It seems to me that the topic of “Universalism” and “Christian Universalism” continue to boil up in most of the threads these days. As such, it is a bit frustrating to those who wish to discuss other matters of Christian living w/o having to bring Universalism into the discussion.
The initial hope was that if we closed the initial Universalism thread and let the holidays intervene that the topic might die down and allow new material/discussions to better enrich the discussion, but I don’t see that happening. As such, I’m putting up this thread (for the next 10 days, at least) and asking those concerned to please use this thread for the CU discussion, rather than other non-related threads…
With that said, here are a few of the recent items to start off the discussion:
One of the first off-topic posts regarding this was John Hughes’ “Universalist reinterpretation” of Matthew, which I found both a bit humorous (kind of like the Calvinist Bible) and enlightening as to how we would have to alter our view of Scripture to accept a “Christian Universalist” view that we should expect (and teach that we should expect) that all will be saved:
I was given a new Bible translation for Christmas. Here are a few of the highlights from Matthew:
Matt 5:29-30 – If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out put a patch on it and throw it away. It is better for you (to lose the use of one part of your body) than for your whole body to be thrown into helltime-out. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it awaydon’t wash it until it shapes up. It is better for you (to lose the use) of one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell time-out.
Matt 7:13 – “Enter through the narrow any ole gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that all leads to life, and only a few eventually everyone find it.
Matt 7:21-23 – Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does even those who do not do the will of my Father who is in heaven. . . Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’but come on in anyway!
Matt 10:32-33 – “Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown acknowledge him anyway before my Father in heaven.
Matt 12:36-37 – But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemnedsent to time out until you learn better.”
Matt 13:28-30 – “…The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’
” ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds proto-wheat, you may root up the now-wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds proto-wheat and tie them in bundles to be burnedput in time-out; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ ”Matt 13:43 – “As the weeds proto-wheat are pulled up and burned in the firesent to time-out , so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed tather out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw gently sned hem into the fiery furnacetime-out, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, but they will eventually see the errors of their way and join the wheat. Then the righteous they all will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.
Matt 13:50 – “Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad awayin time-out. This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked naughty from the righteous and throw gently, but firmly, place them into the fiery furnace, into time-out where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, but they will get over it.
Matt 18:7-9 – “Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away just don’t wash it for a few days. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled with dirty hands than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal firethe heavenly time-out. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it awaycover it with a patch. It is better for you to enter life with the use of just one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of helltime-out.
Matt 24: 31-46 – “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats proto-sheep. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats proto-sheeps on his left. “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. . . .
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, naughtly into the eternal fire temporary time-out prepared for the devil and his angels. . . .”Then they will go away to eternal punishmenttemporary time out, but eventually with the righteous to eternal life.”
Next, I would note that (unlike some other topics I’ll not mention, so as to not start them back up again) I would normally let a discussion about this die and try to actively stamp it out. However, I don’t know that such an effort would be all that successful, or that it would be prudent.
Why?
We often get asked by ADM’s & ADM-types if there are any topics/movements that we consider to be dangerous to the Christian faith. Usually, the first one we bring up is the Word-Faith/Prosperity Gospel movement, which is little more than materialism (thinly) wraped in the garb of Christianity. Some of us also bring up the phariseeism and nastiness brought into the church by the hyper-exclusivity of certain systematic theological views (pointing to quotes like “There are two views concerning the Gospel of Jesus Christ. First, there is what we call Calvinism. Then, there are varying degrees of unbelief”).
I would include one more movement in this list of gospel perversions, that being universalism – the belief/teaching that all roads (eventually) lead to heaven, and its subset which says that all roads will (eventually) lead to heaven, through Jesus, with most conversions happening after death.
While systematic theologies primary sin is one of hyper-exclusivity, succumbs to the draw of legalism by drawing boundaries far tighter than those drawn by God in Scripture, “Christian Universalism” errs in an equal, but opposite measure, via hyper-inclusivity which succumbs to the draw of hedonism by drawing boundaries far beyond those drawn by God in Scripture.
Where Hyper-Systematology (HS) focuses on the eternal to the neglect of the temporal, CU does the opposite.
Where HS focuses its view of eschatology by “who’s in” (almost nobody), CU commits the equal-but-opposite error by focusing its eschatology by “who’s out” (nobody – eventually).
Each has good and noble intentions – HS with a focus on personal holiness and basis of faith in Scripture – CU with a focus on loving your neighbor and worshiping God in a manner that fits the culture. But each is damnable in its own way – HS with its “the world be damned” attitude that drives people away from the church (much like the Sadducees’ temple practices which led to Jesus’ turning tables); and CU with it’s “heaven be damned” attitude which “loves” people to hell (much like all of the false Greek and Roman gods of Asia Minor in Jesus’ day).
Part of being “in the word (kosmos) but not of it” means avoiding being corrupted by its dominant systems. Each of the three ‘false gospels’ mentioned is representative of the church’s capitulation to a system of the world – materialism (WF/PG); post-modernism (CU); and modernism (HS).
And that’s why I care about this one a little bit more than most…
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
180 Comments(+Add)
“I find it quite impossible, reading the New Testament on the one hand and the newspaper on the other, to suppose that there will be no ultimate condemnation, no final loss…I wish it were otherwise, but one cannot forever whistle ‘There’s a wideness in God’s mercy’ in the darkness of Hiroshima, of Auschwitz, of the murder of children and the careless greed that enslaves millions in debts bot their own. Humankind cannot, alas, bear very much reality, and the massive denial of reality by the cheap and cheerful universalism of Western liberalism has a lot to answer for.”
N.T. Wright
Surprised by Hope
Rethinking heaven, the resurrection, and the mission of the Church
(pg. 182)
I hereby claim this thread in the search for, defense of, and the glory of God’s eternal truth.
Let the games begin.
Let me associate myself with Chris’s assessment of universalism and the prosperity gospel being great dangers. Some systematic theologies may fall into that category, including using them as weapons of warfare to burn the doctrinally recalcitrant at the verbal stake.
In case you are wondering, you will hear from me again.
Reading some of Chris’s comments in the post, especially about the prosperity and universalsim issues, it dawned on me how close he actually is from being a bone fide ADM himself.
If he could only work up a hatred for Myley Cyrys he could be fully acredited.
* Closing the comment section will signal the culmination of his journey.
Well, I’ll bite…
I think one reason why this is an issue in the “emergent” movement is that many people associated with or sympathetic to that movement grew in environments that promoted the idea, either spoken or unspoken, that they were THE way and that even other Christians needed to be looked upon with suspicion. So it’s not surprising to me that some people may go to the extreme of “I’m OK, you’re OK”.
On the other hand, I would raise this question. If two people who have different views of hell – say the first person is very narrow in his view and the second is more in the universalist vein – tell someone that Jesus loves them and wants to save them, and that person believes, does this specific doctrine make that much of a difference? The person that was evangelized to may not even know the difference.
I guess my question is this. Is it possible for a person to have a more universalistic view of salvation and still maintain a motivation for evangelism?
Great article, Chris.
I especially appreciate the fact that you pointed out the pure motives of the HS and the CU, rather than focusing solely on various outcomes of taking their theology too far.
Very balanced.
And Neil, love the N.T. Wright quote. I forgot about that one.
Shalom
Phil,
This describes my upbringing exactly.
It is a battle for me to fight the tendency to take it to this extreme:
Sounds like you’ve been there yourself.
“does this specific doctrine make that much of a difference?”
I do not believe a correct doctrine of hell is necessary for salvation. I did not have many correct doctrines when I got saved. As far as evangelism, I believe a universalism view would definitely hinder and alter one’s evangelistic outreach and/or fervor.
Is there an eternal redemptive essence to believing on Jesus Christ or does it just change some things here on earth?
That is the ultimate question since if it is the latter many of us would rather eat, drink, and be merry, and that changes the entire essence of evangelism. The subtle and overt effects of the church via universalism are profound. I will admit, though, that much of the church acts as if everyone is OK and some of the church acts as if only they are OK.
And it’s interesting that each would adamantly state, “If I’m going to err on one side, I’d rather err on…” and declare their error to be the safer of the two.
Well, that might be true, but I don’t know how much evidence there is that a person’s supposed view of hell prevents all him from “eating, drinking, and being merry” all that much. It might for a while, but after a while it seems to wear off.
I guess I’ve found that a positive motivation is better than a negative one, but that might just be my personality type.
Universalism…I was talking with a friend once and said there was one basic truth to it, though it may not be what its adherents would think.
All roads do lead to God. You will either meet God as your Savior in the Person of Jesus Christ or you’ll meet God as your Judge.
I can only agree with half of the philosophy that suggests “I’m OK – You’re OK”.
Phil, forget about the specifics of the place commony called hell. If I believe everyone will be one big happy family with God in the end, does that not authenticate what Solomon said although he said if when we die it is the end?
