Universal Reconciliation, Final Annihilation, or Eternal Misery?
Two pages are being written, starting in 2014, by Craig Rusbult: This page builds on the foundation of my main page — which begins with brief descriptions of the three views — by examining ideas in more depth. </
These two pages — asking “what will happen to unbelievers during their afterlife?” — are being written for:
• people who believe the Bible and use it to construct their worldview, their view of the world, used for living in the world. {What is a worldview?} {note: There has been a major change in my thinking about (and description of) who it's "being written for" so you should read the new version.}
• unbelievers who are curious, wondering “in a Bible-based worldview, what will happen during life-after-death? what does the Bible teach about heaven and hell?”
For both groups we'll be asking a question: Why have most people (both believers and unbelievers) been assuming & teaching, for the past 1500 years, a doctrine of “eternal life in hell” that the Bible doesn't seem to teach?
Table of Contents
Below, in Part 2 (to supplement the "Part 1" sections in my Introductory Overview) you'll find:
• My Views
• Immortality is Conditional
• Comparing the Views
• Part 2 of five major sections in colored boxes:
Universal Reconciliation (reasons to be Hopeful and Optimistic),
Relationships (with God & People),
Justice (asking “what is fair?”),
Evangelism (why should anyone want to be a Follower of Christ? – motivations),
Educational Experiences (in Life & Afterlife).
• Later, each of these major sections has a Part 3 with more details, as shown in a later Table of Contents.
I.O.U. - Although most of this page is now well developed, many parts (especially late in the page) also have IOUs for “fixing loose ends” with editing, or for “more ideas-content.”
a disclaimer: In this page you won't find much that is new, if you've read what others have written about these topics. Mainly I'm just describing-and-summarizing ideas I have learned (and am learning) from other people in their websites and books and from studying the Bible.
The three views are summarized here.
My Views
For a long time, for 29 years beginning in 1987, I have carefully studied FA (final Annihilation) and EM (eternal Misery), and I wrote two papers about FA-versus-EM between 1995 and 2010. I also studied UR (universal Reconciliation) but much less thoroughly. Recently, beginning in late 2014, I've begun to learn more about UR.
What are my current views?
theologically, I'm a Bible-believing fundamentalist,* a Protestant, a trinitarian evangelical Christian. {* sociologically, I think fundamentalist Christians should care about social justice and should work for it, because it's a major emphasis of God in the Bible.}
biblically, using Bible-based logic, I think Universal Reconciliation and Final Annihilation are most strongly supported in the Bible, with Eternal Misery far behind. EM is "far behind" partly because I'm confident that the Bible clearly teaches a Conditional Immortality that could occur with UR or FA, but not EM. And also because...
ethically, it seems to me – but with appropriate humility – that the moral character of God is worst with Eternal Misery, is much better with Final Annihilation, and is best with Universal Reconciliation.
emotionally, I like Universal Reconciliation the most, and Eternal Misery the least.
Overall, when all things are considered, what do I think will happen? I'm not certain. But I am biblically confident about Conditional Immortality, so I'm very confident (but not certain) that “what will happen” won't be Eternal Misery. I think Final Annihilation is one possibility, and this would be emotionally satisfactory for me. But in my deepest feelings, emotionally I hope for Universal Reconciliation; biblically, I see logical reasons to think UR (or semi-UR) will happen, but also that it won't happen; therefore, I'm a hopeful optimistic (but not confident) evangelical Universalist. { I think all Christians should hope for UR. After agreeing about this, we can examine Bible-based reasons for why we should or shouldn't be optimistic that everyone ultimately will be reconciled with God. }
My Views - in Two Stages
Stage 1: First, I concluded (in the late-1980s) that Eternal Misery is very unlikely because it seems incompatible with the character of God when we ask “WWJD?” and it isn't compatible with the Conditional Immortality that is clearly taught in the Bible. Conditional Immortality (CI) is impossible with Eternal Misery (EM), but would be possible with either Final Annihilation (FA) or Universal Reconciliation (UR). Therefore, the logical definition of CI is “either FA or UR” instead of “only FA”.
Stage 2: Second, in my evaluations of FA-versus-UR, the overall biblical support for FA and UR seems to be similar.
Combining these two stages by asking two questions — first "WHAT is the penalty for sin?" and then "WHO will receive this penalty" — produces a summary of my views:
because, when asking WHAT, "the penalty for sin" is death, I'm confident that EM will not happen, but (re: the second question and its results) I'm not confident when asking “WHO will receive the death penalty? will it be some people with FA (or semi-UR) or nobody with UR?” I'm a confident Conditionalist (after Stage 1) who currently thinks there is not enough evidence to choose (in Stage 2) between FA and UR.
regarding Universal Reconciliation, I'm Hopeful, and am Optimistic but not Confident: I think everyone should be a Hopeful Universalist who hopes UR will happen; and, based on what the Bible teaches, I'm Optimistic in thinking “UR might happen,” but Not Confident in claiming “UR will happen.”
This section supplements my introductory summary about Conditional Immortality and the closely related Death Penalty for Sin.
If we believe the Bible, why should we reject a doctrine of Eternal Misery? Two strong Bible-based reasons are the character of God (re: love+justice when we ask WWJD) and because Eternal Misery would violate the Biblical principle of Conditional Immortality and the closely related Death Penalty for Sin:
Conditional Immortality
Briefly, here is our sad-and-happy story of DEATH-and-SALVATION, from Genesis-and-Revelation.
Initially, as described in Genesis, re: what is now happening in Life, DEATH began when we lost our potential immortality. The rebellious sin of Adam (in Genesis 3:1-6), when he disobeyed God by eating from "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil," produced three results for Adam and Eve, in Genesis 3: 7-13 & 14-19 & 22-24, when...
• their sinful disobedience immediately (in verses 7-13) caused an intrinsic decrease in the quality of their spiritual relationship with God, so they began living in a state of spiritual sinning, and then...
two divine judicial decrees (in 14-19, and 22-24) caused:
• a decrease in their quality of living, and
• a loss of potential immortality when God declared (Genesis 3:22) that Adam — who already had immense reductions in quality of life, both spiritually (in 7-13) and physically (14-19) — also would have an immense reduction in length of life, because a sinner "must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." Without the supernatural "tree of life," Adam (and Eve) had physical mortality, and their natural process-of-dying began in Life, ending in their physical death.
Eventually, as described in Revelation, re: what will happen in Afterlife, God can use SALVATION (that will include SANCTIFICATION to eliminate sinning) to solve our problems of spiritual sinning and physical mortality (death). How & When, and Who? These questions are examined below in A Problem-Solving Perspective on Sin and Death — Human Problems, Divine Solutions.
Or you can skip to other topics:
Conditional Immortality is not Dependent Immortality ,
4 Bible-Based Reasons to Reject a Doctrine of Eternal Misery ,
but can Eternal Misery be defended by Re-Defining Life and Death? .
I.O.U. — In each section, some parts (those without IOU's) are well developed now, but other parts (with explanatory IOU's) need work. I'll continue thinking-and-writing in late 2017, and the parts I'm working on will improve, but it will take awhile to develop-and-revise all parts.
A Problem Solving Perspective on Sin-and-Death — Human Problems and Divine Solutions
What is problem solving? It can be useful, for education and in other ways, to define problem solving broadly as anything that “makes it better” in any area of life. In the BIG area of sin-and-death, how is God “making it better” now, and later? Below, I'll describe this three ways, in a brief summary, a table, and a detailed examination. Briefly, in the Bible we see...
• a PROBLEM: The first humans (Eve & Adam) disobeyed God by eating from "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" and their spiritual sinning decreased the quality of their close relationship with God.
• a SOLUTION: To solve a person's problem of spiritual sinning, God can give them salvation-with-justification (to forgive their sins) and sanctification (to progressively reduce their sinning, until in Afterlife they will have no spiritual sinning).
• a SOLUTION: To solve a person's problem of physical mortality that leads to physical death, God will give every saved-and-sanctified person (who is forgiven, and in Afterlife will have no spiritual sinning) a physical immortality in their Afterlife.
• a SEMI-SOLUTION: To "make it better" compared with a worse situation, God is preventing the unacceptably bad situation (it's the worst possible, I think) of a person living forever in sinful misery, which would occur if they have physical immortality while they remain in a state of spiritual sinning. To prevent this eternal spiritual sinning, God decided that sinners "must not... live forever," so during Life (when "all have sinned" and continue sinning) all humans have physical mortality and thus physical death. This semi-solution (to produce a situation that is not the best, but is better than the worst) will continue in Afterlife because God has decided that all unsaved persons — if they continue, unjustified/unforgiven and unsanctified, in their spiritual sinning — also will have physical mortality (and physical death) in their Afterlife.
•• To solve our human problems involving physical mortality, God uses a conditional immortality with an iff-then condition — so a person will be immortal if saved, but mortal if unsaved — that would be violated by Eternal Misery. This violation, which would cause the "unacceptable situation" of eternal spiritual sinning, is strong biblical evidence against Eternal Misery.
The main ideas above are organized in this table about Human Problems and Divine Solutions,
| |
two unsolved problems: |
two solved problems: |
SPIRITUAL states,
with sinning and
without sinning:
|
• spiritual sinning (not best relationship);
intrinsic result, described in Gen 3:7-13. |
• salvation by life+death+resurrection of Jesus,
with sanctification by spiritual transformation;
decided & produced by God's grace-and-power. |
PHYSICAL states,
mortal (→ death)
and immortal: |
• physical mortality without Tree of Life;
is judicial decree of death, in Gen 3:22-24,
because sinners "must not... live forever,"
is semi-solution to avoid WORST combo. |
• conditional immortality with (IFF) Tree of Life;
is judicial decree (Rev 2:7, 22:14) using IFF-then,
so people (after resurrection in Afterlife) will be
mortal IF unsaved or immortal IF saved. |
states of saved
if UR or FA or EM: |
• salvation with sanctification (→ no spiritual sinning in Afterlife)
• physical immortality (→ no death)
( matching is ok: solved and solved ),
is BEST, is ideal because God solves both problems. |
states of unsaved
if CI (if UR or FA): |
• spiritual sinning (unsaved, therefore unsanctified)
• physical mortality (→ death)
( matching is ok: unsolved and [for the unsaved] unsolved ),
would be SAD, would be the result of God's Death Penalty for Sin. |
states of unsaved
if not-CI (if EM): |
• spiritual sinning (unsaved, therefore unsanctified)
• physical immortality (→ no death) → eternal spiritual sinning
( mis-matching: unsolved and de-solved
[with semi-solved → unsolved] ),
would be WORST combination, unacceptable so (Gen 3:22) God prevents it. |
states of unsaved
if EM, but redefine
LIFE-and-DEATH: |
even though Tree of Life not given to unsaved people, they still (how?) have
eternal conscious existence (physical immortality), with spiritual sinning,
so the two problems still are de-solved (for death) and unsolved (for sin), to
→ same unacceptable result: WORST combination, eternal spiritual sinning.
|
Below is a Detailed Examination of ideas that are outlined above in a Summary and Table. I will describe how God has been and is and will be — in the past and present and future — solving problems involving Sin and Death.
one part of God's Problem-Solutions for Life and Afterlife: As described above, God decided (Genesis 3:22) that a sinner "must not... live forever," and because "all have sinned" (Romans 3:23) all will not live forever during Life; instead all people will have physical mortality during Life. Even though the result is physical death at the end of Life, this is a problem-solution (by "making it better" compared with a much worse situation) because God has decided that death is better than a situation that would be much worse, that would be unacceptable so God will not let it happen. This "much worse" situation — that God will not allow — would happen IF God allowed a person to "live forever" (because they had continuing access to His supernatural "tree of life") in a state of eternal spiritual sinning.
another part of God's Problem-Solutions for Life and Afterlife: In a continuation of this divine policy (with a Death Penalty for Sin, with spiritual sinning → physical mortality and thus death) by extending the policy from Life into Afterlife, God states (Revelation 2:7 & 22:14) that He will re-give the "tree of life" (and thus physical immortality) in Afterlife, but only to saved people who "overcome," who "wash their robes." After these saved-and-justified people have their sins forgiven by God,* and with sanctification God has transformed them from their state of spiritual sinning into a state with no spiritual sinning so they can live forever without sin. How? Because of the death of Jesus (to allow justification through substitutionary atonement by the grace of God) and the resurrection of Jesus (to produce victory over death by the power of God), a person can receive salvation (when God forgives their sins) and sanctification (when God spiritually transforms them so instead of continuing their slavery-to-sin, they can be liberated, partially during Life and totally during Afterlife); in Afterlife they will become totally sanctified (with no spiritual sinning) so they will be suitable to receive physical immortality and thus Eternal Life with Joy. In this way, for saved people during their Life-and-Afterlife, God eventually will solve BOTH problems, by healing their spiritual sinning (with sanctification) so He can replace their physical mortality (and death) with physical immortality (and life).
