I begin to understand what you’re trying to get at.
My world view has undergone a lot of changes over the past 6 years of beginning to think in UR terms and wrestling with the implications. I do need to work out better how to put into words what I’ve come to believe at a more intuitive level. I see much more difference between UR and ECT than just the afterlife.
I no longer see “salvation” as having entirely to do with determining one’s residential location in the afterlife. Christ’s death accomplishes the reconciliation of all things, making peace with His shed blood, and through His resurrected life we will be saved. (Rom 5) Both steps – the reconciliation and the salvation – are progressive events which unfold over time. Like it says: “all things have been subjected to Him, but we do not yet see the all things subjected” (Heb 2:8) and “…who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time” (1 Tim 2). These things begin now and continue forward [albeit under different conditions] into the ages to come.
It is through the offering of Christ–giving Himself in love–that all people will be reconciled to God. That reconciliation is like the prodigal son’s return home. He’s not going to suddenly be the perfect son without any flaw–but His father’s warm welcome will probably make him really want to try, and that will be the beginning of his growing into a true son of the Father.
Some of us are born into the next age as part of a priesthood – like the tribe of Levi – dedicated from the womb for the special work of “reigning with Christ,” being “pillars in the Temple,” “shining forth as the stars of the heavens,” “vessels of honor prepared for every good work.” And it is this life we are in now which prepares us for the honor of serving in the kingdom in the next life. The next life will not be a perfect holiday, but a greater and more glorious work.
We are not “saved” to assure ourselves a place at the banquet table, but to join with Him in His work – taking up our cross – to help bring in the kingdom. “Thy kingdom come: Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven.” Both now and in the age to come.
That’s very imperfectly expressed, but maybe it will help you understand a little how I see things.
Sonia
I find this statement baffling. I just can’t reconcile this with the need for the millions of people murdered in the world (Hitler ad the Jews is the standard example) to have some closure. Who need to know that their suffering was not “irrelevant”. Who need to know that when they were hungry, beaten, tortured, burned, etc etc etc, that there was indeed a God, and that God was deeply concerned about their predicament. So concerned, that he will ensure that every wrong will be righted. How he does this I have no clue. But surely God will do this. We say “lest we forget” about fallen “war heroes”. Surely God will not forget??? Will Hitler not need to “make amends”? *
This I can relate to. I’m a newbie when it comes to EU; sometimes I feel like I have it all figured out; other times I wonder if I know anything. At present, if the subject comes up, I’m simply telling it as I see it, which is that God loves everyone too much to leave them the way they are.
In one recent conversation-over-a-number-of-days, the person said “So basically you’re saying that there will be a purgatory?” And I said “I don’t know, but I think there’ll be something like that.” And I talked about how gold and silver are purified by fire, and maybe that’s what God will do to us to cleanse and purify us from evil. Perhaps it’ll take multiple ages for someone like Hitler. Perhaps Hitler will be quick, and it’ll take multiple ages for me. (I’m not saying that as a joke; sometimes I think it might be true).
But one easily-seen effect of my belief in UR has been that I no longer worry about “whether the person accepts the message”. I am serenely content to know that I said what I thought was the right thing at the time, and God has all the power in the world to cause the person to continue pondering and thinking and grappling. It’s not my problem anymore! By that I mean, God has sent me to be his ambassador. That means, that I just need to be obedient to this but I don’t need to worry about my so-called success rate. God will be happy with me for obeying, regardless of the “results”. [Much the same as I would be happy with the obedience of my children, regardless of any “results”]
No! To me, a massive difference is in your view of God.
Is God a tyrant worse than the worst human tyrant, who sets people up with the propensity to sin and then punishes them for doing so, and not only that, but punishes them without any hope of escape for all eternity, and not only that, but does it while the person is fully conscious and can feel and receive pain, both physical and mental? Is that what God is like? Is he really an infinite version of the most horrendous human tyrant?
Or is God like the best father you can imagine? The father who always wills the best for his kids, who always does everything in his power to help his kids, who rejoices in his kids, who loves their presence, who says corny things on father’s days like “I don’t want any presents; just your presence”, who will always come and rescue you when you’re in trouble (like my dad did in the middle of the night when my car broke down), who will punish you if the crime warrants it but only for as long as is necessary and only to bring about restoration and “learning from the mistake”, and finally, if you do happen to go astray, will wait on the front porch every day until you come to your senses and return to him, and when that day comes, will run to you with weeping, not to beat you with sticks, but to welcome you home?
Which God is it??? This, to me, is the most profound difference in EU and ECT.
Yes and no. No, because of my response above about speaking what you know is true and not worrying so much about what you don’t yet know. Yes, because it’s important, I believe, to have as good a grasp on important things as we can.
Not at all. If I still need correction post-mortem, then it means that God loves even me too much to leave me the way I am. (You can tell I haven’t yet worked out whether I, as a Christian, will need correction yet).
Don’t go back. EU just seems to be a muddle; it’s not, really. EU provides so many “tie-ins” for things that always bothered me, like 1 Tim 4:10 explaining how God could be saving some more than others, and like realising that Rom 11:32 meant what it said, that God would have mercy on all, and that therefore, his vessels of wrath was not permanent.
So, if I’m reading you right, you make absolutely no distinction between believers and non-believers?
Firstly, I have to agree with you that EU has made a substantial difference to my view of God though perhaps not as much as for you. I suppose I should have said, that the major circumstantial difference is re the here-after.
Let me explain a little: I was an Arminianist. My view of God was that He Loved everyone to the utmost and did/does everything in His power to save all mankind (no change). But His power was limited by giving humans free will and that eternal Hell is the unalterable consequence of continual rejection (ie that upon death the unrepentant human inevitably enters a state where he blames God and sees God as the enemy fully reliant on his own strength to save himself ie eternal hell).
So it can be argued that the nature of God is the same but the nature of reality is different.
Which view is true can only be determined by divine revelation.
I’ve bolded the type of approach which kept me a ECTer for so long.
This is the first statement I can’t follow and I’ll try to explain another reason why my questions are so important to me:
What was Christ’s finished work on the cross and what should I be thanking Him for on a daily basis?
As a ECTer, He washed away my sin -past present and future, I am a new creation, the old man is dead and when I get my glorified body I will be perfected. So in a very real way I am perfected now if it were not for this wretched ‘sin-body’ which weighs me down and gets me in trouble. All I need is to be rid of this carnal fleshly body. Jesus has sorted everything else out right now. It’s all done!
As a EUer, my character (my real-self) still needs a lot of work. God will provide the trials but I must painfully learn, painfully make the correct choices both in this life and the next.
Either way its all down to God or we enter into a ‘salvation by works’ theology. So either way I must not take any credit, I must not suggest the ECTers idea is the easy option or I fall into this trap. But clearly the work on the cross is more powerful for the ECTer (believers only of course).
I won’t go back. The danger is I’ll just give up completely thinking 'it’s all a muddle and nobody really knows so what’s the point. (Perhaps this is always the way for those who turn to UR).
Yes. I still believe that EU has less logical inconsistencies .
Not at all. I really appreciate your thoughts.
I am shocked that the only person who seems to have a clear view is Aaron and that nobody else seems to have a confident alternative (I hope I’ve not misread the situation)
God bless you and thanks.
Further thoughts from anyone would be most welcome. PLEASE!
Now I feel like the kid who got picked last in the sports teams
Please see my line in that same post: “You can tell I haven’t yet worked out whether I, as a Christian, will need correction yet”. And, yes, of course I do. Believers are the “especially” in 1 Tim 4:10. I think that believers are those who have opportunity to live the abundant life for which God made them. There’s a whole lot of other stuff, but that’s one thing.
As I see it, for taking away my sin. That is, after all, what he came to do. It also links in with post-mortem correction. Christ’s work is indeed finished, but not yet appropriated by all.
Huh? Are you implying that as a ECTer, your character didn’t need a lot of work? That’s what it appears to say.
It must be late because I don’t see why you’d say this.
Is that all you’re after? A clear view? What if the view is wrong? (Note: I’m not saying it is wrong!!)
It might be worth remembering that it is the Easter weekend. Many people on the forums might be on holidays, or just away, or just not logging on over the weekend. Who knows?
For myself, the reason I haven’t replied with a clear view is because I’m a newbie to EU. I have many competing things for my time and sorting out my thoughts and beliefs into some kind of consistent theological framework is on my to-do list. But being the OCD-type, I know that when I start I’ll need to keep going until I’m finished. I’m not ready to do that yet.
I note that you didn’t raise anything about my thoughts on post-mortem corrective processes, and my disagreement with what Aaron originally said. Speaking for myself, again, I would say that a system that effectively “sweeps evil under the carpet”, which is what Aaron’s view does, sounds very suspect.
Hmmm. Of course, his view may well be spot on. I could be very wrong indeed! I too would encourage others to post their money’s worth.
Yes I read that. But still no mention of any difference in the here-after and that’s what this thread is about.
Is a character failing a sin? Sinless but still with defects. I suppose this is one of the areas I can’t get my head around.
For the believer? Why did the ECTers not see this? They would not have had to embrace UR to see this.
Agreed.
Good point. I have many character flaws. All I know is that under ECT theology I’ve never known a church that suggested we needed corrective work post mortem. That’s my point. Upon death we are instantly perfected in every way. If you knew of an ECT church that preached correction for the believer post mortem then I’m interested. If not, then surely you can see my point that the ECT cross-work has accomplishes more than the EU (for the believer of course).
I’ll drop it.
I’m not sure why you would say that. We all want the truth as clearly as we can understand.
For EU to be credible to ECTers it is not unreasonable for there to be a certain level of clarity on the questions I have raised. The ECTers are quite clear.
I appreciate your input rline and your logic gives me food for thought. Thank you.
I am waiting for another answer from Aaron. At the moment I am inclined to believe that there is no correction process for the believer (ie that we will be instantaneously sanctified and glorified). I think this will leave some with more gifts than others because they have acquired these gifts during their life experiences. I am inclined to believe that the Lake of Fire is to bring non-believers to the point of surrender at the foot of the cross.
Having said that, I really haven’t the faintest idea - hence the thread.
not ignoring you – just that this is an incredibly important and huge! question…
I would like to try my hand at an answer (many of us here write as a way of discovering ourselves and our understandings; that is, we see ourselves as works in progress – not regurgitaters of of settled dogma) but first let me give you a reading assignment. I’ve mentioned it often here because I think it does such a great job of summing up how UR can and should impact us and our lives and our witnesses. (and no, it doesn’t have much to do with an exact timeline of salvation… which your question implies that you’d really like to have!)
