The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Final Thoughts on UR

Evangelical Universalism
#14

I have a strong appreciation for that paragraph from Rom 8.

But I also have to note that even in that verse from Galatians you quoted, Todd, the sin precedes the corruption of the flesh.

Corruption leads to sin, too: I don’t deny that. But I think that the scriptural testimony goes both ways. To some degree we only need to be healed. But then we also need to repent of willingly adding to our problems (and to other people’s propensity to sin) ourselves.

All of nature didn’t originally sin, I agree, but was subjected instead to sin and so to corruption. All of which happens within the responsibility and the authority of God–even though it also happens in another way against His will, it still occurs within His will in other ways.

In effect, the innocent (even Nature as a whole) is subjected to futility because God loves even children of His who refuse to be good and instead rebel. The innocent suffer because God loves the guilty, too. What He doesn’t love is their sins and their sinning. But as the highest authority, within Whose authority this has all happened, God won’t quit until He delivers all creation (innocent and guilty both) out of the bondage of sin. God does not subject the innocent to sin’s corrupting effects in hopelessness, but does in so hope.

(Which, as you otherwise note, has to be hope for the sinner, too: the one who sows to his flesh, reaping corruption as a result. Not only in himself but spreading to other persons as well, insofar as the sinner has power to do so.)

#15

Jason,

Yes, that’s how I see it too. Sin leads to corruption. We reap what we sow; if we sin, we reap corruption, which is the natural consequence God has ordained (or, as it is often called, God’s wrath). God’s wrath is a corrupted life. Man’s propensity to sin leads to corruption which leads to more sin and more corruption; it is a slippery slope. Mankind was unwillingly subjected to futility through being created in corruptible bodies. Only through repentance, faith and discipleship can one be saved from this corruption in this life. However, as I tried to explain, death rids us of our corruptible body; when one is resurrected in his new incorruptible body his propensity to sin is gone, everyone (all mankind) will join together in praising God. There will be no need for repentance in the resurrection because all will be raised incorruptible, both the just and the unjust; “in Christ all will be made alive.”

That’s how I see it.

Todd

#16

Todd

Interesting - does that mean you don’t see the resurrections to life and to judgement being post-mortem - or that any of the lake of fire stuff is a post-mortem punishment of unbelievers?

#17

You’re not alone, Todd! :smiley:

#18

I agree with much of your view Todd but believe also physical death carries a transitional phase where man’s physical life is measured (judgement) and Christ is revealed(mercy and healing). What is the length of time with regard to this transitory phase? I don’t know. In comparison to what we know as time on earth this phase may be almost instantaneous. As far as measuring the transitory realm well I am reminded His peace and government shall know no end of increase. And remember the Kingdom of God is within. Is our salvation complete before the last person lives out their life and is gathered back to the Father? I don’t think so, for our patience and wait is the measure of love of neighbor. We cannot be complete until the last man has bowed and confessed Jesus.

Which brings up two questions; “what is time outside of the physical body?” and "is God timeless?’ I guess we got to die to find out … and then it might still take a while. :mrgreen:

Thank God, He is Good with regards to all He does and this I can bank on. Some days knowing more than that, just seems to bruise my brain as it may be evidenced with my rambling message. :confused: :smiley:

John

#19

Jeff,

Yes on both counts. Both of these refer to this life in my view. See the following thread for a more detailed explanation.

[The Hell on Earth View - a subset of UR)

Todd

#20

This is a topic I hope to catch up on over in the discussions we were having prior to BA arriving on the forum to give us (in bits and pieces) his final thoughts on UR, btw. :mrgreen:

I think God’s wrath goes somewhat beyond only natural consequences of sin (both biblically and in logical principle), but leaving that aside for another discussion –

– do you not see why, even as a matter of logical note (not even counting discussion about scriptures testifying, as Jeff points out, to a resurrection to judgment in some contrast to being resurrected to life eonian), I am not as optimistic as you are about the capability of resurrection to result in us all becoming thereby good and faithful people?

Our propensity to sin may then be gone, insofar as that propensity was based on a corruption of our nature; but you just agreed that sin is what leads (and so was what led) to that corruption in the first place.

