Thanks, Andy, Scott, and Jason.
Andy, I’ve been thinking about that meta-narrative. It is a very persuasive argument.
Jason, I will give those links a look. Next week I start back to graduate school, start a new job, and do my last semester of homeschooling for my youngest child who is a senior this year. Life is about to get very busy. I hope I can keep up with all the great posts on the forum.
Kelli
Scottmuz,
yes - I can undestand that dilemma. Some time ago I was a Calvinist and believed that all those who died without accepting Christ in this life were the non-elect and therefore went to eternal hell: babies, foetuses, the profoundly handicapped etc. I had a very miserable couple of years wrestling with that issue. Thankfully, I found a way out of both Calvinism and ECT.
I’m much happier now 
Aside from Andy’s reply, if “hated” (though certainly a strong word) could only be used by God in reference to people He wasn’t going to save from their sins, then none of our fathers and mothers would be saved by God from their sins! (Nor us either if we ever become fathers or mothers!) For Jesus says if we do not hate our own fathers and mothers, we aren’t yet properly following Him. But He also expects us to keep the commandment to love our fathers and mothers (and is prepared to get very angry at people who ‘hate’ their fathers and mothers in a way that isn’t obviously hatred, i.e. the “corban” dedication.)
Moreover, Paul in Romans 9 goes out of his way to also quote God’s promise and prophecy concerning Jacob and Esau: the older (Esau) shall serve the younger (Jacob). Isaac prophecied and promised this in connection with Esau being blessed in Jacob, so the service cannot be some kind of hopeless slavery of eternal conscious torment (assuming such a thing would even be possible), much less annihilation!
Furthermore, Paul was citing a prophecy in Malachi regarding the land of Edom (the descendants of Esau) in direct connection to the prophecy to Rebecca (Isaac’s wife) that the older would serve the younger. Edom is set up for much zorching in OT prophecy, but also for restoration and healing after punishment. (Most of Malachi, by the way, is aimed against rebel Jacob/Israel: the whole point for God to remind them that He has loved Jacob and hated Esau is to set Israel’s ingratitude and treachery toward Him in the starkest light.)
Other interesting points: Paul has said in Romans 9 that not all Israel is Israel after the flesh, but Esau was NEVER “Israel after the flesh”, for he was Israel/Jacob’s brother! Yet he was a descendant from Abraham, too, and so was part of the covenant promises God made to Abraham–promises Paul leans heavily on to reassure his unceasing grief over his brethren, for the calling and gifts of God are irrevocable. And the covenant promises God made to Abraham cannot be nullified by unfaithfulness in Abraham or his descendants, for God went out of His way to make sure that only He went through the covenant binding. Thus while the Mosaic covenant could be broken and set aside and replaced by misbehaving Jews, the Abrahamic covenant (which was superior and preceded the Mosaic covenant) could not be. This is probably what stands behind Paul’s reassurance in Romans that our unfaithfulness will not abrogate the faithfulness of God.
So, yeah, the “hatred” there in regard to Esau, doesn’t count for much in favor of some kind of hopeless finality. Even in Genesis, in regard to the literal Esau, it was Jacob who sinned against Esau (in a fashion compared to Satanic treachery elsewhere in the OT), and yet they eventually reconciled with one another in one of the most famous and beautiful scenes of the whole Bible! God imprisoned both in stubbornness, for the ultimate good of both, and God had mercy on them both.
That’s wonderfully stated, Jason.
It made me think of what Paul says in Romans 11, where he quotes a pretty harsh curse on Israel from David:
And soon after he adds:
Amen, indeed! 
Andy
i know i’m not the OP, but this thread has brought some much needed cheer and peace to me. thanks everyone for the encouragement
My father was engaged in subsistence farming, and so I was raised on a farm which had no electricity and no motors of any kind — so, of course, we did not have a car. When we went to a country store for groceries, we travelled 2 miles with a team of horses and a hay wagon. So to get there and back took about an hour and a half. The nearest church (Baptist) was 6½ miles away; so, of course we never went. My father wasn’t a Christian, but my mother and my sister (13y. older than I) was. However, we had fundamentalist/dispensationalist literature in our home, and so I was taught by my mother and sister according to those systems of thought. As I grew up, I was continually worried about my father having to spend eternity in hell. He died when I was 17, and my mother and I moved to the village where the Baptist church was located, and began to attend. The teaching was much the same as my mother believed, although she considered it to be “modernistic.” However, I didn’t get fit into this church very well, since I couldn’t picture the apostles Paul or Peter or John being Baptists or Presbyterians or Lutherans or Catholics, etc.
