Hell and Ultimate Reconciliation
Feb.04, 2009 in
Podcast Episodes
A listener recently emailed a question to us asking if we had considered the idea of ultimate reconciliation. As Ray and Steve talk about this concept, they also discuss some other views of what happens to unbelievers after this life.
No hard conclusions here, but the usual look at how scripture might not say exactly what we think it says!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (35.4MB) | Embed
February 4th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
One of the questions that has to be answered with regard to this topic is whether or not the soul is immortal or not…
February 5th, 2009 at 2:18 am
I think that the idea of the soul being immortal is possibly more rooted in Greek philosophy than in biblical theology. I could be totally wrong on this, but biblically where does this come from? I realize that God breathing His breath into us at creation is a possible explanation, and also Ecclesiastes says something about the soul of man going to God, but I am hesitant to base much of my theology on Ecclesiastes. I believe that the first possibility might hold some merit though.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Good episode guys. I’ll say this after my first hearing (I have to listen to these several times to really “get” them, because it’s stuff that you don’t hear discussed at church) – ultimate reconciliation doesn’t necessarily negate free will. Perhaps free will is temporal and not eternal. We are free to choose what we do here and now and we deal with the consequences of those choices. I personally think (in spite of John 16:33) that living a Biblical life saves us from many troubles, culturally speaking. I don’t have to worry about whether or not my weekend flings with some young hottie is going to destroy my family, because I don’t engage in that behavior. And the reason I don’t engage in that behavior is because of the teachings of Scripture that warn me against it (which protect me from the temporal consequences). So if ultimate reconciliation would allow those who have suffered temporal consequence to escape eternal consequence, I don’t see how that would negate free will. But again, it all depends on how you define free will.
For me, this really brings to mind all the teachings I’ve heard on how God treats people groups that have never heard of God and, we must assume, have never confessed and would therefore be eternally condemned. I struggle with this belief, because it doesn’t fit the profile of a loving God, but rather one who claims to love but does whatever he pleases without regard for innocence. Those of us familiar with this argument would know Romans 1:20 (For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.) and that somehow those people groups would be judged based on how they reacted to those “evident qualities”, which to me, negates Romans 10:9. So, ultimate reconciliation would somehow make allowance for Romans 1:20.
I had never heard the term “ultimate reconciliation” until today, so part of my writing here is just me thinking out loud.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Good stuff Rodney! Sorry I haven’t responded to any of your earlier comments. I was on a bit of a lazy spell in regards to posting as other things have been getting my attention. Anyway, great to have you around and I appreciate your contributions to the conversations.
I get what you’re saying about the possibility of freewill being only temporal. However, while it does seem that certain decisions we make only have temporal consequences (ie. your example of an adulterous affair resulting in the loss of your family), I think that we would all agree that certain other decisions–sinful or not–can have more grave consequences (ie. choosing to drive on the wrong side of the interstate can end in death). I think that every decision we make results in consequences either good or bad, and sometimes even both. If this is true, and freewill is an actual reality, then at what point do our decisions become free of consequence? And if at any point our decisions become free of consequence, then doesn’t this by definition become a negation of freewill?
I am still open to the idea of ultimate reconciliation. I am definitely with you in believing that those who have never heard the gospel, and therefore have never rejected Jesus, will at some point get a chance to embrace or reject Him. But, it is hard for me to wrap my mind around the idea that someone could freely choose to reject Jesus, and maintain that posture of rejection, and yet God would force them into an eternal relationship with Him anyway.
If freewill is only a temporal reality, then is it truly a reality at all?
I would like to hear more of your thoughts Rodney 🙂
February 5th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
I would call my self a Christian Universalist [believe in Ultimate Reconciliation]. The thing is that once this life ends, I cannot imagine anyone who’s heart was hardened enough not to see God for what He is.
I believe that if the dada I know were to tear the veil seperating Him and our reality today, every one would freely rejoice and confess Jesus as Lord. The only way I can see some never coming to belief in the world to come, is if God keeps Himself veiled.
Another thing, free will and about ‘Hell’, I think that maybe there is the concept of a set period of judgment dependant on the ‘crime’. And if free will is not temporal, can we choose to sin in heaven? And if so what would be the out come? And if we continue to have free will, will it be posible not to sin?
These last questions are interesting to toss around, however, they may be on the level of how many angel will fit on the tip of a needle. Interesting but maybe a little irrelavant.
Any way great show, as I said up front, over the last 3 – 4 months I have come to the point were I can call myself a Christian Universalist. I have not finished the process [like I ever will though] but for now I am confident in my stance.
February 5th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
“William Tyndale” had difficulty posting this response to Raborn, so I am posting it on his behalf:
Raborn,
The verse in Ecclesiastes that I know of that is important to my understanding of man’s nature is Ecclesiastes 12:7 (…the SPIRIT returns to God who gave it…). And with Hebrew being the language that it is, I know it comes across as rather “hard” in translation. That is, the Old Testament is very “concrete” – as opposed to the more ethereal and philosophical sense that comes across in Greek (and the NT). So the fate and makeup of man is not necessarily easy to find. But when I see Ezekiel prophesying that the soul that sinneth IT shall die, and Jesus differentiating between body and soul (Matthew 10:28) and also saying that both can be DESTROYED, it seems to me that what is identified with man is basically body and soul. The spirit, then (again, according to Ecclesiastes) is GIVEN by God in a sense that body and soul are not. And its return to God is interesting also in the light of Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 5:5. Note that it is “pneuma” and not “psuche”/ “psyche” that he uses. I don’t know much Greek, but I know that for Paul to use “pneuma” and Jesus to be quoted as using “psyche” means there is something different at work in these two verses. What makes it difficult is that it is translated “soul” as well as “life”. So when Paul speaks of the salvation of the “pneuma” to the Corinthians, I have to wonder if he is talking about something slightly different. And it is also very interesting to note that Paul, in that same letter to the Corinthians, uses soul and spirit in the same verse in contrast to one another (1 Corinthians 15:45). And he uses a similar contrast in 1 Thessalonians 5:23.
All this is in explanation. My understanding of man is that he is tripartite (NOT triune). But not to the extent that man is dissected – rather he is complex. So it is, as I understand things, less important than recognizing the severity of being under God’s judgment. If someone walks in the spirit (which necessitates walking in the Spirit), then the destruction of the flesh is nothing and their soul is saved. If they don’t, then the salvation of the spirit may not be much consolation to them.
February 5th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Another thing that I think needs mentioning:
When we come across seemingly opposing verses, such as the ones mentioned in the email from the listener [Revelatlion 20:15 and 1 Timothy 4:10], we need to understand the type of literature. Revelation is apocalyptic literature. Should this cryptic verse out of revelation be used to interprete a non cryptic personal letter from Paul to Timothy?
We need to be careful here. The same thing could be said about Jesus’ parables. Have we ever taken a parable literaly and missed Jesus’ point?
February 6th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Ray & Steve,
I don’t know where to start. While I was listening to this podcast (and I’ve listened since you started last July), I continually found myself wanting to interrupt and say “that’s good, but there’s more”.
About 4 years ago I threw my entire belief system out and started over. This was by a devastating event that put it all into question. At the time it certainly didn’t seem like I would ever survive. But I did. And the ride since then has been wild and wonderful.
I was not willing to become an atheist because I’d spent my whole life believing in God and Jesus and the Bible and I felt there was something to it all but wasn’t sure how to put it together. It all had to make sense. And if there was a logical Biblical way to put it together, that’s what I needed and wanted.
In the past year, redemption of the whole world is one of the ideas over which I’ve repented. I have changed my mind. New concepts are difficult to wrap our minds around sometimes, especially if you’ve spent over 30 years learning one way, and this was no different. When it was explained to me in terms of the Bible it was easier to accept.
As I started thinking about these new ideas and concepts I found a growing freedom inside me. If new ideas don’t increase my sense of freedom I usually put them down and go another direction. Perhaps that’s just how we grow. Precept upon precept.
This comment box is inadequate for me to explain what I’m learning. Is it okay to submit a link to a former Word of Faith teacher named Mike Williams who recognized, about 15 years ago, that his beliefs didn’t work either. There is an online free audio collection of his talks explaining his views. (There’s also a paid member section but it’s not necessary to sign up in order to listen to the free stuff on the first page.)
I’ve had to listen several times to the same audio before I grasp the idea of what’s being said. Either I’m just a little slow or it’s those 30 years of exposure to “we are right” that affected my ability to process new input. Let me add that he is not ultimate reconciliation nor universalist. He’s more along the lines of complete reconciliation by the cross of Christ.
Gospelogic… http://www.gospelogic.com/free.htm
Thanks for all your work in putting this podcast online. Having access to people talking about their search for truth has helped me a lot.
