Universal reconciliation

[richard373]

...................................................

If a person wants a real-life example of what God has in mind concerning the future punishment of the 'wicked,' then one only has to look at the example of Saul, who became the apostle Paul. Remember, he called himself "the chief of sinners" (I Timothy 1:15).

We should not doubt that he was indeed the chief of sinners for the way he persecuted and killed the early Christians, as well as being a "blasphemer" (I Timothy 1:13). It appears to me that the old adage of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" was God's way of what you would call "retribution" for Saul.

I agree that was certainly the case for Saul of Tarsus - he received retribution for his crimes against Christians in this life although as he said himself "God had mercy on me for I did it in ignorance" (1Tim1:13). His reference to himself as "the chief of sinners" tends to be taken out of context. Every account of the Apostle’s post-conversion life and ministry shows him to be a thoroughly spiritual man who declares himself to have “lived in all good conscience before God up to this day” (Acts23:1), someone whose behaviour set a pattern for his converts to imitate (1Cor4:16; 11:1). Indeed speaking of himself and his fellow workers “our exalting is in the testimony of our conscience that in godly sincerity and purity, not in fleshly wisdom but in the grace of God we have conducted ourselves in the world” (2Cor1:12). This is hardly the testimony of one who was still the “chief of sinners” (1Tim1:15); that was in the context of what he had referred to two verses earlier concerning his pre-conversion attempt to rip apart the infant Church of Jesus Christ; that was in the past.

The retribution he received for his former life was also because he had become a child of God. Those who through unmerited grace are incorporated into God's Household will get away with nothing in this life; their Father disciplines them and chastens them like His own children - because He loves them so much and wants them to be fashioned according to the image of His Son. For they are going to be in partnership with Him one day and share a glorious inheritance. Thus -

Whom the Lord loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives (Heb12:6)​

The likes of Hitler on the other hand may commit mass-genocide, bring a continent to ruins then stick a gun to their head and think it's all over. Oh no it isn't - not by a long chalk, according to the witness of Scripture Old or New. The typical person's sense of justice in these matters is not so far removed from God's according to my reading of scripture, not least in Revelation where the saints and martyrs call on God to avenge those who have persecuted them. They are not rebuked for it, rather it is affirmed that God intends to bring to destruction those who have destroyed the Earth (Rev11:18) and that this will be seen as right and just, certainly by His saints.

 

[richard373]

Do any think that the US will be the religion of the future? It seems to be the most believed by many young people, along with the idea of predestination. Leads to a safe and unfettered life?

Hi Norah..........Any version of Christianity that results in "an unfettered life" is bound to be dubious at best - the way of the Cross is anything but safe and unfettered, though as I think you're suggesting, many people would like it to be that way so they will tend to be attracted by the particular tradition or movement that best fits in with their life-plan. However, I suspect most on this forum are in their particular denomination because that's where they first came to faith and were taught that every contrary view was in error or at least deficient. Not in my case though, nor to be fair in most US/UR advocates I've encountered. Like me they've become convinced from Scripture that the conventional view may well be in error and are prepared to argue the point.

Comparing it to the plans God may have for us may be more than we can understand at this point in time.
Anyway, I'm enjoying and learning from all of you, thanks!

I think you've hit the nail on the head:God's overall providence is unquestionably veiled in Scripture and we're still trying to grasp what the various bible-writers are saying about it. I think it will take an extraordinary work of the Holy Spirit to bring us to proper and united view on the matter - after which we'll no doubt find something else to argue about and divide us

 

[Hillsage]

However, I suspect most on this forum are in their particular denomination because that's where they first came to faith and were taught that every contrary view was in error or at least deficient. Not in my case though, nor to be fair in most US/UR advocates I've encountered. Like me they've become convinced from Scripture that the conventional view may well be in error and are prepared to argue the point.

Whereas some of are not 'in a particular denomination' at all. Some of us are actually 'out' of any denomination, because of our views on UR.

Personally I was raised in the denomination you are now in. That is, if you are a RC and not just a C as your religion icon states. But I must confess, I never 'came to faith' there in the 20+ years I faithfully went, but I certainly received a 'spirit of religion' while there. By that statement I am not saying one 'cannot' come to faith mind you, it just didn't happen for me.

 

[brixken7]

"Indeed speaking of himself and his fellow workers “our exalting is in the testimony of our conscience that in godly sincerity and purity, not in fleshly wisdom but in the grace of God we have conducted ourselves in the world” (2Cor1:12). This is hardly the testimony of one who was still the “chief of sinners” (1Tim1:15); that was in the context of what he had referred to two verses earlier concerning his pre-conversion attempt to rip apart the infant Church of Jesus Christ; that was in the past."
-- richard373
.....................

