The Issue of Universalism and Possible Ultimate Release from Hell

[Berserk]

Evangelical apologists tend to play to the choir by debating strawman positions that better informed opponents would view with amused pity. Therefore, apologists should seek out and focus on the best arguments for opposing perspectives to avoid the accusation of a superficial grasp of the decisive issues. I am not a universalist, but I believe the so-called universalist texts raise profound eschatological questions for evangelicals to explore with profit. So this thread will play Devil's Advocate in drawing attention to the interpretive challenges posed by these texts, some of which don't seem to have been considered in other threads on this topic.

One standard anti-universalist argument can be summarily dismissed--the argument that universalism trivializes the urgency of embracing the Gospel. Does the prospect of spending long periods of Hell time in unimaginable conscious torment trivialize the Gospel? Please!

The validity of universalism depends on how we resolve tensions or apparent contradictions between the exclusivist biblical texts familiar to all evangelicals and other texts that seem to imply an all-inclusive cosmic reconciliation, ultimate release from postmortem punishment, and a divine intent to ultimately save everyone. The urgency of the universalist question (and the less inclusive related question of possible release for some from Hell is fueled by these 4 questions about the morality of the Christian God:
(1) If an omnipotent God wants everyone to ultimately be saved, how can that divine desire ever be permanently thwarted?
(2) How can sins committed during a relatively brief lifespan merit not just annihilation, but eternal conscious torment from a just God?
(3) How can God's pure unconditional love eternally abandon any sinner after death?
(4) If sinners in Hell eventually long to benefit from divine grace and live a life pleasing to God, why would it ever be too late for a loving God to respond positively to this longing? As C. S. Lewis put it, "The gates of Hell are locked from the inside."

Discussion of this issue needs to keep 2 facts in mind:
(1) Strictly speaking, the Bible is not a book of systematic theology. Many theological texts presume an unstated set of assumptions that must be identified, but this identification process is often arbitrary and indecisive.

(2) The Bible can never be definitively translated because so often there is no one-to-one correspondence between the Hebrew and Greek word and the English word used to translate it. For example, neither the Hebrew ("olam") nor the Greek ("aionios") word that is routinely translated "eternal" needs to mean that. The primary meaning of "olam" is "for a long time" and "aionios" means "age-long."

I will begin by presenting the case from Revelation and then from 1 Peter, Paul, and Jesus.

 

[atpollard]

How about this question … if EVERYONE will be “purified” in ‘hell’ (insert your term of choice), then why did Jesus need to come and die?

Acts of the Apostles 4:8-12 [ESV]

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers of the people and elders, if we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a crippled man, by what means this man has been healed, let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead--by him this man is standing before you well. This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."​

 

[Der Alte]

* * *
(2) The Bible can never be definitively translated because so often there is no one-to-one correspondence between the Hebrew and Greek word and the English word used to translate it. For example, neither the Hebrew ("olam") nor the Greek ("aionios") word that is routinely translated "eternal" needs to mean that. The primary meaning of "olam" is "for a long time" and "aionios" means "age-long." * * *

Somewhat interesting, other than orthodox but, false, conclusion. How did you determine that "olam" means "for a long time" and "aionios" means "age long? You apparently did not avail yourself of any Hebrew or Greek lexicons. I have both the BDB Hebrew lexicon and the BDAG Greek lexicons, but several other than orthodox posters have dismissed them both as biased.
Here I will show conclusively that "olam" does in fact mean "eternal," and "aonios" does in fact mean "eternal." using only the words of scripture.
One of the main arguments against the meaning of both words is that both words are used to refer to something or someone which is not or cannot be eternal.
The answer to that objection is words are often used figuratively in the Bible.
For example, Simon was not actually a stone when Jesus named him "Petros" i.e. "stone." figurative. Herod was not literally a "fox" when Jesus called him one. Figurative. James and John were not literally sons of thunder when Jesus called them that. Figurative.
First the O.T.

Ecclesiastes 3:14
(14) I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever:[ עולם/olam ] nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.​

In this vs. olam is paralleled with "nothing can be put to it nor anything taken from it." By definition "olam" means eternal.
Then the N.T.

