Hell

[jriccitelli]

God is a 'consuming' fire:
"Know therefore today that it is the LORD your God who is crossing over before you as a consuming fire. He will destroy them and He will subdue them before you, so that you may drive them out and destroy them quickly, just as the LORD has spoken to you" (Deut 9:3)
"May our God come and not keep silence; Fire devours before Him, And it is very tempestuous around Him. 4 He summons the heavens above, And the earth, to judge His people' (Psalm 50:3-4)
"I searched for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand in the gap before Me for the land, so that I would not destroy it; but I found no one. 31 "Thus I have poured out My indignation on them; I have consumed them with the fire of My wrath; their way I have brought upon their heads," declares the Lord GOD" (Ezekiel 22:30-31)
“All the sinners of My people will die by the sword, Those who say, ‘The calamity will not overtake or confront us' (Amos 9:10)
Do you perceive that God relents on every one of these predictions, and that they do not speak of the ultimate end of sinners and rebellious?

[jriccitelli]

Backwoods and Steve brought this thread up on the ‘Why is UR harmful’ thread, and I was answering them there ( http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 5&start=90 ), but since Steve posted the seven misunderstandings on this ‘Hell’ thread (pg.8 Dec 23) it would probably make more sense for me to answer here.

Let's start with seven, drawn just from the past few days' posts. These same mistakes are found in both of your posts going back to the origins of this controversy at the forum…

Steve says the following is another one my misunderstanding of Christian Universalism:

“3. On the universalist view, there is no reason to worry about whether or not one dies prepared to meet God” (Steve, pg.8 Hell thread 12/23)

Nothing in any of my posts ever said or suggests EU/UR believes “there is no reason to worry about whether or not one dies prepared to meet God”. Giving a person a ‘reason’ to put off repentance is far from saying there is ‘no’ reason to worry. This is putting words in my mouth, as I never said this.
I went into detail a number of times describing my concerns about teaching EU/UR:

I see many passages in the Bible describing the ‘final and eternal’ fate of unrepentant sinners.
When I read a passage that describes the Judgment and fate of the unrepentant, the Bible says they are punished and destroyed. UR thinks they suffer different degrees of opinions, then they all repent, how each of us deduce this from the same passages is interesting to say the least.
Would someone surmise that if I’m wrong, then I don’t ‘understand’ UR?
Or, could it be, if I am right, then UR does not understand Gods Judgments are descriptive of the final end?

If I quote a passage from Isaiah or Psalms the response is that they cannot be allowed as evidence because… why?
Remember I believe all Gods judgments were ‘descriptive examples’ of what will happen to any unrepentant person. The fact that God has done it once, twice, three times already does not exhaust His warnings that it will not happen again, and ‘eventually’ this is all descriptive of the ‘final’ fate of the person, not just the body. (Me from ‘UR evokes many emotions’ Mar.6/2013, pg.4)

I explained why I feel there is danger in not seeing these Judgments as applicable to all sinners and applicable to the final and last Judgment that is looming on the horizon for every human:

I feel UR and Preterism would 'lead' people to believe that the many verses of a final judgment, and a final state of, or destruction of the unrepentant are not relevant in their plain meanings, or relevant to us individually, or that they were only relevant to Jerusalem or those in the immediate context, or relevant only to this world.
Final is implied by the implication that it is obvious that not all sinners receive a just punishment in this physical world.
Final is also implied by the words that describe their punishment – death - perish – destroy – crush – slay – blot out – etc, and this language is used regarding The Judgment, and That Great and Terrible Day, etc.
I think that saying hell is refining and restorative would be ignoring the literal implications of destruction, perish, destroy, and fire, the easy to understand obvious language used to describe this eventual place of the wicked, rebellious and unrepentant is rebellious in itself, and I would be fearful of holding such a view.
The answer I get is that that all these verses of death and destroy only refer to the physical death. My argument is that everyone dies, that’s a given, but most everyone dies a normal death of natural causes - sinner and saint alike, so the language of the bible must also refer to, tell of, describe, and ensure us of another death, that is the second death. Which everything leading up to it, and foretelling of it, makes it sound pretty final. (Me from, ‘UR evokes many emotions’ Feb 27/2013, pg.3)

Just as I think it is disastrous to disregard the OT in general, because as some believe the OT only applies to those under the Law:

‘That is why I encourage people to read the Torah (Old Testament) to see what has been fulfilled and to see how they can fulfill it's 'purpose' in their lives. Unfortunately a lot of Christians ignore the Old Testament’, and most likely because they are told that it has no application for them, just because we are not 'under' the law. (Me from, 'Jeremiah 31', thread pg.1)

There is nothing here that says, “On the universalist view, there is no reason to worry about whether or not one dies prepared to meet God” (as Steve wrote of me on this thread, pg.8). I noticed that this point was misunderstood in Steve’s answer in the ‘UR evokes many emotions’ thread below:

‘The universalists are not the only people who understand these verses differently than you do. The vast majority of traditionalists also disagree with you. Therefore, one might say that your view assumes that everyone misunderstands these verses except for conditionalists. That is, whether they are understood in the conditionalist manner or in the universalist manner, they are equally minority understandings. If true interpretations are determined by counting noses, then the traditional view is clearly the truth. That's not how we should do biblical studies however’ (Steve from ‘UR evokes many emotions’ Feb 27/2013, 9:53 pg.3)

Traditionalists do not disagree with me or CI that the hundreds of passages that speak of destruction and punishment speak of Gods character, Holiness and intent that just as He has done in the past, these passages describe what God can do again in the future. The point to which you have defended, is that these passages do ‘not’ speak of the future punishment and destruction of the sinners, you have argued with me that they are not applicable to what happens post-mortem after the judgment, and that they speak of 'temporal' death and the shame of a 'dishonorable' death.

[steve]

JR wrote:

God is a 'consuming' fire:
"Know therefore today that it is the LORD your God who is crossing over before you as a consuming fire. He will destroy them and He will subdue them before you, so that you may drive them out and destroy them quickly, just as the LORD has spoken to you" (Deut 9:3)
"May our God come and not keep silence; Fire devours before Him, And it is very tempestuous around Him. 4 He summons the heavens above, And the earth, to judge His people' (Psalm 50:3-4)
"I searched for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand in the gap before Me for the land, so that I would not destroy it; but I found no one. 31 "Thus I have poured out My indignation on them; I have consumed them with the fire of My wrath; their way I have brought upon their heads," declares the Lord GOD" (Ezekiel 22:30-31)
“All the sinners of My people will die by the sword, Those who say, ‘The calamity will not overtake or confront us' (Amos 9:10)

Do you perceive that God relents on every one of these predictions, and that they do not speak of the ultimate end of sinners and rebellious?

Do I see that God relents? No, unless people repent, as in the case of Nineveh in Jonah's day.

Is there some reason why you think any of these passages describe events after the final judgment? Their contexts (and even their contents!) appear to suggest otherwise, don't you think?

If I quote a passage from Isaiah or Psalms the response is that they cannot be allowed as evidence because… why?
Remember I believe all Gods judgments were ‘descriptive examples’ of what will happen to any unrepentant person. The fact that God has done it once, twice, three times already does not exhaust His warnings that it will not happen again, and ‘eventually’ this is all descriptive of the ‘final’ fate of the person, not just the body.

Yes, I remember that you believe these judgments are descriptive examples of the final judgment. You are free to speculate as you wish on this, as such eisegesis is every man's prerogative. However, I cannot imagine why you would deprive others of the right to not follow your entirely unsupportable presuppositions in this matter.

The answer I get is that that all these verses of death and destroy only refer to the physical death. My argument is that everyone dies, that’s a given, but most everyone dies a normal death of natural causes - sinner and saint alike, so the language of the bible must also refer to, tell of, describe, and ensure us of another death, that is the second death. Which everything leading up to it, and foretelling of it, makes it sound pretty final.

“Makes it sound pretty final” is fairly typical of your way of arguing. You like to tell us how a passage “sounds” and then require us to agree with your intuitions that it “sounds” that way. If we were talking about whether a particular note on a piano “sounds” true or flat, some might answer one way, and some another—especially if some of those surveyed were tone-deaf. However, if an electronic tuning device were introduced into the room, it would settle all dispute.

You do not seem to recognize the subjectivity that governs what you think a passage “sounds” like. I read the same passages, and they “sound” different to me than to you. Your ear may be better than mine in such matters, but your intuitions pitted against mine prove nothing.

