Salvation and eternal destiny trilemma

FreeGrace2 · Aug 30, 2015

Percivale said:
It is odd that you see no tension between God wanting to save everyone and not everyone being saved.

Correct. Why not? Because He has given mankind the ability to understand His promise of eternal life and the freedom to receive or reject His promise.

Does it glorify God to not get what he wants?

God is glorified whether one receives or rejects His free gift. How does that work? When one receives His free gift, His perfect grace, mercy and love are demonstrated. When one rejects His free gift, His perfect justice is demonstrated.

So, regardless of how people choose, His perfect attributes are demonstrated, which give Him glory.

I'm not saying universalism is the best solution, only that the issue is complex.

I see it as very simple, really. What is in my view as stated above here that misses Scriptural truth?

God is glorified in everything he does because everything he does is best. If anything God could possibly do would glorify him equally, that makes the statement that he is glorified, as well as all human action, meaningless.

The first sentence is basically what I just said. The second sentence doesn't make sense because everything that God does glorfies Himself.

Note that universalism leaves ample room for God to display his justice and ample punishment for sinners.

The huge problem with universalism is that it makes God out to be a liar. How does that give Him any glory? He has already made clear promises about His free gift. Those who refuse His gift will be cast into the lake of fire, per Rev 20:15. If that doesn't happen, His Word is meaningless and He is a liar.

An eon of hell is still a pretty big punishment, even if at the end of it everyone repents and is saved.

Is there any Scripture to back up this idea?

I grant that many modern universalists err very much on the side of a warm fuzzy God rather than a great just one, but I do not see that error as being essential to universalism.

The bottom line is what Scripture actually says. And it says most of mankind will take the wide road to destruction. Matt 7

Still, I grant that the Scripture does not support universalism; there's one verse that does seem to against about three that appear pretty clearly to deny it. I believe Scripture indicates that between death and the final judgment there is opportunity to repent and be saved, but after the judgment those remaining unrepentant are dealt with in a way that combines destruction and eternal torment; exactly what that looks like we don't know.

What verse or passage provides this idea?

Percivale · Aug 30, 2015

FreeGrace2 said:
Correct. Why not? Because He has given mankind the ability to understand His promise of eternal life and the freedom to receive or reject His promise.

God is glorified whether one receives or rejects His free gift. How does that work? When one receives His free gift, His perfect grace, mercy and love are demonstrated. When one rejects His free gift, His perfect justice is demonstrated.

So, regardless of how people choose, His perfect attributes are demonstrated, which give Him glory.

I see it as very simple, really. What is in my view as stated above here that misses Scriptural truth?

The first sentence is basically what I just said. The second sentence doesn't make sense because everything that God does glorfies Himself.

The huge problem with universalism is that it makes God out to be a liar. How does that give Him any glory? He has already made clear promises about His free gift. Those who refuse His gift will be cast into the lake of fire, per Rev 20:15. If that doesn't happen, His Word is meaningless and He is a liar.

Is there any Scripture to back up this idea?

The bottom line is what Scripture actually says. And it says most of mankind will take the wide road to destruction. Matt 7

What verse or passage provides this idea?

I see you take the Arminian understanding of the issue, God leaving the outcome ultimately to human choice. That underemphasizes God's sovereignty, though it is defensible to say God chooses to let man choose freely, thus God is still in control, just as one who delegates responsibility is still in charge.

True, contradicting scripture does not glorify God, but if it did not, universalism would fully display both God's justice and his love, thus glorifying him. I doubt you are capable of denying that an eon of hell is a big punishment.

Postmortem salvation is backed up by two verses in I Peter 3 and 4, as well as being the logical conclusion of all the relevant truth about God's character and the nature of salvation.

FreeGrace2 · Aug 30, 2015

Percivale said:
I see you take the Arminian understanding of the issue, God leaving the outcome ultimately to human choice.

To be clear, I reject Arminian theology in it's view of loss of salvation and possibly the definition of free will.

That said, clarify what is meant by "God leaving the outcome to human choice". I believe that Isa 1:18-20 is very clear about God leaving choice up to man regarding being obedient or rebellious. We know that eternal life is described as a free gift (Rom 6:23). And a gift is only obtained by receiving it. The giver cannot force a gift on anyone. The gift must be taken to be obtained. That depends on the givee, not the giver.

That underemphasizes God's sovereignty, though it is defensible to say God chooses to let man choose freely, thus God is still in control, just as one who delegates responsibility is still in charge.

