Thanks Dr. Wilson for clearing that up. I guess the reason that it breaks down hope in UR because if God’s acceptance is based on certain conditions, theoretically the conditions may never be met. I guess I assumed that Jesus was the answer to God’s conditions. If Calvary was simply a door opened that whosoever might enter in then most of the world is condemned. Unless of course entering that door means something totally different than I imagine.
I get peace in the fact that we have all been consigned to disobedience so that He might show us all mercy. I guess I didn’t think mercy and grace had conditions. I thought that’s what made them mercy and grace.
Your assumption is common that “grace” can’t involve conditions, thus ruling out any variation in how God will deal with persons. But ISTM that the whole Biblical story consistently falsifies that by repeatedly presenting God as treating people according to their response, and as I stated before with many texts, specifying throughout what those conditions are. (Even O.T. Israel knew it was chosen for salvation and rescued by sheer grace, not by any merit or superiority of its own; yet it saw no contradiction with the possibility of incurring God’s painful judgments when they were responsible for not being faithful to God’s gracious covenant.)
As in the reference I cited above, I can’t see where Jesus is presented as reversing this theme, or as the one who meets God’s conditions in place of God’s conditions on our end. I see him coming to save us from our sins, not simply to cancel sin’s penalty. Then, yes, you might fear that God’s efforts to do this might fail, and “the conditions may never be met.” But ISTM that our faith is precisely to be in an all-powerful God who we can trust to achieve what he intends and promises. This confident hope that God will bring all people to God’s repentant conditions is what I see as the view of the classic universalists.
So…what exactly did Jesus have to die for? and what are the conditions for being granted God’s grace?
I understand correction in saving us from our sin? I have stated before that I see God’s wrath much the way I see punishing my son for playing in the highway. I few licks beats the heck our to getting hit by a dump truck. I see it as very graceful and not based on anything that I have done but is based on what He is preventing me from doing to myself. It has nothing to do with God accepting me. I am not going to disown my son because he plays in the highway. If fact to do so would be to stop loving him. As a matter of fact when my kids have messed up the most, I have been the most gracious and most loving. Am I more loving than God?
I gave you all those texts (and I had to exclude a lot to keep it to size) because you asked me to:
I also notice that you don’t counter with any particular argument.
I know the verses you cited; I was brought up on the Bible and have read it a number of times, with care. However, you didn’t explain what they meant to you, so it’s hard to see how they are “counter” to what I am saying.
For example, I already know that “Wrongdoers will NOT inherit the kingdom of God”. I also know how that sentence ends, without looking it up – but I will just to get it more exact: “And some of you used to be like this. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” Obviously, if they were once like that and have been washed, so will the others be. And who does the washing, who does the “sanctifying”, who does the justifying? Not them.
As for “Unless you repent, you will perish” – that is a great example of a text so often taken out of context. Jesus was not talking about any kind of after-death or post-resurrection event. He was asked, “Master, some people died by being crushed by falling stones: were these people worse sinners than others?” Jesus, of course, said that their fate had nothing to do with their sinfulness; he just picked up their fate (being crushed by falling stones) and warned them that they would suffer a similar fate (being crushed by falling stones) if their attitude and behaviour didn’t change. And that’s what happened when Jerusalem was attacked and pulled down by the Romans because of an uprising.
When Jesus talks about “entering the kingdom of heaven” he is not talking about going to heaven when you die. It was already understood that no one went to heaven when they died. Jesus confirmed this by saying that the only one who had gone up to heaven was the one (himself) who had come down from heaven. The same applies to the rich young man: he was talking to Jesus about his current life being of a type that was compatible with the kingdom of God.
Glancing at your OT texts, what do these mean to you? I can’t tell. I do know that the people who wrote those down entertained no concept of afterlife.
I hope you’ll forgive me for all the quotes that will follow. I don’t usually answer in this way, but I’m afraid I’ll lose track if I do it any other way.
First, I want to make it clear that for me this is just an academic conversation as I have no personal need to persuade you that I’m right and you’re wrong (if that even turns out to be the case). However He does it, God will be completely victorious in the long run. And it’s our hearts that God matures, not so much our doctrine. Doctrine will no doubt sort itself out perfectly, and most likely we’ll both find we were mistaken on many if not most points.
But how do you know there are no property rights in the ages to come? I don’t object if you’re right, but I think it’s important to stick to what we know from God’s word. So I mention it for that reason – not because it’s a terribly important point for any other reason.
