Universalists: How do you explain the "problem passages"?

[hedrick]

All will be made alive but some will arise to the resurrection of condemnation.

John 5:28-29

That's pretty clearly not what Paul means. He describes what happens to those who are resurrected. Paul sees Christians as the "first fruits" of a larger group.

As always, the question is whether the condemnation that John refers to is final, or whether those people are part of Paul's "all." Paul envisions death as the last enemy, and it is defeated. This picture is simply not consistent with most of mankind left in torment.

 

[Justified_By_Christ_Alone]

I view belief in eternal punishment as a general tenant of the orthodox faith so you are correct when you say that I view universalists as heretics.

Another thing is, do you not realize when I said bible-believing universalists I was replying to someone who posted two kinds of universalists? I didn't just say it randomly... It was a REPLY to someone. So why don't you quote them? Read it carefully because I was replying to someone who said it was about those who believe Jesus is God and believe in the bible. So your post to me doesn't even make sense when it was in a RESPONSE to someone.

Did you not read that part or...?

 

[Gifts From Above]

Another thing is, do you not realize when I said bible-believing universalists I was replying to someone who posted two kinds of universalists? I didn't just say it randomly... It was a REPLY to someone. So why don't you quote them? Read it carefully because I was replying to someone who said it was about those who believe Jesus is God and believe in the bible. So your post to me doesn't even make sense when it was in a RESPONSE to someone.

Did you not read that part or...?

I understand but you should also understand my confusion considering what you said.

 

[hedrick]

One possibility I see in Paul is that between Christians as the first fruits, and God finally becoming all in all, we have a destruction of "every ruler and every authority and power." (15:24). It's certainly conceivable that some people are so identified with evil that they are destroyed.

While I've said that I don't commit to a specific position, I can imagine a mixed outcome, with most people finally saved, but a few being destroyed.

 

[Gifts From Above]

One possibility I see in Paul is that between Christians as the first fruits, and God finally becoming all in all, we have a destruction of "every ruler and every authority and power." (15:24). It's certainly conceivable that some people are so identified with evil that they are destroyed.

While I've said that I don't commit to a specific position, I can imagine a mixed outcome, with most people finally saved, but a few being destroyed.

How is that consistent with Christ’s words concerning the narrow road?

Matthew 7:13-14

 

[Justified_By_Christ_Alone]

One possibility I see in Paul is that between Christians as the first fruits, and God finally becoming all in all, we have a destruction of "every ruler and every authority and power." (15:24). It's certainly conceivable that some people are so identified with evil that they are destroyed.

While I've said that I don't commit to a specific position, I can imagine a mixed outcome, with most people finally saved, but a few being destroyed.

Interesting. I don't underestimate God's grace. I heard some people say the narrow way being the way to kingdom itself, not just new earth, which is based on knowing God and actually having a relationship with him (being born again and then finally glorified). And also I've heard people say that receiving eternal life actually means possessing it (having the Holy Ghost) rather than just living eternally on new earth because Jesus says he is life so having eternal life means having him living inside you. That could also make sense some people simply get destroyed because they continue to reject Christ and therefore just have so much evil. That can refer to people who take the mark of the beast too.

Lots of interesting perspectives!

 

[Justified_By_Christ_Alone]

How is that consistent with Christ’s words concerning the narrow road?

Matthew 7:13-14

I heard people argue that by saying Jesus is life, because he is the way, the truth, and the life. So the narrow way leads to life (Jesus Christ and the kingdom, seeing his face) but not literally just living on New Earth unglorified forever.

 

[hedrick]

How is that consistent with Christ’s words concerning the narrow road?

Matthew 7:13-14

After another hard saying about the difficulty of salvation, the disciples asked the same question:

"When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astounded and said, “Then who can be saved?” But Jesus looked at them and said, “For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible.”" (Mat 19:25-26)

Yes, it is hard for people to find the right path. But for God all things are possible.

 

[Justified_By_Christ_Alone]

It's not that hard to believe Hitler will be scrubbing toilets on New Earth or Stalin will be a garbage man for all eternity on New Earth, knowing God's grace. Technically that is still eternal contempt in a way. Sure you live on new earth forever but you'll never get to see the face of the Lord in the kingdom and you will live far away from the light of New Jerusalem (outer darkness) and will need leaves for healing and will be free to drink out of the fountain of life, glorified bodies don't need that. I don't believe it quite yet, I'm not convinced, but I am open minded about it.

 

[hedrick]

It's not that hard to believe Hitler will be scrubbing toilets on New Earth or Stalin will be a garbage man for all eternity on New Earth, knowing God's grace. Technically that is still eternal contempt in a way. Sure you live on new earth forever but you'll never get to see the face of the Lord in the kingdom and you will live far away from the light of New Jerusalem (outer darkness) and will need leaves for healing and will be free to drink out of the fountain of life, glorified bodies don't need that. I don't believe it quite yet, I'm not convinced, but I am open minded about it.

