Eternal Damnation, Conditional Immortality, or Universal Reconciliation: A CF poll

[public hermit]

But just to say what my point was, I believe you can rule out Universal Reconciliation by one word, "Chasm" found in Luke 16:26

This is not meant to shortcut your explanation, but UR doesn't rest on that one passage. None of the three positions rest on one passage. My position is that there is enough ambiguity in the NT corpus to allow for the three positions, i.e. ECT, conditional immortality, and UR. Therefore, the debate cannot be settled by exegesis alone but must take other considerations into account, which includes theological, philosophical, and moral considerations.

 

[Hmm]

Also, if it is a parable, then the word Chasm is of special importance because it says no one can cross from one place to the other. It would mean the parable is talking of a greater reality and not a lesser one.

Are you not extrapolating beyond what the parable, or story if you prefer, describes? The chasm separates the rich man from Lazarus while he is undergoing correction and refinement but only in the sense that prison walls separate a prisoner from his friends on the outside while he is serving his time. Interpreting "chasm" as an "everlasting chasm" may be your reading of the text but it's not in the text or the meaning of the parable/story itself.

 

[All Becomes New]

Are you not extrapolating beyond what the parable, or story if you prefer, describes? The chasm separates the rich man from Lazarus while he is undergoing correction and refinement but only in the sense that prison walls separate a prisoner from his friends on the outside while he is serving his time. Interpreting "chasm" as an "eternal chasm" is your reading of the text but it's not in the text or the meaning of the parable/story itself.

We have zero evidence that the chasm was not eternal and every indication that it was.

 

[public hermit]

@David's Harp I don't know how to comment on comments, but I agree that the witness of the Holy Spirit is vital.

 

[All Becomes New]

This is not meant to shortcut your explanation, but UR doesn't rest on that one passage. None of the three positions rest on one passage. My position is that there is enough ambiguity in the NT corpus to allow for the three positions, i.e. ECT, conditional immortality, and UR. Therefore, the debate cannot be settled by exegesis alone but must take other considerations into account, which includes theological, philosophical, and moral considerations.

There's not a single verse in the Bible that talks about a person crossing over in the afterlife though. Not one. None of the lexicons indicate any such thing either.

 

[public hermit]

There's not a single verse in the Bible that talks about a person crossing over in the afterlife though. Not one. None of the lexicons indicate any such thing either.

I mean, you can hang your hat on that passage, which is your prerogative. I doubt it's going to dispell the issue, which is kind of how you framed it, as if the discussion should end given your reading if "chasm."

Then again, there are others who take a similar approach. Have you met @Der Alte? Der Alte, I hope you're having a Merry Christmas, Sir.

 

[All Becomes New]

I mean, you can hang your hat on that passage, which is your prerogative. I doubt it's going to dispell the issue, which is kind of how you framed it, as if the discussion should end given your reading if "chasm."

Then again, there are others who take a similar approach. Have you met @Der Alte? Der Alte, I hope you're having a Merry Christmas, Sir.

Yes, I know him. He is far better at combating Universalism than I am. But even if I can't put all my eggs in the basket of Luke 16:26, that doesn't say anything about the fact there is not a single verse in the Bible that talks about a person either theoretically or literally crossing over in the afterlife. And that is what is necessary for UR. Without that, the position that people cross over is only philosophical and not based on anything in the Bible.

 

[public hermit]

Yes, I know him. He is far better at combating Universalism than I am

Yes, he is relentless, which is admirable to me.

that doesn't say anything about the fact there is not a single verse in the Bible that talks about a person either theoretically or literally crossing over into the afterlife. And that is what is necessary for UR. Without that, the position that people cross over is only philosophical and not based on anything in the Bible

I'm not sure what you mean since there are plenty of passages that indicate all will be saved. There are passages which state that God desires that none perish. If you have an issue with drawing inferences and accepting implications, then your own argument regarding an uncrossable chasm becomes suspect. Or, should we only accept that one statement as an acceptable implication regarding the afterlife?

