The Evangelical Universalist Forum

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

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#141

Ok, Sonia. Lets get an understanding how I read Revelation. Here is a list of events that will LITERALLY happen. It’s bible, and its from the mind of God, Himself. Enjoy:

THE EVENTS DURING THE 1,000 YEAR REIGN OF CHRIST
 Jesus Reigns On Earth For 1,000 Years (Ezek 48:35, Dan 7:14, Zec 14:9, Rev 20:4)
 The 7 Years Of Burning Weapons On The Holy Land (Ezek 39:9)
 The Seven Months Of Burying The Dead To Cleanse The Land (Ezek 39:11-16)
 Building The New Houses (Is 65:21-22)
 The Mortal People Will Come To Worship Christ (Is 2:2-4, Zech 8:20-23, 14:16)
 All The Animals Are No Longer Carnivorous (Is 11:6-9, 65:25, Hosea 2:18)
 Sacrifices & The Law (Rev 5:10, 20:6, Zech 14:21, Mic 4:2)
 Christ And His Saints Ruling With Rods Of Iron Over The Mortals That Were Left Alive On Earth (Rev 2:27, 12:5, 19:15) (Zech 14:16)
 Our King Jesus Will Be Healing The Sick “Mortals” (Is 35:5-6, Is 42:6-7)
 Mortal People Will Be Living Long Years (Is 65:20, 22, Zech 8:4)
 Mortal People Will Multiply Having Many Children (Zech 8:5 Rev 20:8)
 Some Mortals Start To Murmur Complaining Over The Law & Sacrifices That They Are Required To Keep (Zech 14:17-19)
THE EVENTS AT THE END OF THE 1,000 YEAR REIGN OF CHRIST
 Satan Is Loosed After The 1,000 Year Reign Of Christ (Rev 20:7)
 Many Mortals Will Believe Satan’s Lies (Rev 20:9)
 These Rebellious Mortals Surround The Camp Of His Saints, And The Beloved City (Rev 20:9)
 Fire From God Out Of Heaven Devours The Mortals Who Followed Satan (Ezek 39:6, Rev 20:9)
 Satan Is Thrown Into The Lake Of Fire To Be Tormented (Matt 25:41, Rev 20:10)
THE EVENTS DURING THE GREAT WHITE THRONE JUDGEMENT
 All The Dead Are Raised In The Second Resurrection (Dan 12:2, John 5:29, Rev 20:12-13)
 The Books Were Opened (Rev 20:12)
 The Book Of Life Was Opened (Rev 20:12, Phi 4:3, Rev 3:5, 21:27)
 Those Whose Names Were Not Written In The Lambs Book Of Life, Along With Death & Hell Were Thrown Into The Lake Of Fire (Matt
13:42, 25:41, Rev 20:12-15) (To shame and everlasting contempt Dan 12:2)
THE EVENTS AFTER THE GREAT WHITE THRONE JUDGEMENT
 No More Devil (Rev 20:10)
 No More Death (Rev 20:14)
 No More Pain (Rev 21:4)
 No More Tears (Rev 21:4)
 The Saints Will Shine Like The Sun And The Sky (Dan 12:3, Matt 13:43)
 A New Earth With Its Heaven (This Heaven Is The Earth’s Sky) (Is 65:17, 66:22, Matt 5:18, 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 16:17, 21:33,
John 14:2, 2 Pet 3:7, 3:10-13, Rev 20:11, 21:1)
 The New Jerusalem Also Known As God’s Temple, Tabernacle And Home, Comes Down To The New Earth (Rev 3:12, 21:2-3)
THE EVENTS OF THE ETERNAL EARTH
 No More Night On The Eternal Earth (Rev 21:25, 22:5, Is 60:19-20)
 The Glory Of God Illuminates The New Earth (Rev 21:11, 22:5)
 Jesus Is The Lamp (Rev 21:23)
 The Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are The Temple (Rev 21:22)
 The Kings Will Come To Bring The Glory And Honor To God (Rev 21:24)
 In The City of Pure Gold, We Will Walk The Streets Of Gold (Rev 21:18, 21)
 A Pure River Of Water Of Life Proceeds From The Throne Of Our Most Holy God (Rev 22:1)
 The Tree Of Life Will Be There (Rev 2:7, 22:2, 14)
 Peace, Joy, Love And Eternal Happiness (Rev 21:4)
 We Will See His Face (Rev 22:4)
 He Will Be Our God And We Will Be His People (Ezek 37:27, Ezek 37:23, Jer 24:7, 31:1, 33, Rev 21:3, 7, Heb 8:10, 2 cor 6:18)

