(Note: Long build up to a fairly short question/comment. Hope I don’t make it more complicated than it needs to be…)
When it comes to end times events, I was raised with some pretty specific (and fairly dogmatic) timelines. Given that we are creatures with a beginning in time and that we live our lives in sequences – a progression of events – this need for timelines seems understandable.
Our sequence went something like this:
The Cross – Tribulation – 2nd coming/Resurrection of the Saved – Millennium ruling with Christ – “2nd” Resurrection (resurrection of the condemned) – Last Judgement – Destruction of the wicked – Eternal Bliss with God where sin shall be no more…
Now of course this general sequence can be greatly expanded and details added almost endlessly. And it’s not my intention to discuss or argue any of these details or the correctness of the sequences. Suffice to say that Christians have real disagreements on these things.
Instead, I’d like to make particular note of 2 very distinct kinds of biblical passages: The first are very optimistic and triumphal and without hint of pain or loss or suffering. Very much underlining the Total Victory of God, through Christ.
The second group of texts can really make one squirm; they describe the wrenching anguish of those who for all intents seem to be “caught in God’s crosshairs” of vengeance. Texts about whose fate is commonly thought to be doom and loss – either ECT or annihilation.
Examples of the doom texts might include:
and
While examples of the Comprehensive Victory of God might include:
and
Thus my question/observation runs along these lines…
Given that one should try to include all of scriptures content when formulating his ideas and theologies, one would assume that both sets of texts must be included. However, it seems equally obvious to me that when these sets of texts are placed in some sort of sequence (ie what happens when) along a timeline, the triumph texts necessarily must come after – and therefore supersede, or trump, the depressing portrayals of the condemned/lost/doomed.
Thus we can affirm that yes, there was a time when those anguished and awful scenes of fear and dread actually happened – HOWEVER – after those events came the Total Victory of God. Thus the state of affairs which is left with us as the permanent state is the victorious one, the former state of anguish and fear thus being temporary.
It simply would seem incoherent and absurd to place the anguish/loss texts as sequentially coming after the “Victory” texts. That Complete Victory would be followed by doom/despair/loss is non-sensical.
Thus I think that (and wonder if you do too) the presence of both kinds of texts necessarily is an argument for Universalism…
Bobx3