Here it is… this is “our own” GM
How Universalism Has Impacted my Life
Below is the paragraph that I can not read often enough…
Blessings pilgrim and more later
TotalVictory
Bobx3
In conclusion, let me ask you to hold in your mind traditional Christian visions
of the future, in which many, perhaps the majority of humanity, are excluded
from salvation forever. Alongside that hold the universalist vision, in which
God achieves his loving purpose of redeeming the whole creation. Which vision
has the strongest view of divine love? Which story has the most powerful
narrative of God’s victory over evil? Which picture lifts the atoning efficacy
of the cross of Christ to the greatest heights? Which perspective best
emphasizes the triumph of grace over sin? Which view most inspires worship and
love of God bringing him honor and glory? Which has the most satisfactory
understanding of divine wrath? Which narrative inspires hope in the human
spirit? To my mind the answer to all these questions is clear, and that is why I
am a Christian universalist.
Actually pilgrim, I‘m not entirely sure why you need to even have such an exact and precise timeline. Why is that kind of certainty so necessary?
Given my background and upbringing, that is a very odd thing for me to say however. For I was raised (and remain) in a denomination that has an incredibly detailed and specific line up of times and events and sequences which all ends with the saved in heaven and the damned not in ECT, but annihilated. And annihilation is seen as far superior to ECT. But over time, and especially since my embrace (tepid at first, but now quite robust!) of UR (Universal Reconciliation/Redemption/Restoration) my certainty in this regard has dwindled.
This is not to say I have no certainties now; just that my certainties are redirected. Now they revolve around my certainty regarding –
– what kind of God we worship…
– the completeness of God’s Victory in and through Christ…
– the centrality of Christ and His Life, Death, Resurrection as the perfect revelation of God…
– the fact that Love never fails…
– my conviction that God is always and everywhere working to bring about healing and redemption…
Well I think you probably get the idea here. Now I’m certain that God does (that’s why I’m a Universalist), and the why (because He is Love), but not so much the how and the when.
Sorry if that seems to sidestep what concerns you…
But moving forward on the topic, I do have opinions and speculations on the matter. But the joy of life at being, even now, with God, does not depend on these speculations and timelines. I find myself lining up somewhat with Aaron’s thoughts but with some real differences…
For example I’m not in agreement with him in the immediate transformation at the resurrection… The open gates of the Holy City seem to imply a movement from outside to inside; but if all now have the sinless nature of the redeemed, why even bother with this imagery? Similarly, the very last chapter (Of Rev) reveals that evangelism, even as it appears that the wicked are being told they are to be “filthy still”, is still happening! Why is evangelism happening here if all have at this point been transformed? So the way this plays out in precise timelines seems, to me, less important than the fact that it does.
Yes, there is a reward for those who accept the Christ in this life and that reward is being part of the first-fruits. Their characters settled for all time in the truths of God, He takes them to live in His very presence – to eat at His table. Now what comes next that I imagine, may or may not be true, but I sure hope it is. And that is that these redeemed first-fruits get to participate in the evangelism of these for whom reconciliation has yet to be experienced. That’d be very cool I think! And why not? It would simply be a continuation of the passion and mindset with which we lived on this earth in the first place. (That is, a deep desire to share the Good News of the wondrous and saving Love of God) The mindset of being a missionary simply cannot just go dormant in the awareness that there are still those yet estranged from God. Makes huge sense for God to employ us as ambassadors, just as He does now.
I’m sorry if you think that I have asked for ‘an exact and precise timeline’? I didn’t realise that I had asked for any timeline at all.
I am not looking for certainties. Just what we believe the difference is for the saved and the lost post-mortem by faith.
I’ve already posted that there is little difference for me in His nature. I have believed that He Loves every single person to the utmost and I have believed this for the best part of 50 years.
But people don’t seem to be able to tell me what His victory is. (ie whether it includes completed transformation upon death or whether more corrective discipline is required.)
-this is no less true for ECTers but it is not insignificant to ask what He actually accomplished.
agreed.
again this was true for all my Arminian friends.
When I have spoken to my friends about EU they ask questions about eternal salvation. These are the questions I am asking. See the OP.
It could be of absolutely vital concern to all of us whether there is room for improvement post-mortem or not. I do not see my questions as a side issue or of little significance
Thank you for your time TV. I am now more confused than ever. Perhaps I don’t belong here. Perhaps I cannot communicate very well. I just don’t know.
That’s correct. When people believe the gospel they “pass from death into life” (John 5:24). And Paul wrote, “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life” (Rom 6:4). Wouldn’t you agree that walking in “newness of life” is much better than being “dead in sin?”
