The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Redemption from the lake of fire?

Evangelical Universalism
#55

Sherman

Again, Salvation is where our inheritance exits through being born again by faith. For by grace has salvation ( our inheritance) been delivered unto you and it is appropriated and manifested in your life through faith. ( Eph 2:8; Col 1:12-14) Salvation is not by grace alone, but by grace through faith. No where in the bible does it say that faith is a gift of God that we receive to believe. In Eph 2:8 the gift of God is the grace, not the faith, Sherman. God’s grace is where our salvation lies(the undeserved gift) and we must individually respond positively by faith to appropriate and manifest this grace in our lives or we won’t receive it.

#56

Now we’re on different soteriologies: monergism vs synergism. I’m firmly in the latter camp (with the Orthodox). I think proponents of both approaches can be universalists, so I’m not seeing the point at turning the debate to one approach against the other.

It’s a mistake (not that anybody’s explicitly arguing this that I noticed) to suppose that because “I” have some necessary but not sufficient role to play in my salvation, my soteriology is “all” about ME. Likewise, it’s a mistake to suppose that because grace and salvation are gifts and because God has a necessary (though, in my view, not sufficient) role to play in my salvation, my soteriology excludes any necessary role for the individual. It’s neither ‘all’ God nor ‘all’ me. Salvation is relational and relationships of an interpersonal nature are (I think) by definition creative works of synergy. But given the particular KIND of necessary role God has to play, our necessary role is cannot be the basis for boasting. But not being able to ‘boast’ doesn’t mean not have any necessary role to play at all. It’s perfectly possible to have a necessary role to play which is at the same time not a possible basis for boasting.

My two cents.

Tom

#57

And yet many in that latter camp do just that… boast - look at me I was clever enough to exercise my free-will faith.

Does God leave a bag of gold outside your door and hope you pick it up and take it to your creditors or does God take the bag of gold straight to them?

#58

I don’t boast. I give all the glory to God. I just received his undeserved grace. His part, grace. My part, believing it. The difference between you and I, Jeff, is I have responded by faith to the love and grace of God and you haven’t. God is not going to make you respond, Jeff. That comes from you, my friend. To be forgiven by God, we must comply with God’s conditions for forgiveness… Not our own.

#59

So you say… often!

#60

Everyone

I welcome your responses to my new post: Believers and Unbelievers committing the Irremediable sin!

#61

I wouldn’t deny that’s it’s possible to boast for the reasons you specify, Jeff, but I just haven’t run into it personally–believers actually boasting of the fact that they did something that earned them some praise and respect by simply because they chose to accept grace, to say ‘yes’ to God. But if it happens, it can’t really be evidence against synergism per se, for then (by parity of reasoning) not boasting would have to be evidence FOR synergism, and I wouldn’t claim that either. And then the same is true for monergistic approaches. You have boasting (of a more Israeli sort) on that side, like “Hey, God chose ME. I must be swell. I’m special. You’re not. I’m superior to you.” You definitely have that going on. But not every OT Jew boasted of God’s having chosen the Jews. But some did.

We’re good at perverting our relationship with God however we say it’s to be understood. Not sure that in itself reflects upon the truth of how we say it’s to be understood.

Tom

#62

Brother, if God doesn’t turn the lights on, we live in darkness. If God doesn’t raise us to life, then we remain dead in our sins. Yes it is manifested in our life, and we appropriate it through faith; but the key phrase is “in our life”. In the present, there are many people who do not know the Lord, who are separated from God, who do not have a relationship with God - in the present. But in eternity, every knee bows in humble submission, every tongue confesses in faith that Jesus is Lord - to the glory of God. Salvation is about right and restored relationship with God, not about avoiding hell; it’s about coming alive to the things of God who loves us as opposed to remaining in darkness and death. Jesus did not come to condemn the lost, but to save us; and I believe that He accomplished our salvation through the cross. It is not the “Atonement Plus” that saves us, but it is the “Atonement”. It is not “Grace + Faith” that saves us, but it is “Grace” that saves us. We trust in the Grace of God and we realize, appropriate the benefits of Grace; but it is grace that saves us. Frankly, “our faith” needs to be in the Grace of God, not in “our faith”.