Much later, after I was married, my wife and I attended a congregation of “Plymouth Brethren.” These folks claimed to be non-denominational and practised “body ministry” (at least among the men). This phrase indicates that there is not a one-man ministry (“the pastor”), but that everyone is a minister, and the meetings are open for anyone to minister. Also, they had communion every Sunday as the early church practised it. Also there was no formal membership. They recognized fully everyone whom the Lord recognized as one of His.
When we moved into our present location on the same property (although not the same house) as I lived as a child, we could not find any similar church — until one day I discovered one about 24 mi. away in which body ministry and weekly communion were practised, and there was no formal membership roll. It was easy to fellowship with those people. I had known of their existence, but my mother always considered them to be “heretics” and so, previously, I had never considered attending that church. But when my wife did music with the wife of one of the elders, we decided to attend, and were with them from about 1978 until my wife’s death in 1997. My present wife and I also continued with this church until recently. This group of churches do not identify themselves with any denominational name, but outsiders refer to them as “The North Battleford Group” because they arose as a result of a revival in North Battleford, Saskatchewan in 1948.
One day in the early 80s, we attended a summer camp of this group. One of the travelling elders (they don’t identify themselves as “apostles” but those of that church group consider them in that way) was saying to another during a meal, “I never could believe in an eternal hell.” I was utterly shocked! As long as I remember, I had believed that the unsaved went to suffer in the fires of hell forever. What had I gotten myself into? I had gotten myself into a cult! I walked around that camp ground, greatly disturbed. I didn’t know what to do! Then it seemed as if a voice were speaking to me. It wasn’t an audible voice, but it came into my mind so strongly that it might as well have been audible:
“Don’t be concerned about this. Just put your worries on the shelf. You will understand later on.” Then to my amazement, I felt perfectly relaxed, and enjoyed the remainder of the camp meetings.
After I returned home, whenever I read the Bible, I seemed to be coming across passages which taught the reconciliation of all people to God! Why had I never seen that in the Bible before? It seemed that God had simply begun revealing this to me at this particular time. I found out later that the people of all the churches of “the North Battleford Group” believe in the reconciliation of all to God. I know of no other group of churches which hold to that teaching.
In recent years, I have discovered a most powerful verse which, correctly translated, speaks of the post-mortem correction of the lost:
The Lord knows to deliver the devout out of trial, but to keep the unrighteous for a day of judgment to be corrected. (2 Peter 2:9)
Yours is a beautiful story, Paidion.
So, the word kolazomenous again: to lop or prune; to curb, check, restrain; to chastise, correct, punishment (why the change from verb to noun in this list?); and to cause to be punished.
How does the translator decide on punishment over chastisement/correction? Or do we read a meaning into “punishment” that isn’t there?
Also, I am confused about what happens between death and the judgment. Some passages suggest that we go to a sleeping place. In 2 Peter 2, Peter is saying that the wicked will be “punished” until the day of judgment. Huh.
Anyway, thanks for sharing this story.
It is an amazing story, Paidion, and such a blessing that you were willing to share it. Thanks!!!
I want to think about this verse you’ve posted . . .
I hope this means that the ungodly are already experiencing chastisement (too bad only the CLV brings out this meaning). If it means that, since some are beaten with few stripes and others with many, perhaps the ones we most want to see will be there waiting for us when we come home! Maybe, in fact, some of this kolasis or pruning or correction will have been accomplished even in this life. What would be the point of all the pain people suffer in this life if not to fit us for a better more joyful life to come, Kelli?
