Universal reconciliation

[Der Alte]

Matthew 7:21-23
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Seems straightforward to me, not everyone shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, Jesus said it himself.

And millions and millions of years from now God's unchanging word will still read "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

 

[Corduroys]

And you meet what requirements 'to enter'?

How will that stop the verse I quoted from contradicting UR? Whatever the 'requirements' are it is clear that not everyone meets them.

 

[Hillsage]

How will that stop the verse I quoted from contradicting UR? Whatever the 'requirements' are it is clear that not everyone meets them.

Don't waffle with a question, just answer the simple question I asked. What requirement have you met in order to enter? Why is this so difficult for you since you have the one 'caveat verse' that no UR person has EVER seen or dealt with in their life....NOT!

 

[Corduroys]

You answered my post with a question first.

You are the one who is trying to lead away from the fact that you are contradicting Jesus.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Perhaps, although the Catholic church does teach that
there's a Purgatory, so evidently physical death doesn't
necessarily have to be the end of it for the individual.

as pointed out earlier, the process of purgatory, whatever that is (the catechism contains like 3 sentences on it) is ONLY for people already bound for Heaven, a cleansing - though apparently not pleasant. And the concept of a "purging" of anything remaining of unforgiven sins (which did not damn the believer) is much like the need for purity and cleansing (also depicted in the OT) when approaching God in the Temple or for example Moses to Holy ground.

The point was the UR side here in this thread proposed that the Sacrifice freely (and everyone agrees) made for ALL, could be offered for someone already dead and the UR posters here directly connected that alleged application with the sacrifice of blood required in the OT.

So my point, which is not addressed in the above reply, is that no one is depicted and there is no suggestion that blood sacrifice in the OT was or could be offered for those who had already died. So the comparison the UR made here of the alleged application of the Blood to the damned fails.

 

[Rajni]

So my point, which is not addressed in the above reply, is that no one is depicted and there is no suggestion that blood sacrifice in the OT was or could be offered for those who had already died.

I’m still not sure what the problem there is. Lots of
folks were already dead when Christ’s sacrifice took place.

If it must strictly only apply to those who are actually
living on the planet when said sacrifice takes place,
then the only folks who would be affected were
those walking the earth during Jesus’ time.

 

[Hillsage]

You answered my post with a question first.

You are the one who is trying to lead away from the fact that you are contradicting Jesus.

No I'm not leading anyone astray with my question. I'm just trying to see if you even belong in this forum. So far you're coming up short. If you don't know the answer just say so.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I’m still not sure what the problem there is. Lots of
folks were already dead when Christ’s sacrifice took place.

Well yes of course people had died. Our Lord also commented on the status of those already dead, depicting two obvious groups separated with one group resting comfortably and the other in torment (both aware BTW) in a common "realm" of the dead. Which implies an individual & immediate judgment of our lives after we die in order to create those groups, rather than implying a post mortem application of a blood sacrifice that had yet to made. The application is instantaneous with our death [just it had to be for those resting comfortably before Jesus died]. I would agree those in a pleasant place were resting comfortably, as were those who had ascended directly to that rest already. The idea being that the "gates of Heavens" (Paradise) were closed by the Fall, for what Adam(man) had done and re-opened by what a Man (Jesus) did. So those He is depicted leading out of the realm of the dead after His Death on the Cross, were those people like Elijah and Lazarus, already there waiting for Him - not those in the other group like the rich man, who himself realized it was too late for him.

If it must strictly only apply to those who are actually
living on the planet when said sacrifice takes place,
then the only folks who would be affected were
those walking the earth during Jesus’ time.

Well LOL. If that were a real depiction of our view, that would be an awkward and rather impossible statement for the orthodox to make given their real belief in the OT's depiction of people bypassing death and ascending directly into Heaven. It has to ALL fit all together, which the orthodox and IMO the Catholic teaching does, rather than contradicting itself or holding contradicting beliefs.

But this erroneous conclusion about my statement does go to the very orthodox belief in the supernatural aspect of that Sacrifice on the Cross, which only God Himself could have done (another argument for His Divinity) that makes His Act on the Cross Eternal - which means the application of His Blood has to be able to be applied both directions in Time.