Have you misunderstood my point? I did not mean to imply the apostle Paul was STILL "the chief of sinners." That, of course, would be absurd. I guess my main point was that God did not use a literal fire in Paul's suffering -- but "stripes" and "blows" in his punishment. Frankly, I don't know of any instance in the Bible where God has used or will use a literal fire in punishing anyone -- for destruction, yes, of course. But God does not use fire for inflicting pain upon anyone. Not even upon Satan. If you read Revelation 20:10 closely, you'll see that this verse does not actually say that Satan and the demons will be tormented "IN" the Lake of Fire! It's just not there! Nor does the original Greek say that the beast and the false prophet "ARE" in the Lake of Fire. That also is not just not there!

From Christ's use of the word "stripes," from God's dealing with the apostle Paul, and from the many other scriptures given throughout the Bible, it certainly appears to me that God in the future judgment will use corporal punishment in punishing those who have brought much suffering to others.

Do you disagree?

However, who made such evil men as Hitler, Stalin, etc.? Was it not God? Just as God created the perfect man, Jesus Christ, He also created Satan and a multitude of evil spirits, as well as very wicked men down through the centuries. God is the Ultimate Author of Evil according to the Bible (Isaiah 45:7), which is why one may ask...

"Why doth He yet find fault?" (Romans 9:19) -- "For who has resisted His will?" (same verse).

Here the apostle Paul puts all the responsibility for there being dreadfully sinful men in the world -- UPON GOD. It's God's doing! And Paul defends God for doing so by declaring in verse 21:

"Hath not the Potter" (God) "power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?"

Of course He does, and that is just what God is doing, making "vessels of wrath" as well as "vessels of honor" (verse 22-23). For none of us have anything except God gives it to us.

"What hast thou that thou didst not receive?" (I Corinthians 4:7). "A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven" (John 3:27).

Good or bad, we are what we are only "by the grace of God" (I Corinthians 15:10). And have nothing whatsoever whereof we may boast -- other than in God. He has the responsibility of remaking His "vessels of wrath" into "vessels of mercy," and can and will do it.

 

[richard373]

"
Have you misunderstood my point? I did not mean to imply the apostle Paul was STILL "the chief of sinners." That, of course, would be absurd.

I partly misunderstood you and am glad you take that view. Quite a few people in my experience try to make out otherwise.

"
I guess my main point was that God did not use a literal fire in Paul's suffering -- but "stripes" and "blows" in his punishment. Frankly, I don't know of any instance in the Bible where God has used or will use a literal fire in punishing anyone -- for destruction, yes, of course. But God does not use fire for inflicting pain upon anyone. Not even upon Satan. If you read Revelation 20:10 closely, you'll see that this verse does not actually say that Satan and the demons will be tormented "IN" the Lake of Fire! It's just not there! Nor does the original Greek say that the beast and the false prophet "ARE" in the Lake of Fire. That also is not just not there!

I'd be very happy to agree with you if I could but:

"kai ho diabolos ho planon autous eblEthE eis tEn limnEn tou puros kai theiou hopou to therion kai ho pseudoprophetes kai basanisthesontai hemeras kai nuktos eis tou aionas ton aionon"

literally means "and the devil, the one deceiving them was thrown into (eis) the lake of fire and brimstone where (hopou) the beast and false prophet (are) and they are to experience an ordeal (basanisthesontai) day and night into the ages of the ages".

"

From Christ's use of the word "stripes," from God's dealing with the apostle Paul, and from the many other scriptures given throughout the Bible, it certainly appears to me that God in the future judgment will use corporal punishment in punishing those who have brought much suffering to others.

Do you disagree?

I don't disagree - I honestly don't how literally to take "fire" and "beatings" in this context. At any rate biblical fire does not always indicate suffering but also purifying or "salting" - God's fire for whatever purpose may be eternal, suffering within it certainly won't be as we will agree.

"


However, who made such evil men as Hitler, Stalin, etc.? Was it not God? Just as God created the perfect man, Jesus Christ, He also created Satan and a multitude of evil spirits, as well as very wicked men down through the centuries. God is the Ultimate Author of Evil according to the Bible (Isaiah 45:7), which is why one may ask...

"Why doth He yet find fault?" (Romans 9:19) -- "For who has resisted His will?" (same verse).

Here the apostle Paul puts all the responsibility for there being dreadfully sinful men in the world -- UPON GOD. It's God's doing! And Paul defends God for doing so by declaring in verse 21:

"Hath not the Potter" (God) "power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?"

