How anyone can hold to the view “God does not want them to be saved” in light of clearly contrary verses is mind-boggling, e.g., [God] desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4).
Probably fewer than 5%, and certainly fewer than 10% of non-believers are in active rebellion. Indeed, I wouldn’t be surprised if at least half of all non-believers have never even heard of Christ or the gospel (consider the whole world and not just North America and Europe).
I think the few (comparatively speaking) that are in active rebellion, are mostly former Christians or people who were raised in a Christian environment. And I think even most of them are not rebelling against Christ, but against an ugly caricature of Christianity to which they were exposed in their youth.
Lancia - agreed.
Yes, of course He succeeded.
(if you just want the simple answer and no elaboration)
I’d strike the part that says “when he really wants to,” because that implies that He doesn’t really want to for others. God desires for all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
I don’t know on such issues. The secret things belong to God. I don’t think anyone who would repent is kept from repenting, if that’s what you’re asking.
I agree, and God certainly loves all people. But when it comes to judgment, God specifically says, in essence, “Leave it to me” (Romans 12:19). Whether it’s of limited or unlimited duration, and whether it’s corrective or not, or whether it’s in this life or the next, it’s His place to show wrath toward sin. So, yes, we’re to love like He loves (Jesus dying on the cross for us is a HUGE example to follow), and then leave wrath/judgment/punishment to Him, however He sees fit.
Great story. I agree, there’s plenty of room within Christianity to disagree on these issues and still recognize each other as one family in Christ. I’m perfectly fine with the idea of having universalists as members of my church (heck, my wife is one of them!).
Gladly! Sounds like fun, let’s go!
I’m not sure whether to laugh with you or be offended! 
I suppose it depends on how you define “active rebellion.” I take from Romans 1:18 that those who “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (talking about all Gentiles who don’t know Jesus) are in active rebellion, because they even reject what can be clearly perceived about God by looking at His creation.
I think Gabe clicked the wrong button trying to reply to BPW above – it got listed on the mod report as a spam post meant to sell something (how I have no idea; maybe a bug in the forum code. Pun not originally intended. 
)
I’ll redirect Gabe’s post back here. 
I just had a thought. Maybe Romans 12:19 isn’t talking about post-mortem punishment, or even about any kind of vengeance toward us, but about His wrath being poured out on Christ, on the cross.
I recently heard Peter Hiett wonder in a sermon whether hate truly is the opposite of love, because Ecclesiastes 3:8 says that there's a time for hate. So if there's a time for it, it must not be sin. So he wondered if the opposite of love was apathy or something like that. He didn't come to any conclusion, just wondering out loud.
That "God is a consuming fire" (Heb 12:29) could mean that His essense includes vengeance, though admittedly, this is less clear.
Good point. Yeah, I haven't fully grasped this aspect of it. The best I can reconcile it is that those in hell continue in active rebellion, and that any acknowledgement that they make concerning the Lordship of Christ is like that of the demons: they know it, but rebel against it.
"When all things are subjected to him" seems to mean that all things will be under His rule. This does not necessarily rule out the possibility that some will be in prison. He will rule over them as well.
"Throughout the ages" is missing from Hebrews 7:25 (I'm assuming the reference is beside those words in order to support that claim). Nevertheless, the verse does say, "he always lives" to make intercession for them (πάντοτε ζῶν), which I suppose could mean essentially the same thing.
I wouldn't make too much of this. The people often didn't understand Jesus, and were very fickle. They loved Him one minute, and turned on Him the next.Indeed, so in terms of this discussion the logic is unassailable…
as a past Baptist myself, said with tongue planted fully in cheek.
I’d say the context reflects antemortem, not dissimilar to the likes of 2Thess 1:6 which (from my perspective) views such in terms of what was leading up to and encompassing the AD70 parousia.
As for “His wrath being poured out on Christ, on the cross” –– I think a better case for that can actually be made from an alternative understanding of Jn 12:32 where “draw all” is left without the following generic “men” or “people” that isn’t in the Gk. text (which is why it often appears in italics) and rather apply the “draw all” to the aforementioned “judgment” that was against “this world” of the previous verse, i.e., at the Cross Jesus drew ALL God’s ‘judgment’ (wrath) for sin upon himself.
Thanks Jason. I think it was a bug, but since I was on my phone, it is possible that I clicked on the wrong button.
I don’t like bugs or mice and am not giving up getting rid of them when they invade my house, and I also am not going to always try to get rid of them in the most humane way because I don’t have time for that. . . but I do feel a tinge of guilt and start pondering this sometimes.