The "problem" alledgedly not yet seen with the UR comparison to OT blood sacrifice, is that it still does not mean He changed the rules of sacrifice/atonement or that OT depicts Blood sacrifices being made for the dead - which the damned are clearly dead. The OT does not depict that. The OT law and depictions, as well as the history/traditions of the people those laws were given to, depict otherwise also. One life, one judgment and sacrifices made to atone while still living.

So again the problem remains; one cannot claim the idea that applying His Blood to the damned(dead folks) has a parallel in the OT process of atonement of the faithful among the living.

 

[jerry kelso]

I would have to agree on both counts.


Actually I think your post is too long, and it's all been said before. So if you think you "understand the scriptures" we do, then what would be the point?

hillsage, I like to be detailed but I'll keep this pithy.
It's all been said before by those who agree with what I said I am sure. The point is that you are to try and rebut what I said that you disagree with and that you did not. The point is not about saying I understand scriptures anymore than you think that you do. I guess we won't know until you post a rebut. Of course, if it is too long for you maybe you can't understand it because it is too deep? lol
I just wanted you to know debate has rebuttals and it is alright to rebut if you think you understand. Jerry Kelso

 

[Rajni]

But this erroneous conclusion about my statement does go to the very orthodox belief in the supernatural aspect of that Sacrifice on the Cross, which only God Himself could have done (another argument for His Divinity) that makes His Act on the Cross Eternal - which means the application of His Blood has to be able to be applied both directions in Time.

So then why would physical death have to be a cutoff
point for redemption?

The "problem" alledgedly not yet seen with the UR comparison to OT blood sacrifice, is that it still does not mean He changed the rules of sacrifice/atonement or that OT depicts Blood sacrifices being made for the dead - which the damned are clearly dead. The OT does not depict that. The OT law and depictions, as well as the history/traditions of the people those laws were given to, depict otherwise also. One life, one judgment and sacrifices made to atone while still living.

So again the problem remains; one cannot claim the idea that applying His Blood to the damned(dead folks) has a parallel in the OT process of atonement of the faithful among the living.

I only see a parallel in the perceived need for
blood-sacrifice that people had back then.

The only real similarity, I think, is the shedding
of blood to atone for sin.

Beyond that, I don’t see the parallel
continuing, because while the human priests
had to perform sacrifices over and over, Christ
only had to do it once, for all. (Hebrews 9:23-28).

-



-

 

[DrBubbaLove]

So then why would physical death have to be a cutoff
point for redemption?

Because God had already made it the "cutoff" point before He died (rich man is damned and knows it - no hope for him). Every depiction of the next life we are given in scripture indicates it is already so. Clearly to have two groups of dead people with one group suffering, some sort of Judgment had to already have occurred for those individuals. And that same depiction indicates, with desire/regret on the part of those ALREADY experiencing the negative fate, a finality rather than a hope for some future redemption.

I only see a parallel in the perceived need for
blood-sacrifice that people had back then.

The only real similarity, I think, is the shedding
of blood to atone for sin.

Beyond that, I don’t see the parallel
continuing, because while the human priests
had to perform sacrifices over and over, Christ
only had to do it once, for all. (Hebrews 9:23-28).

I do not see a need for additional sacrifices either - and again that was not the point. So by this current admission, am I suppose to understand that while you deny that the OT belief in blood sacrifice included making such sacrifice for the dead, somehow you think the Blood of Christ was meant (similar to the OT practice) in addition to atone believers in this life, was also meant to redeem people of sins for which they not only never meant to atone for in this life but went to their grave with that defiance (IOW damned in the orthodox view). Is that your belief?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Interesting that parable ends with God saying even if someone rose from the dead they would not repent. So URs are asking to believe that the damned, against what God said - would eventually believe if someone rose from the dead.

If they were not persuaded by the Good in this life, what makes us think something in the next life would change their mind?

 

[jugghead]

Interesting that parable ends with God saying even if someone rose from the dead they would not repent. So URs are asking to believe that the damned, against what God said - would eventually believe if someone rose from the dead.

If they were not persuaded by the Good in this life, what makes us think something in the next life would change their mind?

No one ... and I mean no one .... CAN BELIEVE even if they see someone else be raised from the dead ... they can only believe when they themselves have been made alive (when they themselves have been raised from the dead)

made alive = raised from the dead ..... same truth, different words

the viewpoint of ET is: you see us as going astray from what is true (or truth), whereas we see the ET understanding as what we have been delivered from (I once believed as you do ... every word), you see me as going astray, I see myself as being delivered ....... if you have never entered into the UR understanding , how can you see yourself as being delivered from it if you never entered into it?

You have respect for the authority of God (just as we do), just as a child learns to respect the authority of their earthly father through discipline as they are growing up, but when that child got older he learned that everything his father did "TO" him was "FOR" him out of love, and that is how we now see our own heavenly Father, He does everything "FOR" us (mankind), not "TO" us (mankind).

 

[DrBubbaLove]

No one ... and I mean no one .... CAN BELIEVE even if they see someone else be raised from the dead ... they can only believe when they themselves have been made alive (when they themselves have been raised from the dead)

made alive = raised from the dead ..... same truth, different words

the viewpoint of ET is: you see us as going astray from what is true (or truth), whereas we see the ET understanding as what we have been delivered from (I once believed as you do ... every word), you see me as going astray, I see myself as being delivered ....... if you have never entered into the UR understanding , how can you see yourself as being delivered from it if you never entered into it?

You have respect for the authority of God (just as we do), just as a child learns to respect the authority of their earthly father through discipline as they are growing up, but when that child got older he learned that everything his father did "TO" him was "FOR" him out of love, and that is how we now see our own heavenly Father, He does everything "FOR" us (mankind), not "TO" us (mankind).

So now the UR belief holder doubles down against God's Word. Or is it a triple down?

God tells a story about a dead man who knows he is damned and is depicted asking someone (who is also dead but not damned) to send a messenger back to his living brothers to warn them to change their ways. That man is NOT depicted having any hope for saving himself. The response to that man is that if his brothers will not listen to the prophets (the "testimony" of Good in this life), then even if someone is raised from the dead they will not believe. Jesus rose from the dead. He also said while here that even if the rocks cry out, some will not listen (believe).

The question being replied to was that if people were not persuaded in this life by all the Good, (and obviously God Himself agrees and told people no matter what some will never believe), what makes the UR believer think the damned in Hell will miraculously see the Light at some point?

The response is essentially because of Love, God will do what He plainly says will never happen. He said, that no matter what - some will never believe. The damned in Hell are never depicted in Scripture getting relief or seeing the Light. God Himself indicates that some folks will always say "my will, not Thy Will". Yet the UR insists because God is Love, He cannot allow their refusal to eternally damn them.

It is further suggested that "they" will only believe after they are "raised" from the dead, "made alive". Am unclear if the that is referenced to "saved" (whether one sees that accomplished in this life or the next) or the physical act of being resurrected. I suspect the former. If the former, then again in reference to not being damned (opposite of "saved") God says no matter what is done, some will never listen (be saved). He did not qualify those statements with something might convince them in Hell after this life (so they could eventually be "made alive"). Neither did He indicate that those already damned (Lazarus) could still be "saved". In fact, he begged for water not salvation from his state, clearly knowing his fate was sealed. So if this is the meaning, it is outside of Scripture and a conclusion supported only by saying God's Love and Mercy, in deference to His Justice and Glory, requires that it be so.

If instead the meaning of "raised" or "made alive" means simply resurrected, the Great Judgment indicates all mankind gets resurrected body and soul at same time. Based on that Judgment, everyone is deposed either to Glory or eternal damnation. So if resurrection is the meaning, why doesn't that same depiction show everyone going to Glory?

So either way I look at this reply, the conclusion supported by the UR holder is demanding God's Love and Mercy require He set aside His Glory and Justice. It is also both contradicting and adding to His own Words (scripture) to support this belief.

 

[jugghead]

why do you only address one part of my post, when the rest of it was just an explanation of my understanding of what was first said

A house divided cannot stand, this is the picture of the rich man and Lazarus, a picture of your own soul (house) divided, where as one part has to die in order for the other to live, the letter of the law (literal) kills, whereas the Spirit of the Law (spiritual) makes alive and since I know you will also reject this, there is no point in even a response from you except maybe in anger to try and kill this also

 

[Rajni]

Because it was before He died. Every depiction of the next life we are given in scripture indicates it is already so. Clearly to have two groups of dead people with one group suffering, some sort of Judgment had to already have occurred for those individuals. And that same depiction indicates, with desire/regret on the part of those ALREADY experiencing the negative fate, a finality rather than a hope for some future redemption.

