The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Holiness in Heaven: The Need for Purgation

Hi Melchizedek,

I suppose I have a more radical view of the extent and purpose of Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross than most others who hope for universal salvation. Sharing in Christ’s suffering is really not possible in my mind. Christ experienced the full extent of all the suffering and death since the beginning of time, 14 billion years worth. This is how I see the true nature of God revealed to the world in the crucified Jesus, not an omnipotent God but an “omni-empathetic” God who knows and feels all the pain and death of the universe and takes it (the judge who saves the world) into Himself to heal all things by emptying Himself into all of creation. What those who witnessed the crucifixion saw and what we know from their account is like the 4% of the universe that we can perceive while the vast majority is the 96% that is dark (the experience of Jesus’ godforsakenness hidden from us) which is beyond our perception and understanding.
When he is revealed to us at the Parousia we will see fully who he is and what he endured for everyone’s sake and that will transform us into the authentic image of God we were meant to be.

My concern is that when we talk about the suffering that occurs in this world is what is attributed to be the cause of that suffering. It is one thing to say that 1st century believers suffered at the hands of Rome for the sake of gospel and quite another to attribute the suffering of the infants who we thrown alive into a fire pit at Auschwitz as in any way being a chastisement from God. We need to be very careful and specific when we assert that the suffering that is rife in this world is somehow mandated by God or even allowed by Him. I don’t think you or most others on this board are doing that but a general reader who should happen across these kinds of discussions may infer that God does somehow “save” people by putting them through “hell on Earth” experiences in this world rather than saving them from such hells.

This is an interesting point; So far as I can see, he did not afflict those already afflicted in order to produce faith. But neither do I think that discipline or the lake of fire take the role of “affliction” as such; It seems that these are perhaps more circumstantial manfestations of God’s purification; sort of a “trial by fire” concept in order to strip us of that which keeps us from wholeness. By way of example; a surgeon cutting out a cancerous tumor is not afflicting his patient, yet it is a process which must be endured by the patient to become well and restored to wholeness.

The “trial by fire” concept sounds awfully pagan to me, something like trial by combat. But then of course Jesus did not merely cure the sick, he healed them, made them whole in the full sense of the word; a precursor sign of the eschatological resurrection. Modern medicine has made some significant advances in the past century but it doesn’t come close what Jesus was able to do. So I don’t think comparing the healing touch of Jesus with modern medicine is a fair comparison.

Dave,

I’m puzzled. You appear to suggest to Mel that it’d be perverse to think that suffering could be “allowed by God”? What’s the alternative? Is is to see God as heretofore unable to change the nature of our painful existence? You say, testing by “fire” seems like a pagan idea. Would you agree that Biblical writers appear to affirm this ‘pagan’ metaphor?

You seem to say that the meaning of Jesus’ hidden 'godforsakeness is that we become exempt from ‘sharing in suffering.’ That does sound as attractive as dispensationalism’s vision of a pretribulation rapture. But what basis do you see in experience or Scripture to believe this is the reality? Do you think that Jesus was actually ‘forsaken’ by God? If so, why?

Hi Dave; thanks for this reply. I think it’s very helpful in clearing up some misunderstanding!

Ah, Ok. This does make sense to me, and I agree; I just wasn’t understanding where you were going with it from the last comment. That is an important distinction for sure.

Very good point!

Yes, I suppose there is something to this. I don’t really know what else to say about it at the moment!

Yes, there seems to be an imputed worthiness or righteousness from Christ in play here, just sort of hanging out and waiting for us. It occurred to me on further reflection that this purification/ worthiness that we’re speaking of is being held in Christ where our true identity lies. I can’t help but wonder what types of circumstances are required to get us to the place where we come to an end of ourselves so that we can even see the need to begin to experience what’s already there, but I do see how it’s problematic to equate the normal circumstances of living in a fallen world to a purification process. That’s actually one of the things that got me wondering about the whole process. If the lake of fire is not a process of purification in this life, and not a final punitive judgment then what is it, precisely? How does the basanizo look and function temporally and/or eschatologically?

