The Evangelical Universalist Forum

2 Cor 5:19 and the only sin that is not forgiven in any age!

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#21

Justin is right; while the context of Isaiah 57 may apply to Israel in view, the context is also aimed at God leading impenitent sinners to contrition and repentance and then restoring them.

57:1-13a – God denounces the evil idolaters of Israel (who are basically pagans at this point, no better than the nations).

13b-15 – God contrasts His ruinous opposition to these defiantly impenitent rebels, with His restoration of those who are contrite and humble of spirit, who take refuge in Him.

16a – Clearly God used to be contending against the contrite and humble ones, but isn’t any more. “(15) I dwell with the contrite and lowly of spirit, in order to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite. (16) For I will not contend forever, neither will I always be angry.” The explanatory “for” would make no sense unless He was talking about the contrite and humble ones, whom He clearly isn’t contending against in their contrition and humility but is rather restoring. Consequently they had to be like the rebels denounced up through 15, once upon a time, but aren’t anymore.

16b – Basically, if He did contend angrily forever, they would cease to exist. Which God is dedicated to avoiding. “neither will I always be angry, for * the spirit would grow faint before Me and the breath (of those) I have made.”

At the same time, those whom He contends angrily against will grow weak even if they don’t go out of existence altogether.

17 – “Because of the iniquity of his unjust gain” still talking about the ones He will not be angry against forever, whom God foresees will be contrite and humble before Him, “I was angry and struck him; I hid (My face) and was angry, and he went on turning away in the way of his heart.” – but he didn’t do so forever. God led him to repentance, contrition and a humble heart, thence to restoration.

18 – “I have seen his ways but I will heal him, I will lead him and restore comfort to him and to his mourners, (19a) creating the praise (or the fruit) of the lips.” So ever since 13b God has been talking about someone who, from His eternal vantage point, God knows He will lead to contrition and humility, restore comfort to, and heal–and not only him, but also those who mourn for him. Whose ways are God seeing? By topic, it has to be the guys back in verses 1-13a.

It’s true that the wicked are like the tossing sea, for it cannot be quiet and its waters toss up refuse and mud; in the same way our God says, “There is no peace for the wicked.” (57:20-21) But there is no peace for the wicked in their sins; there is peace for the wicked in God, Who will calm the seas and render them fresh (as in Ezekiel 47). He acts to bring the impenitent to repentance; they have no penitence in themselves.

Was God prophecying that He will reconcile only rebel Israel to Himself?–or all the nations?

The love of Christ compels me to answer, having concluded this: that one died for all; therefore all died and He died for all, that they who live should no longer live for themselves but for Him Who died and rose again on their behalf. On behalf of whom? On behalf of all. Not all people are in Christ yet; but all things are from God, Who reconciled us (who already follow Him) to Himself through Christ and gave us who follow Him the ministry of reconciliation, namely this: that God was in Christ reconciling all the world, the whole kosmos, to Himself, not accounting up their worst rebellions against them. And He has placed in us the word of reconciliation, by which we plead as ambassadors for Christ: BE RECONCILED TO GOD!!

You have chosen poorly, A. You ought to have known that 2 Cor 5:18-20 (and surrounding contexts) are famous and well-beloved among universalists.

At any rate, working together with God, we urge you not to receive the grace of God as being for nothing. The acceptable time and the day of salvation wasn’t only for us in the past, but is also today for everyone. (“For as long as it is called ‘Today’!” as the Hebraist puts it.)

Whereas, those who at any time deny the reconciliation…? At the very least, they cannot be said to have quite as much of the ministry and spirit of reconciliation.

(Though they might still be doing better with their two cents than someone like myself. :slight_smile: )*

#22

Thanks, Jason.

Also, Isaiah is the most hopeful and inclusive of all the prophets and even of anyone in the OT; especially in the latter prophecies, which speak a great deal of the restoration of the nations.

#23

Wow–Aaron, don’t you think that’s a rather bold and presumptuous statement? --To say that you speak from the very mind of God? I’m reminded of Job:

*Then Job answered the Lord and said: "I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.

‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’ Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.

‘Hear, and I will speak; I will question you, and you make it known to me.’

I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes."
*
Humility is always “good form” when discussing what we think God means by scripture. That is why I say that “you assert” one thing, while “I assert” another–instead of saying that my own view is certainly of the very thoughts of God. I strive to understand God’s ways, but I do not claim to have arrived there–in fact I know I certainly fall very short–but I trust I am being led there by my Shepherd. I have faith in my fallibility.

I read something George MacDonald wrote on that recently … aha, here it is:

"]There is one thing that will not be pictured, cannot be made notionally present to the mind by any effort of the imagination–one thing that requires the purest faith: a man’s own ignorance and incapacity. It is impossible to think of the object of our ignorance, how then realize the ignorance whose very centre is a blank, a negation! When a man knows, then first he gets a glimpse of his ignorance as it vanishes. Ignorance, I say, cannot be the object of knowledge. We must believe ourselves ignorant. And for that we must be humble of heart. When our world seems clear to the horizon, when the constellations beyond look plainest, when we seem to be understanding all within our scope, then have we yet to believe that, unseen, formally unsuspected, beyond, lies that which may wither up many forms of our belief, and must modify every true form in which we hold the truth. For God is infinite, and we are his little ones, and his truth is eternally better than the best shape in which we see it. Jesus is perfect, but is our idea of him perfect?

If we speak so confidently of God’s very thoughts, we may find ourselves in the position of Job’s friends:
*
After the Lord had spoken these words to Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite: “My anger burns against you and against your two friends, for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has. Now therefore take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and offer up a burnt offering for yourselves. And my servant Job shall pray for you, for I will accept his prayer not to deal with you according to your folly. For you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.” *

No disagreement from me here. I only disagree with your interpretation of what those scriptures mean–with the thoughts you have added to the scriptures themselves.

The verses you quoted don’t say that.

The passage I quoted demonstrates that God is able to take even a heart of stone out of a person and replace it with a heart of flesh–and I find confirmation in this passage for my faith that no matter how hard a person has allowed their heart to become, God is able to make it new.

Sonia

#24

I don’t think so. I used 2 Cor 5:19 in its proper context. This verse does not teach UR( not the way UR teaches it) when left in context and interpreted properly… Which I believe Andrew Wommack does a fantastic job of doing. I believe this post really reveals the error of UR. :wink:

#25

If we speak so confidently of God’s very thoughts, we may find ourselves in the position of Job’s friends:
*
After the Lord had spoken these words to Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite: “My anger burns against you and against your two friends, for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has. Now therefore take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and offer up a burnt offering for yourselves. And my servant Job shall pray for you, for I will accept his prayer not to deal with you according to your folly. For you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.” *

No disagreement from me here. I only disagree with your interpretation of what those scriptures mean–with the thoughts you have added to the scriptures themselves.

The verses you quoted don’t say that.

The passage I quoted demonstrates that God is able to take even a heart of stone out of a person and replace it with a heart of flesh–and I find confirmation in this passage for my faith that no matter how hard a person has allowed their heart to become, God is able to make it new.

Sonia

:unamused: Sonia, I did not mean I was speaking from the mind of God but showing you the scriptures that came from the mind of God. Sheesh. Hebrews 6:4-8 ;10:26-29 ; 2 Peter 2:20-22 ; Romans 1:18-32 do say this ( not exactly in those words).

The passage you quoted merely testifies of the born again experience (the new birth, regeneration of the HS) that people will experience in the New Covenant. :wink: Example: Romans 2:29 "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

#26

So do the born again merit their salvation or is it a matter of chance and/or circumstance who ends up believing?

Also, asserting that you are merely declaring scriptures which in turn reveal the mind of God doesn’t relieve you from the fact that you are asserting that you know the mind of God.

#27

I believe your both wrong, but just because one speaks a great deal of the restoration of the nations doesn’t mean that every soul who lives in those nations will be restored. The Jews in Isaiah 57 who received this spiritual restoration was the one who had a contrite spirit…( if you believe that every Jew in Isaiah 57 received this spiritual restoration you’re deceiving yourself.)

#28

This has nothing to do with the OP and I’m not going down rabbit trails, Justin. Create a new post if you want to discuss this.

#29

Maybe I will, when I have a little more time?

What did God mean there by spiritual restoration besides giving them a humble and contrite spirit?

#30

Interesting that you used Luke 12:8-10 and not Matthew 12:32 which is the same event recorded but in Matthew, Jesus gives a duration in which it is not forgivable.

Matthew 12:32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

According to Scripture there are more than one age to come. So on the age to come after this age and the age to come, the sin becomes forgivable.

However, let us say that it is not forgiven, what (if any) is the penalty Jesus said was due to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit? The penalty was to be subject to the judgment of Gehenna. A judgment which came to pass in 70 AD, and in the case of Apostle Paul, He had not committed as he adhered to the Holy Spirit on the road to Damascus prior to the destruction of Judah, Jerusalem and the Temple.

#31

Like I said, I have no problem with the scriptures–I’m pointing out that your assertion of what those scriptures are saying is different than mine, and I disagree with your assertion, primarily on the grounds that you are inferring meaning on the words that is not plainly there. You are saying that the scripture passages, as you interpret them = the mind of God.

Again–according to your interpretation of them …

yes… exactly my point.

Not a bad argument, Aaron! Only you must take the passage in the context of the rest of Romans. In Romans 11, Paul again speaks of physical Israel, and says that they are not cast off–that though now they are enemies, yet it is for the purpose of the salvation of the Gentiles. The gifts and calling of God are irrevokable, but “All have been concluded under disobedience, so that God might have mercy on all.” “And so all Israel shall be saved.”