John 3:15-16
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish but, have eternal [αἰώνιον] life.
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [αἰώνιον] life.​

First "aionios" cannot legitimately be translated age-long because "aionios" is an adjective and age is a noun and long is a preposition. In these two vss. Jesus parallels "aionios life" with "shall not perish", twice. By definition "aionios" means "eternal.
There are many other verses.

 

[Berserk]

How about this question … if EVERYONE will be “purified” in ‘hell’ (insert your term of choice), then why did Jesus need to come and die?

I guess you didn't read the OP's answer to that question. So I repeat:
"One standard anti-universalist argument can be summarily dismissed--the argument that universalism trivializes the urgency of embracing the Gospel. Does the prospect of spending long periods of Hell time in unimaginable conscious torment trivialize the Gospel? Please!"

 

[atpollard]

I guess you didn't read the OP's answer to that question. So I repeat:
"One standard anti-universalist argument can be summarily dismissed--the argument that universalism trivializes the urgency of embracing the Gospel. Does the prospect of spending long periods of Hell time in unimaginable conscious torment trivialize the Gospel? Please!"

I am not accusing of “trivializing the gospel” … you are either deliberately or unintentionally missing the point. If all roads lead to God, then why CHRIST at all? Why not “nihilism” until death? What makes Islam or Hinduism false and Christianity true? By your own admission, Jesus is NOT the only “way” to God … universalism (BY DEFINITION) means that all roads lead to God.

How does one reconcile the MANY VERSES about “one way” with a belief that “all ways lead to God”? Which contradictory part of scripture is false?

[PS. “Please!” is not really a refutation of the criticism.]

 

[atpollard]

I will give you something easier. Your OP contained NO SCRIPTURE and here is just one verse quoted with its context for reference …


Acts of the Apostles 4:8-12 [ESV]

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers of the people and elders, if we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a crippled man, by what means this man has been healed, let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead--by him this man is standing before you well. This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."​

How are men saved by “other means” if “there is salvation in no one else”?
Does that verse (spoken under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) not indicate that Universalism is incorrect?

 

[Berserk]

Der Alte: " How did you determine that "olam" means "for a long time" and "aionios" means "age long? You apparently did not avail yourself of any Hebrew or Greek lexicons. I have both the BDB Hebrew lexicon and the BDAG Greek lexicon."

I also own both. Your claims can be refuted on at least 4 grounds:
(1) If you had actually looked up "olam" in your BDB Hebrew lexicon, you would have seen the primary meaning given "olam:"long duration, antiquity, futurity." Indeed, you would have noticed the OT examples where "olam" has the finite meaning of "forever, during the lifetime" "slave forever" "serve forever" "forever pregnant" and "always at ease."

(2) The Greek Septuagint often translates "olam" by "aionios"--proof that "aionios" need not mean "eternal" in our modern sense of the term.

(3) "Aionios" is a cognate of the noun "aion" which means "age, "not "eternal." So "aionios" might be translated "age-long." I read a Jewish pseudepigraphic text referring to a dead Isaac's "eternal ("aionios") sleep" and then talked about his expected resurrection from the dead.

(4) TDNT, vol. I, pp. 208-209 documents the following finite extension of "aionios:" "In later [Greek] poetry and prose "aionios" is also used in the sense of "lifelong" or "enduring."
Paul adopts this usage in Philemon 15: "...you might have him (the runaway slave Onesimus) back forever ("aionios"), no longer as a slave...(Philemon 15)."
"The concept of eternity is weakened in Rom. 16:25; 2 Tim. 1:9)"
"the mystery that was kept secret for long ages ("aionioi")"
"this grace was given to us in Christ Jesus before eternal (plural of "aionios") times"

That said, I realize that "aionios" is often best translated "forever." but not necessarily in the modern English sense of that word. The exceptions open the door to universalism. Remember, I'm playing Devil's Advocate.