Sure, I can see this as a fair point, and it may indeed be something of a pagan notion as I stated it, though that is not how it was intended. The modern medicine idea is not the most accurate comparison to be sure, but my thought was not to create an exact analogy, but to try to communicate a scriptural concept; namely that it seems that some type of “death” or “loss” is what leads to life. If we want to hang on to our life (apart from Christ) then we will lose it, but if we “lose it for his sake” (let go of that which hinders us from finding the life he has for us), we will find it. I can’t help but think that’s a process, and any process can sometimes be painful as part and parcel.

I had more ideas/ thoughts on this, but for some reason I just can’t seem to get them to solidify in my head at the moment, so I’ll have to hold off until later. Perhaps further comments in the thread will jog things a bit for me.

Two arguments here seem to me contradicted by Revelation’s whole storyline: 1. That translations err on 13:8 such that the concern is not with which of us will experience “life” vs. who is sent to the ‘fire.’ 2. That the Lamb’s great worth (which is to be affirmed) means everyone already (automatically?) has the benefits of His life. Isn’t the whole book’s clearest repeated theme John’s concern for faithful obedience during coming testing because that has serious consequences?

Yes, that was part of what I was thinking; thanks for pointing that out, Bob.

Melchizedek and Bob,

I have been a bit busy with other tasks, but I am also researching and meditating on your last posts. So I will soon have a reply to both of you in the next few days.

Dave

Melchizedek and Bob,

This is my combined reply to your last posts.

The Lake of Fire is the presence of Theion, the healing, transforming life of God. It is not a place of separation from God but the actual immersion into the purifying, healing presence of God. Healing is not punitive it is restorative—and even more so it is creative, a new creation. That’s right. It is not at all what has been falsely presented in the translations. The angels (messengers of God) and the Lamb are present on the shore of the lake (limnhn, the root of which is limen, which means “harbor” and it is associated with the nearness of the shore). The Lamb is there with them in the safe harbor of the healing, transforming presence of YHWH. The Lake of Fire is not about torment (basanizo is the testing by the touchstone to determine whether the metal/object is purified), either everlasting or temporary. It is to determine whether that which is immersed into the presence of YHWH and the Lamb has been freed/purified from all that oppressed and corrupted it and is made ready for the new birth of their life that is the new creation in Jesus Christ). All that is not in the book of the life of the Lamb is brought into intimate closeness with the very source of life, YHWH and the Lamb. They are embraced by the Life, freed from all that has tormented them with fear, abandonment, nihilism and hopelessness. Then they become like little children who enter into the new creation of God.

We all live in a state of death. Our daily sustenance depends on the taking of the life of others, whether it be animals or plants. We all partake in the Babylonian systems of exploitation and oppression of the living Earth and of those who are among the least and weakest. If we do not see this then we are in profound denial about the true state of this world. The only alternative to this world of death is a world made new by a Life freely given to all. Not a life forcefully or fraudulently taken from the powerless to stave off our own inevitable deaths, but a Life freely given to all by the sole possessor of Life, YHWH and the Lamb.

Is this “automatic” is this “magic?” No, it is the very essence of agape—the love of God.

The Book of Revelation is both about the Revelation given to Jesus Christ and the revelation of Jesus Christ. The Lamb discloses the true meaning of history and defines and rewrites the history of the world. The Lamb is in complete empathetic solidarity with all those who suffer the horrors and injustices of this reality. He is the Lamb who takes all of the suffering, injustice and death away from the history of the world. He makes way for the unimpeded outpouring of the Life of YHWH into the creation to heal, transform and make new all that has been lost, tormented and killed.

There is no rapture or escape from the suffering of this world, instead there is the Lamb immersing himself into the very depths of the world’s suffering, despair and death. He takes the source of Life into the very abyss of godforsaken nothingness to transform that godforsaken place into the wellspring of God’s living waters, which fills the creation with life all bountiful. It is the faithfulness of the Lamb which goes into those depths where the faithless have fallen into and like the good shepherd will not rest until that most godless are brought into the healing presence of the safe harbor of the living presence of Theion and the Lamb. All things will be made new, all things will be written with a new story and name into the Lamb’s book of Life—the Alpha and Omega of all creation.

Dave,

My views supportive of Beck’s purgation thesis rest very little on having confidence of Revelation’s meaning. I am aware of numerous interpretations of it, but your anti-purgation one is unfamiliar, and to me seems especially contradictory to most students’ impressions of its’ dominant themes. I’m not seeing how your assertions derive from its’ text. Is there a commentary or other scholars who find in it the meaning that you do?

