UR evokes many emotions

[jriccitelli]

(Am I wrong on this or do some UR’s believe ‘The Final Judgment’, that ‘That Great and Terrible Day’ is not exactly so, or is it full preterisim that says it has happened already?)

I asked did you believe in a Final Judgment? It would be a Judgment of everyone who has been born on this planet, their only needs to be One all encompassing Judgement, as we are not talking about anyone else being born post this present earth.

I accept the biblical teaching that there will be a judgment on the "last day." However, your obvious emphasis on the word "final," which I take to mean there will never in eternity be any further administration of grace or of judgment (Steve)

So, I still perceive you have a different concept than an ‘evangelical’ one in mind. I would think the common evangelical understanding is that; Everyone will be judged, on their works, belief, and the sincerity of our repentance. Then God makes His decisions (If they are not made already), and then people either go on to life, or to punishment and eventually death in the lake of fire (which I see as annihilation or an end of existence) not ET.

Many other verses I have noted speak of a Day of Judgment, on of the whole world, and the result is life or death. Death described in so many terms such as destroy, eliminate, perish, blotted out, extinguished, etc.
Which you have told me are ‘historical’ judgments. I have defended that they speak of Gods eschatological purpose and plan. These verses are using the term ‘world’ as a reference to ‘all’ peoples, and from content the planet upon which foundations can be made bare. I have heard you suggesting that these judgments are on the terrestrial ‘word’ ‘earth’ only, as only pertaining to Israel and maybe it’s surrounding landscape.
Where these verses use Tebel for world.

Again, the Biblical prophets and apostles use the same verses to describe a Great day of Judgment on the 'whole' 'world', and the Judgments indicate destruction, annihilation, and death. Unless we change the meanings of these words, and say they are only historical, there is no other option, is there?

[steve]

So, I still perceive you have a different concept than an ‘evangelical’ one in mind. I would think the common evangelical understanding is that; Everyone will be judged, on their works, belief, and the sincerity of our repentance. Then God makes His decisions (If they are not made already), and then people either go on to life, or to punishment and eventually death in the lake of fire (which I see as annihilation or an end of existence) not ET.

I am not sure what you are calling an 'evangelical' concept. My view of the judgment seems to be about the same as yours, with the exception that I am not as sure as you are about annihilation. As near as I can tell, I am as much an evangelical as anyone I know or have read, if that word means committed to the gospel and the authority of scripture (I think that is the meaning of the label). If you mean "traditional," then, no, I am not an advocate of the traditional view of hell any more than you are. You identify yourself as an annihilationist. I do not identify myself with any view of hell, but I think we both reject the traditional position. At least you do.

Again, the Biblical prophets and apostles use the same verses to describe a Great day of Judgment on the 'whole' 'world', and the Judgments indicate destruction, annihilation, and death. Unless we change the meanings of these words, and say they are only historical, there is no other option, is there?

Why not? We use the same English word "judgment," whether we speak of the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah, Babylon, Jerusalem, the whole world, or the eschatological judgment of the Great White Throne. These are not all the same event, and it would take a very careless thinker to conclude that by our use of the same word, in each case, we were describing always the same event.

[jriccitelli]

I do not identify myself with any view of hell

Ok, but I would think a person would have to believe something. You do not have to associate yourself then ok, but Universalism and UR 'do' hold to a different view than those who are not universalist.

Those who go to hell will go there because they were sentenced there at the judgment. This is the view of traditionalists, conditionalists and restorationists. It is what the Bible teaches.

Believing the Judgment is Final, meaning that death and hell are permanent are two different views no matter who endorses them, otherwise we would be in agreement. So you are not implying we believe the same thing, are you? No, because for me Biblical Judgment means it is done, no appeals, why appeals if God knows the heart and everything. And the New heaven and Earth seem complete, done.

Why not? We use the same English word "judgment," whether we speak of the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah, Babylon, Jerusalem, the whole world, or the eschatological judgment of the Great White Throne. These are not all the same event, and it would take a very careless thinker to conclude that by our use of the same word, in each case, we were describing always the same event.