Of course He does, and that is just what God is doing, making "vessels of wrath" as well as "vessels of honor" (verse 22-23). For none of us have anything except God gives it to us.

"What hast thou that thou didst not receive?" (I Corinthians 4:7). "A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven" (John 3:27).

You will not find many in either the Reformed or Catholic tradition who could agree with much you have said there, but I am able to in part with certain qualifications:
God does not directly create what is evil but He does permit those who through the exercise of their free will have become evil and continue wreaking havoc. Given that God had power to (as it were) put a stop to things before they got out of hand, in a sense God does create disaster and those who perpetrate it, and Isaiah affirms as much in the verse you quote as does Romans 9. I have only recently come to an understanding of why this is - it is a part of His loving purposes for the human creation He is preparing for greater things (hinted at in v23 of Rom9) - the suffering caused by these wicked beings is utilised as grist within the process of the development of those (human beings) who ultimately are to partake in the divine nature (if you really want to know what I'm going on about you'd have to read my book - plug not intentional - click blog)

"


Good or bad, we are what we are only "by the grace of God" (I Corinthians 15:10). And have nothing whatsoever whereof we may boast -- other than in God. He has the responsibility of remaking His "vessels of wrath" into "vessels of mercy," and can and will do it.

Following on from what I said re your previous comment, Jesus said that "offences must come but woe to those by whom they come". They will not be able to make the excuse that "God made me this way", as even certain serial killers have tried to use in their defence - such fatalism won't wash with God either. But just as "to whom much is given much is required", human vessels that have been "down-equipped" (katertismina - Rom9:22) will be judged in accordance with the light they have received (or rather not received). We won't currently agree about aspects of the economy of grace or free will, for from my perspective grace is something we cooperate with and are held accountable for doing so or otherwise. As you say there is nothing we possess of ourselves that we have not received but we are to be assessed on whether we have utilised what we have received or alternatively trashed it. How shall we possibly escape if we neglect so great a salvation? (cf. Heb2:3). “How much worse a punishment will those deserve who have trodden underfoot the Son of God and have counted the blood of the covenant by which he is sanctified as a common thing and so outraged the Spirit of grace?” For the Lord shall judge His people (Heb10:29,30 Greek). Rather like the Jews in the OT, the Christian has been elected to the (now) multi-racial assembly of Christ's chosen people so as to be salt and light to the world; whilst at the personal level we strive to become more conformed to the image of our exalted Head so that we might ultimately share in His inheritance and enjoy communion with Him forever (depicted of course in Scripture as marriage with the Lamb). In the meantime it involves taking up our cross and following Him with all that that may entail:

"Now if we are children, then we are heirs: heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ; if indeed we share in His sufferings in order that we may also share in His glory" (Rom8:17 NIV)​

 

[richard373]

Whereas some of are not 'in a particular denomination' at all. Some of us are actually 'out' of any denomination, because of our views on UR.

Personally I was raised in the denomination you are now in. That is, if you are a RC and not just a C as your religion icon states. But I must confess, I never 'came to faith' there in the 20+ years I faithfully went, but I certainly received a 'spirit of religion' while there. By that statement I am not saying one 'cannot' come to faith mind you, it just didn't happen for me.

I am RC but not entirely conventional or I wouldn't be saying some of the things set out in the previous post regarding the mystery of evil and the temporal nature of final punishment. From my occasional participation in the Tentmaker (UR) forum (I am "Origenian") I'm aware that UR people are non-denominational and don't always find anywhere suitable to worship or simply "belong" at all. I'm well aware of my own Church's failings especially its reluctance to acknowledge the limitations of its understanding with regard to Providence, but the teaching (since VaticanII) places far more emphasis on God's reconciliatory purposes for the world than those Churches that I grew up in as a Calvinist Evangelical. The other reason I'm where I am relates to the last paragraph in my previous post to Brixken regarding co-operation with grace linked to an acknowledgement of the sacramental order. These were views I came to from Scripture and a study of the Early Church, before which point I had been thoroughly hostile towards the Roman Church.

 

[Dibby]

I think that Universal reconcilliation is the most beautiful of the possible outcomes.Heaven just wouldn,t be that heavenly to me if I was there knowing that there were people I loved languishing in torment in hell. And since the Father's love is beyond anything I can imagine I guess He would feel the same? The parable of the lost sheep is poignant here. God's flock is simply incomplete with any members missing.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I think that Universal reconcilliation is the most beautiful of the possible outcomes.Heaven just wouldn,t be that heavenly to me if I was there knowing that there were people I loved languishing in torment in hell. And since the Father's love is beyond anything I can imagine I guess He would feel the same? The parable of the lost sheep is poignant here. God's flock is simply incomplete with any members missing.