Let us also be frank, those who believe in a literal place of everlasting torment live lives that surely do not suggest we really believe that. To believe that fully would have to make one’s life openly different than the average American community dweller, unless you believe no one will be there OR the ones who will be there have already not been chosen for escape.
Yes, it was something I wrestled with for a while, and honestly I guess in some ways I still do. I know I’ve mentioned it several times, but C.S. Lewis’ The Great Divorce was really helpful to me, as it helped me to see Hell not something that God imposes on people as much as something people impose upon themselves.
I guess another thing is that I am a naturally merciful person. Whenever I take one of those “ministerial gifts” evaluations, the “mercy” column is always really high. I tend to feel bad for people, almost to an extreme. I could never be a judge. My wife on the other hand, is more justice oriented. She would want to bring some sort of recompense to the erred party before offering mercy to the perpetrator. So we balance each other out, I suppose.
Well said. I believe it, but don’t act like I do 99% of the time, just like intellectually I understand that God sees everything I do or knows every thought I think but it does not seem to affect my behavior much.
Well you are in good company Phil. Mercy does triumph over judgement:
OMG! a proof text for Christian Universalism Awwwwkkkkkkkk!!!!
It seems to me that a lot of what is called “universalism” is simply not. Nothing in the Bible says that we cannot learn from other cultures and religions. Nothing in the Bible says that we cannot be Boy Scouts, Free Masons, etc. because those groups welcome people of other faiths.
I think the fear of universalism is often just a guise to hide bigotry.
Just nix that part about Free Masons. Most reasonable Christians I know who have problems with the Masons take issue with any group allowing *anyone* who believes in any god.
Some fear occultist links. I certainly didn’t mean to take this already dirty subject into the murkier area of what is occultic and what is not.
I think this is what makes the whole issue frustrating as well. It’s like the Cold War mentality where people saw communists hiding behind every bush. It’s not that there weren’t some communists, but there weren’t as many as some people thought.
“Nothing in the Bible says that we cannot learn from other cultures and religions. Nothing in the Bible says that we cannot be Boy Scouts, Free Masons, etc. because those groups welcome people of other faiths.”
That is not universalism. And it is not bigotry to suggest not everyone arrives in “heaven” to be with God forever.
At the same time, though, Phil, the caricature of the Cold War commie-hunters is Sen Joe McCarthy. I find it pretty interesting to note, though, that almost all of the figures he attacked as communists (Hiss, Rosenbergs, etc.) were revealed in recently de-classified Soviet documents as communists/spies/etc. in their service…
Where I try to draw the line is with the exclusivity of Christ – which includes nixing any teaching regarding a probable/certain post-mortem end-around.
Some hollywood figures were unjustly blackballed, though. There is one way to make sure you are not one of those universalists hiding under a bush – openly reject that doctrine.
Go ahead and debated the particulars of hell, go ahead and suggest some who haven’t heard may be saved, go ahead and expand the normal scope of grace, but when you suggest total salvation for everyone you have entered the doctrinal Twilight Zone – otherwise know as
H _ _ _ _ _
Code breaker
8-5-18-5-19-25
Been on the road all day traveling home. I see things have been busy.
While I would love to chat about this I am going to stick to my guns and say this is fruitless until those of you who truly want to discuss this rationally must first do some reading. If you would like I would be happy to suggest a few books to get you started.
I only had to read Chris L’s OP to this point:
to once again confirm that he does not understand CU.
It is like trying to tell PB that the UMC does not ordain homosexuals.
Enjoy
One more thing: If you truly wish to have dialog about this topic with me or anyone else, yet state right out of the gate that you believe universalism (and by extension, me) are equivalent to WoF, and is of the 3 biggest perversions of the gospel that come to mind, you really aren’t looking to understand anything new.
Phil was right on the other thread. This is nothing but an adult version of Bible Wars. Everyone flex your favorite prooftext muscle to defend the position you are already convinced you are right about and everyone else is hellbound for disagreeing.
That is being unslippery, or as known in Biblical parlance, honest.
Not really, it is unproductive. But I cannot leave error unchallenged.
Ha! I love your insistance on your ground rules and yet no one required the same of you.
I now am sticking to my guns. I will not engage anyone who doesn’t agree with me and be able to prove it!! That will prove rational dialogue.
Rick, I was only directing that to those who wish to discuss this topic rationally – I would be happy to after some prologue is introduced. You need not include yourself in that category if you do not desire to.
These conversations have deteriorated into nothing more than smear campaigns because you guys continue to set up a caricature of what CU is and knock it down, all the while not having a clue what your talking about. The only thing you have succeeded in doing is convincing me of how right I am. So it hasn’t been entirely for naught.
So, if you wish to get beyond the gridlock and have some rational discourse, read something by a Christian universalist who can explain things better than I have so that you and the rest can stop stooping to such immature levels as accusing me of not taking scritpure seriously, thinking all roads lead to heaven, dismiss justice and judgment, insist that there must not be nor never can be a hell, dismiss faith and repentance as necessary,dismiss the exclusivity of Christ, permit hedonism, dismiss holy living, or any number of idiotic caricatures you all have created that are worth railing against BUT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH CU OR ME.
When you can reconcile all that we may have a chance to talk again on this.
OK, but what about “goofy”?
I believe it’s Goofy. Proper nouns get capitalized.
Seriously, there has to be close to 1000 comments on this topic. Here’s how they’ve gone:
Someone: “CU is wrong” [insert joke where chad is called dumb or made fun of]
Chad: “That’s not what CU means!!”
Someone: “Un-HUH!!!”
Chad: “What?”
Someone: “And your mom is ugly!”
Chad: “Well, you have combat boots on!”
Someone: “Chad, you are on your way to Hell.”
Chad: “Well, I’ll see you there.”
Then another thread starts that doesn’t have anything to do with CU.
Pastorboy: [mentally thinking of way to bring Chad into the discussion and insult him] “Well, Rob Bell is a universalist
Chris L: “No, he isn’t”
Pastorboy: Well, I love my ESV Bible and even though you guys are trying to destroy the Bible here, I like to come here because no matter what Chad says, not everyone is going to Heaven and you guys are my mission field.”
and
on
and
on
and
on
and
on
and
on
and
on
at this point is there anything new to say from either side that hasn’t already been said? Then please for the love of all that is Holy and Good, MOVE ON!!!
***Please note, I realize I put words in many people’s mouths and none of those represented may feel accurately represented. Honestly, I don’t care.*****
lol Joe. And no, I think you got the words right. You can write my script anyday.
And Joe, this is why I am saying I am sticking to my guns and not discussing this further until the parties involved do some reading outside of my comments to their caricatures of CU.
It becomes just a big adventure in missing the point. I guess if it makes them feel good that they love scripture more than the one they crucify more power to ‘em.
Well Chad **you** could start with all those “proof texts” just in Matthew alone.
I will committ to read ONE book per your suggestion. If I will only read one which should it be?
My credit card is waiting.
Who Will Be Saved? by Will Willimon
Jerry is also reading it.
I will reserve the American right of free speech, the frustration of some notwithstanding.
John – I look forward to your doctrinal review since I have not the inclination to be leveraged from my doctrinal entrenchment by any book but the…well…you know.
Yes, Rick, because doctrine is everything.
John, a few things you (or anyone) will learn from a book by Willimon, especially this one:
1- How central scripture is. You cannot go more than 3 sentences it seems without a parenthetical scripture reference. His imagination is deeply formed by scripture.
2- How must the justice of God is central to CU
3- How judgment is central to CU
4- How vital holy living is to CU
5- How vital faith and repentance is to CU
6- How ridiculous it is for anyone to suggest CU is on a slope to “anything goes” mentality
7- How “all roads lead to heaven” is a lie
8 – How Jesus Christ is the ONLY way, the ONLY truth, the ONLY Life- apart from him there is no salvation.
9 – How much God hates sin
10- How much God loves you
Hopefully, after reading a book like that, you will have at least an appreciation for those who hold the view he articulates in his book (people like me) and be able to say to the less-informed who suggest something different from the list above, “Um, I don’t agree with it either but to say that about him or her isn’t exactly true or fair- they do take scripture seriously, they do believe in justice and judgment and faith and repentance and holy living, etc., etc.”
happy reading
All those points are just windowdressing since universalism suggest that the redemption of Christ will be foisted upon unregenerate sinners after death. That puts a different light on all those points that you are well aware we all agree with.
John,
It’s not an easy read, though. It’s worth the time, but it is not easy.
jerry
The only thing I’ll say is that it seems a bit fuzzy to say “postmodernity” births “CU”.