Did I tell you what happened when my grandpa died? I think maybe I did, but I’ll tell it again for anyone else who might be reading. He wandered off one morning and we didn’t find him until several months later – well, a hiker found his body. I was praying during this time, asking God where he was, and I got a clear picture of him sitting by a creek in a green grassy hilly country, fishing. He always loved to fish. He was all alone. Could it be that was/is his kolasis? Or the beginning of it? I don’t know. I only know that while I should have despaired to know that he, having refused God, was by that time burning in an unending hell, I somehow knew it wasn’t so. I didn’t know how and didn’t share that with anyone (because of course it was heresy), but I knew and know he was and is okay.
Have you ever read “Leaf, by Niggle” by Tolkein? scribd.com/doc/10232245/JRR- … -by-Niggle
I love this little story. Maybe it will be a blessing to you too.
Love, Cindy
Amen! and never a truer word spoke Kelli and true for each and everyone of us.
I came to the more inclusive understanding of God’s grace i.e., UR through a different route, that of eschatology and in particular fulfilled prophecy aka preterism. As such I have less conflict with the supposed grace texts as opposed to the more judgmental texts, mainly because a preteristic hermeneutic takes more seriously into account the issue of ‘audience relevance’, that as opposed to just superimposing ourselves onto or into the text; something that is easy and natural to do.
Funnily enough in preterist circles I tend to get lambasted for being that dreaded “universalist” and that said with a good deal of pejorative angst… but I’m ok with this because it’s usually a sign that they see the inclusive reasonings I bring to the fore but don’t like them because they challenge cherished and holy cows. Hence my move into what I call pantelism - “all is complete” - not just eschatology but redemption as well.
As I understand it… old covenant Israel was God’s means to bless His wider creation of man, but like Adam [the microcosmic story of Israel] they failed to keep covenant and so like the rest of creation wandered back in darkness. The story of redemption was all about how God brought Israel back out of her grave in covenant restoration - this He did in and through Jesus and the firstfruit saints of the NT era.
With Israel restored as in redeemed, the world came into the reconciliation. My position understands biblical election as applicable solely to that biblical period alone. IOW, “election” per se was all about who was called into the redemptive purposes of God ON BEHALF OF Israel. That’s another way of saying ‘election’ has NOTHING to do with post mortem destinies, but rather who was saved to serve.
Thus the elect were the Jews and Gentiles of that age who turned to and served God while the reprobate were stubborn OC Israel. Those who persevered to the end were saved, i.e., they escaped the fiery end, whereas those who didn’t “repent and believe” died in that carnage Lk 13:3-5].
None of this is to deny God’s choosing of anyone to meet His divine purposes since that time, but rather biblically speaking that which was written then had direct application to those then. Yes we can and do draw ‘in principle’ from these truths, but acknowledging and appreciating how these things were fulfilled then helps us not misapply them since.
So, I said all that to say this… the view I hold to of pantelism does not hold to the same view of “hell” as does universalism, even though it is universalistic in scope. In fact universalism has the exact same understanding of hell as does partialism aka exclusivism or exclusionism - the only different between these two is the amount of time one is said to spend in the torturous flames etc.
As I understand it Jesus’ teachings on “hell” were prophetic descriptions of the soon coming Ad70 destruction of Jerusalem, i.e., the fires of gehenna - typified in the continuous endless] burnings and crawling with worms [maggots] of their very own refuge dump right outside and below the city’s walls.
Hi Keli: I am afraid my approach was very simplistic. I had been away from active Christianity for quite I while for many reasons but one of them was the whole hell/ECT thing. Then, one day I was sitting in the surgical waiting area, alone, waiting to hear if the operation on my husband’s displaced (noone knows how) neck vertebrae would be sucessful or if he would be a quadraplegic or die.
As I was waiting, it was like someone tapped me on the shoulder and said “Hey, you are not alone, remember Me.” I firmly believe that was the Holy Spirit. Somewhere in there (the whole period is sort of a blur) I started talking with Jesus again. Somewhere I thought—but torture (ie ECT/hell) is WRONG. I cannot be more moral than God, and He said, you are absolutely right.
Then i found this Board and read many of the resources here for CEU and learned new ways to think of the Bible. I believe that Jesus is the way to God the Father and Eternal Life and forgiveness of sins. I believe God’s view of time and when He speaks to us is not something we really understand in this life. I think He can: save people by coming to them at the moment of death–for us, sometimes that appears to be mere minutes or seconds, but for Jesus it is all the time He needs. I also believe He can save people after death and I have found nothing in the Bible to refute this belief. I learned that Hell was NOT part of the teaching of the early Church.
I think there is a big difference between what God is doing when the Bible speaks of Nations and when God speaks of individuals. Look at the New Testament----Jesus said He was sent to the Jews (nation) and then proceded to heal every Gentile (person) that was bought to Him. He even said the Roman Centurian had more faith than He had found in Israel.
So I guess I went at it backwards, first the belief and then the reasoning, but to me faith involves both emotion and reason and both are important. I believe your daughter is with God–I will always believe that.
Oh–my husband is fine.
I have no idea why some translators render the word as a noun. The word is a verb — present passive participle. So perhaps I should have translated the verse as follows:
The Lord knows to deliver the devout out of trial, but to keep the unrighteous for a day of judgment, being corrected. (2 Peter 2:9)
Certainly the large majority of translations render the word as “punished” or “punishment.” I think most people think of “punishment” as inflicting a penalty for wrongdoing because the offender “deserves” to be penalized. That is certainly one meaning of the English word, but it can also mean “correction.” A parent can be said to “punish” his child or “correct” his child. The words can be used almost interchangably. But whatever unpleasant consequences are imposed upon a child, a good parent’s only motivation is to correct the child’s behaviour, so that he will learn to behave better. Yet there are many parents who hold to imposing punitive or even retributive punishment upon their children. I think these attitudes carry over into our ideas concerning God’s punishment. Most believers in the reconciliation of all people to God, see God’s judgments as entirely remedial, that God will provide only as much unpleasant corrective punishment as is absolutely necessary, while those who hold the view of eternal, conscious torment of over 99% of all people, see God’s judgments as punitive or retributive. Perhaps the majority of translators belong to the latter class.
I believe that a person is neither a dichotomy or a trichotomy, but a unified being. I disbelieve that a person is a “soul” inhabiting a body as in Greek Philosophy (Plato’s view). I believe that when a person is dead, he’s dead. — and will remain dead until the resurrection. He does not become a disembodied spirit or soul that goes somewhere at death, either in a conscious or a “sleeping” state. In my opinion he’s truly dead, just as dead as any horse or dog or toad or house fly after it’s passing. And the person will STAY dead, until God raises him from the dead. As the apostle Paul put it:
What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” (1 Corinthians 15:32)
Our only hope for an afterlife is our personal resurrection. If Christians have spirits or souls (the “real you”) which go directly to heaven at death, then what’s the big deal about the resurrection? Why not be happy being disembodied spirits for eternity? Why would we need bodies? As the song goes, “I’ll fly away, o glory! I’ll fly away! When I die, Hallelujah, by and bye, I’ll fly away.” So many don’t give a hoot about the resurrection, but are concerned only about “being set free from this bodily prison” and “flying away to glory.” That’s not the apostolic teaching concerning the afterlife.
Let’s look at it again:
The Lord knows to deliver the devout out of trial, but to keep the unrighteous for a day of judgment to be corrected. (2 Peter 2:9)
The sequence could be death, resurrection, judgment, and finally correction. In being judged, the unrighteous would be assigned to the appropriate correction.
It’s funny! I was getting ready to disagree with Paidion again, but realize we are in agreement concerning death, resurrection, and the afterlife. In 1 These. 4. 17 we see it will be through resurrection that “thus shall we always be together with the Lord” Since Paul’s words “And thus” point back to His previous words, 13-17.
This is the believers hope and it stands in stark contrast to the traditions of men. We are to be consoled with “THESE WORDS” 4.18
Was poking around on the Cadre Journal this morning for other reasons, and ran across another place I worked out the implications of trinitarian theism in favor of Christian universalism (although I don’t say so explicitly), in this article where I complain about Edward Feser’s attempt at defending against atheistic moral critique of some variant of ECT by appealing to depersonalized notions of classical theism.
