Hi Aug,
My understanding of these verses can be found here:
I cannot speak for anyone but myself. Let me use an example to illustrate my point. Consider this very familiar verse…
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
It seems to me that most Christians read this verse and think that it says something like this…
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not go to hell but go to heaven.
Most seem to believe that Eternal life is about going to heaven and perish is about going to hell…both after-life concepts. I don’t see it this way at all. Consider it this way…
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him will no longer suffer guilt, shame and corruption but have peace with God and joy in his heart.
In understanding it this way, the terms Eternal Life and Perish are understood to apply to one’s present life, not to the after-life. Being delivered from carnal-mindedness and it’s consequential corruption is what Jesus meant in the following…
John 10:10
The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.
Again, we are speaking of present-life salvation here…getting your life on the right path instead of the road to destruction.
So then, when one’s life is over, he goes to the grave, his body decays, and his soul is at rest. When Christ returns the dead are raised in order. The sons of God (believers) are raised first, followed by the rest of mankind. All are delivered from the bondage of corruption unto the same glorious liberty.
Yes, this imagery also describes this life. We reap what we sow and are rewarded according to our works during our life.
Todd
Aaron,
I had read your response before and I am in disagreement with it. I sympathize with the difficulty of tenses and while I do hold that there are too many passages referring to future judgement (sheep and goats, rev book of life, Romans and so on) that I find your view unpersuasive. However, I don’t know for sure and I surely appreciate your perspective. Indeed you may be right, but those are points I have to manage in my own mind. And simply put, I find the tenses standing.
Simply because EZ-e (yes like the rapper) prophesied in abstract terms does not necessitate that Jesus had to also.
I also find your point weak that it was “the land” God was concernined about. Jesus clearly points to repenting and wearing sackcloth which is ALL to do with the people and not the gravel. So I think your point works against your view by making people not take it seriously (I’d drop it if I were you).
But your point about punishment (destruction of sodom) being representitive of God’s wrath in this life is a real issue I have to continue to wrestle with.
I think we should start a new thread on that very topic - the destruction of Sodom-
Aug
So when people have the peace and joy, no longer suffering guilt and shame, then why is eternal life not on the other side of the grave? I assume on the other side of the grave the immortals will suffer guilt, shame and corruption?
In other words, seems eternal life (in your view) is on both sides of the grave.
Todd, I wonder if you see that this verse says nothing about NOT being on the other side of the grave. Everyone believe eternal life/salvation are accessed on this side of the grave, even immortality (for those who do not fall asleep - who do not require ressurection).
Again what about those who don’t fall asleep who get ressurected?
I don’t think so. I wonder what Paul means when he states “He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—” or when he states in Romans 1 “But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God “will give to each person according to what he has done.”[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.”
This does not seem to mesh with the - lack of the joy of the lord theory. Paul does not seem to say that your living in sin is your wrath!!! No, rather an actual act of wrath is coming, which is also being stored up. And in it’s context, it’s this DAY that God will give to each according to what they’ve done. And the picture set is not one that states Sodom gets eternal life, rather it’s those who live by faith. Now I realize Todd, you’re trying to seperate Eternal life from immortality, but I disagree and it will take far more to convince me paul does not mean what traditional understanding has put forth.
But please keep it coming, I’m really enjoying this discussion.
Aug
Well of course Ezekiel’s use of figurative language and imagery doesn’t necessitate that Jesus employed the same or a similar figure of speech when prophesying of future judgment against Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum. All my argument requires is that there is inspired precedent for it, so I don’t think it’s in any way unreasonable to interpret Jesus’ words in this way. It shouldn’t be surprising to us that Jesus and his apostles would employ similar language and figures of speech as the inspired Hebrew prophets who came before them, with whose writings they was so intimately familiar.