Evidently there was a practice of preaching the
gospel to the dead (see 1 Peter 3:19; 1 Peter 4:6)

I do not see a need for additional sacrifices either - and again that was not the point. So by this current admission, am I suppose to understand that while you deny that the OT belief in blood sacrifice included making such sacrifice for the dead, somehow you think the Blood of Christ was meant (similar to the OT practice) in addition to atone believers in this life, was also meant to redeem people of sins for which they not only never meant to atone for in this life but went to their grave with that defiance (IOW damned in the orthodox view). Is that your belief.

I believe that God is the Savior of all, yes. (1 Timothy
4:10, among others).


-

 

[DrBubbaLove]

why do you only address one part of my post, when the rest of it was just an explanation of my understanding of what was first said

A house divided cannot stand, this is the picture of the rich man and Lazarus, a picture of your own soul (house) divided, where as one part has to die in order for the other to live, the letter of the law (literal) kills, whereas the Spirit of the Law (spiritual) makes alive and since I know you will also reject this, there is no point in even a response from you except maybe in anger to try and kill this also

Am not sure what you think was not addressed in my prior reply as I clearly mentioned the story of the TWO dead men, which your prior reply was somehow a direct response to, and then addressed your reference to being "dead" and "made alive". So just which part do you feel was not addressed?

Here in this response the Lazarus story is twisted in making it NOT about TWO individuals, but two different aspects of the same individual (house divided) in order to make the story fit the belief held. The story is about two real people that lived and depicts their current state after death, not two aspects of the same person. He even depicts one of them in the afterlife asking if the other person can help ease his suffering, which in the story is said to be NOT POSSIBLE.
So how exactly would one see a "house divided" with one side wanting to get help from the other side?

 

[Der Alte]

why do you only address one part of my post, when the rest of it was just an explanation of my understanding of what was first said

A house divided cannot stand, this is the picture of the rich man and Lazarus, a picture of your own soul (house) divided, where as one part has to die in order for the other to live, the letter of the law (literal) kills, whereas the Spirit of the Law (spiritual) makes alive and since I know you will also reject this, there is no point in even a response from you except maybe in anger to try and kill this also

Such nonsense! This is one of many. many spiritualized, figurative interpretations of Luke 16:19-31, I have heard. So which figurative interpretation is correct? Every early church father, who were native Greek speakers, who quotes this story considers it to be factual not figurative. I am not aware of any spiritual interpretation of Luke 16:19-31 until modern times.
.

Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202.] Against Heresies Book II [pupil of Polycarp, who was a pupil of John the apostle]
.
http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-59.htm#P7262_1923873
.
In that narrative which is recorded respecting the rich man and that Lazarus who found repose in the bosom of Abraham. In this account He states that Dives knew Lazarus after death, and Abraham in like manner, and that each one of these persons continued in his own proper position, and that [Dives] requested Lazarus to be sent to relieve him — [Lazarus], on whom he did not [formerly] bestow even the crumbs [which fell] from his table. [He tells us] also of the answer given by Abraham, who was acquainted not only with what respected himself, but Dives also, and who enjoined those who did not wish to come into that place of torment to believe Moses and the prophets, and to receive the preaching of Him who was to rise again from the dead.
.
Tertullian [A.D. 145-220.] Treatise on the Soul
.
http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-07.htm#P737_306909
.
In hell the soul of a certain man is in torment, punished in flames, suffering excruciating thirst, and imploring from the finger of a happier soul, for his tongue, the solace of a drop of water. Do you suppose that this end of the blessed poor man and the miserable rich man is only imaginary? Then why the name of Lazarus in this narrative, if the circumstance is not in (the category of) a real occurrence? But even if it is to be regarded as imaginary, it will still be a testimony to truth and reality. For unless the soul possessed corporeality, the image of a soul could not possibly contain a finger of a bodily substance; nor would the Scripture feign a statement about the limbs of a body, if these had no existence.
.
Tertullian On Idolatry
.
http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-07.htm#P737_306909
.
Thus, too, Eleazar in Hades, (attaining refreshment in Abraham’s bosom) and the rich man, (on the other hand, set in the torment of fire) compensate, by an answerable retribution, their alternate vicissitudes of evil and good.
.
Clement Of Alexandria [A.D. 153-193-217] The Instructor “
.
There was a certain man,” said the Lord, narrating, “very rich, who was clothed in purple and scarlet, enjoying himself splendidly every day.” This was the hay. “And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at the rich man’s gate, full of sores, desiring to be filled with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table.” This is the grass. Well, the rich man was punished in Hades, being made partaker of the fire; while the other flourished again in the Father’s bosom.
.
Cyprian (A.D. 200-258) Epistle 54 To Cornelius, Concerning Fortunatus And Felicissimus, Or Against The Heretics
.
Whence also that rich sinner who implores help from Lazarus, then laid in Abraham’s bosom, and established in a place of comfort, while he, writhing in torments, is consumed by the heats of burning flame, suffers most punishment of all parts of his body in his mouth and his tongue, because doubtless in his mouth and his tongue he had most sinned.​