BPW Posts: 46Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:15 pm
You know this is a great thought you brought up and occasionally I actually have thought about this. I have to kill insects or animals that invade my house although I do try to make it as fast and painless as possible. But in a neutral setting I try not to bother them if possible. However I think insects and animals act almost entirely by instinct and I think that accepting dying at some point is in their DNA. In other words I wonder if it means the same thing to them as it means to us?
Thought I’d jump into this discussion, though I’m new.
Aren’t all things already under God’s rule in the sense of God having power over them, and therefore subjected to Christ in the same way (assuming you’re a Trinitarian)? “And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.’” (Matt 28:18) So if all things being subjected to Him means only that all authority is His, then it has already happened - which is not the claim Paul is making.
Jump right in! I’ve barely been around much longer, and no one has told me to be quiet yet!
That’s a interesting point. And, of course, there’s also the sense in which everything has always been under God’s rule, since He is God after all. The passage itself seems to have at least some of this in mind, and that’s kind of the point. “For ‘God has put all things in subjection under his feet.’ But when it says, ‘all things are put in subjection,’ it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all” (1 Cor 15:27-28).
The book of Hebrews also quotes Psalm 8, and then says this about it, “Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him” (Hebrews 2:8). So it seems the New Testament recognizes that although Psalm 8 says that all things are subject to Christ, yet there remains some things which are not yet.
It’s worth noting, also, that Psalm 8, at least in the ESV, seems to speak more about ruling over all: “what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him? Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the seas. O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!” (Psalm 8:4-9)
What to make of all this? I have no idea.
I might venture a thought from a fulfilled eschatological perspective where this isn’t a problem. What “remains” or the “At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him” is understood in what is called the “already but not yet” BUT is seen as what was occurring in the transition of “the ages” from Old to New covenants, i.e., THEIR age.
There was an overlapping period of approximately 40yrs (a biblical generation) AD30-70. A time of trial and testing where faithfulness was exhorted and challenged and fidelity would bear its reward in terms of life into the coming new age… this is of the same biblical pattern of Israel coming out of Egypt to Land of Promise (bondage into liberty). Faithfulness for NT saints would see them inherit the promises (Heb 6:12), better promises.
Now the “at present” represented THEIR “time of the end” (Dan 12:4, 7) AD30 forward when “knowledge shall increase” i.e., knowledge of salvation/deliverance aka ‘the gospel’ unto AD70 where and “when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished.” Thus the AD70 parousia of Christ was the point at which “God may become all in all.” 1Cor 15:28. Thus from that time forward all is in subjection to Him for He is God over all.
Good point. So are we seeing a “now/not yet” kind of tension here? In what sense could someone be said to be fully subjected to Christ and yet continue to sin? Be put in subjection, sure - but that’s not necessarily the same thing as being in subjection, at the present instant. God can be “in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” without the entire world being instantly reconciled, no? So couldn’t the same sort of principle apply here? If these passages referred only to being under divine rule and not to universal obedience, then what change would be taking place - and how would it bring about God’s being “all in all”, unless all were in the same state of being?
I’m not sure how coherently I’m presenting this - I’m writing in a bit of a rush, and haven’t really worked through all this before - but those are my thoughts on the matter.
IMO, There is no sense, in terms of God dealing with humanity, that everyone is under His rule- else there would be no need for subjection or reconciliation. That God is ultimately in control of everything is a given- but that does not take into account His purpose, which according to Eph 1:9-11, is to gather everything into one in Christ; and 1 Cor 15:23-28 which speaks of all things (including every adversary) being subjected to Christ so that God may become “all in all”(everything in everyone"). These and a few other verses, like John 12:32 and Col 1:15-20 indicate to me that the subjection spoken of is not just suppression and forced obedience, because if that were so it would only speak of God being “over all”- which He currently already is. The subjection spoken of in these verses is therefore, imo, subjection to the love of God so that He becomes “all in all”. That is “the nature” of the oneness all are being gathered into.
If God has become all in someone, they are in His love and His love is in them, because God is love- so if He is “all” in someone, they are subjected to love- which is true freedom. Love is the “glorious liberty of the children of God” spoken of in Romans 8, into which the whole creation will be “set free from futility” into said “glorious liberty”.
For me, this subjection is to be brought into willing communion with the King of love.
Hi, STP. Please be sure to let everyone know, what you and your wife think of “Hell and Mr. Fudge.” We don’t want to have Mr. Fudge dangling - do we? 