I don’t think God was concerned about the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the sense that it alone could have been judged apart from the people who lived there. My argument was simply that, when Christ spoke of Sodom and Gomorrah being judged, the fact that he did refer to “the land” (Matt 11:24) strongly suggests that he was speaking of the original Middle Eastern cities (which of course includes all of the citizens!) as they formerly existed in their geo-political capacity, and not just the people who used to live there. In other words, I don’t think Christ would have referred to “the land” of Sodom if he was speaking of a future judgment of all the former citizens of the city apart from the actual, geographical location where the people originally dwelled. Of course it was the people who were punished, but I don’t think Jesus would have used “the land of Sodom” to refer to the former citizens of the land (by the figure of speech metonymy) had he not viewed them as inseparable insofar as the judgment of which he spoke was concerned. Although this is not the only point on which I based my argument, this fact alone seems to indicate to me that Jesus must have been referring to the past judgment which destroyed not only the citizens of the cities but also made the actual land in which the cities were located utterly desolate. So unlike other arguments I’ve put forth that I saw good enough reason to drop later, I’m afraid I can’t drop this one just yet. 
While I can’t speak for Todd, I’d like to respond to this. Perhaps the UU position on “eternal life” would make more sense to you if we started referring to it a bit more accurately. Even Robin Parry himself acknowledged in his book that the Greek expression translated as “eternal life” in most English translations (zoen aionion) “may be better translated as ‘the life of the age to come’” (p. 147). I agree with him. Moreover, as I’m sure you’re aware, aionios is an adjective form of the Greek noun aion, and means “pertaining to, or belonging to, an age” (again, Parry notes on the same page that “there seems to be a strong case for maintaining that [aionios] means ‘pertaining to an age’”). Like all adjectives, aionios cannot pertain to something other than the noun from which it was derived. If the Greek noun aion means “age,” then the Greek adjective aionios (and any other derivative of aion) cannot pertain to something other than or greater than an “age.” So, the question that should then be asked is, “To what age does the ‘life of the age’ pertain or belong?” Answer: it can be none other than the age of the Messianic reign, which is the age that began when the age in which Christ and his disciples were living (i.e., the age under the Law of Moses) ended (Matt 24:3; cf. Matt 16:28). It is the age of the Messianic reign that was referred to as “the age to come,” and associated with “the life of the age” (Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; Heb 6:6; etc.).
And while Parry goes on to say that “the age to come is everlasting” (p. 148), I would argue that, while the kingdom of God is certainly endless, the age during which Christ reigns over the kingdom is not. For we are told by Paul that Christ’s reign is in fact to come to an end when (or shortly after) the dead are raised (1 Cor 15:21-28). Just before God becomes “all in all” we are told that Christ is to deliver the kingdom back to God (which he received from the Father at the commencement of his reign). So if Christ’s reign over the kingdom is not endless, it follows that the age which, in the NT, is identified with his reign, cannot be endless either. And I submit that the “life” that may be enjoyed by believers during the age of the Messianic reign is a blessing that can only be enjoyed by faith (which includes the obedience that faith produces). This spiritual blessing cannot be enjoyed any longer than the age lasts with which it is so closely associated, nor can it be enjoyed when faith is no longer possible to exercise. This, of course, doesn’t mean there will no longer be any more joy or peace or righteousness after the resurrection; it simply means that the enjoyment of these blessings won’t be called “the life of the age” any longer, because both the age in which this blessing may be enjoyed, as well as the condition for receiving this blessing, will have ceased to be.
Well Jesus says nothing about our NOT turning into pink unicorns “on the other side of the grave” either, but why take it for granted that he’s even talking about anyone’s post-mortem experience here?
and
Those who are changed without falling asleep will be like everyone who is to be raised. The only difference for them is that the gap between their mortal existence and their immortal existence will be much briefer. But the UU position is that the life of the age (“eternal life”) is a blessing available to mortals only, while faith is still necessary to salvation. So it’s not so much “this side of the grave” vs. “that side of the grave.” It is instead this mortal existence vs. our future immortal existence. When the dead are raised immortal and the living are changed, I believe faith will be replaced by sight. And because the life of the age is a blessing that is received and enjoyed by faith, it will be replaced by something else that does not depend upon faith for its enjoyment. It will not be less than the life of the age, but it will be much more.
