Well, I do see Revelation as teaching that God was about to pour out his wrath on people (i.e., the unbelieving people of the Jewish nation), but I don’t think that any who experienced his wrath at that time were physically dead. Instead, I believe they were spiritually dead. I’m of the opinion that those who are physically dead are no longer conscious, and, consequently, are no longer capable of experiencing punishment.
Aaron.
Was the Richman in Hades unconscious when he was being tormented in flames? ( Luke 16:19-31)
And a Republican as well! 
Hi Jim,
If it is a matter of “when” then I too see God’s punishments/wrath/judgment as being poured out here and now as well and not postmortem.
I’ll go ahead and chime in a bit. James and I were the two who took intiative on openeing the forum because of this very topic. I agree with James on this very issue. But the issue is complex and requires several topics to be discussed. From Penal substitution, Imputed righteoussness, Sonship (as James and Criag have raised up), Reconcilation, Ressurection; all of these are complex and thus it’s hard to answer the question.
I probably am filled with misunderstanding of Aarons position. So anything I say Aaron is not to be taken in a “here is what you believe” sense. Rather I’m trying to get a better grasp of how ultra universalists read scripture.
One point GM and Talbott raise up in their books is that christians who have embraced universalism seem to have difficulty with the obvious issues of punishment in the next age or the after life. It seems jesus’ words concerning Bethsaida and Korazin come into question; what could he have possibly meant?
Luke 10
**I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town. **
Aaron, when I read your statment:
I realize we’re of such different paradigms that it will take much for us to come to some common ground. Of course we have Jesus being Lord of all as common ground. But on this issue of post-mortem punishment, I think we have quite a bit of work ahead of us.
When you state those who are are physically dead are no longer conscious, is this people of no faith? What do you make of John, James and Peter meeting the physically dead Moses and Elijah at the transfiguration? The scriptures seem riddled with the fact that physical death does not mean unconsciousness. Of course I realize that is coming from someone who is already learned in such a school of thought. So perhaps that is a topic thread of itself you might elaborate on for us.
Aug
HI Auggy,
I thought about starting a new thread earlier today after reading some of the comments made on this thread because I wasn’t sure how broadly or how narrowly “Christian Universalism” is being defined by those in this forum. I changed my mind before hitting the submit button but since you mention the “ultra Universalist” here maybe I can ask about that here, especially as it relates to pre-mortem vs post-mortem judgment. I see that there are at least a few here who do not believe in post-mortem judgment and whether or not this is what was being referred with the “there is no hell” statement made on the other thread or not, I don’t know. But I do note that even the title of this thread is “Who believes that God doesn’t punish people?” and the discussion seems to be more about “when” vs “whether or not” (and perhaps “how”) that punishment takes place.
I guess what I was wondering, since Pantelism (which I had to go look up) was also brought up in that other thread, is whether or not these other “universalist” views are actually considered (or not considered) “Christian” Universalism by those in this forum, particularly those who established this forum (not sure who that is, maybe yourself?).
If I could read better, I could see that you just said it was you and James who opened up this forum. 
You said “because of this very topic”. Not sure what that means… and am wondering (based on some of the other comments I referenced earlier) if your intent was to “get away from” this topic?
While I wait for that answer, I would like to address the following:
Speaking only for myself, it is not because I had any difficulty with the issue of “punishment” that I embraced Universalism; nor is it because I had any difficulty with punishment that I no longer believe (though I once did) that God’s punishments are administered to those “in the earth”. I came to that understanding through my own personal studies of the scriptures themselves.
How that relates to “that day” and “the day of Lord” has to do with my seeing “that day” as “today”.
As I have come to understand the scriptures, there is but ONE DAY to the Lord and that one day is divided between “the night” (which is “as yesterday” when it is past) and “the day” (which is “today”, when you hear my voice and harden not your hearts). Both “the night” and “the day” are connected to a “thousand years” (which is ONE DAY to the Lord).
Truly, there is a great deal more I could say on the subject but for the sake of brevity I"ll stop here for now. Just want to demonstrate that it’s not a matter of ignoring verses like Luke 10:12, it’s just a matter of how they might be understood differently.
My position in short points:
-
my definition of a Christian universalist: A Christian who believes that Christ will save everyone without exception.
-
my definition of a Christian restorationist: A Christian universalist who believes that at least some people will experience punishment after death.
-
my definition of a Christian ultra-universalist: A Christian universalist who believes that no one ever experiences punishment after death.
-
I am 100% certain of Christian universalism.
