The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Shall Not Inherit eternal life.

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#1

I’m sure these passages have probably been disgussed here at length. Could someone direct me to or repost arguments that have been presented on behalf of universalism in regards to these passages? Thanks.

1Co_6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Gal_5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Perhaps this verse may be thrown into this pot of “inheritance:”
Mar_10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

#2

I don’t know if these have been discussed before or not, but I can tell you my view of these verses.

First off, lets start with the last as I believe it is the key to understanding. “Eternal Life” is a mistranslation. A correct translation would be “Eonian Life”. What is Eonian Life? (Google the term, you will find interesting stuff!) From my studying, I have to the conclusion that it is Life in the Eons to come. Namely, the Millenium and the eon that follows (the last one). During these two eons, Christ shall rule over the Earth, and those who have inherited Eonian Life are those who rule with him. We will be resurrected during the first Resurrection and given our glorified bodies. We will rule with Christ over those who have survived through the Tribulation. We will be a kingdom of kings and priests.

Those in the other two verses mentioned that will not inherit the kingdom of God are those who will not be resurrected in the First Resurrection. They will be resurrected in the Second Resurrection at the end of the Millenium and the beginning of the last Eon. They too will eventually be saved, but they missed out on Eonian Life.

In short, to inherit Eonian Life is the same as to inherit the kingdom of God, which is the same as to rule with Christ as kings and priests during the Millenium.

#3

Passages must be understood in context. Each of these is a call for believers to repent from evil. They are not warnings about what will happen to unbelievers, but warnings concerning the result of sin in the lives of believers, believers shall not inherit the kingdom of God. And what is it that believers are to be seeking, are to be praying for? For the kingdom of God, will of God to be done on earth as it is in heaven!

1 Cor. 6:7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Paul is saying in context, stop suing your brother, and most certainly stop doing evil to your brother. You’ve been redeemed, freed from such evil and set apart to participate in the coming of the kingdom of God to earth! Don’t you know if you continue to sin you will not participate in the coming of the kingdom of God to earth!

Gal. 5:13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. 17 For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

Again, note that Paul is warning believers of the results of sin in their lives. If they continue to give in to the the flesh they will not participate in the kingdom of God which is righteousness, peace, and joy (love, joy, peace, perseverance, kindness, goodness, etc.). They will not inherit, participate in the kingdom of God coming to earth, in their lives much less anyone else’s!

By taking these passages out of context and interpreting them to be about some people getting into heaven some day (believers, saved) and others not (unbelievers, unsaved), such nullifies the power of these passages to call believers to repentance today! Reality is that sin brings death, destruction to believers and unbelievers alike, and it even hinders unbelievers from participating in the kingdom of God today!

Note that Mk. 10:17 is significantly different though it contains similar wording in “inherit”. It is spoken to a Jew, not a follower of Jesus. Jesus affirms him following the Law, and points out through His question the need that the man had, to love God and people more than money. And then Jesus, interestingly, speaks of how it is hard for a rich man to “enter” or “begin to experience” the kingdom of God, vs. 23! So Jesus equates “eternal life” with “beginning to experience the kingdom of God”!!!

Not one of these passages affirms ECT or even warns of such. They do warn that we, everyone, believer and unbeliever alike, must repent of sin and live right in order to participate in the kingdom of God today! To take these passages and somehow use them to affirm the certainty of damnation of others is to completely misinterpret and mishandle them. They are a call to repentace for those who believe in God, especially for we who claim to be disciples of Christ! If we give into the flesh then we shall not participate, enter in, or increase in the kingdom of God, the rule and reign of the Spirit, the righteousness, wholeness, and joy of being obedient to the reign of Christ!

#4

To Sherman’s excellent comments I would only add that by the same token, they are about participation in the kingdom of God in the future, too, not only now but in the day of the Lord to come. (And not only in that day, but today as well.)

That doesn’t mean any of the three cited prooftexts, in context, necessarily involve a shutoff point beyond which no one can repent of their sins and enter into the kingdom. They might however involve points beyond which there will be punishments (or more obvious punishments) for impenitent sinning.

As Sherman said, they are directed to ostensible servants of God, too, which breaks down saved-us verses lost-them concepts. The Pauline texts are addressed in warning to Christians; and the Gospel text involves a scene with a rich young synagogue chief, thus someone already very much concerned with being loyal to God. He isn’t a rich pagan or rich agnostic or rich atheist or rich Buddhist or rich Zoroastrian etc. (I strongly suspect he’s the same lawyer who earlier challenged Jesus with the same question and was answered by Jesus with the parable of the good Samaritan when the lawyer tried to justify himself by asking who his neighbor was whom he had to love!–the scene with the rich young ruler occurs in Jericho, where the parable was earlier set! If this is the same man, I further suspect he’s the Pharisee who a few days later in the Temple at Jerusalem approves of Jesus’ smackdown on the Sadducees and asks the same question again, this time agreeing with Jesus enough to be praised by Jesus as being not far from the kingdom. That would be a great hidden storyarc behind those accounts. :smiley: )

#5

Good points Sherman and Jason. I always wondered how these warnings could be about escaping ECT since they are directed at Christians who are supposed to be justified (i.e. saved from ECT) by faith alone , not by avoiding lists of certain sins.

#6

I’m just thinking here and would enjoy anyone’s thoughts…

I wonder how much the concept of the kingdom of God being experienced after death is in focus in these and most other passages? The more I study scripture my focus seems to shift from the post-mortem (as experienced by us) kingdom of God to the kingdom of God that we can participate in today and help usher in today, heaven on earth. “Repent for the kingdom of heave is at hand”, it is within reach; we can participate in it today. For much of my life, my focus was about someday making it into heaven and what might keep me/us from making it into heaven, not about what I can do to help bring heaven to earth, to help usher in the kingdom of God today.

It reminds me of the old saying that “some people are so heavenly minded they are no earthly good.” This, I’m thinking, is much more rooted in Greco-Roman mythology than in Mosaic/Prophetic theology. The Jew longed for the Messianic Age To Come, Olam Haba, but that age to come was an earthly age when God rules all the world through the Messiah, the Anointed One. It was not a post-mortem experience they were concerned with but a this world experience.

Also, it seems the promises of the Mosaic covenant are not so individualistic, but are much more oriented for the whole nation of people, not I/me but us/we.

It’s a very different perspective from which to view/understand scripture. It think.

#7

I’ve been wondering about this lately as well. My understanding is beginning to shift towards the idea that as the ekklesia, our job as the body of Christ is to be exactly that; the manifestation of Jesus in the earth, both now and in the future. I don’t know how or in what way (or if) we are able to participate post mortem until the resurrection, because I do think it has a lot to do with bringing the kingdom to earth.

#8

Yes, the cry of our heart as Jesus followers is summed well in the first request after praise in Lord’s prayer, “Thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven!” In heaven, in the kingdom of God, ultimately all are saved, all are healed, all are reconciled to God an one another! Thus the cry of our hearts and orientation of our lives should be bringing heaven to earth, expanding and increasing the kingdom of God, the reign and rule of our glourious Lord here on earth in the present! Seeing people healed, delivered, set free, provided for, reconciled, whole and at peace with God, others, and themselves! This is our pray and our job! We get to participate in heaven coming to earth as pictured so gloriously in John’s mysterious and mystical screen play “The Revelation of Jesus Christ” where ultimately the New Jerusalem, perfect in every way, comes to earth to stay and everyone worships God!

This perspective is really effecting my theology! Baptism, instead of being about God forgiving us, it’s about experiencing eternal forgiveness here and now; it’s not about being necessary to get into heaven, but helpful in getting heaven into us! Prayer, instead of being about making a difference in the eternal, it’s about making a difference in the present, bringing heaven to earth, changing our lives and experiencing God Most Nigh! In worship we not only worship here, but we experience worshipping with the saints in heaven! And God is enthroned in the praises of His people; worship is not about getting God to be on the throne, but about us experiencing God on the throne, high and exalted, God Most High. We share the Good News not so that people can get into heaven someday, but so that people can participate in heaven, the kingdom of God Today! Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand; it’s within reach; we can participate in the kingdom of Love, Joy, Wholeness, and Rightness NOW and increasingly to come!

Instead of “going someday” we pray and seek the kingdom of God “coming today”! Things aren’t right, we seek to make the right! Where there is war, we seek to sow seeds of peace trusting in the power of life in the seed!

“Thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven!”

#9

Amen to that.

#10

Very good points, Sherman

That’s been where my outlook has been going, too – right along with you. At present, what I see is that we come into the kingdom of God when we believe and are baptized, and at that point we are moving toward the goal of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

Recently one of the brothers in our group posted a couple of chapters from a book about the kingdom of God, and I was very interested to learn that in context with the culture, “kingdom of God” meant the rulership of God – His sovereignty. It doesn’t mean “heaven” as we think of it. In fact, “heaven” when spoken of in the NT sometimes doesn’t mean heaven as we think of it. It’s a polite way of saying “God” because the Jews (including Jesus) avoided naming Him out of respect.

So when we see “shall not inherit the kingdom,” it’s talking about coming into the manifestation of the sovereignty of God as opposed to being the subjects of this world system. It has nothing to do with going anywhere when we die. We are in the kingdom NOW or we’re not in the kingdom. It doesn’t follow that we never will be in the kingdom (submitted to the rulership of God and no longer subject to the powers of this world), but if we can’t bring ourselves to leave this world’s system, then we can’t logically be in His kingdom. That’s what I believe the passages here are talking about it.

If you’re interested at all, Tentmaker, I did a series on my blog a couple of weeks ago that addresses this topic from a slightly different angle. I’d be interested to learn what you (or anyone else) think about it, and don’t worry about pointing out any flaws you see. I’ll be grateful if you do. Here’s the link to the first one: journeyintotheson.com/2012/02/why-paul-ran/ If you click on the little title with the arrow at the top or bottom right of the post, it’ll take you to the next post. They’re all pretty short.