Bob

I think it’s time for you to defend your rejection of God’s unlimited generosity, grace, healing, and kindness.

Dave is writing about the all-sufficiency of the Lamb, the water of life freely given, the total liberation that was at the centre of Jesus’s mission, his faithfulness to his whole creation. He’s talking about the creator, the source of life, giving life in all its fulness to all without restraint. He’s showing how God behaves *exactly *how Jesus behaved – taking the pain on himself, not putting it on others, in order that they would be healed, restored, and would flourish.

Why on earth would you oppose that?

Do you honestly believe that somehow *our pain *can achieve in us something that Jesus’s death and resurrection was unable to do?

Hi Ruth,

It appears frustrating that most universalists won’t just accept your view that we experience grace’s freedom from all suffering and judgment without any conditions! I realize that you and Dave sincerely believe that this is the right view to draw from the Bible’s story. But I have already enumerated numerous passages that specify such conditions, and just now to Dave that interpretations of Revelation almost universally recognize a major theme is warning precisely of painful consequences of not meeting such conditions. I am failing to see see that you defend your view with a serious engagement of any of this substance.

My perception is that you essentially just assert that the meaning of Jesus is to contradict this broad Biblical narrative that I have defended, when as I’ve cited, Jesus himself agreed with this sobering Biblical theme. I don’t think the reason “why” most oppose what you assert is that it’s not desirable to them (I’d be thrilled to find out your view is right). I think the problem is that those who want to be faithful to Jesus perceive that you have been unable to defend your desire in light of the Bible’s narrative.

Grace be with you,
Bob

Bob

Please just answer the questions:

Ruth,

We don’t seem to be understanding each other! I just answered your first two questions as to why I reject your view that there are no conditions for experiencing God’s blessings, by pointing to my numerous citations of a whole pattern of Biblical texts that specify those conditions. I don’t know how to tell you any more clearly than that what is the reason that followers of the Biblical Christ give for reaching the beliefs that they do. ISTM the question is why you offer no answer or response to that Biblical substance (I’ve tried to be responsive to your questions; can you answer this one of mine?) On your third question: Yes, I do honestly believe that God is able to use painful experiences to test, purify, and refine us. I not only believe this is Biblical, but believe that some difficult experiences have nonetheless been growing experiences in my life.

Take a look at the life of the apostle Paul, for instance. Here was a man clearly chosen by and used of God, but his life from a human viewpoint was an absolute wreck. He suffered a LOT, but we see his response was one of joy in spite of (and in fact because of!) the suffering. God always manifests himself in His glorious power in human weakness and suffering, that is his M.O. This is why the cross is such a stumbling block!

Scripture states that Paul was given (By God, is the implication!) a demonic messenger from satan to beat on him, (The english translation is much more tame) so that he wouldn’t be filled with pride. He asked three times for God to remove this affliction from him, and God’s response was; No “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”
Paul then says, ‘So then, I will boast most gladly about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may reside in me.’

So, it is precisely through these (2nd Cor. 12:10) “weaknesses, insults, troubles, persecutions and difficulties” that the power of God is manifest in our lives!

Bob, It has been awhile since I’ve read it, but I think J. Preston Eby’s lake of fire series takes a similar tack; and it seems somewhat familiar from other sources as well, although I don’t recall what they are at the moment. I’m not sure that Eby takes so much an anti-purgation stance as an anti torment stance, but it’s probably worth a read.

Hi Ruth; I don’t think that he’s saying that our pain replaces something Jesus was unable to do, but rather that the experience of our process of the realization of the new life includes elements that were modeled in the death and resurrection. We share both in Christ’s death and His life; one does not come without the other. Also, see my other post here on the apostle Paul for additional example.

I’m SO confused!! :exclamation: :confused: :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush:

And NOW, very, very afraid. :frowning: :cry:

Hi Mel,

This is lifted directly from one of Bob’s earlier posts in this thread.

