The confession and bowing here is genuine because it is to the glory of the Father. Elsewhere there are those who are insincere in their confession and obedience:
The damned are not sincere in their confessions and obedience. Therefore, “under the earth” must refer to purgatory. Those in purgatory undergo the refining and cleansing fires.
Yep, that’s how I’d imagine it.
I know purgatory is a red rag word for some (not me). As someone who hopes and believes that All things shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well, I don’t dispute that to get there, the road may be very painful, that we will be judged-diagnosed, and that the cure will not be pleasant. All that hurting and wounding of others, and to then be confronted with the refining fire of Love Himself…Kyrie Eleison.
I’ve just crawled off a cancer ward. To blast away my cancer, (lymphoma) I underwent a year long treatment regime that I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. Healing is painful. I’ve no reason to believe that the curing of our spiritual cancers will be any the less hard and heart-rending. All those judgement passages in the gospels make me, a universalist, shudder.
Pax, Jess
At one time, hell was regarded by the church as one big purgatory. That is, the fires were purifying, cleansing, the judgment of God for remediation.
But Augustine came along (he who had the greatest impact of any man on the church), and the bad news of eternal torment was spread abroad. So something had to be done about the writings of well-known saints who taught the chastisement of God to be remedial, while he (Augustine) would stilll maintain the doctrine everlasting torment. So “purgatory” was invented as a place where those people went to be purified who were too good for eternal hell, but not good enough for heaven.
It’s my belief that such people enter purgatory and are purified. For those who freely reject Christ and are damned forever, they stay evil and refuse to repent. This isn’t unreasonable for they are separated from God’s grace. We have also seen this in our prison systems. Offenders who serve their time and go right back out and commit more crimes do so because the underlying influences of the behaviors are never dealt with. In fact, the environment of prison often ends up turning petty offenders into hardened criminals. This is what hell is like. It goes on forever. Yet there is nothing unjust about it because the wicked there refuse to repent.
Passing through briefly to point out that the Psalm in question has most likely been mistranslated – God exposes them as liars in their feigned obedience, and certainly doesn’t accept it, but rather purifies them from their feigned obedience. This was discussed not long ago in a different thread: Psalm 66:3 -- enemies give feigned obedience?
There wouldn’t be much point for someone loyal to God to praise God by saying He’s so great that His enemies will feign obedience to Him! But that’s what the Psalm would otherwise be saying.
Also, the same verb for grateful praise in Phil 2:10 is applied to those “under the earth” as well. There aren’t two different kinds of praise in view, and the scope is total. The Greek term translates an equally positive praise in the Hebrew of Isaiah which Paul is quoting. The context to what YHWH says through Isaiah there (which Paul is picking up and clarifying extends to all creatures everywhere, even those under the earth), is not only evangelism of rebels, but God even swears upon Himself that He shall succeed in bringing them out of their rebellion to truly worship Him. To say that God fails at last at this, is to deny that God is God enough to get it done! It isn’t that God has staked His own Godhood on the result (because God cannot lose His Godhood under any circumstances), but that the result is assured because of God’s omnicompetent Godhood. God’s grace keeps on going: impenitent evildoers aren’t separated from it (though they aren’t going to like the immediate form of how God applies it!)
As to “the underlying influences of the behaviors”, humans may not be able to deal with those, but God can do it (even if it takes a long time). It is unreasonable to attribute a human inability of this sort to God as an explanation for God’s failure to lead the unjust to repentance. “Who then can be saved?!” “With men it is impossible, but with God all things are possible!”