Blessings, Cindy

#11

Thanks for that addition Cindy. It’s very helpful to clarify these things; it makes a huge difference to understanding!

#12

Thank you all for your insightful answers. byronarn, I think you nailed the question.

I would also add that the Bible’s use of “inherit” in these passages, rather than the far more natural sounding “have” or “enter” or “experience” or “enjoy,” is actually a powerful argument for UR. This is because not inheriting eternal life is the only of these verbs which doesn’t preclude receiving it eventually.

#13

The Greek is a little more unusual (to our ears) even than inherit; it transliterates the Hebrew concept of “enjoying the allotment”. So, “Good Teacher, what shall I be doing to be enjoying the allotment of eonian life?” for example.

#14

Thanks Jason! I was hoping somebody would explain the Greek :smiley:

#15

Excellent discussion and some great interpretive comments. What occurs to me as I read Gal 5:19-21 is that similar comments are found in I Cor 6:9, 10 and Eph 5:1-5. In all these verses a key word is inheritance. In Greek this refers to an heirship, possession, having standing in the kingdom. It seems that the issue is not so much a matter of salvation as it is about standing.

One might also consider the prodigal son in Luk 15:11-32. Here, Jesus tells the parable of a somewhat rebellious younger son, his elder brother and their Father. The younger son leaves his family taking his inheritance with him. After he has squandered it all he returns to his Father seeking a place as a worker. The Father celebrates the younger son’s return. The elder son is angered and raises issue with his Father. The Father responds to the elder son, “Son, you are always with me and all that I have is yours. It was right that we should make merry and be glad, for your brother was dead and is alive again, and was lost and is found.” As with Paul’s comments where the concern is about standing, the younger son’s return is celebrated, but he has neither inheritance, possessions, nor standing.

But again, great comments.

RVallimont

#16

RV’s connection to Galatians reminds me that when Paul is talking about inheritance he’s almost certainly talking about “son-placement”, the redemption or raising up of children into the full rights (and responsibilities) of the family by the head of the household. Until the head (usually the father) judges the child to be properly mature, the child even though he is the heir of everything has the status of a slave and is under the guardianship of tutors.

Which is obviously a problem if the tutors rebel against the head of the household; and this leads to the early Christian (and maybe Judaic) understanding of the “daimons”, which were mainly regarded as spiritual teachers by the Greeks. But they weren’t supposed to be gods, so when Christian evangelists (especially in acting against pagan temples) accused the gods of being demons, what they were saying in a way that pagan Greeks would understand is that the daimons were posing as gods: thus were false teachers. The same concept works just as well if the spirits are also leading people to deny or ignore God Most High, of course. It has similar connections to various things said in the OT, too (perhaps most recently and suggestively by Daniel, who is told in a vision that each city or nation has guardian angels but that many important ones have rebelled and are causing enough trouble in their war with the loyal angels that even Michael was having trouble getting through the blockade to visit Daniel!)

Anyway, the point to not inheriting (or enjoying the allotment of) eonian life in this context would be that the child, even though legitimately a child and loved by the father, is refused the graciously given rights of his proper inheritance until when-if-ever the child matures. Which is something that the loving father would always be working toward leading the child to do (even if that meant remedial punishment meanwhile).

This concept is of no small importance, because many Christians are taught that people are not children of God at all, therefore it should not be surprising if God chooses to give up trying to save them from sin (one type of Arminianism) or never even intends to try saving some of them from sin at all (Calvinism in its variations). I recently saw this attitude again with one of our less competent Arminian opponents on the forum, a few months ago, who thought he was making his case by appealing to Galatians, and flat refused to even acknowledge or discuss the verses right in front of what he was prooftexting–because they directly contradicted his whole concept of what adoption by God means!

#17

Thanks for that addition, Jason. The translation of “enjoying the allotment” makes a lot more sense from our perspective.
So, am I understanding you correctly; that it’s not a matter of “inheriting” vs. not inheriting, but rather actually being able to enjoy that inheritance/ allotment as you have outlined above?

#18

Well, it’s a distinction between unenacted and enacted inheritance. In the mature child, the privileges (and responsibilities of acting in the family business and cooperating with the head of the family) are activated and permitted by the father. The immature child is still by virtue of his childhood an heir, but the inheritance isn’t activated yet. In many ways he might as well not be an heir, but in very crucial ways he is still an heir.

An oversimple and amusing way of looking at it would be that the mature child enjoys the allotment of the inheritance, but the immature child is being spanked and otherwise disciplined by the father who intends for him or her to inherit–so the immature child isn’t enjoying the allotment of his inheritance yet! :laughing:

But the inheritance is still allotted by the father (in several senses of allotment) either way.

#19

Right, thanks for the clarification. I wanted to make sure I was understanding the concept.