Universal reconciliation

[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
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 "

As you say "are" or "were" is an ellipsis (which is why I placed it in brackets), i.e. it is a word needed for the sense of grammar, omitted yet understood - it's the way NT Greek functions. So translators have some licence to express it as they wish (and no doubt in accordance with the particular theological viewpoint they want to put across). Perhaps even more than English, biblical Greek words have a wide semantic range, a fact translators can and do utilise to reinforce their particular standpoint. "Torment" can simply mean to "undergo an ordeal" (G928) and I have no problem with the idea that these 3 characters (the Devil, Beast & false prophet) at the very least deserve a jolly good hiding and for a prolonged period of time (literally "multiple ages") Likewise wicked angels and humans who wilfully defy God, destroy His good creation and pervert the minds and understanding of those created in his image (not least by putting it into the minds of certain would-be theologians to construct the abominable conception of eternal torment for all those not elected to Christian salvation, thus perverting the goodness and intelligible justice of our loving Creator).

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!

The ellipsis consideration still applies but I don't dispute what I think you're saying here
____________________________

QUOTE from Richard373: "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."

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

All things may be in accordance with God's plans and wishes but reading through the gospels, the Son of God being the express image for His Father was exceedingly angry with certain people He encountered, declaring them to be "of the devil". Of course He did not mean they were created by him but they "belonged to him" or "had gone over to him" - he had effectively become their father. In His words they were not "of God" [Jn8:44-47]. Our Lord was clearly not just going through the motions, He felt intense righteous anger towards such people which could hardly be the case if they were His Father's immediate work and creation.]

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?

[I]I am referring to "theosis" - a concept understood by the earliest Christian writers, actively promoted within the Eastern Orthodox Church and not refuted by the RCC (although in my experience few parishioners or their immediate instructors have much grasp of the matter). The understanding I have come to is that evil and the suffering that flows from it is utilised by God within that process by which we sin-infested children of dust will ultimately come to participate in the divine nature - not to "reproduce God" but to enjoy, fellowship and participate with Him through the endless ages, concerning which we have only currently been provided with a smidgeon of intelligible data. Regrettably many on this forum and the Churches they represent (including to some extent my own) think they have a clear and unfettered vision of the precise composition and nature of the endless ages to come (cf. 1Jn3:2). We have currently been provided with what we need to know so as to live as God intends for us in the present age, with those chosen for Christ utilising the means of grace provided for them so that they as his royal priesthood might be a healing and enlightening force within the world, preparing its people for what we understand is to come. It is obvious from this forum we are a long way from agreeing even about the present arrangements, let alone precisely outlining the course of eternity! Yet even this confusion is in accordance with God's plans and (I believe) He may be about to remedy the situation.

 

[richard373]

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

Having sampled both, the RCC places much more emphasis on the universal scope of God's reconciliatory purposes than the Reformed model of theology I grew up with in which just "the predestined few" are to be saved. Rather it is the "predestined few" who have been enlightened by the gospel and spiritually empowered to serve God so as to relate to creation in the present in the way God would have all men and women do so in the future. He wishes that all should be healed/saved and come to a knowledge of the Truth, and works from within (through His chosen people - the first-fruits) to begin that process in the world.

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.

I concede you may be right in part. I believe the HS was behind the Church's enlightenment, but there is a political/ecclesiological dimension to it also.

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.

It's absolutely the case that all human reconciliation with God is made possible by the work of Christ, even in the case of those who never knew Him (not least, the people of the OT). So it follows that your second point is true also: those who know Christ know they have been forgiven; those ignorant of him do not (yet) know it and so do not praise God for it or live in the light of it . Why then the gospel and the Church? - I believe that is because only those responding to the former and incorporated within the latter presently participate with Christ and are empowered by His Spirit so as to become "the body of Christ", acting as salt and light in the world and preparing people for the future realisation of His Kingdom in its fullness. "Why me - why you?" - it is surely through God's elective grace alone, but (like the Jew in the OT) having been given this privilege, we are expected to use it and (no doubt) will be rebuked by Christ if we squander what by grace we have received (Heb2:2-4)

 

[Hillsage]

Having sampled both, the RCC places much more emphasis on the universal scope of God's reconciliatory purposes than the Reformed model of theology I grew up with in which just "the predestined few" are to be saved.

