Jeff, they are mostly theories aren’t they. I think some of the evidence in the experiments however gives us insight though. The theories maybe give us hope. I watched a marvelous talk on quantum entanglement last night. There are the mathematicians and physicists crunching numbers into theories but also real mechanical experiments giving phenomenal evidence.
The discoveries and theories in science thrill my soul as they help me envision the reality of the spiritual world.
I think the general populace receives blessing/punishment through cause/effect and sowing/reaping and the spiritually aware get it by a fully awakened conscience as well. That fully awakened conscience stuff will whip the soul’s butt with a belt (OUCH!). And don’t worry, there’s plenty of pain to go around for all.
I am personally beginning to think that the reason that the scripture precisely points out that we are to “…not be decieved, for God is not mocked; a man reaps what he sows.” is because the implication of the rest of scripture (correctly translated and understood) is that there is no postmortem punishment, regardless of what our traditions have taught us certain passages mean.
But what about those who just seem to get away with stuff? Well, maybe only we/ they think they’re getting away with it.
I think that perhaps there is punishment in this life that many may not even be aware of; but when we see Him face to face, as He truly is and all of our illusions crumble to dust, we will see what could have been, though we were unaware of it at the time.
A personal example is that I thought for years that I was getting away with certain actions, attitudes and behaviors. Now however, I’m beginning to see them come back to bite me, and there’s no escaping it now. I’m beginning to see how wrong I was, and I’m suffering for it now. I was all along too, I just didn’t realize it acutely until now.
I deal with this concept physiologically with my patients all the time. By the time someone comes to me with obvious symptoms, invariably things have been going on beneath the surface and their notice for years, but they were there, affecting them all the time, just not consciously until things reached a certain point…
As I’ve worked through this thread I remain unconvinced on several issues. The first is that Aaron37 raises a valid point about the question of those who do believe are they subject to hell? And if so then what exactly is the difference. Better stated, when I read “we’re all children of God” - I agree but only from a certain point of view. From the same scripture comes the cold fact that ONLY those who believe does he give the right to be called children of God; The pharisees were sons of satan…can you be born of God and born of the devil? I don’t think so.
The point being is that I believe Ultra Universalism displays a misbalance of scripture. Taking salvation and applying it to all in a sense where faith is un-necessary YET is necessary. I believe Talbott and Macdonald make far better sense of the text in their espousing the idea that faith is necessary and apart of this there is only wrath. I also find no evidence that those who die ALWAYS come to faith immediatley and face no judgement. For certainly the warnings are clear and serious.
I also remain uncconvinced that the lack of joy is the wrath of God. Rather I find that the wrath of God is not something to just simply missed but to be expereiences in a full measure. And the picture painted (of God’s wrath) is not one of oh too bad for you, but I’ll break your very bones.
The position that Angels are embodied is a bit unusual to me. Certainly in the account of the burning bush the Angel of the lord did not have a brain or body yet spoke. And when Jesus calls Demons spirits which require fasting, I hardly think it means they don’t exist nor that they have bodies and jumped into another person.
There is so much evidence against such notions I almost can’t even begin to list, but that would be unfair to just claim that. Thus I will start different topics for each of these. I will continue pursuing the issue of port mortem punishent.
Also, I mean to say there seems to be so much evidence. I don’t mean to sound like I know. I simply mean post mortem punishment makes more sense of the warnings at this time.
Actually, the ultra-universalist position doesn’t require that all people presently be considered “children of God” in an equal sense. While I do think there is a sense in which God is the Father of all people (which even many non-ultras would affirm), I do not think everyone can be called God’s children (nor can God be called their Father) in the sense that is most emphasized in the NT (i.e., in the sense of our being like God in our moral character, by our faith in Christ).
My understanding is that faith (which is “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen”) will remain necessary for our salvation from sin only for as long as it is possible to exercise it. But when that in which we presently hope is fully realized, it will no longer be possible to exercise faith. For instance, I have faith that the risen Christ is going to save all people on the last day of his reign by raising them immortal and subjecting them to himself. My faith in this yet-unrealized fact fills me with hope and has a purifying effect on my character and affections. But when that in which I presently have faith ultimately comes to pass, my faith will be replaced by sight. No longer will I be able (or need) to believe this in order to experience salvation from sin’s bondage.
The ultra position does not require that one understand the wrath of God to consist only in “negative happiness.” In most cases, I would argue that in addition to missing out on spiritual blessings like joy and peace, God’s wrath consists of the positive suffering that people experience in this world as a result of their sin (which may include physical pain like broken bones, but most likely includes one or more of the following “spiritual” experiences of the condemned: guilt, emotional/psychological distress, uneasiness, dissatisfaction, fear, despair, etc.).
Perhaps the fire in the bush was simply the means by which the angel manifested his presence to Moses while keeping his actual, physical form hidden from Moses’ sight. Why the angel would choose not to reveal his true form to Moses at this time is a mystery to me, but I don’t see why this isn’t a possibility.
I don’t think the fact that Jesus spoke of demons as they were spoken of by the Jewish people at that time is evidence that he or the Gospel writers understood demons to have an actual existence. Don’t you think it’s at least possible that Jesus and the apostles were employing the common language of the day concerning demons without necessarily sanctioning the ideas that the language expressed (and perhaps ascribing a different meaning to the words)? And don’t you think it’s curious that the Jewish people in the OT didn’t speak of demons as they are so frequently spoken of in the NT?
I look forward to discussing these topics with you further!
Aaron, as always. You’re a super fun discussion. A few comments to continuing this topic and I’ll continue/start threads concerning the other topics. I’ll drop the demonology discsussion here and continue with the wrath issue.
I can appreciate your view of being able to view that not all people are children of God - From a certain point of view. I think the probelm I’ve had so far with Ultras is that they usually use that against us EU to dictate that God indeed will not punish his children after this life. Technically, I would hinge the decision on whether people die not being saved of having faith and I would call it naive (not to be rude) to think people do. But as I am begining to understand your Ultra a bit more I’ll assume you would agree.
As I now understand Ultra, it does require that upon the ressurection, there will be no more room to either have faith nor not have faith. Everyone will see and believe and the ambiguities and dillusions will be dissolved.
I think these questions will illustrate and give clarity to the difference between EU and UU.
Aaron37, what do you care about truth? We can’t have a real discussion with you because you simply deny the passages which don’t conform to your view.
God IS going to restore Sodom to what she was before (you simply deny he will because your view does not allow it).
Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess Jesus is Lord, and if you confess Jesus is lord (rom 10) you will be saved (you deny this because there’s a timeline God set and after that he can’t save them).
God reconciles the world to himself (You deny this and say instead God reconciled himself to the world).
God has mercy on whom he has mercy (you deny this saying after his timeline he can’t).
God sent his son into the world not to condemn it but that it might be save via him (you deny this by saying God is not “trying” to save the world but only provides it then offers the person to believe it).
Aaron might or might not have the truth, but I intend to find out. Unlike you who does not test spiritis or doctrines because YOU ALREADY know the truth, I find scripture to say test everything.
You deny so many things scriptures teach, I can’t take you seriously until you come clean and admit, there Universalism (of any form) “might” just be right. If not then you’ll have to explain the passages above WITHOUT fudging numbers (like God not reconciling the sinner to himself). When you are finally able to test things, then you’ll be fun to talk to because then you’ll see that God does not judge based on what version of eschatology you hold, but on whether you love God with all your heart, soul, mind, strength, and will and whether you love others as you love yourself.
I consider myself an “Ultra-Universalist”. I understand the confusion in this discussion and it boils down to this question; What does it mean to be “saved”? From my point of view, salvation comes in two parts; the first is salvation in this life which requires faith in God, discipleship, and a commitment to following the Spirit’s leading. In doing so, one finds joy, peace, love, and satisfaction. Others, who do not live in faith, will find condemnation, guilt, shame, fear, distrust, broken relationships, etc. which is the consequence (or Divine punishment) of sin. This is the first aspect of salvation; those who have faith are called the “sons of God” (Rom 8:19), and the remainder are called “the creation” (Rom 8:20).
There is another part of salvation, which refers to salvation from death. As a result of Christ’s victory over death He will someday destroy death and both the just and unjust will be raised immortal. The creation will share the same glorious liberty with the sons of God (Rom 8:21).
So, as I see it, believing and faith are required to receive salvation in this life and avoid the consequences of sinful choices. When all of creation is raised incorruptible, all will see the glory of God and faith will no longer be required (as Aaron points out).
People are not saved because they confess Jesus is Lord…confessing Jesus as Lord alone does not save you. What does Romans 10:9-10 say Auggy? It says, if you believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead you will be saved. verse 10, for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. So, in other words, you confess with your mouth what you believe in your heart that Jesus was raised from the dead and He is your Lord. That is how you are saved, my friend… not by simply saying Jesus is Lord. That is why UR’s misinterpret Phil 2:11.
Btw, God has shown mercy to the whole world while we were yet undeserving sinners he sent his Son to be judged for the sins of the whole world and whosoever believes and receives this gift of salvation shall live even when he dies…and everyone who lives and believes in Jesus will never die! Now that is mercy, Auggy!
you said : So, as I see it, believing and faith are required to receive salvation in this life and avoid the consequences of sinful choices. When all of creation is raised incorruptible, all will see the glory of God and faith will no longer be required (as Aaron points out).
Aaron37: Avoid the consequences of sinful choices? What does this mean? Where in the bible does it say unvbelievers are raised incorruptible?
Rom 8:21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
1 Cor 15:51-52 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed-- 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
Aaron37,
A confession ONLY comes from the heart. In other words, if people “confess” Jesus is lord with their tongue and Don’t truly believe it (which is what it means by heart) then it’s no confession. So we agree. The problem with your view as I see it is that the very point that ALL confess is they do believe in their heart that Jesus is truly Lord which brings him the Glory that ALL KNOW HE IS LORD OF ALL and not just saying it.
Again and again, you ignore the restoration of Sodom the same way pastors behind the pulpit do. Can’t say I blame you since you’ve decided you already know all truth and that you cannot be wrong. For if God is to have mercy on whom EVER he wants WHEN EVER he wants, that would prove that you infact might be wrong. But being that Calvinists are wrong about God reserving the right to give life to whom ever he please when ever he pleases, then obviously you are right.
By now you should know that you are THROUGLY unconvincing because everyone sees you avoiding these very scriptures and issues and thus theres no real place for discussion. At least comment on them rather than ignoring them. Yes you commented on ONE out of how many??? What about Eze 16 prophecying God will restore Sodom - I’ve presented that to you many times before and still no response. What about God reconcileing all to himself? The only response I got was he hanst, rather he reconciled himself to the world and I requested scriptures which you did not respond. That is why it’s no fun to talk to you, because when it comes time to really deal with problematic passages, you simply restate your conclusion and quote the scriptures which support that conclusion. Well we’ll do the same. All will be made alive. There done. Now ask yourself, is that fun?
Confessing means to acknowledge. Have you ever acknowledged something and not believed it? The answer should be ‘yes’.
Ezekiel 16 is dealing with God’s grace towards Jerusalem. Judah is being compared to Samari and Sodom, whose judgment for sin was great. The whole chapter is God dealing with the Jews. it has nothing to do with the restoration of Sodom. Is all about the context, Aug.
you said: Others, who do not live in faith, will find condemnation, guilt, shame, fear, distrust, broken relationships, etc. which is the consequence (or Divine punishment) of sin.
Aaron37: How about all the believers who find condemnation, guilt, shame, broken relationships,etc?
Romans 8:21 is referring to the earth or universe, not humans. God made creation involuntarily subject to the same corruption that mankind voluntarily entered into so that He could reunite us through redemption back into the glorious creation He originally intended us to be.
Todd, 1 Cor 15:51-52 is referring to believers only…this has nothing to do with unbelievers. Sure, unbelievers will be raised incorruptible long enough to be in God’s presence to be judged at the Great White Throne Judgement and will be cast into the lake of fire, forever.
Context, Context, Context. When you compromise the context it leads to error!
Aaron37,
at least you tried. However, that’s a desperate attempt to conclude that we are not reading the context. The context is agreed by both of us and you should already notice that: God is promising to restore Isreal. But promising Sodom to be restored to what she was before is not promising Isreal restoration, it’s ASSURING Isreal he will restore her and that HER (Isreal’s) sisters will not be forgotten.
As I stated, usually non-Universalists hit the eject button on literal interpretation and begin dancing around. You would have been better off to do as we do…ADMIT YOU HAVE PROBLEMATIC TEXTS WITH YOUR VIEWS (that’s why we have a negative section for the board). But I doubt you will. Like the Calvinist, most people run with their paradigm and selective verses so that when God says he’ll do something that does not suit them, they remove the obvious meaning of the text as you just demonstrated.
God is going to restore Isreal and her sister Sodom - that is what the text says. It probably just doesn’t sit well with you because God may just do something you don’t agree with.
Col 3:25 But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done : and there is no respect of persons.
Aaron37, both believers and unbelievers are in the same boat in this respect - he who does wrong will receive for the wrong (we reap what we sow) without partiality.
Aaron37, the word “creation” in Rom 8:21 is translated from the Greek word “ktisis” which is sometimes translated as “creature” as it is in the following verse. Was the gospel being preached to rocks and trees?
Col 1:23 if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature [ktisis] under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.
1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.
Aaron37, the context here is all who die in Adam; that includes everyone, both believers and unbelievers.
you said : 1 Cor 15:22
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.
Aaron37, the context here is all who die in Adam; that includes everyone, both believers and unbelievers.
Aaron37: The two “alls” are alike only in the sense that they both apply to descendants. We are all born unbelievers and descendants in Adam. We are born again by faith and made believers in Christ. Only believers are in Christ and are his descendants.
Would you renounce your belief in UR if I were able to prove your interpretation error of Ezek 16… Probably not, so why should I try? Would it really change anything, Auggy?