You speak of the believer’s life as being “more difficult and painful than the non-believer’s path,” but I understand Scripture to teach that the way of those who have “found wisdom” (i.e., those who don’t just hear the word of God but actually put it into practice) is one of “pleasantness” and “peace” (Prov 3:17). “Blessed (happy) is he who trusts in the LORD” (16:20). It’s true that this life is full of heartache and difficulties (as the apostle Paul knew all too well), but amidst the tribulation of this world, those who are in Christ can have a peace that unbelievers cannot enjoy (John 14:27; 16:33; Rom 2:10; 3:17; 8:6). Paul wrote, “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.” Can unbelievers have “all joy and peace in believing” and “abound in hope” by the power of the Holy Spirit? Paul also wrote that in all his affliction, he was “overflowing with joy” (2 Cor 7:4) - and of course, both joy and peace are said to be fruit of the Holy Spirit (Gal 5:22). But Scripture teaches that “there is no peace for the wicked” (Isaiah 48:22; 57:21) and that unbelievers are “dead in sin,” have “no hope,” and are “without God in the world” (Eph 2:1, 12). I would rather be a true believer living in poverty than an unbelieving billionaire who is “dead in sin,” has “no hope” and is “without God in the world.” I honestly wouldn’t trade my life in Christ for anything this world has to offer - not because I think the righteous will be more blessed than the unrighteous in a future state of existence, but because the righteous are more blessed than the unrighteous now.
Before I became a believer in UR I definitely would’ve agreed with what you are saying. Although I professed to be a Christian, studied the Bible and was actively involved in my church, the truth is that my life didn’t look all that different from the lives of my more “secular” friends who, if they did profess to be Christians, didn’t seem to take their faith very seriously. While I could “talk the talk” I definitely wasn’t “walking the walk.” I was still focused entirely on myself and did a lot of things I’m not at all proud of today (some of which I’m still reaping the consequences). I occasionally suffered from depression and anxiety attacks. The only thing that kept me from sinking into utter despair over my too-often hypocritical life was my hope that I was one of the elect (my youth pastor even assured me that I wouldn’t feel as guilty as I did over the sins I continued to commit if I wasn’t), and that my “eternal salvation” was secure. Whenever doubt would creep into my mind I would just remind myself that I had believed what I was supposed to believe (which, at the time, was essentially the theory of penal substitutionary atonement, along with the doctrines summed up in the “TULIP” acronym). But even while believing myself to be one of the elect for whom Christ died, I saw little evidence that Christ dwelled in me, and that I was being conformed to his image. Rather, my life was characterized by a losing battle against sin, and my response to this losing battle tended to be one of either shame and self-loathing or apathy and hypocritical denial. In hindsight, my pre-UR “Christian life” is certainly not something I would wish on anyone. In some ways, one might say it was worse than being an unbeliever, because I knew I wasn’t measuring up as a follower of Christ, but I just couldn’t seem to overcome the things that held me in bondage.
As far as the process of sanctification being painful, it’s true that our growth into Christ-likeness is not always a pleasant experience, for we’re told that God disciplines his children for their good so that they may share his holiness (Heb 12:7-10). “For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it” (v. 11). But having been a believer in the “wider hope” for more than 6 years now, I can’t say I agree that the true believer’s life is “harder” than the non-believer’s. Scripture teaches that it is “the way of the treacherous” - not the way of the righteous - that is “hard” (Prov 13:15). The idea that unbelievers have it better than believers in this life is, I believe, neither true to Scripture nor true to life.
But why would everyone being made sinless at the resurrection mean that every wrong hasn’t been righted by God? Does Hitler or anyone else have to remain sinful for some period of time after death before the wrongs they committed can be righted? Does Hitler have to be sinful in order to “make amends?” It seems to me that Hitler could better make amends if his heart was full of love for the 6 million Jews who died during the Holocaust rather than full of hatred for them.
This post has questions for both Aaron and pilgrim.
Aaron wrote:
Aaron also wrote:
Could you explain how you tie these two together please? To me, they seem at odds. I don’t understand, if Hitler could have a heart full of love for the Jews, but didn’t need to make amends in any way, how that would entail him reaping what he sowed?
Aaron also wrote, quoting himself
To that I’d argue that in many cases the wicked certainly don’t end their days in unfilfilment, regret, bitterness and heartache.
If, as I think you’re saying (please correct me if I’m wrong ) the reaping of what’s been sowed occurs only in this present life, then I think at least in Hitler’s case, you might have quite a number of murdered Jews who would disagree with you.
And finally, Aaron wrote:
Aaron, I relate to pretty much everything you’ve said there. What I’m curious about, though, is how things are different for you now. You haven’t addressed that (rightly, in my opinion, because it’s not what the thread is about). So as not to hijack this thread, I’d appreciate it if you could PM me with a pointer to another thread of yours where you write about what life is like for you now, particularly how it contrasts with what you’ve written above. And if time’s an issue, then please don’t worry about it.
Pilgrim, you wrote
I don’t know of any ECT churches that teach that we need corrective work after death. Catholic churches of course, but there’s obvious debate about whether they are part of the “true church”. You’re spot on in saying that ECT churches teach that on death we’re instantly perfected in every way. My current church teaches exactly that. In fact, the more I listen, the more I hear that the gospel is all about what happens when you die and almost nothing about what happens now.
And indeed, I can now see your point! Perhaps it’s morning now and I’m awake… So, you’re saying that for the believer, Jesus’ work on the cross accomplishes far more in the ECT-scheme of things than the EU-scheme of things, simply because under ECT, believers have all their sins, guilt, consequences, etc completely removed instantly at death, whereas under EU they don’t. I think (and totalvictory is right about “working out” things on the forums) my response would go like this:
ECT-Jesus’ cross work accomplishes a staggering transformation for a small minority of the human population and absolutely nothing for the vast majority
EU-Jesus’ cross work accomplishes a staggering transformation for the entirety of the human population. However, it doesn’t happen as soon as everyone dies. (If I’ve read him correctly, this is where Aaron would disagree.) Unbelievers, when they die, will need to spend time in hell - enough time until they repent and trust in Christ. Believers…aahhh, and that’s where your question really is, and I guess mine too. I simply haven’t read enough yet to be clear on it myself. Forgive me if you feel I’ve wasted a lot of your time.