Glory to God, Amen! :wink:

#142

Hah. What’s really funny about that is that Lewis himself read MacDonald’s fantasy books during his atheistic bent without ever realizing that MacDonald was a Christian. But he said that the atmosphere that he found in those readings stayed with him his entire life. He also said that he never wrote anything without referencing MacDonald. I don’t blame him.

Besides all of that, MacDonald is considered the father of modern fantasy and inspired many famed fantasy and even fiction writers, both Christian and non-Christian. Lewis Carroll and Mark Twain both became family friends and were likely influenced by him (there’s a heap of evidence here that Twain’s most famous work, Huckleberry Finn, was inspired by one of MacDonald’s own books).

I think it’s interesting that as a Christian matures and becomes very advanced in their spiritual life (as I believe that MacDonald was) that they almost seem to become more obscure despite every circumstance that would seem to dictate otherwise. It’s almost as if the influence of the Lord through their life (think wellsprings of living water) becomes more prominent than the sound of their own name. Not that such people would have it any other way. :wink:

#143

I don’t think many others would have a problem agreeing to that list, (except maybe for the ritual sacrifice-giving), but I also think that Aaron just copy-pasted that. Where’s the part about the Revelation beasts? :confused: I’m disappointed.

#144

MacDonald is nothing if not inspirational. :sunglasses: But, interestingly, I was not able to read MacDonald until after I came to believe in UR. I tried a couple times, and just couldn’t ‘get into’ his writing–I guess his thoughts were too foreign to mine for me to really grasp them. After understanding UR, I tried him again, and the experience was totally different–I knew what he was talking about.

I have a lot of fun spotting where Lewis is ‘quoting.’ It’s interesting, too, seeing how he’ll give another form to MacDonald’s idea.

Sonia

#145

Most definitely it is. :smiley: I only ever encountered MacDonald (through a friend) after changing my beliefs to UR, so I can’t compare my own story, but he definitely has some interesting writings. I think that others who aren’t quite to the point of accepting UR can get plenty out of it as well though, especially seeing as how Lewis himself wasn’t a believer in it.

Anyway, sorry to hijack your thread, Aaron!

#146

Continuing on to #3…

Here is where I perceive that you depart from the text. There is no mention of people ‘entering into the NJ and NE.’ Only of people being cast into the lake of fire. I cannot find any reference to “entering the New Earth” at all in the book of Revelation.

Yes, it is clear from the text that they must be in the bol in order to enter the NJ–but I’m not sure why you speak also of “entering” the New Earth, as I do not find that in the text.

I asked you before to show me where it says that one must be found in the book of life in order to enter the new earth. Can you do that? You keep saying “NE” and “NJ” however in the text I only find a restriction on entering the “NJ”.

The judgment in Rev 20:11-15 is immediately followed by the vision of the new heaven and new earth, and the declaration that God would now dwell among men and be their comfortor and healer, and that he is making all things new. This, to my way of thinking, necessarily includes the people in the lake of fire, since I can’t see any contextual–or logical–reason to exclude them.

In your earlier comment you wrote:

That’s a pretty poor picture you paint of “all things” being “made new”! You seem to be saying that the only thing really that will change is that there will be no more pain, death, sorrow, etc… It’s only ‘new compared to how it was before’?! No, I don’t buy that! I am confident that he means what he says and that he really will make all things NEW. I see no reason to modify the statement.