I mean…that Origen wasn’t exactly post-modern….
just say’n…
nc,
While parts of CU were supported by Origen (those parts also being declared anathema and destroyed by the church, I might add), they were never mainstream, and he had a lot of other views (such as denying bodily resurrection, pre-existence of souls, etc.) that aren’t held within the stream of modern Christian Universalism.
So, to point to Origen as the father of “Christian Universalism” is like pointing to St. Augustine as the father of Calvinism – some kernels of its ideas were formed earlier, but were not solidified until much later.
Chad – I specifically chose “hedonism” as the opposing force to “legalism” – perhaps you can suggest a different word that mirrors that legalistic tendency. I can’t even claim originality there, as I borrowed this device from Steve Carter’s sermon in November 2007 at Mars Hill Bible Church, which I summarized here.
As for Willimon’s book – if Border’s has it, I’ll read it over lunch during the next few weeks. Otherwise, it may be awhile. I would hope that you might already have a copy of Matthew, Revelation and Daniel (and if you don’t, I can send you links to an online copy), that you might be able to (finally) provide some sort of exegesis on them, rather than just dodging…
Chris L,
Though I am not a Universalist, I am not sure I agree with all the post states. One thing that from your last comment that kind of made me not accept the point was that you often speak in “opposites” and “contrast”… now that is fine except you are speaking mostly of extremes.
Note that both HS and CU are at the wide end of the spectrum… yet withing both there are similarities. A hyper-Calvinist… is a CU without limited atonement… as that is why Calvin developed the idea… personally I am closer to Luther’s “some questions are not to be asked” and let the mystery of salvation be a mystery that is lived out.
Yet sometimes some cannot see that this contrasting misses that the opposite of CU is not HS. Take the emotion of hate… some will say the opposite is love…. not true it is the state of complacency… meaning the opposite of an emotion is not another emotion but the state of non-emotion.
So the issue I have is that you are talking two extremes that have some truth in both, yet are both wrong… what need be looked for is common truth that is accepted by both and then worked out to the differences.
To say the contrast of CU is HS misses that both are wrong… and the true contrast of both is Truth… for “error” is like an emotion and cannot be contrasted with other errors. It’s only contrast is truth.
So I suggest taking a different approach and look for the mutual accepted truth and work from there as far as the differences. I believe if you do it that way the issue of the back and for heresy name calling should be minimal and each point hashed out will help both come to a clearer understanding of the others position… and may even let each person understand their own position better…
And let it be OK to let people change their minds… OK?
iggy
Sorry Chris… The contrast was more for nc.
Here is an interesting article on CU or US as they refer to it.
Another interesting article.
Again, I am not a CU advocate… I am just setting these out for others to look at and see how historically some come to see it as valid. I personally see that there is more validity to annihilationism though still I hold to the view that there is an eternal hell and unfortunately some will be there.
To me the one verse that holds me at bay on both of these views is… Matt 25:46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
I know some will state it is a parable, yet in this parable is seems to correspond with much that other bible verses state as to the last judgment such as the account in Book of the Revelation.
In that verse and thought that is a thread throughout scripture there is the Now… which has no “eternal” about it and the two “eternals” in contrast to this “age”…. if we are to assume that the eternal life is an age that never ends, so also the thought would be consistent to say the damnation by fire is also one that never ends.
I do not put that verse out as a proof-text, but that the thought is there and as some have done already, point out that the thread of “eternal” punishment however is would be… is there.
Another thought is that of the next “age” in contrast to now, would be Eternal Life and Eternal Death… the second life that comes after this temporal life and the second death that some will experience. Again, here I would personally like the idea of annihilation as that would be permanent enough, yet the scripture consistantly adds to this eternal “death” punishment.
To me as much as I like one view or the other I also see though that God is the God of the living… So in the end when it states God is “all in all” it is that God is God of those that come alive through Christ and Live by His Life.
If you take some time to look up an interesting phrase in the OT “in the land of the living” sometimes it refers to the time when the living are with God and at times it refers to the wicked as being removed from this “land of the living”. Jesus makes mention of this in Matt 22:31 -32
I think this comes into play when we piece this together as God is not the God of the dead… so is not the God of those cast into the Lake of Fire for eternity for punishment as they rejected Him. In that they then receive the Second Death, they no longer are in the “Land of the living”.
This separation from the Living God Who is God of the living seems to be a key to me in understanding what happens to those who die without Jesus.
Again, I cannot honestly say I like this… I prefer that somehow all will be saved, yet in a sense all will be saved… that are alive with the Life of Christ.
iggy
A wikipedia article with Bible verses suppoting and opposing UR. Apparently the newest one is different than this but this gives some good information
See? This is why I will refuse to engage in this with you anymore. It is nothing but posturing for you. “I read my Bible more than you” crap.
Besides, I would have been happy to a week or so ago had you provided your scriptural proof that Adam and Eve were immortal. But you had to regress into the “I know you are but what am I” realm of discussion. No thanks.
Rick,
Since you believe “fire insurance” is the “core” of salvation and everything else is “fluff,” you’ll have to forgive me I distrust your taste in curtains.
Thank you Iggy for that link. I found this very interesting with the conversation here in mind:
Here is a book that is available online “Mercy and Judgement” by Canon F.W. Farrar first published in 1881 on the subject of Christian Universalism.
Excellent, Eugene. I could agree more with that quote you cite. I have found the same to be true among those close to me who believe in CU.
The above should say “I couldn’t agree more…” Perhaps I could agree more, but I’m not sure
Christian universalism is no trifle, and it cuts to the core of everything. It has implications for everything:
The fall
The law
The OT sacrifice
The Great Commission
Eternal life
The second death
And to suggest proudly that you believe Jesus is the only way but that everyone will be corralled into that way, well then believing in Jesus here and now, is no more eternall profitable that whatever Hitler believed. It reduces the entirety of Scripture to secret code and not easily understood unless approached with a perspective presupposed.
It inevitably changes evangelism, if not in quantity, surely in quality (message). It is obvious that if CU is true, our work on earth is naturally not directed to change people’s eternal destiny, it must be geared toward earthly matters.
And contrary to what Iggy suggested, there is no common ground and CU is incompatible with even the widest parameters of orthodox Christian thought. This issue reveals a phenomenon which is active today -
How can people watch some TV preachers spout off the most ridiculous things and yet they not only believe them, they send them money they cannot afford? It is the power of communication. A man can write a book and change people’s minds simply on the power of his literary style and persuasive argument.
The book we call the Bible provides a wealth of issues and teachings that can easily lend themselves to a doctrinal kaleidoscope when some of teachings are unwisely joined together and when certain interpretations are forced on others. In short, the Bible is like the alphabet, by arranging verses differently we can construct any desired doctrinal slant and claim “the Bible teaches it”.
Such is “Christian” universalism.
William Willimon has his own post on CRN. How clear can the rest of the Bible be when it isn’t clear about who will be with God eternally, which contrary to the protestation in some corners, IS the desire of all mankind.
http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=8659
It is not a matter of “coralling,” Rick. Would you be so crass as to suggest the father waiting by the window for his prodigal son to come home was “coralling” him? No one will be in heaven that doesn’t desire to be there, who doesn’t bow and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Unlike you, I don’t believe God’s love is coercive. But it is effective. It is transforming. It is life-altering. It is purifying.
As for the profitability of Hitlers beliefs, I think 6 million Jews would beg to differ with you.
These are questions that only people who think the core of salvation is fire insurance and all about eternal destiny get hung up on.
Those six million Jews have no worries now, and in fact Hitler, Himmler, and Heidrich helped them arrive there early. Maybe they thanked him when on April 30, 1945 Adolph Hitler went to join his Jewish friends.
Again, only someone who is fixated with eternal destinty (a fixation the Bible does not share) would say such things.
It seems the editor of CRN also picked up on Chad’s request to read “Who Will Be Saved?” I wonder how many posts will now have to be written saying “No, that is not what Willimon said…”
Chad, you’re being watched! Look out your window… is there a suspicious black car with government plates in the street?
I openly admit it, I was created an eternal being and I am fixated on eternity which also affects my earthly part of eternity. What shall it profit a man if he gains the…oh, never mind. No one will lose his soul, Jesus was speaking in code again.
lol Eugene. I just sent my 4 year old out to ask them if they would like some coffee.
That blurb on CRN is one that is included in my synopsis of chapter 3: Divine Abundance over on my blog. I am glad they are reading. Perhaps they too will awaken to the wonder and awe and scandalous beauty of God’s grace.
Rick-
Only God has immortality (1 Tim. 6:16). Your “eternal being” motif is Plato, not Scripture. Whatever life you are given after this is not your own doing or something innate about you but pure gift – it is because God so wills it.
And what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul? Sadly, people are living in such a state all the time – they don’t know where to find life. They are losing what it means to be human all the time by pursuing idols of their own making rather than the only one who can give and sustain life – and give it abundantly.