* If people "have their sins forgiven by God," He would be “justified” in giving them physical immortality. But for a variety of biblical reasons — especially consistency with Genesis 3:22, which seems to require that they must be able to live forever without sinning — I think it's extremely probable (almost certain) that God also "has transformed them... [how might He do this?] into a state with no spiritual sinning."
an important result of God's Problem-Solutions for Life and Afterlife: As explained above, God has promised that He will prevent the unacceptable situation of "causing a person to live forever in a state of eternal spiritual sinning." This divine goal could not be achieved with a policy of Eternal Misery in which God would be causing an unsaved person to live forever in sinful misery, instead of preventing it. Instead, based on what the Bible clearly teaches (in Genesis 3:22-24 plus Revelation 2:7 & 22:14), this divine causing of eternal spiritual sinning will not happen, so it's one of 4 strong Bible-based reasons (it's #2a) to reject a doctrine of Eternal Misery. { God removed his supernatural immortality-enabling "tree of life" for two purposes: to protect people by not causing sinners to exist forever; to protect His creation, by not causing sinning to exist forever. }
Basically, God is adjusting mortality to make it appropriate for the sin-situation by using Conditional Immortality (which could occur with FA or UR, but not with EM) by causing non-sinners to live forever, and causing sinners to not live forever. God's decree-and-actions, in Genesis 3:22-24, produce a temporary semi-solution that eventually becomes a permanent total solution. How? Currently, God is giving all people physical mortality during Life, so death remains a temporarily unsolved problem. Later, Conditional Immortality will be used in Afterlife when, in a two-part total solution,
God will prevent the worst combination of spiritual & physical states, which would occur if sinners are living forever in Eternal Misery, with eternal spiritual sinning, and
God will produce the best combination of spiritual & physical states, because non-sinners will be living forever.
But if God causes Eternal Misery, He would be de-solving one part of this total solution — He would be changing a problem-situation that had been solved and was satisfactory, in a way that would make it unsatisfactory — by causing an Afterlife in which "sinners are living forever" instead of preventing this horrible combination. Fortunately, He has wisely decided (as described in Genesis & Revelation) that He will not do this. The divine solving-of-problems, by using Conditional Immortality, could occur with FA or UR, but not with EM.
A divine policy of Conditional Immortality, using an IFF (IF and only IF) Condition, allows the effective coordinating of problem-solutions. With this policy — by deciding that physical immortality will be conditional, that it will be given to only a saved person who has been given salvation-with-sanctification, and only in their Afterlife — God has decided that He will solve BOTH problems (of Sin and Death) or He will solve NEITHER, that He will...
solve neither:* IF spiritual sinning (so an important problem remains unsolved), THEN physical mortality, as described in Genesis 3:22, or...
solve both: IF no spiritual sinning (so this important problem has been solved), THEN no physical mortality, as described in Revelation 2:7 & 22:14.
* But although neither problem has been totally solved because God currently is not producing the BEST situation (of Everlasting Joy in Heaven), He is achieving a semi-solution by preventing the WORST situation (of Everlasting Misery in Hell). The goal of His divine policy, stated in Genesis 3:22 and actualized in Genesis 3:23-24, is to prevent eternal spiritual sinning. Now, in the present, God is pursuing this goal during Life, beginning to achieve it. Later, in the future, He will finish achieving this goal during Afterlife.
MORE — Are defenders of Eternal Misery being biblical-and-logical in their claims about spiritual death (instead of physical death) and eternal existence in misery (that it isn't living forever, isn't immortality) ?
Conditional Immortality is not Dependent Immortality
There is a very important difference between immortality that is Conditional and is Dependent.
All views should propose a biblical Dependent Existence with existence that depends on God — with humans (or human souls) existing, in Life or Afterlife, for awhile or forever, only if God enables their existence — instead of an intrinsic Independent Existence that occurs without God. All of us should acknowledge that, no w and in the future, our existence is dependent on (contingent on) God providing it. Consistent with Conditional Immortality, God will choose to give an everlasting conscious existence to some people (with FA or semi-UR) or to all people (with UR), and this will be a Dependent Immortality. { These two immortalities are distinct (i.e., The Dependence is not The Condition) but are causally related because Conditional Immortality is possible due to the Dependent Existence that lets God choose – on the basis of His Condition – who will and won't be given life, either "for awhile or [if He decides to give a particular person immortality that is dependent-and-conditional] forever." }
I.O.U. - Later, the paragraphs above and below will be combined, and I'll revise this section to eliminate duplication-of-ideas.
The Condition is "IF (and only if) saved, THEN immortal" for Conditional Immortality. Another biblical principle — distinct yet related,* and acceptable in all views (UR, FA, EM) — is Dependent Immortality because "humans (or human souls) exist, in Life or Afterlife, for awhile or forever, only if God enables their existence," as described in Part 1 {of Conditional Immortality}, re: Conscious Existence that is Dependent (biblical) or Independent (unbiblical).
* Distinct yet Related: The Dependence is not The Condition, so these are distinct. But they are related because Conditional Immortality is possible due to Dependent Immortality; the living conscious existence of every creature is enabled by God, with their life created-and-sustained by God, so He must make choices (based on The Condition) about who will and won't live, now during Life and later in Afterlife, whether their living is "for awhile or forever." { the importance of consciousness: The foundational principle of Descartes — "I think, therefore I am" or “I am conscious, therefore I am alive” or or “I am conscious, therefore I exist” — is one reason why we should challenge a claim, made by defenders of EM, that an unsaved person's conscious existence in misery is not being alive in misery, is not life in misery, so it isn't immortality for the unsaved, so (they illogically try to claim) Eternal Misery does not violate Conditional Immortality. }
Universal Unconditional Immortality versus Dependent Existence: Unfortunately, defenders of EM often assume a universal unconditional immortality of humans (or human souls) that God cannot revoke or (more commonly) will not revoke. But this claim is never taught anywhere in the Bible.
Rev 22:2, Tree of Life has fruit every month, → saved people need continual/continuing enabling-by-God to have continuing living-in-Afterlife ?
Four Bible-Based Reasons to Reject a Doctrine of Eternal Misery
My introductory overview of Conditional Immortality and The Death Penalty ends by listing "four related reasons to reject Eternal Misery," because EM violates biblical principles about...
1 - conditional immortality ,
2a - a world without sin ,
2b - a world without death ,
3 - substitutionary atonement .
When you click one of these four italicized links you'll find details about that biblical reason to reject EM. { In addition to these 4 reasons, there are other biblical reasons to reject EM. }
1 — In afterlife, will everyone (whether they're saved or unsaved) be immortal?
The overview-page briefly outlines "four related reasons to reject Eternal Misery." In this subsection you'll find details about one of the reasons, to supplement its outline:
1 — EM would violate the Conditional Immortality clearly taught in the Bible, because even though the Bible states that a sinner "must not... live forever," with EM unsaved sinners would be forced to "live forever" in Misery.
The biblical evidence-and-logic for Conditional Immortality is clear and strong:
in Genesis (3:22), God declares that sinners "must not... live forever" so — to prevent this — He removes our access to His "tree of life," and
in Revelation (2:7, 22:14), God declares that He will give His "tree of life" to a person IF they are saved.
But if God will force unsaved sinners to "live forever" in Eternal Misery, it would contradict these statements in Genesis and Revelation. { Do you see why Conditional Immortality could happen with Final Annihilation or Universal Reconciliation but not with Eternal Misery? }
The biblical evidence-and-logic for Conditional Immortality is very strong. Therefore, I'm surprised when Bible-believing Christians continue to defend Eternal Misery. I'm confused, wondering “what don't they understand, and why?”
Three typical responses by defenders of Eternal Misery are...
a non-solution: They just ignore Genesis 3:22 (about The Death Penalty for Sin) and Revelation 2:7 & 22:14 (about Conditional Immortality), pretending these biblical statements don't exist.
another non-solution: They can claim that “hell verses” (like Matthew 25:46 where Jesus describes how people who ignore the poor-and-needy "will go away into eternal punishment") prove an Eternal Misery that requires Unconditional Immortality, so verses that seem to teach a Death Penalty and Conditional Immortality must be re-interpreted, or just ignored. {why isolated "hell verses" do not provide strong support for Eternal Misery}
an attempted solution: In an attempt to defend Eternal Misery, they re-define death and life* so they can claim that a sinner who has eternal conscious existence in misery does not "live forever" — instead they “die forever” — so the sinner's eternal conscious existence does not violate God's declaration, in Genesis 3:22, that a sinner "must not... live forever."
A Rational Defense of Eternal Misery
I think this "attempted solution" — by re-defining death and life — is wrong, but is rational. It might be the best way for them to defend a doctrine that probably is wrong, that seems wrong because it's unbiblical, because it doesn't seem consistent with what the Bible teaches. I think it would be more rational for defenders Eternal Misery to humbly say “we're wrong.” But if they want to continue claiming “we're correct,” then re-defining death is a rational way for them to defend their claim.
What are my goals for this section?
• First, I want to describe the strongest possible argument-for-EM that I can imagine, to defend it against the strong biblical evidence for Conditional Immortality and The Death Penalty for Sin that is strong biblical evidence against Eternal Misery.
• Second, I want to explain why this argument is not strong, why its apparent strength is only superficial, why it seems much weaker after we have carefully examined the biblical evidence-and-logic.
•• Basically, I want to describe the strongest possible arguments-for-EM and arguments-against-EM.* { Here, I'm focusing on Conditional Immortality and The Death Penalty. Of course, EM also can be defended in other ways, mainly by claiming support from a few isolated hell verses. }
* I want to avoid intellectual dishonesty, so I want to avoid pretending that weak distorted "strawman" arguments-for-EM are their strongest arguments.
Therefore, please tell me if you see: other ways (that I haven't yet seen) to develop a stronger argument-for-EM in response to The Death Penalty and Conditional Immortality; or any weakness, biblically or logically, in my counter-arguments.
During our process of evaluating these arguments, for and against EM, we can...
ask WHAT(+HOW), WHY, and WHO, for Genesis and Revelation.
• To learn from Genesis 3:22-24, we should ask questions about WHAT and WHY: during Life & Afterlife, WHAT does The Tree of Life do? and HOW? and WHY did God want to remove The Tree of Life?
• To learn from Revelation 2:7 and 22:14, we should ask a question about WHO: during Life & Afterlife, WHO will receive The Tree of Life, as a gift from God?
Basically, I think
WHO -- all agree,
WHY -- EM satisfactory, but strange? [non obvious]
WHAT -- serious inconsistency problems
HOW -- all agree? (iou + i don'[t think it matters, except for intrinsic immortality out of god's control)
PART 2:
First we'll look at the questions about WHO and WHAT.
WHO will receive The Tree of Life?
Now, during Life, no person is allowed to eat from "the tree of life," as described in Genesis 3:22-24.
Later, during Afterlife, "the tree of life" will be given to people who are saved, who "wash their robes" (Revelation 22:14) to "overcome" (Revelation 2:7).
* How do defenders of EM re-define death and life? If they choose “separation” to be the defining characteristic of death, a spiritual death can be separation from God, and eternal spiritual death (defined as eternal death, or "the second death" or simply death) can be separation from God in an eternal afterlife-hell. Similarly, eternal life can be eternal communion with God (defined as spiritual life) in an eternal afterlife-heaven. {an example of re-definitions} {3 ways to define the second death}
For defenders of Eternal Misery, this definition of death is important because it allows a claim that if a person “exists forever” with Eternal Misery due to being separated from God, this person does not "live forever" (in a life that would violate Genesis 3:22), instead they “die forever”. Why is this important?
an attempted solution: In an attempt to defend Eternal Misery, they re-define death and life* so they can claim that a sinner who has eternal conscious existence in misery does not "live forever" — instead they “die forever” — so the sinner's eternal conscious existence does not violate God's declaration, in Genesis 3:22, that a sinner "must not... live forever."
table? -- nec for Death (Phys + Spir)(col-col), during Life + After (row-row), for each view, for EM (+CI?)
| |
if Conditional Immortality (CI),
if Unsaved People are
annihilated or reconciled, |
if Eternal Misery (EM),
if Unsaved People are
tormented forever, |
WHAT: is Tree
needed to prevent
Physical Death? |
during LIFE, CI says YES, and EM says YES,
because all (Saved & Unsaved) are without Tree,
so all have Physical Death. |
during Afterlife, CI says YES,
because Unsaved are without Tree,
and have Physical Death. |
during Afterlife, CI says NO, because
Unsaved are without Tree,
but
have no Physical Death;
this NO is a biblical problem. |
WHAT: is Tree
needed to prevent
Spiritual Death? |
|
not (all immortal) |
| |
if Conditional Immortality,
is Tree of Life necessary
to prevent Physical Death? |
if Eternal Misery,
is Tree of Life necessary
to prevent Physical Death? |
| in Life, |
YES, because
all are without Tree,
all have Physical Death. |
YES, because
all are without Tree,
all have Physical Death. |
in Afterlife,
|
YES, because
Unsaved are without Tree,
and have Physical Death.
(this is God's desired result) |
NO, because
Unsaved are without Tree,
but have no Physical Death.