But then of course, neither of the scriptures you quote speak of the lake of fire, and the meaning of the lake of fire. So it’s best to take this discussion elsewhere, either to an existing thread or maybe a new one.

As to the Lake of Fire and Brimstone, I’ve already shared why I believe it is metaphorical of Remedial Punishment.

Blessings,
Sherman

#63

Dear fellow bloggers,

Thank you so much for all your postings. I apologize for being missing from the conversation, however I have been out-of-town without Internet access. I am back now and have read through all of the postings and will continue to contemplate the above exchange. I have some more comments but have decided to put them in a new thread entitled "Conspicuous by Its Absence”.

I hope I have not been too “conspicuous by my absence” from the above conversation. :wink:

Sincerely,
firedup2000

#64

hah, nice. :laughing:

WB, FU! :mrgreen:

#65

Not to hijack this thread punished for beliefs?

I’d like to ask Aaron37 whether his assertion that, just because there are no verses in scripture that directly say that Jesus didn’t speak in tongues, jesus COULD have done so is any different to UR supporters assertions that just because no verse explicitly states unbelievers ever leave the lake of fire doesn’t preclude the possibility that they COULD leave it?

In other words do you recognise that insistance on the possibility of Jesus speaking in tongues despite no direct or indirect evidence in scripture is a much weaker position than the possibility of unbelievers being saved out of the lake of fire for which there is no direct verse but much indirect evidence from the rest of scripture?

Or will you just hold to the view that Jesus could have spoken in tongues while not giving your opponents the benefit of the exact same position regarding ultimate reconciliation out of the lake of fire?

#66

I’ll grant that Jesus could have spoken in tongues, though there is no direct scriptural evidence for it. At the end of the Gospel of John, the writer says that there were many more things Jesus did that he supposed that not all the books in the world could contain them. But so what?

The argument is whether or not tongues is *the *necessary requirement to demonstrate the Power of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Believer. To which there are many instances in the bible in which a person was healed or demons cast out, or whatever, without tongues being mentioned at all. Could in each of the cases, could tongues have been used? I suppose so, but the bible isn’t explicit in saying so. Not even implicit, for that matter. If tongues were such a grave matter, one should expect that it woudl have been emphasized in ever letter in the NT, at least. But all we have in I Corinthians is an admonishement by Paul to exercise love (in the famous Love Chapter), rather than speak words like a clanging cymbol and misuse of tongues in a congregational setting. In fact, I’d challenge anyone to find a healing in the Gospels or in the book of Acts in which tongues played a vital role in a healing process.

The evidence for people reconciled out of the lake of fire is at least implicit in the idea that God is love, and contnually love. And works to bring in all things into reconciliation, something that a hopeless eternity in the Lake of Fire would not accomplish. Moreover, the idea of fire in general throughout the bible is said to bring a purging, a purification to the one being tried. And I can quote a myriad of scriptures to testify to that line of thought. Not to mention the discussions involving the ‘kings of the earth’ being present at the lake of fire AND the invite into the New Jerusalem.

#67

[JRP mod note: Dondi accidentally reposted his own comment as a quoted reply to a new comment here. I’ve taken the liberty of deleting it to save a bit of screenspace, since its content was completely redundant; but left a note here, to explain why Jeff talks about “response(s?)”]

#68

Hi Dondi -

I’m a bit puzzled by your response(s)??

My post merely challenges Aaron37 to accept the possibility of redemption out of the lake of fire without an explicit verse or verses to that effect because he himself in the tongues discussion expects his opposition to accept that Jesus could possibly have spoken in tongues despite no specific verses to that effect.

The matter of tongues is irrelevant really it could have been any concept (drinking coffee or something - I don’t know… an inordinate fondness for blue things) for which there is no direct scriptural backing but accepted as a possibility by Aaron37.