The Theological Wordbook Of The Old Testament points out that BDB says that feigned obedience is involved here in the word. (page 976). The NASB is the correct translation. Moreover, all the universalist passages that speak of purifying fires are better seen as purgatory rather than the Lake Of Fire. As it has been shown elsewhere by Biblical scholars, none of the so called universalist passages need to be taken to mean God will save everyone. In fact, the many passages about everlasting destruction are against such a reading. Given these facts “under the earth” is not a reference to the lake of fire but to purgatory. The fact that Universalism has been condemned by the Universal Church shows that scholars have studied it and found it to be without any support. The unrepentant in hell stay that way forever. In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus is asked, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” He replies by stating, “Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able” (Luke 13:23-24). Given the question that prompts it, Jesus’ answer cannot be interpreted to mean anything other than that many will not be saved. There is nothing conditional about the question or Jesus’ answer. He does not say, “If someone does this then he will be damned” or “Anyone who does this will be damned.” He says that there are many who fail to enter—and the context is salvation. This truth was pointed out years ago by the church.
“and under the earth” is simply a euphemism for the departed, i.e., the dead, but does not require some imagined and introduced “purgatory”.
Note: I should know better than to try to post when I’m still fighting off a cold; one consequence being that I reffed 1 Cor instead of Phil 2 in my post above. I corrected that this morning.
I disagree for reasons given in detail in the other post. Since you don’t give different detailed reasons here (or any detailed reasons at all), I have no particular reason to change my mind on that. 
Nor does this position even slightly explain why the Psalmist would think it’s a good idea to praise God by suggesting He’s too vain to recognize empty flattery of strength by the unjust. Moreover, what I argued (with support from other scholars) as the correct translation (that God is exposing their false obedience at judgment), doesn’t in itself require that such persons ever start truly being loyal to God (although there is purgative imagery on that topic not long afterward in the same Psalm, where the singers recall that they themselves were once false worshipers who were colorfully destroyed by God for their sins. Their situation, and their punishment, wasn’t hopeless. God punished them in order to lead them to repent and truly worship Him, precisely because He doesn’t accept false worship and as God Most High seeks true worship.)
Neither does the notion that some sinners will attempt feigned obedience at judgment even slightly count against the argument from other scriptures that eventually all sinners will come to true obedience. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.
I disagree, in great detail (elsewhere), that these are “facts”.
However, granting that you yourself (now) think these are facts (after spending much time on the site previously making didactic teaching claims to people otherwise yourself), that does not mean “under the earth” specifically refers to purgatory (and/or the lake of fire). It’s a rhetorical description of the scope of sinners coming to loyally praise God again: which sinners (those who need reconciliation to God as per Col 1)? – not only those on earth (currently alive) but those under the earth (currently dead), and not only those sinners but the ones in the heavens, too.
The details of how that happens (for example whether the lake of fire has a purgative function) are completely beside the point, and are not even addressed (aside from reasoning with rebels who are willing to be reasoned with), whether in the original Isaiah 45 verses, or in Paul’s two references to them (at Phil 2 and Rom 14).
Another fact that isn’t really a fact (unless you’re now referring to a papal declaration by the Roman Catholic Church, which many high ranking Catholic scholars no longer regard as being a teaching ex cathedra). If the Eastern Orthodox had flatly condemned Christian universalism, they wouldn’t allow people to hold it as a belief while still being members, and especially wouldn’t allow clergy and lay scholars to argue in favor of it.
He also tells the people who asked (in the verses after the ones you cited), that they’re going to be upset to discover that plenty of people are coming into the kingdom from all over the world while they themselves (the ones asking if only a few are being saved) are thrown outside!
Given Jesus’ answer (in the verses you or your source didn’t bother to mention for that incident), Jesus’ answer cannot be interpreted to mean anything other than many will be saved into the kingdom after all, even though many will seek and struggle to enter through the narrow door but won’t be strong enough to do so.
Actually, in those verses you (or your sources) didn’t think important enough to include in the account (most of the rest of the saying), the implication is that those who prefer only a few to be saved, and who regard themselves among those elite few (those who are first instead of last), will be the ones shut out. The final verse to this scene is Jesus’ typical reversal-of-expectation warning: “they are last who will be first, and they are first who will be last.”