The word judgment is clear yes, so are the words death, destruction, destroy, kill, remove, cut to pieces, burn, throw out, blot out, etc. It is very clear.
Careless thinker, maybe? You refer to the judgments in Isaiah, Exodus, Zechariah, Ezekiel, etc as synonymous with the verses language and intent of the NT and revelations, you do in your lectures on revelation; "The same language could be said of God destroying any city”,
“we use the Old Testament language to identify most the symbols in revelation”. You also note in your lecture that the language of Revelations is quoting verses and language directly from previously historically fulfilled judgments uttered by the Prophets. That we can agree on.
I say; God does plan to re-fulfill exactly as He has done and described before.
It’s not just random ‘words’, we know God is quoting His own past curses and historical judgments to explain His future ones.

[john6809]

jriccitell wrote, "You also note in your lecture that the language of Revelations is quoting verses and language directly from previously historically fulfilled judgments uttered by the Prophets. That we can agree on.
I say; God does plan to re-fulfill exactly as He has done and described before.
It’s not just random ‘words’, we know God is quoting His own past curses and historical judgments to explain His future ones."

Though I am enjoying the conversation, I don’t really want to enter into it. I feel unqualified to offer much and I don’t want to derail this thread with a point that may not be valid. I wondered though, whether a better knowledge of the preterist view might not yield a better understanding of the differences between the two camps (if it can be described in these terms.)

I wouldn't want to put words in Steve's mouth (forgive me if I understand his view incorrectly), but I think if you consider a preterist view, it is difficult not to understand what he is trying to point out.

You correctly say that "God is quoting His own past curses and historical judgments to explain His future ones." What has not been established is whether that future judgement is speaking of one that will come to pass at the final judgement or if it is referring to the judgement that God declares against Jerusalem in 70 AD.

From a preterist point of view, the promises of judgement (using the same vivid language) happened again in 70 AD. If all the books of the bible had already been written (including Revelation if you allow for an early writing), then the promises of judgement spoken of by Jesus and the apostles are very likely referring to this event in history and not necessarily an eternal event after 70 AD. The events of 70 AD would then be a re-fulfillment of the promises of judgement given in the OT.

In a nutshell, this is what I see: God tells Israel that if they will be faithful to Him, He will bless them. However, if they play the harlot, He will judge them. He describes their judgement with words that you have listed many times (destroy, kill, burn, etc.) Throughout history, we see these promises of blessings and curses play out - not just once, but several times. The language used to describe these judgements is consistent. I believe that, in the destruction of the temple, we see one final judgement against Israel's apostasy.

I have no problem with allowing for the same language to refer to a future (to us) “final judgement”. I just have not seen you show, with scripture, that we should see these promises/threats as a final judgement rather than a prophetic word against national Israel in 70 AD.

Maybe more fruitful conversation would come from debating whether a preterist view is valid? It seems as though, if you could prove that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple were not in view when the judgements are described by Jesus and the apostles, you may have some better ground to stand on.

I respectfully bow out and hope that my comments are helpful.

[Singalphile]

Some traditionalist think that the Bible or Christ's teaching is under attack and so they condemn and attack with emotion,
Some CUists think that God's character is under attack and so they condemn and accuse unjustly,
And some annihilationists harshly attack either of what he sees as the more "extreme" positions for the same reasons.

Any of them might think that any of the other views are potentially dangerous.

Any one who takes a firm view is probably more likely to come under heavier fire.

It's not nice to be called a heretic and/or an unloving person. Sometimes those accusations are implied (you need to "examine your heart"/"pray that you won't be deceived by the devil") and sometimes they're stated plainly. It can get a rise out of me if I think someone's getting unfairly maligned or perhaps when someone seems too sure of himself.

A guest (with no committed "hell" view) on one of the Rethinking Hell podcasts (I've listened to 3 or 4 of them with no intent to listen to more; they're fine but the same pov gets dull quick!) reminded me that this isn't "just a doctrine" like about the atonement or the Trinity. That is true, I think. It's inherently emotional for several reasons.

john6809 wrote:
It seems as though, if you could prove that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple were not in view when the judgements are described by Jesus and the apostles, you may have some better ground to stand on.