This is a biblical problem. |
| |
Tree nec for
NO Spiritual Death
(with CI, not not) |
Tree nec for
NO Physical Death
(with CI, NEC NEC) |
| Life |
not (born again) |
NEC (none immortal) |
| Afterlife |
NEC (for Joy) |
not (all immortal) |
| |
during LIFE,
God removes The Tree of Life,
as described in Genesis, so... |
during AFTERLIFE,
God gives Tree of Life only to SAVED,
as described in Revelation (and implied in Genesis), so... |
| |
but IF Eternal Misery, THEN |
IF Conditional Immortality, THEN |
IF Eternal Misery, THEN |
WITHOUT
Tree of Life,... |
no person has The Tree of Life,
and all people have Physical Death:
if SAVED, Physical Death, and
if UNSAVED, Physical Death. |
if SAVED (this won't happen);
if UNSAVED, Physical Death,
as in Life, fulfilling the divine
purpose of Genesis 3:22-24.
|
if SAVED (this won't happen);
if UNSAVED, no Physical Death
even though without Tree of Life,
violating purpose of Gen 3:22-24.
|
WITH
Tree of Life,... |
this doesn't happen, because
God removes The Tree of Life. |
if SAVED, no Physical Death;
if UNSAVED (this won't happen). |
if SAVED, no Physical Death;
if UNSAVED (this won't happen). |
Fall --> only SpirDth (Gen 2:17 but no death in 24-hour day),
in Life, Tree IS NEC for NO-PhysDeath, for Immort
in Aft, Tree not nec for NO-PhysDeath, for Immort
in Aft, Tree IS NEC for no-SpirDeath (for Joy-not-Misery), thus for BibLife with Immort+Joy, not Immort+Misery
sinner "must not... LIVE forever" with Eternal Life ---- but Eternal Existence-with-Misery
to explain change-of-function with EM (re: no-PhysDeath) between Life and Afterlife:
EM-ok if all Life-bodies intrinsic mortal so Tree nec for no-PhysDeath, all Afterlife-bodies intrinsic immortal so Tree not nec for no-PhysDeath.
WHY -- not too soon (• not before cross w SubstAtonemt, • not in Life before Afterlife), not for too many (• not for Unsaved @ Rev 2:7/22:14)
WHO -- all views can agree, if EM redefines "live forever" and Life/Death, so Eternal Misery (no PhysDeath, yes SpirDeath) isn't "live forever"
HOW -- note: In this section, I often refer to "the tree of life" as The Tree of Life. But this capitalizing doesn't imply that The Tree is divine. Instead, the tree of life seems to be God's way of describing (in Genesis & Revelation) the divine supernatural power that He uses to prevent death and supply life.
WHY - basics in Part 1, then in Part 2 include motives of God - does he want to be non-cruel to sinners? (prevent cruelty of etrnal life in sin?) or just not reward sinners with good things of etrnal joy?
maybe... Tree is "package deal" (all or nothing) that includes preventing both Deaths (Spiritual/Physical), AND in Afterlife a person (both soul+body) is intrinsically immortal (existing forever) and God decides to not un-do this, because Matt 10:28 says God is able to kill body+soul, not that He will kill either, or both.
Because if God's "tree of life" cures only spiritual death (because it isn't needed to prevent physical death)* this lets defenders-of-EM avoid acknowledging that, in Genesis 3:22-24, the purpose of God
Because if God's "tree of life" isn't needed to produce continuing existence during Afterlife, this lets defenders-of-EM avoid acknowledging that, in Genesis 3:22-24, the purpose of God (when we ask "WHY did God remove His tree of life?") was to prevent the eternal existence-while-sinning that would occur with Eternal Misery. Instead they can claim that God's purpose was to prevent Eternal Joy — that would have been produced by God's "tree of life" if He had not removed it — from happening too soon, and for too many people, i.e. to prevent Eternal Joy from happening...
"too soon," when we still owe the penalty for sin, instead of waiting until our sin-penalty has been paid, by God, with substitutionary atonement in the sacrificial death of Jesus; and also from happening...
"too soon," during Life, instead of waiting until Afterlife; and from happening, during Afterlife,...
"for too many people," for every person, instead of the way God wanted — as decreed by God with the If-Then Condition of Conditional Immortality, “IF saved, THEN Eternal Joy” — for only persons who are saved by God.
We should ask two important questions: WHAT does The Tree of Life do, and not do? And in Genesis 3:22-24, after the sin of Adam, WHY did God remove The Tree of Life?
[[ the two "answers" below need to be fixed ---- soon, November 7-8, I'll study my detail-sections (below in Parts 2 & 3) where I compare effects of "the tree" during Life and Afterlife, then I'll come back here to briefly summarize the effects ]]
* WHAT — With these EM-definitions of life and death, God's "tree of life" does not prevent Physical Death, instead it only cures Spiritual Death: the "tree of life" is not needed to cure physical death, because with EM everyone will live forever, whether or not God lets them eat from The Tree of Life. With EM, the only benefit of having The Tree is being cured of Spiritual Death, so they can be eternally alive in joyful communion with God, instead of eternally alive in miserable separation from God.
WHY — With these EM-definitions of life and death, the divinely decreed penalty for sin is a divinely caused continuation of sin, caused by God keeping unsaved people alive — and also keeping them sinfully separated from Him — in the eternally lasting Hell that He maintains for them.
| |
Tree nec for
NO Spiritual Death
(with CI, not not) |
Tree nec for
NO Physical Death
(with CI, NEC NEC) |
| Life |
not (born again) |
NEC (none immortal) |
| Afterlife |
NEC (for Joy) |
not (all immortal) |
[[ In my "rational defense of Eternal Misery", EM-defenders will agree with these two WHO-answers, instead our differences are in WHAT and WHY, below.]] "just the facts" it seems to me
WHAT does The Tree of Life do?
Genesis 3:22 — when God declared that a sinner "must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever" — shows that The Tree of Life prevents Physical Death, and lets a person live forever. What are the results, now and later?
Now, during Life, when everyone is without The Tree of Life, all of us (both saved & unsaved) have Physical Death.
Later, during Afterlife, we should expect The Tree of Life to have similar effects. This expectation, which is based on Genesis 3:22-24 plus what we observe during Life, does occur IF there is Conditional Immortality in Afterlife, because THEN God will give only people who are Saved (so they are WITH The Tree of Life) His gift of immortality, with eternal conscious existence. By contrast, people who are Unsaved (so they are WITHOUT The Tree of Life ) will have Physical Death, so effects of The Tree are similar in Life and Afterlife.
But... if Eternal Misery will happen, a person who is Unsaved (so they are without The Tree of Life) lives forever, having no Physical Death. When we compare Life with Afterlife, we see that a doctrine of Eternal Misery requires a change in what The Tree of Life does, because although The Tree of Life IS NECESSARY to prevent Physical Death and allow "live forever" during Life (but God says, in Genesis 3:22-24, that having the tree, and thus preventing death, will not happen), The Tree of Life IS NOT NECESSARY to prevent Physical Death and allow "live forever" during Afterlife, IF an unsaved person will consciously exist forever with Eternal Misery. This change-of-function is a major biblical problem for Eternal Misery.
By contrast, there is no change-of-function with Conditional Immortality (based on God saying, in Revelation 2:7 & 22:14, that having the tree, and thus preventing death, will not happen) because The Tree of Life always IS NECESSARY to prevent Physical Death and allow "live forever" in both Life and Afterlife.
These two paragraphs, about Who and What, describe a major biblical problem with Eternal Misery. The same ideas also are summarized in this table:
| |
during LIFE,
God removes The Tree of Life,
as described in Genesis, so... |
during AFTERLIFE,
God gives Tree of Life only to SAVED,
as described in Revelation (and implied in Genesis), so... |
| |
but IF Eternal Misery, THEN |
IF Conditional Immortality, THEN |
IF Eternal Misery, THEN |
WITHOUT
Tree of Life,... |
no person has The Tree of Life,
and all people have Physical Death:
if SAVED, Physical Death, and
if UNSAVED, Physical Death. |
if SAVED (this won't happen);
if UNSAVED, Physical Death,
as in Life, fulfilling the divine
purpose of Genesis 3:22-24.
|
if SAVED (this won't happen);
if UNSAVED, no Physical Death
even though without Tree of Life,
violating purpose of Gen 3:22-24.
|
WITH
Tree of Life,... |
this doesn't happen, because
God removes The Tree of Life. |
if SAVED, no Physical Death;
if UNSAVED (this won't happen). |
if SAVED, no Physical Death;
if UNSAVED (this won't happen). |
PART 3:
[[ but... a defender of EM can protest that "you're not using our EM-definition of LIVE" because instead of "exist in joy with God" (our defn) you use "exist" (your defn) -- so I'll have to compare the WHY-answers of EM and FA/UR and see what happens
[[ instead of Death that could be defined as Physical Death and/or Spiritual Death, I'm focusing on Physical Death, to minimize the legitimacy of this claim
[[ throughout Bible, God's penalty for sin is Physical Death -- God never has penalty of "separation from Himself" -- zb, in Gen 3 this was idea of Adam/Eve who tried to hide from God (tried to get separation) but God searched/found them -- in Romans 6, the bad Death is caused by slavery to sin, is not caused by God as a penalty
[[ mere Life: if mere Physical Life requires only Embodied Conscious Existence (with body + soul, combined), then EM's distinction of life-vs-death = withGod-vs-withoutGod = joy-vs-misery is not necessary, is irrelevant, but...
[[ they could reject this "if" by claiming that EM occurs due to tormenting/punishing of only Disembodied Soul ---- is this biblical? traditional? most Christians typically assume soul-only for Intermediate State [although Glenn Peoples challenges biblical basis for this], but in Final State (after General Resurrection) traditional EM doesn't claim that God will cause continuing existence of soul-only; with non-EM CI, instead (if there will be no Reconciliation, so a person gets The Death Penalty) God will destroy body-and-soul as in Matt 10:28, but... it states only that God CAN do this, but not that He WILL do it ---- for dualist, Death-in-Life is death of body but soul lives on, so with EM could Death-in-Afterlife be analogous? but I think raditional EM is for body-and-soul, not just soul ]]
[[ Physical Death = kill body but soul alive, or kill body+soul so nothing alive, with total annihilation, with no existence of any kind
[[sometimes, although there are biblical reasons to question this claim, some Christians say "the tree of life" is the cross of Christ. / IF this claim is correct, then either Christians (who "have the cross of Christ") DO HAVE "the tree of life" during Life, or [as implied by Genesis when The Tree is removed from everyone, and its return to SAVED people in Revelation is the first time its return is mentioned] or Christians DON'T HAVE "the tree of life" during Life. both possibilities, without Tree and with Tree, are shown in the table below, and each causes biblical/logical problems if we use a redefining of Death (done for the purpose of defending EM) in which The Tree cures Spiritual Death but is not necessary for preventing Physical Death: in the table you can see the two problems, in each situation, because for SAVED people the two possible situations (••) are either...
• IF WITHOUT Tree, but if SAVED people have no Spiritual Death during Life [because after their conversion they have been re-connected with God thru Holy Spirit], then HOW (i.e. WHY) can they have no Spiritual Death at a time when, like UNSAVED people, the SAVED people don't have The Tree? Or...
• IF WITH Tree, then HOW (i.e. WHY) do they have Physical Death at the end of their Life? [oops -- this possibility would be eliminated by the second requirement for "not too soon" because The Tree could only be given back during Afterlife, not during Life ---- so... maybe an EM-defender could claim that everything (bodies + spiritual connections) are different during Life & Afterlife, so Spiritual Death can be cured during Life [but not Afterlife] by Holy Spirit [no?? - HSp can cure in Life or Aft, and Tree can cure during Aft??] ; and physical bodies during Life are non-immortal naturally so Tree is needed to prevent Physical Death, but in Afterlife all resurrection bodies will be intrinsically immortal so The Tree isn't necessary -- but then The Tree does NOTHING in Afterlife, isn't necessary to cure either kind of Death -- ??
during LIFE,
God removes The Tree of Life,
as described in Genesis, and... |
during AFTERLIFE,
God gives Conditional Immortality,
as described in Revelation, so...
|
WITHOUT
Tree of Life,... |
if UNSAVED, Spiritual Death
and Physical Death;
• if SAVED (but IF WITHOUT Tree?),
no Spiritual Death (HOW ?),
and Physical Death.
|
if SAVED (this won't happen);
but IF Eternal Misery, THEN
if UNSAVED, no Physical Death,
but Spiritual Death.
|
WITH
Tree of Life,... |
• if SAVED (and IF WITH Tree
after their conversion?),
no Spiritual Death
but Physical Death (HOW ?). |
if SAVED, no Spiritual Death;
if UNSAVED (this won't happen). |
I.O.U. -- by mid-November 2017, this "Rational Defense of EM" will be developed more fully. {it will link to sections - including here and here - where serious problems-for-EM are examined} Here are some ideas that will be in this section:
Spiritual Death and Physical Death: Is the penalty for sin ONLY Spiritual Death? (i.e. does The Tree of Life have nothing to do with Physical Death, with mortality, with The Death Penalty for Sin that is emphasized throughout the Bible? if "yes, The Tree of Life has no effect on Physical Death" – which is the answer required for this defense of EM – this "yes" ignores the very strong whole-Bible emphasis on Physical Death being the Penalty for Sin chosen by God, throughout the Bible, in the Old Testament and New Testament, for OT punishments (e.g. The Flood, Sodom & Gomorrah) and rescues (e.g. Isaac, The Passover) and for the OT Sacrificial System and NT Substitutionary Atonement) - and, of course, we should carefully examine what happened, in Genesis 3, after the first sin to find the cause-for-concern by God in Genesis 3:22.
YOUNG-EARTH views of Genesis 1-3, re: Spiritual Death + Physical Death
• YEC's think Tree does affect Physical Death instead of "neutral" as required by re-definition of Death in EM-defense;
• YEC's focus is how Tree affects their YEc-claims, not EM claims, so maybe what helps YEc-defense will hurt EM-defense?
• YEC's think humans were created with immortality that was removed after human sin;
[[ young-earth interpretations of Genesis 1-3 claim that there was no death before the fall in Genesis 3, but their argument vanishes if Adam's sin only caused Spiritual Death, with no effect on Physical Death ---- with yec/oec, if no sin, Tree of Life --> continued "living forever" for humans (and all other creatures?) / yec might claim
[[ godandscience.org, Rich Deem, Was Adam Created as an Immortal Being? -- Young earth creationists admit that sin initiated both physical and spiritual death. ... old earth creationists believe Adam died spiritually immediately when he sinned, and died physically in that same "day" of Adam's life. So, clearly, the "day" of Adam was hundreds of years long or young earth creationists have to change basic Christian doctrine such that [by making the ye claim that] sin only brought spiritual death. [instead of spiritual + physical] Since the latter choice is obviously unacceptable, young earth creationists merely ignore the problem. / The second problem for young earth creationists is what to do with God being so worried about Adam eating from the tree of life6 that He posted the cherubim with the flaming sword to block the way to the tree of life.7 If Adam already had eternal life then God wouldn't have cared that he would eat of the tree of life. It only makes sense if God did not want Adam to physically live forever, since he had already died spiritually. Clearly, the tree of life, had its fruit been eaten, would have endowed Adam with physical immortality, something that he had previously lacked.
[[ Glenn Morton, Death Before Sin - Death Before the Fall: The Theology - The function of the Tree of Life was obviously to give eternal life. ... What is clear from this verse is that the tree’s fruit could give the eater immortality. If Adam and Eve already possessed immortality, why was the tree there?
[[ Greg Neyman, Genesis 2:17 - Death Before Sin -- the reason why young earth creationists attack this topic, is because of animal death before Adam's sin. It is clear from the fossil record that animals died throughout the last few hundred million years of earth's history. It is impossible to come up with a viable young earth scientific model explaining the fossils, so Mortenson and others attempt to use Scriptures to argue their point. / many old earth creationists claim that only spiritual death occurred, and you will see this claim many times on this website. However, we also recognize the significance of Adam being kicked out of the Garden, with the consequence that he would no longer have access to the Tree of Life. The point that old earth creationists are making is that although physical death occurred eventually, this is not what is important about Adam's sin. Spiritual death, which leads to separation from God, is the only thing that matters when we consider eternity. //// The grandmother [with simplistic literal reading of Gen 2:17] would have no choice but to conclude that Adam would die physically, and he would die the same day that he ate the fruit. However, Adam and Eve did not die that day...they died many years later. Did God lie? Of course not. There are only two solutions to this problem, and both favor an old earth interpretation. / First, there is the issue of spiritual death. This is what God meant. Adam and Eve clearly were spiritually dead when they ate the fruit. Such an interpretation eliminates the problem of Adam and Eve not physically dying the instant they ate the forbidden fruit. / The second option is that they did die physically in the same day that they ate the fruit. How can this be? The days of creation were many millions of years long, and God is now in His seventh day of rest. They died during this seventh day of rest, as have all of the people in the Bible, and all of us up until this very instant. Since it is clear from Hebrews 4 that we are still in this seventh day, this argument is solid.
Either way, you end up solving this issue by resorting to an old earth creationist interpretation of the Fall.
[[ yec, Paul Taylor - christiananswers.net - Is the age of the Earth a “trivial” doctrinal point? - Adam's Potential Lifespan: Apparently Adam would never have died if he had not disobeyed (Genesis 2:16-17, 3:22). God expelled Adam and Eve from the Garden and guarded the tree of life so they would not use it to thwart death (Genesis 3:22-23).
[[ YEC -- "Or read Genesis 3, where God expelled Adam and Eve from the Garden so that they would not eat of the Tree of Life and live forever. Physical death as well as spiritual death resulted from their sin." Ken Ham. The Lie: Evolution, Chapter 7: Death: A Curse and a Blessing. Answers in Genesis, July 1, 1987.
answersingenesis.org - Questions about the Tree of Life by Bodie Hodge (2010) - Did Adam and Eve Have to Eat from the Tree of Life to Keep from Dying?
This question assumes that the Man and Woman were already dying and required the Tree of Life to live. But there is no reason to assume they were, as death was the punishment for sin (Genesis 2:17) and they hadn’t sinned yet. / Adam and Eve probably could have eaten from the Tree of Life originally (Genesis 2:16), but God gives no decree that they had to eat of it to sustain their life at that point. However, the tree may have been one means by which God used to help support and maintain Adam and Eve — perhaps a type of sustenance. / the Bible gives no hints that they had to eat of this tree until after sin. / This [Gen 3:22] seems to imply that Adam and Eve could have eaten from the Tree of Life after they sinned to live forever. Had they been permitted to eat from the Tree of Life, then they would have been forced to live eternally in a sin-cursed world. But God had a better plan in place—one of redemption in Jesus Christ with a new heavens and new earth that would not be cursed.
answersingenesis.org -- The Tree of Life by W. Peter Gadsby, 1985 -- If Adam passed the test of obedience, it would be the means of God’s imparting eternal life to him, not by magic, but by the working of his Spirit ‘by, with and under’ the fruit of the Tree. // [Gen 3:22 -->] he, and us with him,4 would have been plunged into a condition of absolute lostness. He would have lived eternally cut off from God without hope of escape from the terrible consequences of sin. This would have been God’s just punishment for such a presumptuous sin, not merely a ‘magical’ effect of the Tree of Life. Mercifully, God did not permit this to happen.5 Adam was cast out of the Garden of Eden. No longer could he even contemplate eating from the Tree of Life. It was beyond his reach. Physical death now began to enter the human race. Adam began to die! The last Adam (Christ) later came to Earth to die so that through faith in Jesus, we may now inherit the eternal life Adam forfeited. Indeed, Jesus says to those who persevere in faith, ‘To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the Tree of Life which is in the Paradise of God.’6
[[ WHY -- does God want to CAUSE spiritual separation from Him? NO, instead people choose the initial separation in Gen 3:7-11 (sin, eyes open, feel shame, hide from God, then God finds them and "the Lord God called to the man" wanting to re-establish communion, not force a separation between persons and Himself), so why would God want to cause (or even allow) a spiritual separation in Afterlife, lasting forever, to preserve sin forever?? ]]
death and life without "the tree of life" and with it -- in an interpretation of Gen 3 with normal definitions of death [as a person having their embodied conscious existence end] and life [with a continuing of the person's embodied conscious existence], God's "tree of life" is necessary for continuing life, and it allows continuing life, and it makes a difference because without this tree all humans die [i.e. their embodied conscious existence ends] during Life, and {logically} without this tree humans also die [i.e. their embodied conscious existence ends] during Afterlife, but with this tree humans live forever [with embodied conscious existence] in Afterlife, and with Conditional Immortality there is a difference between humans without the tree (i.e. unsaved humans) who will die, and humans with this tree (i.e. saved humans) who will live. / but... with "separation" definitions that defend EM, in Afterlife everyone will exist forever (will have eternal embodied conscious existence) in Afterlife, so there is universal Unconditional Immortality.
[[ WHAT -- was Physical Death already settled, before Gen 3:22-24? (to support EM-claim that Tree doesn't affect Physical Death) because in Gen Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.
[[ #ci is from pov of ci-correct, #ci1 is challenge by em-defenders and response by ci-defenders ]]
Does misery convert Immortality into Non-Immortality? -- Defenders of Eternal Misery can claim that Everlasting Conscious Existence in Misery (with EM) would not be Immortality even though everlasting conscious existence is the essential vocabulary-meaning of immortality.
If death and life mean "spiritual separation from God" and "spiritual communion with God", when Paul says that "for as in Adam all die [are spiritually separated from God], so also in Christ all will be made alive [in spiritual communion with God]," is this biblical support for a Universal Reconciliation in which "all will be made alive"?
Definitions of Life and Death:
As one example of definitions that are carefully designed to defend EM, AbideInChrist.com has a page
about death that ignores Genesis 3:22, and skillfully defines death-and-life in a way that seems necessary for defending a doctrine of Eternal Misery (EM). Their page — quoted here, with emphasis and [comments] added by me — begins:
Death is separation, whether it is physical as in the separation of the person from his body, or spiritual separation of the person from a relationship with God. Death is the opposite of life, but it never denotes non–existence, annihilation, extinction of being, or even being inactive. [Even though God "is able to destroy both soul and body in hell," defenders of EM must deny the possibility that eventually death can be non-existence, because eternal conscious existence would be necessary IF God will cause Eternal Misery. This denial also is supported by an unbiblical assumption of human immortality.]
As spiritual life is "conscious existence in communion with God," so spiritual death is "conscious existence in separation from God" (W.E. Vine). Figuratively, death is the loss of spiritual life (Romans 8:6), and the final state of the spiritual unregenerate is called "second death" (Revelation 20:14). [What is the second death if it produces EM, FA, or UR?]
Death in the Bible is the separation of the soul or spiritual element of a person from his material body resulting in it ceasing to function and turning to dust (John 11:13; Hebrews 2:15; 5:7; 7:23). [In this dualistic view of human nature, psychosomatic life is the combining of a person's immaterial soul with their material body, and death (in a loss of psychosomatic life) is the separating of a person's immaterial soul from their material body, and.]
It [death] also signifies a man's separation from God and His life because it is devoted to trespasses and sins. In a spiritual sense Adam died on the day he was disobedient to God (Genesis 2:17). [The page cites Gen 2:17 four times, but ignores Gen 3:22 because a defense of EM requires ignoring the death that occurs when God declares (in 3:22) that sinners "must not... live forever" and actualizes this decision (with His actions in 3:23-24) to achieve His goal of preventing the unacceptable situation of sinning that continues forever.]
Later in their page,
eternal death is... eternal separation from God [with spiritual death] in an eternal hell" [so, by analogy, eternal life is eternal communion with God [with spiritual life] in an eternal heaven].
[[ i.o.u. -- Recently, I began a more thorough developing of this traditional "Rational Defense of Eternal Misery" for myself. {but I'm sure it's previously been thoroughly developed by others, so I'm just doing it independently from them} Therefore, I will be evaluating it, to determine "in what ways is it justifiable?" and "in what ways is it non-justifiable?" For awhile, I was worried that Gen 3 might not be strong evidence against EM, that it would be much weaker than I had been concluding, but I'm beginning to see the major weaknesses in this argument to defend EM. But, of course, I think a major weakness would not be considered decisive by those who are determined to defend EM. ]]
i.o.u. – Here are some ideas that might (with revisions) be used later. But I will first develop the major ideas briefly/simply in non-table form, and maybe put the details (shown in a table) into an "appendix" for readers who want more detail.
for saved people: An EM-defending claim for divine action to "prevent Eternal Joy... from happening too soon" seems compatible with removing the tree {Gen 3:22-24} during Life, and also with returning the tree (Rev 2:7, 22:14) during Afterlife, to only saved people whose penalty-for-sin has been paid.
for unsaved people: This claim also seems satisfactory for unsaved people, during Life. But during Afterlife we see a major problem when asking "what is God's purpose for the tree of life? what effects does it produce, and not produce, during Life and Afterlife? if it's available or is not available, what difference(s) occur?" The table below shows how the EM-defending redefinitions for Life-and-Death (involving The Tree of Life that God can give a person, if He wants) affect saved people and unsaved people, during Life and Afterlife. [[maybe I'll say more about the table, here]
A third-row cell ("even though Tree of Life not given...") is copied from a table
showing divine problem solving.
| |
during Life (for saved & unsaved) |
during Afterlife (for saved & unsaved) |
without
The Tree of Life |
for saved: mortality is penalty for sin {Gen};
for unsaved: mortality is penalty for sin {Gen}.
[for both, problem of death is semi-solved] |
for saved: will not happen {Rev};
for unsaved: fate depends on view, because...
if CI (FA or UR), mortality is penalty for sin {Gen+Rev}
but if not-CI (EM), immortality [how?] with sinning
[is WORST – problems are de-solved and unsolved].
|
with
The Tree of Life |
for saved: will not happen {Gen};
for unsaved: will not happen {Gen}.
|
for saved: if CI or not-CI, immortality with no sinning
[is BEST – problems are solved and solved];
for unsaved: will not happen {Rev}. |
states of unsaved
if EM, but redefine
LIFE-and-DEATH: |
even though Tree of Life not given to unsaved people, they still (how?) have
eternal conscious existence (physical immortality), with spiritual sinning,
so the two problems still are de-solved (for death) and unsolved (for sin), to
→ same unacceptable result: WORST combination, eternal spiritual sinning.
|
In this table, we see that
• "without The Tree of Life" all people, both saved & unsaved, are mortal during Life, so removing it (during Life) has the intended effect (stated in Gen 3:22-24) of removing physical immortality, for the purpose of allowing our physical death. {{ God removes tree {Gen 3:22-24} during Life, and returns tree (Rev 2:7, 22:14) during Afterlife, to only saved people whose penalty-for-sin has been paid, who have been saved by God. }}
• Notice that immortality – with people having eternal conscious existence – appears twice, with The Tree of Life (for saved people) and also without The Tree of Life (for unsaved people). So... does a state of being "without The Tree of Life" allow physical death during Life, but not in Afterlife? does God's removal of this Tree (so sinners will not "live forever") have no effect on "forever" during Afterlife, because The Tree has no effect on physical mortality, because The Tree's only effect is to heal spiritual sinning, to produce no spiritual sinning for people who are saved?
These conclusions are possible only if there is an immortality of soul-and-body that is universal, that happens for both saved and saved, with and without The Tree of Life. When defenders of Eternal Misery make this connection, they either can reason that...