Is God and those in Paradise with Him now not Happy?

I sincerely doubt anyone experiencing eternal punishment would be recognizable as their former self. So the notion in that construct that the person in Heaven would languish over someone who in reality does not really exist, at least not in any recognizable form, seems a false attempt to tug at one's emotions.

The language used in "cutting" off the lost is often contrasted in the same breath with the eternal fate of His flock rather than being depicted as a temporary condition from which the "lost" recover.

 

[Hillsage]

Is God and those in Paradise with Him now not Happy?

I believe they are, but only because they now understand what we believe we understand more correctly than you.

I sincerely doubt anyone experiencing eternal punishment would be recognizable as their former self. So the notion in that construct that the person in Heaven would languish over someone who in reality does not really exist, at least not in any recognizable form, seems a false attempt to tug at one's emotions.

I think this statement only shows how hard sincere believers must go, to try to justify their image of God in a way I am so glad I don't 'have to'.

 

[Dibby]

Is God and those in Paradise with Him now not Happy?

I sincerely doubt anyone experiencing eternal punishment would be recognizable as their former self. So the notion in that construct that the person in Heaven would languish over someone who in reality does not really exist, at least not in any recognizable form, seems a false attempt to tug at one's emotions.

From the gnostic point of view none of us are recognisable as our former selves. Thats why we need saving.

Whether somone does, or does not exist in a recognisable form would make no difference to the love we felt for them. I find the notion of eternal punishment repulsive and eternal reconcilliation I find beautiful. I'm not sure why an attempt to bring emotion into the situation would be false? Surely trying to leave out feelings from the argument would be leaving out an important part of our humanity?

 

[richard373]

I believe they are, but only because they now understand what we believe we understand more correctly than you.

I think this statement only shows how hard sincere believers must go, to try to justify their image of God in a way I am so glad I don't 'have to'.

I think you are right: the first and second points of wisdom surely are to acknowledge that not only we as individuals may have a wrong understanding but so might those whom we rely upon for instruction, even dare I say, the Catholic Church. They had a somewhat deficient view of the eternal fate of non-Catholics before Vatican II (1960s) where the Spirit enlightened them as He is quite entitled to do; some Catholics try to make out that that Council did not subvert the teaching of earlier ones - they dissemble. We all still have much to learn about God's providence but I am assured that everyone that is willing to be reconciled to God (which will involve submitting to the Christ who made such a reconciliation possible) will have the opportunity to do so albeit it will be a painful and humiliating experience for some.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I believe they are, but only because they now understand what we believe we understand more correctly than you.

Clever, but please elaborate. Since we are speaking of awareness and certainly God is, there is great suffering occurring right here and now. We have just both admitted God being Happy (in spite of current suffering) and I agree this is true even for those in Paradise with Him who are Happy in spite of the current suffering.
Yet somehow there is a still a problem of suffering in any construct that says for the damned it never ends in the next life.

I think this statement only shows how hard sincere believers must go, to try to justify their image of God in a way I am so glad I don't 'have to'.

How far we go?
God is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow. If He can be Happy now with suffering, then the same must be said in eternity. It is the suffering of the innocent that will be "no more". And those in Glory likewise, certainly with more perfect knowledge than we, would also be Happy - both now with present suffering and in the future.

It is the duality needed to say God and those in Glory are Happy now with the suffering, even with the suffering of the innocent, yet cannot be happy with the knowledge of Just eternal suffering of those who deserve it - it is that duality which seems to me going to great lengths just to be able to say God must do something He said He would not do, just because we want to say this is required of Love. God is Love. He is also Good and Just. There is evil in this world and for some of it, it would be neither Good or Just to eventually forgive in the next life those who persist in their rebellion against what is Good, Just and Love in this life. If we had a second chance in the next life through some limited amount of suffering, He certainly did not speak of the Judgment as if we did.

And BTW, I cannot imagine how those in Glory can be both aware and Happy, especially given the suffering of the innocent, but am certain God is and by His supernatural Grace He can assure their Happiness even with such knowledge. Likewise, for the damned - except in that case I could also see how that the knowledge such people essentially are no longer what they were before Hell - any memory those in Glory would have of them would be from this life as the person they knew has been transformed by Hell into something unrecognizable or at least unassociated with their former self. The knowledge that it is both Good and Just that it be so would likely also be complimented by a greater overall "vision" of those in Glory with how everything played out/was connected and worked to Good/Justice.

