|
Post by robin on Jan 20, 2009 17:34:34 GMT -8
yes it is.
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jan 21, 2009 10:45:40 GMT -8
I want to continue the discussion on Mark 9, But I thought I would also through out another section of scripture, and get you're understanding of it.
1 Corinthians 15:19-28 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
Coming from the traditional view, or that of the annihilationist view, what are you're thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jan 23, 2009 23:02:05 GMT -8
Ok, this has been in the back of my mind for awhile now and I’m finally getting around to posting on this. I’m sure I’ll have more to say as the conversation unfolds (and as time allows). Josh wrote: I agree with you, the passage as a whole means “something”. However, I don’t know that we can say whether or not every detail of it is intended to mean something or if it’s simply dramatic landscape to add effect to the main message. We try to insist that every part of the vision has some significance or it wouldn’t be there. But I’m not so sure. I try not to wax eloquent on something that is so far removed from the original culture and time period without some significant help from other sources (yes, I know, most Christians think the bible alone is sufficient for gaining understanding, by I have come to disagree with that over simplistic premise). I don’t believe an inductive study alone is sufficient for understanding the bible. That to me is a literalists’ easy way out so to speak. I don’t pretend to have the qualifications to unpack all that, but I’m slowly (and I do mean very slowly) gleaning from others as I go. That’s why I say it’s difficult to agree upon some concrete theological concept based on this passage as a starting point. In a nutshell, my view on the book of Revelation as a whole is a salad bar of a preterist, idealist, and futurist views (maybe even some historicist mixed in there as well ). I freely admit my view is very unpolished at this point. But it’s consistent with my general view of Christ’s “vocation” (as Wright would put it) and the new covenant and Kingdom of God established at Christ's first coming. Some partial-prets see the book as John’s Olivet discourse, but I now tend to see it more like John’s apocalyptic version (inspired of course by visions) of the book of Hebrews, warning believers not to fall away. This is mostly due to how the book begins in the first 3 chapters. When we get to chapter 20, my strong tendency is toward an idealist (or spiritual) view. This of course puts the fulfillment of the prophesy not in time (past or future), but spiritually in Christ. I see it as hyperbole with apocalyptic language producing the image of a spiritual truth that is past, present, and future. That is, that Christ decisively and permanently conquered the power of death and of Satan once and for all. To me, this view is most evidenced by the personification of Death and Hades, the dragon bound in the bottomless pit, the symbolic “beloved city” business, the dead “reigning” with Christ, heaven and earth fleeing away, etc. I take these as metaphorical dramatizations. Also, the placement of the passage between the latter part of chapter 19 (which I also take in a somewhat idealistic sense to be a description of the gospel going out into all the world like a military conquest) and chapter 21 (which I take to be imagery mostly talking about the new covenant creation of Christ and His church) gives me reason to believe that this part of the vision is a spiritualized drama of the effects of the victory at the cross. So, in my view, Revelation 20 would be talking about Christ’s ultimate victory over all “fallenness” of creation. Jesus has “destroyed the power of death” as the author of Hebrews states (Heb 2:14), and has secured ultimate salvation of all who come into the “new creation” (which is also Christ Himself). The part about being “Tormented day and night forever and ever” is merely talking about the permanence of God’s victory over evil IMO. Anyway, the bottom line for me is, I don't think this is a very good place to start when looking at afterlife passages since it's not entirely clear that the afterlife is what is in view here. There are other less ambiguous passages that could be used I think.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 24, 2009 14:14:53 GMT -8
Okay, I've kinda lost track of the flow of this conversation, but I do know I've been using it as a place to present bible passages that seem to challenge universalism.
Here's another one I'd like to hear some input on:
Matthew 12:32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
Regardless of the question of what exactly this "unforgiveness" sin might be, this passage seems to state that there is something that will not be forgiven ever. If so, how can this be made to square with universal, eventual salvation through Christ?