February 6th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Thought I would add that if you don’t want to put my comment online that’s fine. I initially just wanted to get the info to the two of you, Ray & Steve.
February 8th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Barry,
Welcome to the dialog! Thanks for participating. You make some great points.
I believe that if the dada I know were to tear the veil seperating Him and our reality today, every one would freely rejoice and confess Jesus as Lord. The only way I can see some never coming to belief in the world to come, is if God keeps Himself veiled.
Well said. It seems that you draw some conclusions about the unknown based on Father’s character of love. I like that. However, I think it might be more complex than that. I have no doubts about Father’s desire to share His life with everyone. I just am not sure that every person will readily receive. If everyones defenses would automatically break down should God reveal Himself completely, then why is He waiting to do so? Wouldn’t it be better for Him to reveal Himself now and start an eternal relationship with everyone? Why does He wait? I believe that in 2 Peter 3:6-15 Peter clues us in to why God continues to wait. In speaking of the coming of the Lord, Peter says that God is not slow in fulfilling His promises, but rather He is being patient with us because He doesn’t desire anyone to perish but instead wants everyone to come to repentance. If repentance were an automatic byproduct of His coming, why then does He wait?
According to John 14:9-31, Jesus said that the world at large cannot receive the Holy Spirit, because they are not looking for Him and don’t recognize Him. Is this a temporal statement in your view?
Anyway Barry, great discussion. I would love to hear more about why you have come to embrace ultimate reconciliation. Once again, I am very open to the idea, but so far I can’t completely come to that conclusion. Thanks again!
February 8th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Raborn,
Why I have come to embrace ultimate reconciliation: I have for a number of years noticed that a lot of verses were pointing in this direction. But they were explained away by other doctrines. It often occured to me “what would happen if we reversed this and interpreted the exclusive salvation verses with the ultimate reconcilation ones?”. At the time, I did not have any idea of ultimate reconciliation. I thought that I would have to believe in a vague univeralism, so I never delved any deeper choosing to clear my mind of these thought because, after all, what is the point of Christ if universalism is true.
The first step that was required for my transformation, I believe, was the coming to realize just what ‘God is Love’ means. It meant modifying what I thought the cross was about and reinterpreting the wrathful God of the Old Testament through God’s ultimate revelation – Jesus / Love. [see http://www.lifestream.org/transition/transition.html for the best set of teachings I have heard on this topic]
Then, over the summer of 2008, I stumbled on a podcast by a christian and an atheist [http://www.achristianandanatheist.com/]. The issues and questions that were brought up caused me to question much of my faith. It was an unbelievable time of “iron sharpening iron”, and I was either going to come up with real and viable answers to some of the issues or I was going to loose my faith. (at least that is how I was feeling). Around this time I also came across a podcast discussing Christian Universalism [Unbelievable? 15 Mar 2008 at http://www.premierradio.org.uk]
This brought me back around to taking a serious look at the the reconciliation verses as the basis for interpreting the exclusive salvation scriptures. I came to realize that there are (at least) two biblcal ways to read the good news. And one of these ways answered, if not all, then most of the issues raise by the athiest.
The thing is, any way we read the bible, except maybe reading it as a fundamentalist, we have unanswered questions. I do not believe that our faith is about the destination but the process and therefore many questions will never be answered. But it doesn’t mean we just let these questions sit there unanswered.
Why is He waiting to completely reveal Himself? Wouldn’t it be better for Him to reveal Himself now and start an eternal relationship with everyone? Why does He wait? Great questions. And my easy out would be, “I don’t know”.
Why does not God revealing His love completely? This is going to be one of the first questions that I’d like to ask Jesus once I meet Him face to face. But He has done this in the past. When He did it on the other side of the cross and the result was that everyone that saw Him fell flat on their face or were killed. The big one in the New Testament was Paul. Here was a guy who was killing Jesus people, and yet when he was knocked off his high horse he was met with the love of God. And it is this interaction that totally transformed Paul’s life.
It is quite possible that is also has something to do with the fact that God has always relied on humans as the main vessle for His redemptive work on earth. And releted to this is the idea that the after life is, or should be, an after thought. The Jewish people then as well as today, did not put much thought or energy in what was awaiting them after they died. More important is what they do now. And this may well be Christianities greatest errors. We have for way too long put too much emphasis on heaven and hell than on the here and now.
And maybe, just maybe, these things have some thing to do with God not revealing Himself like He could. But when it comes down to it my answer for right now is, “I don’t know”
Sorry for being long winded, but in fact this is still just the condensed version. Tough topics to come to some sort of closer on, if we ever can, or should.