Sonia

#32

Interpretation that does not line up with Sonia’s theology is false. :unamused: You are filtering out truth through your UR glasses. Also, your reformed background is hindering you from the truth of the scriptures. You’re hanging on to some of their false teaching. I’m not going down the rabbit trails of your interpretation of those passages and Romans 11. If you would like to discuss the meaning of those scriptures start the proper thread for them. :wink:

#33

Thank you! At last you understand!! (Just kidding! :laughing:)

Actually, that isn’t at all what I said, and I have no idea how you got that out of what I did say. :confused: It’s much more like what you have been saying all along regarding your own theology and interpretations, and which I have been objecting to.

Sonia

#34

Sonia, you are a perfect example of ones heart and mind not open to receive truth.

#35

Reading back over that, do you see that as deeply insulting or not?

#36

And what did I say that led you to come to this conclusion?

Sonia

#37

Sonia, the only person around that is ‘not open to receive truth’ is Aaron himself. I doubt if there is person here who hasn’t come OUT of the eternal torment idea by having their eyes opened to the blessed hope. The irony is striking, especially when Aaron has deluded himself into thinking that he’s teaching us something we didn’t know.

#38

Don’t worry…you’re not alone…there are others… but Ran by far takes the cake and eats it too. :wink:

#39

You’re being extremely rude, Aaron. I think you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

#40

I think Craig makes an important point here. So what if these unbelieving Jews weren’t forgiven for their sin? A failure to obtain forgiveness for sin does not thereby expose one to endless conscious torment. Those who fail to obtain forgiveness or pardon from God must simply suffer whatever punishment that the sin or sins of which they are guilty have made them deserving. The very fact that anyone is ever punished for anything (whether the punishment comes from God or man) presupposes that their wrongdoing was not forgiven, for to be forgiven is to be released from the penalty of which one’s sin has made one deserving. And we have numerous examples in Scripture of sins not being pardoned by God, and of the guilty being consequently punished. However, nowhere is it said that any punishment from God would consist of endless conscious torment after the person died.

For example, it is evident that Adam and Eve were not forgiven by God for their sin, as the punishment they were certain to receive is described in Gen 3:16-19. Similarly, Cain was not forgiven by God for killing his brother Abel, as his punishment is described in Gen 4:11-12. The wicked people of Noah’s generation were not pardoned for their sins, for they were all punished by being drowned in the great flood. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah were not pardoned for their sins, for they were punished by being destroyed with fire and sulfur from heaven. Even Moses was not forgiven for his sin of striking the rock in the wilderness, for God punished him by forbidding him from entering the Promised Land (Deut 3:23-27).

Another example of sin that was not forgiven can be found in 1 Samuel 3:12-14, where we read,

“On that day I will fulfill against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house, from beginning to end. And I declare to him that I am about to punish his house forever, for the iniquity that he knew, because his sons were blaspheming God, and he did not restrain them. Therefore I swear to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.”

There are a multitude of other examples in the Old Testament of people failing to obtain forgiveness for their sins, and consequently being punished according to divine justice. However, not one of these instances has anything to do with unending torment. There is not a hint that endless suffering in a future state of existence is a punishment of which any man or woman ever became deserving, or to which anyone ever became exposed because of their sin or anyone else’s. And since God doesn’t change, we have every reason to believe that the way in which God punishes people for their sins during this New Covenant dispensation is the same as he punished people in ages past: i.e., with temporal suffering, both mental and physical, and/or death.

When we turn to the NT, we find that this is the case. Because of a refusal to “repent of her sexual immorality,” a certain woman in the church in Thyatira who Christ identifies as “Jezebel” is threatened with temporal suffering for her sins (Rev 2:20-23). It is evident from Christ’s words that she had lost her opportunity to receive forgiveness for the sins of which she was guilty, for her future punishment is spoken of as being inevitable. Her sins had thus become “unpardonable.” In contrast were those who were then heeding her teaching and being seduced by her, for they had been graciously afforded a limited opportunity to repent before they, too, would be punished (v. 23).

Another well-known example is that of Ananias and Sapphira, who were punished by God for their deception by being struck dead on the spot (Acts 5:1-11). It is evident that God did not forgive them for this sin; they were not even given the opportunity to repent. Similarly, as the crowds were praising Herod, he was struck dead for not giving God the glory (Acts 12:21-23); again, it is evident that Herod wasn’t forgiven for this particular sin. The apostle John speaks of “a sin that leads to death,” and instructs his readers not to pray for those whom they see committing it (1 John 5:16-17) - evidently because the punishment for this sin was certain death, and thus could not be forgiven (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-30). That is, it was (like the “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit”) “unpardonable.” But the punishment was inflicted in this life, not in the next.