 

[Hillsage]

Clever, but please elaborate. Since we are speaking of awareness and certainly God is, there is great suffering occurring right here and now. We have just both admitted God being Happy (in spite of current suffering) and I agree this is true even for those in Paradise with Him who are Happy in spite of the current suffering.

Total agreement. The exception will be; Your POV concerning the ages to come vs mine. Since I'm ASSUMING I'm right and you're wrong, then those who are now dead know the truth that I believe and not the one you believe. So, YES they are happy, that most of the people created by God, won't be tortured purposely and endlessly.

Yet somehow there is a still a problem of suffering in any construct that says for the damned it never ends in the next life.

Big disagreement here, obviously. The Eternity definition is a big part of the separation between orthodox and UR believers. Our belief is in line with more grammatically correct translations than the ones you read that support orthodox theology, IMO.

How far we go?
God is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow. If He can be Happy now with suffering, then the same must be said in eternity. It is the suffering of the innocent that will be "no more". And those in Glory likewise, certainly with more perfect knowledge than we, would also be Happy - both now with present suffering and in the future.

I disagree, even as I would disagree that I might not loose my happiness just because I was disciplining my child, I would loose my happiness if that punishment turned into ETERNAL PUNISHING...with no end. That's just wrong IMO.

God is Love. He is also Good and Just.

And there is nothing JUST about endless torture. It serves no purpose it produces nothing good it is sadistic negating anything called love IMO.

There is evil in this world and for some of it, it would be neither Good or Just to eventually forgive in the next life those who persist in their rebellion against what is Good, Just and Love in this life.

It would if one believed that they were created just the way they are by God in the womb to be they way to accomplish God's plans for His who are "chosen, called, elected, predestined" to believe in this age.

If we had a second chance in the next life through some limited amount of suffering, He certainly did not speak of the Judgment as if we did.

That statement is in error to those of us who believe they never had a 'first chance', so therefore a second chance is mute.

any memory those in Glory would have of them would be from this life as the person they knew has been transformed by Hell into something unrecognizable or at least unassociated with their former self.

That is simply grasping for non biblical straws to justify what your heart refuses to allow your indoctrinated brain believe...IMO. No offense intended Bubba.

The knowledge that it is both Good and Just that it be so would likely also be complimented by a greater overall "vision" of those in Glory with how everything played out/was connected and worked to Good/Justice.

We started good, and ended good with total agreement, just fell apart in the middle.

Be blessed.

 

[Hillsage]

I think you are right: the first and second points of wisdom surely are to acknowledge that not only we as individuals may have a wrong understanding but so might those whom we rely upon for instruction, even dare I say, the Catholic Church.

But I sure can't limit it to the RC church.

They had a somewhat deficient view of the eternal fate of non-Catholics before Vatican II (1960s) where the Spirit enlightened them as He is quite entitled to do;

I must question such changes as possibly being more politically/religiously 'enlightened' , than Spirit also. Much like the Mormons and their last minute 'revelations' that polygamy was illegal in this country, just before the govt. was going to crack down on their church. Spirit or 'other' will have a bright light for us to see 'church decisions' clearly in the hereafter IMO.

We all still have much to learn about God's providence but I am assured that everyone that is willing to be reconciled to God (which will involve submitting to the Christ who made such a reconciliation possible) will have the opportunity to do so albeit it will be a painful and humiliating experience for some.

I think scripture is plain that WE/ALL are reconciled to God based upon what Jesus did. Accepting that reconciliation, on our part, doesn't determine God's accomplished work done in Christ. I 'now believe' that I didn't accept Christ 'to be forgiven', I accepted Christ to 'feel' the forgiveness accomplished by Christ. For me I was "chosen/called/predestined/foreordained" to believe in this age by Him. Why me? I don't know.

 

[James Is Back]

How do you UC's explain this verse:

Matthew 25:45-46(NKJV)-Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

 

[brixken7]

"I'd be very happy to agree with you if I could but:

"kai ho diabolos ho planon autous eblEthE eis tEn limnEn tou puros kai theiou hopou to therion kai ho pseudoprophetes kai basanisthesontai hemeras kai nuktos eis tou aionas ton aionon"

literally means "and the devil, the one deceiving them was thrown into (eis) the lake of fire and brimstone where (hopou) the beast and false prophet (are) and they are to experience an ordeal (basanisthesontai) day and night into the ages of the ages". -- richard373
............................