And for that reason, the initial statement is not true. God's sovereignty isn't threatened by anything, including man's freedom to choose. I don't know why it seems to be such a stumbling block for some to think that if man has any freedom, God isn't in control. That kind of thinking goes directly to puppet theology, though the reformed just don't see it.

True, contradicting scripture does not glorify God, but if it did not, universalism would fully display both God's justice and his love, thus glorifying him. I doubt you are capable of denying that an eon of hell is a big punishment.

Of course eternity in hell is a big punishment. But it's self induced. Those who will experience it rejected the free gift. And universalism does NOT display God's perfect justice. In fact, it eliminates it completely. So universalism, no matter how it's sliced, fails to give God full glory.

Postmortem salvation is backed up by two verses in I Peter 3 and 4, as well as being the logical conclusion of all the relevant truth about God's character and the nature of salvation.

Please cite or quote those "2 verses" in 1 Peter, as I am completely unfamiliar with any such teaching from Scripture. I've never heard of 'postmortem salvation'. Since those 2 words do not occur in the Bible, please enlighten me by citing the verses you've noted.

Thanks.

Lukamu · Aug 30, 2015

Percivale said:
The Bible teaches that 1 God wants to save everyone, 2 that he can do anything, and 3 that eternal punishment awaits those who persist in wickedness instead of accepting salvation.
There is some tension between these points, which Christians have tried to solve in three ways.
1. Weaken the third; universalism--God will eventually save everyone. The Greek word for eternal is where we get our word 'eon' which is how long it'll take for some of the worst to be saved.
2. Weaken the second; Arminianism--perhaps its not logically possible for God to save everyone, since it depends on wills, and it is by definition impossible to force someone to freely will something.
3. Weaken the first; Calvinism-- God doesn't want to save everyone as much as he wants to demonstrate his justice or otherwise glorify himself.

For a good review of Arminianism vs Calvinism, see What is Arminianism? Universalism seems to go against what the Bible says about eternal punishment for rejecting Christ. While I've never known the meanings of all of these "isms," it turns out that I agree with Molinism and Arminianism according to my own study of the Bible. I did not use outside sources to help with my Bible study when I was younger, so perhaps my opinion is less biased (but still prone to my own subjectivity). Still, God wants everyone to be saved, but that does not mean he is going to take away our free will in order to save us all. I think he is still glorified, even though not all choose Christ.

Percivale · Sep 2, 2015

FreeGrace2 said:
To be clear, I reject Arminian theology in it's view of loss of salvation and possibly the definition of free will.

OK, I forgot about moderate calvinism. Perhaps your beliefs are something similar to Baptists'?

That said, clarify what is meant by "God leaving the outcome to human choice". I believe that Isa 1:18-20 is very clear about God leaving choice up to man regarding being obedient or rebellious. We know that eternal life is described as a free gift (Rom 6:23). And a gift is only obtained by receiving it. The giver cannot force a gift on anyone. The gift must be taken to be obtained. That depends on the givee, not the giver.

And for that reason, the initial statement is not true. God's sovereignty isn't threatened by anything, including man's freedom to choose. I don't know why it seems to be such a stumbling block for some to think that if man has any freedom, God isn't in control. That kind of thinking goes directly to puppet theology, though the reformed just don't see it.

I agree with you there. 'Underemphasize' wasnt quite the right word; I meant emphasize less than the reformed do.

Of course eternity in hell is a big punishment. But it's self induced. Those who will experience it rejected the free gift. And universalism does NOT display God's perfect justice. In fact, it eliminates it completely. So universalism, no matter how it's sliced, fails to give God full glory.

How is God's justice eliminated completely if punishment is any less than eternal? And what is your definition of justice? The disadvantages to universalism I see, besides not being supported by scripture, is a lessening of the ultimate significance of human choice, and not displaying the ultimate result of sin as clearly.

Please cite or quote those "2 verses" in 1 Peter, as I am completely unfamiliar with any such teaching from Scripture. I've never heard of 'postmortem salvation'. Since those 2 words do not occur in the Bible, please enlighten me by citing the verses you've noted.

Thanks.

In chapter 3 it says Jesus "preached to the spirits in prison who formerly were disobedient, in the days of Noah..." 4:6 says: "For this reason the gospel was also preached to the dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." If the dead hear the gospel with the result that they live spiritually, that sounds like salvation after death to me.

Percivale · Sep 2, 2015

FreeGrace2 said:
To be clear, I reject Arminian theology in it's view of loss of salvation and possibly the definition of free will.