-
I am about 85% certain of Christian ultra-universalism.
-
I understand all scriptural passages speaking of punishment as pertaining to punishments occuring in this life.
-
Given the difficulties in understanding the book of the Apocalypse, I would hesitate to use it alone to prove or disprove a doctrine.
-
It is essential for us to be punished for our sins. Escaping punishment for our sins would be unimaginably nightmarish.
-
If I believed that some sins were not punished in this life, then I would become a Christian restorationist (point #2 above).
-
I believe that the primary (but not only) punishment for our sins is the lack of spiritual joy that we have as sinners. The more one sins, the less spiritual joy he has. The less one sins, the more spiritual joy he has. Spiritual joy is more desirable than ALL earthly goods put together. In fact, as Paul said, all earthly goods in comparison are as dung.
-
I believe that when we experience physical death we instantly find ourselves in the unobscured presence of Christ. We then see with crystalline clarity the error of our ways, and we gladly and freely and whole-heartedly embrace Christ with all our being. Any other choice would be insane and therefore not free.
Thanks Geoffrey,
So it seems though whoever falls into Cat #2 or #3 also falls in Cat #1?
I guess that puts me with you, a Christian Universalist (#1) who falls within Cat #3, a Christian ultra-Universalist (if I am going to ‘label’ it from this list).
I would say that I am 100% certain of Christian Universalism and, at the moment (though I would be open to correction if I could be shown differently) 100% certain of ultra-Universalism. I no longer see any evidence in post-mortem punishment. Like you, I believe that when we die we stand in the presence of the Lord and anyone who did not "know God and Jesus Christ whom He sent) will know immediately, just as Paul did, that Jesus Christ is Lord.
Yes.
I adopt my terminology from that of the early 19th-century Universalist Church in the U. S. A. Within the Universalist Church was a huge controversy between Universalists who believed in post-mortem punishments (who were called “Restorationists”) and Universalists who did not believe in post-mortem punishments (who were called “Ultra-Universalists”).
It’s insane to think that one has a choice of being resurrected - which is also to say that being salted with fire is not a choice. We’ll see everything with new clarity, including the felt need that it is we who need convincing - when that need goes to the root of sin - it’s not going to be about reform but complete renewal - we will be changed. We think we need convincing and He knows we need fire. Punishment is the wrong word for all of this…
I didn’t know that; thanks Geoffrey!!
AHF,
give me a bit of time to respond. As I stated, don’t take it that I’m saying you’re ignoring the verse. I simply see that verse as not being compatible.
Aug
Here’s something I wrote a while back on the parallel passage from Matthew:
Matthew 10:15 and 11:23-24 read:
“Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town…And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For, if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.”
First, it should be noted that Christ is not here contrasting the punishment of Sodom with a punishment that all the wicked will receive the end of time, in another state of existence. He’s contrasting the punishment of Sodom with the punishment of those cities which rejected the ministry of he and the apostles. Now, the rest of Scripture is utterly silent with regards to a future judgment for Sodom, Tyre and Sidon. In Genesis 19 and Isaiah 23, we find a very particular account of the judgments of these cities, but not a word is said of their ever being judged again at another time. Christ is here simply speaking of the day in history when God’s vengeance would fall upon the cities in view that were guilty of rejecting him. The judgment is in this world, not in “eternity.”
It may be argued that the future tense Christ uses in reference to Sodom and Gomorrah (“it will be”) disproves this idea, and extends the judgment of all the cities of which Christ speaks into a yet-future time. However, in Ezekiel 16:46-56, the prophet figuratively represents Samaria as dwelling at the left hand of Jerusalem, and Sodom at its right. This was not literally true, however; both cities had been destroyed for centuries. But Ezekiel is speaking AS IF they were then dwelling alongside Jerusalem, in order to more forcibly impress upon his reader’s minds the contrast he’s making between these cities and that of the present, wicked state of Israel. If Ezekiel could use the present tense when speaking of Samaria and Sodom, and thus represent them as being in existence at that time (when, in reality, they had been destroyed ages ago), then Christ could certainly speak in a similar way, in reference to a similar situation! He is simply speaking AS IF Sodom (and other cities) would be present at the time of the judgment of the then-present-day cities of Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum to be judged alongside them, in order to more forcibly impress upon the minds of his listeners the greater severity with which these Jewish cities would be judged.