Here’s my take currently: Paul, when speaking of his death, said that it was better by far to be with Christ if he died. So he didn’t seem to envisage spending time in hell. Nor did he seem to think there would be correction. He also spoke of those who believe having crossed over from death to life. The most direct place Paul talks about what happens to believers after death is 1 Thess 4:13-18. There, he says that Jesus will bring with him the dead in Christ, and then the dead in Christ, and the alive in Christ will be “with the Lord forever”. Furthermore, he ends with “encourage one another with these words”. So, from that, I can’t see that he thinks there’ll be corrective work for the believer.
I guess as someone who believes in EU, it’s perfectly reasonable for me to believe that at death, I’ll be “with the Lord forever”, and so will not need corrective work. What this means is that for believers only the EU version of Christ’s work on the cross is the same as the ECT version. For believers, both versions teach (or at least can teach) that believers will be “instantly changed” and “with the Lord forever” without requiring any corrective work. The EU version then says that God will apply corrective work to all the non-believers who’ve died so they will eventually be able to appropriate Christ’s work on the cross. The ECT version says “sucks to be them”.
Does what I wrote above address this adequately, or not?
And…
This seems biblical to me.
Also agreed.
What I definitely don’t believe, is that non-believers will also be instantly changed with sins dealt with. I think there’s simply too much evidence of some kind of corrective process, and as you’ll appreciate from my questions to Aaron above about Hitler and the Jews, I think that kind of thinking goes directly against what we naturally feel is “right”.
Well, first, I didn’t say Hitler “didn’t need to make amends in any way.” I said that Hitler could better make amends if his heart was full of love for those to whom he needed to make amends. I firmly believe that when Hitler is subjected to Christ at the time of the resurrection he will want to do whatever he can to make up for all the pain and suffering he caused. But by the time Hitler has a heart full of love for the Jews who died in the Holocaust, I believed the Jews who died in the Holocaust will have a heart full of love for Hitler, and will have no desire for him to suffer any more than he did while he was “dead in sin” and “without God in the world.”
“But,” it may be objected, “surely whatever suffering Hitler experienced during his lifetime was nothing compared to the suffering he caused.”
It’s true that Hitler caused more suffering than either of us can imagine. But does anyone know exactly how much inner pain, turmoil, fear, distress and despair Hitler experienced during his life, and especially during those last days and final moments before he killed himself, when he realized that he had lost, and that everything he’d been living for was all coming to ruin? Does anyone really know what exactly he was thinking and feeling moments before he pulled the trigger? Of course not; only God knows. But I am confident that God’s justice was just as active in Hitler’s day as it is in our day and will be in the future, and that to whatever extent Hitler sowed to his own flesh he reaped “corruption” (Gal 6:8). Perhaps if you or I were the moral judges of the universe we would see to it that Hitler “got a taste of his own medicine” - and then some - before mercifully putting an end to his suffering. Perhaps we would make sure he suffered as much as 6 million people combined before finally saying “that’s enough” and welcoming him into heaven (an “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” right?). Or perhaps you simply believe Hitler should have to suffer for his crimes until the evil in his heart is purged out and he becomes a changed man who would never want to hurt a living soul again. But what if God could do for Hitler what he did for Paul, and in even less time? What if God could purge Hitler’s heart of evil and turn him into a “new creation” in “the twinkling of an eye?” And what if God deemed whatever suffering Hitler experienced in his life (as minimal as it may seem to us) sufficient for answering the demands of his holy justice?
Even if it’s not obvious to us, I trust that God’s justice is just as active in this life as it will be in the next, and that God will not be mocked in this state of existence or the next. If God’s justice would not be met without a person ending his or her days in unfulfillment, regret, bitterness and heartache, then I believe they will. If they don’t, then I trust that it’s because God didn’t deem it necessary in their case. Perhaps all that God’s justice required was that the person go through life without the spiritual blessings (e.g., peace and joy) that they would’ve enjoyed if they’d lived according to God’s prescriptive will rather than in violation of it.
In the post from the other thread which I linked above (in my response to pilgrim), I wrote that my view
Well if the “dead know nothing” then I don’t think the Jews who died in the Holocaust presently have any opinion at all on this matter. And if (as I believe) these men, women and children are going to be raised from the dead in a perfectly holy and happy condition, then I seriously doubt they’re going to be wishing that Hitler had suffered more before he died. Instead, I think they’re going to have the same heart and disposition as our Lord had while he died on the cross and prayed, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
Well I’ll defer to your 599 posts here, and be happy with my 35 (this makes 36!). For myself, I still very much disagree with what you’ve said, but I’m grateful for your patience and graciousness in explaining it. From what you’ve written I’m guessing you probably don’t like George MacDonald’s sermon *Justice * Anyway, thanks again.
Definitely. As it happens, we seem to be in total agreement but more importantly you’ve suused out what I was trying to ask. Thanks for not giving up on me.
I’m concerned whether many URers believe corrective discipline continues for believers and how this ‘blurrs’ the line between believers and non-believers. I can foresee some serious dangers in this line of thought.