 

[Der Alte]

Der Alte: " How did you determine that "olam" means "for a long time" and "aionios" means "age long? You apparently did not avail yourself of any Hebrew or Greek lexicons. I have both the BDB Hebrew lexicon and the BDAG Greek lexicon."
I also own both. Your claims can be refuted on at least 4 grounds:
(1) If you had actually looked up "olam" in your BDB Hebrew lexicon, you would have seen the primary meaning given "olam:"long duration, antiquity, futurity." Indeed, you would have noticed the OT examples where "olam" has the finite meaning of "forever, during the lifetime" "slave forever" "serve forever" "forever pregnant" and "always at ease."
(2) The Greek Septuagint often translates "olam" by "aionios"--proof that "aionios" need not mean "eternal" in our modern sense of the term.
(3) "Aionios" is a cognate of the noun "aion" which means "age, "not "eternal." So "aionios" might be translated "age-long." I read a Jewish pseudepigraphic text referring to a dead Isaac's "eternal ("aionios") sleep" and then talked about his expected resurrection from the dead.
(4) TDNT, vol. I, pp. 208-209 documents the following finite extension of "aionios:" "In later [Greek] poetry and prose "aionios" is also used in the sense of "lifelong" or "enduring."
Paul adopts this usage in Philemon 15: "...you might have him (the runaway slave Onesimus) back forever ("aionios"), no longer as a slave...(Philemon 15)."
"The concept of eternity is weakened in Rom. 16:25; 2 Tim. 1:9)"
"the mystery that was kept secret for long ages ("aionioi")"
"this grace was given to us in Christ Jesus before eternal (plural of "aionios") times"
That said, I realize that "aionios" is often best translated "forever." but not necessarily in the modern English sense of that word. The exceptions open the door to universalism. Remember, I'm playing Devil's Advocate.

This is all very interesting but when Jesus Himself defines "aionios life" as "shall not perish." He actually did it 3 times, what else do we need? How do we explain other uses? Figurative. As I said there are more vss., 24 to be exact, where "aionios" is defined/described as eternal/everlasting/for ever.
Paul also defines/describes "aionios" as eternal in 10 vss. Here are 2.

Romans 1:20
(20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal [αιδιος/aidios] power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Romans 16:26
(26) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting [aionios] God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:​

In Rom 1:20 Paul refers to God’s power and Godhead as “aidios.” Scholars agree “aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, forever, unending etc.
In Rom 16:26, Paul, the same writer, in the same writing, book of Romans, refers to God as “aionios.” Paul has used “aidios” synonymous with “aionios.” Thus, in this verse by definition “aionios” means eternal, everlasting.

 

[Berserk]

atpollard : "If all roads lead to God, then why CHRIST at all?...What makes Islam or Hinduism false and Christianity true?"

I never said "all roads lead to God." But your forgetting Paul's doctrine of salvation through general revelation (see Rom. 2:7, 10). And you need to ask yourself how a just God can condemn good people of other faiths who live up to the spiritual light they have received and who have never heard the Gospel; and, if they have, they've never realized its truth. Paul teaches that "God has overlooked the times of human ignorance (Acts 17:30)." If God overlooked spiritual pagan ignorance in Jesus' day, might He not do the same now for pagans who have never heard the Gospel in a clear way? Even Billy Graham believed in the possibility of salvation apart from formal profession of faith in Christ. Let the thread unfold: I will discuss the case for Pauline universalism in detail later in this thread.

atpollard: "By your own admission, Jesus is NOT the only “way” to God"

Again, you're putting words in my mouth: many evangelical universalists believe Jesus is the only Savior.

atpollard: "How does one reconcile the MANY VERSES about “one way” with a belief that “all ways lead to God”? Which contradictory part of scripture is false?"

The quest to provide precisely that reconciliation is the point of this thread. You need to honor the OP's specified intention to discuss the relevant texts in stages, beginning with Revelation.

 

[d taylor]

-
​

Topic post like this just show how poorly The Bible is being taught in churches.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I guess you didn't read the OP's answer to that question. So I repeat:
"One standard anti-universalist argument can be summarily dismissed--the argument that universalism trivializes the urgency of embracing the Gospel. Does the prospect of spending long periods of Hell time in unimaginable conscious torment trivialize the Gospel? Please!"

Maybe 'you' (devil's advocate) haven't considered the difference between "long periods of Hell time in unimaginable conscious torment", and either not time at all of infinite torment, or infinite time of unimaginable conscious torment. In other words, what you can conceive of in the LOF is probably not what is going to happen, if what we can't conceive of is what will happen in Heaven. Both have to do with the infinite nature of God. I see no reason to believe that his infinite purity will be satisfied with a less than infinite repayment.