Granted, that particular saying doesn’t indicate in itself that everyone enters the kingdom eventually, but it does at least warn those with ears to hear (so to speak) not to appeal to Jesus for validation of the idea that only a few will be saved after all.
And a lack of the story continuing here, doesn’t in itself mutually exclude evidence elsewhere of the story continuing to total evangelical success – a point that “the Church” has had a bad habit of forgetting throughout its history. Consequently, such sayings cannot be logically called as rebuttal evidence to an argument (such as from Isaiah 45 and its Pauline applications later) that the story does continue on to a total evangelical success eventually.
What they do logically count as evidence toward, is some kind of eschatological punishment coming to impenitent sinners. And in this case (Luke 13:22-30), the people sinning impenitently are apparently those who want to be part of an elite few who are saved! Not everyone has the advantages of the Pharisees (who by the way show up again immediately afterward), but God doesn’t sit back waiting for a few people to enter by the cramped door into the city. He’s out there on the road with the tens of thousands on the way to the city (literally the setting for that scene), and going out into the wilderness to seek the 100th sheep (or goat), sweeping hard to find the final coin rather than that He should lose even one of those who are made in His image.
The people who teach that only a few are being saved, are acting as a stumbling block to other people entering into the kingdom, and the scriptures have a lot of warnings to give about being a stumbling block to people entering the kingdom. (Including St. Paul where he quotes Isaiah 45 again in Romans 14, as it happens.)
Michael,
I don’t mean to be unkind, but let me report my observations in love, and please receive them in a spirit of love. You appear to change your opinion every several days, and then you post it up here in the form of a teaching (or in a form that would appear to be a teaching) for the rest of us. I think this may be something of an indication that you are reading a new book and your thoughts have been swayed by the opinion of yet another teacher. When you are reading the book (or article or listening to the teaching, watching the video, etc.) the teacher you are giving attention to seems to be speaking the truth and he sways you to his opinion. But then you start on the next book, and the author, of course, differs from the last on at least some points. If he sounds more convincing, or equally convincing, you are persuaded to believe his point of view.
To tell you the honest truth, Cole, one could argue nearly any point under the sun and give bible verses to back it up. This is done via a method of bible study called “proof-texting.” I went to the Assembly of God churches for many years, and then for quite a long time attended a Word of Faith church. I’ve also been exposed to other more fundamentalist teachings through books and sermons. These traditions have a habit of using the “proof-texting” method of bible study. They don’t all do it (well, the WoF may all do it), but all of the ones I’ve been exposed to DO do this. “Proof-texting” isn’t a rational or an honest or an effective means of studying scripture – not if you want to understand the intended meaning of the writings. I could make a very good case that the bible condones drinking to excess, but NOT if I take the scriptures I would use to make that case, in context. In fact, some of them would have to be taken in very wide context in order to invalidate the message that drunkenness is acceptable. It is always important to take ANY scripture in the context of the entire bible, correctly translated (which is also a tricky thing to find).
I can remember hearing about context from these very same churches (that is, the ones that practiced proof-texting), and the idea was always somewhat nebulous. It only meant to me that I should read the entire thought together, but that is not sufficient. Reading the entire book is the absolute smallest level of context you should accept, and even then that would require a background general knowledge of the whole bible, for such a reading to be anything like accurate. For this reason, we do have need of honest scholars to help us understand. Jason is, in point of fact, one of those honest scholars. That doesn’t mean he can’t be wrong. ANY of us can be wrong. But the person who strings verses together out of context, taken from various parts of the bible, is a lot MORE likely to be wrong than an honest and open scholar, with a generalized knowledge of the whole of scripture (though s/he may specialize in a particular part of scripture.)
For example, many reformed preachers heavily mine the book of Romans for their “proofs,” yet the book of Romans, taken as a WHOLE supports universal reconciliation in the opinions of many, many. In fact, some who have studied it deeply, in a condition of being open to being taught by the actual text of the epistle (rather than filtering it through their established belief system) have BECOME universalists by reading it.
