I think what Moo is saying here is that increasing numbers of Jews will be saved, until in the last days “all Israel” currently alive on earth will be Christians.
Sonia
Thanks Sonia, I think you’re right, in that case, I disagree! I don’t think Paul was thinking just about future Jews around when Christ returns. I’ll edit my previous post.
Sure, that sounds reasonable.
I think he is trying to imply this limits the overall scope of the reconciliation? However, in order to be saved you must be reconciled, those reconciled will ultimately be saved. i.e. they’re intrinsically linked and can’t ultimately be separated. Col 1:22 is simply showing us this link between Christ & reconciliation, not limiting who is reconciled, otherwise it would be saying the only people ever reconciled were the Colossians alive at that time.
Rom. 5:10 seems even stronger, “… while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled…”, i.e. since everyone has been God’s enemy, it’s at least possible that everyone could’ve been reconciled!
Rom. 11:15 “For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?” I definitely don’t think “the world” is a subset of humanity here, as everyone receives “life from the dead”!
2 Cor. 5:19 “… God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ…” Again I don’t think “the world” can be just a subset of humanity here, because as far as Paul knows he is being an ambassador (v20) to everyone (as even Calvinists usually admit we won’t know who the elect are until Judgement Day).
Eph 2:16 again this show that the reconciliation is brought about by Christ. Interestingly in the previous verse, “His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace”. Isn’t this saying Christ has made one new humanity? That we aren’t left with two humanities (reprobate & reconciled)?
How can people reconciled to God not be saved, without grossly distorting & diminishing the definition of “reconciliation”? Isn’t the fact that God extends His “reconciliation” beyond our normal expectations to everything, suggesting that the “reconciliation” is actually deeper & wider?
I agree with his words but not with what he means by them, because I think everyone will one day be in Christ (it’s a little tricky as I actually think this is a “now & not yet” concept, i.e. that Christ has already reconciled everything to Himself, it’s just not actualised/realised). I think that God brings true peace to the entire universe, by first bringing true peace (salvation through Christ) to everyone.
It’s frustrating as Moo wants to extend the scope of “reconciliation” but at the same time decrease it’s depth, at least for some of the people it’s being applied to. i.e. I think he ends up with inconsistent, or at least fragmented, definition of “reconciliation”.
I agree.
As far as I can tell, Phil 2:10-11 is quoting Isa 45:23b. Interestingly in the ESV it reads, “To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.” How is it possible for someone in rebellion to swear allegiance to Christ? Even if Moo thinks that the ESV incorrectly translated that verse, doesn’t “confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” sounds like a confession, something genuine from the heart, not just lip service under pressure from God? e.g. 1 Cor 12:3b “no one can [genuinely] say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit”. Unfortunately, I don’t know much about translating Hebrew, but even simplistically looking at other occurrences of תשבע (H7650) it seems like the word is much stronger than a mere forced acknowledgment of fact, by physically subdued people?
Similarly Rev 5:13, "And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!” or Ps 86:9 “All nations whom God has made * will come and worship before Him”, I think it strengthens the case that “confessing Jesus as Lord” is genuine praise/blessing/worship, not forced lip service. I guess I could turn the question around, what from the passage makes Moo think it’s not a genuine confession?
Of course, God is completely glorious in-and-of Himself and requires nothing from us. However, I believe He entirely deserves everyone’s complete (heart, mind & body) praise. Therefore, if even a single being is still in rebellion (even if “only” in their mind & heart), then God isn’t getting everything He deserves… 
Yes, Christ will bring everyone to eventually submit, but it will be the same kind of submission Christ gives the Father. In this way everything is fully reconciled and fully in submission, without diminishing the scope or depth of either concept, and God ends up getting genuine praise from everyone, as He deserves.*
To which we could add that if Moo wants to go the “subjugation” route, then he is left with no way to coherently explain the 1 Cor 15 submittal of Christ to the Father once He has submitted all things to Himself so that God may be all in all. The kind of forced subjugation of continuing rebel hearts cannot be the Son’s submittal to the Father; nor does God anywhere else accept such mouth-submission as being real but insists rather on worship in spirit and in truth (swearing to punish such hypocrites until they really submit to Him instead of faking it); and besides that kind of forced subjugation would be easily achieved once Christ begins directly reigning. There would be no further work and process involved, whereas Paul indicates in 1 Cor 15 that there will be a continuing process until the submittal is complete.
