Scot McKnight has asked. The Three Conditions of Hell
What scriptures would you point to?
Hey Gem, check out my post on there.
It’s proving to be an interesting discussion. Scott even complimented me a little. I presented scriptural evidence but it seems that no one wants to really discuss scripture like Jonah, 1 Peter, Paul endorsing baptism for the dead, etc. Instead, they just want to debate the Reitan’s rational.
UR is such a radically different perspective from which to view scripture, God, and life that many traditionalists just cannot change lenses.
Sherman, I am lurking and appreciate your comments there very much! You are doing and amazing job presenting the Good News. You should put your studies up on your blog.
Yes; I think that is the biggest stumbling block with it for most people. Acceptance of UR literally forces you to change your paradigm, and most folks are very resistant to that, no matter what subject you’re talking about, let alone religious sacred cows like ECT.
Like my dad used to say; “don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind’s made up!”
Universalists should admit that not all exegesis is crystal clear in favor of universalism. There are many differing interpretations of passages that make more sense to many in the church. To interpret another person as resistant isn’t really a fair assessment of another person if you don’t have access to the heart of the person.
I’d point to Ezekiel 16
The anti verse? Hebrews 6:4?
Wouldn’t that be great if it meant that folks can reach the point where they are impossible to convince of their sin and therefore they need to be “delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh so that they might be saved…”?
What do you make of that verse, Roofus?
I’m not sure yet, but it looks pretty dire. Maybe that is why you don’t see much discussion of it?
Compare and contrast:
“I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all ; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.” John 10
“It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance.” Heb 6
We know the early church was divided over what to do with Christians who denied their faith under persecution and later tried to return. The hard-liners wanted to excommunicate them forever, but in the end more compassionate voices won the day. (How many times did Israel deny God? Did David deny God over Bathsheba and Uriah? Did Peter deny Christ? Was he rejected forever?) It’s clear what side of the debate was taken by the author of Hebrews. I’m quite comfortable with saying, “That verse expressed the author’s view on a certain matter of principle, and he thankfully he was wrong. It doesn’t reflect the broad teaching of scripture.”
I don’t think that’s just a cop out. The nihilist Teacher of Ecclesiastes was wrong. Everything isn’t meaningless, so why did he think it was? What led him to that place of despair? The Psalmist who longed to bash Babylonian babies was wrong. Why did he want to kill babies? What can we learn from this? And so on.
I’m developing a hunch that the reason that folks aren’t explaining this one is that it is indeed a tough verse to reconcile with universalism. I’ll test that hunch by continually bringing it up with the hope that they will explain it. A “wait and see” attitude!
I thought this article was pretty good about explaining it: middletree.net/hebrews6.asp (and it’s not even a universalist source 
)
This explanation certainly seems to be more consistent with the rest of scripture (The Lost Sheep/Coin/Son trilogy, No one can snatch them out of my hand, I should not lose even one of those He has given me, etc.)
Thanks for that, Becca, but to my mind it doesn’t do justice to the extended argument.
The reason they cannot come back is that they are crucifying Christ a second time and disgracing him. But when did Christ start worrying about public disgrace? Wouldn’t he willingly die a thousand deaths to save his loved ones from everlasting ruin?
V8-9 suggests the author is warning his readers of something he has no expectation of actually happening. But why is he “convinced” of better things? Knowing the weakness of man, surely he should be convinced of the very opposite! I mean, how many Israelites perished in the wilderness en route to the promised land? Are we any better?
In all, I don’t much warm to the author’s argument, and suspect (on this point) he’s mistaken. I’m open to suggestions however. One possibility is the author is talking hypothetically: IF it were possible for a person to fall away once having tasted the true goodness of God, THEN Christ would have to die a second time. His first death , far from being God’s great triumph, would be shown to be a contemptible failure. But because Christ has died “once for all”, and God does not fail, that simply cannot happen. THEREFORE no one will ever fall so far that repentance is impossible.
This line of argument seems strained to me, though it fits quite well with universalist thinking.
Anyway, until it becomes clearer, I’ll stick with Paul: Nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ.
Have a look at the first paragraph in the YLT here: yltbible.com/hebrews/6.htm
and the first two paragraphs in the Message here
I think the passage is contrasting knowing with not knowing. The ones who have really tasted will not fall away, they will be watered, productive, blessed… The ones who fall away have not really tasted. Once you taste, there is no turning back… (who would want to turn back?) “It’s IMPOSSIBLE!”
Maybe THIS VERSE in Hebrews indicates the need for second chances. This life has limits for people to change. But I just read Psalm 139 this morning:
7 Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?
8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths [Sheol, realm of the dead] you are there.
People may fall away, and they may then be fit to be burned. But even in that case they are not snatched from Christ’s hand. Only if you think God’s Spirit doesn’t penetrate beyond the gates of hell, or that the Father abandons people to hell, are these verses in conflict.
I don’t think they are in conflict. Hear oh Israel, Gods grace and judgment and holiness and mercy and love are One.
Roofus, I really don’t see how it’s difficult to understand or explain. The writer of Hebrews is warning the Hebrews is simply noting that some can harden their hearts against God so much that it becomes impossible for others to speak into their lives and bring them to repentance. Their lives become useless like a field covered in thorns and weeds, and only have the fire to look forward to.
Of course, farmers burn off fields so as to reclaim them. They burn them off to get rid of the thorns and weeds, especially the seeds. The ashes serve as a fertilyzer and they plow up the field and replant it. The purpose of burning off a piece of land is reclaiming it and making it useful again!
Thanks Sherman for the reply. I guess that your interpretation would hinge on whether “impossible” refers to other believers’ attempts to renew, or God’s attempt to renew or one’s own. Does the Greek specify?