The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Post mortem choices?

Practices Church
#1

Not sure if this is the right part of the site to post on, but as a pastor I have to be aware of the effect my EU exploration might have on the faith of ordinary pewdwellers. Some of them were horrified and perplexed at my first tentative move into these waters! I need to be able to explain in accessible language rather than seminary speak so I hope seasoned members of this forum will be patient with my questions!

Currently re-reading Gregory’s book chapter 1 page 32 …

‘What possible reson would God have for drawing a line at death and saying, “Beyond this point I will show no mercy to those who repent and turn to Christ”?..There is no obvious reason why God would draw the point of no return at death (or anywhere at all).’

This argument sounds philosophically reasonable but makes it seem as if drawing the point of return at death would be completely arbitrary, like drawing the line at age 40 or 60 for instance. It assumes without explanation that post mortem choices including repentance are possible. However most people would probably say that being dead is fundamentally different from being alive in this respect. Monty Python’s parrot is never going to eat her seed no matter how persuasively we explain its nutritional benefits to her! As a conventional evangelical I always refused to pray for the dead on the grounds that it was, sadly, too late. How, in laymans’ terms can I show that post mortem choice is reasonable? Perhaps Gregory tackles this elsewhere in the book…

#2

Well, first of all, Ancient Church Universalists believed that 1 Peter 3:18-20, 4:6 taught that Christ, between his death and resurrection, preached the gospel to the wicked dead. Early Church opponents to Universalism said that these verses teach Christ, between his death and resurrection, preached only to the Old Testament righteous. (To me, the opponents make no sense because 3:19-20 specifically refers to Christ preaching to wicked contemporaries of Noah.) These verses refer to a one-time event while Ancient Church Universalism tended to go hand-in-hand with this example of post-mortem evangelization. (Augustine noted that at least one group of believers in his time believed that post-mortem evangelization ceased after the resurrection of Christ while there is no evidence of this in the Early Church.)

A big contemporary argument against post-mortem decisions for salvation is that humans live forever with their choice of rejecting Christ. However, many people such as myself rejected Christ dozens of times before they accepted Christ. And I could have easily died during this time of rejection, especially one time when I intentionally drugged myself and fell asleep on railroad tracks to end it all. So for those of us who didn’t accept Christ the first time we heard it, there is this arbitrary line of death that you and I oppose. Also, there are many more who never heard the gospel in the first place.

I wish I had more than a few minutes to jot some notes on this topic.

#3

Same here.

The concept that “There is no obvious reason why God would draw the point of no return at death (or anywhere at all)” is a negative rationale, like an argument from silence. It’s suggestive, but it isn’t the same as having positive reasons to believe that God doesn’t draw a point of no return–whereas scriptural language (not counting metaphysical rationales of various quality) can easily look as though God draws a point of hopeless condemnation.

Rectifying the situation, in any logically coherent way, requires:

1.) checking to see if the apparently positive scriptural indications of final hopelessness are really saying what they’ve been read to say (and/or if the scope is really as extreme as required for annihilation or ECT);

2.) checking to see if the metaphysical rationales for non-universalism are really holding water;

3.) checking to see if there are positive scriptural indications for post-mortem hopefulness (without neglecting relevant contexts, of course);

4.) checking to see if there are positive metaphysical rationales for post-mortem hopefulness (keeping in mind that they may not necessarily have to sound complicated and technical);

5.) (very closely related to 2 & 4) making absolutely dang sure that whatever idea about condemnation is being promoted does NOT contravene the more fundamental theology being promoted in your church.

So, for some relatively simple and straightforward examples of each:

1.) the word for ‘punishment’ in the Judgment of the Sheep and Goats, is a term borrowed from agriculture to mean a brisk hopeful cleaning. The same concept is frequently used elsewhere in scripture in positively hopeful or at least non-hopeless fashions, such as in Rom 11 where St. Paul talks about branches being grafted out of the vine and then being grafted back in.

1.1.) the term often translated as “ruling” in RevJohn 19 (where Christ will be ‘verb-ing’ the rebel kings of the world with a rod of iron), is actually “shepherding” in Greek: a term which is always elsewhere loving and hopeful even where punishment is involved.