My teacher wanted to go the route of ‘reconciling’ sin-stained Nature last Sunday, too, when covering this verse; but it doesn’t fit the exegesis. Paul is talking about personal entities in Col 1 (as Moo admits the language implies), and the term reconciliation doesn’t show up in Romans 8. The term only is ever used in regard to personal entities–only personal entities need reconciliation with God, even though Nature also needs God’s salvation from being abused by sinners!
Ok, to start with, as you can see there is no mention of faith in the next verse! 
Secondly I’m yet to see a good case made for Paul seeing faith confined only to this life.
This is actually encouraging, Jesus is immensely patient & merciful even to the the worst of sinners! Yes, it mentions the means by which we receive life with God but EU’s strongly affirm that belief in Christ and receiving are essential. Just because there’s only one bridge across the river, doesn’t mean everyone won’t cross it eventually! Just because it says “only those who cross the bridge will get to the other side”, doesn’t imply everyone won’t cross the bridge.
Yes, some people believed whilst He was on earth. However that doesn’t prove that others didn’t believe later on. We know they did! Actually I’m guessing over 99.999% of believers have only believed since the Ascension!
Yes, believers can especially see that God is Savour. That doesn’t mean God isn’t the Savior of those who can’t see yet.
It isn’t? God is all-powerful, all-knowing & immensely patient, as Job 23:13 puts it, “But he is unchangeable, and who can turn him back? What he desires, that he does.” or Isa 14:24, “The LORD of hosts has sworn: “As I have planned, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand,”
Sorry not convinced at all. One of the huge advantages of EU, over Calvinism & Arminianism, is I don’t have to deny God always wins and gets what He desires and deserves.
If only some accept, isn’t that still confining salvation to a select few??
See earlier comments about Rom 11:32, basically just because Paul talks about Jews & Gentiles, doesn’t imply he’s only talking about some of each in that verse.
Glad you acknowledge the link to pray. Where is the strong evidence that God doesn’t want us praying for certain people?? In fact, the people we normally won’t pray for (enemies, people persecuting us, subjugating us), are explicitly included! We don’t need to pray for each person by name, in-order to pray for everyone, it can be wide sweeping prayers. e.g. I often pray for the Australian Government to govern fairly, that’s perfectly legitimate as God knows everyone in the Australian Government.
That sounds like you have a preconceived idea that it’s “untenable”, therefore any passage that supports it must be not be literal.
Deep breathe! No, I don’t see that I’m “isolating” these passages from the rest of Paul’s teaching. And again I don’t deny “the reality of judgment and wrath for all human beings and that escape from that judgment comes only via a vital connection, by faith, with Christ”! The only thing I (C.S. Lewis & as far as I know, many Church Fathers, even Augustine) deny is that God is limited to granting people forgiveness in this lifetime.
I also disagree with Hick but I disagree with Moo too. Yes, humankind is in a desperate condition but the rescue plan is more than adequate!
For starters look at Phil 2:10-11, Rev 5:13 & Ps 86:9.
I disagree, two of the above are written by Paul 
Election is for a purpose and it varies. For example, Israel were the “elect” to bring God to the nations, then they were cut off for awhile so others could be “elected”, the Gentiles. Paul explains this is so we know it’s a gift, not something to earn. It’s not so He can have someone miss out. Israel didn’t. Rom 9:22.23 start with “What if”, Paul isn’t necessarily saying this is what happens. You just said Paul was “combating in the Pastoral letters a heresy that confined salvation to a select few”! Even if you don’t accept that here, there are numerous examples of God destructing things before restoring them, take Christ on the Cross for example, or Jonah (2:6) who even when to the pit for aionios (which you said meant everlasting??) before God rescued him only 3 days later.
The fates there are “Life & Death”, not “Life & ECT/P” and we know since than God has revealed He has defeated death, turned it into life, so we should therefore now expect the fate to be “Life & Life”! 
I usually don’t go to Judaism for guidance, unless through NT interpretation, i.e. in light of Christ. Anyway, I’ve also been told that Judaism varied (varies still?) on duration, with some seeing punishment as short as 11 months!