February 9th, 2009 at 1:04 am
Barry,
Thanks for your continued dialog.
“Great questions. And my easy out would be, ‘I don’t know'”.
I have alot of respect for this answer. Thank you for your humility in giving such a reply.
The thing is, any way we read the bible, except maybe reading it as a fundamentalist, we have unanswered questions. I do not believe that our faith is about the destination but the process and therefore many questions will never be answered. But it doesn’t mean we just let these questions sit there unanswered.
Well said. I agree that our faith is more about the process. We are so enveloped in the destination that sometimes we forget that Father is with us and wants to walk with us our journey. Unanswered questions. This too is something that has caused me to step outside of the fundamentalist camp. I am becoming less concerned with “being right” for rightness’ sake. Instead I am becoming more concerned with being right in the sense of living consistently in Father’s character, which is LOVE. The parable of the Good Samaritan show that we can “be right” and still not be right. The religiously ignorant Samaritan stood out in the story as the one who walked in Father’s love, and therefore was truly right. 🙂 Thanks again, Barry!
February 9th, 2009 at 1:09 am
Mary,
Thanks for your input! I think the freedom rule is a good one. For “where the Spirit of the LORD is, there is freedom.” When you said that the redemption of the world is one of the ideas that you have repented of, do you mean repented of believing in it, or not believing in it? What are your thoughts on this issue? Thanks again 🙂
February 9th, 2009 at 1:10 am
William Tyndale,
Thanks for your thoughts. How do you see the idea of the triparite man affecting your views of ultimate reconciliation? Does it prevent you or lead you to believing a certain way in regards to this issue?
February 9th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Raborn said:
“How do you see the idea of the triparite man affecting your views of ultimate reconciliation? Does it prevent you or lead you to believing a certain way in regards to this issue?”
—————————————–
I don’t believe in the doctrine of UR. For several years I was “in” it and have found, among other things, that hope and belief may not necessarily coincide. I will allow that the scriptures may possibly allow for such a hope but do not preach such a doctrine. My rejection of UR comes not from a purely reasoned, point-by-point refutation of certain of its tenets, but first of all from a spiritual standpoint. I say this without giving evidence but do so with full conviction from my experience : UR subtly toys with the scriptures to wrest meaning from its proper place. That is not saying that the doctrine is a patent and outright lie, but rather that I have seen no good fruit come from it, and know the reasonings that bring one to agree with its conclusions. They are not sound. To properly detail this would require a rather large book.
As far as the tripartite view of man and how it affects my view of reconciliation (ultimate or not),I need to give some background. I believe that man is body, soul and spirit. I believe scripture bears this out. Hebrews 4:12 clearly makes a distinction but also makes it clear that the soul and the spirit of man cannot be properly distinguished but by the active Word of God (the sword of the Spirit?). It is a distinction that God alone makes. So when the writer of Ecclesiastes says that the spirit returns to God who gave it (i.e. at death), I don’t see that as being the same as the soul returning to God who gave it. God plainly says that the soul that sins shall die (thus, man is naturally mortal – his soul is mortal as is his body). It may even be that the idea of “spirit” in man has to do with the quickened spirit. I believe that man’s spirit is dead without God quickening it. Thus, it is an “inactive” part that man cannot use or recognize without God “activating” it. Once “activated” (i.e. made alive; quickened), life reigns in the body and can save the soul.
I don’t use these terms to be mechanistic, but rather to illustrate how they are different. The body we all know. The soul is what makes me me and what makes you you. It is identity – involving emotion, personality etc…Of itself, it has no redeeming power but can be redeemed by the life given by the Spirit of God through our spirit. Again, that is more to distinguish action and function – not to say that we are walking around with 3 “parts”. But at the same time (and I say this only to make a point, not to be irreverent), we don’t refer to God’s Spirit as the “Holy Soul”. We recognize this to be wrong. So man must, I think, be tripartite.