If I understand you right, you believe that the pain and sorrow of the lost in the lake of fire does not count, because the lake of fire is in the old world–which, incidentally, was completely destroyed–and the ‘new’ things only apply to the new world. And I assume you believe that the people in the new world will have stopped caring about the sorrow and pain that their loved ones continue to experience in the (now destroyed) old world. Is that correct?

I agree with you that they will never enter the city without being in the bol… I’ve stated the same thing more than once, I’m sure, (but I’m not going to go look them up and count them for you, sorry! :wink: ) If, as I have previously argued, the NJ is the Church–the Bride of Christ, then being granted permission to enter the city is synonymous with repentence and “salvation”.

To look at it another way: we would say “you have to be saved before you become part of the body of Christ”, right? Yet we also say that “as soon as you repent and accept Christ as your Savoir, you are part of the body of Christ”, right? At least I would put it that way. “Entering the body of Christ” = “becoming saved” even though one cannot become part of the body before one is saved.

Sonia

#147

Sonia

No more rabbit trails.The problem with the view you are parroting is the view doesn’t believe the judgment in Rev 20:11-15 is literal and final.

A word or phrase should only be judged figurative when the literal is manifestly precluded, since, if it were not, the passage would be false, absurd, or contradictory. Accordingly, if we should judge the presence of a figure, we must also judge what kind of a figure is present. And, most important of all, we must decide what is the literal idea which the figure represents.

Yet in the case of Revelation 20:14 (“this is the second death—the lake of fire”) there is nothing in the context which gives us reason to suspect the presence of either figurative death or fire. For example, are Revelation 20:11 (“a great white throne”), 20:3 (“a thousand years”), 20:13 (“the sea gives up the dead in it”) or 20:5b (“the former resurrection”) figurative? Then why should it be supposed that in 20:14 “second death” in the lake of fire is figurative?

It is neither the text nor the context that would lead us to such a conclusion. It is instead only contrary notions, supposed to inhere in certain other passages, that would do so. Yet these are only illogical conclusions, logical conclusions from false premises, or inferential speculations, which, in the nature of the case, can never be substantiated and so should never be believed. Such affirmations are simply contrary to fact. :wink:

#148

May I ask whose view you are parroting? :laughing: It’s funny that you continue to accuse me of “following the teachings of men”, “getting things from Jason”, etc, etc—while I keep assuring you that I am getting these things from reading the scriptures–and yet, you are the one who keeps ‘parroting’ other people’s views, and marketing them as your own!

Look, I googled your unacknowledged quote and found it here:
concordant.org/expohtml/Deat … fFire.html

Only, ironically, you either didn’t read the article, to see what it was really saying, or you’re simply misapplying it’s meaning.

The author here is arguing against the idea that the “lake of fire” is not the “second death”, and that the second death is really a ‘life’. He begins the article by describing the view he is trying to disprove:

The author concludes the article with this:

So then, seen in this light, you are the one who is making the ‘second death’ figurative, instead of a literal death.

Interesting article, Aaron, Thanks!
Sonia

#149

Sonia

In no way am I marketing my last post as my own. Ooops, :blush: I just forgot to put the source of the paragraphs that I used at the end ( which I normally due) I do not have a pattern of marketing other peoples comments and dishing them off as my own ( I usually put the source at the end of the post, which obviously I didn’t do this time.) :smiley: I do not agree with most of the content of this commentary, but only used the content I did agree with ( the figurative vs literal explanation). Anyway, your “Aha, I got ya”, moment does not take away the truth of my last post relative to the view you are parroting. :wink: Leave it up to you to ignore the comments I did use that explain how one should view scripture figuratively and bring up the contents of the article which I did not use and do not believe in. I’m tired of spinning my wheels with someone who parrots another’s view and when asked to give scriptural support of specific questions relative to the view you are parroting…you fail to do so. I should of ended this charade with you along time ago. This is my error I let this continue. You claim to be teachable, but your refusal to see this view in the light of scripture… says otherwise. You have no interest to be taught, but only to hold on to a view that you parrot at all costs…even to the point of compromising the scriptures.

