I have been having some discussion with a commenter named, Brian, in the following thread. Brian wants to maintain a possibility for post-mortem salvation; a notion most notably propounded by Robin Parry, in his book, The Evangelical Universalist. The idea, 
according to Brian, is that there is no “time-limit” on when someone can come to Christ. In other words, the idea would go something like this: Sally leaves this world without repentance and reception of Christ as her Lord and Savior; after she has been judged at the Great White Throne Judgment (Rev 20); cast into Gehenna and Outer Darkness; after she has say been there for a million years (based on our current understanding of linear time), she might finally decide to willingly and repentantly bow the knee to Christ; at which point she will be allowed into the New Heavens and Earth. This is ostensibly the position, Brian, affirms while at the same time rejecting Christian Universalism (of the sort Robin Parry endorses and articulates). This is interesting, at one level, just because Brian borrows Parry’s mechanism of the possibility for ‘post-mortem’ salvation, but rejects the conclusion of universalism. But, there is dissonance here when we reduce the logic to its conclusion (reductio ad absurdum). Dissonance in the sense, that inherent to the notion of the possibility for ‘post-mortem’ salvation, is the hypothetical that all people could finally bow the knee to Christ; we might call Brian’s position hypothetical universalism (not to be confused with what we typically associate with this language in reference to the extent of the atonement; cf. Francis Turretin et al.), since it is plausible, on his premises, that all people, given enough time (I mean eternity is a long time) could subjectively and spiritually receive Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. Brian gives no reasons for why this couldn’t or won’t obtain; he is seemingly happy with living with the notion that he is not a universalist while at the same time holding, logically, to what obtains as universalist logic.
One biblically based counter-proposal to Brian’s position can be provided for by intertextually reading I Corinthians 15.20-28 alongside Revelation 20.11-15; qualified by a passage like Matthew 25.41. Let’s note these passages, and then provide some commentary with application to Brian’s proposal.
20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted.28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all. –I Corinthians 15
11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire. –Revelation 20
37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’ –Matthew 25
My counter-proposal—and one in keeping with the traditional teaching of the Church over the last many millennia—should be apparent by reflecting upon the emboldened verses from each of the pericopes presented.
In I Corinthians 15 we note that the last enemy ‘death’ will be put under Jesus’s feet at his second coming (per the broader eschatological context of the passage). In Revelation 20 we see that ‘death and hades’ are thrown into the ‘lake of fire’; which we, as we think thematically, can understand as the actualization and fulfillment of what the Apostle Paul is referring to in Corinthians. And then we see the Matthew passage qualifying the character of what this ‘fire’ entails; in other words, Matthew helps us to see how long this judgment lasts. The Matthew passage is also important because it ties the plight of “reprobate” people into the same plight as the devil and his reprobate angels. If this is so, as a further complication for Brian’s position, in order to retain logical consistency, he would have to argue that not only is post-mortem conversion available to lost human beings, but it is also available to lost angels, inclusive of the devil himself. But the primary point I want to draw out of the Matthew passage revolves around the language of ‘everlasting fire.’ The Greek word there, translated as ‘everlasting,’ is αἰώνιον from the lexeme αἰώνιος meaning, “eternal (of quality rather than time); unending, everlasting, for all time.”[1]
The burden Brian must overcome is how the New Testament characterizes the state of judgment unregenerate people are placed under in the eschaton. From the critical lexicons the language refers to a ‘for-all-time’ or ‘unending’ state. This minimal coverage militates, decisively, against Brian’s contention that the possibility for post-mortem salvation is a reality. True, some contemporary Christian Universalists like Ilaria Ramelli, Robin Parry, and now, David Bentley Hart have attempted to offer alternative readings to the traditional teaching in this area, but I haven’t found their respective works to undo the traditional reading of these things. Either way, Brian remains with the burden of undercutting even this minimal proposal as I have presented it (rather quickly) here in this post; he has the added burden of how he is able to deploy what I call the ‘universalist logic’ while at the same time repudiating the conclusion that logic leads to (and from) in so called Christian Universalism.
[1] Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren eds., The Greek New Testament, 4th edition: Dictionary (Germany: Biblia-Druck, D-Stuttgart, 1998), 6.
Hello everyone this is the “Brian” Bobby is referring to in this post.
Before he wrote the post about Barth and Christian Universalism, I thought Bobby might agree with me that in the Judgment, everyone will face Jesus, the Judge who died for all, and they will have to decide whether they will trust Him. Those who trust their Savior take part in the joy of the life God has given them in Christ. Those who reject Him continue in their hostility and the hell that goes with it. I found out he does not agree with this.