Consequently, there is a type of sin which cannot be only healed away, and from which being raised in an incorruptible body will not save us (nor insulate us from doing). Even if our bodies have by the grace of God become immune from being corrupted by our choices to sin, our choice to sin may still remain in effect, not only as a continuing possibility but as an actuality.

#21

Thanks for the link Todd - I’ve not read much on this kind of interpretation.

#22

Are you sure there is a “resurrection to judgment”?

The most detailed account of the resurrection is in 1 Cor 15 which includes a limited description of the order of events. Upon examination of this chapter you will notice no mention of a gathering for judgment. On the contrary, it states that Death is the last enemy. Once Death has been destroyed (the resurrection), God has no more enemies. All of His enemies are subdued prior to the resurrection. If, in the resurrection, God has no enemies, there is no need for punishment or judgment. Other resurrection passages, such as Rom 8:18-23, also make no mention of a gathering for judgment.

There is John 5:24-29 which speaks of a resurrection to life or condemnation, but this reference is not speaking of the resurrection in 1 Cor 15; see the following thread for a discussion on that.

[John 5:24-29)

Todd

#23

Todd wrote:

Todd, as a beginning allow me to share in simplest terms that which I believe to be true.
The first death is our birthing into Adam and it takes place at our conception. This is a state of dying to God, to His righteousness, and to His life. The second death which is the reversing process is dying to Adam, his sin, and his death. The process of the Lake of Fire and the death of death is simply [size=150]the filling up with life that which is dead.[/size] And this takes place on both sides of the grave. The second death is also a process, of which I believe the greater part is accomplished post-mortem.

Todd, before I care to continue with how I see the unimaginable immensity of the Lake of Fire, I must ask you, “is there time and events taking place post-mortem with your theory?” After reading the quote above a number of times plus the rest of your message I could not understand the process you are painting, So I query. The best I could garner from your ideas, they seem to amount to a kind of “‘physical death brings instant salvation theory’?”

In addition I might ask what happens to the child who dies after only three years of life?

Thanks in advance of your anticipated reply,

John

#24

Everyone,
Please try to keep the posts on topic with the Original Post (OP). Born Again has challenged several points which are not being addressed.

Aug

#25

I think this is a bit rich to be honest Auggy (as the very title Final thoughts has turned out to be such a misnomer) - the original post asks no questions but just makes a series of statements. As for people not addressing BA’s points - talk about the pot calling the kettle black :unamused: .

Last time I looked this part of the site was called ‘General discussion’ that’s just what this is… a general discussion.

#26

John, it seems I have gotten off-topic for this thread. I will attempt to answer your question on this thread linked below.

[The Hell on Earth View - a subset of UR)

Todd

#27

Cool Todd, I look forward to your response.

#28

FYI everyone, for reasons addressed above, I’ve decided to respond to something Jason said on this thread in the one to which Todd has provided the link. :slight_smile:

#29

So you recognize that it isn’t talking about a full description of the order of events. :wink: The purpose being instead to show how it all ends up and why the resurrection is important as a principle in this.

Consequently, arguments from silence in the text would be proportionately weak anyway; much moreso on a point positively testified to by other texts.

As it happens, though, death comes from life, and so insofar as death is the final enemy it may still be being loved and fondled by those who are alive. The indications elsewhere that Christ continues being wrathful (as well as merciful) to those who despite resurrection still are insisting on their sins, is entirely consonant with this limited description of the order of events.

But I would much rather discuss this in more detail in other threads. :slight_smile: (Which I was starting to do, until BA showed up and people started writing to me complaining about him.)

Which is of no weight as evidence against positive mentions of a gathering for judgment elsewhere, unless those other resurrection passages explicitly state that no one at all is resurrected to judgment.

Incidentally, you didn’t at all answer the question I actually asked (and which you yourself quoted me as asking). :slight_smile:

(But maybe you will in the other thread, for better topical consolidation. That’d be okay, too. When I finally get around to that thread, I’ll try to remember to post it again, if you haven’t quoted it in followup already by then.)