I have a vision, which I don’t make any claims for. In heaven I don’t think there can be any remaining alienation between people. So if Hitler is saved (and I don’t claim that he will be), perhaps he has to apologize and be reconciled with each of the 3 million Jews, one by one.

 

[Gifts From Above]

After another hard saying about the difficulty of salvation, the disciples asked the same question:

"When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astounded and said, “Then who can be saved?” But Jesus looked at them and said, “For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible.”" (Mat 19:25-26)

Yes, it is hard for people to find the right path. But for God all things are possible.

Yes but you are making it sound like nearly everyone will be saved but Jesus seems to claim the opposite.

 

[Cormack]

For example, all of the verses that say the wicked will perish, everlasting destruction, the second death, etc.? How do you explain those verses about perishing and the wicked getting destroyed?

Hey @Justified_By_Christ_Alone. So the problem passages are (1) the wicked will perish, (2) everlasting destruction and (3) the second death (from the verse in Revelation?) Though more types may be added if the conversation continues.

Trying to get the topic back on track, for problem passages listed (2,) Christian universalists have made a great deal of effort to interpret “everlasting destruction” to mean an age enduring punishment.

The argument is that a number of these New Testament words (e.g. endless, eternal, forever) are actually the Greek word Aionius/aionios, and Aionius doesn’t necessarily mean forever, but can mean enduring for an age or long period of time. There are arguments from the Hebrew and the Septuagint in support of this.

Francis Chan (as an argument from authority,) in his Erasing hell book, concedes that’s a viable alternative (or at least that there’s ambiguity regarding hells duration.)

The debate about hell’s duration is much more complex than I first assumed. While I lean heavily on the side that says it is everlasting, I am not ready to claim that with complete certainty.
​

A similar effort is made to show destruction in the phrase “everlasting destruction” isn’t in reference to an absolute state of nonexistent (if it were the case that wouldn’t satisfy the believer in eternal conscious torment either.)

Listening to Edward Fudge teach on the annihilation of the wicked may help answer many of the verses used in regards to problem verses (1,) since many of those verses in Fudges presentation were taken from the book of Psalms, which in most cases doesn’t appear to have been describing either eternal destruction or eternal torment, but rather the temporal ruin of wicked earthly rulers.

The ultimate fate of those wicked rulers (or any wicked person) wouldn’t be included in those Old Testament verses on temporal judgement, there’s normally a consensus that the OT has very little to say explicitly about a fiery place of eternal judgement.

 

[Justified_By_Christ_Alone]

Hey @Justified_By_Christ_Alone. So the problem passages are (1) the wicked will perish, (2) everlasting destruction and (3) the second death (from the verse in Revelation?) Though more types may be added if the conversation continues.

Trying to get the topic back on track, for problem passages listed (2,) Christian universalists have made a great deal of effort to interpret “everlasting destruction” to mean an age enduring punishment.

The argument is that a number of these New Testament words (e.g. endless, eternal, forever) are actually the Greek word Aionius/aionios, and Aionius doesn’t necessarily mean forever, but can mean enduring for an age or long period of time. There are arguments from the Hebrew and the Septuagint in support of this.

Francis Chan (as an argument from authority,) in his Erasing hell book, concedes that’s a viable alternative (or at least that there’s ambiguity regarding hells duration.)

The debate about hell’s duration is much more complex than I first assumed. While I lean heavily on the side that says it is everlasting, I am not ready to claim that with complete certainty.
​

A similar effort is made to show destruction in the phrase “everlasting destruction” isn’t in reference to an absolute state of nonexistent (if it were the case that wouldn’t satisfy the believer in eternal conscious torment either.)

Listening to Edward Fudge teach on the annihilation of the wicked may help answer many of the verses used in regards to problem verses (1,) since many of those verses in Fudges presentation were taken from the book of Psalms, which in most cases doesn’t appear to have been describing either eternal destruction or eternal torment, but rather the temporal ruin of wicked earthly rulers.

The ultimate fate of those wicked rulers (or any wicked person) wouldn’t be included in those Old Testament verses on temporal judgement, there’s normally a consensus that the OT has very little to say explicitly about a fiery place of eternal judgement.

What about in John 3:16 where it says "should not perish"?. Surely that's describing eternity as that passage refers to salvation of the soul? So how do you get around the word "perish" for the wicked then? If universalism was true?

Unless you think that only refers to the unholy trinity? Or that some people will indeed perish?

 

[Cormack]

Unless you think that only refers to the unholy trinity? Or that some people will indeed perish?

It could be in reference to the unholy trinity, still for the sake of doing the Christian universalist justice we can’t write “some people do indeed perish,” they’d never accept that line of thought. Every man, woman and child is saved on universalism, even the creation is restored (e.g. the cursed ground and the animal kingdom.) Still this doesn’t ordinarily include Satan or any of the inhuman or angelic figures who regularly torment humanity.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I am open about universalism, I just don't know how you guys get past some verses. If you have an explanation for them I will hear you out. For example, all of the verses that say the wicked will perish, everlasting destruction, the second death, etc.? How do you explain those verses about perishing and the wicked getting destroyed?