Perhaps one could say that the cross created ‘salvation,’ if this meant something like it ‘offers’ it or establishes it “in principle.” **But my preference would be to say that the cross did not “create salvation” in that no one is automatically saved by the cross apart from the appropriate response to the offer of God’s grace, and that it is Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, exaltation, and his facilitation of the Holy Spirit’s work that makes salvation possible. **If the past event of the cross alone created our salvation, then wouldn’t everyone would already be saved? My sense is that God will secure everyone’s salvation, but that this is securely worked out over time, and the Bible’s assumption is that we play a part in it as we choose to respond to God’s grace. In other words, I think the NT is consistent with the OT in looking for an obedient and righteous response of faith to the always unmerited love and grace of God. Thus I do think saying that Jesus and the cross provide the “path to salvation” is appropriate, since the Bible suggests that experiencing salvation’s wholeness involves following his example and taking up our own cross.

That sounds like salvation (which is a problematic word that now means anything and everything) is something that is completed by the individual’s experience and not what God has accomplished in and through the experience of Jesus for us. The Gospel is about what is done for us not by us. It is not a about good advise, good practice, good laws or anything else other than the good news of what was done independent of who we are and what we do. The Gospel is not a path to God or of salvation, it is the path from God walked by Jesus through Golgotha and into the new creation of all things. That is what makes the Gospel singularly and unequivocally universal good news for all of creation! The world is in desperate need for real, hardcore good news not more religion, ideology or some other human-centered surrogate for what God and only God can do. We can no more be the saviors of the world, or of our selves, than we can be creators of the universe. Salvation is an act of creation, it is that radical and that comprehensive and universal.

How can anybody claim to experience salvation’s wholeness in this broken world where there is so much injustice and suffering going on. Wholeness will only come at the Parousia when all things will be healed and resurrected into the life of the new creation made possible by the singular experience of Jesus at Golgotha.

For those who are still confused carefully read through this thread again and see for yourself what is actually being said. If you are confused by anything that I wrote please let me know I will gladly make my best effort to make it less confusing.

Dave

No - please, no! Bret, if you are confused and afraid, that is NOT the good news you are hearing, so do not listen to it!

Jesus reached out to people who were in pain. He spoke kind words to them, only kind and comforting words, never threatened them, always said, “Don’t be afraid!” He never, never told anyone to be afraid. He is Perfect Love, and Perfect Love casts out fear, because fear brings torment - and to PERFECT LOVE, the torment of the beloved (that’s YOU) is utterly intolerable. He would rather let HIMSELF be tormented to the end of time… and actually, that’s just what he did.

Jesus says, “Don’t be afraid!” “It’s me, don’t be afraid!” because he takes away all reason to fear.

Honestly, now I’m sad, and angry too. Striking terror into people like this is not a game: it does real damage. Jesus got angry too about hurting and frightening people.

Hi all!

I’m heading on the road, and distinguishing our semantics here seems to remain confusing. My impression is that Mel totally catches my position and meaning perfectly. I don’t think that affirming that the saving work in us must ultimately be credited to God’s work means that we are not called to any participation in the transformation that God seeks. To me, part of the genius of universalism is that it helps us hold together these two major themes in the Biblical narrative. We are called to respond to conditions such as faith and repentance, while at the same time the assurance of the promise of ultimately completing the work that God has begun in us is totally secure because it lies altogether in God’s loving character. Both sides of this tension seem amplified in Scripture, and the reading of must students of it. So just as the burden of defending universalism falls especially on us who offer this minority interpretation, so I think it falls on those who argue that Scripture does Not point to conditions for enjoying God’s best blessings.

Grace be with you,
Bob

Ok, I guess my current understanding is perhaps slightly different than Bob’s. I see salvation as already a done deal in one sense, but also something that must be ‘worked out’ in order to experience its fullness. I think this was James’ whole point with his works vs. faith thing. It isn’t one or the other, it’s both; In other words, we can’t experience faith without it “working out” in our lives any more than we can experience the salvation that has been provided without its truth permeating our lives, transforming us in the process. I do agree that God does all of it in us somehow; it’s really hard (for me) to quantify how our “response” plays into it.

Perhaps a somewhat crude illustration might be helpful here. Let’s say that I’m a smoker, and salvation from smoking has already been provided for me. I can mentally assent to the idea that salvation has been provided from that and that smoking is bad for me. But until that knowledge actually transforms me, including the damaging habits, I don’t fully experience salvation from smoking until that happens, even if that’s a process outside of my control.