 

[All Becomes New]

I'm not sure what you mean since there are plenty of passages that indicate all will be saved. There are passages which state that God desires that none perish. If you have an issue with drawing inferences and accepting implications, then your own argument regarding an uncrossable chasm becomes suspect. Or, should we only accept that one statement as an acceptable implication regarding the afterlife?

1) There are clear passages that say some people will NOT be in the NHNE (like Daniel 12:2).
2) There's not a single passage that says all will be saved that is not symbolic or poetic.
3) God's desires do not mean that he wills this to happen. For example, the Bible also says that God regretted making man, but that can't be taken literally since God also says it was "very good" that he created man which is a clear passage on the teaching God wants to communicate to us. Further, all humans are made in God's image and God loves his creation.
4) It just doesn't mean he loves them to the point that they will cross over in the afterlife because there's no evidence for that in the Bible. Why isn't it in the Bible? You could say it is an argument from silence, but you can't really since it is expected that it would be in the Bible if everyone goes to the NHNE eventually. Instead, we see many passages that are clear and that show not everyone will be in the NHNE. So either God is schizophrenic, or the clear passages interpret the unclear symbolic or poetic passages.

 

[returntosender]

I think it would be interesting to get a sense of where CFers stand on this issue.

Eternal Damnation - some (many) will suffer eternal torment/separation from God and some will be given everlasting life

Conditional Immortality - some ( many) will be annihilated and some will be given everlasting life

Universal Reconciliation - all will eventually be reconciled to God in Christ

Agnostic - not committed to any of the three options above

I am assuming any who are "hopeful universalists" are basically in the agnostic camp.

For myself, I was agnostic for a long time while arguing that UR was the most likely position, having the better arguments on its side. Eventually, I have come to embrace UR. I do believe that some will suffer terribly, some not as much, and others will experience great joy as we all enter the unmitigated presence of God. To be in Christ is to be conformed to his image and prepared for the unmitigated presence of God who is an unquenchable fire that purifies us of all dross. Eventually, at the end of the ages, God will be all in all. As Origen said, either we are baptized by water in this life or fire in the next.

At any rate, please vote so that we can see what folks on CF believe. I have left voting anonymous so that everyone can vote their conscience without feeling compelled to defend their position. I'm hoping most everyone will vote so we can get a good sense of the group. But feel free to engage in lively but lovely discussion below. I've said my piece (many times over) so I'll turn it over to y'all. God bless us all.

UT OH, the count is off. I guess that means we can vote more then once?

 

[Hmm]

We have zero evidence that the chasm was not eternal and every indication that it was.

Can you provide some indication of what this evidence is?

If you can't, I'll take it that there is none and it's merely something that you've been told is true cf Santa Claus.

 

[public hermit]

There are clear passages that say some people will NOT be in the NHNE (like Daniel 12:2

What is NHNE?

There's not a single passage that says all will be saved that is not symbolic or poetic

To the contrary, proponents of ECT rely heavily on parables and metaphors. To be clear, most ECT passages come from parables in the synoptics and the book of Revelation, which is one long metaphor lol. UR has plenty if passages that are not parables or metaphors.

John 1:29
John 3:17
John 4:42
John 12:32
Rom. 5:18
Rom. 11:32
1 Cor. 15:22
1 Cor. 15:28
Eph. 1:10
Phil. 2:10-11
Col. 1:19-20
1 Tim. 2:4
Tit. 2:11
None of those are parables or metaphors.

God's desires do not mean that he wills this to happen. For example, the Bible also says that God regretted making man, but that can't be taken literally since God also says it was "very good" that he created man which is a clear passage on the teaching God wants to communicate to us. Further, all humans are made in God's image and God loves his creation

Is God unable to fulfill what God desires? Are humans more powerful than God?

So either God is schizophrenic, or the clear passages interpret the unclear symbolic or poetic passages

Your position makes God inconsistent since God wants but cannot succeed. If you want to interpret symbolic and poetic passages with clear ones, then I have given you a list of clear passages. I look forward to you joining the ranks of those who believe God will be all in all!

 

[public hermit]

UT OH, the count is off. I guess that means we can vote more then once?

Yes, you can vote more than once. @Jonaitis helped me see that was needed.

 

[All Becomes New]

Can you provide some indication of what this evidence is?