#30

Jeffa,
We all know that statements and questions are often presented in different ways. Born Again is asking for a response to his original posts, which exhibits the real minomer in the title “final thoughts on ur”. I hardly think the title is the true topic while the content matters not. My point being that it’s the subject matter (OP) that counts – not the title.

As for being in “general discussion” it still is a “general” rule that the OP is to stay on course. “General” only refers to posting topics which are not necessarily “affirmative” or “negative”. It does not mean…Ask a question about Col 1 and I’ll tell you how Walt Disney was a universalist.

Lately I’ve been noticing this a bit on the threads and I believe we as a community should try to keep order. I realize that BA has posted quite a few topics but I believe he is relenting on that and truly trying to get interaction on his thoughts.

Now after reading the OP, I would say to BA that one point a thread would be wise. Trying to tackle a whole topic with 1000 issues (like out of context, illusion, perfection and justice) simply is not within the any forum board.

I hope we can all address BA’s request in a manner which is respectful and helpful.

Aug

#31

We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one Auggy :wink:

I really can’t believe this one - Who avoids responding to anything for which he hasn’t got an argument? Jason asks him several questions in a number of threads to which the reply is…'can’t answer ‘cos you’ve written a novel’ :unamused:

Ahh! Yes - the ‘Negative’ forum - the one place guaranteed to be a BA-free zone

:open_mouth: :wink: :slight_smile: :smiley:

#32

Born Again and again (a little free will humor for you),
I think there are some valid points that you make concerning Lydia but I don’t feel they alleviate the burden placed upon the free will positon.

So I’ll take it point by point.

  1. Lydia was a worshipper before God opened her heart.
    Silence is very difficult to prove from. Now it is true scripture informs us that she was indeed a worshipper but it seems that in order for the free will position to be true God has to have NO hand in the matter of why she was a worshipper at all. The position assumes she was a worshipper of God by her own doing rather than God raising her up for his own purpose (as in the case of pharoa).

2)Lydia Heard then heeded
** same point** this point too also ignores the fact that the reason she gave them her ear was because God was already having mercy on her and preparing her for the very encounter.

  1. Lydia heeded as a result of her heart being opened.
    No one I know of is dogmatic on the particular method God used so the point is a bit moot. Of course everyone agrees she responded to the gospel because of God’s opening her heart - hardly a point of debate. This would raise the following
    a) Did she have a choice to believe the gospel PRIOR to God’s enabling her heart (freedom)?
    b) As a worshipper of God she was in rejection of the gospel UNTIL God changed her heart.

Ultimatley this brings us full circle: What was her heart like prior to God opening it for the gospel? Was she Righteouss prior to being opened or was she wicked? I recommend Romans 3 for the answer.

and This statment:
It is a plain fact that there is no mention in Acts 16:13-15 of the direct working of the Spirit of God. To assert that God used that means to prompt obedience from Lydia is to inject something into the scriptures that just isn’t there. What is there, plainly, is the gospel message “spoken by Paul.”
Actually it is a plain fact that there is no mention in Acts 16:13-15 of the indirect working of the Spirit of God. To assert that God used other means to prompt obedience from Lydia is to inject something into the scriptures that just isn’t there…
Thats the point bro, Not even calvinist care if God opened her heart using a defibulator or car battery. What matters to the calvinist is HER HEART WAS CLOSED PRIOR TO GOD’S OPENING IT AND THERFORE SHE HAD NO CHOICE IN BELEIVING IN AND OF HERSELF.

The method is hardly the debate, what matters is can you prove that she before her heart being opened could have bellieved the gospel OR could you prove that AFTER God opened her heart she could reject the gospel.

Sorry to take so long but so everyone here might understand, I was not conceeding your post at all by taking my time :slight_smile:
LOL! You my friend are a legend in your own mind LOL :slight_smile: (I say that in humor).

#33

Gosh I still trying to figure out where BA came to the conclusion there is no support for Universalism when he has been refuted on every point he had and stumped by every counter argument to his ‘decisive’ arguments where he has had to use Ad hominems, straw men, or plain ignoring them, to avoid it this fact. :stuck_out_tongue: