Is Universal Reconciliation Unbiblical?

To Lowly Layman,

Thank you for responding to part of my response but you didn't respond to the other half.

"... If God is all love, shouldn't he forgive the Devil and his Angels as well? Also, if he leaves the people in Hell, is he doing anything wrong?"

Would you please provide your response?

Personally, while I am not fully literate as to the extent of Universalism in the early church, I do believe that the early church can error (Not saying that LL doesn't believe that ). If they may have been influenced by other ideas rather than that of the Bible, then I stand with scripture. OC in an early post did provide some verses where Hell is referred to as not temporal but eternal. To me, I do believe that Hell is forever.

 

I don't know what God's full plan is for the Devil and his minions other than that there is a place in the flames reserved for them. Beyond that, it appears the scriptures are silent. There are no hopeful promises to go along with the declarations of consequences of disobedience as there are for humanity. That does not mean God cannot save them if he so chooses, it just means there is no inclination stated in scriptures that Godwill do that. If no hope is given in the scriptures, then I see no assurance that there is hope to be given.

As to the second question, if God leaves people in Hell is he loving anything wrong, I don't understand the question. According to Calvinists, God sends people to hell, according to Arminians, people send themselves to hell. But I'm not sure what is meant be "leaving" them in hell. For me God is good. If it is his will that some be left then it must be good for him to do so. The law says we all deserve death, if some are given a reprieve, so be it. But let me ask you this, is such a god fair or just? The bible says he shows no partiality, and yet if some are saved simply because of his election and not because of some personal worth within them, how can he be anything other than partial. If he damned all to hell, then he would be just and impartial. He had merged out our due wages. But to save some who deserve death while all the rest gets what's coming to them may show a measure of mercy but it could never mean he was just because his law was not meeted out impartially and perfectly. Ans if is the case, we cannot even say God is honest, since his word says he is just, merciful, and impartial...which clearly he is not. But what if he uses hell as a means of theosis for those who refused forgiveness in life, where punishment is redemptive. Where people are judged a according to their works and some are beat with many lashes and some witty only a few, and eventually one learns to call upon the name of the lord, to ask and receive forgiveness or else continue to pay to the last farthing of their sins but always the goal will be final reconciliation. In such a way, God can be merciful, just, and impartial, and still he can have his will that none be lost ultimately be done.

 

But if God is all love, shouldn't he do a path for the Devil and his minions as a sort of way for them be once again with God? Should he provide a "theosis" for them? Should not hell be a place where one day that shall call upon the name of the Lord? Why is it that God favors man and rejects the fallen angels? Why is he partial towards man if he is impartial? If God is good, should he not draw everyone from His wrath? If His wrath is temporal, why does he not save them as well?

 

Those are all very good questions PC, but on these, the bible stays silent and therefore so must I. Perhaps he will save them PC, but I see no assurance in scripture that he will. God is God, he can do as he pleases, but just because he can do something is no guarantee that he chooses to. A good Calvinist should know that. But if the scriptures are to be believed, then God is love. If he puts the Devil and his angels in the flames reserved for them, then it is loving for him to do so. I will go as far as the bible allows but I won't, can't, go farther. Beyond that such questions are best addressed to God, since he is the only one able to answer them. Sorry I could not give you more.

 

Sorry again for the typos. I'm on my cell phone and fat fingers on a touch screen + an over-eager autocorrect equals aggravations.

 

Lol, talk about providence. While on the Project Canterbury site, I went to click on Lightfoot and fat fingers clicked on the guy below him, beforei could angrily hit the back button the title of this article caught my eye. It appears. The argument over the eternality of hell is not a new one to Anglicanism: http://anglicanhistory.org/maurice/jelf_letter1854.html

 

I do The questions I ask were rhetorical in nature. My point was that you claimed that God's anger is temporal and yet it is only temporal for humans? Why does he favor humans and not the fallen angels? Couldn't it be said that God chooses to put people in Hell for their own good? And if we don't know why, isn't it better to not presume?

 

If your questions are rhetorical, then why did you ask me for an answer? It absolutely could be said that God chooses to put people in hell for their own good, in fact that's exactly what I have said. Hell is remedial and redemptive., thus it cannot be eternal.

 

Is that a rhetorical question?

But my point was that what if hell was eternal? If God chooses to put them their for eternity, we don't know why he does that, but should we presume?

 

True. But then this thread isn't about why he puts people in Hell for eternity since I'm not sure even IF he puts them in hell for eternity. In fact, I believe quite the opposite so I don't think I'm a very good person to ask.

 

Yes, I have mentioned Maurice's stand before. He is also my favorite Anglican theologian. He refused to identify with any "party" in the church, even the "No Party" party.

 

I'd just like to add I really prefer the Orthodox view on this topic. Although I usually get in trouble for this video because some how it goes against the Church or so I have been told.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WosgwLekgn8