Check the accuracy of the translation. I’m not a Greek scholar, but I’m pretty confident that Paul doesn’t say here that God “left the sins committed beforehand unpunished” (the ESV reads, “[God] had passed over former sins,” which can simply mean that, prior to Christ, God had not yet provided a way for people to be cleansed from all their sins). If Paul did say that God had “left the sins committed beforehand unpunished,” he would have been directly contradicting the author of Hebrews, who wrote that, under the Mosaic Law, “every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution” (Heb 2:2).
Again, while I cannot speak for Todd, it is not the UU position that God’s wrath and anger consists only of forfeited spiritual blessings (and to my knowledge, Todd hasn’t argued for this). The UU position is that God’s wrath consists of both negative happiness and positive suffering (e.g., the “trouble and distress” of which Paul speaks here). Moreover, Paul is primarily concerned with the unbelieving Jewish people in the passage from Romans 1 from which you quote. The “day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed” likely refers to the time when the Jewish nation was overthrown (cf. Luke 21:20-24). Paul then goes on to give the general principle that applies to all people, both Jew and Gentile. No matter whether one is a Jew or Gentile, all “who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil” will face God’s wrath (“trouble and distress”), and miss out on God’s blessing (“the life of the age,” which Paul seems to define here as “glory, honor and peace” - v. 10). But there is no indication in the rest of Romans or anywhere else in his epistles that Paul believed rewards and punishments extended beyond this world. You may take it for granted if you please, but doing so falls far short of an argument against the UU position.
Moreover, Paul goes on to say that “those have sinned under the law (i.e., the Jewish people) would be judged by the law on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus” (Rom 2:12, 16; vv. 13-15 are parenthetical). But the Jews being “judged by the law” has nothing to do with post-mortem punishments. How do I know this? Answer: because every revealed punishment threatened to law-breakers under the Old Covenant was completely confined to this life, and did not extend beyond the grave! And as quoted earlier, we are told in Hebrews that (under the Mosaic Law) “every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution.” So if, according to their own inspired writings, the Jews were in no danger of post-mortem punishment (or a “general day of judgment” at the end of time) is it at all reasonable to believe that the Gentiles in Paul’s day were exposed to a punishment to which the Jews were nowhere said to be exposed, or in danger of receiving?
Auggy, I’ve noticed that in several posts you’ve made mention of “the sheep and the goats” and the dividing of the nations; perhaps you would like to begin a new thread on this passage so that we can discuss it more in-depth.
Aaron, as always, excellent responses. Though there is much there and we’ve just scratched the surface I always feel at such a disadvantage due to my lack of greek. I certainly cannot even begin to follow you on what is correct translations and what is not. Nevertheless there are points you make which I sympathize and which I do not.
I had already believed that the “gravel” statement of Sodom was due to my misunderstanding. I figured it couldn’t be that but if it was, then I would drop it (of course you probably would agree with that). But I need to re-read that post to absorb the point you are making. I myself, still see Jesus as focusing on the people even though he uses the word “land”. If the goverment was a problem (which it seems like it was due to EZE 16’s notes: you did not take care of the needy and the poor) I see this only as a reflection of the people. But let me re-read and see if I can see it from your point of view.
As always, your generous. I know you that you know Jesus’ words are not necessary due to EZ-e’s phrasing. And I fully agree Jesus could have meant that. However, not being a historian puts me at a disadvantage to know if Jesus talked in such terms or not. I find Jesus’ pulling a rabbit out of the hat on the account of the buning bush in order to prove ressurection of the dea, leaves me to trust little in “most likely” types of interpretation. It might just be that he indeed forsees a future judgement coming for Sodom which they will have to tolerate. I also notice you did not grapple with my point that tolerating burning sulfur from the sky leaves very little to tolerate. Of course my point being that their destruction could not have been tolerated so Jesus is reffering to something eles (possibly post-mortem punishment).