2.) the rationale that “pure spirits are locked into their fates” fails on several counts. Where does this rationale itself come from? (often unstated) Lucifer and other rebel angels clearly were not locked into their fates!–or they couldn’t have rebelled! (Possibly counterrebutted if the rebel angels are not considered to be originally spiritual, or even mythologically non-existent.) After the resurrection of the good and the evil, the ‘spirits’ are no longer unembodied, mooting this rationale in any case. (Possibly counterrebutted if, against scriptural testimony, the evil are not resurrected along with the good; or if bodily resurrection for anyone is doctrinally denied.)

3.) That last chapter in RevJohn, plus lead-ins from the previous chapter, actually shows post-mortem evangelization continuing hopefully on (with at least some successes, notably those kings of the world who last we saw were being scattered by Christ for the vultures to eat!) Unfortunately, the scene is rendered as a poetic portrait, which somewhat obscures what’s happening: the pieces have to be put together to ‘see’ the whole shape at once.

4.) God is essentially love; God is not (even also) essentially wrath. God has to be doing love to a person, even when doing wrath to the person; and He can stop doing wrath–but God cannot stop doing love any more than He can stop acting as God while still essentially being God.

5.) Does a theory of hopeless damnation involve souls continuing to exist completely separated and apart from God, while the more fundamental theology also teaches that God is omnipresent and that nothing exists ‘beside’ Him (i.e. in independence from Him, without Him acting to keep their existence going)? Then the theory instantly fails. Or the more basic theology is wrong. They cannot both be correct.

5.1.) Does a theory of annihilation involve the person ceasing to exist to be loved by God Who is essentially love? Then that theory of annihilation must fail; or else the more basic theology is wrong. They cannot both be correct.

Bonus simplistic observation (combining a bunch of tactics above): ‘Jesus’ means ‘God saves’ or ‘God is Salvation’. We are strenuously warned that we will not be saved so long as we deny the name of Jesus. So, who here denies God finally saves? Raise your hand! :mrgreen: (Hint: universalists don’t have to raise their hands.)

#4

Another short thought: Some people might be concerned that teaching about post-mortem choices will encourage people to rebel instead of to repent. However, let’s look at post-mortem possibilities according to Revelation 21:23-27 (NASB):

[23] And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb.
[24] The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it.
[25] In the daytime (for there will be no night there) its gates will never be closed;
[26] and they will bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it;
[27] and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

One one hand, we see that the gates of the heavenly city will never be shut while the glory and honor of the nations enter the heavenly city. On the other hand, nothing unclean will enter the heavenly city. This implies that nobody gets in without repenting of sin. Also, there are other verses about the importance of avoiding the judgment of the Lord.

#5

An excellent point; and indeed the scene ends with the Spirit and the Bride (and the evangelist himself) saying “come” to the ones who are thirsting so that they may wash their robes in the rivers of the water of life which flow out the gates (twelve gates to the city, so the “rivers”, plural, are going in all direction from the central throne of the city) and so obtain permission to enter the city and eat of the leaves of the tree of life.

So practically the final scene in RevJohn is a post-resurrection call (and thus post-mortem, though also pre-mortem of course) to repentance from loving and practicing sinning.

#6

Thank you both for these helpful thoughts!
Drew

#7

Roofus brought up a rebuttal attempt (with article link) to the hopeful interpretation of “kolasis” in the judgment of the goats (as I mentioned above for a quick example).

It was a detailed enough attempt that I thought it deserved its own post; which can now be found here, in the “Discussion Negative” subcategory of the “Evangelical Universalism” broad category. Commentary, expansion and/or counter-critiques should be posted there. Thanks!

#8

Thanks, Jason-
I don’t do this out of a bad attitude, but rather a seeking of truth. A stance is only as good as its ability to defend itself.
Take Care,
R

#9

No no no, please don’t worry: I really do much appreciate it. We’ve been making a lot of hay on the “kolasis” thing here for a while, so some good oppositional content to chew over can only be of benefit to the forum one way or another.