He doesn’t allow his opponents to use the same argument that he uses himself in this instance.

ad nauseum we’ve seen him applying his mantra “Show me the verse…”

If he insists that there is a possibility that Jesus spoke in tongues without direct scriptural evidence then he HAS to allow that the POSSIBILITY that sinners could be redeemed out of the lake of fire is not ruled out simply because of no verse directly saying so.

That’s not to say that it can’t be ruled out by indirect evidence to the contrary from elsewhere in scripture but Aaron37 doesn’t allow his opponents to use cumulative, indirect evidence from other parts of scripture and when they do he just keeps repeating ‘show me the verse… show me the verse…, show me the verse…’

Of course all this is moot if one just uses the magic word :unamused: ‘Sheesh’ - as this trumps even direct scriptural evidence :smiley:

#69

John 11:33 ;38 both speak of Jesus groaning in the spirit…it is very similar to ones groaning in the spirit when you pray in tongues as described in Romans 8:26. I’m not making doctrine out of this…but what do you think, Jeff? Is it possible Jesus prayed in tongues?

#70

You are using secondary indirect material which you deny others the right to do.

I use your own type of argument against you…

‘Show me the verse where it says Jesus prayed in tongues’
OR
Admit that your use of this type of tactic against people providing you with perfectly reasonable indirect evidence of the POSSIBILITY of sinners being redeemed out of the lake of fire is flawed. If YOU can appeal to other parts of scripture then so can THEY - stop sticking your fingers in your ears and singing ‘Lah, lah,lah’ so you don’t have to deal with their points.

Stop resorting to ‘SHOW ME THE VERSE…’

You don’t even get what I’m trying to point out do you? I don’t give a monkeys chuff whether Jesus spoke in tongues or not.

#71

Ah, I’m sorry I misread you. Nevermind then. Carry on with A37, which btw I applaud your efforts.

And also BTW, Romans 8:26 doesn’t mention speaking in tongues either. Otherwise, that is an utterance, isn’t it?

#72

No problem Dondi :smiley:

Because Aaron37 is unwilling to allow me to quote scripture to him I can only engage him in this way… i.e. by appealing to an unfair use of a tactic he denies others the right to employ.

#73

Incidentally (compared to the main post topic–or maybe not! :wink: ), the Greek term there at John 11 (both verses) is “in-thunder”. (Which is one of the more awesome sounding words in Greek, too: embrimaomai! Or as we might say here in the South, “Im Brim MahOhMy!” :laughing: :smiling_imp: :mrgreen:)

It absolutely does not have the connotation of praying (not in itself anyway), and even “muttering” is too weak and doesn’t quite get the emotional thrust correct. It’s a rumbling, threatening GROWL!–the sort of thing someone does when he’s ticced off.

A more accurate translation, including in grammar, from the Greek might be: “Then Jesus, as He saw her wailing, and the Jews wailing as they came toward her, growls in His breath [or ‘under His breath’ as we would say in English], shaking Himself.” And, “Jesus, deeply growling in Himself, is coming toward the tomb.”

It’s the same term used for Jesus when strictly warning two different men he had just healed not to go blabbing about this to the public right before throwing them out of the house (which they then go boast to the public about) at Matt 9:30 and Mark 1:43. By comparison, it’s also the term used by the disciples embrimaomai-ing against Mary for bringing the attar at Mark 14:5. (I think those are the only times it occurs in the NT.)

This use of the term has long been recognized, and one of the popular topics for interpreting and applying GosJohn in this chapter, throughout all Christian history, has been: what (and/or who) is Jesus angry about here, and why? (The text doesn’t say, so there has been a lot of debate and discussion. :slight_smile: I strongly suspect more than one answer is correct, both concerning the target of His anger and His rationale for it.)

#74

Very interesting! I’ve never looked closely at this passage before. I noticed that the NLT, which I don’t usually read, translates it “moved with indignation” in the first instance (but only as “deeply troubled” in the second–which illustrates nicely why I don’t usually read it! :sunglasses: )

So, who would you speculate his ‘indignation’ is directed at? (Or is this getting too off topic for this thread?)

Sonia