 

[Mark Quayle]

But your forgetting Paul's doctrine of salvation through general revelation (see Rom. 2:7, 10)

I hope you are saying this as "devil's advocate".

 

[FineLinen]

In other words, what you can conceive of in the LOF is probably not what is going to happen, if what we can't conceive of is what will happen in Heaven. Both have to do with the infinite nature of God. I see no reason to believe that his infinite purity will be satisfied with a less than infinite repayment.

Our Father is LIGHT in essence. Fear not He burns thru our limited with His unlimited.

Many = many = equal on each side!

Adam1 = many made sinners.

Last Adam = many made righteous.

 

[Lazarus Short]

At least one respondent to this thread seems to assume (automatically?) that all universalists subscribe to the idea that "all roads lead to God." I think I can safely speak for all the Christian Universalists on CF, and state that we look to Jesus the Christ as the Author and Finisher of our faith. "Universalist" is not always a code word - we just mean the justification, sanctification and salvation we receive from God is Universal in scope, involving all mankind, and in fact, the entire created Cosmos.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Evangelical apologists tend to play to the choir by debating strawman positions that better informed opponents would view with amused pity. Therefore, apologists should seek out and focus on the best arguments for opposing perspectives to avoid the accusation of a superficial grasp of the decisive issues. I am not a universalist, but I believe the so-called universalist texts raise profound eschatological questions for evangelicals to explore with profit. So this thread will play Devil's Advocate in drawing attention to the interpretive challenges posed by these texts, some of which don't seem to have been considered in other threads on this topic.

So, bring out the texts...

One standard anti-universalist argument can be summarily dismissed--the argument that universalism trivializes the urgency of embracing the Gospel. Does the prospect of spending long periods of Hell time in unimaginable conscious torment trivialize the Gospel? Please!

Since you didn't answer me before: How does it NOT minimize the Gospel if it fails to take into account the depth of horror of sin against infinite God? "Long time" is a whole lot different from "forever". "Unimaginable conscious torment" is a lot different from "retribution in keeping with the crime of rebellion against infinite God".

The validity of universalism depends on how we resolve tensions or apparent contradictions between the exclusivist biblical texts familiar to all evangelicals and other texts that seem to imply an all-inclusive cosmic reconciliation, ultimate release from postmortem punishment, and a divine intent to ultimately save everyone. The urgency of the universalist question (and the less inclusive related question of possible release for some from Hell is fueled by these 4 questions about the morality of the Christian God:
(1) If an omnipotent God wants everyone to ultimately be saved, how can that divine desire ever be permanently thwarted?
(2) How can sins committed during a relatively brief lifespan merit not just annihilation, but eternal conscious torment from a just God?
(3) How can God's pure unconditional love eternally abandon any sinner after death?
(4) If sinners in Hell eventually long to benefit from divine grace and live a life pleasing to God, why would it ever be too late for a loving God to respond positively to this longing? As C. S. Lewis put it, "The gates of Hell are locked from the inside."

(Not really. The validity of Universalism doesn't depend on anyone, but on God. If it is valid, it is valid. If it is not, it is not. Truth is truth independent of what or how anyone thinks of it, or even whether they think of it. I'm not just being a smarty here, but to make a point: many of Universalists' arguments are made just as you made your statement here —not saying quite what you mean.)

But:

1. From our silly perspective, what does it mean that God 'wants'? What does "all" mean in the relevant passages? And who says, "ultimately be saved"?
2. From our silly perspective, what do we know about the difference between annihilation and ECT? And what does the length of a lifespan have to do with the infinity of sin against infinite God?
3. From our silly perspective, what do we know about God's love? And who said it was unconditional? Is this, "unconditional", another one of those words vaguely enough to be considered that it becomes suitable for universal application?
4. What sinners in Hell will ever long for love toward God? After all, as C. S. Lewis so poetically put it, "The gates of Hell are locked from the inside." Regret is a long way from repentance, and mad desperation is not far from hate.

Discussion of this issue needs to keep 2 facts in mind:
(1) Strictly speaking, the Bible is not a book of systematic theology. Many theological texts presume an unstated set of assumptions that must be identified, but this identification process is often arbitrary and indecisive.