I have an idea or two, but I'm curious what some of you might say.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 24, 2009 14:37:54 GMT -8
bump
|
|
|
Post by robin on Feb 24, 2009 15:36:47 GMT -8
I encourage you to read Tabott's book "The Inescapable Love of God". He addresses this passage specifically. I don't mind sharing my opinion, but he gets the point across much clearer that I can. Basically I, being influence by Talbott, don't see this passage as expressing God unwillingness to be reconciled to his children after commiting certain sins, but rather loving us enough to punish us for sins that only work to destroy us and our relationship with Him and others. Resiting and fighting against the Holy Spirit (Mat. 12:32), and not forgiving others (Mat 6:15) both imply that we cannot be forgiven if we are found in this condition. God must burn this selfishness out of us. That is how much he loves us. As parents we will sometimes over look little mistakes and misbehaviors from our children, and we forgive them without punishment. However if our kids are involved in actions that are very damaging to themselves and others, we don't overlook those problems. And if we do, it can be said that we don't love them. Instead we punish them in order to save them from destructive behavior. Well perhaps this is what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 6 and 12. He cannot overlook and will not pardon those sins. Those must be paid for in order for us to truly be reconciled to God. You should read this short article by Talbott to get a better understanding of what I'm trying to say. www.willamette.edu/~ttalbott/unpardon.htmRobin
|
|
|
Post by Margot on Feb 24, 2009 22:23:17 GMT -8
Basically I, being influence by Talbott, don't see this passage as expressing God unwillingness to be reconciled to his children after commiting certain sins, but rather loving us enough to punish us for sins that only work to destroy us and our relationship with Him and others. Resiting and fighting against the Holy Spirit (Mat. 12:32), and not forgiving others (Mat 6:15) both imply that we cannot be forgiven if we are found in this condition. God must burn this selfishness out of us. That is how much he loves us. As parents we will sometimes over look little mistakes and misbehaviors from our children, and we forgive them without punishment. However if our kids are involved in actions that are very damaging to themselves and others, we don't overlook those problems. And if we do, it can be said that we don't love them. Instead we punish them in order to save them from destructive behavior. Well perhaps this is what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 6 and 12. He cannot overlook and will not pardon those sins. Those must be paid for in order for us to truly be reconciled to God. Well, as usual, something inside of me says "don't open this can of worms," but I don't tend to do well listening to that little voice... It would be wrong for me not to mention that the language in your comment sounds harsh to me. First. let me acknowledge that I have not completely followed the main arguments of this thread, but I have read enough to get the jist. I have a lot of trouble in thinking of God's actions toward us as punishment. Of course, I get the concept of the "unpardonable sin" and how we are trying to flesh out exactly what that is. However, I don't see how a sin could need to be "paid for to truly be reconciled to God." I feel very strongly that God's actions toward me when I am disobedient are discipline and correction. Although I know a lot of people dismiss this as semantics, I think the difference actually reflects the kind of God I serve. I'm not sure how things that need to punished or paid for can be reconciled with the way Jesus reaches out to us with forgiveness in the New Testament. Am I just jumping on this and reading your comments too literally???
|
|
|
Post by robin on Feb 25, 2009 8:52:43 GMT -8
I'm not quite sure I understand you're objection. Is it that you don't like the word punishment, and prefer discipline? Do you think that God doesn't punish those who practice evil?
Robin
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 25, 2009 10:16:54 GMT -8
It's the "paying for" your own sins in hell thing that I'm tripping on a bit.
|
|
|
Post by robin on Feb 25, 2009 14:32:46 GMT -8
It's the "paying for" your own sins in hell thing that I'm tripping on a bit. Well God gives us a choice, right? In this life we can follow Jesus, and make him Lord. In doing so He forgives us our sins, or in other words pardons us. The other option is to resist His calling, and disobey (blaspheme the Holy Spirit, of refuse forgiveness) and find our selves paying the price for our sins until it is burned out of us. I use burn in a figurative sense, of course. This seems to be a big part of CU, as I understand it. Our sins have consequences, and we are given the choice to either give them up freely in favor of something far better (obedience to Christ), or we can hold onto that sin and selfishness until we can no longer stand it's negative consequences. Either way God loves us enough to not allow us to continue forever in that condition. Also it must be understood that God uses such tactics in this life, and not only the afterlife. The man that cheats on his wife may find forgiveness, but not without paying a price. Perhaps that man loses his wife and damages his relationship with his children. When the reality of ones sins is brought down on him, then he is convicted and can truly repent. I have paid a price for my sins, and see that payment as a work of God convicting me, and I credit Him for my repentance. And as you know, I don't mean that in a Calvinistic way. Is Calvinistic a word? Robin
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 25, 2009 21:14:23 GMT -8
Okay, I'm following you mostly, but the question remains for me- assuming the Christian universalist perspective, can those that make it out of hell be considered to be "forgiven"? Or, having "paid for their sins" are they no longer in need of forgiveness?
|
|
|
Post by Margot on Feb 26, 2009 16:39:19 GMT -8
Uh, I think I am just going to bow out of this one after all.
|
|
|
Post by robin on Feb 27, 2009 8:26:30 GMT -8
Okay, I'm following you mostly, but the question remains for me- assuming the Christian universalist perspective, can those that make it out of hell be considered to be "forgiven"? Or, having "paid for their sins" are they no longer in need of forgiveness? If you mean forgiven as in having their sins are forgotten, then I would say yes. However, not in the sense that they we're pardoned. That type of forgiveness, I believe, is only available in this life. Regardless, they are reconciled to God, and it is God who causes whatever suffering exists in the afterlife that will bring them home.