Now you and I agree on many things, though perhaps not for the same reason. (Unless you’ve changed your mind about those things.)
]Everyone will eventually be saved./:m]
]There is an elect group who will be saved earlier than others./:m]
]Those who have sin in their lives will have to be purged./:m]
]This purging will destroy the sin in these people’s lives./:m]
]The Lake of Fire has a role in this purging process./:m]
To add to this list, I would also say (and I haven’t read you specifically agreeing/disagreeing with most of these things, to my memory)
]We will ALL need some degree of purging. (We will all need to be salted with fire, as Jesus put it.)/:m]
]The elect are saved first for the sake of the non-elect – that is, to become guides and servants to those who are not of the elect./:m]
]The verses about ALL praising God are (imo) a picture of what happens AFTER all have come to genuine repentance. I think this has to be the case, as the scriptures appear to say that this worship is genuine (not feigned). – (This one, of course you DO disagree with, in this post.)/:m]
Cole, I urge you to spend some time specifically studying the actual scriptures though you seem to me to resist this. Romans is a wonderful epistle, but it IS a rather difficult study. There’s hardly a word there that you can skip over and not miss something important, and at times it’s important to refer to several translations and to the Greek – so like I said, it’s hard work though worth every minute. The book of Ephesians is similar to Romans, though not quite as difficult and certainly not as long. Or Colossians also has some of the same themes and is shorter than both. These various teachers will continue to turn you this way and that, like a flag in a fickle wind, until you gain your OWN ground of understanding from the scriptures.
Love, Cindy
As the Greek scholars have correctly translated the verse according to BDB the enemies give feigned obedience. The writer of the Psalm is speaking to God of His people
It’s God’s people who undergo purification not God’s enemies. Malachi 3:
After God purifies His people He judges the enemies of God. This text shows that God doesn’t purify everyone. The sorcerers and adulterers are the one’s outside the gates:
Nowhere do the scriptures teach that those outside will eventually come in. You must rely on a false reading of Paul in Romans to come to that conclusion.
IMO, a close reading of Romans 5.12-21 makes an excellent case for the universality of Adam’s sin, and the same universality of Christ’s work.
All men= all men.
Of course, that can be argued, which is why I call it my opinion. But there is no argument that those scriptures do provide a cogent possibility for UR.
That’s really all I have to say about it at this time.
Jesus’ life and death are offered up as a sacrifice to the Father and the Father accepts that sacrifice as sufficient satisfaction for original sin. Just as every person when they come to the age of accountability must personally sin to be personally guilty, even so everyone must accept Christ to be personally saved.
It’s the entire context of vv 12-21 that I find convincing, in addition to that one verse.
The passage is referring to original sin not personal sin. Original sin is an infection of human nature itself, so that, unlike actual sin, it could not be expiated by the satisfaction of a mere man. Thus Christ, as the “second Adam,” does penance in our place – paying the debt of our original sin. Why does he do that? Love. The whole of the work of redemption begins with God’s love. Just as every person when they come to the age of accountability must personally sin to be personally guilty, even so everyone must accept Christ to be personally saved.
Not convinced - though I certainly am convinced that God’s love is the basis of everything.
15 But, not as the offence so also [is] the free gift; for if by the offence of the one the many did die, much more did the grace of God, and the free gift in grace of the one man Jesus Christ, abound to the many;
16 and not as through one who did sin [is] the free gift, for the judgment indeed [is] of one to condemnation, but the gift [is] of many offences to a declaration of Righteous,' 17 for if by the offence of the one the death did reign through the one, much more those, who the abundance of the grace and of the free gift of the righteousness are receiving, in life shall reign through the one -- Jesus Christ. 18 So, then, as through one offence to all men [it is] to condemnation, so also through one declaration ofRighteous’ [it is] to all men to justification of life;
19 for as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners: so also through the obedience of the one, shall the many be constituted righteous.
