The Issue of Universalism and Possible Ultimate Release from Hell

[Berserk]

How is universalism compatible with exclusivistic texts like these?
"Don't you know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor., 6:9)?"
"Those who do such things [a list of sins] shall not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:21)."

In the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 1619-31), the younger son demands his inheritance right now and then squanders it all in "riotous living."
The fact that the father joyfully welcomes him back does not mean his inheritance is restored, and so, the father reassures his bitter elder son: "All that is mine is yours." In other words, it is possible to be restored to the Father's house and be saved even though one has not, properly speaking, inherited the kingdom of God.

 

[Saint Steven]

Are these verses in your Bible?

Yes, they are.
Are these verses in your Bible?
Do your verses nullify my verses?
Does Bible versus Bible really get us anywhere?

1 John 2:2 NIV
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Romans 11:32
For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Titus 2:11 ESV
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,

1 Timothy 4:10
That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.

1 John 4:14 NIV
And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Romans 5:15-16
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.

Romans 5:18-19 NIV
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Colossians 1:19-20
For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

1 Timothy 2:1-6
I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.

Romans 3:24 NIV
and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Romans 9:16 NIV
It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.

James 2:13 NIV
... Mercy triumphs over judgment.

 

[Saint Steven]

How is universalism compatible with exclusivistic texts like these?
"Don't you know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor., 6:9)?"
"Those who do such things [a list of sins] shall not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:21)."

In the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 1619-31), the younger son demands his inheritance right now and then squanders it all in "riotous living."
The fact that the father joyfully welcomes him back does not mean his inheritance is restored, and so, the father reassures his bitter elder son: "All that is mine is yours." In other words, it is possible to be restored to the Father's house and be saved even though one has not, properly speaking, inherited the kingdom of God.

The father put a robe on his returning son and a ring on his finger. Sounds like complete restoration. Not in the kingdom? Lost inheritance?

 

[atpollard]

Yes, they are.
Are these verses in your Bible?
Do your verses nullify my verses?
Does Bible versus Bible really get us anywhere?

Which of those verses "abrogated" the Biblical concept of 'torment' that you denied and the verses which I posted affirmed?
It is YOU who are claiming Bible versus Bible nullifies what was printed ... the Bible verses described torment and YOU claimed "no torment".

 

[atpollard]

The father put a robe on his returning son and a ring on his finger. Sounds like complete restoration. Not in the kingdom? Lost inheritance?

Restoration of the "sonship" but not of the squandered inheritance. The story is silent on the Father giving the younger son a third of all he NOW owns (a second inheritance), but the father does tell the older son that "all I have is yours" (not 2/3 of all I have is yours because your brother gets another portion as a second inheritance).

It was an interesting observation (whether or not it can be applied to UA).

 

[Saint Steven]

Which of those verses "abrogated" the Biblical concept of 'torment' that you denied and the verses which I posted affirmed?
It is YOU who are claiming Bible versus Bible nullifies what was printed ... the Bible verses described torment and YOU claimed "no torment".

We seem to be at an impasse.

 

[Saint Steven]

Restoration of the "sonship" but not of the squandered inheritance.

Why do you assume that God's inheritance is limited?

 

[atpollard]

Why do you assume that God's inheritance is limited?

I assume nothing about GOD's inheritance. It was @Berserk that applied it to UA and God.

I was simply speaking of the inheritance described in the actual STORY (parable) of the Prodigal Son. I could post it and we could both NOT READ where the father gives the son a second inheritance or denies that EVERYTHING belongs to the "non-prodigal" son. I was pointing out the eisegesis in assuming the father gives a second inheritance when the verses say no such thing. The "ring" and "cloak" could simply symbolize restoration of "sonship" when the prodigal came seeking to live as a hired servant (which the words of the father affirm).

For Biblical support of the concept, what do you make of: 1 Corinthians 3:15

Luke 15:11-32 [NKJV]​

Then He said: “A certain man had two sons. And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the portion of goods that falls to me.’ So he divided to them his livelihood. And not many days after, the younger son gathered all together, journeyed to a far country, and there wasted his possessions with prodigal living. But when he had spent all, there arose a severe famine in that land, and he began to be in want. Then he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. And he would gladly have filled his stomach with the pods that the swine ate, and no one gave him anything.​

​

“But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you, and I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Make me like one of your hired servants.” ’​

​

“And he arose and came to his father. But when he was still a great way off, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and fell on his neck and kissed him. And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight, and am no longer worthy to be called your son.’​

​

“But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet. And bring the fatted calf here and kill it, and let us eat and be merry; for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ And they began to be merry.​

​

“Now his older son was in the field. And as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. So he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant. And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and because he has received him safe and sound, your father has killed the fatted calf.’​

​

“But he was angry and would not go in. Therefore his father came out and pleaded with him. So he answered and said to his father, ‘Lo, these many years I have been serving you; I never transgressed your commandment at any time; and yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might make merry with my friends. But as soon as this son of yours came, who has devoured your livelihood with harlots, you killed the fatted calf for him.’​

​

“And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that I have is yours. It was right that we should make merry and be glad, for your brother was dead and is alive again, and was lost and is found.’ ”​

 

[Saint Steven]

I assume nothing about GOD's inheritance. It was @Berserk that applied it to UA and God.

Pardon my ignorance... what is UA?

I was simply speaking of the inheritance described in the actual STORY (parable) of the Prodigal Son. I could post it and we could both NOT READ where the father gives the son a second inheritance or denies that EVERYTHING belongs to the "non-prodigal" son. I was pointing out the eisegesis in assuming the father gives a second inheritance when the verses say no such thing. The "ring" and "cloak" could simply symbolize restoration of "sonship" when the prodigal came seeking to live as a hired servant (which the words of the father affirm).

Why wouldn't sonship come with all the inheritance rights. I think that should be a given.
Are you taking sides with the older son?

For Biblical support of the concept, what do you make of: 1 Corinthians 3:15

That's a support for UR. - IMHO

Malachi 3:2
But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears?
For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap.

Mark 9:49
Everyone will be salted with fire.

 

[Saint Steven]

Luke 15:11-32 [NKJV]Then He said: “A certain man had two sons. And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the portion of goods that falls to me.’ So he divided to them his livelihood. And not many days after, the younger son gathered all together, journeyed to a far country, and there wasted his possessions with prodigal living. But when he had spent all, there arose a severe famine in that land, and he began to be in want. Then he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. And he would gladly have filled his stomach with the pods that the swine ate, and no one gave him anything.“But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you, and I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Make me like one of your hired servants.” ’“And he arose and came to his father. But when he was still a great way off, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and fell on his neck and kissed him. And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight, and am no longer worthy to be called your son.’“But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet. And bring the fatted calf here and kill it, and let us eat and be merry; for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ And they began to be merry.“Now his older son was in the field. And as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. So he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant. And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and because he has received him safe and sound, your father has killed the fatted calf.’“But he was angry and would not go in. Therefore his father came out and pleaded with him. So he answered and said to his father, ‘Lo, these many years I have been serving you; I never transgressed your commandment at any time; and yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might make merry with my friends. But as soon as this son of yours came, who has devoured your livelihood with harlots, you killed the fatted calf for him.’“And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that I have is yours. It was right that we should make merry and be glad, for your brother was dead and is alive again, and was lost and is found.’ ”

What was devoured, according to the older son? Inheritance, or something else?

"But as soon as this son of yours came, who has devoured your livelihood with harlots, you killed the fatted calf for him.’"

 

[atpollard]

Pardon my ignorance... what is UA?

Sorry, I thought that was the standard abbreviation for Universal Atonement (isn't that what "Universalism" - as in this topic - us all about)?
I am more of an Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT), 5-point Calvinist, Credo-Baptist ... Biblical Literalist ... so this topic is a bit out of my usual wheelhouse.

 

[atpollard]

Why wouldn't sonship come with all the inheritance rights. I think that should be a given.
Are you taking sides with the older son?

I will not speak to this as an ETERNAL INHERITANCE matter (I am unqualified to decide what God gives to whom), however, I will adress it from a Jewish Historical perspective:

It was common for a Jewish father with multiple sons to provide shares of his estate as an inheritance to each of his sons. The Eldest son would receive a "double portion" for reasons that will soon become clear. So a man with four sons would give each of the three youngest sons 1/5 of his wealth and the eldest son 2/5 of his wealth. A man with three sons would give the younger two sons each 1/4 of his wealth and the eldest son 2/4 of his wealth. A man with two sons (like in the story) would give the younger son 1/3 of his wealth and the older son 2/3 of his wealth. Upon the death of the father, the eldest son became responsible for supporting the widowed mother and unmarried sisters that the father had supported when he was alive. Now the reason for the "double portion" becomes clear.​