It’s really kind of you to give me so much information.
I do not happen to be a preterist. I believe the Jewish perspective on prophecy is cyclic with an ultimate culmination and I favour this perspective in most cases.
I would have extreme difficulty imagining that Jesus’ millennial reign could have taken place for any period during the last 2000 years.
I also place much greater emphasis (than you) on ‘dying daily’, ‘taking up one’s cross’ and ‘sharing in the suffering’s of Christ’ within the christian walk, to the extent that I believe that a true and close walk with God is accompanied by considerable hardship. It is true that we are sustained through this by His peace and joy, but I think the body of Christ (like Christ himself) experiences very deeply compassion (ie fellow suffering) grief (as Jesus wept at the surroundings of Lazarus’ death) and lamentations (just as Jesus would have gathered Jerusalem as a hen gathers her chicks).
I would worry that the picture you paint (for me) would have me enjoy my own blissful state at the expense of a suffering world. In addition, if you strongly believe that evil produces sorrow and goodness produces happiness in this life, wouldn’t that automatically lead to a judgmental attitude to any who you observe as suffering? I mean, it must be their fault mustn’t it?
Above all though, you have done me a great service by courteously explaining your position and helping me with all my questions.
You have no idea how relieved I am that you responded to my thoughts and that we do seem to be progressing. I was just about going to PM you to kind of “apologise” as such; I felt that somehow my responses had gotten you off track from your original question and that perhaps they had even made you less inclined to think things through. So I’m very glad to see you write:
And now, if you don’t mind, I’d like to continue
One of the reasons I suspect some UR might think this is because they’ve read George MacDonald, and in particular, Justice. I remember that when I read it, I as simply blown away by its fresh ideas, different ideas, and ideas that on the whole, seemed to resonate with my spirit. However, the two things in that sermon that stick out to me are
complete (by which I mean utterly and totally complete!) denial of penal sub. atonement
the apparent teaching that believers will also be needing to “make amends” (make amends is how MacDonald puts it)
I have a much easier time believing 1) above.
At present, what I believe about 2) is what I wrote to you previously, namely that believers will not need corrective work. However, I am less convinced after reading MacDonald. The problem is that almost everything else in the sermon (and in other sermons of his) rang so true. So I’m very wary of dismissing this idea simply because I don’t like it. I guess, in short, MacDonald seems to believe corrective discipline will continue (and for some pretty good reasons), and so for me, that line of thought is worth thinking about.
Of course, many UR may believe it continues for entirely different reasons. I’m still a fairly fresh egg to UR, so I really can’t say.
I do agree that if corrective discipline continued for believers, it would begin to blur the line between believers and non-believers.
I’m assuming here you mean that it would seem to nullify the victory of the cross
So, anyway, at present, I guess I’m trying to think it through like this:
In places like Matt 5:22, 5:26, 5:30, Jesus speaks to his audience about anger, forgiveness and lust. And he says that if any in his audience has anger, unforgiveness or lust, they had better sort it out, otherwise they
will be in danger of the fire of hell
may be thrown in prison…will not get out until you have paid the last penny
are in danger of having their whole body going into hell
Now, in all my years of Bible study (including a degree in theology, and, I suspect, a fairly over-inflated view of my “biblical understanding”) I honestly believed Jesus would not be speaking to or about believers. I believed that somehow now that I was a Christian, his words no longer applied to me. Which is why I didn’t really take them seriously.
And yet, in 5:1-2, we learn that when he said all this, he said it to his followers! I am one of his followers! It seems like he’s saying it to me!
And here is where I am in this thinking currently: If Jesus originally said all this to his followers, is there any reason to suspect that once they’d seen how the cross and the resurrection were all part of the plan, and once they’d trusted in Christ for their salvation, that they would suddenly say to themselves: “Oh thank goodness. All that talk about anger and unforgiveness and lust no longer applies to me!”? I’d say, no reason at all, and in fact, a lot of reason to think that they thought it was still important.
When we read James 1:19-21 it seems like James is simply paraphrasing what Jesus said about anger. And as if to remind his readers (followers of Jesus!) that it was serious, he follows in verse 22 with “Don’t just listen to the word and thereby deceive yourseves. Do what it says.”
And then in 1 John 4:19-20, John writes to followers of Jesus about anger, hatred and unforgiveness: “If anyone says ‘I love God’ yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who doesn’t love his brother, whom he has seen, can’t love God, whom he hasn’t seen.”
The sum of all this (and this is just a brief reflection) is that I can see no reason to suddenly stop taking seriously Jesus’ warnings about entering hell given to his followers, among whom I am one. (This sounds suspiciously like corrective discipline for the believer, doesn’t it?) And yet, on the apparent other hand, the Bible teaches that God will remember our sins no more, and that when we die, we will be with Christ.
I welcome your continuing discussion or thoughts on all this!
PS. I’m assuming you already have, but if you haven’t, perhaps you could read Justice.