Source: Aaron37 :laughing:

God bless,
Aaron

#150

This is so questionable it’s not even funny. Who came up with this determination that a word or phrase should only be judged figuratively if the literal becomes absurd, false, or contradictory? The literal bearing out of it may not be, while the author did not intend to refer to any actual happenings but create a really well-done metaphor or analogy.

Secondly, I think most people would consider those other things to be figurative. The white throne, and especially the sea giving up the dead in it, and even a thousand years (who knows exactly how long?)

The explanation of the figure of the lake of fire has been explained here multiple times, (much to my delight, I might add). Down to the explanation for sulfur and the like.

Aaron, what was the use of copying and pasting that? Can you not express your own thoughts on the matter? I find it funny that it seemed to flow with the thoughts in your post, down to the questions which appeared to be directed at Sonia and the rest of us, yet it was not your writing style at all.

#151

Aaron, I think you might really like the book The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis. :smiley:

#152

I would, in general, agree with the principle that we should choose a literal reading, unless we have good reason to believe the meaning to be figurative. However, seeing that the Revelation is the account of a prophetic vision, that alone seems to me to be good cause to view all it’s components as potentially symbolic.

What is really bemusing is that in the quote Aaron lifted, the author is arguing a point that Aaron disagrees with–and I can’t help thinking that was one reason A neglected to acknowledge the article, or even give any indication that it was a quote. The author argues that there is no reason to see the “second death” as figurative term for another kind of ‘existance’ or ‘life’ that continues in the lake of fire. He says that those who have been “cast into the lake of fire” (which is the second death) have died the second death–in other words they are really, truly dead, not ‘alive’ and consciously experiencing some kind of punishment.

He sees the term ‘lake of fire’ used symbolicly to represent the ‘second death’, while also not denying a literal ‘lake’ of ‘fire’. (If I’m understanding him correctly.) So then, according to this author, the phrase, “have their part in the lake of fire” means that they are literally dead due to having been cast into it.

It’s a pretty complex article–not an easy read (for me, anyway!) And I did enjoy it. I agree with parts, and disagree with other things, but it really blows my mind that A lifted a quote from that article–surely he could have found a non-universalistic article with suitable quote!

Sonia

#153

To be fair, it is true that Aaron sometimes makes a gaffe. Having said that, we need to respect his point of view and keep listening. Sometimes we stop listening to our “enemies” and when they do utter something true and even from God, we have already dismissed whatever they are saying before they even speak.
One problem with these discussions is that they tend to diverge into side issues and character attacks. The side issues may be germane, but at a certain point, the character attacks seem to me to perhaps be a lazy diversion to perhaps allow us to take a break from the hard work of interpreting the Scriptures sincerely.

#154

Make no bones about it, I look at his arguments separately from how he acts. I just don’t find any of them to have merit, except for Jesus being our Savior.

#155

Fun with The Rev and mushrooms. Give me clarity. Discussing the minutia of a vision only SEEMS like a mental exercise, but it’s straining at gnats. Let Aaron ‘win’ - meanwhile be nice to someone, help the pour, be lovely - because Christ is.

Let the ‘born-again’ thumb-sucking end-of-world types play their song - but don’t dance to it. They have been playing that tune for centuries.

Stay focused on what’s important. Let the chips fall where they may… Have courage.

#156

And how do you know we’re not…?

#157

I don’t know. I only know myself and that keeps changing. :mrgreen: But I know the Good News. Which some may call the latest fad or opinion.

#158

Well, Ran’s got a point.

This is getting rather silly. It’s one thing to discuss what we think things mean–delving into the mysteries of scripture–but when it gets to where this so-called “discussion” has gone…I don’t know if it’s at all profitable.

… when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy statement; and concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God will be careful to engage in good deeds. These things are good and profitable for men. But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. (Titus 3)

Is that kinda like what you’re saying, Ran?

Sonia :sunglasses:

#159

Paul said it better than I can. At the center of his statement is hope. And where there is hope, there is a need for encouragement. This thread is about the destruction of hope - and, in that regard, unprofitable.

#160

That seems rather obscurantist to me. Scripture was certainly written to impart a message and trying to understand that message seems relevant to all who wish to sincerely follow Christ!