Richard....the term "Lake of Fire" is only used 5 times in the entire Bible, and all 5 times are found ONLY in the Book of Revelation. Of these 5 scriptures, only 1 (one) can be used, supposedly, to prove that the "Lake of Fire" is a place of conscious torment: that is in 20:10. And the ironic thing is the supposed proof is in a word that does not even appear in the original text: it's the word "ARE"-- and it's an ellipsis.
A great many translations read "WERE". See the....
"Names of God Bible"
"Common English Bible"
"Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition"
"Revised Standard Version"
"New American Bible (Revised Edition)"
"Modern English Version"
"International Standard Version"
"English Standard Version Anglicised"
"Complete Jewish Bible"
"Amplified Bible"

Other translations read "HAD BEEN THROWN":
"New International Version"

Still others read "ALREADY BEEN THROWN":
"Good News Translation"
"The Voice"
...............

Interestingly enough, at least 7 Bible translations of 20:10, including the highly accurate Concordant Literal New Testament, contain the word "ALSO". For example, the CLNT reads, "And the Adversary who is deceiving them was cast into the Lake of Fire and sulphur, where the wild beast and where the false prophet are also."

Here, one really has to have his or her thinking cap on. The term "also" -- how can it relate to "the Adversary" being in the Lake of Fire, when he (and his demons) are NOT yet in the Lake? It can't. The term "also" can only relate to them all being "cast" into the Lake! (The "wild beast" and "false prophet" were cast into the Lake of Fire 1000 years earlier-- Revelation 19:20)! So Revelation 20:10 is only saying the Adversary will be cast where the "wild beast" and the "false prophet" are "also" cast!
____________________________

QUOTE: "God does not directly create what is evil but He does permit those who through the exercise of their free will have become evil and continue wreaking havoc." -- richard373

Sorry, but I must disagree. The Bible repeatedly says that "All is of God".
________________________________

QUOTE: "....in a sense God does create disaster and those who perpetrate it, and Isaiah affirms as much in the verse you quote as does Romans 9. I have only recently come to an understanding of why this is - it is a part of His loving purposes for the human creation He is preparing for greater things (hinted at in v23 of Rom9) - the suffering caused by these wicked beings is utilized as grist within the process of the development of those (human beings) who ultimately are to partake in the divine nature (if you really want to know what I'm going on about you'd have to read my book - plug not intentional"
-- richard373

Perhaps you're referring to the fact that God is reproducing Himself?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Total agreement. The exception will be; Your POV concerning the ages to come vs mine. Since I'm ASSUMING I'm right and you're wrong, then those who are now dead know the truth that I believe and not the one you believe. So, YES they are happy, that most of the people created by God, won't be tortured purposely and endlessly.

Not sure if this intentionally ignored the point or misunderstood me. If God and those in Glory with Him, (and regardless of whether you are right or wrong) has a problem if people are left eternally suffering, then it would seem to follow that God has a problem now with the suffering of the innocent. I do not see how one can rationalize to say it would be wrong for God to leave the damned in that state eternally but some temporal bit of suffering of the innocent is ok. And am speaking of someone suffering who neither deserves and certainly could have no purpose as far as that individual life is concerned.

After all, the point was made in an attempt knock OT teaching on the matter, that one could not see how God or anyone in Glory would be happy knowing the damned are suffering. So it seems a legitimate question to ask how then they are happy now with the suffering of the innocent. In my view neither God's Happiness or those in Glory with depend on the lack of or end of suffering.

Big disagreement here, obviously. The Eternity definition is a big part of the separation between orthodox and UR believers. Our belief is in line with more grammatically correct translations than the ones you read that support orthodox theology, IMO.

I do not see God making the distinction between the length of time of either fate when He repeatedly compared/contrasted each in the same sentence. Seems odd way to speak of it if it was meant to be understood as one is eternal and the other not so much.

I disagree, even as I would disagree that I might not loose my happiness just because I was disciplining my child, I would loose my happiness if that punishment turned into ETERNAL PUNISHING...with no end. That's just wrong IMO.

Personally I would think it wrong to be happy to have to punish my children but that is just me. Also try to distance my understanding of God from ideas I may have about human feelings/emotions.

And there is nothing JUST about endless torture. It serves no purpose it produces nothing good it is sadistic negating anything called love IMO.

Really?. If the entire race is condemned and essentially worthy of destruction, indeed non-existence, for the single sin of one man, how does one surmise what is Just for God to do or not do?
No purpose? Separation itself is a purpose and those in Glory thankful that is so. And as the damned did not cease to desire evil (opposing Good) in this life, it is certainly Just to be given eternally their hearts desire. And for that matter it is their choice in this life which condemns them. Saint Thomas covers these issues very well: SUMMA THEOLOGICA: God's mercy and justice towards the damned (Supplementum, Q. 99)

It would if one believed that they were created just the way they are by God in the womb to be they way to accomplish God's plans for His who are "chosen, called, elected, predestined" to believe in this age.