The two sides of the grave issue is unsettled for me. I can’t seem to shake this notion that UU demands that people not repent in order to enter the kingdom of God. For if Sodom is to arise in a glorified body and enter the kingdom of God then I wonder is Penal Substitution the real thrust I’m dealing with here? I realize that attempts have been made to say I’m wrong about it, but I keep hearing that post mortem all receive this immortal glorious body regardless of their choices on earth. Again, if I’m wrong someone needs to explain this point and elaborate in depth. Becasue as I see it, what I just described is what every UU agrees with but then tries to sell me that I’ve got it all wrong. I need clarification on why Sodom will receive a glorified immortal body if in fact they did not repent.
Where is this difference in scripture? You state the difference is the gap between their mortal existence and their mortal is much breifer?
I read paul as referring to believers to are raiseed incorruptable. When he says ALL will be raised and you interpret him to mean every single person (wicked and righteouss), then I assume that EVERY SINGLE PERSON alive when this ressurection occurs will also be changed REGARDLESS OF THEIR REPENTANCE? Expand on this if you would please.
Happy Easter to you Aaron and looking forward to you response.
Aug
Again, I do think Christ is talking about the people of Sodom here - but only insofar as they were situated in the land where their city was located. That is, Christ is speaking of the people of Sodom in such a way that they are viewed as inseparable from the actual place where the original cities existed. But why speak of “the land of Sodom” if Jesus had in mind a future judgment of the former inhabitants of this city which had nothing to do with “the land” where the city was located? Now, perhaps one who believes in post-mortem punishment could argue that God is going to resurrect all the former inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah in the same geographical location in which they were destroyed, and then judge them again. While I think this hypothetical scenario begins to address the point of why Christ would speak of “the land,” I think a problem persists no matter where they are judged, and that problem is this: why must the people be judged twice? If the first judgment did not meet the demands of God’s justice, why did he judge them at all? Was God just feeling extra wrathful that day? 
And if the first judgment did meet the demands of God’s justice, wouldn’t it be unjust of him to judge them again? And where in all of the OT is it ever promised that God would judge the people of Sodom and Gomorrah again after having already judged them in the past? Is this what Jesus’ apostles would have (or should have) been anticipating? If not, Jesus must have been revealing something completely new to them. But is there any indication that this was the case?
While Christ may have been speaking hyperbolically to emphasize the severity of the judgment that was to fall upon the guilty Jewish cities of which he spoke, my understanding is that this judgment could be considered “less tolerable” because it would be more drawn-out and distressing than that which fell upon Sodom and Gomorrah (which was relatively sudden and brief). So it is in this sense that the judgment which fell upon Sodom and Gomorrah could be considered “more tolerable” than the judgment that was going to fall upon the Jewish cities. We are told in Lamentations that “the iniquity of the daughter of my people has been greater than the sin of Sodom, which was overthrown as in a moment, and no hands were laid upon her” (Lam 4:6). But the violent overthrow of the Jewish nation (which was not limited to the city of Jerusalem) would be of longer duration than was the overthrow of Sodom, and consequently productive of greater human suffering. So there is no need to read post-mortem punishment into this text.