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Evidently there was a practice of preaching the
gospel to the dead (see 1 Peter 3:19; 1 Peter 4:6)

Actually NO, Saint Peter does not depict a "practice" of preaching to the dead. No. He references a trip to the realm of the dead by Our Lord God after His Death on the Cross (and before His Resurrection) to tell those waiting there for Him the Good news that they were now free to move on to Paradise (whatever that is) with Him. Those would be the same people that same Lord God depicted resting comfortably after death like Lazarus, as opposed to others in the SAME realm of the dead that were (and are) still suffering. Some of those same "freed" dead people would be "seen" for a time in Jerusalem after His death on the Cross.

I believe that God is the Savior of all, yes. (1 Timothy
4:10, among others).

Did we ignore the rest of that verse? "specially of those that believe."
How do we know which parts of verses to ignore and which to emphasize?
Do we first decide what must be true and then pick and choose what to emphasize and what to ignore?

Or do we accept all His Word?
1 Tim 4:16
"Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee."

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Want to add here that all of this goes hand in hand with the purpose for our existence. He made mankind to “walk with Him”, which because of who we say He is, Catholics expand to “He made us to eternally share in His Eternal Happiness”. In order to be able to do that He had to have made Adam Perfect. Perfect meaning among other things, that Adam originally could have lived forever and was Holy (as He is Holy). Sin results from the ability to use our free choice to act (free will) against that purpose for our being.
So Adam’s first sin not only made it impossible for him to continue to serve that purpose (“walk with Him” because he is now unholy) it also made it impossible for his offspring to eternally serve that purpose (death came for all mankind). Impossible UNLESS there is supernatural intervention to make us both Holy and immortal.
Jesus said be Holy as I am Holy. He said that before He died. That statement indicates a very high goal for us, but it cannot indicate an impossible goal. So we can be Holy as He is Holy. Unfortunately most of us do not remain that way very long, but at least we know He told us Holiness is something we can attain and should strive to remain in for in this life. Holiness is what we lose (and Adam lost) when we sin.
Adam also lost immortality of the body (not the soul), so death came for us all. Again a supernatural act is required to overcome death of our bodies. Jesus indicated that not only could we be Holy, but if we followed Him (love Him with all our hearts) IN THIS LIFE, then even though we still die, we can be resurrected ( a new body united with our departed souls) and be eternally with Him in Glory. So He defeats death by making possible our resurrection to a state He made man to be in – and as Adam originally was – our body and soul eternally sharing in His Eternal Happiness.
So everything He did to make it possible in the next life to be, in the words of the Army commercial, be ALL we can be – which is what He made us to be. This is the story depicted in the Bible of our creation and God’s intervention to make it possible for us to be, ALL we can be. Without His intervention our restoration is impossible. Since we are all damned by our individual sins and death comes because of Adam’s sin, we cannot escape our sorry state without His intervention.

Some will be tempted to say, yes, but it is the same plan for the damned they just do not “get it” applied until later. My problem with that thought is that “later” is already now. He acted to make it possible “save” us from our current state right now. An offer not forced on us and the full effect of that salvation is only realized IMMEDIATELY after our death based on His knowing and Judging our hearts. A judgment He indicated occurs only once for each of us. As indicated by the rich man in the story He told. The only thing we wait for after death is a resurrection of the body to join with our soul in whatever fate His single Judgment has Justly provided.