Moreover, Christ is explicitly speaking of a judgment upon cities, not just the former inhabitants of cities. Christ does not say, “…more tolerable for those who were the sinful citizens of Sodom.” No, he says, “more tolerable for the land of Sodom” (Matt 11:24), and even says Sodom “would have remained until this day” (v. 23) implying that, in his day, it was no more (and, as a city, would be no more). This to me is proof positive that Christ does not have in view a second, future judgment of all the individual people who once lived in this city (or any other city). He’s talking about the cities themselves (in the case of Sodom, he’s referring to that which “would have remained” until that day) as they existed and functioned in their former geo-political capacities and locations. Thus, Christ is not saying that “the land of Sodom” has another “day of judgment” in the future, because the land of Sodom was judged long ago, and the city doesn’t exist anymore (again, v. 23).
Even if God were to resurrect every former citizen of this city and the others, the cities themselves would not be resurrected, with their original location and corporate capacities. The cities would still be no more. At the resurrection of the dead there will be no “Sodom and Gomorrah,” only those who were once citizens of these cities. Thus, even if there is to be a future judgment in store for all individuals (though scripture does not teach this), there is no more “Sodom and Gomorrah” left to be judged. Any judgment upon a city must be experienced on the earth, while the city still has its metropolitan existence. This temporal world is the only place where cities like Sodom and Gomorrah have such an identity and existence, and thus it is only in this temporal world that cities can be judged as such.
But what is meant by the expression, “exalted to heaven?” It doesn’t mean “to go to heaven after death.” This is simply an expression to denote great privileges. Capernaum was quite prosperous, being successful in commerce. But most of all, it was signally favored by the presence, preaching, and miracles of Christ! He evidently spent a large part of his time here in the early part of his ministry, and in Capernaum and its neighborhood he performed many miracles. And the words, “brought down to Hades” doesn’t mean that all the people would go to a place of torment (either after death or at some future time), but that the city which had flourished so prosperously would lose its prosperity, and occupy the lowest place among cities. The word “Hades” literally denotes the domain of death and the grave, and here figuratively denotes the inevitable state of desolation and destruction to which Capernaum would be brought as a city (and thus stands in stark contrast with their being “exalted to heaven”). All of their privileges, honors, wealth, etc., were to be taken away, and they would sink as low among cities as they had before being “exalted.” This was literally fulfilled. During the Jewish-Roman wars (less than 40 years from the time Jesus uttered these words), Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum were so completely desolated that it is difficult to determine their former locations.
Thus, the “day of judgment” for Sodom and Gomorrah, Tyre and Sidon, Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, was when these cities were destroyed in this world. Notice that all the punishment threatened against Capernaum is set forth in the expression, “will be brought down to Hades.” Again, “Hades” does not denote judgment in a future state, but the domain of death (and in this context, desolation and destruction in this world). And as Capernaum was equally guilty with the other cities mentioned (and even more guilty than cities such as Sodom), it makes no sense at all to understand its punishment as being temporal, and the others as being in a future state. No more is expressed by the phrase, “more tolerable in a day of judgment” than in the phrase “brought down to Hades.” Christ is simply contrasting the severity of temporal judgments upon cities and their citizens. As the spiritual advantages given to Capernaum had been greater, so its punishment would be more severe on the “day of judgment.”
Yes, I believe that all who die (both believers and unbelievers) are as unconscious as they appear to be to us, and that no “part” of us continues on in a conscious, disembodied state. As far as Matthew 17:1-9 goes, it is true that some see this account as evidence that Moses and Elijah were alive in a post-mortem, disembodied state. However, that what Jesus’ disciples saw was not a literal reality seems evident to me from the fact that Jesus plainly called it a “vision”: “And as they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, ‘Tell no one the vision, until the Son of man is raised from the dead’” (Matt 17:9).
Unless this example is the sole exception in the Bible, the word translated here as “vision” (* horama*) always denotes a mental sight presented to a person’s mind by extra-ordinary means. It can occur either by day or by night, and often takes place while the recipient is in a trance or dreaming. In the LXX, horama is used to describe supernatural visions of the future (see Dan. 7:1; 8:13; 10:1). The word also appears numerous times in the book of Acts, and consistently denotes something that God supernaturally causes a person to see in their mind (Acts 9:10-12; 10:3, 9-19; 11:5; 16:9; 18:9). Acts 12:9 is especially helpful in understanding what a “vision” is in the Biblical sense of the word. There, we read that Peter “did not know that what was being done by the angel was real, but thought he was seeing a vision (horama).” Here, an objective experience is contrasted with what Peter initially thought was a “vision.”
Being thus a vision, the account of Moses and Elijah appearing with Jesus is in no way evidence that these two men were actually alive in a disembodied state and had descended from heaven to converse with Jesus. Moreover, in keeping with this understanding of the passage, there is no reason to think that Jesus’ physical appearance or nature was objectively altered at this time. Instead, we may simply understand Jesus’ changed appearance to have been a part of the vision experienced by Peter, James and John. In this vision, these men were given a supernatural preview of Jesus’ post-resurrection glory (which explains why Jesus told them to tell “no one the vision” until after he had risen from the dead).
Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.” Lk 23:34
I believe you have the first sentence right. Your last two sentences seem to however reflect the spurious doctrine of free will. Throw out the “freely” and “free” and I believe Truth will be served.
My friend, here is how I would paint the scenario:
**Upon our death we will see His visage marred more than any man and we will mourn.
*Looking upon Jesus’ face we will also realize the complete helplessness and the totality of the ignorance into which we were cast.
Then we will thank God, that everything in our life has been planned and purposed for such a moment. That moment being the full unveiling of God, through Christ, Jesus.
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. Isa 53:5
They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. Zech12:10
*Surely Jesus will remind us of His dying words:
Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.” Lk 23:34
**We will then realize we are free of guilt, as Christ reveals Himself as the “Guilt Offering” given before the foundations. Oh, how fully are we cleansed and covered by His sacrifice and His precious blood. *
Can we see, that we were in Christ during Calvary’s dark hour and it is we who ignorantly pieced our selves. So the spirit suffers the ignorance of the carnal soul until we realize His purpose in Love. We have always been forgiven, from even before the foundations. We were forgiven, we are forgiven, we will always be forgiven. Our forgiveness is as full as our soul’s blind ignorance. Reconciliation is the realization of such and it spans the grave … as Jesus unveils Himself.
For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls. 1 Peter 2:25
Like dumb sheep, we were made to stray, that we might realize the joyous glory of our return to our loving Shepherd and Guardian of ours souls. Truth be known, the Shepherd has never left us and has always had His eye upon us. It is He that opened the gate to our earthly wanderings and then bid us, return.** We were made to wandered in dust, to know who we weren’t. We return to God, through Christ, to know who we are. **
I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the LORD. They will be my people, and I will be their God, for they will return to me with all their heart. Jer24:7
What a wonderful Shepherd, we have in Jesus! What a victorious Saviour!
John
Aaron,
It is interesting how we can read things and summarize so differently. Currently I’m still persuaded that the vison had a sense or reality to it. For in the vision it’s clear that “And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him.”
Now perhaps Jesus got lost a bit in the vision and started dialoguing with simple images. But here I find the natural reading of the text to state that Jesus was in fact having a discussion with Elijah and Moses.
I would also take the future sense to be un-related to them seeing Elijah and Moses. Rather as Peter states it…
?
**We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”[a] 18We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. **
Did they hear the voice? Was it only a vision? As far as I can tell, it seems they truly witnessed it as peter uses the transfiguration passage as proof that they saw a reality. That reality seems clear to me to include two living people who are long been dead.
There seems to be so much data on this that verses are too numerous to list: “I am the God of your fathers Abraham, Jacob and Issac”. Which is a non-contextual proof Jesus uses to inform those who don’t believe in a ressurection…THEY ARE ALIVE.
But perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. Going into Gahenna with 2 hands sucks while entering the kingdom of God with 1 is better - seems to be notion that not everyone goes into the next age with 2 hands.
I feel I could rattle off hundreds of verses like this which seem to clarify that indeed the dead are not dead, that there is a ressurection unto life and one unto death (dan).
Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise [a] will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.
I feel the theme that doing what is right in this life and warnings against such things has consequences even beyond death is unavoidable. And I don’t find any scriptual evidence to see that Adolph Hitler will not be punished. If death is his punishment, then why do believers suffer the same fate? If its because we’re all wicked, then whats the point in coming to faith? And trying to sell “faith is not required for salvation” is an impossible sell for me. Scripture, as I understand it, is central on the theme of faith.
Aug
Everlasting is everlasting. EVERLASTING CONTEMPT! What did they do to deserve that?
Perhaps, but I think it’s more likely that the dialogue was itself a part of the vision that Peter, James and John were meant to hear as they awoke from their sleep that night. It was yet another prophecy of the sacrifice Jesus was about to make for the world.