Unfortunately I haven’t read A. Oepke (footnote not clear to me either), so I don’t know about that, however, I know many ideas in the NT were foreign to Paul’s Jewish heritage!
Assuming you’re right that it was a completely new idea (which I’m skeptical about, as I see promises of “all nations”, including people previously cursed/enemies, coming to God in the OT), you’d have to show me where he continues to explicitly asserts something contrary, as I haven’t come across that yet.
Again I’m not denying Hell is real and some people will end up there, it’s just I also see Paul saying that’s not the conclusion of the story, universal loving praise of the Father is.
He dismisses universalism as a condition in which there are a few aberrant verses that taken by themselves seem to fit with universalism, but those verses are out of context with the rest of scripture and need to be brought in harmony with them.
At first I thought this is what I saw as well, but I slowly realized that it was my interpretive lenses that was forcing me to see it in that way. Why do I say that. Well, as I’ve gone over the Old Testament again with a keen eye on God’s dealings with man in regard to punishment, reward, judgment, mercy, wrath, compassion and the like, I’ve noticed some themes:
- God is very merciful
- God’s wrath doesn’t last forever. He pours it out and it ends - there is an end in site and repentance is desired.
- God’s justice is closely linked with redemption:
- God really loves his creation (his lovingkindness endures forever)
Walking away from the Old Testament I see a God who hates sin and loves man. I see that God is slow to anger and abounding in lovingkindness. I see a God who is serious about redemption when it comes to his people, who forgives over and over and over and over and over and over again. He also shows mercy to people who don’t come across as being super deserving of it (I know that technically they don’t deserve it. I’m talking about appearances). An example would be Lot. When the angel warns him quite strongly, he hesitates. The angel then grabs him and his family “because the compassion of the Lord was upon him”. This is the Lot who offered up his daughters to be raped, whose wife turned back and whose daughters committed incest with him. I’m not putting myself above them, though. It’s just an observation. So this small group of people who are called “righteous” by God, very loosely I might add, were shown mercy by God because he is compassionate and He loves us. He is not eager to drop the fire.
As a result, when I get to the New Testament and Jesus says, supposedly, “eternal punishment” it is a HUGE non-sequitur. It simply doesn’t follow. It is actually the eternality of the wrath that doesn’t fit the overall flow and meaning of scripture. That is now so clear that I’m surprised that I never saw it before. These UR texts fit quite well with the flow and meaning of scripture. However, there are other scriptures that still leave questions so I think that a tension continues to exist in the word and we have to live with it, I think. Of all the 3 views, I think that ECT fits the worst with the whole of scripture with many questions unanswered and many contradictions, in my opinion.
I totally agree.
And even when he drops people into the fire, we hear about them later on… Thanks for the example of Lot, it’s a good one.
Jesus reinforces patience & forgiveness too, so even within the NT, it should be a surprise to find ECT/P.
Actually, Paul does use the word “hades” just once in the NT:
1 Corinthians 15:55 “O death, where is your sting? O Hades , where is your victory?”
Hades refers to the grave. “O Grave, where is your victory?” Christ has won the victory over death. The time will come when there will be no more death!
You’re right! That’s embrassing for a scholar of his creditials 
Alex,
I’m glad you’re reading Moo, I think you’ve raised some good questions but I also think some of your criticisms haven’t engaged with his arguments properly. So commenting on your comments in chronological order.
But if something continues “postmortem” why would it end?
I agree he should have spelled out why, and it would be that Adam’s Original Sin is permanent, unless you’re an Arminian.
No he means intensified.
This is a legitimate question but the explanation Moo offers (which I agree with) is that death, and it’s consequences of eternal punishment begin with Adam. These consequences are inflicted on us all from our beginning and the increase to full blown Hell, something we desire and deserve were it not for God’s mercy. This leads into one of your following comments:
You’ve said before that given enough time people will come around but this goes against Genesis 3 and Romans 1. Adam and Eve lived in God’s presence yet choose rebellion and the Apostle Paul says we get what we want, permanent estrangement from God. Tangentially if Universalism is true why didn’t God say in the garden, look if you do eat from the tree “it’s ago, you’ll be back?” (With this line of argument Universalism takes the sting out of Original Sin.)