I've often said I think Martin Luther blew it when he took the hell doctrine of RCC and left behind the purgatory doctrine. Even the false doctrine IMO, of purgatory makes more sense than the false doctrine of eternal torture IMO. Though I have a quote of Martin later in life, where he seems to have come to a different understanding;"not limiting the time of acquiring faith to this life only."...or something quite similar to that. I don't have Alzheimer's, but 'part timers' has certainly set in.

BTW, did you really "write a book", or was that just jest?

 

[drstevej]

Though I have a quote of Martin later in life, where he seems to have come to a different understanding;"not limiting the time of acquiring faith to this life only."...or something quite similar to that.

Could you provide that quote?

 

[drstevej]

Augsburg Confession (1530) Philip Melancthon
the primary confession of faith of the Lutheran Church and one of the most important documents of the Lutheran Reformation

Article XVII: Of Christ's Return to Judgment.

Also they teach that at the Consummation of the World Christ will appear for judgment, and will raise up all the dead; He will give to the godly and elect eternal life and everlasting joys, but ungodly men and the devils He will condemn to be tormented without end.



They condemn the Anabaptists, who think that there will be an end to the punishments of condemned men and devils.

 

[Hillsage]

Could you provide that quote?

Found it.

"God forbid that I should limit the time acquiring faith to the present life. In the depth of the Divine Mercy there may be opportunity to win it in the future"...Martin Luther. 'The After Life' by Henry Buckle page 168.

P.S. Also found the quote in the Hope Beyond Hell book page 69;

Martin Luther had hope for all. In his letter to Hansen Von Rechenberg in 1522, he 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.‖2

 

[drstevej]

Found it.

"God forbid that I should limit the time acquiring faith to the present life. In the depth of the Divine Mercy there may be opportunity to win it in the future"...Martin Luther. 'The After Life' by Henry Buckle page 168.

Do you have the citation in Luther's writings? I am curious of the year and context.

 

[Der Alte]

Could you provide that quote?

This might help. I think we can confidently say that Martin Luther was not a Universalist. This quote is from Tentmakers which is definitely a Universalist website.

The famous quote that is often brought forth as evidence that Luther at least leaned towards this direction says,

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. (Martin Luther’s letter to Hans von Rechenberg, 1522.)​

At first it was quite difficult to determine which part of the letter contains the controversial quote, as I couldn’t find anything in the German original that looked remotely like the phrase that believers in Universal Salvation so often quoted as evidence that even Martin Luther was secretly inclined to it.

After a while it became clear that those who claim the statement to be a overly exaggerated translation are actually right. The sentence from which the mentioned quote derived is better translated,

It would be quite a different question whether God can impart faith to some in the hour of death or after death so that these people could be saved through faith. Who would doubt God’s ability to do that? (Martin Luther’s letter to Hans von Rechenberg, 1522.)​

However, after having said this, he continues to say that

No one, however, can prove that He does do this. (Martin Luther’s letter to Hans von Rechenberg, 1522.)​

Was Martin Luther a Closet Universalist?​

 

[drstevej]

Found it: In a letter to Hanseu Von Rechenberg in 1522

By 1530 he no longer believed this as the Augsburg Confession makes clear.

 

[Hillsage]

Found it: In a letter to Hanseu Von Rechenberg in 1522

By 1530 he no longer believed this as the Augsburg Confession makes clear.

A possibility which, for us UR believers, only confirms a quote from someone else famous whose name I can't really recall, who said; "It is not uncommon for a man to stumble over the truth and then pick himself back up again as though nothing had happened."

 

[richard373]

I've often said I think Martin Luther blew it when he took the hell doctrine of RCC and left behind the purgatory doctrine. Even the false doctrine IMO, of purgatory makes more sense than the false doctrine of eternal torture IMO. Though I have a quote of Martin later in life, where he seems to have come to a different understanding;"not limiting the time of acquiring faith to this life only."...or something quite similar to that. I don't have Alzheimer's, but 'part timers' has certainly set in.

Give me "final purification" being an act of love on God's part rather than "eternal torment" as a result of God's "perfect hatred" of both sin and sinners any day. Yet what we might prefer is not the issue, I believe the former to be in accordance with Scripture and consistent with God's nature, but not the latter. I'm RC but I'm not alone within that church in refusing to subscribe to any systematised categorisation of purgatorial torments or the means of release from them (indulgences). This I find to be quite unscriptural and if I was required to affirm it (which I'm not) I would have to migrate to the Eastern Orthodox Church who rightly reject such human inventions which as they would emphasise are nowhere to be found in the witness of the earliest churches. To be fair since Vat2 (1960's) the RCC has toned down its insistence of purgatory being a place rather than a process that can and does (for some) begin in this life. In terms of Martin Luther, I believe Der Alter has accurately addressed the issue.

BTW, did you really "write a book", or was that just jest?

Since you ask, I have recently written an e-book and it is obtainable from Amazon (for info and access click my blog - not quite enough posts to link). Before you rush out and download it, I have just asked my publishers to reduce it to under a dollar in the US, as its main purpose is to challenge and provoke Christians, not raise a fast buck

 

[Hillsage]

Give me "final purification" being an act of love on God's part rather than "eternal torment" as a result of God's "perfect hatred" of both sin and sinners any day.

and again I say

In terms of Martin Luther, I believe Der Alter has accurately addressed the issue.

Then I will go read what he has to say.
After reading Dr. Steve's last post I did go to check out the 'reference' number given in the book for the quote. Upon going to that website though, I wasn't able to find anything to do with the quote. So I was admittedly disappointed. But in my life quest for truth many things I clung to formerly have been since discarded, and if the same fate awaits this quote...so be it. The greater truth is still supportable without that quote by Marty.

Can you share your reason for agreement with DA? Was it a position you'd come to before reading his post? Or had you questioned it before?

its main purpose is to challenge and provoke Christians, not raise a fast buck

I can't comment on your materials content, but your main purpose motivation certainly passes with flying colors. May your efforts be worthy of His blessings.

 

[richard373]

Can you share your reason for agreement with DA? Was it a position you'd come to before reading his post? Or had you questioned it before?

I shouldn't have given the impression that I'd carefully researched what DA was saying, only that my understanding of ML's teaching was that he was not a closet-universalist. Having said that, the last biography I read concerning him (by Richard Marius, an Evangelical who became an agnostic) made the point that Luther rarely referred to Hell as such. The Reformer's greatest fear (according to Marius) was the idea of ceasing to exist (i.e. annihilation). Not sure how accurate that was. I only know enough about ML's teaching to realise I can no longer agree with it, particularly the way he came to define justification/faith/righteousness and what he believed Paul was saying about it - that's why I restrict my options to RC/EO/High Anglican, but that's a matter for another thread.

 

[drstevej]

I did my PhD in Reformation History and Theology (Westminster Seminary) and am pretty familiar with Luther and Lutheranism of the 16th century. Luther was no universalist. That was not a primary focus of the era. Luther focused on sola fide and sola scriptura.

Melancthon who penned most of the confessional statementd for the Lutheran Church was no universalist.

Anyone who paints Luther as such is not a scholar but rather an apologist grasping for straws.

 

[Hillsage]

Anyone who paints Luther as such is not a scholar but rather an apologist grasping for straws.

I hope I didn't give the impression that I thought he 'believed in UR'. The quote doesn't even state 'that' IMO. It merely implied that he saw enough to, at least 'question' what he really did believe. Personally I find that characteristic more defining of a 'true apologist'. Those who don't question their own paradigm, acting like they are right and everyone else is wrong, are as valuable to me theologically as the opinions of pharisees must have been to Jesus.

 

[drstevej]

My comment were not focused on you but were generic.

On my dissertation I had my academic readers who were on opposite ends of the spectrum. This kept me objective and well documented.

 

[Hillsage]

The Reformer's greatest fear (according to Marius) was the idea of ceasing to exist (i.e. annihilation). Not sure how accurate that was.

I can only hope it was 'very accurate'. As I indicated in my last post, questioning one's paradigm indicates a hand holding on 'loosely enough to their dogma', to allow the Holy Spirit to 'replace it with the truth'.

 

[Hillsage]

My comment were not focused on you but were generic.

But then, one doesn't have to be in the cross-hairs when someone is shooting with a shotgun. That was the specific point I was hoping to make in that post. I certainly don't claim to know what Martin questioned.

On my dissertation I had my academic readers who were on opposite ends of the spectrum. This kept me objective and well documented.

That sounds good.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

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?

I guess, but then God is not human and we have to remember that while He is Love, He also is Just.

 

[Hillsage]

I guess, but then God is not human and we have to remember that while He is Love, He also is Just.

Now 'that's a point every UR and annihilationist would heartily agree with.