That is almost incoherent. There are many verses that say suffering for doing good is better than suffering for doing bad and one even says that suffering for doing good will be rewarded with a crown.
But you claim that this is all mysteriously reversed when it comes to post-mortem punishment for sinning: suffering as a result of punishment for doing bad is somehow going to be better than suffering for doing good. Yet, you say I am the one making wild assumptions!
Slightly off topic, but I couldn’t help but think this is basic human nature. If I am punished for doing the right thing, it is almost a badge of honor, in a way. If I am punished for something I know is wrong, it is shame inducing. The key concept here though is what we “deem” as right or wrong… That seems to be different for most people. You know, a freedom fighter in his own mind, a terrorist in the mind of others type thing.
As far as HenP I have no clue what his/her goals are? That is primary why I haven’t engaged, as it seems this person is convinced and isn’t interested in actually discussing with any type of open mind. You know, the guys that come in and say there is a problem, say they want to learn, but shoot down everything and anything to the point where, OK, why are you here? Maybe it is just me, but that is the impression I am left with on HenP.
I’m also new, and have a story of my own around universalism, but I wanted to jump in here because this is something I was thinking about today, in a way.
The fact is there is very little reason to believe that saints are perfected themselves in the next age / aion - in other words, that their glorification comes to an end when they enter the new heavens and earth. It is reasonable to assume that faith in Christ means you enter the Kingdom, but there’s no reason to assume that this means you’re done growing as a person, and that your ‘glorification’ is, in fact, complete.
In fact, I would venture to say you’re not done growing - there is still much perfecting, much growing, much glorification, to do. In fact, the growing is probably endless, because perfection is, admittedly, an infinite concept (one could wax lyrical about the perfections of God and their limitlessness).
The point, then, is to say that, hypothetically speaking, those purged in hell that enter heaven will still not be as far as any saint, who during all that time of the aion were growing ever more in the Lord and their union with Him.
It seems to me that God, a ‘consuming fire’, is in some way by nature a purging, purifying God… meaning that a saint in his presence in the new heavens and new earth will surely continue to be purified - admittedly, not being purified from sin, but being purified towards greater perfection. If there was some sort of scale, the saint would be further in 10,000 years in God’s presence than the one who had to go through 10,000 years of purging.
Well said, Ryan!
And welcome to the forum! 
Welcome Ryan…
This is why I favour inclusive prêterism (pantelism) over universalism… universalism holds to, believes in and advocates pretty much the same post-mortem “hell” as per ECTers aka exclusionists / partialists — the only difference in that collective mindset is the length of duration in said post-mortem hell, i.e., one limited, one unlimited.
OTOH… viewing “hell” i.e., gehenna, as the AD70 historical event of Jerusalem’s destruction by Rome fits Jesus’ mini apocalypse warnings of the gospels and the writer John’s lager Revelation, and removes it from all unsubstantiated ethereal speculations, i.e., said… “hypothetically speaking” etc.
I see what you’re saying, but I also think it is fair to say that the big difference is not the duration, but the quality and intention of the Father’s love in encouraging and helping us to outgrow our selfishness, pride - even if, as with our earthly fathers who train us - it is an exertion or even a pruning.
Yeah I get that… though that is the next concluded step along the process of that assumed position, i.e., the purpose etc. I’m just not convinced in the first place that initial assumption can be extrapolated from the texts that usually are put forward claiming such AND… a lot of that argument seems more philosophical than textual; that is, there are other explanations.
Perhaps it is more philosophical. I frankly arrived at my belief based more on the character of God as disclosed in Jesus, than I did on a particular text.
Just simply pointing out that the big difference is not really duration, though that is of course different, but the intent, and the means. Punishment - what’s the point, really? Training, chastising even, makes more sense to me than beating up on someone.
But you could be right, I’m just speculating.
Agreed… I just haven’t seen any textual evidence to go on and suggest:
That such a thing needs to occur post-mortem — it makes perfect sense ante-mortem, for which there is ample textual evidence.
That hell needs traversing for heavenly entrance… like why? What are the arbitrary cut-off points to where said hell can be bypassed… can it? Where’s the textual evidence for all this etc?
And again… can the apparent textual evidence have a meaning other than a post-mortem universalised hell scenario? — I think yes.
You’ve always made a coherent case, I admit.
Davo, I’ve appreciated your ability to wrestle with specific texts. And I’ve argued with you post 70 dating of some of the NT, that the early church did not read AD 70 as nullifying all expectation of future chastising judgment, and that I think all future warning texts are not convincingly interpreted as pantelist.
BUT given my sympathy with preterist readings of many key texts, I agree with you and Dave that conclusions here are less textual than philosophy based (esp. concerning the previous displays of God’s character). For me that leads to a bias toward eschatological continuity concerning some kind of corrective judgments that would be analogous to what God is presented as centrally using ante-mortem.
Indeed, I suspect most interpretive debates pivot on one’s reading of such general philosophical principles. That includes most resistance to U.R. For despite the “all” texts that we find neglected, traditionalists sense that the more overwhelming texts present God’s plan as ending with judgment and division into the embraced and the rejected.
And I suspect what tips my rejection of that reading, is not that they can’t be read that way, but that more fundamental (philosophical) truths of God’s merciful love, the purpose of his judgments as corrective, the nature of a genuinely reconciling victory, etc are what make me find the traditional bad ending reading as a non-starter.
