This teaching of ‘heaven’ seems to me to be just as confused as the teachings on hell. What about ‘the meek shall inherit the earth’? What about the ‘new earth in which righteousness dwells’? Do we really all expect to go to heaven and all become the bride of Christ?
Steve
Correction:
We enter into the union by faith.
Sorry? What did I do to Christ? Did I crucify him? And even if I did, does that mean I deserve to be tortured eternally, with no hope of escape?
If you’re going to keep pontificating like this, Cole, you really need to come up with some evidence to back up your pontifications - as, I say for the third time, you have singularly failed to do with your pronouncement of God’s ‘punishment by death’ of Ananias and Sapphira.
If you don’t, all you are doing is cementing your readers’ belief that you are just pointlessly jerking all our chains.
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all. - Isaiah 53:5-6
These verses can be translated from the Hebrew as, "He was wounded because of our rebellious deeds, crushed because of our sins…the LORD caused the sin of us all to attack Him (NET). Similarly the Greek in the LXX can be similarly read "He was wounded because of our acts of lawlessness and has been weakened because of our sins…The Lord gave Him over to our sins (NETS). These more recent scholarly translations say that it is our sin which punishes the servant. This coincides with the Gospel writers presentation of the crucifixion where it is the people who unjustly punished Jesus. It wasn’t God punishing Christ. Christ was given over to all the hatred and wrath of the world, and Isaiah says it was our hatred and wrath. It is also noteworthy that Isaiah 53 speaks of the ones who are healed are the ones who have hurt. All this is so because of the mystical union believers have with Christ.
God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God. - 2 Cor. 5:21
Although Christ had no sin God made Him to become sin itself. He did this so that we might become the righteousness of God. This will eventually be everybody. For the scripture tells us:
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. Romans 5:18-19
How is this possible? The Bible tells us that Christ was slain from the foundation of the world. The orthodox understanding of God is that He acts transtemporally in all His creation. Therefore, the effects of the cross stretch back in time as well as forward.
The evil in me, my “body of death”, deserves to be thrown into the fire and destroyed, and it will be too. (Thank God.)
The good in me deserves to be liberated from “my body of death”, and it will be too. (Thank God.)
So you don’t interpret scripture. You take everything in the literal sense. Who slew Christ before the foundation of the world? Oh yeh. We did… because his crucifixion extended in time elastically in both directions.
Have you cut off your right hand yet when it caused you to stumble?
I am not being sarcastic here. I am trying to get you to see that it is impossible to take all the words of the Bible literally. Much of scripture is figurative language—indeed the latter part of Revelation is probably over 90% figurative.
(Robin)
Just brainstormin’ wit ya … but might there be a distinction between those “who” are the “bride” … (and does it actually say “bride of Christ”?)…
a distinction between those who are the “bride,” and those who are the “body of Christ” …
And, not knowing all the answers (let alone all the questions),
but might there be a distinction between those who inherit the earth, and those who go to the heavens?
That is, is it the scriptures that are confused, or might it be our understanding of them, especially our teachings about them…
The question(s) (yours) are good (perhaps need to be refined a bit), but why do you ask … what drives the question; that’s always
interesting, and sometimes the better, more fruitful question …
In my reading of Revelation (which is admittedly very thick reading) I understand that the earth (at least figuratively) is the home for all the redeemed, and that God will dwell with them and be their God – I’m not sure that “going to heaven” is even a biblical concept, unless it’s a transitory home while the doings on earth are completed, however long that may take.
Again, it’s possible that the bride and the body are different, but it looks to me like they’re both metaphors for the same group of people – along with firstfruits. However, Ps 45 mentions courtiers and that always did puzzle me. And that “instead of your fathers shall be your sons, whom you shall make princes over all the earth” (or something like that). Who are they going to be princes over? And when we’re told we will be kings and priests – for whom? I read one author who answered that we would rule over the animal kingdom, and that’s already more or less true, but I’m not sure that’s what scripture is talking about. I think perhaps it will be our duty to be servant kings over the later harvest of people, to help them grow into the image of Christ too. And then comes the consummation, when Jesus will hand over the kingdom to His Father. At this point, it looks to me very much like Paul is saying that will be the end to all rule and authority and etc. That suits me fine. I don’t like to think that younger brothers and sisters will NEVER be able to catch up.
Hi Robin,
I personally think that there are differences for those who are saved now and those who are saved later. Those meek and humble who *‘inherit the earth’ *are also assured that they are "made a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.” (Revelation 5:10) Who do these kings and priests reign over? There certainly appears from this that certain roles exist for kings and priests, and other roles exist for them that are reigned over. This is two distinct roles (or stations).
Those that are saved now by grace, Pauls says, are “raised up with Him, and seated with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.” (Ephesians 2:6) We who are saved now by grace will be shown, in the ages to come, “the surpassing riches of His grace.” This will be unique to those who received grace now. “For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.” (1 Timothy 4:10) If this were not so then it would be pointless to “labor and strive”. However, others will also be reconciled, for “Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:2) There is this dichotomy shown is scripture. There is a distinct benefit for those who “labor and strive” now; for they are being trained to become kings and priests, and to “reign over the earth.”
Cindy might be right, though… after a period of time this rule is to be surrendered to the Father, “when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.” (1 Corinthians 15:24) This may mean that the authority given to the kings and priests will no longer apply. I personally don’t think this is the case. I think the Kingdom of Heaven will be ruled by Christ and His bride forever. Jesus role of “savior” will end at that time, when He has “destroyed all dominion, authority and power.” A new chapter will now begin, and the entire universe will be garnished with human Godliness and obedience. There is a reasonable amount of speculation here, though, which is needed to identify the scriptural references for the ages to come. We can trust that faith in God will not disappoint.
Stef
I believe that, on philosophical grounds, we can deduce some conclusions from God’s perfection:
lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/salvation-by-love-erlosung-durch-die-liebe-unten/
However I am not an universalist because I believe that true love cannot be forced upon a person.
If that individual is self-centered, hateful and narcissistic, God won’t brainwash him into loving Him, and he will be utterly destroyed, forever lost, however tragic that might sound.
(Robin)
Seems we have ideas in common, perhaps even a similiar sense of humor (poor guy!).
Think Cindy might be pleasently surprised, at least, to consider the rather succinct scenario
you have suggested … That Paul is our apostle; and what he writes about is directly applicable
to us, the body of Christ. The other scriptures do, of course, contain valuablale lessons;
ones we can and should learn from, especially those with things in common with Paul,
but they are addressed, and directly applicable to another, the bride …
The scriptures are, indeed, to be “cut,”
but
that’s a difficult concept to even intertain,
let alone get one’s mind around … God’s to do …
I’ll cop-out on any attempt to teach that.
Hmm, I’m thinking about this, Stef and Robin. You may be right. God’s kingdom can be likened to a family, I think, and in an ideal family the older brothers and sisters, while not being better than the younger, will always be older, more advanced, and we hope, wiser than the younger – however wise and luminous the younger eventually become. Still, I don’t see that we somehow “deserve” more of a reward just because we are blessed enough to have come to Him in this life while others have not. Granted, some refuse willfully and that most likely puts them in the bratty baby category who very much NEED to be ruled 
but others have never had a genuine opportunity or have been so broken by life that they were unable to receive the opportunity that did come to them.
In any case, if we ARE to be forever the kings and priests of the world, then it is truly for serving the world rather than for pride of position and privilege of power. NOT because we are somehow better (as if we have made ourselves) but simply because we were chosen for a position and a mission that needs doing. Someone had to be chosen, and it happens that it’s us – not because we’re better but because we were made into that particular vessel. The teapot is not better than the teacup, which is not better than the saucer or the spoon.
Lotharson,
You have many wise and thoughtful companions in your conditionalism. Certainly conditionalism is better then ECT, but it’s a sad sort of a thing, really. Think about your beloved child who may have gone astray. Doubtless you would choose death for her over unending torture, but OH! If she could but live and be a loving and healed child of the Father with you! Wouldn’t your heart YEARN for that! The thing is, there is no incompatibility between universal reconciliation and free will. It is only a matter of time.
I do NOT say that Father tortures His creatures into eventual submission to His “love.” That would be an incoherent position to take. THAT would NOT be love either on His part or on the part of the one who finally yields. But we all have those things in us that do torment us, and they have nothing to do with God (which is probably why they hurt us so). Given enough time (and Father has all He wants), given complete sanity, given all the information needed and the conviction of its truth, given the Father’s persistent love and wooing and His intimate knowledge of the hearts of each and every one of His creatures and His persistent desire and will that all should be saved, it seems to me impossible that a human being in misery COULD continue to refuse to come into the warm house full of fellowship and food and joy and song. Eventually he will let go his pride and his fear – he’ll HAVE to. Nothing is keeping him from walking over that threshold and into the family but his own sorrow. Eventually he will come, face his shame, and be healed. It makes no sense to think that he could hold out for all eternity, imo. But even if you think a human COULD hold out forever, nevertheless God who never changes, will never cease in mercifully (his mercies never come to an end) wooing him – which would yield at least a hopeful universalism.
Now I fully understand that conditionalists believe the life of a man is completely dependent on God. If God withdraws life from him, he will die and be no more. BUT I AGREE with you. Extend that. We are alive now by His gift alone. That isn’t going to change just because we’ve physically died and have entered the next phase of our journeys. If we are alive then, it will also be because of His sustaining hand. Conditional immortality isn’t an issue at all. God gives life to all who live, continually. Knowing that we are not in and of ourselves immortal has no bearing on the fate of the lost after physical death.
Someone here on the forum used the analogy of Ol’ Yaller. If you haven’t seen the movie or read the book, it’s about the family dog who, in an act of heroism, is bitten and becomes rabid. Since they cannot heal him, they do the best they can do for him – they kill him. It’s all very sad and heartbreaking as you acknowledge the choice as the only right and loving thing to do for the dog and for the family. It was the best available answer, but not a truly good answer. If they could have healed him, they would have to, or be an evil, unloving family.
What about Father? Should He ever give up on those He loves? Is he really incapable of wooing them as He has wooed us? Is hell locked on the inside? Jesus has the keys! Is the will stubborn and unyielding? The heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord as the rivers of waters; He turns it wherever He will. Is the sinner a prison of his own delusions and diseased thought processes? He sent His word and healed them and delivered them from all their diseases. Is He destroyed for lack of knowledge? Listen to Me (Wisdom) oh foolish one and become wise. Is his heart stone? I will put in them a heart of flesh. All your children will be taught of God and great shall be the peace of your children. No longer will a man say to his neighbor, “Know the Lord,” for all shall know Me.
If the best God could do for His lost ones was to destroy them, He would be a weak and ineffective and ungodlike god. But He CAN heal those whom He loves, and He will.
Love, Cindy
Cindy, one of the best short essays on the subject I have ever read. Well done and thank you.
{blush}
Not to worry! That just slipped out and won’t happen again!!
Hi Cindy,
You might be interested in the following passage from Papias (70-155 A.D.):
Good quote, Paidion.
Here is similar from Irenaeus (Against Heresies, Book 5, chap 36):
Clement of Alexandria says:
And again:
There are plenty of other references to various “abodes” (which is often a simile for resurrection bodies).
Well, it could be – I have to say though that if a modern preacher started saying things like this I’d roll my eyes and say to myself that perhaps he was getting a bit imaginative. I haven’t read the apocrypha, but I’m mystified as to where these fathers got their ideas. No doubt they were smarter than me, and maybe they deduced them from scripture. I honestly don’t see it. There are a lot of things we’re simply not told, and maybe God told them these things they’re saying by inspiration, but I don’t see them in the Protestant canon at any rate. Doesn’t mean I’m not missing something though.
Hi Cindy,
Just a slight correction to prevent my eyes from rolling… 
These fathers are not known as “apocrypha”. These are orthodox church fathers who are recognized by almost all denominations. That doesn’t mean to say that they got everything right… but that there was a re-occurring theme in the early church regarding different destinations according to our rewards of faithfulness, including heaven and paradise. I don’t expect many modern preachers have researched much outside of their government funded bachelor degrees. Apart from that, most theologians belong to a denomination, and they (generally) only teach the dogmas which are consistent with their denomination. Many truths were discarded through the reign of the papist oligarchy. The Protestants quickly descended into the worst wars in history up until that time, so research into the early church fathers was not a priority by most, and where it was, those writings are mostly mysterious to the modern Protestant. The modern church has simply lost interest in the earliest pioneers of church history. IMO, that would account for the widespread ignorance of the earliest teachings of the 2nd and 3rd centuries.