(2) The Bible can never be definitively translated because so often there is no one-to-one correspondence between the Hebrew and Greek word and the English word used to translate it. For example, neither the Hebrew ("olam") nor the Greek ("aionios") word that is routinely translated "eternal" needs to mean that. The primary meaning of "olam" is "for a long time" and "aionios" means "age-long."

1) Why, or how, is this identification process arbitrary and indecisive? Must it be so?
2) FWIW even within one language meaning is never 100% transferred from one individual to another.
3) These things, and many others, should be kept in mind in discussing any Biblical matter. For example, it is silly to suppose that a finite being can completely know the mind of infinite God.

I will begin by presenting the case from Revelation and then from 1 Peter, Paul, and Jesus.

Please do so. So far, I have not seen you do so. But maybe there is something I missed.

 

[Der Alte]

* * *

Our Father is LIGHT in essence. Fear not He burns thru our limited with His unlimited.
Many = many = equal on each side!
Adam1 = many made sinners.
Last Adam = many made righteous.

ויאמר הנחשׁ אל־האשׁה לא־מות תמתון׃
And the serpent said unto the woman: 'Ye shall not surely die;

 

[bling]

Evangelical apologists tend to play to the choir by debating strawman positions that better informed opponents would view with amused pity. Therefore, apologists should seek out and focus on the best arguments for opposing perspectives to avoid the accusation of a superficial grasp of the decisive issues. I am not a universalist, but I believe the so-called universalist texts raise profound eschatological questions for evangelicals to explore with profit. So this thread will play Devil's Advocate in drawing attention to the interpretive challenges posed by these texts, some of which don't seem to have been considered in other threads on this topic.

One standard anti-universalist argument can be summarily dismissed--the argument that universalism trivializes the urgency of embracing the Gospel. Does the prospect of spending long periods of Hell time in unimaginable conscious torment trivialize the Gospel? Please!

The validity of universalism depends on how we resolve tensions or apparent contradictions between the exclusivist biblical texts familiar to all evangelicals and other texts that seem to imply an all-inclusive cosmic reconciliation, ultimate release from postmortem punishment, and a divine intent to ultimately save everyone. The urgency of the universalist question (and the less inclusive related question of possible release for some from Hell is fueled by these 4 questions about the morality of the Christian God:
(1) If an omnipotent God wants everyone to ultimately be saved, how can that divine desire ever be permanently thwarted?
(2) How can sins committed during a relatively brief lifespan merit not just annihilation, but eternal conscious torment from a just God?
(3) How can God's pure unconditional love eternally abandon any sinner after death?
(4) If sinners in Hell eventually long to benefit from divine grace and live a life pleasing to God, why would it ever be too late for a loving God to respond positively to this longing? As C. S. Lewis put it, "The gates of Hell are locked from the inside."

Discussion of this issue needs to keep 2 facts in mind:
(1) Strictly speaking, the Bible is not a book of systematic theology. Many theological texts presume an unstated set of assumptions that must be identified, but this identification process is often arbitrary and indecisive.

(2) The Bible can never be definitively translated because so often there is no one-to-one correspondence between the Hebrew and Greek word and the English word used to translate it. For example, neither the Hebrew ("olam") nor the Greek ("aionios") word that is routinely translated "eternal" needs to mean that. The primary meaning of "olam" is "for a long time" and "aionios" means "age-long."

I will begin by presenting the case from Revelation and then from 1 Peter, Paul, and Jesus.

Before addressing the specific questions, we need to understand man’s objective while here on earth, since earth is the only place where this objective can be obtained. Everything is driven by the man’s earthly objective. God is actually doing or allowing all He can to help willing individuals fulfill their earthly objective. Included in the “all” are: Christ Going to the cross, satan roaming the earth, tragedies of all kinds, death, judgment, hell, heaven and even sinning. The Universalist and lots of Christians do not understand our “Mission” while on earth, so do you?

1. how can that divine desire ever be permanently thwarted?

There are just somethings that are impossible to do even for God, example: God cannot make another Christ, since Christ is deity and has always existed. We are to become like Christ, but we cannot start out as a clone of Christ.