But if it’s true that the Bible teaches that those who have died do not live again until they are raised (which I think is the case, at least), then a “natural reading” of this passage would lead one to the conclusion that either 1) Moses and Elijah had already been raised from the dead (which some who hold to the “conditional immortality” view do affirm!), or 2) that this was meant to be understood as a vision that God was giving Peter, James and John. And while I think it’s possible that God could have raised Moses and Elijah from the dead for this occasion, the fact that Jesus specifically called it a “vision” in Matthew’s account compels me to understand it as such.
Even if everything else they saw and heard was part of the vision, God’s voice from heaven need not be understood as having been. I believe this part of their experience was an objective reality that coincided with the vision.
First, it should be kept in mind that the doctrine Christ is defending against the error of the Sadducees is that there will be a resurrection of the dead - not that we continue to exist in a disembodied state after death. So, here’s my understanding of Christ’s logic:
If:
- God identifies himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
- Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were understood to be dead when these words were spoken
- God is not the God of the dead, but of the living
then it follows that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will not remain dead for all time; they will ultimately live again by being raised from the dead. In other words, Jesus is arguing that God would not have called himself their God if they were never going to be raised and thus live again (as the Sadducees believed). But since it is part of God’s purpose that they be raised, he can justifiably call himself their God, even though they were (and are) presently dead.
I understand the age that was then to come to refer to the age in which we’re presently living (i.e., the age of the Messianic reign). I believe the age in which we’re living began in 70 AD, and will conclude when Christ raises the dead and delivers the kingdom back to God.
My understanding of this verse (whether right or wrong) can be found here: Daniel 12:2
I don’t think Scripture teaches that our motive for doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong should be grounded in the idea of rewards and punishments after death. God’s justice is just as active now as it will be in the future, so I think we can count on him to presently reward those who do what is right and to punish those who do what is wrong. It may not be how we want or expect him to punish people, but I am confident that those who live without regard for God and his law will not live a blessed, abundant life. The wrath of God abides on all unbelievers.
I don’t know how God saw fit to punish Adolph Hitler. But I’m confident that God’s justice was just as active then as it will be in the future, and that Hitler reaped what he sowed. Perhaps he wasn’t punished as WE would like to see him punished, but I believe God is just nonetheless, and that God’s wrath remained on Hitler for as long as he lived. And I know for a fact that, to the extent that Hitler lived according to the flesh, he forfeited the joy, peace and “abundant life” that only believers can enjoy. And can such people truly be happy? I don’t think so. To live without regard for God is a living death.
I agree that faith is a central theme of Scripture. But that doesn’t mean faith will be required for salvation when it will no longer be possible to exercise it. I believe that one day (i.e., at the resurrection) faith will be replaced by sight.
Aaron, Thank you for your short and informative answers. I believe I’m starting to get a better understanding of where you’re coming from.
It’s hard for us who are raised in particular paradigms to move from them and I believe that’s the way it should be. Thus my questions run deep on such issues. I imagine that passages, like the ones I’ve mentioned, are interpreted in different ways depending on the view points we already hold. As an example, I still see the Tranfiguration as being something that was not just a “vision” but something that happened literally; else it’s hard to imagine Peter using it as a form of proof. I realize that’s not demanded, even if it’s a vision (a vision could be used as a proof). It simply seems stronger to me that the disciples actually lived that event. BUT I realize, it’s because I already believe there is more to this atomic world, which includes our spirits.
I also want to say that the conscious existence of those who are dead or have fallen asleep does not seem so far from being reasonable. Reading Athisfeet’s comments to Ran
seems to me to be a bit of a stretch. Is it so hard to understand that one might believe that though the person’s body lie lifeless that the mind continues with the spirit? It’s not for me.
God warns Isreal not to consult the dead. Why is that?
And if the fallen have spirits (which is why we’re told to test them) then it hardly seems that they require bodies in order to have mental capacities; why should we?
I currently don’t see enough evidence that physical death demands a cease of consciousness. Thus I might ask the obvious. Do we have spirits? If not, then why does paul say “The spirits of prophets is subject to the control of prophets”? If yes, then how is it a physical body can be possessed by several spirits?
I know I’m all over the place; it’s because I see so many things which seem to imply that we are more than just flesh and blood. As if our mind is ONLY a result of atoms bouncing around. I’m no expert on human ontology and would even claim to know NOTHING on the subject. But when it comes to “spirits” and “bodies” I realize there is a reason why so many people do believe there is a concious existence beyond this world.
Do you at least understand why so many people believe in life outside of the body?