I never said there was “no time limit” on the repentance and I am open to their being a time limit. Honestly, I am even open to death being the limit, as Bobby believes, after which humans lose their freewill and are fixed in whatever sinful state they were in when they died. Their “fate” as he said is sealed. Bobby believes God welcomes some to heaven or send some to hell even against their will. Right now however I am convinced from Christian theology and the whole meta-narrative of Scripture it is not necessary to think the time of our natural death is the point at which humans can no longer repent and turn to Christ. And that Jesus would receive them. He may have made it seem like the example of Sally was my example. I never used that example and am perfectly open to their being some time limit after Judgment Day for people to repent. My minimal assertion was that humans would have an opportunity. We all know loved ones who have died friendly to Christianity but who have not fully given their allegiance to Jesus Christ. If God loves human beings before they experience natural death, then I would wonder why God wouldn’t love human beings the same after they die.
As for people who one day wind up in “hell” I picture it the same way C.S. Lewis put it… something like the “door to hell is locked from the inside.” So Bobby is correct, I am not a Christian Universalist. I am not one because I believe there are people who are evil; they truly do not want God’s love and they hate God and don’t want to know Him. They obviously must be sequestered away and for this I think C.S. Lewis’ book “The Great Divorce” perhaps might present an accurate image of this state of affairs.
So to summarize my limited assertion/question: why think that natural death marks the point in time, when human beings can no longer repent and turn to Christ and when God will no longer receive and accept a persons genuine allegiance and loyalty with a bowed knee?
Well sorry this was not as precise and complete as I wanted it to be. In a bit of a hurry but thanks for keeping this topic going Bobby. It is a live question it seems to me for many Christians today in church but many are afraid to bring this topic up. Glad we could do it here.
Brian, if you reread your comments you used the no “time-limit” language more than once. But that’s why I linked to the post so everyone could read the comment thread in full. So, now you’re saying you’re open to their being a time-limit, and yet you’re still also claiming that even after someone dies they will still have the “opportunity” to repent and come to Christ. If this is so, at what point would you think this opportunity comes to a close?
Beyond that, now I have presented you with a scriptural argument; I’d like to see you respond to it. And I’d like to see your argument from Scripture, counter mine, that an opportunity remains open post-mortem for salvation.
Hi Bobby yes an opportunity is what I am asserting and as to how long that opportunity lasts, I don’t know but it seems to me a loving God would at least offer an opportunity to repent post-mortem when humans will come in contact with reality and see things as they truly are. If they don’t repent at that point then it seems to me its on them. I will take more time to re-read your post and give it my best shot at a response later. Thanks again.
I don’t think I misrepresented your position or what you said at all, Brian.
I think I would support what stanrock is saying about aionios. I can mean agelong and just be contrasting with a brief and fleeting period.
aiónios: agelong, eternal
Original Word: αἰώνιος, ία, ιον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: aiónios
Phonetic Spelling: (ahee-o’-nee-os)
Definition: agelong, eternal
Usage: age-long, and therefore: practically eternal, unending; partaking of the character of that which lasts for an age, as contrasted with that which is brief and fleeting.
Again, Brian, that’s universalism. It’s quality of life vis a vis God. But at this point you aren’t seemingly willing to interact with what I’ve presented, and keep ignoring or glossing past it. IOW, this discussion, for my time, is no longer worth having. You are evading. I already gave the same lexical range in my post; that doesn’t change the biblically contextual argument. Nor does it change the theological realities when thought from a doctrine of God and eternality of life or non-life, therein. So, I’m going to move on now.
By the way, Brian, if you’re wondering where Stan went … I had to let him go. He has an MO, from the past, when commenting at my blog. He only shows up with gotcha sorts of comments, laced with insult. His last comment, which you may or may have not seen was one of his normal passive aggressive comments; and so that’s finally enough! Just a heads up for you.
Something to be clear about, which Stan didn’t seem to appreciate, this is a quick blog post which I wrote in about 30 minutes; only to attempt to outline some of the lineaments of the way I might attempt to argue more fully (if I had time!). Because this was not appreciated, by Stan, he used the nature of this medium, and thus the very brief and quick nature of my post, to insult my intelligence and to assert that I am not as well read in this area as I claim to be. But in fact over the years I have read much in this area, listened to interviews from the pertinent people (like Ramelli, Hart, Parry et al); and have even read more in the area of Patristics on this than I have let on in this very simple post.
All I am attempting to do in this post is to present a prima facie reading of the text of the NT, in a very limited and bloggy way. But I still think my point stands. Anyway, you’ll need to know why Stan is gone. I have some history with him. And again, the only time he chooses to comment is when he wants to engage in gotcha comments laced with insult. I’m not having that on my blog.
HI Bobby thanks for the explanation about Stan. I am also trying to post stuff from work and haven’t had time to really think about your post. So I am not evading just need a little time.