Seriously, Rick, feel free to paint me as someone who dismisses scripture if it makes you feel better about yourself.
John Wesley on hell:
“As for our pains on earth, blessed be God, they are not eternal. There are some intervals to relieve and there is some period to finish them. When we ask a friend that is sick, how he does; ‘I am in pain now,’ says he, ‘but I hope to be easy soon.’ This is a sweet mitigation of the present uneasiness. But how dreadful would his case be if he should answer, ‘I am all over pain, and I shall never be eased of it. I lie under exquisite torment of body, and horror of soul; and I shall feel it for ever!’ Such is the case of the damned sinners in hell. Suffer any pain, then, rather than come into that place of torment!”
Willimon on hell:
“Thus we can admit that something like “universal salvation” is a fair implication of what we know of Jesus as well as what he taught. To deny universal salvation as implication and possibility, as hope and desire, is to limit and to restrict the power and grace of God.”
Let’s see, I’m goin’ with Wesley, even though Willimon’s denomination claims Wesley’s footsteps.
lol Rick – the guy who cares nothing of what others believe (oh! Unless it mirrors his own position!) Too funny.
And again, you misunderstand Wesley and Methodists if you think we are robots who simply regurgitate the beliefs of our founder. As if that would be a good thing.
Oh, and Rick – if nothing else comes from these discussions other than I finally got you to cite from a dead theologian as a means to substantiate your beliefs then I will consider this a wonderful use of time!!!
Well done!
“Unless it mirrors his own position!”
That is the nature os support quotes! I love this game. I am more Methodist than are you! What a hoot!!
Sure, if you want to claim that what makes one Methodist or not is their belief in hell. If that makes you “more Methodist” than me than it also makes you more of a Calvinist than me. Hmm- lets find out who else from the past believes in hell in this same way so that you can claim them as well.
Maybe you are more of a Mormon than me as well?
METHODISM
Jesus = heaven
No Jesus = hell
Yep, I’m a Methodist!
I said I won’t get into discussing Chris L’s prooftexts but I think the reason why bears repeating. He cites from Daniel and Revelation to give just 2 examples. The OT alone has numerous references to the dead being dead – period. There is nothing after death. This life is all you got. Shall we take them seriously? Or do we need to address them against the backdrop of a bigger story going on? In Daniel, for instance, we are told that the righteous will “shine like stars” (12:3) Really? Paul expands this dramatically in the NT, arguing for bodily, physical resurrection. To suggest we will “shine like stars” becomes a very gnostic notion that has nothing to do with the Christian hope.
As for the text Chris loves in Revelation about the Lake of Fire I asked him about the preceeding claim that all will be judged based upon their works. I said that this sounds like we will be judged based upon works rather than our faith. Chris used his hermeneutic principles and deduced that in the ancient world what one does is not divorced from what one believes. So to say we are judged by our works really means we are being judged based upon our faith (or lack of). That is convenient. And actually, I don’t disagree with him on that point. I think he may be right.
What I find ironic, however, is that in that same passage is the reference to the Lake of Fire that Chris feels delivers the death blow to anyone who dares to believe God can and just may save everyone. It is ironic because while Chris is happy to maneuver hermeneutically about the preceeding “judged by works” passage he seems more than happy to take “Lake of fire” at face value – this is literal, folks. While “judged by our works” would mean something totally different and deeper and more meaningful to the ancient world, “lake of fire” will not – it is just what it is – an eternal torture chamber where God sends those after death that did not measure up.
Back to the overarching story. Chris L calls my meta-narrative “vague” and “toothless” although he has never defined what that meta-narrative is. But my point is we all have a meta-narrative. Chris L’s and Rick’s and PB’s and others have one that says God’s judgment is something to be feared and when it finally comes God will damn most of the world and save the few that have believed rightly. It is a metanarrative not too unlike the stories of the ancient Greeks who felt the gods were angry with them and would smite them if they did not pay proper homage and respect (today we call homage “belief” or “right doctrine” or “pious living”). No matter what they say to the contrary, the Christian life is all about getting out of this hell – this torture – that God has planned for those that do not believe. God in incapable or undesirous of redeeming all of creation – only some of it – and only that part which plays along during this life which is but a vapor (after death – all bets are off – God ceases to be the God of love seeking after the lost but becomes the Abused One out for revenge).
With such a narrative in place it is no wonder that Lake of Fire passages get such play and do not get looked at with the sense of nuance that other passages get looked at (even if they are in the same verse).
It is for this reason that I avoid these Bible Wars. Ultimately, I think some of you need to dare to believe in a bigger God.
peace
Chad,
The passage I’ve been pointing to in Rev is more concerned w/ v. 14b- 15 than what the actual “lake of fire” looks like:
which is paralleled in 21:27 (the end of the description of the New Jerusalem)
Which is the same thread being pulled in Daniel 12 (noting what the actual context of “shining like stars”) :
Taking the passage in context to the culture, this is pretty consistent…
Actually, much to Rick’s consternation in the past, I’ve pointed out that the “lake of fire” may not be literal (as in annihilationism), but rather that the author (John) makes clear what the symbolism of the lake of fire represents in v. 14 – “The lake of fire is the second death.” In Jewish apocalyptic literature, the author only identifies symbols they do not want mistaken for anything else, and this is one of the ones John goes out of his way to do so. Is it a literal fire? I don’t know. Is it the second death? Yes, John identifies it as such. So no, I’m not “happy to take ‘Lake of fire’ at face value”, but I’m willing to give it the symbolic identification given by the author.
Well, Scripture certainly makes plain that God’s judgment is something to be feared, but that He will save those He has already identified – his bride, the church. Not because of anything they’ve done, but because He chose them as He chose the Israelites in Egypt – because of a promise already made.
Were the Egyptians swallowed up in the Red Sea unloved by God? God’s justice playing out for those who rejected Him and His bride is not God ceasing to love, but them receiving the just reward of their life. The lake of fire is the second death and has nothing to do with “revenge”…
Or we need to just believe in the one revealed to us instead of making one up with the world’s twisted version of “love”, as you have done…
Rick – Should I inform the baptists who ordained you that you’ve switched to Methodism?
As recorded by Nirvana–
Where do bad folks go when they die
They don’t go to heaven where the angels fly
Go to a lake of fire and fry
see them again ’till the Fourth of July
I knew a lady who came from Duluth
Bitten by a dog with a rabid tooth
She went to her grave just a little too soon
flew and lay down on the yellow moon
Where do bad folks go when they die
They don’t go to heaven where the angels fly
Go to a lake of fire and fry
see them again ’till the Fourth of July
People cry and people moan
Look for a dry place to call their home
Try to find some place to rest their bones
While the angels and the devils try to make ‘em their own
Where do bad folks go when they die
They don’t go to heaven where the angels fly
Go to a lake of fire and fry
see them again ’till the Fourth of July
Originally by The Meat Puppets
This does not require “fixation” with eternal destiny. One who balances both temporal and eternal destinies can have such concern. Ignoring one or the other is what we’re dealing with, and you just choose the opposite error…
I’m not sure I find universalism or annihilationism comforting.
I’m not really sure how to not believe in universalism and not take the lake of fire reference literally.
But that’s just me.
Which is interesting, because Jesus entered a rather large number of debates with the religious folks (in agreement and disagreement), and all of them were based on quotation of Scripture (though some included passages from Oral Law, in addition to scripture, as we might include commentaries today).
Theological debate has to be rooted in Scripture (whether you want to degrade it as “Bible Wars” or no), or it’s pretty much pointless.
I think the Meat Puppets reference should lay this argument to rest. And, just to be sure, if the song was covered by Nirvana…well, I’m just saying, that’s a pretty authoritative bunch of fellas there.
Imagine the Irony: A Band called Nirvana covering a song about Hell.
Pshaw!
I don’t know that we’re supposed to take the fate of those of us whose name is not in the Lamb’s book of life as ‘comforting’, in any case, Jerry.
Well done, Chris L.
Oh, and remember that time months ago the ADM’s were quoting from Revelation over and over to “prove” their understanding of rapture and the whole Left Behind eschatology and I said that Revelation is concerned with the state of the church in the 1st century and a polemic against Rome – it has practical, present day applications and was not primarily concerned with what happens after we die. You responded with something along the lines of: Amen – thank you Chad for being the first to put a stop to this nonsense.
You can’t do it, can you? It is impossible for you to address a single post of mine without insinuating something sinister about me.
Cheer up, dude. You’ll get a chance to elect somebody else to the White House in 4 years.
I agree. What I am saying is pointless is debate over scripture with you. I will not enter into your “Bible Wars” if you are not willing to at least respect the fact that I take the Bible very seriously. Your continued attacks on my faith, my sincerity towards scripture and desire to be true to it are immature and, frankly, beneath you. It is what your ADM buddies do and you have learned well from them.
