This is a response to this rebuttal of my original Seven Arguments Which Show That Universalism is a False Doctrine that I posted on Reddit
The Aionios Argument
Objection A: Since this judgment of "eternal" fire is said to serve as a warning, it cannot be a reference to a postmortem judgment of the Sodomites. Such judgment could not be observed as a lesson for the living; furthermore, the Sodomites would not presently be experiencing their final punishment, which awaits the day of judgment and the lake of fire. The "consuming fire" is God himself (Heb. 12:29)
Reply: First problem is that Hebrews 12:29 uses the word "katanaliskó" not aionios; the former means "to use up", the latter means "agelong, eternal" - this seems to be equivocating on what is in the text.
Secondly if we use the this defintion of Aionios that is proposed then we will have a problem with the following veres:
Matthew 18:8, “If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire.”
Matthew 25:41, “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;”
Are we to think that Matthew when says that people are being cast "into the eternal fire", he means that they are cast into God!?!?!
So on those 2 points we can reject this proposed rebuttal.
Objection B: When aionios modifies words like "life," "glory?" "righteous-ness," "salvation," "wrath," and "punishment," could it not be that the writers are simply speaking of these things as coming from God, and being manifestations of His character or attri-butes, which are eternal?
Reply: "could it not be" is not a a convincing argument. To be convincing it should be the best explanation. No reason is given why that is the best explantion, and given the problem with being cast "into the eternal fire" - i.e. God; one can reject this until, at least a cogent argument is presented.
Objection C: Since this judgment of "eternal" fire is said to serve as a warning, it cannot be a reference to a postmortem judgment of the Sodomites. Such judgment could not be observed as a lesson for the living;...
Reply: One can, as countless other Christians have in the past, read this warning and heed it. So, this definately can be a lesson for the living!
Objection D: ....furthermore, the Sodomites would not presently be experiencing their final punishment, which awaits the day of judgment and the lake of fire.
Reply: So what? How does the fact that the day of judgment has not yet been imposed mean that everyone is saved?
Argument 2 - the Two Ways argument
Objection E: The problem with these texts is the attempt to make them a reference to eternal fates in the afterlife. In fact, the condition of those in the afterlife isn’t mentioned explicitly anywhere in the entire OT. The fate of the wicked after death is nowhere mentioned in the entirety of the OT.
Reply: We have the New Testament to refer. See Annihilationism and Revelation 20
Four facts we can glean from Revelation 20
1) The devil was thrown into the lake of fire along with the beast and the false prophet, [vs 10]
2) where they will be tormented day and night forever and ever [vs 10]
3) The lake of fire is the second death. [vs 14]
4) Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was also thrown into the lake of fire. [vs 15] [See the link above for the full argument.]
1) The devil was thrown into the lake of fire along with the beast and the false prophet, [vs 10]
2) where they will be tormented day and night forever and ever [vs 10]
3) The lake of fire is the second death. [vs 14]
4) Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was also thrown into the lake of fire. [vs 15] [See the link above for the full argument.]
Objection F: I would like to add, that there’s an assumption that if God brings a judgement, that the purpose of that judgement is apparently anything other than disciplinary, and isn’t for the purpose of purification. I would like to argue that this assumption is wrong in a future post.
Reply: I have assumed nothing; if that is where the text leads, then I follow.
Argument 3 - the no righteous judgment argument
Objection G: this is an outright straw man. I don’t know of any evangelical universalists that believe God doesn’t exercise judgment upon sinners. The only difference is the universalist believes that God’s judgement upon sinners is for the purpose of reconciliation, and ultimate restoration.
Reply: Perhaps I should rephrase the title of the argument, but it seems you reacted to the title, not the actual argument: Revelation offers a picture of God’s righteous judgment against a sinful world, in overt rebellion against himself, as the bowls of his wrath are poured out in Revelation 16. The Beast, the False Prophet, and the Devil are later seized by the Lord and unrepentant sinners are thrown into “the lake of fire” - which is the second death.
Argument 4 - wise and foolish virgins argument
Objection H: this argument rests upon a futurist interpretation of the Gospel accounts. I am a preterist concerning Matthew 24-25 (most of 25).
Reply: Above. you went on about what you thought I assumed. Yet here you assume preterism, and that is the lens upon which you interpret the Bible. If one is going to offer an objection based on preterism they should at least be able to articulate why it is the correct view.
Argument 5 - the defeat of God’s last remaining enemy
Objection I: Our debate is ultimately what the apostles believe, as revealed in their letters. This means that any text that’s presented to prove something must be scrutinized in its context. 1 Corinthians 15 is an excellent example of what happens when our theology isn’t derived from a proper understanding of the Bible.
“But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.” I Corinthians 15:20-22 NKJV
This is immediately before the passages quoted in the OP. Directly in the same context. Now, unless there’s a valid reason to conclude that the all in Adam isn’t the same all in Christ, then presumably all will be resurrected to life.
Reply: The first part of 1 Cor 15:22 is clear. All the descendants of Adam die physically. The phrase in Adam all die means that all who are in Adam die physically. We are all in Adam. The second part of the verse depends on the meanings of the expressions "in Christ" and shall be made alive.