|
|
|
Post by rodgertutt on Mar 22, 2009 18:49:51 GMT -8
SATAN’S SALVATION ETCETERA - Grace super-exceeding!!!Copy and paste into Google THE OUTCOME OF INFINITE GRACE – Dr. Loyal Hurley www.tentmaker.org/books/infinitegrace.htm It would have been easy for God to impress upon Satan that it would not temporarily be in his best interest to choose evil, but God didn’t do that because He had (has) an eonian plan to use the temporary existence of evil and suffering to teach lessons. Then at the consummation of God’s plan for the ages of time God will eradicate evil and suffering from existence. www.saviourofall.org/Tracts/Eons2.html Since all of creation is in the Son of God’s love, through Whom God delights to reconcile all, whether those on the earth or those in the heavens, Col. 1:20, there is no more reason to suppose that Satan (and Judas and Hitler and Stalin) are not included therein than that any other creature is not included therein. Therefore, it must be that that notable creature who had rightly long been termed “the Adversary,” is very much included in the reconciliation of the universe, at which time this title (“Adversary” or “Satan”) necessarily will no longer apply, since he will be reconciled and be at peace. A time is coming when Satan himself, the instigator of human opposition and dissension will be beneath our feet. Rom. 16:20. Now he dominates the actions of many a saint. But later his place and power will be taken from him and we will be above him, able to subdue and control the one who, next to our flesh, was the cause of most of our miseries. Just as the enemies of Christ will figuratively find themselves a footstool for His feet, so will the greatest of all our enemies be placed beneath our power. But best of all, we will not retaliate. We will not use our authority to further alienate and estrange Satan from God or from ourselves. We, to whom conciliation was first presented, will be conciliatory to all, and be able to bring back all our enemies into the circle of friendship and conciliation with God. Doubtless due to Satan’s machinations, we cannot now even bring about peace among ourselves. But then all our own differences will have been dissolved, and we will be able to bring it to our erstwhile enemy in the spirit world, the Adversary himself. Satan is an enemy of God, and must be included among the enemies reconciled to God by the blood of Christ's cross, one of those "in heaven." Since death is the last enemy, then Satan must be reconciled to God prior to the destruction of death, and the subsequent emptying of death, and the presentation of the whole reconciled universe to God, when God becomes All in all. Copy and paste into Google RECONCILIATION IN THE HEAVENS or click on www.tentmaker.org/articles/savior-of-the-world/reconciliation-heavens.htm C.S. Lewis wrote, “The greatest surprise for Satan will occur when he learns that he has been perfectly doing the will of God all along.” Personally I think the greatest demonstration of God’s grace in action among the celestials will be when Satan bows in humble submission and love in front of His Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Any hell that anyone will experience the Bible calls "kolasis aionian," which means age-during corrective chastisement. www.tentmaker.org/books/asw/Chapter11.html It is limited in duration, and corrective in purpose. www.tentmaker.org/books/Aion_lim.html I think that everyone who needs it will experience just the right amount of what the Bible calls "kolasis aionian" which means "age-during corrective chastisement." Copy and paste into Google THE LAKE OF FIRE EBY or click on www.tentmaker.org/articles/savior-of-the-world/TheLakeOfFire-Eby.html NO ONE IS BEYOND THE REACH OF GOD'S GRACE WHICH IS ABLE AND DETERMINED TO SUCCESSFULLY INFLUENCE THE MOST STUBBORN OF WILLS AND SOONER OR LATER WILL NOT FAIL TO DO SO.We universal reconciliationists believe that because of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the power in the blood of His cross, God will eventually transform all suffering into something better that it happened for everyone, and when evil and suffering has served God’s eonian purpose, God will eradicate them both from existence. CHRIST TRIUMPHANT - Thomas Allin (online reading) www.tentmaker.org/books/ChristTriumphant.htm
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 22, 2009 20:15:01 GMT -8
Do you see the "destruction of death" as taking place at the final resurrection or at the final emptying of hell?
Because I think it would be quite odd to postulate that Satan would be reconciled before the final resurrection, considering that the New Testament presents the resurrection and final judgment as nearly simultaneous events (Rev.20), after which we read of the lake of fire.