If you can't, I'll take it that there is none and it's merely something that you've been told is true cf Santa Claus.

Sure. It says the rich man laments that he is suffering (and his family members likely will as well). It doesn't say this is eternal specifically, but it gives no end in sight for his suffering. So why should we think his suffering ends?

 

[returntosender]

Yes, you can vote more than once. @Jonaitis helped me see that was needed.

I don't know why. You won't get a true count of personal choice. It will make it easy to fudge.

 

[public hermit]

I don't know why. You won't get a true count.

We can get a good sense. His argument was he was torn between two different positions. I understand that.

 

[Hmm]

It doesn't say this is eternal specifically, but it gives no end in sight for his suffering. So why should we think his suffering ends?

What a strange argument: unless an event is explicitly described as being of a time-limited duration, we should assume that it is going to go on forever.

When you last went to the dentist (for corrective and possibly painful treatment but not pointless punishment), did your appointment card specify an end in sight for your suffering? Or did you refuse to vacate the dentist chair claiming you have a right to be there forever? Are you writing from there now?

 

[All Becomes New]

@public hermit, I feel like you are being very cagy in your responses. This might be unintentional since the evidence you use doesn't measure up to scrutiny.

What is NHNE?

New Heavens New Earth.

To the contrary, proponents of ECT rely heavily on parables and metaphors. To be clear, most ECT passages come from parables in the synoptics and the book of Revelation, which is one long metaphor lol. UR has plenty if passages that are not parables or metaphors.

John 1:29

Does not teach UR. Far from it. It could be interpreted many ways, but not at all exclusively that all people will be saved.

John 3:17

3:16 says those who believe. So that discounts everyone.

John 4:42

Same as 1:29

John 12:32

Why does drawing people to himself mean people can't say no to God?

Rom. 5:18

Doesn't say "all."

Rom. 11:32

Christ also says the rain comes on the just and unjust. Not seeing how this means salvation for all.

1 Cor. 15:22

Pretty much every orthodox view believes in a resurrection for all. I refer to Daniel 12:2 again here.

1 Cor. 15:28

Yeah, in all in all, like in the resurrection. How does this show UR?

Eph. 1:10

Being "in Christ" is conditional to faith in Christ.

Phil. 2:10-11

Probably the best verse given so far. But do you think then that Satan is going to bow to Christ and say He is Lord? Also, there's no mention of a "separate time" after someone has suffered (in hell) for a time. There's no mention of hell in this at all. It could very well be taken as all those who are "in Christ."

Col. 1:19-20

This is just describing Christ making all things new. It says nothing about all people being in the NHNE and that is what it is describing Christ's creation is the NHNE.

1 Tim. 2:4

Is there a reason to think God does everything he desires?

Tit. 2:11

Same answer as Christ drawing all people to Himself.

None of those are parables or metaphors.

True. And none of them need to mean UR as I have shown.

Is God unable to fulfill what God desires? Are humans more powerful than God?

Of course not. But Some are saved and some are not. You've not demonstrated that the clear reading of any of these passages necessitates UR.

Your position makes God inconsistent since God wants but cannot succeed. If you want to interpret symbolic and poetic passages with clear ones, then I have given you a list of clear passages. I look forward to you joining the ranks of those who believe God will be all in all!

Anthropomorphic language does not make God inconsistent. In fact, no one can intimately know God for who He truly is because no one knows the mind of God. Almost all language that describes what God is like is heuristics due to our limitations of language.

 

[All Becomes New]

What a strange argument: unless an event is explicitly described as being of a time-limited duration, we should assume that it is going to go on forever.

When you last went to the dentist (for corrective and possibly painful treatment but not pointless punishment), did your appointment card specify an end in sight for your suffering? Or did you refuse to vacate the dentist chair claiming you have a right to be there forever? Are you writing from there now?

Defend your position with the Bible or not at all. I'm not interested in 20 philosophical questions UR edition.

 

[Hmm]

Defend your position with the Bible or not at all. I'm not interested in 20 philosophical questions UR edition.

it's not philosophy, it's called common sense/rationality. This is a gift given to us by God, and if you're not interested in it that's your business and not my concern.