You seem to be viewing the spiritual blessings enjoyed by believers as merely getting us through the hardships of life. And while I agree that we are sustained through hardships by the peace and joy that God gives us, I believe it is these spiritual blessings that makes even a life full of hardships more desirable than a life that is spent in a state of spiritual death, even if one is rich in material things. Consider the apostle Paul: while it’s my view that Paul believed that both the just and the unjust would be raised to a holy and happy existence, I don’t think he would’ve traded his life as a “slave of Christ” for that of, say, the Roman Emperor Nero. While by the world’s standards Nero had it all (power, wealth and access to every worldly pleasure you could think of), I don’t think Paul envied him in the least - not because he thought Nero and those like him would have to endure some kind of post-mortem punishment, but because Paul was more blessed as a believer than he would have been as an unbeliever.
You speak of “dying daily.” When Paul said “I die daily” (1 Cor 15:31) I believe he meant that he lived in such a way that his life was in jeopardy on a regular basis. As he says in the previous verse, he was “in danger every hour.” But he did this because he had the hope of the resurrection, and having this hope enabled him to selflessly do whatever God had called him to do (which, in the eyes of the world, undoubtedly meant living “foolishly”). It is this hope that I believe dulls and deadens the desires of the flesh which tempt us to live for ourselves only, and to cling to the things of this world. Although Paul was daily exposed to suffering and hardships, I firmly believe he was happier than every unrighteous man in his day, whether poor or rich. Again, Paul said that in all his affliction he was “overflowing with joy.” But did this mean he had no compassion, never grieved, or never lamented? Of course not, and I regret that you understood me to be saying that true Christians do not suffer or grieve. Suffering and hardship is a part of life, and no believer is exempt from it (I find the “prosperity teaching” and “health and wealth” gospel that is so popular today absolutely abhorrent). But the perspective of suffering and hardship is, I believe, entirely different for the believer, and it changes how they experience it. And the peace and joy from God that believers have in the midst of their suffering and hardships - which, as you say, sustains us (and which I believe can even come as a result of suffering and hardship) - is greater than anything the world has to offer. Does not denying oneself and “taking up one’s cross” make one happier (in the highest sense of the word) than living only for oneself? “Happy are those who are persecuted on account of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of the heavens” (Mt 5:11, CLV). “Come to me, all who labor and are heaven laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy (or “pleasant”), and my burden is light” (Mt 11:28-30).
In 2 Cor 1:3-5 (ESV) Paul writes: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort those who are in any trouble, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too.”
The “abundant comfort” of which Paul speaks is, I believe, a great blessing that unbelievers can never know or enjoy as long as they remain unbelievers.
In 1 Pet 3:10-12 we read, “Whoever desires to love life and see good days, let him keep his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking deceit; let him turn away from evil and do good; let him seek peace and pursue it. For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayer. But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”
Did Peter really believe that if one desired to love life and see good days, he should turn away from evil and do good? I think so.
Peter goes on to say (vv. 13-17), “Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed (i.e., happy). Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.”
Even when suffering for righteousness’ sake, believers are happy. Not only do they “overflow with joy” amidst their afflictions, they enjoy the peace of a good conscience and have a living hope abiding within that lightens any burden they must carry in this world.
I’m puzzled that you understood me to be saying that believers enjoy (or should enjoy) their “own blissful state at the expense of a suffering world,” because that’s not at all what I believe, and I’m not really sure what I said that gave you that impression. My view is that there is great joy in loving our neighbour as we love ourselves and in living sacrificially, and that we are happier (i.e., experience greater joy and peace) when we are living in God’s will than when we are living outside of it. For example, I believe we are more blessed (i.e., happy) when we give our money to people who need it more than we do than when we spend it all on ourselves. IOW, the believer is happier than the unbeliever not at the expense of a suffering world, but because, out of obedience to Christ, he is doing the best he can to relieve people’s suffering, and there is great joy in that.
So does the fact that believers are happier/more blessed than unbelievers in this life mean we are exempt from suffering? Of course not. But there is a huge difference between suffering as a believer and suffering as an unbeliever. For the former, suffering is embraced as a blessing that is not only preparing for us an “age enduring weight of glory” that will be enjoyed at the end of the age of the Messianic reign (2 Cor 4:17), but as contributing to our present growth and maturity as Christians so that we may be more like Christ. But for the unbeliever, suffering is experienced as a curse that, from their perspective, only adds to the perceived futility of their existence.
I don’t think so. Not all suffering is a punishment for sin, and our ignorance of the reason for why a person is suffering should caution us against passing judgment on them. And even if we could know for sure when someone was suffering “for doing evil” (1 Pet 1:17) and when they weren’t, the response of those who have the “mind of Christ” will be one of compassion and grace toward those who suffer for doing evil, not self-righteous pride and calloused indifference. In 1 Cor 5:5 Paul speaks of a sexually immoral man within the church at Corinth, and he tells the Corinthians to “deliver this man to the adversary for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.” Pretty harsh words. He goes on to say, “Purge the evil person from among you.” But in his 2nd epistle, Paul writes (speaking of the same man), “For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him” (2 Cor 2:6-8). Notice that Paul knew the man had suffered for his sin, and yet his attitude was one of forgiveness and compassion rather than self-righteous indifference. And I believe every mature believer will have the same attitude toward those who are suffering, or who have suffered, for doing evil.
no. it is i who should apologise for the delay. your posts have been very gracious.
Again I am in total agreement and perhaps this gets to the heart of my concerns.
YEs.
Yes exactly. I might tell myself that they were not yet ‘born again’ and that, upon redemption, ALL our sins and failings (past present and future) are dealt with at the cross by Christ.