A view of God which says He creates evil humans and good humans (or beings) is incompatible with the notion of His being All Good. God does not create evil, which actually does not exist in the sense Good exists. We are all created in His Image and we are all free to choose.

That He knows our choices before we were made is without doubt, as is that He can use evil and the knowledge of our choices to effect the Greater Good.

That statement is in error to those of us who believe they never had a 'first chance', so therefore a second chance is mute.

Saint Paul did not make such a distinction when the Spirit led him to write that essentially all of us face one death and one judgement. Neither did God Himself when speaking of two possible fates for us indicate one of those would end. Interesting that one of the earliest Christian writers recorded writing of such thoughts actually took it to the logical conclusion that if Hell was not eternal then neither could Heaven be. The Church condemned such thinking then, but Origen's error does go to show my point. If Jesus meant Hell was just a temporal state, then because the same language was used to express the opposite fate, it would follow then that Heaven is temporal as well.

That is simply grasping for non biblical straws to justify what your heart refuses to allow your indoctrinated brain believe...IMO. No offense intended Bubba.

actually when someone starts sentences with words like "imagine" or says things like " I can see how" these are not statements of belief or justifications, they are speculations. Not to credit myself or Catholic source as it was CS Lewis who first introduced me to such speculations.

As to what is biblical or not, we would be hard pressed to write much about either Heaven or Hell if we relied simply on what is recorded there. One thing is for certain, however long a person spends in either final destination, our Lord spoke of that duration in terms of equality. To me the idea of turning such statements into a comparison of something eternal with something temporal would indeed require brain washing for me to accept, which is but one reason I do not.

 

[Der Alte]

. . . . . . the term "Lake of Fire" is only used 5 times in the entire Bible, and all 5 times are found ONLY in the Book of Revelation. Of these 5 scriptures, only 1 (one) can be used, supposedly, to prove that the "Lake of Fire" is a place of conscious torment: that is in 20:10. And the ironic thing is the supposed proof is in a word that does not even appear in the original text: it's the word "ARE"-- and it's an ellipsis. [Required by grammar! DA]
A great many translations read "WERE". See the....
"Names of God Bible"
"Common English Bible"
"Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition"
"Revised Standard Version"
"New American Bible (Revised Edition)"
"Modern English Version"
"International Standard Version"
"English Standard Version Anglicised"
"Complete Jewish Bible"
"Amplified Bible"

Other translations read "HAD BEEN THROWN":
"New International Version"

Still others read "ALREADY BEEN THROWN":
Good News Translation"
"The Voice"

Irrelevant without the scholarship which led to the translation. See Wallace, below.

Interestingly enough, at least 7 Bible translations of 20:10, including the highly accurate Concordant Literal New Testament, contain the word "ALSO". For example, the CLNT reads, "And the Adversary who is deceiving them was cast into the Lake of Fire and sulphur, where the wild beast and where the false prophet are also."

What is your basis for saying the Concordant Literal New Testament is "highly accurate"?

Here, one really has to have his or her thinking cap on. The term "also" -- how can it relate to "the Adversary" being in the Lake of Fire, when he (and his demons) are NOT yet in the Lake? It can't. The term "also" can only relate to them all being "cast" into the Lake! (The "wild beast" and "false prophet" were cast into the Lake of Fire 1000 years earlier-- Revelation 19:20)! So Revelation 20:10 is only saying the Adversary will be cast where the "wild beast" and the "false prophet" are "also" cast! . . . . . .

Since the word "also" is not in the original Greek it is irrelevant.

Dr. Dan Wallace has taught graduate level Greek for 30+ years. Here is his commentary from the NET.

28tn The verb in this clause is elided. In keeping with the previous past tenses some translations supply a past tense verb here (“were”), but in view of the future tense that follows (“they will be tormented”), a present tense verb was used to provide a transition from the previous past tense to the future tense that follows.​

 

[Hillsage]

How do you UC's explain this verse:

Matthew 25:45-46(NKJV)-Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

Thank you for asking. I think we answer by using what we believe are 'more' grammatically correct translations. Translations whose interests were better translating of the Greek, rather than interpreting poorly to protect orthodox doctrine. Doctrine which they firmly believe is 'the right one'.

Young's Literal Translation:
MAT 25:45 'Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say to you, Inasmuch as ye did {it} not to one of these, the least, ye did {it} not to me. 46 And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during.'