And Bill Murray played himself in Zombieland 
http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTQxMzc0MDQyM15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMDQ2Njc1OA@@.V1_SX214_AL.jpg
Now I’m off to see my doctor (the astute in the audience here. will recognize the loudspeaker announcement “Dr. Howard, Dc. Fine, Dr. Howard” in the background, and identify where it is originally from)
I definitely think so.
I think these passages are all about authority. The change is that in the future, all will recognize His authority, even though some continue to rebel against it, as they demons do now. But there will be no doubt who the King is.
I think it’s talking more about His presence as King in all places. I don’t think it can mean that God will in be every person, because the next verse talks about being baptized for the dead (not that he was endorsing the practice, but that he recognized the rationale for it). The rationale is that everyone, including the dead, will be subjected to God, and therefore those who haven’t trusted in Him need to repent and be baptized. Paul didn’t say (at least not in these verses) whether that was possible post-mortem, but I think at the least the argument went something like this:
]Everyone (even the dead) will recognize that God is King./:m]
]Some of the dead do not trust in God as King./:m]
]Some (of the living) say “Since they haven’t trusted in God as King, and yet they will still be subjected to Him one way or another, let’s be baptized on their behalf, that they might not be condemned.” Apparently, they at least recognized that it was too late for the dead themselves to trust in Christ if they have not already./:m]
]And yet, whether this baptism on behalf of the dead works or not, Paul has said that God will be all in all./:m]
It seems like this would have been the perfect time to say, “Hey, don’t be baptized on their behalf! They’ll come around on their own! God will be in them!” But that’s not what he says (although, to be fair, he doesn’t directly speak against that either, rather he leaves it kind of open). Still, it seems “all in all” continues to refer to God’s authority over all rather than being in each person.
Or maybe that is what he says…
“Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.” (1 Corinthians 15:51-52)
The parallelism Paul is using would seem to make that unlikely. God subjected all things to Christ, therefore all things will be (in future) subjected to Christ specifically - not yet to God the Father - and once all things are subjected to Christ (in whatever sense the term is being used) then Christ will be subjected to God the Father in that same sense so that God will be all in all (whatever that may mean). Christ obviously recognizes the authority of God already, so the word subjected in this passage can’t be referring to mere recognition of authority - otherwise Christ would already be subjected to the Father.
Baptism for the dead doesn’t seem intrinsically tied to Paul’s subjection/all-in-all claims. The formatting of 1 Corinthians, to my mind, runs something like this: Paul explains how essential the resurrection is to the Christian faith; Paul reassures the congregation that there is a resurrection, and goes into some detail on what that means; Paul illustrates various problems the faith would have if there weren’t a resurrection (“otherwise”, or in other words “if what I’m telling you isn’t true, then why…”); Paul answers anticipated questions about resurrection bodies. If the all-in-all verse and the baptism-for-the-dead verse aren’t even part of the same thought, the same section of the letter, then what basis is there for thinking that the baptism for the dead verse is intended to help us interpret the all-in-all verse? And if it’s not, is there any reason to think that baptism for the dead has anything to do with subjection to God, as the word subjection is used in 1 Cor?
As you said, he doesn’t necessarily endorse the practice - he’s just using it as an example. He’s recognizing the rationale for the practice (whatever that rationale is) and pointing out how pointless the practice is if the dead are not raised. Telling people to stop doing the thing he’s just used to help make a case for the resurrection wouldn’t exactly help his case for the resurrection! (If he considered the dead people in question to be beyond help, he could have told them to stop for that reason - but he didn’t do that either. But either way, it doesn’t seem like something he was concerned about.)
I know hardly anything about Koine Greek - do you know if this makes grammatical sense, or does someone else here know? Eaglesway made a good point earlier; why is God referred to as “over all and through all and in [you] all” in Ephesians if “in all” means the same thing to Paul as “over all”?
This is very long and I may be getting the discussion off track. 
If you want to get back to responding to Hope Beyond Hell, I can stop focusing and bothering on this one point and let you move on.
I follow a Roman Catholic blogger called Douglas Ernst. Douglas is really a tea party fan and comic book lover. So that’s what he blogs about (not that I’m a tea party fan - mind you). But today he had an interesting blog post, which might fit here. I’ll post the link here (and so nobody complains, I 'll use BIT.LY instead of IS.GD - satisfied?): Yes, dead relatives can visit you in your dreams
And for anyone having IS.GD anxiety attacks, I’ll throw in this - for the math lovers here (using OW.LY):i Largest known prime number discovered in Missouri
And how about a “controversial” quote?: