The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Aaron37's Answer to Jason Pratt's challenge in Rev 21.

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#101

Oh really, are you saying the lake of fire is right outside the NJ, Jason?

The lake of fire judgment happened in Rev 20:11-15 after the Millennial reign on the first earth and before the NJ and NE in Rev 21.

Lets take a look in Rev 21:1-5 and see what happens after the lake of fire judgment on the first earth:

1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

2And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

3And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

4And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

5And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

Jason, notice what I have underlined.

  1. How can the lake of fire be outside the gates of the city ( NJ) when in Rev 21:1 the first heaven and the first earth were passed away? Was not the lake of fire apart of the first earth?

  2. Does not the lake of fire ( that was apart of the first earth) involve death, sorrow, crying and pain? If yes, how can this be apart of the New Heaven and New Earth when in Rev 21:4-5 says there is no more of this going on in the New Heaven and Earth because the former things are passed away and All things are made new? :wink:

#102

And what did you think of my answers to this that I have already long since presented, multiple times? (Because I have certainly already done so, including in this thread.)

You should have noticed (multiple times already) that I could have (rather simplistically :wink: ) appealed to those verses, especially in conjunction with 2 Peter 3:13 (which I have also already discussed in contextual application here, along with its preceding verses), to prove that sooner or later the lake of fire itself must cease to exist–precisely on the ground your yourself recognize, that it is part of the old earth which is remade to a new earth where, as you yourself recognize, “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.”

But rather than call a triumphant coup right there and pat myself on the back, I was willing to go on and allow that the lake of fire still was in effect after this point. So, you should have read my extensive discussion of those points already (including the verses you brought up). Let’s take a look at what I have already answered, and you can decide if you disagree with me or not on the lake of fire still existing notwithstanding these verses.

Let me know when you’re ready to comment on what I’ve already written, in detail, about these verses.

#103

Just answer the questions, please. :wink:

#104

Meanwhile, I have helpfully provided the very very very very very beginning of as “simplistic” walk through that analysis as I feasibly can, over in this thread:

On the Final Chapter of RevJohn (“Hostile Witness” version)

You’ll find this a lot easier than trying to read a whole 20 pages worth of careful and meticulous thinking, I promise. :unamused: :wink:

#105

I already did. Several times before. Compare my answers with your question, please. I don’t feel like writing it again, and having it conveniently ignored again.

#106

(The fact is, you have exactly no idea that I’ve already talked about those verses in detail multiple times, do you? I might as well have not wasted my time, then. So why would it make any more difference now?)

#107

I assure you, I did. Already. Multiple times. And thought more about them than you apparently have.

But fine, if you insist on calling such specially emphasized attention to those underlined verses

You mean, the first earth that has now passed away and been remade into something new? Then the lake of fire (by your emphases here) has also passed away and been remade into something new. It hasn’t even been merely annihilated. In effect, it has been redeemed. It is a new creation: the same phrase used to describe redeemed souls who are saved.

Doubtless!

By that conclusion, the lake of fire NO LONGER EXISTS AT ALL WITH ITS PUNISHMENT! And those in it are no longer being punished, but are being consoled by God with the blessings of the saved.

The ironic thing, is that I know perfectly well you do NOT believe the implications of what you are insisting on emphasizing here. The more ironic thing is that I have no problem believing the lake of fire is still operational at this point!

I have already explained, however, what the reconciliation of those two factors is (namely a common mistranslation from the Greek into English). You didn’t pay attention to what I was saying then; I see no reason to believe you will bother to pay any more attention now. You haven’t even paid enough attention to add up the contexts of the portions of scripture you insisted on emphasizing–which every universalist who accepts RevJohn is very familiar with (myself included).

#108

No, you said the lake of fire is literally right outside the (NJ) gates. How is the lake of fire that was apart of the first earth be literally outside the NJ gates in the New Earth? The lake of fire exists, but not literally outide the NJ gates as you believe.

#109

Help me! Help me, Jason! Aaron’s insight is overpowering me! :laughing: <that’s sarcasm, if you couldn’t tell>

Really, A, this is too much. This stuff is old hat to me–which I told you by pm–and which you apparently think I’m lying about. I haven’t gotten it from Jason–I’ve been getting what I say just by reading the plain ole words. As I* repeatedly* told you in response to your repeated pm demands for an answer … this all has been covered repeatedly–which fact you are either ignoring or unaware of.

Actually, my guess is that Aaron is unable to take in any opinion that doesn’t agee with his own, so his mind just kinda skips over it, and he doesn’t really see that it’s there–again, that’s not to say you have to agree with it, but you should at least be able to understand the argument that another person is making.

Sonia

#110

Study and pray more, Sonia. I don’t trust opinions, but trust what has been established in God’s word. :wink:

#111

No, I said the lake of fire is figuratively outside the NJ gates. You’re the one hanging hard on the mere physical relationships involved. I’ve been very consistent about emphasizing that the final chapters of RevJohn aren’t primarily about mere physical relationship but are primarily about ethical relationship–especially rebellion or loyalty to God. Ditto the lake of everlasting unquenchable fire.

(For goodness sake, A, why in God’s name would you think I was saying the lake of fire is “literally right outside the NJ gates”, when I write things like this? Complain about what I believe all you want, but at least get the details of what you’re supposed to be claiming about right!)

Meanwhile, do you believe the old heavens and the old earth will be remade into the new heavens and new earth, or not? If so, then follow the logic of your own emphases. If not, then you’re at least going to have St. Paul in Romans to contend with.

#112

Aaron, I’m going to address your responses to my answers to your questions. I’ll take them one at a time, because it’s starting to get lengthy, and this might make it easier to follow. (And I don’t know how much time I’ll have.)

You’re asking for my opinion–you got it. They went into the ‘lake of fire’, now (in the verses I posted) we see them going into the city. In order to go into the city they it is necessary that they have washed their robes. (You know where that verse is by now, surely!) Washing robes is, in my view, the same as repentance. I have that understanding because I know that throughout the scriptures “uncleanness” is representative of sinfulness. If you don’t already understand that as a scriptural concept, I suggest you do some word studies. A few to start with would be “unclean”, “defile,” “filthy”, and you may find more as you go.

Whether they leave the lake of fire or not is debateable, but it’s pretty clear that they are entering the city–and as I have said before (more than once), my view is that the City is a representation of the Church of the Saved, i.e. to enter the city is the same as “becoming saved”. I explained my reasoning on that point that pretty explicitly before, so I’m not going to scrounge up the refs again for that. The people already saved are already in the city–they are the city, the bride of Christ–the only people needing to “enter” the city are those who are not yet saved. (Again, see my previous post for scripture refs.)

Sonia

#113

Aaron, I say this in love, but you are really embarrassing yourself. I’m pretty sure most ECTer’s would not want you representing them.

#114

A, I hope that I will always study and pray, more and more… I never said you should trust my opinions–and indeed, my trust is not even in my opinions–my trust is in God, but it would be well for you to realize that your own opinions are not “God’s Word.”

Sonia

#115

No, I asked where in the bible…not your opinion. Your whole view relies on them leaving the lake of fire ( which you have failed to show in the bible where this happens) Therefore, they who leave the lake of fire must of repented to be able to leave, No? If so, these people are already saved and don’t need to be evangelized. Explain.

#116

Aaron,
I showed you where in the Bible. The kings of the earth come into the New Jerusalem here:

Rev 21:24-26 By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it, and its gates will never be shut by day–and there will be no night there. They will bring into it the glory and the honor of the nations.

Did I ever say that they leave the lake of fire? I don’t think I did, if so, it was mistakenly. My view has nothing to do with whether they leave the lake of fire or not. I’m agnostic on that point.

I don’t follow you, can you rephrase that?

Sonia

#117

Isn’t it terrible, Aaron, that we will go on forever and ever miserably confused and firmly dogmatic in our beliefs, persuading our fellow inhabitants in the sea of sulfur that God will eventually save us all because he still has room for us in that big ole heart of his? Poor God, never quite getting it through our thick skulls that we’re utterly disgusting to him and he never wants to see hide nor hair of us again. But we’ll never be convinced of that, never understand his brazen face of hate, never stop believing in his supposed goodness, because it’s simply impossible for us to turn around and repent.

But I guess even God can’t be happy in the end. :confused:

#118

Were done. Go play with your kids. Have a blessed night. :wink:

#119

Really, thats funny… you PM this a couple of days ago:

I think your behavior is embarrassing, Justin. Most people would call you a hypocrite, but I’m not your judge. :wink:

#120

:laughing: I wish I were so free … but other things than play are needing my attention!

You have a blessed night, too,
Sonia