Concordant Literal Translation;
45 "Then shall He be answering them, saying, 'Verily, I am saying to you, In as much as you do it not to one of these, the least, neither do you it to Me.' 46 And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian."

Rotherham's Emphasized Translation:
25:45 Then, will he answer them, saying: Verily, I say unto you—Inasmuch as ye did it not, unto one of these least, neither unto me, did ye it. 46 And, these, shall go away, into, age-abiding, correction, but, the righteous, into, age-abiding, life.

IOW, in the next 'age' there will Christians who have entered into 'the life of God' that's available then, in that age. It will be a 'life in God' that we don't experience in this age, even though we are believers now and are living aonian life that's available 'in God' to us today. IOW, do you have a glorified body in this age? I don't. So in the next age you will have an 'aionian/age-during life' in God you don't have now. They, on the other hand, will have a corrective judgment in that same age. But in the age following 'that corrective age' they too will have 'life' bought and paid for by Jesus. What that life will look like I'm not sure.
Hope that helps.

 

[Hillsage]

Not sure if this intentionally ignored the point or misunderstood me.

Neither, I believe you misunderstand. You prove that in the next sentence.

If God and those in Glory with Him, (and regardless of whether you are right or wrong) has a problem if people are left eternally suffering,

God and those in Glory don't see people "eternally suffering". That's my point.

After all, the point was made in an attempt knock OT teaching on the matter, that one could not see how God or anyone in Glory would be happy knowing the damned are suffering. So it seems a legitimate question to ask how then they are happy now with the suffering of the innocent. In my view neither God's Happiness or those in Glory with depend on the lack of or end of suffering.

Suffering has its purpose...OT and NT. Eternal suffering has no purpose....it's eternal suffering. Can you see what I'm saying? There's no correction, there's no end, there's no purpose and that simply has the earmarks of pure sadism IMO. And my view of God is not, as a sadist.

I do not see God making the distinction between the length of time of either fate when He repeatedly compared/contrasted each in the same sentence.

Well God didn't, make that distinction, poor translations did. Read my quoted translations above. They simply won't support orthodoxy and what you're saying IMO.

Personally I would think it wrong to be happy to have to punish my children but that is just me.

Then you fail your own litmus of 'duality' that you mentioned earlier. Didn't you say "How can 'they' in heaven not be happy with suffering innocent here and now and not be happy in the hereafter." Now you want me to say I can't be happy to punish my children now knowing 'that' correction will be for their betterment in the future.

If the entire race is condemned and essentially worthy of destruction, indeed non-existence, for the single sin of one man, how does one surmise what is Just for God to do or not do?

They do so when they change "worthy of destruction" and "non existance" into eternal purposeless torture...IMO.

No purpose? Separation itself is a purpose and those in Glory thankful that is so.

Separation does sound better than eternal torture for sure...but separation isn't the point...it's a side step to not face the truth IMO.

For sake of Brevity "Saint Thomas" and 'Saint Me' disagree.

That He knows our choices before we were made is without doubt, as is that He can use evil and the knowledge of our choices to effect the Greater Good.

Correct, they were made vessels in this age for His purpose and our testings. Even the devil is just a fiery smith in the authorizing hand of almighty God.

Saint Paul did not make such a distinction when the Spirit led him to write that essentially all of us face one death and one judgement.

Hmmm and yet we have the "second death" of Revelation as well as the Great white throne of God AND the Bema judgment seat of Christ. One of which "saves yet though as by fire."

Interesting that one of the earliest Christian writers recorded writing of such thoughts actually took it to the logical conclusion that if Hell was not eternal then neither could Heaven be. The Church condemned such thinking then, but Origen's error does go to show my point.

The logical conclusion/point it shows is this. Origen was one of those early writers too. And his logical conclusion was opposite of your unnamed writer who obviously didn't know what I've already explained above. I give thanks to other earlier writers, as well as more modern ones who've studied the 'earlier' writers more than I, for the conclusions I now hold to.

If Jesus meant Hell was just a temporal state, then because the same language was used to express the opposite fate, it would follow then that Heaven is temporal as well.

Your continued laboring of this point is proof you do not see what I see.

To me the idea of turning such statements into a comparison of something eternal with something temporal would indeed require brain washing for me to accept, which is but one reason I do not.

"Brain washing" sounds ugly. At least I now know who washed my brain, and yours. Because I used to believe what you now believe. But I got 'washed again'. I got more dirt out of my eyes the second time...I think.

Nite Bubba, it's past my bedtime. And it's also time to shorten these posts. Choking on one bite isn't fixed by cramming more of the same in.