So a universalist reading is more honest? No offence but I doubt that.
Not many, unless you want them to be!
Moo like many traditional scholars (Bauckham etc) is a bright man so it’s interesting that “modern developments” in Greek haven’t been large or significant enough to sway his or the wider scholarship.
To be continued as I read the rest of your posts. Sometimes I disagreed with your posts but didn’t think you were cutting corners so I didn’t comment, only where you dodged something in your criticism of Moo.
Alex,
Continuing my off the cuff commentary on your commentary:
But there’s no NT evidence for “belief/faith” after death.
Sure but it certainly doesn’t leave any space for “postmortem salvation”
BTW you’ve used the expression “postmortem salvation” alot lately. I’d be really interested to see what biblical evidence there is for it (not “all” passage but actual “those who have faith after death” passages) or how it’s historically distinct from the idea of purgatory.
You’ve introduced an artificial and unnecessary distinction between means and quantity.
“Damaging” sounds uncontrolled or unjustified, traditional theology holds that eternal punishment is justified and appropriate to the original sin.
Yes and no, don’t leave at that because we were in Adam when he choose on our behalf. Also the Holy Spirit regenerates us and gives us faith, we couldn’t choose on our own so in a sense we are involved in both and both are out of our control.
I wrote an essay on that verse, so I’ll pass it on to you sometime. Suffice to say “all Israel” means well “Israel.”
Gentiles = all nations.
It’s important not to buy into replacement theology and over spirtualize Israel. (But you may not be a fan of replacement theology (the church replaces Israel) so I may be jumping the gun here.)
He’s upset for all Israel but being a good proto-Calvinist (all the best of Calvinism comes from Romans) he knows only a subset (the elect) will be saved.
You feel that it’s a gross distortion but that doesn’t mean that there can’t be a general reconciliation and salvific reconciliation. (We had a similar discussion about salvific grace and common grace.) This line of reasoning is one the key reasons that keeps me from Universalism, it makes all activity, because all will be saved, part of God’s saving activity and therefore good which means all evil is part of God’s saving activity. (I want to follow this tangent up with you in person sometime.)
That’s a bold historical claim to making!
That doesn’t make sense. Election means the selection of a group instead of others, how could it not mean that?
Because God made us to lovingly worship Him, which also turns out to be the best thing for us. Therefore He will continue to pursue & punish us until we repent of our rebellion and believe.
I’d add that there’s a pattern throughout the Bible of punishment followed be restoration, so as Hell is definitely punishment, a restoration is expected (especially as I see it’s promised in places 
).
Well I guess it’s “permanent” until they respond to God’s grace, like you & I have.
I would agree then, if he means intensified.
We both agree punishment from God has begun, and that it increases in Hell. My criticism of Moo is that he appears to deny non-believers have any joy in this life, which seems to neglect common grace, and makes it sound as if believers don’t suffer (or get discipline) now in this fallen world.
Sorry not sure I understand you here, but I’ll have a try. It’s not just “time”, God’s wrath is a complex punishment. Sure, God gives all of us what we want for awhile, until we (with the Spirit’s help) come to our senses in the pig pen.
With that reasoning, couldn’t you say that God saving anyone “takes the sting out of Original Sin”? Anyway, I think God didn’t just say, “You’ll be back”, because they couldn’t just come back. They had to actually realise how bad sin is, that they couldn’t fix it themselves, and that they really needed God.
LOL, sorry that’s not at all what I mean. All I meant is Moo is humble enough here to admit that the OT isn’t filled with clear material about the afterlife. I don’t think it is either. It’s just sometimes people are too authoritative about passages (e.g. when someone tells me they completely understand all of Revelations, I cringe).
I honestly haven’t tried counting and dividing them up, as EU doesn’t rely on them being about 70AD.
How long have the DSS been easily accessible? It takes time to overturn tradition (particularly when it’s tied to religious beliefs), as you no doubt know being part of a large & old institution
"]Publication of the scrolls has taken many decades, and the delay has been a source of academic controversy. As of 2007 two volumes remain to be completed 
Thanks for the feedback. I honestly haven’t been trying to dodge anything, just didn’t want to make my initial posts too long. Although happy to clarify/expand points where I haven’t addressed things adequately.