UU affirms that only those who repent and believe can presently enter the kingdom of God (which is simply the domain in which God reigns as king!) in this life. But when Christ returns personally to raise the dead and transform the living, it is my understanding that all people will, at this time, be made sinless subjects of the kingdom of God. So if by “repent” you mean “experience a change of mind,” then UU does affirm that all who died without repenting (or who will still be alive when Christ returns) will experience this “change of mind” when (or perhaps immediately after) they are made immortal by Christ. I do think those who died as unrepentant, unbelieving sinners will, after being made immortal, realize they were wrong for not having put their faith in Christ when they were mortal. So I see nothing wrong with affirming that people will be repentant for the sins they committed prior to their death/resurrection (or instantaneous change, if that be the case). But I simply deny that Scripture teaches that anyone will be raised in a sinful and guilty condition, and thus be deserving of any further punishment at this time. I also don’t see where it’s taught that our moral/spiritual condition prior to death has any effect whatsoever on whether or not we are to be raised either sinful or holy. If there is some verse or passage that you think teaches otherwise, please share it!
As far as Penal Substitution goes, I’ve long rejected this theory of the atonement, even before I became a universalist. And while there may be some Ultra-U’s who hold or have held to some sort of “Penal Substitution” position (although I’m unaware of any historical examples), there is no need for it in a Ultra-U theology. It’s not a change in legal status that I believe we must undergo for salvation (either before or after the resurrection); it’s a change in our character and affections that I believe is necessary. In this mortal life I believe this moral change is progressive and exclusive to believers (i.e., those whom God has chosen beforehand to experience it); when Christ returns personally, however, I believe this change will be both instantaneous and universal.
I’m not sure I understand your disagreement here. Even those who believe in an intermediate state of conscious existence between death and resurrection (which I deny Scripture teaches, but you affirm) would agree that the “gap” between one’s mortal existence and one’s immortal existence is longer for those who have died and are to be raised than it is for those who are to be changed. The “gap” between mortality and immortality for those who are to be changed will be so brief that the change is said to be “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye” - whereas for those who have died, the gap between their mortal existence and their immortal existence could be as long as 6,000 years. That’s the only point I was making. My main point is that our immortal existence will be far different from our present, mortal existence, and that the blessings that are to be enjoyed in that state will transcend the blessings we, as mortals, are currently able to enjoy (the greatest of which is “the life of the age”).
What leads you to believe that Paul is only talking about believers being raised incorruptible in 1Cor 15, as opposed to all who die in Adam?
At this time Christ is going to exert the power and authority God gave him to subject every single person (both living and dead) to himself. Whereas many who are still alive at this time may be in rebellion against God up to the point when they are changed, after this miraculous change I believe the truth will be so overwhelming as to make them willing, loyal subjects of God from that point on. I believe the new bodies all are to receive at this time (both dead and living) will be without any desire or inclination to sin, and the new perception that we will be granted at this time will make rebellion impossible and obedience inevitable. Is it your view that God is unable to instantaneously change people from sinners to saints as I believe he will do, or is it that you believe he simply wouldn’t do this (based on what you think Scripture teaches)?
And happy Easter to you as well! 
It was one of those God moments, when I read this above by Aug and saw, "“The lack of memory is the root of all kinds of evil.”
Surely, out of lack of remembrance, of who we were in Christ, before being lowered from our original and high estate is the root of all kinds of evil. Thus today, young men have visions and old men dream of a time, past and future.
John, I have no idea what you’re saying but that comment is comedy. George Bernard Shaw was a comedian playwright and when I read that, I thought it was hilarious.
Aaron,
Thank you for your clear responses that addressed my two questions. When I’ve had time to read them, your responses have been remarkably lucid, and I’m grateful for that.
I would be glad to come to perceive that your interpretation is correct. But my currently dissenting impressions are that the Bible does not assure that complete “fairness,” or “proportionate recompense” is administered in this world. Nor that it contains “no warnings of concious suffering beyond the grave.” I would like to take time to reflect on why I perceive that. I am currently reading Jerzak’s latest book and his sections on the judgment passages. Then I hope to invite your response again to any texts at issue. Grace be with you, Bob
I should point out that not all Ultra-U’s believe that all people are justly rewarded and punished in this life. While I have yet to find any Biblical reason to doubt it, it’s not essential to the UU position.