But about little Tommy not having the opportunity to steal in the coming ages, and therefore his character not mattering – I do have an objection to that. If God wanted kids who don’t steal (or whatever) because they have no opportunity to do so, I think He could have sorted that out from before the beginning. As it is, I believe He wants kids who have the sort of character that does not steal, no matter whether the opportunity exists or not. Just like He wants mature daughters and sons who do not hate or murder – not because they cannot, but because they will not, because they are driven by a heart of love and compassion just like His. Not kids who can’t sin, but rather kids who won’t sin.
I hope you’ll forgive me for all the quotes that will follow. I don’t usually answer in this way, but I’m afraid I’ll lose track if I do it any other way.
First, I want to make it clear that for me this is just an academic conversation as I have no personal need to persuade you that I’m right and you’re wrong (if that even turns out to be the case). However He does it, God will be completely victorious in the long run. And it’s our hearts that God matures, not so much our doctrine. Doctrine will no doubt sort itself out perfectly, and most likely we’ll both find we were mistaken on many if not most points.
But how do you know there are no property rights in the ages to come? I don’t object if you’re right, but I think it’s important to stick to what we know from God’s word. So I mention it for that reason – not because it’s a terribly important point for any other reason.
But about little Tommy not having the opportunity to steal in the coming ages, and therefore his character not mattering – I do have an objection to that. If God wanted kids who don’t steal (or whatever) because they have no opportunity to do so, I think He could have sorted that out from before the beginning. As it is, I believe He wants kids who have the sort of character that does not steal, no matter whether the opportunity exists or not. Just like He wants mature daughters and sons who do not hate or murder – not because they cannot, but because they will not, because they are driven by a heart of love and compassion just like His. Not kids who can’t sin, but rather kids who won’t sin.
I guess this depends on how you define ‘the new creation,’ because we, you and I and all our brothers and sisters in the Lord, are firstfruits of that new creation, and the older I get, the more I hurt. So if the ‘no more pain’ thing applies to the new creation, I’m going to turn in a complaint form to someone.
I’ve experienced a lot of pain and grief in my lifetime, and I like to think it’s helped me and that YHWH has used it as a tool to mold me into the sort of person who is safe to have around others. It’s helped me to learn how to rejoice in Him despite everything, and to trust in his perfect love to make everything work out according to His will. I don’t consider it abuse at all that He allows these things to happen in my life. There was a time when I felt differently, but in fact I can now look back and look around and thank Him even for the bad things I experience.
I hope with all my heart that pain is a useful tool for our good, because if it is not, then God is not good. If He could be satisfied with children who obey simply because there is not an alternative, then He could have done that at one stroke. My belief is that He wants mature, adult children who display and manifest the sort of character that only comes through suffering. He wants kids who are free because He has made them free through the only process that would produce that sort of freedom – learning obedience through the things that we suffer, just as our teacher, our Rabbi Jesus learned. We are not better than Him, but every student who is well-taught will be like his/her teacher.
In the final consummation, all pain and suffering WILL come to an end because it will have done its job and will no longer be needed. However, for those who are NOT perfected in love, there is torment – that lack of love is in itself torment. Growing up hurts, and I think that if there were any way to grow up without pain, God would have chosen that way.
First of all, the Bible is not the Word of God. Jesus is. Therefore not everything in the Bible should be considered as important as other parts – so:
In order of importance:
Jesus’s death and resurrection. This informs everything else, never the other way around. This is the plumbline: anything that doesn’t conform, throw it out.
The other things Jesus did and how he did them.
What Jesus said - further down the list because they harder to remember, to understand, and particularly to translate correctly, thus they must be informed by his deeds.
The meditations on Jesus’s death and resurrection (sermons, epistles, Revelation).
Writings looking forward to Jesus’s death, resurrection and related acts.
Other stuff that provides narrative of YHWH’s interactions with his creation.
God is the creator, the saviour and the healer of everything that has ever existed and ever will exist: he does all these things not through all-power but through the generous giving of himself and his life, forever.
He loves the whole creation and saves it from all threats and harm by taking those threats and harm himself.
Jesus is the true image of what God is like. He does only what he sees his Father do; he does everything he sees his Father do. If we see Jesus doing something (for example, healing), the Father does it. If we don’t see Jesus doing something (for example, causing pain), the Father doesn’t do it.
That’s OK, I’m going to do the same this time! Thanks for your reassuring comments, too.
I didn’t say “no property rights”, I said “no concept of personal ownership”. Already the early Jerusalem believers practiced this in response to the gospel. The need for personal property arises from the presence of death and its relations being in the world. For example, we must have secure houses to protect us from predation, from injury, from exposure to inhospitable weather, and as somewhere to keep our other possessions that perform similar functions for us. The wish for extra personal property arises from a wish for status, which Jesus said didn’t belong in his kingdom, or longer-term security through controlling resources, and that won’t make any sense in an environment where God is all in all, bountifully supplying all our needs, and engendering in us the desire to pass it on to everyone and everything around us.
If little Tommy had never stolen, never shown any inclination to, would you want him to steal once, so you could teach him not to, in order to improve his character? Some people in this world have no empathy or conscience whatsoever: we call them sociopaths or psychopaths. Given that, what is the objection to people being born (again) with so much empathy that harming anyone is unthinkable to them? They, surely, would not need teaching to treat others well, any more than sociopaths need teaching to treat others badly.
I know Paul talked about growing to maturity, but I don’t recall Jesus ever being bothered by it: his concern seemed to be that we all become like little children – like the little boy I saw who, when a butterfly was released, called out, “If you come back, I’ll kiss you!”
Perhaps the complaint form should go to whoever told you you are already part of the new creation. The whole creation has to be made new, you, me, the trees, the elephants and the stars included. Don’t worry, you’ll know when it happens!
Everything you say here rests on the premise that God is all-powerful and could have done it some other way, but for some inscrutable reason decided on the hard way. Yet when we look at how Jesus went through what he did, we see something different. Because he did not save the world by an act of power, but by hanging on a cross, with no foothold, unable to scratch his nose. Oh, but all his blood, his life, flowed out freely, indiscriminately, unconditionally, fully, onto the earth, into the universe. And THAT’s the true picture of YHWH.
Since I said above that the distinction I find Biblical is most consistent with the Bible’s parental analogy for God, your illustration with your son seems right on to me. You sound like a good father who imitates your Father. Your distinction on God accepting “me” vs. mine to not accepting my actions (but loving me unconditionally) seems semantic. I think we’re saying the same thing. The conditions I’ve urged are associated with enjoying God’s gracious blessings are the obedience of a repentant faith. What do you think the Bible specifies as what Jesus had to die for? I see it come from many angles, but when it addresses why Jesus’ death was “necessary” it appears to me that the emphasis is on the belief that this is what fulfilled the pattern that Scripture had prophesied must occur to bring the new age of the Spirit. I.e. it “had” to happen because God said that is the way He would reveal himself and his way. When I look at the ‘hina’ or purpose clauses associated with the atonement, it appears to me that the overwhelming emphasis is on transforming our life, helping us reflect Christ in taking up our own cross, live in the experience of loving and recognizing we are loved, etc. The paper on my page critiquing Penal Substituion cites most of the relevant texts.
Thanks for clarifications that help a lot with understanding your POV on the texts! A few quick reactions:
On my argument being unclear: I was just answering the claim that God now has “no conditions” for how we are dealt with, by citing texts that specify required conditions (faith, repentance, obedience) and warn of painful consequences if unmet. Thus ISTM ‘conditions’ are assumed.
As above, I agree that at least some of these texts warn of consequences in present history (thus you’d like the Gehenna paper I’ve posted on my page). But you see every warning text as limited to conditions and consequences in this life, right? It proves nothing, but of course, very few scholars think this is universally their intent. My thread “Will People be Raised as Immortal Sinners” spends a 100 pages debating numerous texts with Aaron Welch, a very thoughtful proponent of ultra-universalism, as to whether there is analogy or “continuity” in God’s dealings in the Bible’s story and God’s dealings after death. We respectfully concluded that we didn’t agree on hermeneutical assumptions.
For me, it seems implausible to interpret that every warning about sharing in the kingdom of God or eternal life, or presenting conditions such as faith, repentance, and obedience, has no connection to our future experience or salvation. My perception is that the requirements understood for sharing in the new earth before life after death was clear tend to be extended in the N.T. to our positon with God beyond this life. I’m cofident based on the long dialogue with Aaron that you have interpretations of each text that you are convinced fits your conclusion, but I think here the more traditional reading that Jews and Christians were concerned with the fortunes of unrighteous loved one who died is quite convincingly displayed among these many and complex N.T. texts.
As often, Cindy’s impression above of Biblical emphases is very similar to my own, so I won’t add more.
Ruth, perhaps you could amplify on Paul’s language. When he says “It is those who obey who will be declared righteous”, what application and relevance do you believe he intends? Does being “declared righteous” refer only to our fortunes or status in this world, or was this understood as something declared in the future after the Day of the Lord? If one had violated this condition, what consequences are implied? When Paul writes that "God will give eternal life to those who persist in doing good, do you think he only warns of missing some kind of kingdom experience before death?
This ignorant heathen doesn’t know what “ISTM” stands for. Please elucidate.
Please would you take another look at my plumbline, and my hierarchy of importance?
Here’s the question, always: Does this text, and my understanding of it, conform to what I see in Jesus – God in the flesh – hanging helplessly, painfully, forsakenly, on the cross? Does it fit with the life of God flowing out indiscriminately, unimpeded, uncontrolled, and to the last drop, onto the earth, into the place of Hinnon, onto the unrepentant, violent men around him, who killed him, as he forgave them and those who should have been the most eager to welcome him, but instead handed him over to death?
And I have to answer, talk about “conditions”, “requirements” and “warnings” don’t fit. These are little boxes, with little doors on, held shut with little locks. Jesus’s lifeblood spilling out, his abandoned cry, his unreasonable forgiveness of all in his last moments – that is wild, that is free, that is unlimited; there are no straight lines, there are no divisions, the partition between the holy and the profane is destroyed.
That is the most generous limitation I would allow.
What a strange concept! Why would God raise people as sinners? He is the creator; he creates! Just as someone who died lame will leap when they are raised, just as someone missing an arm will be resurrected whole, in the same way we will be born into the new creation whole mentally and emotionally. Jesus referred to “sinners” as people who needed a physician, not a disciplinarian!
The word Paul is using is dikaiosune, which I hope you know already means just, equitable, evenhanded. In the first instance, he is talking about the law of Moses: but is he talking about the justice, equity, and evenhandedness indicated by that law – or about the ritual laws? I don’t believe the ritual laws apply to us, or ever did.
As for the other instances, he is talking about our being declared just by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ – we have peace with God through him; we were made just by his blood. And if you want to talk about “requirements” and “righteousness”:
So now the righteous requirements necessary for life are met for everyone through the righteous act of one person (Romans 5:18)
Looks like he’s still doing it all.
There is only One, and he has not violated any “condition”.
He will give limitless, abundant life to those who persist in doing good. How is that a warning?
Ah, yes. Thanks for reminding me of this. It is so easy to forget when you have been raised on a certain mindset. In light of these things, I still wonder why the “life” resurrection is set against the “judgment” resurrection. It would seem that this dichotomy would necessarily make the judgment resurrection at least temporarily different and in at least some ways inferior to the resurrection of life, even though the goal of judgment is to produce life. I’m wondering if perhaps the same methods that God uses to break us down and re-mold us into his image as believers now, will also be used to break down and mold those within the resurrection of judgment who have not come to trust him by the time of their physical death.
It seems easier to see the big picture of “what”, than the mechanism of “how”.
Sorry, I hate puzzling acronyms too! But for me ISTM = It Seems to Me, trying to pretend a bit of humility
On your “plumbline,” I like your contention for a Christo-centric hermeneutic (liking to think that’s what I also do), but I fear that when you make the standard your own sketch of what Jesus is about, you risk very subjectively just insisting on the conclusions you prefer, by dismissing texts that challenge your desires. So when you say that Jesus’ “warnings and conditions” don’t fit your guideline, I only hear that they don’t fit what you want to think.
When you insist that Paul’s assurance that those who “obey” are justified, is mistakenly affirming that the key is to keep the rituals of Mosaic Law, I don’t agree that this was Paul’s view at all. I see Paul insist that we “are not justified by the works of the law,” which is where he is referring to the ritualistic boundary markers in the Mosaic law (so in my view all three of us agree on that). But when he refers to obedience that is associated with justification, I believe he is referring not to the letter, but to keeping the real purpose and spirit of the law, which he especially thinks of as the great commandment. When he proclaims that “those who persist in doing good” will inherit eternal life, and you imply a reference to Jesus’ blood, I can’t see where you see that at all. Similarly, I can’t agree that all refererence to “the righteous requirements necessary” refer to “the righteous act of” Jesus, as a substitute for a righteousness in us that produces good works. Romans 8:4 seems to plainly say that what God prioritizes all through the Bible’s story comes about because Christ died “in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature.” Thus It Seem to Me that Paul is not only not wrong, but via the plumbline of Christ, he is in beautiful sync with what Jesus himself looked for.
I fall in Bob’s camp (no surprise there right?) regarding the nature of love being unconditional. I agree that God can simultaneously unconditionally love us and require us to do what is right without having to abrogate his love for us.
What makes no sense to me as Bob is laying out, is that Ultra Universalism presents a scenario that those who die won’t receive punishment for their pursuit of wickedness. It seems to me scripture is clear, if they continue in wickedness, there will be no escape. But if they pursue righteousness they will escape God’s wrath. This does not seem to be the case of us in this age. If it is, then no one could ever be saved.
Don’t we all until the day we die pursue wickedness in some ways or areas?
The same can be said of our pursuit of righteousness.
What is the tipping point?
How can we say whether or not we are “continuing”?
So, I guess we won’t know for sure if we will face God’s wrath until we stand before Him in final judgement. Which means I must live my earthy life in constant fear that somehow, I will, in the end be judged to have not sufficiently persevered.
I hear this good news every week in church and it’s the most depressing message imaginable.
"It seems easier to see the big picture of “what”, than the mechanism of “how”. I agree, I think that is the crux of the matter. We can get bogged down in debating the “how” to the extent that it obscures or sidelines the “what.” The big picture is what Paul outlines in 1Cor. 15 when God becomes all in all. If we start from the vantage point of the cosmic “forest” of God’s new creation then we won’t lose sight, and even hope, in that forest which the over analysis of the individual trees(proof texts)can lead to.
I think the interesting debate between Ruth and Bob on this thread illustrates this well. Ruth is trying to focus on the big picture of God’s coming new creation, of becoming all in all through the singular experience of Jesus on the cross and his resurrection. Bob sees what Jesus did on the cross as, “the “path to salvation” …, since the Bible suggests that experiencing salvation’s wholeness involves following his example and taking up our own cross.” Ruth sees Jesus on the cross as taking up all of the crosses of the world–all the suffering and dying–of the whole creation since the beginning of time to the end of time. One view is about “good advice” or good instruction/correction" that leads to salvation the other is good news about what has been accomplished for all of us (the salvation/healing of the world)–a fait accompli.
One searches the scriptures for life and the other sees the Life in the tortured body of Jesus on the cross giving His all to the creation–the tree of life in the midst of godforsaken death.
At the end of the day I am not concerned about debating these issues with believers about how nonbelievers are saved. I am more concerned about all the others out there. The vast majority who have never been or will be believers in the hear and now. The world is full of all sorts of good inspirational advice for people to follow to try to live a better life and secure their destiny in an after life. There is also plenty of bad news (people live that daily) out there too, but what is rare indeed is truly bold, unequivocal good news that is for everyone and everything in all of God’s wide creation. It looks like YHWH will once again have to roll up his sleeve to accomplish what the Jews and Christians have not been able to achieve–being a witness of God’s good news (the accomplishment of Jesus Christ) of the the new creation of all things. Once again we have fallen short, however the faithfulness of Jesus will provide a new way to proclaim the gospel so that even the trees themselves will know it and experience it. Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice; let the sea roar, and all the things which fill it; Let the field be exultant, and all that is in it! Then shall all the trees of the wood sing for joy Before YHWH, for He comes, to judge (save/heal)) and govern the earth! He shall judge (save/heal) the world with equitableness and justice and the peoples with His faithfulness (Jesus the faithfulness of God made real) and truth. Psalm (PS. 96)
Dave,
So then there is no call to holiness; just a blanket - live large, be happy and all will be well. That does not seem to be my rendering of scripture.
There’s is absolutely nothing wrong with saying if you do something wrong you will be judged for it. So God being the judge, I would assume, will do so rightly.
And in my estimation there are degrees of sin. Unlike what I was taught as a young man, that all sin is equal, I now believe - no it’s not. Sin is sin but that doesn’t mean all sin is equal. So while Christians live in a struggle with their flesh, I highly doubt Paul was wrong when he said that murderers won’t inherit the kingdom of heaven. And I highly doubt one can hate his brother and claim to love God as some Ultras (not all) suggest.
DaveF just said that YHWH will judge the world. Judging is saving/healing, not punishment.
Of course they won’t: they won’t be murderers any more, which he clearly implies with the rest of the very same sentence (quoting without bible in hand): “Don’t you know that murderers, and exploiters, and theives, and sexual abusers, and liars won’t inherit the kingdom – **some of you were like that, but **you are washed, you are separated from that, you are made equitable/just through his blood, by the spirit.” In other words, God did it for you, and he’ll do it for them, too.
As Abraham Lincoln said: “Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?”
So if the ‘no more pain’ thing applies to the new creation, I’m going to turn in a complaint form to someone.