The big thing God cannot do for man is this: God cannot make a being with instinctive Godly type Love, like some knee jerk reaction, programmed with Godly Love would be like a robotic type Love which Godly type Love is not. God also cannot force Godly type Love on a person and have them Love with Godly type Love, this would be like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun (the threat of some painful experience) to get you to Love Him. This would not be Loving on God’s part nor would the Love obtained be Godly type Love. This Love from Adam & Eve on has obtained someway as a result of an autonomous free will choice. It is too great to learn, develop, or pay for, so it is a free undeserving gift given to those who want it. So the problem is not with God’s ability, but with man’s want.

2. How can sins committed during a relatively brief lifespan merit not just annihilation, but eternal conscious torment from a just God?

I do believe in hell, but the second death is death forever (annihilation).

Sin is made hugely unbelievably significant/costly seen in the disciple and punishment given for sin, which I and others really seem to need, but God does not personally need it to be hugely costly. I and others need God’s help, so God made it hugely costly.

The only way I have seen and found in scripture for initially obtaining Godly type Love is simple: “…he that is forgiven much Loves much…” (Luke 7), so sin creases an unbelievable huge debt, but when I accept God’s forgiveness of my unbelievable huge debt, I automatically am gifted with an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love). My free will choice is in humbly accepting God’s forgiveness as pure undeserved charity.

3. How can God's pure unconditional love eternally abandon any sinner after death?

God Loves everyone unconditionally and does not stop Loving them!! The problem is with man accepting that Love as pure undeserved charity. It appears most people choose to be loved by others for the way they want others to perceive them to be, and not in spite of the way they truly are. We cannot know, but God can know when a person has had all the opportunities, he/she can have to humbly accept God’s Love as pure undeserving charity and will never do that of their own free will. They just do not like Godly type Love nor would they want such a Love for themselves. God Loves them but they would never be happy in heaven where there is only Godly type Love being exchanged. They would not be unhappy not existing and that is the only other option. The fact that other children of God need to realize a huge debt for sin and there are those not going to heaven around who could show a huge debt for sin, as at least some benefit for their existence, results in them spend some time in hell provide encouragement to those still able to accept quickly.

4. If sinners in Hell eventually long to benefit from divine grace and live a life pleasing to God, why would it ever be too late for a loving God to respond positively to this longing? As C. S. Lewis put it, "The gates of Hell are locked from the inside."

Sinners in hell have repeatedly shown to the point of never liking God’s charity (grace/mercy/love/forgiveness). Again, Godly type Love is not something that can be programmed into a person, learned, developed or forced on the person, so once the person leaves earth, how can they become happy in heaven without Love or obtain this Love with torture/sever discipline.

I am only addressing those who had in their life the opportunity to accept or reject God’s Love. If a person never had the opportunity, they would go on to heaven without fulfilling their earthly objective.

 

[Berserk]

I. THE CASE FOR UNIVERSALISM IN THE BOOK OF REVE;ATION

(1) John reveals a logical eschatological pattern, first death/ 1st resurrection (of Christians---20:5-6)/ 2nd death (20:14; 21:8)/ 2nd resurrection. The 2nd resurrection is not explicitly identified because John does not want his universalism to offend persecuted believers. The 2nd resurrection cannot refer to "the Great White Throne" judgement of those who are and are not "written in the Book of Life (21:11-15)" because (a) they are not "raised up" to this judgment and (b) the wicked being judged then experience the judgment of "the 2nd death" in "the lake of fire." The 2nd resurrection, following the 2nd death, raises up the unsaved who have been thrown into the lake of fire (20:15).

(2) The eternally open gates of the heavenly New Jerusalem, which lacks a literal sun, moon, and Temple, imply traffic coming and going (21:15; cp. 21:22-23). But coming and going for what purpose--on what mission? The answer is determined by who is "outside" the gates: "Outside (the gates) are the dogs, sorcerers, fornicators, murderers, idolaters, and everyone who practices falsehood (22:15)." Being "outside" the gates means that precisely this list of sinners is confined to "the lake of fire (21:8)." Nothing unclean an enter the Holy City. So the damned who are retrieved must "wash their robes" and be spiritually healed by leaves of the Tree of Life: "The leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations (22:2, 14)." Thus, the wicked nations are retrieved from the lake of fire where the Devil is confined 'into the ages of the ages (20:10)." Precedent in this period for such soul retrievals from Hell is established by 2 other early Christian apocalypses (Apocalypse of Peter 14; Sibylline Oraces II:331-335). Thus, we can understand why C. S. Lewis says, "The gates of Hell are locked from the inside" and why Christ says, "I have the keys of Death and Hell (Rev. 1:18)."

