The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Matthew 7:21-23

Evangelical Universalism
#1

Forgive the terse-sounding nature of this post, but my curiosity exceeds my time. I am uncommitted currently to the idea of UR. There are many scriptures I need to understand the UR position on. This is the first of them:

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

My thanks.

#2

I understand you don’t have much time, but when you do, would you mind explaining a little bit why this Scripture needs a “UR position”? There is nothing in the context (or in the passage cited) that states or implies that Jesus is decreeing a permanent, unalterable state (especially when we know that he will draw all people to himself, and that God has given him authority over all things, and he will save all whom God gives him). He appears to be saying, “No one enters the kingdom of heaven until they repent and begin doing God’s will. Until then, you can experience what you want, a life away from my presence.”

Oh,and welcome to the forum, by the way! :slight_smile:

#3

Hello, enochlisi, and welcome!

Is there any reason to assume from that text that the “evil-doers” will never arrive at a state where they are able to enter the kingdom?

Most of us here who believe UR is true also believe in judgment and punishment after this life is over. We also believe that the judgment of God and his wrath toward evil is an outflowing of His love – a perfect Father’s love towards His children.

In the context of this teaching, Jesus started off by saying that to enter the kingdom, our righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees. Then he goes on to elaborate what that means.

In this passage, he makes it clear that there will be those who call Him “Lord”, who have performed great things for Him, who think they have served Him well, but they’ve somehow missed the mark. He doesn’t know them – they are workers of evil.

The next bit elaborates further: that it is those who put into practice the words He has spoken, who are building their house on the rock.

Nowhere in this do we find a declaration that those who are sent away with rebuke, or washed away by the flood, can never be restored, healed, brought back from the dead, reconciled to their Father.

Sonia

#4

Thanks for the reply and the welcome.

I need the UR position simply because I know the traditional one. While eternal condemnation appears to be, to some degree, eisegetical in this instance, there are some troubling phrases that seem to run counter to the spirit of UR.

  1. “Not everyone…will enter the kindgom of heaven,” does not have any qualifying statement like, “…until they repent”. The lack of a qualifier is troubling to me. Especially in light of the fact that the immediately preceding parable has no escape for the “bad trees.”

  2. “Depart from me, I never knew you.”

In short, this snapshot that Christ offers gives us absolutely nothing of UR that I can see. Is the UR position to simply call eternal condemnation eisegetical to this text without addressing the lack of UR evidence in this or the surrounding text? I find it extremely troubling that Christ would be so explicit in so many ways about the kingdom and leave something so important out (if indeed He did).

I’m really pulling for UR here. At the moment I think both sides have very compelling arguments. I prefer the UR end, of course (who doesn’t?), but I’m approaching this doctrine as carefully as I would an unknown ticking device. Any doctrine this crucial has the potential energy of an Atom bomb.

#5

The “qualifying statement” I see is “only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” NO ONE, in this life or the next, enters the Kingdom of God without doing the will of the Father in heaven.

Well, I’d say the main point is that UR or ECT is eisegetical to this text, in that Jesus is not teaching about either one. He’s talking about how one enters the Kingdom–only through him. Lack of evidence for UR in this passage is no worse than lack of evidence for ECT.

I’m interested in what sort of evidence for UR you’d like to see from Christ. I mentioned three specific verses in my first post. He, in fact, did NOT leave out UR. Seems funny to me that you’d pull out three verses from all the things Christ taught, and then you say that His lack of explicit mention of UR in these three verses is a problem for UR??? Maybe I’m missing something…

#6

He says “Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord” will enter…”

That’s key to the point he’s making. Bringing in either the idea of never ending hell or the concept of UR is to go outside the scope of this text.

Jesus does not say “Depart from me and don’t ever return.”

Sonia

#7

Yes, it’s certainly a qualifier to the entire set of humanity (which is apparent in context). What troubles me is the lack of a qualifier for the subset of the (eternally or temporarily) condemned. There isn’t even an implication that a qualifier exists.

I’d contend that UR isn’t eisegetical here in this passage, just absent. There’s really not a data point to misinterpret in favor of UR via eisegesis, while that danger certainly exists with ECT (assuming ECT is false).

If you’d not mind helping me out, a quick list of Christ’s explicit mentions of UR would be tremendously helpful so that I don’t have to go scouring (if you have such handy).

If I gave the impression that I’m hinging an argument against UR on these verses, I apologize for not being more clear. These verses are three of the first that I came up against that were conspicuous in their absence of even a hint of UR doctrine. Reading this scripture (and its preceding counterparts) without any external framework at all results in an unbiased, uninformed reader reaching a conclusion at least resembling ECT.

Thanks, Neal.

#8

Thanks for your input, Sonia. I appreciate it.

#9

This doesn’t trouble me, because he’s not teaching about the state of the condemned. :slight_smile: Nothing in the context of Matt 7 (or even in the larger Sermon on the Mount, Matt 5-7) makes me think that this is a teaching on the afterlife; rather, it’s all about the Kingdom of God and how you experience it in this life. I agree with Sonia that “Bringing in either the idea of never ending hell or the concept of UR is to go outside the scope of this text.” Jesus is bringing up “that day” to underscore the importance of our actions in this life, and that they will have real consequences. His famous vignettes in ch 7 all have to do with obedience–Beam in the Eye, the Golden Rule, the Narrow Gate, Judgment Day, and the Foolish and Wise Builders are all creatively expressing the point that outside the Jesus-life, there is only death and destruction. In this life and the next. :slight_smile:

I’d love to help–I really would–but I’ve found this is one of those things that’s better discovered for oneself, instead of potentially disputing someone else’s interpretation (“Does that guy REALLY see UR in this passage?!”). :slight_smile: But, since I already alluded to it in my first post, John 17:2 is a good one.

Of course we realize that reading “without any external framework at all” is impossible. :slight_smile: As I said above, though, taking the passage (especially Matt 5, 6, 7) for what it says and not applying a hermeneutical framework, Jesus isn’t teaching about the afterlife at all.

#10

We disagree deeply then, on this: “Nothing in the context of Matt 7 (or even in the larger Sermon on the Mount, Matt 5-7) makes me think that this is a teaching on the afterlife; rather, it’s all about the Kingdom of God and how you experience it in this life.”

Nothing?

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (This is arguable, but only if the kingdom of heaven involves persecution).

Also, one of the better arguments for UR from this passage: “25 “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” If it is a reference or parallel (possible, but I’m not certain) to the Divine Council found in the Old Testament, this is pretty darn good UR – but only if we’re allowed to see it in the “afterlife” context.

19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. – (Very obviously concerning the afterlife and consequences of our earthly existence, inarguable).

15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. (admittedly arguable)

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ (admittedly arguable)

I’m off. I’ll read replies later. Please, anyone else chime in with responses to the first post as well. I’m taking everything I can get.

To that end, Neal, realize that I’m not on a gotcha course here. I genuinely want your testimony, and I’d appreciate the benefit of the doubt. I’m not going to grab a pitchfork and torch and burn you as a heretic if you simply help me out by pointing me in the direction of verses you personally find compelling.

#11

Hi enochlisi.
I’ve read the thread and like your logic. I regard myself as a hopeful universalist. (I’ve been a committed christian -pentecostal/evangelical for many years but in the past couple of years have taken the opinion that universalism is at least as scriptural as ECT but without the glaring logical incongruencies.)
That said, I’m very much a learner.
For me, the text is simply putting some of those people who claim to have known Christ in this life, and even to have worked on His behalf in this life, in the same category as those who have never come to know Him. I see no greater problem for them than there exists for the larger part of humanity. Those who do not know Christ will not be immediately welcomed in to this stranger’s kingdom.
So the question for me is, when they are told to ‘depart’ where will they go, and what will happen to them next? For answers to these questions we have to look elsewhere.

#12

Enochlisi,

Thanks for your thoughts. I see what you’re saying, but it seems like you’re assuming that when Jesus says “Kingdom of Heaven” he automatically means something in the next life. But all his commands and concrete examples in Matt 5-7 are set in this life. Nowhere in these chapters does he describe “Kingdom of Heaven” as primarily something in the life to come. Granted, it DOES deal with the life to come, but I think it’s a hermeneutical error (or at least an unwarranted hermeneutical assumption) to say that when Jesus says “Kingdom of Heaven” in Matt 5-7 he’s primarily referring to something after this life. Just because WE think of the afterlife when we hear the word “heaven” doesn’t mean that that’s what Jesus meant.

Your “inarguable” examples are only about “heaven,” as if Jesus is only trying to say that living according to the principles of the kingdom of heaven holds benefits for the afterlife. :slight_smile: But we know that he’s in fact saying much much more than that: true life is found (in this life!) by turning the selfish principles of worldly kingdoms upside down and living according to the principles of the kingdom of heaven.

So, I think our difference is in how we define “kingdom of heaven.” You see it as primarily (or only?) something to be experienced in the next life, but I see it as the Jesus-way-of-life which brings immediate benefits as well as eternal reward. And of course my view is the one I think does the most justice to the passage (of course!). :mrgreen:

No worries about the discussion–you’ll have to say a lot of crazy illogical, unbiblical things to get me frustrated. :smiley:

I love digging into Jesus’ words! :smiley:

#13

Neal, this is great. I most certainly agree that what is personally discovered and wrestled with is better.

Hello enochlisi and welcome.

I’ve not been here long, but I’ve already enjoyed this community.

I really appreciate the attitude you have here - you’re seeking truth, there’s a bit of humor, and quite a bit of humility. There are many times these conversations can devolve quickly and I like to see the effort to keep things civil. :smiley:

You have asked what sayings of Jesus are most convincing to us for UR.

I’m coming from a more calvanistic background that holds God’s sovereignty in high regard but denies His choosing all - those God doesn’t choose are “His enemies” in the view I held before UR. So with that perspective; the biggest clincher for me is the sermon on the mount where Jesus is revealing the standard for living.

and

We are called to love our enemies, do good to those hating us because that’s what God is like.

Does this change after death? Is there a time somewhere in the future where this is no longer true of God? I don’t think so.

Now this is quite convincing to one who comes from a calvanist tradition which holds sovereignty in high view; the view that hell is God’s choice for man, not man’s choice for himself. For those from the armenian perspective, these verses probably do not hold quite the same weight.

God bless you in your searching, I’m absolutely sure He will,
-Aaron

#14

:slight_smile: I have just joined the EU forum, and I just want to say how grateful I am to have found you! Thank you all for your gentleness, kindness, respect, and intelligent consideration of all sides of the hell issue. Thank you for keeping this particular discussion online (it’s almost a year since the last post was made). There was so little available to address the question of what Jesus meant in Matt 7:21-23, so this was greatly comforting to me. Blessings on you all!

#15

I am so very glad that I found this forum. Having been a Baptist and having graduated from a Baptist college I used verses such as Matthew 7: 21-23 and many others to scare people out of hell. I still believe in a literal hell; however, I have learned not to think of it as an eternal place of torture and punishment, but rather as a place where the soul is purified and cleansed and made right with God. That is a work that mankind could never accomplish, but I believe that One who could walk on water, heal the sick, and rise from the dead is more than capable of accomplishing His mission of mercy and grace. That mercy and grace and the love of God should be the driving force of evangelism. Just as Jesus asked Peter, “Do you love me?” He asks us the same question. If our answer is “yes” then we must joyfully enter His Kingdom and turn away from the Kingdoms of this World. I have learned to believe that the true mission of Christians is not to scare people out of an eternal hell, but to enlighten folks to the love and grace of their Savior. Our work then has only begun, as it is our responsibility to reproduce ourselves and in that way spread the Good News that Christ has paid it all, and all to Him I owe! Jesus Christ is the Savior of mankind and the Restorer of the universe and whether or not one makes a decision to make Him their “personal savior” will never change that fact. In Matthew 7:23, I particularly enjoyed reading that “depart from me” does not imply depart from heaven and dwell forever in hell. My personal opinion is that most churches today are still using the scare tactics to keep control over the members of the flock and “keep them in line.” My Bible shows Christ as the one that always met people where they were and drew them to Himself through love. Why can’t we do the same?