​

So let's examine the story in Luke ...​

First, the younger son would expect to inherit 1/3 of the father's estate and the older brother would expect to inherit 2/3 of the father's estate. The NORMAL course would be to inherit upon the DEATH of the father. In the story, the younger son says"Dad, I don't want to wait for you to die, so give me my 1/3 of everything that you own NOW!" The father is under no obligation to honor the selfish request, but does so, anyway.​

​

Note that at this point, the remaining 2/3 of the father's estate is the expected inheritance of the eldest son ... the double portion from which he will support his mother and sisters.​

​

You are proposing, in the story about a Jewish family, that the father then took the older son's inheritance and divided it again to give some of what should have belonged to the older son to the younger son. That is contrary to the statement of the father that "EVERYTHING that I have is yours." If the younger son had received his monetary reward, then everything that remained DID belong to the older son as his inheritance.​

​

However, squandering his wealth, only cost the younger son his wealth. It NEVER cost him the love of his father or his innate "sonship". He was always a son, so he was always welcome "home".​

[I leave it to others to apply the Parable to Earthly or Heavenly situations beyond its context. I am simply speaking of the story and the people in the story. If I were to make application about the Parable, I would suggest that its purpose is actually about the heart of the older son and how "good people" felt about "sinners" coming back to God.]

 

[Saint Steven]

Sorry, I thought that was the standard abbreviation for Universal Atonement (isn't that what "Universalism" - as in this topic - us all about)?
I am more of an Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT), 5-point Calvinist, Credo-Baptist ... Biblical Literalist ... so this topic is a bit out of my usual wheelhouse.

The second letter is usually always an R. Universal Restoration, Universal Reconciliation, Universal Redemption... UR.
So, you're a ECT TULIP CredoBapt Biblit? - LOL

 

[Saint Steven]

However, squandering his wealth, only cost the younger son his wealth. It NEVER cost him the love of his father or his innate "sonship". He was always a son, so he was always welcome "home".

The son asked to be recieved like the hired servants. From that perspective the robe and ring had great significance.

 

[atpollard]

The second letter is usually always an R. Universal Restoration, Universal Reconciliation, Universal Redemption... UR.
So, you're a ECT TULIP CredoBapt Biblit? - LOL

Particular Baptist for short.
[I would use PB, but it makes me think of Peanut Butter.]

 

[Berserk]

Restoration of the "sonship" but not of the squandered inheritance. The story is silent on the Father giving the younger son a third of all he NOW owns (a second inheritance), but the father does tell the older son that "all I have is yours" (not 2/3 of all I have is yours because your brother gets another portion as a second inheritance).

The parable allows no 2nd inheritance for the Prodigal Son. The father won't cut into his elder son's prior inheritance to placate his younger son; so the elder son gets what he was always promised before his younger brother's demand: "All that I have is yours." In other words, it is possible to be celebrated by our heavenly Father (hence, the fatted calf, the new ring, the party), despite forfeiting inheritance of the kingdom of God and precisely that point makes this parable relevant to universalism.

Joke: Who was most disappointed when the prodigal son returned?
Anwer: The fatted calf!

 

[Saint Steven]

Joke: Who was most disappointed when the prodigal son returned?
Anwer: The fatted calf!

That's a good one. - LOL

 

[atpollard]

The parable allows no 2nd inheritance for the Prodigal Son. The father won't cut into his elder son's prior inheritance to placate his younger son; so the elder son gets what he was always promised before his younger brother's demand: "All that I have is yours." In other words, it is possible to be celebrated by our heavenly Father (hence, the fatted calf, the new ring, the party), despite forfeiting inheritance of the kingdom of God and precisely that point makes this parable relevant to universalism.

I though more of this:

1 Corinthians 3:10-17 [NASB95]

According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is [to be] revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.​

​

Do you not know that you are a temple of God and [that] the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.​

​

Verse 17 speaks of God "destroying him" ... which runs contrary to the "golden idol" of universalism.

 

[atpollard]

Joke: Who was most disappointed when the prodigal son returned?
Anwer: The fatted calf!

That IS a great joke.

 

[LW97Nils]

I see a release from hell as possible also. From hell. Not the Lake of Fire. Both Lazarus and the Rich Man were in the same place. Lazarus comforted. The Rich Man tormented. Some say hell is "Hades" or "Sheol".

What I see not as possible is a release from the Lake of Fire. It is described is the second death (Revelation 20:10, Revelation 21:8). Hell/sheol/hades is not yet, but the Lake of Fire is.