My reply is that he’s inconsistently throwing trinitarian theism under the bus in order to defend against moral critiques of God’s (proposed) behavior, while trying to keep affirming trinitarian theism. He’s hugely self-contradictory in the process.
christiancadre.blogspot.com/2012 … cross.html
This is illustrative of something I’ve noticed ever since writing SttH’s first draft, namely that I typically find non-universalistic Christianities inadvertently denying precepts of trinitarian theism in one or more ways.
This feels like a threat hanging over our heads all the time.
How is that consistent with the character of a loving God who requires us to be merciful? He hath told thee, O son of earth, what is good–What then is Yahweh seeking of thee, but to do justice, to delight in lovingkindness, and humbly to walk with they God? (Micah 6:8)
Seriously, Paul sounds confused to me. Why does he have to philosophize? Why can’t he just come out and say what it is he wants to say? Seems like an awful lot rests on us figuring out all the meanderings of these guys. Plato and Aristotle are easier to read than some of the writers of scripture. Or maybe their messages are just less threatening.
I will appreciate your responses.
me > I’ll leave that last part up for the biblical scholars here. Just gave what I could. Peace to you and yours.
I’m pretty sure I recall the message of Micah being at least as “threatening” if not moreso. 
Israel in Micah’s day didn’t do justice or delight in lovingkindness, which is why God was being somewhat ironic in saying, “Look, this isn’t hard, if you’d just set yourselves to loving each other fairly, and being humble toward Me, I wouldn’t have to punish you!” (I’m paraphrasing what else is said in Micah 6, including verses immediately subsequent to 6:8.)
St. Paul is only saying the same thing another way around: be kind (and Paul means specifically being kind toward those who are currently fallen!) and God will be kind to you; but if you insist on not being kind (and specifically toward the fallen ones currently grafted out of the vine) God can and will take you outside the vine, too.
The message is the same either way: don’t start none, and there won’t be none. 
(Not from God anyway.)
But one big difference is that St. Paul is presenting this in the context of kindness toward those whom we perceive as being apart from God right now (Paul’s example being non-Christian Israel, who are natural branches of the vine but who have been temporarily grafted out for cleaning). Israel in Micah’s day (and the OT prophets generally) had enough trouble being kind and fair to one another, so God didn’t usually emphasize that they also had to be kind and fair to people outside their group (although He has some things to say about that, too, on occasion): if they’re having difficulty doing what ought to be easier, there isn’t much point expecting them to do what is more difficult yet!
Am I being unkind and unfair to other people? Then too bad, I’m under the threat of punishment, and if I don’t repent and change my ways, God’s going to zorch me, and keep on zorching me (with whatever intensity He rightly sees will lead me most effectively to repentance, keeping my obstinate free will in mind) until I repent and fairly love other people instead.
Are you kind and fair to other people? Then don’t worry, those scriptures aren’t being said against you. They’re being said against me, the chief of sinners, the one who is acting towards fulfilling non-fair-togetherness (“unrighteousness”) toward other people. It is precisely because God, the Merciful and the Compassionate, requires me to be merciful that He hangs that threat over my head all the time that I insist on being unmerciful.
His mercy doesn’t involve sparing me from punishment when I insist on being unmerciful. His mercy involves leading me to be merciful to other people. If longsuffering over me is the best way to do that, God will do that. If punishing me is the best way to do that, God will do that–not only for my sake but for the sake of the people I’m being unmerciful to!
Being the Merciful and the Compassionate One, however, God also shares my longsuffering if He has to punish me, as well as sharing my longsuffering if I am the victim of unmercy. (Something that Muslims, from whom I am borrowing the phrasing of which they are rightly so fond of describing God, generally tend to reject as being true of God in relation to sinners–thus rejecting both the Incarnation and the Passion on the cross.)
I never had, Cindy, until I went to the link you provided. Thank you!
I couldn’t download it until I had joined something, and so I searched the internet and found a site in which I could simply download it.
Thanks again!
I’m so glad you found it, Paidion! It’s a great story, I think, and I hope you’ll enjoy it too.