When you can come to the table of discussion in a spirit that recognizes we all value scripture and desire to know and follow God more closely, more truly, with more integrity and truth THEN I would be willing to discuss scripture with you. Not because we have to agree on everything but because in such an environment we might both grow in our understanding of this God whom we serve that cannot be reduced to our musings and arguments and individual interpretations.
Because of these conversations here and some in my church that have transpired from our studying Surprised by Hope, I am taking an exegesis of Revelation class this spring. We begin next week. I am looking forward to it.
This is nonsensical.
The world’s “twisted version of love” is to love those who love you back. Like Jesus said, you invite only those to the party who will return the favor. You love only those who love you. What good is that? Even the pagans do that.
I am talking about a love that loves and prays for even your enemies. I am talking about a love that loves unconditionally. I am talking about a love that is infinite and reaches even beyond the grave, even harrowing hell. I am talking about a love that leaves the 99 perfectly well sheep to search for that one that is lost until it is found. I am talking about a love that is so powerful, so purifying, so penetrating that it can turn even the coldest, meanest, must vile sinner into a quivering lump of jelly that cannot help but rise out of the pig crap, run home and cry out “My Lord and my God.”
Is this the sort of love you think is “twisted” and of the world?
That is precisely my point. I don’t even know, to be sure, that we are supposed to be concerned about the ‘fate’ of others in any individualistic sense. Scripture seems quite content for us to ‘work out our [own] faith with fear and trembling.’
Willimon, for as much as I like him, troubles me at this point. He comes at this from the point that we simply cannot know. I sometimes get the impression he thinks even the ’saved’ cannot know. This troubles me. But at the same time, what I am reading is that the man truly doesn’t want anyone to face the prospects of what the Bible says is some sort of punishment.
Willimon hasn’t said we conclusively there is a universal salvation, but he has hinted that it is a possibility if we think in terms large enough to handle the grace of God. His point, then, is that God will get all that he desires–a point strangely echoed by Calvinists–and that if God desires all to be saved, then one lost person would represent a thwarting of God’s desire. There is tension here that I’m just not certain can be resolved in any meaningful way this side of whatever it is that we have to look forward to.
Finally, and please understand I am not accusing Willimon here, but I’m not certain how his point of view preaches. I mean seriously, and I know this has been brought up so please bear with me (this is one aspect of the book I am struggling with mightily), but if all will be saved by God’s grace (and wouldn’t it be grand if they were!) then what is the point of my preaching to the lost. Preaching to the saved I get; preaching to the lost seems a bit sketchy. That’s not what Willimon is saying, but it does seem to somewhat follow logically.
I’m sure there are people in my family that I desperately hope for. My grandfather and my father in law and brother for three. But I wonder if my hope for them is more like a Catholic merit than it is realistic.
On the other hand, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
jerry
ps–i’m not asserting definitively. I’m asking questions so please don’t accuse me of being one way or the other. I’m wrestling with Willimon and he is not an easy one to contend with.
Chad – most of Revelation was written about the state of the church in the first century and a polemic against Rome. Revelation doesn’t switch gears until the middle of chapter 20, as John moves beyond Rome to the fates of Satan and the Church.
This was not about something “sinister” – this was a response to:
Ultimately, I think some of you need to dare to believe in a bigger God.
And that’s the thing – it has nothing to do with “daring” to believe in “a bigger God” (a rather condescending turn of phrase, I would add), but rather just believing that He does not lie, and believing that He acts within the bounds He has stated for Himself (to John H’s earlier point on the nature of God) rather than the way we wish He would…
Jerry –
Good questions. It is good to see someone honestly wrestling with the issues and bringing some practical application to bear.
I have found it to preach powerfully. If you have not read my sermon, “The Truth About You” I invite you to do so. It was the sermon I preached after wrestling with the same questions you are asking here – it was also the most powerful in our church as the Spirit really moved in the hearts of many when I gave an alter call (yes, we Methodists still do that )
But beyond this, we should be sure we preach what is truth rather than what feels or seems right to us. We should not preach the fear of hell as reason to believe if we become convinced that this is not God’s purpose for salvation. We proclaim the Good News and allow God to do the work of saving people. I have found it very powerful to tell people the truth about them – you ARE saved because of an event that happened on Calvary – God loved you that much to do this for you. Now, in light of the facts about you, the reality that is an objective truth not a subjective one, how are you going to live? Will you continue living a lie? Or will you respond in gratitude to a love so great it died for you and now calls you to something bigger in this world? Will you be part of God’s project of salvation for all the world or continue living for yourself?
um, duh. What makes you think I believe God lies? By the way, I would still love to see your proof that Adam and Eve were immortal. Did God “lie” when he did not kill them or did God extend grace?
And your take on Revelation switching at chapter 20 is again, convenient. You may be right about it – or not.
What do you make of the finale? Here we find a river of life flowing out of the city and trees of life on both sides. Why do you suppose a river of life has to flow OUT OF the city and why are there trees of life out there?
Who is outside of the city?
Any Christian might desire total salvation in the hereafter, but no one can legitimately suggest that the Scriptures do not teach or even strongly suggest that is not the case.
Shucks. What was I thinking, then? Thanks, Rick. That cleared it up for me.
I wish you had just said that at the very beginning so we could avoid this whole “discussion” thing.
I have seen you mention this a few times, and I have to admit, I’m scratching my head about it. They did die. They weren’t immortal.
To the Jews, immortality wasn’t an innate property of a human being as it was in Greek conceptions. If a person was immortal, it was only because they were kept alive by God in some way after their death until the resurrection. Unlike the evil, who seem to be considered simply dead until facing judgment at the resurrection. We aren’t told what the eternal fate of Adam and Eve was (or perhaps I should say will be), as far as I know.
Phil-
I would argue that is an anachronistic projection back onto the text.
The issue is whether or not Adam and Eve were immortal prior to the fall. I am asking for the scriptural proof that says they were immortal. 1 Tim. 6:16 is clear that only God has immortality.
God says to the first humans that if they eat the fruit they will die. It is only because they did not die, and because theologians must figure out a way to keep God from lying, that people have decided that they must have been immortal beforehand and now they will just die eventually. The problem, however, is that is nowhere in the text.
I do not think you have to save God from being a liar. I think this is the first example of God showing grace – of determining to be FOR creation rather than oppossed to or against it.
This gesture is repeated numerous times throughout Israel’s existence and most dramatically in the Incarnation, Calvary and Resurrection.
My comments on Gen 1-3 probably require some deeper unpacking. I sent an email to Jerry a week or so ago about how the creation account is really a story that has its birth at Sinai – it is an unfolding of covenant.
I don’t believe Adam and Eve were any different than you and I. The tree of life is grace, the tree of knowledge of good and evil is Torah. This is a poetic narration of the covenant established at Sinai and proclamation that a peoplehood is only a peoplehood because God constitutes them as such. Genesis shows what happens when people exceed their limit (God – here, it is Torah) and desire to “be like God.” God is our life as well as our limit. That is the story of the 2 trees. To step outside of that is to “die.” It is to not be alive in the sense that God created you to live.
Eighty-one comments later–I think you better get some stronger glue for those guns! Thanks for the morning chuckle.
Well, I remembered I am a pacifist.
Glad you can laugh, Keith.
That’s OK. I’m a Baptist.
I was voted “Most Mischievious/Class Clown” in HS. It’s a gift.
Have at it boys and girls. I’m out for the day. Seventy-one degrees today in Oklahoma IN JANUARY! Outside is calling my name.
Can you tell me where you revelation about the two tress is taught anywhere, especially the NT?
You can find it next to the word “trinity”
Chad,
I have to say, I really am having a hard time following your logic here. In Genesis 2:17, God warned Adam and Eve that they would die if they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but He didn’t give a time frame. Adam’s death is described in Genesis 5:5, and we aren’t exactly told when Eve died, but she did die. Why are you assuming they were immortal? Maybe I’m just dense, but I cannot follow the argument you’re trying to make at all.
In any case, I think the Genesis account makes it pretty clear that life is ultimately something bestowed to humans from God. Leave God and you will die – it’s a pretty consistent motif throughout Scripture. God goes to great, immeasurable lengths to extend His grace to His Chosen, but the Chosen need to remember Him (and currently, I believe every human alive could be considered “chosen”).
I believe the tree of good and evil is universalism.
The only issues concerning Adam and Eve are those expounded upon in the New Testament. All other interpretations are either good guesses or fairy tales – the latter being the most prevelant.
Hey I might still have a comment off in spam land. I had written this huge essay about 4:00am and it seems to not be here… I mean another essay other than the one I left above.
Good luck in finding it.
iggy
If anyone has any question whther God lied about whether Adam and Eve both died.
Jesus alone is immortal at this point… the rest of us are waiting for the Resurrection or translation into the New Creation in its fullness.
iggy
I de-spammed your comment, Igs…
Doh!… Phil already beat me to the punch on that one!
But that essay I wrote will give you all some real BIBLE thinking on this topic… yep it will clear up all this mess in less that 1000 words… that is if you can find it and let it through… otherwise I will have to recreate it. But since it was Holy Inspired from God Himself….
ANd if I have to redo it; it will be much later…
iggy
Please read comment #41 as to my position on all this and I am sure you all will be soooo enlightened and give up on your own position and bow down to my truly much more enlightened knowledge of God stuff.
iggy
Actually, I just want some imput on it….
Thanks Phil… Now all will be overcome with humility from my great biblical intellect!
iggy
I am not assuming they were immortal. Chris L said in the long debate about this that they were. I asked him to show from scripture that they were immmortal and he has not done so.
But on a different note, God did say they would die if they eat from the tree. It is like if I tell my kids not to touch the live wire while standing in a tub or they will die. I doubt Adam and Eve thought that what God meant was they will eventually die. What happened in the wake of eating from the tree was they did not die, contrary to what God said would happen if they did – but were shown grace.
OK guys rip me apart… but let PB know that I am off and about town and not hiding from him if he decides to disagree with me and then write a comment that restates what I wrote in the first place but insists I am still wrong…
Chris L and Chad… try to play nicer with each other OK?
iggy
Re: Origen.
Just so you know, the “anathemas” against Origen were disputed and caused division. So they weren’t exactly “destroyed”.
My point is that I grant that Christian Universalism has been a minority report in the Church, but it’s been there for a long time and it precedes cultural analysis of epistemologies.
Well, I don’t think they had any conception of death, really, so being forced out of the garden sure probably felt like death. In any case, I believe they started dying at the moment they ate the fruit. I doubt they would look back at that instance and say, boy, God sure lied to us. They probably would look back with regret and see that God had been telling the truth.
If they didn’t die, then the serpent was telling the truth.
OK, pay attention, class.
Death did not enter until sin entered. If there is no death, the person is immortal at least in the future sense. I Corinthians 15:53-54 tells us that our new bodies will be immortal, so to say only God is immortal is innacurate, a more accurate statement would be “Only God can grant immortality since He is the Creator of everything”.
Now verse 54 tells us that the reason our new bodies will be immortal is because death has been defeated. Paul tells us that death is what removed physical immortality from Adam. So it would seem that before the fall Adma and Eve were physically immortal, and when sin entered, death came as well.
There will be a quiz.
Rick,
Unfortunately Rick, they were immortal or else they would not have had to depend on the Tree of Life to live forever.. and that is why God cast then out of the Garden… not for their sin, but so that they would not eat of the Tree of Life and stay eternally in their sin…
iggy
Iggy – you get a C-.
Rick, Iggy is right.
I’ll take the C- as well.
crafty sucker, ain’t he?
Their spirits were immortal, made in God’s image, but their physical bodies were on death’s course since sin, that is why we will recieve new bodies because these bodies are “bodies of death”.
And for your impudence, Chad, you are in time out.
That’s what she said.
Oh wait, you said impudence. My bad.
So do you believe he didn’t lie?
Sorry… “they were immortal” should be “they were mortal”… now that I have fixed that one I will be gone for most the day… rip it up!
iggy
Rick,
Nope… wrong again… as when the Spirit of Life departed they died. Which brings us to Genesis 6… and the Nephilim! Wooowee!
6 fingered giants who were cannibals…
iggy
Rick,
Nope… wrong again… as when the Spirit of Life departed they died. Which brings us to Genesis 6… and the Nephilim! Wooowee!
6 fingered giants who were cannibals…
iggy
That’s weird…I hear an echo…
Now really I am leaving.. has anyone seen my ball?
I care not what others may think, aye, I count them as nothing. My desire and the constant siren in my heart is to follow Him
and Him alone. This, by God’s grace, is the transforming journey that emboldens me further, and the hardships are but the signs of encouragement that, lo, I am right headed.
To dissuade me is to confront God Himself, and all the hollow ramblings proceeding from the tongues of men logde in my ear but cannot penetrate the dwellingplace of God in my heart. Like the winds of a cyclone that swirl with great ferocity but without singularity of direction. In short, the manipulated breath that escapes from men’s lips must be filtered through the heart whose love is God’s truth.
All other human sounds are “a tale
told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing”. Frueh
Amen…
Serpent: You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. (Gen. 3:4)
God: See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, an deat, and live forever”
What was the serpent’s lie?
Rick, that is Plato, not Paul
It is the classic partial-preterist position, and also encompasses most amill interpretations, as well…
There are a good number of books (good, great, bad and really bad) on that subject, but just some random observations:
First, we have this reiterated:
Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”
He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”
Which seems pretty straightforward, linking it back to the previous chapter on the lake of fire and the relationship of the New Jerusalem to it.
This gets followed up by lots of the use of the number 12, along with the twelve semi-precious stones used in the High Priest’s breastplate for the twelve tribes. Basically, describing the new Jerusalem as the home of God’s chosen people (into which Paul notes, the Gentiles in Christ have been grafted).
It then notes that no Temple is needed, because God and The Lamb are physically present with their people. No separation exists anymore.
Here, some knowledge of the Greek is necessary, as the word for “tree” used here in “the Tree of Life” is xulon, whereas the normal Greek word used for tree is dendron.
In the Septuagint, the only place the word xulon is used for tree is in Deut 21:23, which notes anyone who is hung on a tree [xulon] is under God’s curse.
The word xulon is used in the new testament to describe the tree on which Jesus was hung to die. Therefore, the Tree of Life is the cross, which is in the paradise of God. [Which contrasts with the Tree (dendron) of Life, a linden tree, which grew and was tended in the Paradise of Artemis, in the center of the Temple of Artemis (one of the 7 Wonders of the Ancient World) in Ephesus.]
I would note the verse right after the Tree of Life is described, as well: No longer will there be any curse. Which hearkens back to the curse associated with those hung on a xulon in Deuteronomy…
To your question, I don’t see where the water of life or the Tree of Life is OUTSIDE the city…
In fact, 21:14-15 seems to contradict this idea:
“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.”
So, in order to reach the tree of life, one must enter through the gates into the city. Outside, on the other hand, appear to be those who are destined for
destructiona temporary time-out.In short -
Die with Jesus = very good.
Die without Jesus = very bad.
Since you’ve at least begun to address Rev/Daniel, I’ll give you the exact answer I posted to the writers a couple weeks back.
My answer:
So, if you want to understand why Jews would even ask Jesus (and other rabbis) “how do I inherit eternal life”, you have to understand why they would think eternal life existed in the first place.
Why did it exist? Because Adam hadn’t sinned.
Why did it no longer exist, but have to be received in some other way? Because Adam sinned.
[On a separate track, I would also note that "when you eat of it you will surely die." does not imply that death must happen immediately...]
Now, you asked
Maybe I’m wrong, but I believe that 1 Timothy was written after the fall… Because in 1 Tim 6:16, we also read that God lives in inapproachable light, which no man can see or has seen. However, in Revelation 21, which we just reviewed, God is the light of the New Jerusalem and can be seen by all. Thus, it’s not all that difficult to view 1 Tim 6:16 as a statement positional in time (after the fall, prior to the coming of the New Jerusalem), rather than a statement of the laws that govern eternity…
[On a separate track, I'd also note that the concept of athanasia (un-death) may also be viewed as God's having no beginning, as well, whereas man had a definite beginning.]
As I noted and Christ reiterated, what does Romans 5 mean when it states that death entered through Adam’s sin? If there was NO DEATH before sin, what do we call that class?
Immortality. God of course in immortal past, present, and future. Man is immortal only as it applies to the future.
I meant “Chris reiterated”, my typo was a grevious mistake with a wealth of evidence to the contrary.
Serpent: You will not die
This was the lie, the same lie universalism and Christian Universalism is still telling-That We have eternal life regardless.
We did die, spiritually. For in Adam, all sinned, and as a result, all died. The soul that sins, it shall die.
It is a lie to believe that we can believe whatever we want and live however we want, and still enter into God’s eternal kingdom.
“It is a lie to believe that we can believe whatever we want and live however we want, and still enter into God’s eternal kingdom.”
Yes, it is a damnable lie, both in present error and in future reality.
Oh, no, I actually agree with PB! The lie was, “you will surely not die.”
True, they didn’t keel over right away, but death entered the human race at that moment.
Interestingly enough, I am beginning a series of podcasts on the book of Revelation. These podcasts will be shoved down people’s throats at my blog and at FB. It is strongly recommended that you listen to my podcasts!
I hope all of you are enjoying your day. God is good. I just learned today that some of the people at my congregation have been reading my blog. Uh-oh!!
very well said, ye who claims to hate systematics
I always laugh when I read or hear people say this. It reminds me of something my Greek prof. told us the first day of our 3 years of Greek (the last year being a walk through the LXX – not a cake walk, btw) – he said, “Never say to people that your knowledge of Greek is necessary unless you want to give off the impression that no one can understand God’s word apart from your knowledge.”
You might want to check your sources. I have my LXX in front of me and xulon is used numerous times in Gen 2 and 3, especially as it relates to the trees of life and knowledge of good and evil.
The river flows out from the throne of God which is the New Jerusalem. ek tou phronou tou theo kai tou arniou
re: vs. 14&15, there is no reason to think that those who wash their robes are not outside partaking of the tree of life so that they may then enter the city.
And by the way, why is anyone outside the city to begin with? Aren’t we all in our cozy little condos by now? Aren’t some on Wall Street and the rest in the projects, never the twain shall meet?
Also, N.T. Wright disagrees with your exegesis here. He is the reason I bring up the question in the first place – he says this river flows out of the city and is a great mystery – one that should make everyone hesitate before they declare God’s reach is finite and his grace is limited.
I have always find it comforting as well as reassuring when I dialogue about issue with the unshakeable foundation that I know I am correct. With ever interaction I continue to be reinforced that my views and perspectives are unassailable. This combination approaches perfection when mixed with humility.
Stick to the text, PB. Where in Gen 2-3 does it say they “died spiritually”? You are reading your own theology into the text rather than allowing the text to determine your theology. And you guys think it is I who doesn’t take scripture seriously?
Who in the world ever said you can believe whatever you want and live however you want and still enter into God’s eternal kingdom? This is classic example of why you are either a) a liar or b) an ignorant fool. I will allow you to choose which one you are.
In all seriousness:
I find the early narratives of Genesis as well as the shadows and symbalisms of Revelation to be most difficult to accurately exegete doctrinally and impossible to be dogmatic about them.
It is not what goes into a man that defiles him, but what comes out. You that accuses another of being condescending and malicious, dost thou do the same?
Phil, so you are saying that Adam and Eve were created as immortal beings? In #81 you seem to say something else. What am I missing?
To Chris L et al.
God says in 3:22: See, they are like one of us, knowing good and evil (just like the serpent said would happen) and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.”
Immortality was not something innate to being created as human in the Garden. It was gift – from God. Immortality is never something we own – it is only God that is immortal (no matter how you want to spin 1 Tim 6:16, Chris) and only God gives life, temporal or eternal or any other.
Now, you could argue that as long as they stayed in the Garden and did not usurp the limit put upon them (the Torah – aka tree of knowledge of good and evil) then they may have access to the source of life (God) quite freely and may have lived forever. But we dont know that. What we know from the text is that God said they would die if they ate from the tree. They didn’t die – they continued living and were even brought into a type of covenantal relationship. God showed grace as early as Gen 3 and continues to do so.
Rick, 129 – I agree. Add the fact that I take Gen 1-3 to be mythic rather than literal makes arguing for or against Adam and Eve’s immortality look like my dog chasing his tail.
re:130- huh? Do you agree with PB that my position is that you can believe anything you want and live anyway you like and still enter God’s Kingdom? If you do, than you, sadly, are in left field with him.
Whether or not Adam and Eve were “immortal” does not even reach the level of “mildly important”, although it makes for some mildly amusing back and forths.
Well, he says (on pg. 184 of Surprised by Hope, which I assume you’re referring to):
On the next page, he goes on to say,
So I think the point that Wright is trying to make doesn’t have much to do about who will be saved, as much as it does with, in what manner. The church was never intended to be a mutual admiration society, but rather, it is to be an extension of Christ on the earth, reaching the lost and hopeless.
Chad – I continue to puzzled over your “position” but I believe John’s statement was concerning the streotypical view of universalims that we anti-universalism people assume.
Phil,
That is what I was referring to.
So either Wright is wrong or Chris L is wrong. I’ll put my money on Wright.
That’s basically what I’m saying. But when Adam and Eve ate from the tree, they basically threw the gift back in God’s face. God doesn’t force a gift on anyone. If he wanted beings like that, He may as well of made robots.
It’s interesting. You seem to be a Calvinist who believes in Irresistible Grace but Unlimited Atonement. If no one can refuse God, then it’s not much different than saying God elected some to accept Him and some to reject Him.
lol – that is the understatement of the new year!
John spends his time arguing against stereotypes and false conclusions/assumptions.
Thus, I lean more towards option (b) in his case
If universalism is true, then God has played one giant game of solataire. Why not just create everyone in heaven and cut out the historical middle man.
Well, I can’t speak for Chris, but I don’t think he’s read the book, but I would doubt he would disagree with what Wright is saying there. I believe it is a bit disingenuous of you to portray it as Wright supporting some sort of universalism, especially when he speaks explicitly against it elsewhere in the book.
Universalism is akin to T-ball, we don’t keep score and everyone wins!! Hooray!!!
Unlimited Atonement, yes.
Irresistible Grace- sometimes.
Sometimes God knocks you off a horse on the way to Damascus and seems pretty damn irresistible. But most often God is the wooing shephered, at least in my own experience. I know there are others.
But if I can get ramped up for my Jack Bauer days coming soon, let me say this: Make no mistake about it, while we can certainly resist God’s advances towards us I am more confident in God’s persistence and advances and desires toward us than I am in humankinds ability to resist. Once the barriers to grace are removed and we all stand before our Lord (and he is everyone’s Lord – many just don’t know it yet) it will only be the mad man who says “I don’t believe it.”
Maranatha!
John Dominic Crossan once said something that mattered.
So did Hitler.
Phil, I have watched how you continually take Chris L’s side on any issue (for instance, when you called Evan out for being demeaning to Chris and yet said nothing to Chris for his demeaning comments that brought about Evan’s response). To be sure, I was not portraying Wright as supporting universalism – i said he says we should stop short of being dogmatic and cocksure about GOd’s reach and desire towards the lost.
Chris and Wright are on different fields when it comes to exegeting Rev 22. Do you not at least acknowledge that?
Revelation 21 and 22 are beautiful pictures of something I think we barely imagine. For more information, try here: Revelation 21, The Future
I have read Wright, too and I didn’t come away with a feeling of universalism at all from him. In fact, quite the opposite. His portrait of ‘hell’ is actually rather disturbing, more disturbing than a ‘mere’ lake of fire.
I pretty much tried to stay out of that…
But I don’t remember “supporting” one or the other, directly. My opinion on the issue of homosexual marriage is more in line with Chris’, though. I have diagreed with him elsewhere though – women elders and pastors is one area. There are others, as well.
I guess, although the only place I saw Chris exegeting that passage was in his response to you. I will let him speak for himself on the issue.
I don’t think Chris would ever say that we are to be cocksure. I feel like both you and Chris project a lot onto each other.
When someone projects assurance and conviction concerning the specifics of Revelation, we need to be careful about their views on other issues.
I would say whether or not immortality was innate or if it came from the tree of life in the Garden of Eden (if it was a literal tree, rather than a symbolic truth) is immaterial -we know that death came about as a result of sin, and God’s promise to Adam that if he ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil that he would surely die came true.
In either case, I don’t see this as an instance where one could reasonably argue that God “lied” or did not keep his promise. And to try to extrapolate that to suggest that God lied in hundreds of places in Scripture that there are/were men destined for destruction is ludicrous.
More later (heading out to supper with the parents)…
I disagree. That’s like saying we shouldn’t be certain of anything we utter as preachers. We may preach from weakness, but I strongly disagree that we should preach from doubt.
Chad,
I have to say I am very sorry but I agree with PB… man died spiritually…
If you look at Gen 5 we have the genealogy with the longer lifespans that lead us top the text in Gen 6…
So the Spiritual connection was severed with Adam and later it came to pass physically with all men. Here is where God removes the Spiritual connection as it sums up the Genealogy. Interestingly the word “contend” means “to strive” or “to direct” so the idea is that God began separating Spiritually with man as far as God directing them as their sin became more and more.
iggy
To say Wright is a Universalist is so laughable… which is why I wonder when people state this of Brian McLaren and Rob Bell who both seem to tap into the writings of Wright and distill them down for the common man… or at least post-moderns…
iggy
Chad,
Occasionally I say scandalous things… like God judges ALL and in that Judgement EVERY KNEE WILL BOW AND EVERY TONGUE CONFESS, JESUS CHRIST IS LORD.