That does remind me of something that I'd like to mention in another thread ... someday.

[jriccitelli]

I already mentioned it in a thread, look at the top of the page. I have already spoke of it in other UR threads too, but I was ‘assured’ Preterism was of no influence on UR, by someone.

[steve7150]

I already mentioned it in a thread, look at the top of the page. I have already spoke of it in other UR threads too, but I was ‘assured’ Preterism was of no influence on UR, by someone.

User avatar
jriccitelli







I can assure you i'm not a Preterist but i think generally speaking Jesus warnings were about the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. Even if they were not specifically about 70AD , they were still about "destruction" yet everyone gets resurrected after that and is judged. So again it's about the nature of the judgment itself that this topic is about.

[jriccitelli]

The effects of full Preterism on UR is that the many Old Testament verses of judgment on sin are said to have (all?) been fulfilled.
(This is my second biggest concern, aside from giving a false hope)
Yet the Old Testament verses were Judgments on sin, and on mans nature. It is not only that the Prophets also speak of a judgment of the whole world (final, as I have explained why, and it is not simply our physical death as everyone experiences that), and they all use the same language, and just as it came true for Noah’s world, it happened to Sodom, to Egypt, to Assyria to Babylon, and it happened to Israel and Judah more than once, it is the same language verses and judgments used by Peter and John to describe the final judgments, even into chapter 21 of Revelation. These judgments were not unique, they were examples of how God will judge, not because you’re an Assyrian, or from Sodom, but because we are sinners. The point is that the judgments speak of Annihilation, permanency, cutting off, separation, removal, desolation, blotting out, forever, ‘death’, etc. that is why the earthly judgments are pertinent to the eternal ones, they were meant to be understood as final, they were thought of as final, and use the language of final.

These judgments did not happen just once, they describe how God judges sin, so when it happens we will know who and why did the Judging. When the sun turns dark, when the sea turns red, when the birds eat the flesh, etc, these things will happen over and over when God judges, they are His signature. So in revelations and other NT passages that speak of the judgment, we recognize that in the same way as the historic earthly judgments fell, the final Judgments will so be. (We could ‘refuse’ to ‘believe’ so)

All these judgments were foretold, they happened, and we are told they were all for our example. God says repent and believe because he is coming to burn and destroy the earth, that’s Peter not me saying it.

Speaking of Israel in 70ad, why did God destroy those people in Jerusalem?
If God really wanted to ‘give them more opportunity, and revelation, why didn’t He?
The warnings given by the Prophets on Jerusalem used all of the same words I have noted; destroy utterly, wipe out, remove, blot out from my book, etc. etc. what is the final judgment looking like for them?

[steve7150]

Speaking of Israel in 70ad, why did God destroy those people in Jerusalem?
If God really wanted to ‘give them more opportunity, and revelation, why didn’t He?









There were also children in the Jerusalem destruction and flooding of the world & other destructive events and destruction simply from nature, yet did these children in these events commit unforgivable sins?
Only postmortem opportunities for salvation can really make justice a reality IMHO. If God considers some to be so wicked that they deserve no further opportunities then so be it, but i don't get that drift from the LOF verses referring to "anyone" but it's just my opinion.

[jriccitelli]

‘If God considers some to be so wicked that they deserve no further opportunities then so be it’

Now you are on the right path, we are in agreement, almost.

I have already said God is fair and loving and just with the innocent, children and such. But I see that scripture does warn that like the destruction and death here, so be warned that this is what the fate of ‘those who reject’ will be. And scripture does seem to indicate some have entered into judgment even before dying (maybe many). I will never allow some one to hope in their own chance of postmortem repentance, and I will not dismiss the warnings of finality and destruction.

In other words; All earthly judgments and death itself can be said to describe and warn us of the Great and final judgment, that we are warned about ‘throughout all’ scripture.

That is why we ‘cannot’ ignore the words of Moses or the Prophets, or Jesus, or God. No matter what book of scripture they are in, the unrepentant ‘all’ suffer the same fate; the second ‘death’.

God bless