OK, I forgot about moderate calvinism. Perhaps your beliefs are something similar to Baptists'?

That said, clarify what is meant by "God leaving the outcome to human choice". I believe that Isa 1:18-20 is very clear about God leaving choice up to man regarding being obedient or rebellious. We know that eternal life is described as a free gift (Rom 6:23). And a gift is only obtained by receiving it. The giver cannot force a gift on anyone. The gift must be taken to be obtained. That depends on the givee, not the giver.

And for that reason, the initial statement is not true. God's sovereignty isn't threatened by anything, including man's freedom to choose. I don't know why it seems to be such a stumbling block for some to think that if man has any freedom, God isn't in control. That kind of thinking goes directly to puppet theology, though the reformed just don't see it.

I agree with you there. 'Underemphasize' wasnt quite the right word; I meant emphasize less than the reformed do.

Of course eternity in hell is a big punishment. But it's self induced. Those who will experience it rejected the free gift. And universalism does NOT display God's perfect justice. In fact, it eliminates it completely. So universalism, no matter how it's sliced, fails to give God full glory.

How is God's justice eliminated completely if punishment is any less than eternal? And what is your definition of justice? The disadvantages to universalism I see, besides not being supported by scripture, is a lessening of the ultimate significance of human choice, and not displaying the ultimate result of sin as clearly.

Please cite or quote those "2 verses" in 1 Peter, as I am completely unfamiliar with any such teaching from Scripture. I've never heard of 'postmortem salvation'. Since those 2 words do not occur in the Bible, please enlighten me by citing the verses you've noted.

Thanks.

In chapter 3 it says Jesus "preached to the spirits in prison who formerly were disobedient, in the days of Noah..." 4:6 says: "For this reason the gospel was also preached to the dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." If the dead hear the gospel with the result that they live spiritually, that sounds like salvation after death to me.

FreeGrace2 · Sep 3, 2015

Percivale said:
OK, I forgot about moderate calvinism. Perhaps your beliefs are something similar to Baptists'?

I used to attend Baptist churches. I recall a phrase I heard; Baptists are like Heinz 57 varieties. So it depends. There are reformed baptists, free will baptists, etc.

How is God's justice eliminated completely if punishment is any less than eternal?

I don't understand what is meant by eliminating God's justice. God's justice is fulfilled when applied.

And what is your definition of justice?

Justice is the application of what is honorable and fair.

In chapter 3 it says Jesus "preached to the spirits in prison who formerly were disobedient, in the days of Noah..." 4:6 says: "For this reason the gospel was also preached to the dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." If the dead hear the gospel with the result that they live spiritually, that sounds like salvation after death to me.

1 Pet 3:19 refers to angels who disobeyed (or did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home) per Jude 6. Many scholars link these passages to Gen 6 where the "sons of God" cohabited with human women and produced a "super race" of extremely evil people, which led to the flood.

1 Pet 4:6 has been explained by 4 possible groups of people. The first group would be those who had died and Jesus was offering them salvation (seems to be your view). However, that is refuted by Heb 9:27 - And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment iow, there are no "second chances": after physical death comes judgment, not another chance.

The second possible group would be OT saints to whom Jesus preached salvation between His crucifixion and resurrection. But the second half of 4:6 would prohibit this because Christ would not be preaching judgment to them.

The third possible group would be that Christ is preaching the gospel through His apostles and others on earth to those who are spiritually dead. Those who respond become "spiritually alive". But Peter's use of 'dead' in v.5 refers to physically dead people facing God's judgment.

The fourth group would be the dead who had heard the gospel preached and believed it before they died. The phrase "judged according to the flesh" refers to 4:4 as being 'scorned by men'. But they will 'live according to God in the spirit'.

So, basically, God's judgment reverses the opinions of men. So, even though pagans might condemn and execute Christians for not conformng to their society's values, God will reverse that judgment and give them life with Him.

Percivale · Sep 3, 2015

FreeGrace2 said:
I used to attend Baptist churches. I recall a phrase I heard; Baptists are like Heinz 57 varieties. So it depends. There are reformed baptists, free will baptists, etc.

I don't understand what is meant by eliminating God's justice. God's justice is fulfilled when applied.

Justice is the application of what is honorable and fair.

1 Pet 3:19 refers to angels who disobeyed (or did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home) per Jude 6. Many scholars link these passages to Gen 6 where the "sons of God" cohabited with human women and produced a "super race" of extremely evil people, which led to the flood.