Through 1 man all died; through 1 man all will be made righteous. Same ‘all’, and not just undoing original sin, but making righteous.
Anyway, we may disagree, but that’s okay. I’ve got to sign off for now Michael.
Dave,
There are many interpretations of the passage. Paul is speaking to Christians. He’s telling them that all of them will be made righteous just as all of them were made sinners. “All people” here means every last one of us. It’s like if I went to a meeting where at church where everybody was saved and I made the statement, “We are all saved”. The context of my words is all of us here at this church meeting. Not all humanity. The same goes here. Paul is speaking to Christians in chapter 5. That’s the context not all humanity. To see this start at the beginning of the chapter. This interpretation is just as plausible as yours. All people is limited in scope to all Christians. Not all humanity.
Here’s another view:
By one man’s trespass all men were made sinners. All men in Adam are made sinners.
By the one man’s obedience all men will be made righteous. All men in Christ will be made righteous.
“By one man’s trespass all men were made sinners. All men in Adam are made sinners.
By the one man’s obedience all men will be made righteous. All men in Christ will be made righteous.”
That’s really not a good logical comparison though.
This one is, because the ‘all’ stays the same, as it is in Romans:
By one man’s trespass all men were made sinners. In Adam, all men are made sinners.
By the one man’s obedience all men will be made righteous. In Christ, all men will be made righteous.
That way, there is no re-statement that fogs the issue, it just points out what Paul is trying to say. Otherwise we could say, incorrectly:
All men, in Adam, are made sinners
All men, (that is, not ‘all’, but those men who are in Christ, really), will be made righteous.
The use of ‘all’ is not consistent.
Michael, what do you think the City, the New Jerusalem, to be? Is it heaven? John, the writer of Revelation saw this 4-square cubical city, and describes the gates as he saw them, gates of jewels. In his vision John saw that the 12 gates had the names of the 12 tribes of Israel written upon them, and that the 12 foundations had the names of the 12 apostles of the Lamb written upon them. Well fortunately (or providentially) the angel who showed John this vision TELLS him what the vision of the celestial city represents:
So what does the angel say he is gong to show John? None other than the bride of Christ! And what does he show him? “The great city, the holy Jerusalem”. What is the bride of the Lamb? Is it not the Church (or more accurately the Assembly) of Christ? What did Paul say was the foundation of the Church?
So again we have the great Assembly (the New Jerusalem) built on the foundation of the apostles (their names on the 12 foundations of the city) and the prophets (the ancient Hebrew prophets—in the New Jerusalem the 12 gates have the names of the 12 tribes of Israel).
So with the understanding that the City is the Church of Christ, we find an interesting fact in Revelation. The gates are never shut!
The gates into the Church of Christ shall not be shut AT ALL by day. And since there is no night there, that means the gates will be open ALL the time. Now if there is no possibility of the lost ever entering the Church, we would expect those gates to be shut against the outsiders. But the fact that they remain open, indicates an ongoing invitation to the outsiders to enter into the Church, the celestial city, and be part of the Bride of Christ.
Dave,
I think it is consistent. Here’s another one though:
While it is true that the Bible teaches “There is no one righteous, not even one” the context here could be more limited because it’s focus is narrowed to the “many”. As Greek Lexicons and the NIV at 1 Ti 6:10 show, “all” can mean “all kinds of” as in all kinds of evil. All may not mean every single individual in this context. The passage is saying that all kinds of people (Jews, Greeks, and Gentiles) who will be made righteous by Christ’s obedience used to be in Adam. That is, the very same people (All kinds of people - Jews, Greeks, and Gentiles) who will be made righteous by Christ’s obedience were made sinners by Adam’s trespass. The word is used this way throughout the New Testament:
Nowhere does it say they actually enter in though. They remain evil and unrepentant.