Not meaning yell… more trying to emphasize that Jesus will place all His enemies under His feet and rule them… meaning that those in Hell if “alive” will acknowledge Jesus and yet may still not accept Him as Savior though they call him Lord. (Much like the unrighteous do in Matt who claim to have done things in Jesus Name yet Jesus states He never knew them) so to me we often forget the ones Jesus warned the most who would be in hell were the religious. So though I see some may have appeared to not serve Jesus will make it in, many who claim to now serve Him will not make it in the Kingdom.
iggy
Since NT Wright has been brought up I think his chapter 12 on Rethinking Salvation is pertinent. It just so happens to be the chapter I am teaching today and was reading over it this morning.
Rick, you may find the summary of it I linked to interesting. Note that the “core of salvation” is not fire insurance but something far more grand.
Also, while I understand why many of you want to protect Wright and Bell and others from showing any gestures or hints towards universalism I think you are mistaken. In this chapter alone Wright points out the past action of salvation – it was done in Jesus Christ. He also concludes with this intriguing line:
What does Wright mean by saying a “salvation for the wider world” while distinguishing that wider world from “saved humans”?
I have read mcuh of Wright, he is posted on the Mars Hill website and I do not espouse his views on the meaning of salvation. All the things you mentiond (sewing, etc.) are acts that emanate from saved sinners, they do not set up God’s kingdom. Those works can be done by Muslims, etc.
That is a type od social gospel. The gospel remains the etertnal conduit to translate a lost, hell bound sinner into the kingdom of light. Hebrews (Paul) makes it clear that mankind feared death all their lives but through Christ, like Paul, can look forward to “be with Christ which is FAR better”.
only saved sinners sew?
Who knew?
Being obstuse cannot obscure the humanistic view of God’s kingdom, I still see it clearly.
Not being obtuse – I’m trying to be funny. Based on your last comment it would be a waste of my time to talk to you about the purpose of salvation. You already see it clearly and can’t or won’t imagine anything else. I think you are wrong. C’est la vie.
“You already see it clearly and can’t or won’t imagine anything else.”
And now you see clearly as well.
FYI – a little bit more study on man’s mortality/immortality.
An interesting note – the Hebrew word for ‘mortal’ is the same word as ‘corrupt’. This is why Jews also consider that Adam (man) was immortal (incorrupt) prior to the fall, but that he was mortal (corrupt) after the fall. Thus, God’s grace imputes us with incorruptibility, granting eternal life…
On Revelation & Wright – I agree with Wright’s general sentiment (that how God will renew and how He accomplishes salvation is not the point), though I disagree with his (and your) interpretation that a) the River of Life flows out of the New Jerusalem; and (therefore) b) that there is any significance to this.
Why?
1) In Rev 2, we read:
Based on simple knowledge of ancient architecture, the paradise of any temple/city/ruler is in the innermost courts, not outside the city.
2) You wrote:
But we read in Rev 21:
Again, from simple architecture, you would expect that the throne of God would be in the Temple, beyond the paradise. However, since there is no longer need for a Temple, we are told that the throne of God is IN the city, that the river flows out from the throne, past the tree of life (which is in the paradise of God), and into the streets of the city. Nowhere do we see that the river of life goes to those who are never allowed into the city…
Chris L…
Great to see you agree with me…
Note comment #110
In Gen 2 God breaths life into Adam who becomes a “living being”. I see this not as the spirit was immortal, rather that of an integration of the sum of parts that make up man. Though I tend to go back and forth as far as trichotomy, I see that in that there is no distinction of body, soul and spirit in the text. I see that as Paul explains it that way to Gentiles later to help them understand this integration. To have the Spirit of Life does not mean that they recieved the Holy Spirit and they became immortal… it was only as they eat from the Tree of Life… (be that figuratively or literally) they would have become immortal… and thus not redeemable.
In Gen 6 as you pointed out we see that God clearly states man is mortal. The image is the integration and that in the Relational Union with God where man’s spirit and Gods unite in that God can guide man. Here we see in Gen 6 God stating that He will no longer contend with man because of his evil and will not guide mankind as He once did and will let man live without the guiding and shorten human life… In a way Gen 6 is where God removed his Holy Spirit from man and not back in the Garden as Adam still communed with God though the relationship was now corrupt.
iggy
I thought this was an interesting article on Tony Jones’ blog (it was actually written by someone else, though) about the concept of hell and whether or not people actually live like they really believe it or not.
I have to say, I can relate to the author’s point of being terrified of hell at an early age. I guess in my case, it wasn’t so much about hell, but more about the rapture. I was so worried I would commit some sin and miss it, that I spent many a night repenting of every possible sin I could think of.
I do think in a lot of ways, I can see where Chad is coming from in this thread. There are certainly a lot of segments of Christianity where it seems like they certainly do have an “elder brother” mentality that wants to see the younger brother get what’s coming to him (I’m not accusing anyone here of doing that). It just seems that it’s very hard for us to speak of judgment while remaining humble. I think that’s why God forbade Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil – it was as if having the ability to pass judgment was too powerful for humans to use properly, and we just end up hurting ourselves and others.
Chad,
I have ordered the book, should have it within a week. Regarding the Adam and the Tree of Knowledge issue. I really don’t get it. It’s pretty straightforward to me.
Adam ate. Adam died.
It is self-evident that they were banished from the Garden lest they eat of the Tree of Life and live forever which, by inference, was the original intent of the Tree being there. Living such a long life, even after being denied the Tree of Life would also add evidence that immortality was the original design.
Granted, we are all interpreting these passages through the lens of our respective world views. Whether God meant they would die immediately upon eating or at some later date is strictly an interpretation. But your interpretation, to put it bluntly, does makes God a liar and mimics Satan’s declaration to Eve. It is also problematic in that it creates doubt in everything regarding judgment God says if indeed, He threatens, but does not “really” mean it.
With this Biblical mindset the scriptures which indicate that God is storing up His wrath because of His mercy and forbearance and that a day of accounting is forthcoming for the non-repentant are rendered another lie.
In your world view this would appear to be yet another toothless threat by an angry father of which he has no intention of following through with.
I could very well be scandalized by God’s grace at the Judgment, but to me the greater scandal would be for God to say “I really didn’t mean what I said, I just said it for effect. ”
God can obviously do what He wants to do. The parable of the workers in the vineyard getting the same pay for different hours of work is a prime example of His sovereignty. But the rub comes when God bluntly and plainly **says** He is going to do one thing and then does the opposite in the end. It ultimately makes Scripture incomprehensible.
God is not like us Chad, His word is true.
“Adam ate. Adam died”.
hey, That would make a great T-Shirt.
Adam ate. Adam died.
He and Eve would have to hide.
Adam ate. Adam died.
He and Eve would have to hide.
God took some skin — itchy rawhide
?????
Adam ate. Adam died.
He and Eve would have to hide.
God took some skin — itchy rawhide
No longer in Eden did they reside
Actually, according to Rob Bell, Adam answered God after he sinned when God asked “Where are you” Adam answered….East.
Adam ate. Adam died.
Because with God’s law they did not comply.
He and Eve would have to hide.
God took some skin — itchy rawhide
No longer in Eden did they reside
To sin and death they were tied.
Adam ate. Adam died.
He and Eve would have to hide.
God took some skin — itchy rawhide
No longer in Eden did they reside
God’s presence now would not abide
Their sin revealed their massive pride
And now that death would be worldwide
Another tree would life provide
OK. So who gets the copyright?
Phil,
Funny thing is that judgement is supposed to do just that…. make us humble.
iggy
PB,
When Bell wrote that Adam said, “East” I don’t think that was meant Bell literally was saying Adam answer, “East” but instead of a direct answer stated… humorously… ” “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.” which is about the same answer… it is not the “I am your image God and I am here to tell you I made a mistake and want you to now tell me what to do and what is going to happen.” The literary license is that Adam did not man up in the Garden, but went East of the Garden.
Yes, it did strike me a little odd, but not heretical of so off that I am worried…
I am up to the part were Bell is talking of Solomon which his thoughts are very interesting and good.
iggy
Adam ate. Adam died.
He and Eve would have to hide.
God took some skin — itchy rawhide
No longer in Eden did they reside
God’s presence now would not abide
Their sin revealed their massive pride
And now that death would be worldwide
Another tree would
lifeTHE LIFE provideThere. Fixed it.
#176
You might like to read and comment on this then, Iggy (and others)
Actually, their bodies started slowly dying the second they ate, period. It’s the simple paradox of our existence — we must eat to survive, yet eating ultimately sets our bodies on the course that leads to death.
Biology didn’t enter the world because of sin, Rick.
Unless Adam and Eve weren’t fully human before Eve ate the mean fruit.
Biology entered the world. So until the fall (lunch), there was no sin (excretion). Evan, your word pictures are so illuminating!
And biology reigned over the entire race through Adam, who like George Costanza, was a marine biologist, having crawled out of the water and grew lungs. Later on Adam’s name would be called “Aqualung”!
Sitting on a park bench(Eden) and all that!