Thanks…
That’s okay, Brian. I’m going to move on. You can respond further if you like, but I’ve got other things to deal with.
“But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.”
Seems like the crucial point is our response…each individual’s response…at Christ’s coming…
“And just as it is appointed for mortals to die once, and after that the judgment, ” Hebrews 9:27
At this point of judgment (krisis), when all human beings will face Christ at his return. Isn’t it possible that some — who did not acknowledge him in their earthly life — might fall on their knees before him (especially once they’re resurrected and see Jesus standing before them)???
BJM,
I don’t understand your point about “once they’re resurrected.” To be resurrected is to be in participation with the resurrected Christ; something that occurs according to Jn 5.24 prior to an after-life possibility or experience. I mean we can all certainly speculate about all these sorts of things, but at an exegetical level—contextually/canonically considered—the speculation must be reigned in by the exegesis itself. In other words, as per method, I prefer to stick with what is ‘revealed’ rather than engage in speculative maneuvers that fit with a wish I might have. People clearly do reason from their wishes, a foritiori as if if they would hope for a universalist hope, how much greater must God. But I reject this sort of ‘analogy of being’ reasoning, and thus must be dependent upon what is revealed rather than speculated.
Some, in a locus-method sort of way (David Congdon comes to mind), abstract what they take to be the inner-theo-logic of Scripture’s teaching, and then build coherentist edifices upon this prior structure. But then, when examined, it is hard to see how those foundations, abstract from Scripture as they are (and that’s the point that must be argued i.e. the inner-logic), can serve as fruitful venues for arriving at the sort of universalist conclusion that Congdon does. Granted, Congdon is an extreme example, but helps to elucidate just what in fact is going on in the universalist logic in general (sorry, that was a tangent, but not tangential to my basic point).
As far as what is possible, yes, with God all things are possible; but not all things are plausible. I can only say that on the basis of Scripture’s teaching. Once again, that is the contested point here. But we at least ought to have ways to discern what is actually an implicate of Scripture’s inner-reality and what is not. I don’t think universalism is part of the Scripture’s inner-reality, and as such reject it as a viable conclusion.
Hello Bobby,
Jesus was crucified between two criminals says Luke 23:33 and what is not heard coming out of Jesus’ mouth to them should count as evidence (not proof) in favor of the plausibility of Post-Mortem Repentance. If not, I would think, a Jesus who cared, would be one who would warn them right then and there that their natural death will indicate that they will be fixed in whatever sinful state they were in when they die so they better do the right thing NOW and put their trust and faith in Him as their Savior and Lord, or else! But Jesus said nothing of this sort. So it seems to me He doesn’t care about them that much or, Post-Mortem Repentance seems to be plausible. I choose the later.
Jesus also prayed from the cross “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing” in Luke 23:34. Jesus looked down from the cross upon a scene that must have been sad to Him. The Roman soldiers were gambling for His clothing (John 19:23–24); the religious leaders were mocking Him (Matthew 27:41–43); and the crowd was blaspheming Him (Matthew 27:39). Surrounded by this group of sinners, Jesus prayed for them, “Father, forgive them”. Now there is a good chance very few of those people became Christian converts. So without any chance for them for Christian repentance after their death, you could only conclude that God would not actually forgive them and He would most likely send them to Hell perhaps, even against their wills.
I am convinced that the Gospel is what it is even after death. In a scheme which includes God receiving man’s repentance after death (for whatever time God decides) then one could say God answered Jesus’ prayer and forgave sinful humanity and that in the Judgment, everyone will face Jesus, the Judge who died for all, and they will have to decide whether they will trust Him. Those who trust their Savior take part in the joy of the life God has given them in Christ. Those who reject Him continue in their hostility and the hell that goes with it.
Brian, thanks for spending more time. But you are arguing purely from silence. Which isn’t really an argument at all.
I will say this, Brian. The possibility for postmortem salvation could happen, sure! But that’s only a very hopeful hope. This hope cannot be read out of scripture in a dogmatic way, I don’t think. And btw, if I held dogmatically to this hope I wouldn’t stop where you do but would follow its conclusion to universalism.
Hi.
I am not a universalist. But if all will die and then face the judgement, that implies they are resurrected. Some to eternal life with God, some not.
I’m just saying that at that point of resurrection, when standing before the Lord Jesus, some (not all) who did not acknowledge him in life might do so at that point.
No, BJM, according to Scripture not all are “resurrected,” only those who have already been resurrected participatorily in Christ (that’s why I referred you to Jn 5.24). Revelation 20 makes it totally clear that those who are resurrected are already in Christ, and those who are not in Christ are not resurrected but given over to the second death. So your premise doesn’t come from biblical teaching. That’s all I’m trying to point out.