, "What if God really is the way Jesus said (and demonstrated) that He is?" You seem to have missed this while googling your next proof text.

Did you hear it correctly this time?

You keep painting Jesus as if He is not the God of the Old Testament

Actually, no, I do not. I affirm that Jesus is the manifestation of the very same God—with the same heart and the same determination as the God of the Old Testament—and that He is the most perfect manifestation of that God that has ever been given to mankind (Heb.1:1-3). I am saying that the God of the Old Testament is the same God as was manifested in Jesus.

By contrast, you do not believe that the God of the Old Testament is the same as the God Jesus revealed. The God you imagine to be found in the Old Testament does not love His enemies, nor bless those who curse Him, nor do good to those who hate Him (Luke 6:27-28). He is not "kind to the unthankful and evil" (Luke 6:35). The God you imagine will pursue the lost sheep, but not "until He finds it" (Luke 15:4). Though it is said that it brings Him, and all those in heaven, great delight to see a sinner repent, yet, he has arbitrarily set a time limit for Himself, in death, prior to which He will allow Himself the opportunity to experience such joy—but not a moment beyond! Though He desires His prodigals to come home, there comes a time (quite arbitrarily) when He will no longer love them nor allow them to return.

This is the case, apparently, even though some people are given long lifetimes, and some are given only a very few years, to get the right answer to the most puzzling questions of life. No one gets a re-do or remedial training. If anyone did, you know everyone would be clamoring for God to show them the same generosity. Such a one as God can't be bothered by such rabble! Just shovel them all into the ovens. That, apparently, is the god-like way to handle enemies. Hitler, Stalin and Mao may have had a truer vision of God than those of us who think that forgiveness is a virtue. (Okay, I admit it. I use sarcasm too!)

Even Martin Luther (who, like yourself, pictured God as vindictive toward His enemies) could not affirm about God what you seem to affirm. Luther wrote:

""God forbid that I should limit the time of acquiring faith to the present life. In the depth of the Divine mercy there may be opportunity to win it in the future." (from his letter to Hanseu Von Rechenberg, in 1522)

Given the choice of interpreting the Old Testament judgment passages in a manner consistent with Jesus, you would rather interpret Jesus in a manner conforming to your unjustifiable interpretation of the Old Testament judgment passages. This is a different hermeneutic, to be sure, from any that I could approve.

This is the dispensationalists' hermeneutic of beginning with assumptions about what the Old Testament seems to mean, and imposing that self-created interpretation upon the New Testament. In the process, the New Testament is robbed of its ability to speak authoritatively and to correct misconceptions about the Old.

A more-biblical approach is to recognize Jesus as the best and clearest manifestation of God, and to let that clear vision interpret the hazy (what Paul refers to as "veiled") revelation of the Old Testament.

Jesus bore no malice toward those who crucified Him, yet you believe that the God of the Old Testament bears malice toward His enemies. It definitely seems to be you that are insisting that the God of the Old Testament is not the same God as the Father of Jesus.

The God of the Old Testament is declared, there, to be just like Jesus described Him! He chastens, but He does not keep His anger forever (Ps.103:9; 30:5; Lam.3:31-33). Jonah knew this about God (Jon.4:2), which is why he didn't want to go to Nineveh. He knew that God loved the Ninevites, but Jonah (apparently like some who know God even less than he did!) do not think that God loves them. You may say, "But God loved them because they repented!" No, He loved them before they repented—which is why He sent Jonah to them.

You make the same mistake many do, who do not allow Jesus to be the final authority on scriptural questions, namely, you do not believe in God's unconditional love. Perhaps it can only be believed by those who have it and know its reality. A man known to me, whose children rebelled and brought him immense grief, said, "It would be easier if I could stop caring about them. The problem with unconditional love is that it is not contingent on anything the beloved does. Nothing they do can make you stop."

This is what Homer calls "maudlin." It is what Jesus calls being "like your Father." (Matt.5:44-48 / Luke 6:27-36)

[john6809]

Steve wrote, "For one, because this world is (as I understand it) a school and proving ground for the next, there will be no further temptations, sins, or griefs in that world—either for God or man. God may be willing to endure disappointment "for a brief moment" which is earth's history, but it seems unlikely, in His all-wise, sovereign counsels, that He organized the whole of creation in such a manner as to necessarily bring Him eternal disappointment (He may have, but it seems very unlikely)."

Thanks Steve. That helps. I particularly agree with the bit about the school and proving ground. Seems as though many people just try to kill time until school ends, so that they can reap the benefits of graduation without ever studying the course. I definitely am not one of who finds the idea of universal salvation objectionable - just want to make sure I understand it and get answers to my questions.

[john6809]

Interesting passage for those who don't see that God only uses enough correction to accomplish His goal - repentance of those whom He is chastening.

Leviticus 26 - a summary: If you obey Me, I will bless you and this is how... But if you don't obey Me, I will discipline you, and this is how... If you still won't repent, I will increase your affliction seven times, and this is how...(At least four times He repeats His promise to multiply afflictions by seven). All this is followed by, "However, when they confess their iniquities... I will remember my covenant with their Father's." (speaking of restoration).