IF Eternal Misery occurs for the unsaved, this requires that the unsaved must be immortal (here they begin with Eternal Misery, and universal unconditional immortality is a conclusion), or that
IF all people are immortal, and IF some will remain unsaved forever, and IF the unsaved will be miserable, THEN the unsaved must be miserable forever, producing Eternal Misery (here, universal unconditional immortality is an assumption that is necessary for a conclusion of Eternal Misery).
[[this needs an intro, connecting this logic with non-biblical influences (link to my sections in ci.htm) --> defenders of Eternal Misery...
say the body that rises "dies not again" (John Gill, "A Body of Doctrinal Divinity: Or a System of Evangelical Truths", p 679, The Baptist Standard Bearer, 2001); "the evil ones … shall be made immortal" (The Belgic Confession, Article 37, emphasis added).* Their language is unambiguous: "Every human being ever born lives forever," (John MacArthur, The Answer to Life’s Greatest Question, Part 1); "everybody lives forever" (Greg Koukl, radio host of Stand to Reason, 2011, June 5, Christopher Morgan on Hell and Inclusivism 1:09:25); the unsaved "will continue living in a state with a low quality of life" (Gary Habermas & J.P. Moreland, Immortality: The Other Side of Death, p 173; Thomas Nelson, 1992). { These quotations were gathered by Chris Date for his article (2012), Cross Purposes: Atonement, Death, and The Fate of the Wicked, with the following *-quotation added by me. } * This part of Article 37 continues, "The evil ones… shall be made immortal – but only to be tormented in the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
[[ is universal unconditional immortality (in Afterlife) based on, or supported by, the Bible when we carefully examine Genesis (3:22-24) and Revelation (2:7, 22:14)? or is it maintained in spite of these key biblical passages about God's "tree of life" and His purposes for removing it from everyone during Life, and then returning it during Afterlife but only to saved people who satisfy His if-then condition? ]]
[[ here are ways to look at the table-results, that I may use: ]]
• "if CI (FA or UR)" this mortality continues in Afterlife for unsaved people who still do not have The Tree,
• but "if not-CI (EM)" the without-Tree mortality changes into immortality (why?) [as expected, with The Tree, saved people have immortality] does The Tree do nothing for immortality for unsaved? (without it they're mortal in Life, yet are immortal in Afterlife? maybe due to resurrection-bodies that will be given to everyone? but... nowhere in the Bible [claims Chris Date and others at RethinkingHell] is there a statement that unsaved people will live forever in Afterlife; for example, 1 Cor 15 is only for believers, for saved people, consistent with The Tree of Life being given to only saved people, thus producing Conditional Immortality)
[[ 1 Cor 15:22, "
[[ on June 21, my initial evaluation was: An EM-defending claim for a divine preventing of "Eternal Joy too soon" seems compatible with removing the tree (Gen 3:22-24) and also with returning the tree (Rev 2:7, 22:14) but only giving it (thus producing Eternal Joy) to saved people whose penalty-for-sin has been paid. After a more complete evaluation, have I found serious flaws in this claim, or have others found flaws in the past? ]]
[ here is a leftover-transition from an earlier version of this paragraph: With this definition, to "live forever" is not the state of eternal spiritual sinning that God wanted to prevent (with a temporary semi-solution that will become a permanent total solution) in Gen 3:22-24 by insuring that a sinner "must not... live forever." Let's look at their definition of "living forever" in the context of... ]
Physical Death in Genesis 3:22-24
In the NIV translation of 3:22, God declares that a sinner "must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." Although the declaration "must not be allowed" is not in the original Hebrew language, so it isn't included in more-literal translations (NASB, ESV, NRSV), the NIV is an accurate translation-of-thought. Why? Because the actions of God, in verses 23-24, clearly show that "must not allow" was the purpose of His actions. Here is Genesis 3:22-24 (ESV), with emphasis added:
Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever —” therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.
In this key passage, the decisive actions of God are motivated — as indicated by "lest" (a word from Old English, meaning "for fear that... to prevent any possibility that" in Collins English Dictionary) and "therefore" — because God wants to prevent "live forever" from happening. What does this mean? Let's look at these verses (the declaration in 3:22 and the actualizing-actions in 3:23-34) with two possible definitions of "live forever."
With the most common meaning of live, to "live forever" is simply to “consciously exist forever.” It's obvious why God would want to prevent this by deciding that sinners "must not... live forever."
But with an unusual definition of live (proposed as a defense for Eternal Misery), to "live forever" would be to “consciously exist forever in joyful communion with God in heaven.” This would be a very good result, but it would only happen IF giving us "the tree of life" would solve that problem of spiritual sinning that already had occurred, in Genesis 3:7-13. God would not want to prevent this Eternal Joy, but... He knew it would not happen because although the tree of life does give eternal existence, it does not solve spiritual sinning, it does not produce "joyful communion with God in heaven." [[ i.o.u. - This paragraph needs to be revised, after (June 21) discovering the seemingly strong argument about "preventing premature Eternal Joy" that is described above. ]]
I.O.U. - This section will include some of these rough ideas, leftover from an earlier version:
Spiritual Death and Physical Death
[[ intro: a concept of "spiritual death" invented (in context of Genesis 3) by defenders of EM who want to deny the Conditional Immortality (if-then) that is clearly taught in Genesis 3 / spiritual death is a part of Paul's theology, as in Romans 6 and its multiple meanings of death ]]
What kind of death cannot (and can) be prevented by The Tree of Life? God knew that physical death (but not spiritual death) would not be healed by giving The Tree of Life to Adam. By contrast, God knew that physical death would be prevented by The Tree of Life. But He did not give this Tree of Life because He did not want sinners to "eat, and live forever", so He removed access to The Tree in Genesis 3:22-24, with "cherubim and a flaming sword... to guard the way to the tree of life." If the problem of spiritual sinning could have been prevented by The Tree of Life, this would have solved the problem of sin, and God would not have needed to remove The Tree of Life.
Later in God's history of salvation, He produced a way — through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and empowering us through Holy Spirit — for believers to be “born again” in a way that does reduce the effects of our spiritual death, in a process outlined by Paul in Romans 6. Later, in Afterlife, He will eliminate all effects of spiritual dysfunction for believers, for those He has saved in Life, and maybe (with UR or semi-UR) for those He will save in Afterlife. {more about spiritual death}
God created humans to be biologically mortal, so the natural conclusion of biological life is biological death.
Theology: My long paper about FA-versus-EM carefully examines (in three places, 1 2 3) the concept of “only spiritual death” that, when it's applied to Genesis 3:22, is an effort to avoid the clear teaching that a sinner "must not be allowed to... live forever." But because Adam had disobediently eaten from "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil," spiritual death already had occurred in the first of three results of The Fall. Then, in the third result, God decreed (in Genesis 3:22-24) that sinners "must not... live forever." God's second tree (His "tree of life") does nothing to cure spiritual death, but eventually will be given only to people who have been "saved by God" so (during Afterlife) their spiritual death has been totally cured so they are not sinners, so He can prevent their physical death by giving them The Tree of Life.
after sin of Adam: |
in Life, for all humans |
in Afterlife, for the unsaved |
in Afterlife, for the saved |
if with Tree of Life,
without solution for sin |
sinning forever, permanent
due to immortality-with-ToL
[but ToL removed, Gen 3:22] |
sinning forever, permanent
due to immortality-with-ToL
[happens if Eternal Misery] |
no-sinning forever, permanent
due to immortality-with-ToL |
without Tree of Life,
without solution for sin |
sinning for awhile, temporary
due to mortality-without-ToL |
sinning for awhile, temporary
due to mortality-without-ToL |
[ won't occur, because Tree of Life
promised in Rev 2:7 & 21:14 ] |
I.O.U. - and it might include some of these extremely-rough ideas:
In fact, this Eternal Joy is His gracious gift for believers, as promised in Revelation 2:7 & 22:14.
In an effort to make life and death biblically-and-logically compatible with Eternal Misery, they propose these definitions:
But this doesn't diminish the strength of biblical arguments against Eternal Misery. To see why, let's carefully examine...
some possibilities:
if "living forever" means, with a dualistic view of human nature, "existing forever in a state of combined soul-and-body,"
if "living forever" means "LIVING forever" as in eternal life, "existing forever in a state of spiritual life (in joyous communion with God)," is the ideal BEST State, is solution, is not to be feared-and-prevented. [this idea already has been developed above, as main EM-defense]
if "living forever" means, as in eternal death, "existing forever in a state of spiritual death (in miserable separation from God)," causes Eternal Misery.
The most obvious meaning of "live forever" is simply to "exist forever" and this is basis for arguments against EM.
mere existence [maybe joy with full connection/communion, maybe misery with sinful separation] (yes) vs LIFE [with existence + communion, as in Eternal Joy in Heaven] (no), --> live forever is not immortality if in misery separated from God -- ignore the word "immortal", focus on concept of existing forever -- reading far too much into word "live" in "live forever" -- no worry if exist forever with joyful communion, worry only if exist forever with sinful separation -- if tree of life would have led to LIVE forever, hallelujah! this is ideal situation (no sin, no mortality) so no fear, instead "do it"
defenders of EM can...
claim that Gen 3 is only about "spiritual death" (--> "spiritual death" is only death in Second Death, Lake of Fire)
claim that eternal conscious existence in misery is not immortality, instead it's "death" (separation from God) as in Second Death.
Why? due to the powerful inertia of tradition and societal customs, most Christians simply assume that the Bible teaches Eternal Misery, so they should believe it. -- Or you can decide, like the noble Bereans,* that instead of ASSUMING you already know what the Bible teaches, you will carefully STUDY the Bible to learn what it really does teach.
[[ the 2 paragraphs below, following a description of The Problems (from Gen 3), could be an intro for this section, to put things into context -- or maybe just link to ur.htm#ci ]]
Salvation eventually will include Conditional Immortality: Later, in Heaven, God will defeat Physical Death by giving back the Gift of Life, symbolized by "the tree of life," as stated in Revelation 2:7 and 22:14. But this divine gift will be given to only those who are "victorious" (2:7) and "wash their robes" (22:14), who accept the Grace of God, offered through Christ — who earned Life for us by His Death on the cross, and physically showed us this life-in-Afterlife by His Resurrection — so accepters will meet the IF-THEN Conditions that have been decided by God: IF you accept The Grace (offered by God), THEN you get The Life (supplied by God). But IF you are a rejecter who thus remains a sinner (who is not saved by Grace), THEN you "must not be allowed to... live forever."
(an unsaved person who is not asking for God's help in trying to overcome their problem of spiritual sinning)
One Partial Solution: God decided that this would be unacceptable, so (Gen 3:22-24) He would not let it happen.
A Complete Solution:
Avoiding Disaster by using Another Solution for Sin
CI ok if FA or UR, not EM (link to ur.htm - quote? or just summarize?) // An Unsatisfactory De-Solution / A Satisfactory Semi-Solution -- not making a bad situation (with spiritual sinning) worse (with eternal spir sinning
who has salvation and in Afterlife has (or will have) total sanctification so they will no longer be a sinner.
Salvation eventually will include Conditional Immortality: Later, in Heaven, God will defeat Physical Death by giving back the Gift of Life, symbolized by "the tree of life," as stated in Revelation 2:7 and n22:14. But this divine gift will be given to only those who are "victorious" (2:7) and "wash their robes" (22:14), who accept the Grace of God, offered through Christ — who earned Life for us by His Death on the cross, and physically showed us this life-in-Afterlife by His Resurrection — so accepters will meet the IF-THEN Conditions that have been decided by God: IF you accept The Grace (offered by God), THEN you get The Life (supplied by God). But IF you are a rejecter who thus remains a sinner (who is not saved by Grace), THEN you "must not be allowed to... live forever." |
Spiritual Death and Physical Death — Is the penalty for sin ONLY Spritual Death?
[[ this will be a continuation of the previous section ]]
Does misery convert Immortality into Non-Immortality?
Defending EM: How can any person logically evaluate this strong biblical evidence for Conditional Immortality, and still defend a doctrine of Eternal Misery? One attempt to escape the evidence-and-logic is a claim that conscious existence in misery is not life as it's defined in the Bible, so this Eternal Existence (for The Unsaved, who have not met The Condition) is not the Eternal Life provided by God with The Tree of Life,
so this Eternal Existence does not violate Conditional Immortality. ==[but... Gen 3:22 purpose, also to protect sinner]
Rejecting EM: Although I think this response-by-EM is rational — well, at least it's a rational attempt to defend their position, and it seems to be their best response — it should not be accepted. Instead it should be challenged and rejected. Why?
The Usual Definition: The central question is “how should immortality be defined?” A standard definition of immortality (from Cambridge Dictionary) is "living or lasting forever." For defining Conditional Immortality (CI) based on Genesis-and-Revelation a useful basic meaning of immortality is everlasting conscious existence with a person existing forever. The existence must be conscious — as when Descartes proposed “I think, therefore I am” — to distinguish theologically meaningful conscious existence-in-Afterlife (of humans with CI or EM) from theologically trivial non-conscious existence (e.g. of a rock, or dust when "to dust [they] shall return" after death).
An If-Then Definition (if miserable, then not-immortal): EM could be compatible with CI if we allow EM to re-define the I in CI, so their own restrictive definition of Immortality is not violated by EM. How? A defender of “EM is CI” can claim that everlasting conscious existence in Misery (with EM) would not be immortality. Basically they are claiming that only good-immortality (everlasting conscious existence in joy, with God) is immortality, so bad-immortality (everlasting conscious existence in misery, separated from God) is not immortality. As described by Terrance Tiessen, EM restricts immortality so it's only "the life of God and with God."
Quantity + Quality: Sometimes defenders of EM describe the eternal non-Life of EM by defining Eternal Life in terms of Quantity + Quality, so Eternal Life requires large Quantity (if a person exists eternally) plus high Quality (if a person has the joy of being with God, not the misery of being without God). { For example, during a debate Chris Date was asked if in John 17:3 ("This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.") Jesus is defining eternal life as knowing God, so eternal existence without God would not be eternal life. Chris answered by looking at John 12:50 where Jesus says, of the Father, "His commandment is eternal life," and John 6:63 ("the words that I [Jesus] have spoken to you are spirit and are life") using the same Greek word for "is" or (for the plural) "are". Chris explains that instead of defining eternal life as knowing God in 17:3, Jesus is explaining how we can get eternal life, by knowing God (17:3) and the Father's commandment (12:50) and Jesus's words (6:63). He shows how – by studying uses of the word is – we can see that this EM-claim is not linguistically justifiable. }
Rejecting EM: Instead of accepting this restrictive re-definition (that changes the essential meaning of immortality), we should challenge it and reject it. Why? We can examine this issue theologically and linguistically:
Linguistics: There are similarities between two contexts — when we're thinking about the meanings of “truth” and “immortality” — where confusion can occur due to re-definitions, IF we let people change the main meaning of truth or immortality, so we allow ambiguity. My page about Reality 101 explains why:
To avoid confusion, I think the
word "truth" should be reserved for a correspondence definition of truth. We should not use the word truth in any other way, and when other people do
use truth in another way, we should challenge them, gently and
logically. The non-correspondence definitions of truth — with defining by consensus
(truth is a majority opinion), coherence (truth is a logically coherent system of beliefs), pragmatism (truth is a useful principle), or in other ways — are
humanly constructed claims about what is true, so they should be called truth-claims (or
theories, beliefs, principles,...) but not truth.
I strongly disagree with attempts to define truth in ways that are confusing, that cause uncertainty when we say "truth" and listeners are forced to wonder “what is the intended meaning?” because they previously have heard the word truth being used in so many different ways. There would be less confusion if instead everyone said truth-claim when (with a claim-about-truth that is being defined by consensus, coherence, pragmatism, or in other ways) this is what they mean, and if everyone said truth only when they are claiming that “it's true because it corresponds to reality.” When postmodern relativists define truth in these other ways, I think...
they are intending to cause confusion, to weaken the tendency, in society, of thinking about truth as “correspondence with reality.”
In a similar way, defenders of Eternal Misery can define immortality in an unusually restrictive way, contradicting its usual meaning, by claiming that if everlasting conscious existence is miserable without God (instead of joyful with God), then it isn't immortality. When they define immortality in this restrictive way, I think...
they are intending to cause confusion, to weaken the tendency, in society, of thinking about immortality as "everlasting conscious existence" with "a person existing forever."
When immortality has its usual essential meaning of "everlasting conscious existence" — as it should — the logical meaning of Conditional Immortality is “either Final Annihilation or Universal Reconciliation, but not Eternal Misery.”
Eventually, will EVERYONE be immortal?
I.O.U. - The rest of this section needs to be edited — maybe I'll do this in late September — because, as symbolized by the gray text, much of it duplicates what also is described in other parts of this page (ur2.htm) and the overview-page (ur.htm).
[[ Eventually, will EVERYONE be immortal? YES, in all 3 views; consistent with Conditional Immortality, everyone who God wants to kill (this will be some people if it's FA or semi-UR, or no people if it's UR) has been killed, so all people are now "saved" and are immortal because God is keeping them alive with The Tree of Life; but with EM, in addition to saved people, unsaved sinners also are being kept alive, thus violating the if-then Condition of Conditional Immortality, giving us a STRONG biblical reason to reject EM. ]]
[[ Universal Immortality is not the same as Unconditional Immortality ---- ultimately, Universal Immortality (of all remaining humans) will occur with all views, as outlined in the "YES paragraph" above; with UR the Universal Immortality is "universal" by including all humans who ever lived; with FA or semi-UR it's selective by including some humans among all who ever lived. ]]
A belief in UR can be based on either a biblical principle of Conditional Immortality, or an unbiblical assumption of Unconditional Immortality for all humans. Either way, the result of UR is consistent with Conditional Immortality (CI) because UR doesn't violate the if-then condition that is required by God. { a question about terms: Why is CI often defined as “only FA” even though CI is “either FA or UR” when we use Bible-based logic? }
The Bible teaches us — with Genesis 3:22-24 plus Revelation 2:7 & 22:14, and in other ways — that humans are created for immortality (to be supernaturally supplied by God, but only IF...), but not with immortality (in ourselves).* Humans can become immortal in their afterlife only by ACCEPTING God's gift-of-grace during their life {with FA, UR, EM} or in their afterlife {if God allows this for the purpose of achieving UR}, but not {as with EM} by REJECTING grace. / * Many people assume universal human immortality, despite what the Bible teaches, partly due to Greek philosophy and other non-Biblical influences [==link to #-locations in c.htm and ci.htm, and later in this page] but mainly because they haven't carefully examined what the Bible teaches about immortality; instead they believe the deception in Genesis 3:4 when the serpent promised that, after disobeying God, "you surely will not die!"
Defenders of EM typically claim that, re: the EM of unsaved sinners, their Eternal Existence with Misery (with EM, without God) is not the true Immortality (Eternal Life with Joy, with God) that originally was planned by God (as described in Genesis), and eventually will be given by God (as promised in Revelation). But in making this claim they are playing intellectually dishonest "games with words" by trying to re-define immortality so it ceases to have its essential meaning of everlasting conscious existence.
EM violates the if-then condition for Conditional Immortality taught in the Bible, so EM is not consistent with the Bible. You can see this in a table that shows — when we ask "will sinners live forever?" — the contrast between "no" (consistent with Conditional Immortality) and YES (because universal Unconditional Immortality is required by Eternal Misery).
[[ this is mostly duplication / if-then Conditional Immortality: God has clearly declared, in Revelation, an if-then Condition — IF you accept His Grace, THEN you get His Life — that is consistent with Final Annihilation (because with FA the unsaved sinners no longer exist) or ultimate Universal Reconciliation (because with UR eventually the previously-unsaved sinners have been saved by grace, so they now fulfill the if-then condition for immortality),* but not with Eternal Misery because to produce EM-eternality God would have to change His decree from "must not... live forever" to “must live forever” so unsaved sinners can be forced to "live forever" in sinful misery.
[[ for Reason #2b -- Thus, with EM the sin of unsaved humans would be immortalized forever in The Final State of God's Creation. But with FA or UR, God will eliminate sin in The Final State; this glorious victory over sin, by eliminating it, is consistent with what the Bible teaches. ]]
[[ here is a summary, quoted from the overview-page:
Death and Immortality: What is the relationship between The Death Penalty and Conditional Immortality? Death is God's Penalty for Sinners. Conditional Immortality is God's Gift for Sinners, and The Condition, decided by God, is being saved by God, who wants to save us from slavery to sin (now in Life) and (later in Afterlife) save us from everlasting Death. / a brief biblical summary: God's penalty of Death was decreed in Genesis 3:22, and God's gift of Conditional Immortality is promised in Revelation 2:7 & 22:14.
2a — In the Afterlife, will God maintain SIN forever?
The overview-page briefly outlines "four related reasons to reject Eternal Misery." In this subsection you'll find details about one of the reasons, to supplement its brief outline:
2a — EM would cause sinners-and-sinning to exist forever, and God's creation would never be freed from sin even though the Bible declares that being freed from sin will happen. Eventually, God could "reconcile all things to Himself" with UR or FA, but not with EM.
I.O.U. - I'll begin writing this soon, probably in late-September 2017. Here are some ideas that eventually will be in it:
[[ God has promised, in Genesis and Revelation and in-between, that He will not maintain sin forever; this promise, and God's policy for achieving it, are key ideas in my detailed examination of conditional immortality (with a problem-solving perspective on Sin-and-Death, in past present future) to show how God has been and is and will be (in the past and present and future) solving problems; it concludes by explaining that "The goal of His divine policy, stated in Genesis 3:22 and actualized in Genesis 3:23-24, is to prevent eternal spiritual sinning. Now, in the present, God is pursuing this goal during Life, beginning to achieve it. Later, in the future, He will finish achieving this goal during Afterlife." In this section, I will summarize these ideas about "solving" the related problems of Sin-and-Death. ]]
[[ with EM, a person's penalty/debt for sinning is never paid, so tormenting must continue forever -- does this make sense biblically or logically? ]]
[[ if a holy God wants to minimize (or eliminate) unholy sin, why would He Ccreate-and-Oversee/Govern/BeResponsibleFor/PresideOver a hell in which unholy sinning would occur forever, be preserved forever, because He is preserving sinners (and their sinning) who are being kept alive forever by Him, in situations where they will never improve (because they will experience no beneficial changes that will improve them, that will reduce their sinning or even eliminate it) and will never escape ]]
[[ EM-response that God isn't near sin/sinners bec He is separate from them, they're in quarantine away from Him -- but God is ENABLER of sin, CAUSES it to continue by causing sinners to continue living ]]
[[ God removed The Tree of Life for two purposes: A) to protect sinners by preventing them from living forever in their sinful state; B) to protect His creation as a whole, by preventing sin from existing forever. ]]
[[ the Bible declares (I'll cite verses, e.g. in Col 1, Phil 2, Eph, Rev 21-22,... + OT by prophets & others) that eventually there will be a total restoration of God's entire creation; this apocatastasis (apokatastasis?) will include elimination of all sin, because the restoration/reconciliation would not be complete unless all sin is removed; a completely-good creation without sin, to produce apocatastasis, could occur with UR or FA, but not with EM due to the permanent sinning-in-hell that would occur with EM. ]]
2b — In the Afterlife, will God maintain DEATH forever?
The overview-page briefly outlines "four related reasons to reject Eternal Misery." In this subsection you'll find details about one of the reasons, to supplement its brief outline:
2b — EM would cause death to exist forever, because with EM The Second Death must be redefined to mean eternal existence in misery so The Second Death would continue forever, and God's creation would never be freed from death even though the Bible says "the last enemy that will be abolished is death."
I.O.U. - I'll begin writing this soon, maybe in late-September 2017. Here are some of the ideas that eventually will be in it:
[[ eventually death will be abolished, when everyone who will be killed — with permanent Second Death (whether it kills some with FA, or none with UR) — has been killed — there will be no more death (Rev 21:4), death will be the last enemy conquered (1 Cor 15), death thrown into Lake (Rev 20) whatever this means, plus the total reconciliations of "2a" above that would occur with either FA or UR but not with EM, because 2a and 2b are related, because 2b is one aspect of the total goodness that will occur with 2a ]]
[[ IOU - I'm not sure what I'll do with the ideas in this paragraph, because the range of possible meanings is wide -- Rev 20:13-14a, "the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire." notice the timing: first everyone is judged, "then" (14a) "death and Hades" are destroyed, so (21:4) "there will no longer be any death" when it's no longer necessary because all who were killed by God (some with FA or semi-UR, none with UR) already have been killed. But with EM, death (in the Second Death that is Eternal Misery] will continue forever. ]]
3 — Which views (EM, FA, UR) are compatible with Substitutionary Atonement?
The overview-page briefly outlines "four related reasons to reject Eternal Misery." In this subsection you'll find details about one of the reasons, to supplement its outline:
3 — EM wouldn't produce a satisfactory substitution for substitutionary atonement. EM claims “the penalty for sin is infinite suffering, without death” but... is this what Jesus, offering Himself as our substitute, experienced for us? No. He had finite suffering, with death. The principle of penal substitutionary atonement — with our penalty paid by the death of Jesus — is the heart of The Gospel, and is clearly stated by Paul ("we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son" when "Christ died for us") and by Jesus ("the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep") and Peter ("Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God"). With EM the substitution of substitutionary atonement doesn't make sense, because of two major differences, because Jesus had finite suffering (not the infinite suffering produced by EM) and death (not the without death required by EM).
Many theories of atonement — trying to explain HOW sinners are reconciled with God by the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ — claim to have theological support based on the Bible. Three major theories are Penal Substitution, Christus Victor, and Moral Example. I think penal (penalty-paying) Substitutionary Atonement is the most important part of the "how",* although not all of it because other views (especially Christus Victor, but also Moral Example) also are useful for understanding some aspects of the atonement. { MORE about theories of atonement – from Leon Morris and Theopedia (atonement in the Bible - by Christ with penal substitution & Christus Victor and more through links that include audio by Bruce Ware) and Wikipedia (Satisfaction and Penal Substitution) and more. }
* Therefore, in this section I'm assuming penal Substitutionary Atonement, because I think it's the most important part of atonement/reconciliation. Then I'm asking whether each of the three views-of-hell is compatible with it. The conclusions I've reached — based on reading the Bible and using logic — are NO for Eternal Misery, but YES for Conditional Immortality (and therefore YES for Final Annihilation and YES for Universal Reconciliation).
I don't understand why penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) is harshly criticized by some Christians, as when it's called "cosmic child abuse" by Steven Chalke.* It seems to me that this claim is based on theological ignorance (if Chalke and those who agree with him actually believe what they are claiming) or intellectual dishonesty (if they know that what they're claiming is an illogical "strawman distortion" of what PSA actually proposes, but they dishonestly say it anyway). {* instead of hateful abuse, we see the love story of psa that is the heart of The Gospel as discussed by 9Marks who help the church by "equipping church leaders with a biblical vision and practical resources for building healthy churches."} {also, I'm currently studying PSA to see if some formulations -- like those of Calvinists? -- may actually be non-loving in the way Chalke describes.}
* Why should Penal Substitutionary Atonement be proposed (not opposed) by Christian Universalists who believe the Bible? I think proponents of Universal Reconciliation (UR) also should be proponents of penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). But some who propose UR oppose PSA. I think they are wrong in two major ways, if we believe what the Bible teaches us about God and atonement.
First, critics claim that God would be violently bloodthirsty if He did PSA. For example, I've heard some critics describe PSA as the Father “beating the crap out of His Son” because “the wrath of God” required it. But this isn't what is being claimed. I might agree with the critics IF the penalty was Eternal Misery, but it isn't. Instead the divine penalty of death was done for our benefit as a gracious action of divine mercy, to prevent people (Adam & Eve & us) from living forever in sin. Then – with more divine mercy – after the experience of Abraham (when God provided the sacrifice so Isaac would not DIE) and The Passover (when a lamb DIED instead of the Israelites), God told Israel to use a system of worship that included the sacrifice of animals who DIED so they could serve as a substitute for the Israelites' penalty of death. Later, in a supreme act of divine mercy, Jesus DIED for us (He did not suffer in Eternal Misery) as a substitute for humans, to save us from His penalty of death, and from our slavery to sin. / God will save all people if Universal Reconciliation happens, or He will save some people if Final Annihilation (or semi-Universal Reconciliation) happens.
Second, critics of PSA ignore the tri-une nature of God that is affirmed by traditional Christianity. They seem to think that God (the divine Father) is abusing Jesus (the non-divine Son). Instead, if we believe the traditional doctrine of a tri-une God, the crucifixion of Jesus was an act of divine mercy that was pre-planned by Jesus, along with the Father and Holy Spirit. It was Jesus — before His incarnation, before His birth on earth — who graciously “voted” (in 100% agreement with Father & Holy Spirit) for His own crucifixion, because He wanted to offer Himself as a substitute for us, to remove His penalty-of-death from us. This was NOT cosmic child abuse, it was an action of divine merciful generosity by the divine Son of God, who (along with the Father and Holy Spirit) is God. The incarnation of Jesus — when He voluntarily decided to live with us, and die for us — was an action of divine mercy, with God paying our penalty for us, as described in Penal Substitutionary Atonement. And... the gracious mercy of crucifixion was followed by the glorious victory of resurrection! :<)
two summaries: First, God decided to do a death penalty for a merciful purpose, to prevent sinners from living forever in sin. Second, God decided to do a way of salvation that would let him do justice-with-love.
correlation and causation:
There seems to be a correlation between UR and anti-PSA, because a person who proposes UR is more likely to propose anti-UR, compared with a person proposing EM. Why?
theological causation? No. I think a UR-proposer can be (and should be) a PSA-proposer. There is no theological reason for a UR-proposer to be a PSA-rejecter. / But... a PSA-rejecter is more likely to become an EM-rejecter and FA-rejecter, and thus a UR-proposer, for reasons described in the next two paragraphs.
character of God: Sometimes... a person who thinks the Bible teaches a "kind and gentle" God (or who prefers a "kind and gentle" God, and wants to believe this no matter what the Bible teaches) will be drawn to both UR and anti-PSA. {but I think PSA is compatible with a kind-and-gentle God, because I think Genesis 3 strongly supports a claim that God was being kind (He was doing sinners a favor) by removing The Tree of Life so they would not live forever in their sinful condition; the divine penalty of death was actually an act of divine kindness, done for the purpose of preventing sinful immortality until we could have death AND sin removed, as two results of PSA}
willingness to question: Sometimes... a person who is willing to question (and then reject) one view is also willing to question/reject another view, so a "questioner" is more likely to reject both EM and PSA. By contrast, those who "go with the flow" by accepting "the traditional view" will retain EM (which I think is biblically wrong) and also will retain PSA (which I think is biblically correct)
The Death Penalty for Sin:
God has decided that the most severe penalty for sin will be death (as in FA or UR), not long-term suffering (as in EM). We can see this death penalty throughout the Bible, beginning with its foundation in the explicit statements of Genesis 3:22-24. Later in the Old Testament, God prevented death (not long-term suffering) in Abraham's test-of-faith, and in The Passover; in the Levitical Law, death (not long-term suffering) was the penalty for major action-sins; and death (not long-term suffering) was the focus of the sacrificial system that was created by God for Israel. In the New Testament, God created a better sacrificial system for the purpose of saving us from our slavery to sin and from the results of our sins — i.e., from death — by substitutionary atonement when Jesus died for us; He did not suffer in eternal misery for us, with long-term suffering. {MORE about The Death Penalty for Sin}
Substitutionary Atonement with Eternal Misery
Is there a satisfactory substitution with Eternal Misery? – NO
Below, I ask a similar question – "Is there a satisfactory substitution with Final Annihilation? – and answer YES.
EM claims that the penalty for sin is eternally lasting misery without physical death” but... is this what Jesus, offering Himself as our substitute, experienced for us? No. If, as claimed by EM, the divinely chosen penalty for sin is Eternal Misery with No Physical Death, then both parts of this combination must occur to produce a satisfactory substitution for penal Substitutionary Atonement. But both parts of this combination are absent in the experience of Jesus. What happened instead? In the events before and during His crucifixion, the suffering of Jesus was large but was finite (so His finite suffering was not the infinite suffering that would occur with Eternal Misery) and He died (so His physical death was not the "with No Physical Death" that would be required to produce Eternal Misery). Let's look at each part of the combination.
Infinite Suffering: Defenders of EM can claim that — due to the divinity of Jesus, who during His incarnation was fully human and fully divine — He could experience an infinite amount of suffering in a finite amount of time. But this claim isn't in the Bible, and it isn't logically justifiable. { I.O.U. - Eventually, in this paragraph I will explain why it's unbiblical & illogical. And soon I'll link to a web-article explaining why. } For now I'll just link to another unjustifiable claim about infinity, which tries to "morally justify an eternity of tormenting by using logically unjustifiable arguments about sins committed against an infinite God."
Without Death: But even if an infinity-argument was adequate (it isn't), EM still would have to explain why the "without physical death" experience during EM could be paid for by the "with physical death" substitutionary experience of Jesus, unless His death was an unnecessary part of His crucifixion experience. If a defender of EM claims “the penalty (for unsaved sinners and thus for Jesus) was only suffering” and we ask “at the point when His suffering was enough to pay our penalty, why did His cross-experience have to continue until He died?” they might reply “to show us His victory over death, when He was resurrected.” But this combination — suffering to pay the penalty for sin, and then (in two experiences that were not part of the penal substitution) death-and-resurrection to show His victory over death — is not consistent with the strong emphasis, throughout the Bible, that death is the penalty for sin and that "Christ died for us,... died for sins." When we're asking “is the substitution satisfactory?”, EM's requirement of "no death" is not compatible with the Bible's strong emphasis on...
Atoning Death: Did Jesus die for our sins? Yes. This is clearly stated by Paul: "We were reconciled to God by the death of his Son. … God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. … canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. ... If righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose. (Romans 5:10b, 5:8, Colossians 2:14, Galatians 2:21b, ESV)" And it's clearly stated by Jesus & Peter: "I [Jesus] am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. … Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit. (John 10:11, 1 Peter 3:18, NASB)" The atoning death of Jesus — strongly emphasized in the Bible, in these passages and elsewhere throughout the Bible — is not compatible with a penalty of Eternal Misery that requires "no death" so sinners can be immortal, so they can exist forever and be miserable forever.
Logically — by comparing what is clearly stated in the Bible with what would be required by EM — we should conclude that EM is not consistent with penal substitutionary atonement: if penal substitutionary atonement, then not EM. {more}
Substitutionary Atonement with Final Annihilation:
Is there a satisfactory substitution with Final Annihilation? – YES
Above, I ask a similar question – "Is there a satisfactory substitution with Eternal Misery? – and answer NO.
This subsection – about substitutionary atonement with FA – is a defense of both views (FA and UR) that would not violate Conditional Immortality. In both views, for an unsaved human The Penalty for Sin is Death, which results in their Annihilation. This penalty is proposed with FA (by definition) and also UR (if it's biblical, so its proposal for UR is consistent with the Conditional Immortality taught in the Bible) or semi-UR that is a hybrid of FA+UR. FA and UR both say “the penalty is death,” with a result of permanent Final Annihilation. But when we ask “who will receive this penalty?”, the differing answers are “some” with FA (or semi-UR) and “none” with UR.
A defender of EM can ask, to challenge FA, “did Jesus have a permanent death (with His existence ended forever, as in the Annihilation of FA) when He died on the cross?” No. But we can see a satisfactory substitution, for substitutionary atonement, when we carefully study the Bible and think logically.
Some careful studying-and-thinking has been done by Chris Date, who is the main blogger for Rethinking Hell, which is a website describing the strong Biblical evidence for Conditional Immortality generally, and specifically for Annihilation. This section summarizes some ideas from his excellent article – Cross Purposes: Atonement, Death and the Fate of the Wicked (Part 2) – that examines these ideas, and others, with more detail.
Here are some important concepts used in the article:
Two views of human nature (dualism, physicalism) differ when we ask “do humans have a non-material soul that survives our biological death?”, with a dualist saying YES, while a physicalist says NO.
A view of holistic dualism claims that, in the Bible, a living person is a whole person who has two essential parts, combined to form a psychosomatic unity combining an immaterial soul (it's their psycho) with a material body (their soma). When a person's psychosomatic unity is broken — by either the death of soul (so they have only soma)* or death of body (so they have only psycho), or death of both (so they have neither) — their psychosomatic LIFE is gone, so they have DEATH. {* most dualists think this (a body without a soul, so it's "only soma") never happens in reality}
A view of holistic physicalism is analogous, but with a person's psychosomatic unity including their mind (their psycho) whose functioning depends on their material body (their soma in psychosomatic). When a person's psychosomatic unity is broken — by the death of their body (which causes the death of their mind) — their psychosomatic LIFE is gone, so they have DEATH. { I.O.U. - Soon I will ask Chris to look at the ideas in this whole section, to ask “am I describing the concepts accurately?” and “if not, what should I change to make it more accurate?” }
Jesus was (and is) a unique person: according to historic Christian doctrines, during His incarnation Jesus — unlike any other person — was fully human, but also (in the tri-une God, with Father & Son & Holy Spirit) fully divine; due to His special human/divine nature, He was similar to us in many ways, but not all. Here are three differences. / If we're thinking about substitutionary atonement from the perspective of a physicalist, when an ordinary human dies their human mind stops functioning; but when Jesus died at the end of His human incarnation, He still existed in the triune God, so although his human mind stopped functioning, He had a divine Mind that continued functioning. / Two other differences, for either a dualist or physicalist, are in timing and judging. Re: timing, Jesus already has been resurrected, but all ordinary humans will be resurrected later. Re: judging, ordinary humans will be judged, but Jesus will do the judging, so we will receive our penalty(s) and/or rewards from Jesus.
also: When describing these views, some people (but not others) will agree when I say, in the table below, that human nature includes "soul + spirit +
mind + body" for dualism, and "spirit + mind + body" for physicalism, because there are disagreements about how to split various aspects of human natures, what a "split" means, and also whether to split.
my semi-views: I'm not committed to any kind of "split" (even though I describe "splits" in the table) or to either dualism or physicalism. I think an appropriate humility is justifiable, because the Bible provides some evidence for all of the main views, but not enough evidence to support any of them with a high degree of confidence. And there is no necessary connection between any of these views and our views of The Final State: Conditional Immortality (and thus both FA & UR) is compatible with either dualism or physicalism; but unbiblical assumptions of soul-immortality often influence people to accept EM.
The table below shows — according to two views of human nature (dualist, physicalist) — the states of three people (Jesus, and an unsaved human, and a saved human) during four time periods (during their biological LIFE, and in an Intermediate State between their death & resurrection, and their early Afterlife after resurrection but before The Judgment, and their Final State of Afterlife)
Four table cells – those with colored text – are especially important because they show, for dualism & physicalism, the ending of psychosomatic LIFE (and thus the DEATH) that did occur for Jesus and will occur for an unsaved human, to show how Annihilation (due to a Death Penalty for Sin) is consistent with Substitutionary Atonement.
two perspectives on
the nature of humans: |
biological LIFE
(birth to death) |
Intermediate State
(before resurrection) |
early AfterLife
(after resurrection) |
Final State of AfterLife
(after Judgment-Results) |
dualist view of
Jesus (human+divine) |
soul + mind
+
spirit + body |
soul alive + body dead,
→ not psychosomatic LIFE
(it's His crucifixion-DEATH) |
Soul alive +
glorified alive Body |
Soul alive +
glorified alive Body |
dualist view of
unsaved humans
(they will pay penalty
of DEATH for sinning) |
soul + mind
+
spirit + body |
soul alive + body dead
→ not psychosomatic LIFE |
soul alive +
temporary alive body |
soul dead + body dead,
→ not psychosomatic LIFE ,
so is DEATH , as with Jesus
after His crucifixion-DEATH |
physicalist view of
Jesus (human+divine) |
mind
+ spirit + body |
Mind alive + body dead,
→ not psychosomatic LIFE
(it's His crucifixion-DEATH) |
Mind alive
+ glorified alive Body |
Soul alive +
glorified alive Body |
physicalist view of
unsaved humans
(they will pay penalty
of DEATH for sinning) |
mind
+ spirit + body |
mind dead + body dead,
→ not psychosomatic LIFE
|
mind alive +
temporary alive body |
mind dead + body dead,
→ not psychosomatic LIFE ,
so is DEATH , as with Jesus
after His crucifixion-DEATH |
the cells below are gray to show they are not useful when we ask "is the substitution satisfactory?" |
dualist view of
saved humans |
soul + mind
+
spirit + body |
soul alive + body dead,
→ not psychosomatic LIFE |
soul alive +
temporary alive body |
soul alive +
glorified alive body,
with psychosomatic LIFE |
physicalist view of
saved humans |
mind
+ spirit + body |
mind dead + body dead,
→ not psychosomatic LIFE |
mind alive +
temporary alive body |
mind alive +
glorified alive body,
with psychosomatic LIFE |
Satisfactory Substitution
Chris Date, in his article, explains why annihilation is consistent with substitutionary atonement (when Jesus "died for us") because DEATH (in a loss of psychosomatic LIFE) was experienced by Jesus, and eventually will be experienced by unsaved sinners. Chris says:
"Conditionalists see the death penalty — whether temporal or eternal — as the punitive privation of this psychosomatic life. This is true even of physicalists like myself,* who understand the compound word "psychosomatic" to refer to the interaction of mind and body, rather than soul (as traditionally thought of) and body, as a dualist might be inclined to do. Thus the punishment of death, as "the wages of sin" (Rom 6:32), consists in being deprived of life once enjoyed as a pyschosomatic unity, in whatever way that lack is experienced — if it is experienced at all. A dualist conditionalist may affirm the disembodied conscious existence of Jesus after his death and will deny that the finally impenitent will persist consciously after their second death (Matt 10:28), but in either case the punishment has been (in the case of Jesus) and will be (in the case of the annihilated wicked) the same: the privation of life. In a dualistic conditionalism, then, Jesus truly stood in the place of those for whom he died, giving up his (psychosomatic) life as a genuine substitute for theirs."
* In this article, Date's focus is on dualism. He describes how a dualist-conditionalist can explain the substitution of substitutionary atonement, with DEATH (in a loss of psychosomatic LIFE after the death of either body or body-and-soul) leading to the Intermediate State of Jesus (after death of Body) and (after death of body-and-soul) the Final State of unsaved humans. In a future article, he will describe a physicalist-conditionalist explanation. But in his current article, I've colorized the text (above) where he shows how the same basic principle — with DEATH occurring when there is a loss of psychosomatic LIFE — can be used by a dualist or physicalist, whether the psychosomatic LIFE is soul-and-body (as viewed with dualism) or mind-and-body (with physicalism). { This principle can be used by a conditionalist who is a dualist or physicalist, whether they propose FA, semi-UR, or UR. }
Imperfect Analogy
About halfway through his article, in a section about "Temporary Subsistence vs Eternal Nonexistence" he acknowledges two differences between the DEATH for Jesus and for unsaved sinners:
the DEATH was Temporary for Jesus (during the Intermediate State for Him), but later will be Eternal for unsaved sinners (in the Final State of Afterlife for them).
the experience was Subsistence for Jesus (because although His body was dead, His soul was alive), but later the result will be Nonexistence for unsaved sinners (with no life of any kind because, in addition to a dead body, their soul also will be dead).
Then he explains how, with a dualist view of Annihilation, these two differences — temporary vs eternal, and subsistence vs nonexistence — are theologically consistent with substitutionary atonement. In the article as a whole, he describes why a logical evaluation of biblical evidence supports this claim — that the substitution is satisfactory for Annihilation — but does not support the analogous claim for Eternal Misery. His final paragraph is a summary:
"In the final analysis, dualist conditionalists can wholeheartedly affirm the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement, summarized (as noted above) by traditionalist Robert Peterson as meaning that Jesus died in place of his people "and bore the punishment that they deserved." That punishment was death, the privation of life once enjoyed as a psychosomatic unity of body and soul, the very punishment conditionalists argue awaits the finally lost. And dualist conditionalists can explain why Jesus went on consciously to experience that privation in a disembodied subsistence and was raised three days later, even though the risen wicked will be completely and forever destroyed on the Last Day, in body and soul. But because traditionalists posit that the resurrected lost will go on
living immortal forever, they cannot affirm that Jesus truly bore the punishment in place of those who will believe in him."
The two sections above explain why — when we ask “is there a satisfactory substitution?” and carefully examine the details of penal Substitutionary Atonement — our Bible-based answer should be NO for Eternal Misery, but YES for Final Annihilation:
NO, because the major problems for Eternal Misery cannot be solved.
YES, because the minor questions for Annihilation can be answered.
We should say YES for Annihilation, even though the experiences — for Jesus and for unsaved sinners — are not perfectly analogous. In fact, we should expect the analogy to be imperfect, for several related reasons:
• The unique nature of Jesus, who during His life on earth was fully divine (in the triune God) and fully human. His divine/human nature let Him be our divine Savior, and also makes perfect analogy impossible. But with FA we can get much closer to satisfactory substitution, compared with EM in which the Final State of an unsaved person is eternally without death even though the Bible strongly emphasizes that Jesus Christ can save us from God's death penalty because He "died for our sins." But the death of Jesus Christ was not the end for Him or for us, because (due to His unique nature) He had a unique death, because...
• The death-and-resurrection of Jesus was a “package deal” that was pre-planned by the triune God, by Father/Son/HolySpirit. This plan was a unanimous triune decision;* it was not a 2-to-1 vote with Jesus pleading “please don't kill Me” but Father & HolySpirit saying “shut up, We have out-voted You.” But... after the death of Jesus, the power of God brought Him back to bodily afterlife, and it will bring all humans back to bodily afterlife (John 5:28-29) to await Judgment. Jesus accepted our death penalty for us, and then was raised to permanent afterlife with resurrection; now, because Jesus paid our penalty, after our universal resurrection and God's judgment, a person also can be raised to permanent afterlife by God, who will give a person The Tree of Life if (and only if) He decides to save them. {I'm disappointed by those claiming “substitutionary atonement is cosmic child abuse” because this ignores the fact that before and during His incarnation so He could be with us, Jesus (along with Father and HolySpirit) WANTED His life to end with His death.}
• There is a difference in timing between the death-experiences for Jesus and for unsaved people, because God's gift of (conditional) immortality is available only during Afterlife; during Life all normal (non-divine) humans, both saved and unsaved, remain mortal due to the divine decree of Genesis 3:22-24; during Afterlife for normal humans, the penalty for sin — received by people who don't meet God's condition of being saved by God during their Life (for FA, UR, semi-UR, or EM) or during their Afterlife (for UR or semi-UR) — will be a permanent loss of "soul and body" as described in Matthew 10:28. This difference in timing is why the "table cells... with colored text" are time-shifted so they're in different columns, because the death-experience for Jesus was in the past (producing His Intermediate State) and the death-experience for unsaved sinners will be in the future (producing their Final State of AfterLife).
Understanding the Views
Christians should have Intellectual Integrity: It's important for us to understand what Bible-based Christian Universal Reconciliation is — and what it isn't (it isn't postmodern religious pluralism) — and to remember this during all evaluations & discussions. We should not use (ourselves) and should not allow (by others) any strawman-arguments that are intended to mislead, and therefore are intellectually dishonest. {for example, 7 myths about UR}
Comparing the Views
Theologically, three views — Eternal Misery (EM), Final Annihilation (FA), Universal Reconciliation (UR) — are almost identical,* and each view can be compatible with all fundamentals of Bible-based Christian faith. {The term "universalism" can have many different meanings, but this page describes evangelical Christian UR that is based on the Bible so it can affirm all fundamentals of Christian faith.} The only view-differences are in the final state of UNSAVED humans, which are similar & different in the ways shown here:
| |
EM |
FA |
UR |
will everyone live forever?
will SINNERS live forever? (contrary to Gen 3:22) |
yes
YES |
NO
no |
yes
no |
does God punish sin because it's evil and serious?
does sin (and evil sinning) continue forever? |
yes
YES |
yes
no |
yes
no |
| does the view seem to be unfair? (causing injustice) |
YES |
no |
no |
will everyone (saved and unsaved) be resurrected?
will some people suffer? (weeping & gnashing,...);
why this suffering? - because our actions matter? |
yes
yes
yes |
yes
yes
yes |
yes
yes
yes |
| is there everlasting punishment? (EM vs FA & UR?) |
yes |
yes |
NO |
salvation requires faith in Jesus, with repentance?
benefits (in Life+Afterlife) for living-by-faith now?
will God allow repentance-and-faith after death? |
yes
YES
no |
yes
Yes
no |
yes
yes
YES |
Non-Useful Questions and Useful Questions:
An understanding of all views is necessary to recognize that some questions, but not others, are logically useful. This table makes it easy to compare views — to see their similarities & differences — so we can know whether a particular biblical passage (and a question based on it) will be logically useful by helping us distinguish between views. For example, the table shows...
one non-useful question: Asking "will some people suffer [in hell]?" is not a useful question because this question cannot help us distinguish between views, because all views agree ("yes yes yes" in the table) that unsaved people will suffer in Hell — with suffering that is psychological, and maybe also physical — during judgment and in hell. Therefore, a Bible-passage about suffering in hell (as in "weeping and gnashing of teeth") does not provide support for EM, or support against FA or UR.
one useful question: But asking "will sinners live forever [in hell]?" is a useful question (it's a Crucial Question)* because it helps us distinguish between views; the red-YES shows a serious flaw of EM, because it requires universal Unconditional Immortality, so it violates the Bible-based principle of Conditional Immortality. This violation is strong biblical evidence against EM.
* Crucial Experiments & Questions, in Science & Theology: For science, in a Crucial Experiment we observe nature as our source of information about natural reality. For theology, in an effort to answer analogous Crucial Questions we observe The Bible (by reading it) as our source of information about natural-and-supernatural reality. In both science and theology, in our process-of-thinking we use evidence (in our observations of nature or Scripture) plus logic. {comparing science and theology}
another useful question: It's also useful to ask "will God allow repentance-and-faith after death?" because UR (or semi-UR) says yes, but traditional FA & EM say no. This question is important because a “yes” weakens (or eliminates) most Biblical objections to UR.
To avoid a common misunderstanding, a confusion that occurs because universalism is a term with many meanings, everyone should understand — and should emphasize — the fact that Christian Universalism is not Religious Pluralism. To clarify this, we can ask...
another useful question: All views agree (yes yes yes) when we ask whether "salvation requires faith in Jesus, with repentance?" All views agree, so why is this question useful? Because it eliminates a strawman-distortion by helping us distinguish between a Christian Universalism saying "yes" and a non-Christian Pluralism (not shown in the table) saying "no". Due to this major difference, most theological arguments against non-Christian religious pluralism — made by using evidence (from our observations of the Bible) and logic — are not arguments against Christian Universalism. { Do all roads lead to God? UR says "no". Instead, UR claims that God will be able to find each person — eventually, in Life or in Afterlife — no matter what road they are on. And that this finding is illustrated by divine searches for a lost sheep, coin, and son in Luke 15. } {universalism and exclusivism}
Our non-useful questions ask about resurrection & judgment, and suffering in hell, and whether salvation depends on faith-and-repentance. Because all views agree (all say "yes") these questions don't help us distinguish between the views.
Our useful questions about Afterlife-in-Hell, for unsaved people, are when we ask “what will happen in hell?” and “what is the final result of their process-in-hell?” These questions are useful because the views disagree about the quality & quantity of their experiences (the suffering-intensity & time-duration) and their final fate, which depend on God's purposes for them. Will the purpose of God be to punish and/or to educate-and-heal? Will the duration of their hell-experience be eternal (with EM) or temporary (with FA or UR)? Will their final fate be permanent misery (EM) or permanent non-existence (FA) or permanent reconciliation (UR)?
In the next-to-last row of the table, we see a question about "benefits (in Life + Afterlife) for living-by-faith now": For a believer, the currently-imagined "benefits in... Afterlife" are largest with EM because the largest penalty would be avoided, thus "YES Yes yes". But, as explained in Motivations for Continually Living by Faith, maybe UR offers the best "benefits in Life" if believing UR makes it easier for a person to love God fully with their whole heart and mind.
note: Each of the 3 views (or 4 views, with semi-UR) also is known by other names – and some of these are more common than the names I'm using.
Semi-Universal Reconciliation...
is described briefly in the overview-page and more fully later in this page in a section that includes this table, which shows that semi-UR is most similar to FA, only differing from FA when we ask "is after-death repentance possible?" and (if some are saved in their afterlife) in the number of people who will be saved by God. As indicated by the two names, "the number of people who will be saved by God," when we ask "will everyone live forever?", is the difference between Reconciliation that is semi-Universal (with semi-UR) and is fully Universal (with UR).
Universal Reconciliation — why am I Hopeful and Optimistic?
Below, the two "yellow boxes" explain my...
• Reasons to be Hopeful — why all Christians should hope that UR will happen.
• Reasons to be Optimistic — why Bible-believing Christians have logical reasons to think UR will happen and also to
think UR won't happen, so I cannot believe (with a high level of confidence that is biblically justifiable) in either UR or not-UR.
|