OK…
Yes…
Thats it! I wish I was as erudite as you.
I definitely need to do some prayer and studying.
Firstly forgive my delayed response. It was TVs post that threw me and I needed time-out.
In addition, whilst I am desperate to deal with these issues, I am really struggling with my teaching job at the moment as the students approach their examinations. It might be two or at most three weeks before I can give this the time it deserves.
God bless.
Hi Aaron. I agree with 90% of what you say. I will just refer to areas of concern to me.
Aaron wrote:
I believe this to be untrue. Let me just give one example which is reality:
A saintly believing woman who I know has suffered for years with severe clinical depression. I will not go into detail but either your statement is wrong, or you judge her to have secret sin in her life.
This illustrates the danger of what you teach. She is by no-means an isolated example.
In addition I think there is very strong evidence to say that one’s happiness and contentment are strongly related to one’s genetic predisposition and one’s early environment. Both for believers and unbelievers.
I honestly think that donating money without any feeling of the suffering is sterile and not the way of Christ. Again it means that the donation must have been devoid of any compassion.
We are to weep with those who weep and share in the grief and sufferings of our fellow human beings.
Compassion is literally “fellow-suffering”. One cannot have compassion and at the same time be full of peace and joy.
Not for the clinically depressed or those wracked with persistent, agonising pain or…or…
Even St Paul who you quoted earlier said that he considered this life to be a pile of sh** compared to the wonderful eternal life to come (my paraphrase). It sounds to me like it was the hope of the next life that (at least in part) sustained him through some of the traumas of this life.
This is what terrifies me. Please forgive my forthrightness but I cannot believe you have lived such a sheltered existence that you can believe this to be consistently true (see above).
“Overflow with joy” !!
On the one hand I would pray that you never have to be as close to the suffering of a believer as I have been in my life. On the other I would pray that you might be, so that you will have greater experience from which to speak. Thank God I can leave it to Him.
Now, either you judge those suffering, joyless believers or you rethink your present beliefs. Which is it?
When I was an ECTer, my views match the OP. Those that are saved get instantly changed and enjoy the fruits of heaven forevermore, while those who didn’t get saved were lost forever in a burning hell. End of story. And I didn’t have much of a problem with that since I myself got saved.
But the more I thought about, the less things didn’t make sense. The first step that led me to UR was the thought that only a fraction of the people God made will find themselves in heaven, if ECT is true. For how many of the world’s 6 billion people are catagorically going to hell because a) they rejected Christ, perhaps on a misrepresentation of Christ b) they never heard of the gospel c) they were born in another religion through no fault of their own d) do not believe in God because the ‘evidence’ they see does not suggest One exists e) haven’t the mental capable mind knowing one way or another or f) other reasons I haven’t thought of. I simply can’t believe that a permanent burning hell awaits for a majority of the people that exist today. People that God made in His own image. Moreover, if such is the reality, then God has a very poor track record in terms of numbers, especially for Someone who claims to be the Savior of the World.
Aside from all that, in pondering our condition upon resurrection, I know that we will receive glorified bodies, one that will not see decay, or sickness, or pain, or death. But I wondered what our mental and spiritual condition will be, particulrly in light of what our expereince has been down here. Would we be so wrapped up in our heavenly experience that we would forget all about what life was like down here? Would God just give us a spiritual lobotomy so that we get a complete reboot up there? If that is the case, then what would be the point of rewards that we apparently earn down here? Seems to me that since our life started here, there would have to be some measure on continuity from one existence to the next. Therefore we must retain some remeberances of our life down here. Otherwise, why would there be any reason to experience Christian growth if all that is chucked when we get up there.
So I have to believe that there is continuity between our lives down here and what we experience up there. But how? That is the big question.
Of course, the corollary to this is what of loved ones who didn’t make it to heaven? Would we even retain memory of them? Since my parents play such a major role in my life, I would find it hard to imagine that knowing they are in hell forever that I could ever find solace, even in experiencing the bliss that awaits me in the Presence of the Lord. How can one be happy and blessed knowing that their own mother and father are experiencing the most excruciating pain one can ever imagine, day after day, year after year, for all eternity. Sure God can wipe away all tears, but would our hearts really get to the calloused point that we wouldn’t care anymore?
The other thing that bothered me is how we would relate to each other in eternity. Would we all be ‘poofed’ into liking each other? Even those who are our worst enemies (assuming that, yes, even some of them are Christians). Would God manipulate our hearts into liking then? Or how much of that responsibility would fall to us, seeing how we are taught to love our enemies down here and find it hard to do so, yet commanded nonetheless? What is it that would enable us to love our enemies?
What about those we’ve done wrong to? Is forgiveness from them going to be automatic in a twinkling of an eye? Are all the massacred Jews going to simply blimp away all the hardships that Hitler imposed upon them in an instant? Or will there need to be some healing and reconciliation going on, perhaps needing a long eon of time to do so? Can you simply forgive a rapist who violated you and hurt you just like that?
How much of us will still be human when we reach our final destination? Will we be recognized as being human even in our glorified bodies? Some of us have gone through very traumatic experiences, some to the point of suicide. Can we really change ever so fast in a twinkling of an eye?
Why does it need to be so quick anyhow if we have all eternity to sort out all these things. God is patient in working on us, why wouldn’t you think that there wouldn’t be a time of healing and reconciliation?