Thanks for the helpfuyl review, Alex
Just pulling you up on the claim that “just because something continues postmortem, doesn’t imply it will never end.” which isn’t a sufficient criticism of Moo. You may have additional reasons which you’ve outlined above but that particular cricitism as it stood wasn’t sufficient.
Good summary but I don’t see Moo denying common grace, it might be fair to say he doesn’t emphasise it in this article.
Adam and Eve, weren’t in the pig pen they were in the father’s house, they had all the time in the world to enjoy obedient fellowship with God but for reasons that are a mystery choose disobedience. What chance is there for someone bound up in their own disobedience and seeking what we truly want; rebellion, in finding God? Secondly In Romans 1 it talks about people getting what they want, but if it’s only a for a relatively short period (two million or so years) why doesn’t it say so?
But the fact of the matter is that if God was to truthful, they would be back, sure they’d be a short detour. Why bother preventing them from eating from the tree of life and making a big deal of Original Sin if it was completely reversible? (Note carefully I’m not saying Universalism makes particular sins better, any theological position runs that danger, I’m saying at this point in Genesis.)
I still don’t think its case of honesty, who wouldn’t admit there aren’t many proof-texts in the Old Testament about the Resurrection. As for being authoritative, there are Universalists on this forum who make authoritative statements about passages. I think it’s OK to be certain, changing your mind is a complex process.
Sure theological bias plays apart, that’s why I’m not convinced by some of the newer minority Universalist arguments about translation, there’s no evidence that they are any free-er from bias then the the traditional scholars.
(I’ll follow up the disappearance of common grace and general reconciliation and the consequences of that with you some other time in person.)
Is there evidence that there’s not? We know believers continue believing. We know God continues sustaining non-believers. We have promises of universal loving worship. We have the revealed character of God who never gives up on even the 100th sheep. We have an established OT pattern of God using punishment to bring about repentance. We have passages that say God’s attitude doesn’t change, and given we know He’s loving & patient now with everyone with common grace, shouldn’t we expect that in hell? We even have a few verses such as Matt 12:32 (that in De Civ. Dei, xxi. 24 Augustine at least thought allowed it), 1 Cor 3:15 & 1 Peter 3:19, which suggest it.
Sorry I don’t follow?
One of the reasons I’ve used the expression a lot lately is that for people (e.g. Moo) it appears to be the only reason they don’t accept the EU interpretation of some passages.
Hopefully the above will serve as some evidence.
Purgatory, as far as I know, is the postmortem sanctification of believers how aren’t yet Saints. Postmortem Salvation is only for non-believers, although it may use similar educative punishment. Given Augustine talks about someone who was “lost”, I take it that person was a non-believer, hence the reason I think he allowed postmortem salvation (possibly in addition to purgatory, but I haven’t checked this).
It’s a very helpful distinction, for example:
If I said, “Only people given train tickets will be allowed on the train. How many people will go on the train?” The answer should be, “I don’t know”, not “Well I saw 10 people with train tickets yesterday, so only 10 people will be on the train.”
Hopefully you see my point, yes we know that you must believe and yes we know some people believe now, however, that doesn’t tell us the ultimate total number of believers.
Therefore passages, which talk about the need for Jesus, the need for belief, the coming judgement, are all part of the means, they don’t actually restrict the final outcome (unless you can 100% rule out Postmortem Salvation, which I’m not convinced you can).
Moo used the word “damaging”, which is why I used it here. Punishment may well be justified, however, you still end up with a theology where:]everyone was perfect (sans Creation)/]
]everyone was at least very good (pre-Fall)/]
]everyone -excluding God- became evil (Fall, Adam’s work)/]
]some people become perfect but many people become eviler (New Creation, Christ’s work)/]
No offense, but to me this makes it look like Christ wasn’t powerful enough to restore everyone that Adam damaged, and so you end up with a mixture of perfect people & eviler people.
EU:]everyone was perfect (sans Creation)/]
]everyone was at least very good (pre-Fall)/]
]everyone -excluding God- became evil (Fall, Adam’s work)/]
]some people become perfect but many people become eviler (New Creation, Christ’s work)/]
]everyone becomes perfect (completion of New Creation, Christ’s work)/]
Christ restores everyone that Adam damaged, and to a greater level of goodness (& no evil people).