Does in Christ here refer exclusively to believers, as it typically does throughout Paul’s writings when he is referring to those who are in Christ (e.g., 1 Cor 3:1; 15:18; 2 Cor 5:17; 12:2; Gal 5:6; 6:15; Eph 2:13; Phil 1:1)?
“But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.” I Corinthians 15:20-22 NKJV
This is immediately before the passages quoted in the OP. Directly in the same context. Now, unless there’s a valid reason to conclude that the all in Adam isn’t the same all in Christ, then presumably all will be resurrected to life.
Reply: The first part of 1 Cor 15:22 is clear. All the descendants of Adam die physically. The phrase in Adam all die means that all who are in Adam die physically. We are all in Adam. The second part of the verse depends on the meanings of the expressions "in Christ" and shall be made alive.
Does in Christ here refer exclusively to believers, as it typically does throughout Paul’s writings when he is referring to those who are in Christ (e.g., 1 Cor 3:1; 15:18; 2 Cor 5:17; 12:2; Gal 5:6; 6:15; Eph 2:13; Phil 1:1)?
And we can note who this epistle was addressed to: the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus - i.e believers
Third, the promise of everlasting life to the believer is an exclusive promise. Only those who believe have that life (John 3:14-18, 36; 5:39-40).
Fourth, the Scriptures are clear that there is no such thing as people dying in unbelief, then later gaining everlasting life (John 8:24; Heb 9:27; Rev 20:15).
Third, the promise of everlasting life to the believer is an exclusive promise. Only those who believe have that life (John 3:14-18, 36; 5:39-40).
Fourth, the Scriptures are clear that there is no such thing as people dying in unbelief, then later gaining everlasting life (John 8:24; Heb 9:27; Rev 20:15).
Objection J: The resurrection of the lost means that all of creation has been reclaimed by Christ. For some inexplicable reason, OP has concluded that those in the lake of fire are enemies of God. Why? Christ has already reclaimed them, they belong to Him, even as they’re going through the process of purification before entering into the new Jerusalem. That’s the hinge OP’s entire argument hangs upon, but there’s really no reason to conclude that those Christ has resurrected are His enemies anymore.
Reply: Again see Annihilationism and Revelation 20; we have good reason to conclude that those in the lake of fire are enemies of God.
Argument 6 - God delaying the day of judgment argument
Objection K: the assumption that OP is making is that every single reference to future judgement from the different authors’ perspectives is the same event. It could be, it could not be, but that’s the point of contention.
Reply: This is a strawman fallacy. No where did I say that "every single reference to future judgement from the different authors’ perspectives is the same event.".
Objection L: Is Peter speaking of an impending national judgement at the hands of the Romans, or a still future eschatological judgement dealing with the afterlife?....Presuming OP affirms eternal Conscious Torment, this presents a problem. It would strongly suggest that, if a future judgement, then Annihilationism would be the exegetically appropriate interpretation. Given OP’s final link, I assume he doesn’t affirm Annihilationism. This is a problem for him if he wants a futurist interpretation of 1 Peter, as well as maintain ECT.
Objection L: Is Peter speaking of an impending national judgement at the hands of the Romans, or a still future eschatological judgement dealing with the afterlife?....Presuming OP affirms eternal Conscious Torment, this presents a problem. It would strongly suggest that, if a future judgement, then Annihilationism would be the exegetically appropriate interpretation. Given OP’s final link, I assume he doesn’t affirm Annihilationism. This is a problem for him if he wants a futurist interpretation of 1 Peter, as well as maintain ECT.
Reply: This is too vague to comment on; You will have to specify which verses you speak of.
Argument 7 - the removal argument
Objection L: I’m sorry to bang this drum again, but, having a preterist interpretation provides no issue between this passage and universalism. This event already happened when the old religious system of Israel was obliterated. The church “kingdom that cannot be shaken” was in fact not shaken when Israel was almost annihilated.
Reply: It seems that the lynchpin of your rebuttal is preterism. So the ball is in your court to show that it's the correct view.
Objection M: “For our God is a consuming fire.” Hebrews 12:29 NKJV. As I’ve mentioned, what the purpose and nature of this fire is would have to be examined, but if this fire indeed is a purifying fire,...
Objection M: “For our God is a consuming fire.” Hebrews 12:29 NKJV. As I’ve mentioned, what the purpose and nature of this fire is would have to be examined, but if this fire indeed is a purifying fire,...
Reply: This objection relies on the word "IF" - "if this fire indeed is a purifying fire..." Well is it? Where is the argument that it is?
Objection N: then the context suggests that this is the kind of God who’s judgements, always are from the expression of love, as the author stated earlier: Hebrews 12:5-7
Reply: To whom do you think the author was speaking to? That's an important element of the context to consider. The preceding was Hebrews 11, the great chapter about those who are walking by faith. Do all walk by faith? No. In context this to fgaithful believers; you are taking it pout of context to apply it to unrepentant unbelievers
No comments:
Post a Comment