What’s the title of the book?
It’s “Her Gates Will Never Be Shut” Hope, Hell, and the New Jerusalem. Robin Parry discussed it in a recent post under his section of the site.
Thanks; I’ll check it out.
More great responses, Aaron!
I really wish that I had your clarity of thought and ability to communicate it…
Isn’t that a bit obvious. I hardly think he meant the people of Sodom who live in China, will have a more tolerable day than Beth. (perhaps I’m still misunderstanding your point - forgive me if I am).
Actually, no, I don’t think the location of where they’re ressurected is at all important. The point is that they’re going to have to face judgement day, and it will be more tolerable for them (since they didn’t have a bible - Leonard Ravenhill used to say that).
Ahhh great question which brings me around to why people have to be judged multiple times? Was God judging Sodom before the burning sulfur poured down upon them. After all wasn’t the lack of the joy of the lord their punishement enough or is God some miniacle who thought dumpin lava on em would be a great way to show them who’s boss? In other words, the problem is not ours, since we believe that day served ONLY as an example of something coming (future).
Again, seems the burning sulfur was perhaps the 100th judgement on them since they lacked God’s joy; IF THE LACK OF THE JOY OF THE LORD IS A FORM OF PUNISHMENT then this seems to support post-mortem punishment. For Sodom lived their life under the condemnation of God and then underwent a sever punishment of fire. How many time must people be punished? Isn’t the lack of the Joy of the Lord enough? Perhaps you are undermining the severity (a little humor for you).
I would argue that their destruction only served as something coming. Now if their lacking the joy of the Lord is no different of someone who currently (today) is being punished (by lacking the joy of the Lord) AND Sodom also incurred a punishement of burning lava upon them, then if someone today dies without repentance do they escape such a judgement of burning lava? If you say because they lack the joy of the Lord then I would say you too have Sodom being judged multiple times as well. For myself, I dont’ believe the burning sulfur was the judgement of which God cast into hell and into the city of God. I believe, like the flood, it served only as a shadow of a reality coming. If it is a reality then perhaps everything else is too?
My objection is that if Ultra Universalism states that the dead will be raised incorruptable (immortal) then what about the living who live in sin. They too get incorruptable bodies apparently. So you plug in: They will see him and repent and thus receive immortality. I don’t see that anywhere in the text and therefore see no reason to believe “they will instantly repent”. And if they don’t repent then surly the wicked do inherit eternal life or immortality.
No, I see it that God punishes those whom he loves and those who do not receive the truth in this life, he binds over further in their disobedience (to correct them). This view that God simply raised the unsaved as saved and then they repent is a bit backwards as far as I can see.
I see no where in any scripture of which God grants eternal life while they are in their sins. For Sodom, it’s as Daniel stated in 12: " Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt."
Also note, I don’t believe Romans 5 or Cor 15, Paul is stating that everyone who lives will be made alive. I actually agree with the ECT interpretation that he is only comparing. I read it like “For just as it was that all who are born of adam died so it is that all who are born of Christ will live” - I don’t believe Paul is saying "beause of Adam every individual died and therfore because of Christ every individual shall live ". Certainly, it might mean that, but from my point of view, paul did not have Universalism in mind there. I have other reasons to see that eventually all will be made alive, but these verses are in my opinion not proofs of Univesalism.
Good point, and I believe Paul, and Peter, and Jude all had something to say about that.
Aug,
Again, you minimize what has been said regarding devine punishment. Lack of joy is the least of distress that befalls the sinner.
Rom 13:1-4
1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
Paul points out that the government is God’s agent bringing wrath and punishment upon the sinner; even to the point of the death penalty in some cases. And what about Romans Chapter 1 in which Paul describes how God allows the sinner to progress into ever-worsening levels of corruption if they continue in their error bringing untold misery.
I also believe that the advent of the Holy Spirit brought an even greater awareness or conviction of guilt upon every sinner or doer of unrighteousness.