Where I see something that is not concrete but certainly showing the unknowable (ultimately) nature of God’s judgment is where Paul deals with the fornicator in 1 Corinthians 5:5. What exactly is taking place, I’m not sure (was he killed or just released from the assembly – I tend to believe he was kicked out to fulfill his lusts that there might be an end reached and a change made – even if only at judgment day). What I do know is that Paul is distinguishing between what is destructible and what isn’t. Spirit may be saved while the body (and soul) may be destroyed. This is the same Paul who said that when we sow to the flesh we reap destruction and when we sow to the spirit we reap life. So to the degree that someone sows to the spirit (by the Spirit), life is cultivated. But if they sow to the flesh, death results and the light that the spirit of man can bear eventually gets snuffed out. In a sense, I see it as “walking in” the flesh or the spirit. If you are walking in the spirit (i.e. by the Spirit of God and putting the flesh to death), you will walk in life and will not only return to God with that spirit (okay, not exactly, but the general idea of “going to heaven” is at least appropriate here). If you are walking in the flesh, when that spirit “returns to God”, you will be left behind, so to speak, to suffer destruction along with the soul and body which Jesus promised would be destroyed in hell.
So redemption allows for the body and soul and spirit all to be saved and preserved (or transformed). Damnation necessarily involves the soul and the flesh – and if it is possible to dwell at all in the spirit, there may be a “so as by fire” salvation that is not like the “so great salvation” but far better than “eternal destruction”.
While it comes down to the judgment of God as to who goes where and for what reasons, we have clear indications that the judgment of the wicked is not at all to be desired – irrespective of duration. I see the scriptures spending far more time warning men of judgment and directing men to the Savior than one will find in UR circles. Indeed, I have yet to find a URer who will warn another of the judgment with any sincerity and conviction. They tend to be more hung up with it not being as long as you have been led to believe. So while my view of the tripartite nature of man leads me to a somewhat different view than I have encountered in mainstream Christianity, I do not see reason to preach any sort of universalist (Christian or otherwise) hope.
I hope that makes my stance at least somewhat clear.
February 10th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Bending the rules of chess?!? BLASPHEMY!!!
Seriously, good episode. I’ve never heard the distinction between Universalism and Ultimate Reconciliation. I would have serious problems with a God who provides severely inadequate instructions on obtaining salvation and then saying ‘tough luck’ once all the information is available without a doubt after death.
February 11th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Raborn said: “When you said that the redemption of the world is one of the ideas that you have repented of, do you mean repented of believing in it, or not believing in it? What are your thoughts on this issue?”
I didn’t make it clear, did I? What I meant to say was that I repented (changed my mind) on the idea that man’s redemption is up to man. I believe that Jesus paid the price at the cross for all of mankind. Telling people of this “Good News” Gospel is our part.
February 21st, 2009 at 9:17 pm
The pastor of the church I had been recently attending believes in ultimate reconciliation and I am open to this view. I have lots and lots of notes that I took on his teachings. I think he did bring in the reference that you (Steve) made to Phil 2:10-11 but I don’t recall him combining it with Romans 10:9 the way you did. Excellent point!
Steve, is your view “burn until you get it then you’re done and are saved?”
Rabom, I don’t think I’ve heard of the annihilation view and I don’t know if you describe it on this podcast. I’m guessing you mean burn ’til consumed then no more burning. Sort of like burn at the stake?
February 21st, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Yabadabadoo, I want to be very careful not to guess too specifically as to how Ultimate Reconciliation could play out because we don’t have those specifics revealed to us.
With that in mind, I would say that your statement is relatively close to what I would say is a possible scenario, although somehow the way you phrased it sounds rather crude! 😉
Thanks for listening and commenting.
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:44 am
“…the way you phrased it sounds rather crude.”
Yah, it does, doesn’t it? I guess that was the best way I could describe it at the moment. The concept itself sounds crude and vile. Such as “You’re going to burn ’til you see things “My way.” Somehow I have a difficult time relating that to love.
I’m not being critical of your point of view – just in the light of love, I’m not sure if that fits.
Great job on your podcasts. Thank you both. I like it that you guys don’t agree (or see things the same way) on everything, showing that you both have minds of your own.
February 28th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
I have a question about free will.
What about the scripture that says that the Lord hardened Pharoahs heart? Can God soften and harden our hearts? And also that no one comes to the Father lest the Spirit draws him. Where does free will come in in? Or where Paul said that the God of this world has blinded mans hearts? Can not God open the blind eyes and have them see? I don’t understand free will too much. Can we talk about his some more? Or the scriptures that say that John 12:39-41 (New King James Version)
39 Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again:
40 “ He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts,
Lest they should see with their eyes,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.”[a]
41 These things Isaiah said when[b] he saw His glory and spoke of Him.
What about these kind of verses? How does free will play into this?
February 28th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Hmmm I guess listening again, you kinda answered my questions about that whole thing…. so, I guess you can disregard the post.