What we need is an objective exegesis of the passages in their contexts to determine what is being discussed in them. I have taken the trouble to conduct such exegesis. I have seen no indication that you have done so. You only cite passages, you never exegete them or show that their original words or contexts support your hunches about them. This is what I find unpersuasive in your posts.

In your post above, you revisit a few selected paragraphs from your former posts (whose contents I am unable to see as relevant to the particular point you are ostensively addressing), and then you summarize by saying:

There is nothing here that says, “On the universalist view, there is no reason to worry about whether or not one dies prepared to meet God” (as Steve wrote of me on this thread, pg.8).

I agree! There is nothing in your cited paragraphs that make this argument. I never suggested that those particular paragraphs contain that particular argument. However, your posts (which have been very numerous on this topic) have often made the argument that I am critiquing.

Traditionalists do not disagree with me or CI that the hundreds of passages that speak of destruction and punishment speak of Gods character, Holiness and intent that just as He has done in the past, these passages describe what God can do again in the future.

This is either disingenuous, or very poorly informed. Have you read what Morey, Peterson, Gerstner, Packer, and the other major traditionalist writers on this subject have said about conditionalism? Apparently not. They agree with me that most of the verses you cite are about temporal, not final, judgments. They consider your view heretical. They go berserk and lose all rationality when they discuss conditionalism, because they find it so offensive. You apparently have remained unread enough to allow you to pretend that your views somehow fit with the majority opinion of evangelicals through the ages. You ought to investigate the facts before expostulating.

The irony is that these traditionalists use the very same criticisms of your view that you bring against universalists:

1) that it is unorthodox and historically deviant;
2) that it undermines the justice and holiness of God in favor of an exaggerated view of His love;
3) that it undermines motivation for salvation, for Christian service and for missions

If you take your arguments against universal reconciliation and simply substitute the labels, you will be seeing the traditionalists’ arguments against conditionalism. You might want to read my book. You would have learned this, and saved yourself (and me!) many unnecessary keystrokes.

[Paidion]

UR thinks they suffer different degrees of opinions.

Huh? I'm a believer in the universal reconciliation of all to God, and I don't think anyone will suffer opinions post-mortem to ANY degree.

However, there do seem to be quite a few opinions in this life of which we suffer.

[jriccitelli]

It wasn’t necessarily tongue in cheek (since opinion can mean judgment), but it seems people are held in UR Hell and punished until they have a change of opinion. Change of opinion can mean change of belief, change of mind, or change of attitude.

However, there do seem to be quite a few opinions in this life of which we suffer.

Opinions are opportunities.

[jriccitelli]

I have read your book from beginning to end and found nothing exceptionally new, all the same reasoning I find here. The debates here have been much more in depth, I have plenty of notes on your book but I can’t seem to get 'this' point across yet, so why go there now.
I am very familiar with some of the traditionalists, my point here is not whether the OT describes annihilation or eternal punishments, but that it describes what God has done and what God is capable of doing in relation to punishments (and everything else). Writers, Packer alike, describe God by using OT passages, explain Gods punishments using OT passages, and define the last Judgment with references to OT passages, even if some in arguing for Traditionalist ideas forget they do this (note the NT writers also describe the Judgment using OT passages).

Is there some reason why you think any of these passages describe events after the final judgment? Their contexts (and even their contents!) appear to suggest otherwise, don't you think? (Steve)

Since I have to go, I would refer to this page of commentaries from Bible Hub, which quotes from 10 different commentators on the Psalms 50:3 passage above. It sure seems these commentators hold to an OT description of a last judgment on all humans:
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/psalms/50-3.htm

Edit; (is it these commentators, or Ellicott's Commentary). Question from page 13.

[jriccitelli]

Is there some reason why you think any of these passages describe events after the final judgment? Their contexts (and even their contents!) appear to suggest otherwise, don't you think? (Steve)

There is no event described after the Judgment, exactly. Because The Judgment and the punishment are very, very synonymous, which is my point (as is my point with Hell, it is not always spoken of specifically, because it is synonymous with all punishment)

It is implied that the Judgment is the final event (for the wicked), and nothing relates to any event afterwards other than the punishment itself, which is very synonymous with the Judgment itself (including the death and destruction), which also makes the judgment very final. Just as mount Sinai promised death to the rebellious, even immediate death, so do other theophanies, warnings, and prophecies include visions and mandates that reflect on Sinai and on each other:

‘… the fire of divine wrath coming upon the Jews to the uttermost and even it may be literally understood of the fire that consumed their city and temple, as was predicted (Gills commentary)

‘This is evidently a prediction of the terrible manner of God’s coming to execute judgment on the apostate Jews and Israelites, partly by the kings of Assyria and Babylon, who laid waste their country, destroyed their cities, and carried multitudes of them into captivity; and more especially in their last destruction by the Romans, when a signal vengeance was taken on them, as for their hypocrisy, abuse of their privileges, and all their other sins, so in particular for crucifying their own Messiah. This most terrible execution of divine wrath upon them was frequently foretold by the prophets: see Malachi 3:2; and Malachi 4:1; Isaiah 66:15; Isaiah 66:17; and is often represented in the Scriptures as the coming of the kingdom of God, of the Son of man, or of Christ, the Father having committed all judgment to him. Now this prediction in this Psalm seems especially to respect this event. And it has accordingly been so interpreted by the best Christian expositors, as Poole has shown in his Synopsis Criticorum; where he likewise tells us that the Jewish rabbis affirm the subject of the Psalm to be, “that judgment, which will be executed in the days of the Messiah (Benson commentary)

‘This language is derived from the supposition that God "will" judge the world, and it shows that this doctrine was understood and believed by the Hebrews. The New Testament has stated the fact that this will be done by the coming of his Son Jesus Christ to gather the nations before him, and to pronounce the final sentence on mankind’ (Barnes)

‘It shall be very tempestuous round about him: this is a further description of that terrible majesty wherewith God clothed himself when he came to his tribunal, in token of that just severity which, he would use in his proceedings with them. He alludes to the manner of God’s appearance at Sinai, Exodus 19, and intimates to them, that although Zion was a place of grace and blessing to all true Israelites, yet God would be as dreadful there to the hypocrites among them, as ever he was at Sinai. See Isaiah 33:14’ (Matthew Poole's Commentary)

‘… lightnings and storm are the outward symbols which express the awfulness of God’s coming to judgment. He is ‘a consuming fire’ (Deuteronomy 4:24; Deuteronomy 9:3; Hebrews 12:29) devouring His enemies; an irresistible whirlwind (Psalm 58:9), sweeping them away like chaff. (Geneva Study Bible)

‘And it shall be very tempestuous round about him. So in all theophanies (see Exodus 19:16; 1 Kings 19:11; Job 38:1; Psalm 18:13; Psalm 97:2-5; Acts 2:2; Revelation 4:5, etc.)’ (Pulpit Commentary)

“Makes it sound pretty final” is fairly typical of your way of arguing. (Steve)

Death sounds pretty final. I have many commentaries that say "death needed no defining” "Death is understood to be death".
(I also use 'seems' to mask my utmost certainty, as I am very sure of the research and support I have for these conclusions, but having been chided for my dogmatism and assurance, I soften my responses to be more diplomatic with 'seems to me')

[Paidion]

...opinion can mean judgment

I have consulted several dictionaries, and NONE of them give "judgment" as one of the definitions of "opinion".

[steve]

Of the commentaries you cite, only Barnes seems to agree with you. The others (from what you have quoted) apparently take my view.

Death sounds pretty final. I have many commentaries that say "death needed no defining” "Death is understood to be death".

Actually, death is not final. It is followed by the judgment (Hebrews 9:27). I would have to agree that "death needed no defining," and that "death is understood to be death." This is my very point! These passages talk about death—not the final judgment, which follows death:

"...it is appointed for men once to die, and after this the judgment..."

[jriccitelli]

When you die you are dead. Unless you have been born again, you are still dead at the judgment.
I saw the dead standing says John. We are dead even now in our sins, unless we repent and believe.
You are calling it temporal death, I believe that in the day that we ate we died, and we remain that way unless we are born again.
When the Prophets say that the wicked and rebellious will perish and be destroyed, they are reflecting on and affirming Genesis 2:17. God also will wipe them away like chaff, they are consumed with fire, just as Sinai revealed and 70ad and Rome demonstrated, symbols which express the awfulness of God’s coming to judgment (Geneva Study Bible), and He is coming 'again'.

Q. What do 'you' think His coming will look like for the wicked?
Q. If a person dies, how can they be made alive again?