It was important enough of a contribution that I thought it deserved to be flagged with its own thread. :slight_smile: I look forward to wrestling with it soon. :smiley: (Also, it’s quickly going to get technical, and this particular thread is more about ‘how do we try to communicate the idea to people who aren’t technically minded or trained’? But of course, if a position is wrong, whether on this or that piece or altogether, then it shouldn’t be communicated as correct. :wink: )

#10

Thanks Roofus for the objection and Jason for keeping this thread on track with the spirit of my original question. I do want to get my head round the technical points but meanwhile there are sheep to be fed…
I can think of two good evangelical widows whose husbands died, as far as we can tell, as unbelievers. They experience anxiety about their husbands’ fate and guilt that they didn’t do more or better to persuade them to convert. They have also been taught that its wrong to pray for the dead and that the Catholic doctrine of purgatory is ‘a fond thing vainly invented’ (BCP article 22). I can offer them a better hope with ammunition provided by Gregory, Tom et al… but I have to be on sure ground. I can’t feed them stones in the guise of bread. It is good that we have the freedom to spar and banter in the academy, but the rubber hits the road in live pastoral situations. I need to read again what Gregory says about this in his final chapter and do some more thinking and praying. Thanks again guys for putting up with me thinking ‘out loud’.
Drew

#11

James, I have just discovered your posting elsewhere on the site about your niece. Wish I’d read it before my last post here. Love and prayers, Drew.

#12

Also, I would say that ministering to those whose loved ones have died, may require something even more basic than some simple apologetics.

That which comes closest to (so to speak) converting my mother, in regard to those she loves and admires who have died without (to all appearances) accepting Christ, is that God, being love, must love them even more than she or any other derivative person can love them.

True love seeks restoration with the beloved, and keeps on hopefully seeking it, never giving up–temporary setbacks and tragedies notwithstanding.

(A point agreed to by Calvinistic/Augustinistic Christians, too; which is why hard-core Calvs insist, both that God must not in fact have ever truly loved the non-elect (only incidentally or accidentally so, as a side effect of loving the elect), and that we can trust God to keep going to save, y’know, us who are obviously of ‘the elect’. :wink: )

It probably makes more of a difference that you have decided, to the best of your capability, that something must be true, than for them to know and accept the same rationales that you do. What we want from our specialists is, first, that they be honest with us (or at least not hypocritical), and second that they at least are skilled in the reasons for their speciality. I want those who love me (especially the one who loves me most) to know that, even if they can’t follow out what the heck I’m talking about or working on, at least they can trust me to be soberly and as objectively as possible working on it, and that they can receive an honest answer from me. (Including “I don’t know”, if it happens that I don’t, or similar qualifications.) The injured or sick person in the hospital wants the doctor to tell them the truth (usually), and to be competent enough to be realistically accurate in telling them the truth.

And even if they don’t want that, that’s probably what they need the most. (That, and to be truly loved. :slight_smile: )

#13

“Thanks Roofus for the objection and Jason for keeping this thread on track with the spirit of my original question. I do want to get my head round the technical points but meanwhile there are sheep to be fed…
I can think of two good evangelical widows whose husbands died, as far as we can tell, as unbelievers. They experience anxiety about their husbands’ fate and guilt that they didn’t do more or better to persuade them to convert. They have also been taught that its wrong to pray for the dead and that the Catholic doctrine of purgatory is ‘a fond thing vainly invented’ (BCP article 22). I can offer them a better hope with ammunition provided by Gregory, Tom et al… but I have to be on sure ground. I can’t feed them stones in the guise of bread. It is good that we have the freedom to spar and banter in the academy, but the rubber hits the road in live pastoral situations. I need to read again what Gregory says about this in his final chapter and do some more thinking and praying. Thanks again guys for putting up with me thinking ‘out loud’. Drew.”

“James, I have just discovered your posting elsewhere on the site about your niece. Wish I’d read it before my last post here. Love and prayers, Drew.”

Thanks, Drew. I’m sure many people independently use the the phrase “the rubber hits the road”.:slight_smile: Anyway, as a minister, I understand the need to be sure about what I interpret and teach from the Bible. And I struggled deeply with prayer and the Bible before I concluded that the Bible teaches about the eventual restoration of all people. My signature article “Orthodoxy and Gregory of Nyssa’s Universalism” and other articles “Conditional Futurism in Sum”, “The Conditional Apocalypse of King Nebuchadnezzar”, and “Nebuchadnezzar and the Kings in Revelation” represent my struggle to understand this issue. I wasn’t facing a crisis when I came to this conclusion, but my past struggle paid off greatly in this recent family crisis. I pray that God clearly reveals the truth of EU to you so that you know that you know it. I assume that none of us want to be false teacher in the eyes of the Lord. And while I faced no personal crisis, I decided I needed to resign my ministry credential form the Assemblies of God so that I could publicly teach about post-mortem decisions to reconcile with Christ.

And concerning purgatory, The Early Church teaching on the purgatorial hell preceded the Roman Catholocism developing its elaborate doctrine of purgatory for baptized believers.