|
|
|
Post by rodgertutt on Mar 23, 2009 4:53:52 GMT -8
Do you see the "destruction of death" as taking place at the final resurrection or at the final emptying of hell? Because I think it would be quite odd to postulate that Satan would be reconciled before the final resurrection, considering that the New Testament presents the resurrection and final judgment as nearly simultaneous events (Rev.20), after which we read of the lake of fire. It is my understanding that the "final" resurrection (or rather, vivification) will occur when everyone will have been saved out of the lake of fire which is the second death. Although the book of Revelation is the last book placed in the Bible, it is not the final revelation of what God is going to do with humanity. The apostle Paul saw way beyond John. Col.1:25 of which I became a dispenser, in accord with the administration of God, which is granted to me for you, to complete the word of God There is much evidence that Paul did see way beyond John. For instance, in Revelation there are still kings reigning, and Christ is still reigning along with His followers. There are still sovereignties and powers in force throughout the book of revelation. So John did not see the day when all sovereignty, authority and power would be done away. Paul did. If you will look at 1Corinthians 15:24-28 Paul saw the day when all of these would be done away. He sees the day when "He should be nullifying all sovereignty, authority and power" (vs.24) Paul sees the day when Christ will quit reigning (vs.25). Paul sees the day when death (all death which includes the second death) will be abolished (vs.26). Please remember that death will be abolished **after** all the sovereignties, authorities and powers in Revelation have been nullified. Within the book of Revelation, death is still operational as are the afore mentioned powers. So what is going to happen to all these people who are in death when death is abolished? They will come forth vivified (made alive beyond the reach of death) (1Cor.15:22). They will have their lives justified and will be constituted righteous: Romans 5:18 Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for all mankind for condemnation, thus also it is through one just award for all mankind for life's justifying. Romans 5:19 For even as, through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One, the many shall be constituted just. All will be reconciled to God (Col.1:20) All will be headed up in Christ (Eph.1:10) All will bow the knee in the name of Jesus and acclaim with their tongue that "Jesus Christ is Lord" to the glory of God, the Father (Phil.2:9-11). And we know that anyone who acclaims that Jesus Christ is Lord, especially when it is to God's glory without any hypocrisy is saved for 1Corinthians 12:3 says so. So there is proof that people will go to the second death **when ** the new earth comes. And there is proof that this is not the final goal God has for these people. In summary then: The lake of fire is the second death. The apostle John did not see into the future as far as the apostle Paul. How do I know this? and what ramifications does this have as to whether or not one gets out of the lake of fire...the second death? Plenty. In the book of revelation Christ is still reigning; death is still operational; sovereignties, authorities and powers are still in force. In 1Cor.15:22-28 Paul sees way beyond John's revelation. He sees the day when Christ will quit reigning (1Cor.15:25). He sees the day when all sovereignties, authorities and powers are nullified (1Cor.15:24). He sees the day when death is abolished (1Cor.15:26) and all are then subjected to Christ then Christ is subjected to God and then God is All in all (1Cor.15:28). So, yes, there is scripture which intimates that all in the lake of fire will come forth and God will be All in all. Also in 1Cor.15:22 all are dying and in Christ shall all be vivified. So this happens after death for most. Also in Romans 5:18,19 you have what happens to all mankind due to what Adam did which happens to the exact same all mankind due to what Christ did. But it does not happen to all at the exact same time. Each in his own order. www.tentmaker.org/articles/savior-of-the-world/TheLakeOfFire-Eby.html www.tentmaker.org/articles/savior-of-the-world/reconciliation-heavens.htm www.tentmaker.org/articles/savior-of-the-world/index.htm Where is a resurrection from the lake of fire which is the second death taught in the scriptures?The lake of fire is distinctly defined as the second death Rev.20:14; 21:8. In it is cast all that is still at enmity with God. So that, death is indeed the last enemy (1 Cor.15:26). And we are just as decidedly told that Christ is the one who abolishes death and brings life and incorruptibility to light (2 Tim.1:10). The reading "hath abolished" is not true as to fact or as to grammar. It is in the indefinite form (commonly called the aorist tense) simply recording the fact apart from time. Death has not been abolished yet. How and when it will be abolished is told us in the fifteenth of first Corinthians. It is to be abolished by means of universal vivification (1 Cor.15:22). This takes place at the consummation (1 Cor.15:26). It is useless to look for plain statements on this subject in parts of the Scriptures whose scope is limited to eonian truth, such as the Revelation. It is unwise to look for it anywhere but in the special portion which deals with this topic. Death and resurrection are exhaustively treated in the, fifteen chapter of first Corinthians and there it is we should look for clear statements as to the ultimate goal. There we are distinctly told that the last enemy that shall be abolished is death (which must refer to the lake of fire, for the first death cannot be the last enemy). And there we are told that it is to be done by a universal vivification rather than resurrection. The term "resurrection" is applied to those who have afterward died again, such as those who suffer the second death. Hence there is not a resurrection, merely, from the lake of fire, but a vivification beyond which there can be no death. CHART OF GOD’S PLAN FOR THE AGES OF TIME www.saviourofall.org/Tracts/Eons2.html
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 23, 2009 14:58:30 GMT -8
First off, are you talking about physical resurrection here?
Do you believe it is the final destiny of everyone to receive back their bodies?
Or are you saying that those in the lake of fire, having received back their physicality at the judgment, will at a later point be "vivified"?
|
|