I find the intersection you guys raise between objective exegesis of individual texts and the influence of more overarching philosophical views of divine character and what makes sense is a very interesting issue.
My thinking is that a coherent and persuasive argument can be made on either ‘side’ of the issue - pre-or-post mortem purification, chastising, pruning etc.
The model I favor, but can’t prove, would be along the lines of GMac’s emphases: that godly character is a result of symbiosis between God and each person. Following that line, it makes it rather easy for me to speculate that post-mortem, God still has a lot of work to do on everyone.
This model works fine with a robust conviction that God IS love and that any work He does with us, even if difficult for us, is done from love, along with wisdom.
The text “God is Agape” is for me the foundational text, and it is my choice to allow that text to inform my interpretation of other passages. $.02
I’ve always wondered what / how a full preterist speaks / thinks of the after-life. It seems one has two options on this front: either pluralism towards heaven, or a pluralism towards annihilationism (that there is no afterlife, we die and that’s it). Or there is simply the traditional options. Can’t really see any other option?
Here’s an interesting Orthodox article, I came across today.
No, what I claim, first, is that you cannot know for certain what is the nature, in detail, of suffering that goes on during this potential aeon for dead unbelievers and how God values it. You claim that certainty.
To me this is the most likely scenario (if universalism is true):
We know that evil people were already suffering when they were alive. Evil people suffer too, you know. They are not living happy, light-hearted, contented lives. All those verses you talk about regarding suffering for evil can be applied for them when they were alive.
And when they die, they, potentially, enter into God’s fire for (limited but long) aeon.
What is the ultimate purpose of that activity? To change them so they can enter Heaven.
So, it is quite logical to assume that during that aeon they are starting to change, starting to repent, starting to weep for everything they have done. And they are doing a lot of those. Those are all good works in the sight of God. And they are suffering as they are going through this transformation. And the more they were evil when alive, the more they are repenting and suffering under realization what they have done.
And by the way, Jesus paid for sins of the world. If universalism is true, “the world” includes all evil people in fire for aeon. Which means that they are not suffering penalty for their sins, since that’s been paid by Jesus. (Don’t talk about Jesus paying only the “death” part, while they are paying the “torture” part of punishment for sins.) They are suffering in realization what have they done, how evil they were when alive. That kind of suffering, which includes repenting, is logical kind of suffering in this scenario, because it leads to change, grows love in them towards God and prepares them for Heaven.
And that kind of suffering God values.
Finally, when aeon is done and they are ready to enter Heaven, something similar or exactly as explained in 1 Corinthians 9 can be applied.
I would add to this that only blind or proud person will say that above scenario is not possible if dead unbelievers are thrown in fire for aeon within universalist view.
Ironically, from the beginning I am saying that this is how I see, as far as God allows me to see. It’s my interpretation. You deny that what you say is an interpretation, which makes you, in effect, a professing prophet of God. And which is a reason why I won’t be arguing with you anymore…
You miss the fact that there is no suffering in Heaven.
That means that everybody’s good works, getting perfected, levels out in eternity in Heaven. If you start thousand years ahead of someone else, that doesn’t matter at all in eternity’s perspective.
But one thing that will remain unchanged is the amount of suffering one went through before he/she entered Heaven.
So, suffering could be the thing that is the main differentiator between resurrected humans.
And as I wrote in previous reply, if universalism is true evil people will be under lot of suffering under God’s fire in aeon, and that suffering, a kind of purification suffering, can be the kind of suffering God values highly.
It’s interesting how universalists here don’t like the idea of “more evil” people than themselves getting higher glory. So there is a limit to how far can God restore things, eh? Wouldn’t restoration, in full meaning of the word, actually be restoration not only of people but of relations within people, where all kings, authorities, men with power, who used them for evil here, get restored as authorities who are serving with love those whom they abused?
I guess I missed that denial somehow.
Did someone say that? I don’t believe that at all; God shows no partiality, the good Book says.
I don’t think I’ll be any less happy sitting in the back of the banquet hall than some ‘bad’ guy who gets to sit up front. I mean, GOD will be there, and what more can a human ask?
Hmm? My thought would be then… if it is eschatological (which is what I’d go with) then by that very nature such applies ante-mortem, period, i.e., this realm is where eschatology plays out, or to my understanding, played out. As I understand it… ‘eschatology’ is about the end of the old covenant world NOT the new covenant world, i.e., there is no end to the new covenant — thus this world (ante-mortem) populates the next (post-mortem) ad infinitum.
As a pantelist I tend to have a bob each way in that I think some of the anti-universalist rhetoric on “all” carries some legitimacy — however, I just DO NOT draw their same ‘embraced / separated’ conclusion from that. For example, they will claim… “all does not always mean all” to which I can agree, BUT, they always leave it unqualified, so I point them to the likes of Rom 3:23 and ask them to show the difference… much to their chagrin.
I too… “find the traditional bad ending reading as a non-starter” but came to that conclusion not through philosophy but fully via the eschatological textual evidence of prêterism — much to the extreme annoyance of fellow prêterists who had difficulty nullifying my inclusive contentions because they were simply using anti-universalist arguments which just never cut the mustard.