(3) We would then expect John to describe all humanity, righteous and unrighteous, worshiping God and Christ in Heaven and John does so in Rev. 5:13. Those "under the earth" refer to the unrighteous trapped in Hades. In his Commentary on Revelation (p. 112), Dr. Eugene Boring says this about Rev. 5:13:

"Absolutely no one and nothing is excluded from this picture. Given this mind-expanding picture, it is impossible to see any part of the universe as ultimately rebellious and lost just as it is impossible to see any part of the universe as existing apart from the creative will and activity of the one Creator God. "All", "every" applies in both cases (4:11; 5:13)."

 

[FineLinen]

"Absolutely no one and nothing is excluded from this picture. Given this mind-expanding picture, it is impossible to see any part of the universe as ultimately rebellious and lost just as it is impossible to see any part of the universe as existing apart from the creative will and activity of the one Creator God. "All", "every" applies in both cases (4:11; 5:13)."

You are absolutely correct. Nothing is excluded from the universe that ultimately will not be part of the One who ends what He has begun, within Himself.

SOURCE, GUIDE & GOAL of the all/ ta panta

 

[Der Alte]

I. THE CASE FOR UNIVERSALISM IN THE BOOK OF REVE;ATION
(1) John reveals a logical eschatological pattern, first death/ 1st resurrection (of Christians---20:5-6)/ 2nd death (20:14; 21:8)/ 2nd resurrection. The 2nd resurrection is not explicitly identified because John does not want his universalism to offend persecuted believers. The 2nd resurrection cannot refer to "the Great White Throne" judgement of those who are and are not "written in the Book of Life (21:11-15)" because (a) they are not "raised up" to this judgment and (b) the wicked being judged are then experience the judgment of "the 2nd death" in "the lake of fire." The 2nd resurrection, following the 2nd death, raises up the unsaved who have been thrown into the lake of fire (20:15).
(2) The eternally open gates of the heavenly New Jerusalem, which lacks a literal sun, moon, and Temple, imply traffic coming and going (21:15; cp. 21:22-23). But coming and going for what purpose--on what mission? The answer is determined by who is "outside" the gates: "Outside (the gates) are the dogs, sorcerers, fornicators, murderers, idolaters, and everyone who practices falsehood (22:15)." Being "outside" the gates means that precisely this list of sinners is confined to "the lake of fire (21:8)." Nothing unclean an enter the Holy City. So the damned who are retrieved must "wash their robes" and be spiritually healed by leaves of the Tree of Life: "The leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations (22:2, 14)." Thus, the wicked nations are retrieved from the lake of fire where the Devil is confined 'into the ages of the ages (20:10)." Precedent in this period for such soul retrievals from Hell is established by 2 other early Christian apocalypses (Apocalypse of Peter 14; Sibylline Oraces II:331-335). Thus, we can understand why C. S. Lewis says, "The gates of Hell are locked from the inside" and why Christ says, "I have the keys of Death and Hell (Rev. 1:18)."
(3) We would then expect John to describe all humanity, righteous and unrighteous, worshiping God and Christ in Heaven and John does so in Rev. 5:13. Those "under the earth" refer to the unrighteous trapped in Hades. In his Commentary on Revelation (p. 112), Dr. Eugene Boring says this about Rev. 5:13:
"Absolutely no one and nothing is excluded from this picture. Given this mind-expanding picture, it is impossible to see any part of the universe as ultimately rebellious and lost just as it is impossible to see any part of the universe as existing apart from the creative will and activity of the one Creator God. "All", "every" applies in both cases (4:11; 5:13)."

Anybody can make the Bible say almost anything they want it to by quoting selective verses out-of-context. This post is a very good example.
Whenever I am reading, I often look at the back of the book to see how it ends. I looked at the back of the Bible and that ain't the way it ends.

Revelation 22:3
(3) And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
Revelation 22:8
(8) And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
Revelation 22:10-11
(10) And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
(11) He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.​

Vs. 11, ten more verses then the end, no more salvation only, "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still:"