John 16:7-8
7 But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment:
This conviction of guilt, I believe, is an ever-present tormentor to the evil-doer. The Holy Spirit is at work within everyone as a blessing or a curse; blessing to those who do good, but tormentor to those who do evil. Just as John the Baptist, speaking of the Spirit, said the following,…
Matt 3:12
His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
Also, don’t forget what happened to Ananias and Sapphira.
Acts 5:3-5
3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.” 5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened.
Todd
Not to speak for Aaron, which I am certainly incapable of doing; but the latter part of your post raised some points that I felt able to chime in on. I’m sure Aaron will have more to add to this, or at least a slightly different perspective.
Ah, but that isn’t how the Corinthians passage is worded, Aug. It says “In Christ, all.” Not, “all in Christ”.
1Co 15:21 For since, in fact, through a man came death, through a Man, also, comes the resurrection of the dead."
1Co 15:22 For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified."
1Co 15:23 Yet each in his own class: the Firstfruit, Christ; thereupon those who are Christ’s in His presence;"
1Co 15:24 thereafter the consummation, whenever He may be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father, whenever He should be nullifying all sovereignty and all authority and power."
1Co 15:25 For He must be reigning until He should be placing all His enemies under His feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy is being abolished: death.
But why would Jesus even refer to the “land of Sodom” if the land was irrelevant to the judgment of which he was speaking?
If the “location” isn’t important, why would Jesus even refer to “the land?” And no, I deny that the point is that Sodom is going to be judged by God again after being judged by him previously. You have not yet proven that Christ is even speaking about a future judgment for Sodom. As noted before, it is just as possible that Christ was simply speaking of Sodom as if the city and its citizens were still in existence (just as Ezekiel did) to be judged alongside the Jewish cities for the point of emphasizing to his listeners how less tolerable it would be for those cities in comparison. It’s simply not necessary to read post-mortem punishment into these passages.
Evidently any lack of joy and peace the citizens of Sodom experienced during their lifetime did not constitute their divine punishment. That is, God did not consider negative happiness an adequate punishment for them; hence, the fire and sulfur from heaven. Now, where is your proof that this judgment “served ONLY as an example” of a second judgment which they (not others) would experience? To argue this from Jesus’ words is merely begging the question in debate.
Again, it seems evident to me that their lack of joy and peace was not considered by God to be their punishment. Though this may be an adequate punishment for others, it would appear that the nature of their sin and the degree of their guilt required something more severe (though not as severe as that which would fall upon the Jewish cities of which Christ spoke!).
As stated before, it is God who determines what is and what isn’t an adequate punishment for someone. So whereas a lack of joy and peace may be perfectly adequate punishment for one person, it may not be for another. Their guilt may make them deserving of a premature death, for instance. So where is your proof that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the great flood, were but “shadows” of a “reality coming?”
Actually, I’ve nowhere stated that “they will see him and repent and thus receive immortality.” That’s neither my position nor that of UU in general. What I’m saying and have been saying is that the dead are going to be raised in a sinless condition, and those who are still alive will be made sinless when they are changed at the same time the dead are raised. Repentance does not secure our sinless state as immortals; Christ does when he subjects all to himself. What UU affirms is that there will be no immortal human sinners at any time, for the Bible doesn’t teach it. Moreover, repentance is but a change of mind about something; one doesn’t have to be sinful to realize they were wrong about something in the past. Do you deny that it’s possible for a person to be raised in a sinless condition by God and then (as a sinless being) realize they were wrong about their past sins? That’s all I’ve been affirming. If you don’t think it’s possible, then fine; but I feel like you’re misunderstanding my position.
Where is it taught in Scripture that people will even be in need of further correction after they are raised immortal? That’s what you need to be trying to prove.
What leads you to believe that Paul “did not have Universalism in mind” in these passages? 
Indeed…?