I agree, it’s a complex interaction of the Holy Spirit and our will. I also think that because we all choose to sin, we are confirming Adam’s choice, so I can’t just blame him.
It would be interesting to read it. So “all Israel” doesn’t mean all Israel, just a subset of Israel? Is that subset, just the members of Israel when Christ returns or is it something else? As I said with Romans 9, I think Paul isn’t taking about the believing subset, because why would he be concerned about them? Therefore if he talking about the non-believing subset, doesn’t that mean all the non-believing Jews will end up saved??
Fair enough, although just because Paul talks about the relationship between Jews & non-Jews, I don’t understand why that rules out him talking about all Jews & all non-Jews? Especially as Paul talks about all Jew & all non-Jews falling short of the glory of God & therefore deserving wrath.
I wasn’t meant to going do that road. I admit I was really struggling to articulate what I meant, and will just delete that sentence as it doesn’t even make sense to me now
Why is he stressed at all then, because aren’t they already guaranteed entry into the Kingdom?
Please define what general reconciliation is, and show me a dictionary that defines reconciliation in that way?
My understanding was the forgiveness & reconciliation are intertwined, can you have general forgiveness and salvific forgiveness?
There are some similarities, but I think it’s even more problematic.
I would love to follow this up. See if this helps: God makes all your activity, because all of you will be saved, part of God’s saving activity and therefore good which means all evil in you is part of God’s saving activity… ?
I’ll admit I don’t know as far as I would like. As soon as I can I must compile more evidence for this, as I think it could help you and others.
Throughout the OT, we see God electing individuals, families, tribes and even the nation, for a particular tasks. These groups sometimes expanded, sometimes shrank. Just because God chose Abraham, didn’t mean He hated everyone else on the planet at that time, it’s just God had a particular role for Abraham.
One of Paul’s points In Romans is that just because God chose Christians, doesn’t mean He now hates Jews and has given up on them. In fact their temporary non-election (being cut off) has resulted in all the non-Jews becoming elect (grafted in). Paul explains that not only does it do that, but it makes it clear to everyone that we don’t “elect” ourselves, it’s only through God mercy that everyone is saved.
Adam & Eve started in the Father’s house, and just like the Prodigal Son, in their ignorance/self-confidence they chose to leave the comfort for “greener pastures”. Just like the Prodigal Son, the the Father gave them what they wanted, bound them to the consequences. However, just like the Prodigal Son, with the Holy Spirit’s help, we become aware of the consequences of sin and our inability to overcome it, and therefore return to the Father who forgives us.
Paul is as precise as he can be, because only God knows how long it will take for the Holy Spirit to realise/actualise His mercy in each individual. “For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.”
Interestingly I reckon if you had asked the Older Brother how long his brother was going to be, he would’ve said he was never going to return (But Father was already on the lookout, expecting the younger brother to return once he’d realised the consequences of sin and his inability to overcome it. However, wouldn’t have learnt the lesson (or it would’ve taken longer), if the Father had said to the younger son as he was leaving, “See you in two years!”).
Like I said above, telling them that makes it harder, it’s only helpful to offer help once they realise (or it’s pointed out) they up to their waste in manure. God didn’t & doesn’t want anyone to choose poison (sin), even though He knows He has the antidote (Himself), because sin is still evil & destructive & completely anti-God.
I’ve already admitted “honest” wasn’t the right word for what I was trying to say. I’ve come across some overly authoritative people, so that made me really appreciate Moo’s graciousness. I totally agree that we all run the risk of being overly authoritative. I also agree it’s fine to be certain, but one can take it too far, especially when interacting with others.
I agree we are all biased, however, if a scholar says “aionios” means “lasting”, they run the real risk of excommunication by hersy hunters and loosing all credability, whereas if a scholar says “aionios” means “eternal” people just pat them on the back.
I haven’t been there, but I agree, the NT certainly teaches that it’s a reality.
I disagree, I’d to see a case for why God would give up on people in hell, especially as He is still interacting with them in other ways e.g. sustaining & punishing them.
Weeping & gnashing of teeth, among other intense things.
That’s only part of “historic view”, there has always been alternative Christian views.
For good reasons, I think ECT/P is inconsistent with the OT, inconsistent with the revealed character of God, and doesn’t take into account all the passages clearly supporting Universalism.
I appreciate that annihilationism rejects ECT/P, however, I still find it less convincing than EU. I also suspect that EU/CU will quickly replace it as the dominant challenge, as it reaches the mainstream through books like “Love Wins”.
Because Paul taught universalism? 
I agree, apart from the mistranslation of aionios.
Obviously I don’t think anyone is ultimately excluded from salvation, however, apart from that, his points here sound reasonable.
Interesting. I’d say in some ways annihilation fits better than ECT/P in the Isaiah passage, if taken literally without regard to genre of passage and the rest of the theology of the Bible.
I object to it being eternal, as God is able to rebuild any ruin.
God is called the God of the ages, therefore there may well be many ages to come. Alternatively, it could be destruction in the age to come, which does last the entire age. Or again it may be even more qualitative, in that it’s destruction uniquely from God for an unseen (beyond the horizon) duration.
I think that’s changing as the DSS improves our understanding of Kione Greek.
Some of the other options would slightly favour EU more, however, it isn’t an issue, as we know God cuts off (or shuts out) people to help them come to repentance.
Well, they wouldn’t be in the presence of God if they were annihilated… However, I do agree with Moo, that objects of destruction continue to exist.
I would say there is a focus of the resurrection as a gift from God, however, I would also point out that Christ’s defeat of sin & death makes it impossible to die again (also I believe existence is a blessing from God, coming out of His intertrinitarian love for the other, which never ceases or diminishes).
Why is it clearly only believers? i.e. eventually all will inherit the kingdom of God. Isn’t it just saying people need to be recreated to exist in the New Creation?
Wouldn’t even those in ECT/P would be alive (sustained eternally by God)?
I agree apart from the usual objection about the mistranslation of aionios into “eternal”.
Except in 1 Cor 15:55.
I agree to some extend, however I find Paul offers some particularly clear and wonderful promises of God restoring everyone that fell with Adam.
I don’t deny that God is just, it’s another matter as to whether the doctrine of ECT/P is. Even if the sin is infinite & the punishment just, EU still stands as Christ did more than enough to cover it.
I totally agree.
Yes, God punishes those He loves and cares enough (being perfectly holy & just, He wants to see everything else become perfectly holy & just) to want to actually entirely rid the universe of sin, by converting all sinners, even if that requires hell to do it.
Yes, we should respond today.
That’s it folks! I hope you found this review helpful and feel free to give feedback
dirtboy: ***“At the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord…”
The scriptures say that no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit. A straightforward scriptural explanation is that every one is saying “Jesus is Lord” are saying this by the Holy Spirit, a statement of faith and worship. Since we know many will die without confessing “Jesus is Lord”, we have a clear, unambiguous statement saying that those who denied Jesus’ Lordship will at an unidentified point in the future, post-mortem, proclaim it by the Spirit. It is your theology that prevents you from seeing this, not the scriptures.
Colossians 1:19 ff – “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.”
Reconciliation, peace, blood, cross. I’m trying to figure out why this text is even in question as to whether or not it is talking about salvation. Reconciliation, peace, blood, cross. You are asking for an example of post-mortem salvation and here is one again in unambiguous terms. Paul is talking about reconciliation so we ask what kind of reconciliation it is. Paul tells us that the reconciliation involves “peace, blood, and cross”. In case we were the least bit confused as to what he meant by this reconciliation he goes on to make it personal in the following passages (context):
“Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of[g] your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel.”
Paul explained to us that the reconciliation he was talking about was the kind that was by Christ’s physical body through death. A process that would make us “holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation” through “faith”. So we have “all things”, “reconciliation”, “peace”, “blood”, “cross”, by “Christ”, through “death”, by “faith”, resulting in “**holiness”**in God’s eyes.
You were asking for post-mortem examples, well, we know that many die without Christ, but since Paul tells us the end of the story we know then that somehow, the rest of these people, post-mortem are reconciled through Christ by his blood on the cross, making peace, resulting in holiness before God. Paul doesn’t tell us all the details here as to when and how, but he certainly tells us the glorious result! The scriptures leave out many details for many different theological categories. Just because Paul doesn’t tell us how it takes place doesn’t mean it doesn’t take place.