Hmm, since I don't try to land on a single conclusions since God in the end will do "immeasurably more than we can imagine or think" I have looked into the different ideas, some more than others.

This is how I understand the ideas you've expressed that run in contrary to the universalist message.

Ultimate reconciliation, a form of universalism speaks of how God is the fire that is the second death and applies the grace message of the gospel to it.

In Romans it is said, a man who is dead is set free from sin, so a universalist would not see it a coincidence that the lake of fire is also called the second "death."

The word for everlasting tends to be taken as "an age of" and destruction is of the sin not the creation.

The word for fire used in the lake of fire is also used for the blacksmith's fire so this means from the universalist lense that the sin is being purified during that age of destruction or age and then another age of destruction for some. The process of destruction is removing sin forcibly from all of creation - since it belongs to God, He won't give any of it up.

As it is written after the judgment sequence - Behold I make all things new. So this would imply all things in the lake of fire would be made new also - this is also where some branch off and interpret destruction to mean cease to exist and go with annihilationism.

That's how I understand it, but I'm convinced God has something way better in store than all the ideas man has come up with.

 

[martymonster]

I am open about universalism, I just don't know how you guys get past some verses. If you have an explanation for them I will hear you out. For example, all of the verses that say the wicked will perish, everlasting destruction, the second death, etc.? How do you explain those verses about perishing and the wicked getting destroyed?

Can you give me an example of what you think a "problem passage" is? I don't have a problem with any of them. So it's a bit hard to give an example of one.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Wow and now people aren't allowed to have a different political position that you have as well? You need to come to terms that not everyone will agree with you. And you will be very lonely because you will always find someone who disagrees with you at least on something even if you may not realize it.

are you a trinitarian ?
do you believe in the deity of Christ ?

 

[zoidar]

I am open about universalism, I just don't know how you guys get past some verses. If you have an explanation for them I will hear you out. For example, all of the verses that say the wicked will perish, everlasting destruction, the second death, etc.? How do you explain those verses about perishing and the wicked getting destroyed?

I'm not a universialist, so maybe I shouldn't post? Anyhow, I have heard universialists say that the wicked till be punished for a time, an eon, then will be saved.

 

[pantingdeer]

I am open about universalism, I just don't know how you guys get past some verses. If you have an explanation for them I will hear you out. For example, all of the verses that say the wicked will perish, everlasting destruction, the second death, etc.? How do you explain those verses about perishing and the wicked getting destroyed?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I am open about universalism, I just don't know how you guys get past some verses. If you have an explanation for them I will hear you out. For example, all of the verses that say the wicked will perish, everlasting destruction, the second death, etc.? How do you explain those verses about perishing and the wicked getting destroyed?

I need to first stipulate that I'm not a universalist. However, I am also neither a perpetualist. The most accurate way to describe where I stand is that I am agnostic on the subject, hopeful in the greatest extent of God's mercy, but also recognizing that it may very well be that there are those who would prefer a forever hell rather than redemption.

I think that arguments are possible for both sides using Scripture, and I think that within the historic and orthodox faith of the Christian Church there is sufficient grounds for ambiguity so as to not get us to a kind of hard dogmaticism on the subject. Which is to say, ultimately we can only speak in terms of hope and faith and leaving all matters to God who alone is fit to judge.

With all that said, as I understand it, a universalist reading of such passages is by pointing out the ambiguity of such passages.

For example the ambiguity of the language of "everlasting", specifically the Greek word aionios which is often treated as though it means "endless duration" (i.e. everlasting) but does not, strictly speaking, actually mean this. It is instead the adjective form of the word aion, or "age". It does not in itself speak of specific duration of time but rather an indefinite, unspecified duration of time. For example the "everlasting fire" of Gehenna is not so much "everlasting" fire as it is fire of that age, the fires of Gehenna being neither endless or having limited duration, but are instead the fires associated with that age.

Does perishing mean eternal destruction, or rather speak instead of the destruction and judgment of the conclusion of this age. This age has an end, and its end is described as being fire and judgment as we read in 2 Peter. Those who are of this age, who cling to this fallen world, this fallen age, have chosen the same end. Does this mean, as annihilationists treat it, mean the total annihilation of the wicked? Does it mean an everlasting fate in hell? Or does it mean simply that the fate of the wicked is tied to the fate of this present age, but what lay ahead in the ages of ages which are to come may neither be annihilation nor everlasting fire (see above), but something else? Such as where Scripture speaks in the language of the restoration of all things, the healing of the nations, etc.

Now, again, I think it's important to state that I am not a universalist--so I'm not arguing for universalism. But I do think the questions raised are valid questions. Which is why, again, I believe there is valid ambiguity in Scripture on the matter. But I believe that ambiguity goes both ways. The ambiguity means that both universalist and perpetualist arguments can rely on the same biblical material to argue their points. That ambiguity is also seen in the orthodoxy of the Christian Church over the course of two millennia. I'm not speaking about heretical groups, but specifically only of normative, orthodox Christian teaching.

-CryptoLutheran