1 Pet 4:6 has been explained by 4 possible groups of people. The first group would be those who had died and Jesus was offering them salvation (seems to be your view). However, that is refuted by Heb 9:27 - And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment iow, there are no "second chances": after physical death comes judgment, not another chance.

The second possible group would be OT saints to whom Jesus preached salvation between His crucifixion and resurrection. But the second half of 4:6 would prohibit this because Christ would not be preaching judgment to them.

The third possible group would be that Christ is preaching the gospel through His apostles and others on earth to those who are spiritually dead. Those who respond become "spiritually alive". But Peter's use of 'dead' in v.5 refers to physically dead people facing God's judgment.

The fourth group would be the dead who had heard the gospel preached and believed it before they died. The phrase "judged according to the flesh" refers to 4:4 as being 'scorned by men'. But they will 'live according to God in the spirit'.

So, basically, God's judgment reverses the opinions of men. So, even though pagans might condemn and execute Christians for not conformng to their society's values, God will reverse that judgment and give them life with Him.

Hebrews 9:27 does not refute my understanding of I Peter 4:6, because 'after' doesn't necessarily mean 'immediately after', and we know from Revelation that the judgment is not immediately after death: "The rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished" (and the judgment came after that.) The context in Hebrews shows a parallel between men dying and then the judgment and Christ dying in his first coming then judging in his second. Obviously there is a large gap between the two comings of Christ, and He has been active in between, ruling, interceding, building His church. Thus the verse cannot deny that men can do anything between death and the judgment.
Your interpretation of I Peter 4:6 is less likely because that's not the normal meaning of 'the dead'. If Peter had used the word tethnekotes (those who have died) instead of nekroi, maybe that interpretation would be right. The same word 'nekroi' is used in I Corinthians 15 where Paul refers to those who were baptized for the 'dead.' I presume you don't think Paul meant people were being baptized for those who, since that time, have died?

Skala · Sep 8, 2015

Percivale said:
The Bible teaches that 1 God wants to save everyone,

No it doesn't. Right off that bat your entire view is based on a faulty presupposition.

"Whatever the Lord pleases, He does, in heaven, and on earth." Psa 135:6, Psa 115:3

If he wanted to do _____, He would do it.

FreeGrace2 · Sep 9, 2015

Percivale said:
Hebrews 9:27 does not refute my understanding of I Peter 4:6, because 'after' doesn't necessarily mean 'immediately after', and we know from Revelation that the judgment is not immediately after death: "The rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished" (and the judgment came after that.) The context in Hebrews shows a parallel between men dying and then the judgment and Christ dying in his first coming then judging in his second. Obviously there is a large gap between the two comings of Christ, and He has been active in between, ruling, interceding, building His church. Thus the verse cannot deny that men can do anything between death and the judgment.

There are no verses that indicate that there is any kind of "second chance".

Your interpretation of I Peter 4:6 is less likely because that's not the normal meaning of 'the dead'.

I gave 4 possible interpretations.

If Peter had used the word tethnekotes (those who have died) instead of nekroi, maybe that interpretation would be right. The same word 'nekroi' is used in I Corinthians 15 where Paul refers to those who were baptized for the 'dead.' I presume you don't think Paul meant people were being baptized for those who, since that time, have died?

Actually, scholars have no idea what Paul was referring to, from what I've gathered. What do you think Paul was referring to?

Percivale · Sep 9, 2015

Skala said:
No it doesn't. Right off that bat your entire view is based on a faulty presupposition.

"Whatever the Lord pleases, He does, in heaven, and on earth." Psa 135:6, Psa 115:3

If he wanted to do _____, He would do it.

...God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved... I Timothy 2:4

Percivale · Sep 9, 2015

FreeGrace2 said:
There are no verses that indicate that there is any kind of "second chance".

I gave 4 possible interpretations.

Actually, scholars have no idea what Paul was referring to, from what I've gathered. What do you think Paul was referring to?

There are no Scriptures that indicate there is not a second chance. The afterlife in not discussed in detail generally, since the Scriptures focus on what is practical for us now; what we need to do, not what satisfies our curiosity. Preaching the gospel is important whether or not people get a second chance (though if they do, it makes it easier to follow the example of Jesus and focus on quality of disciples, not quantity of converts.) And those who take only the second chance miss out on the Millenium and probably don't get out of Hades until the final judgment.
Of the 4 interpretations, I favor one and you favor one. Sure, all are possible, but I've shown why I think one is the right one.
Maybe people were being baptized vicariously for those who had become Christians but died before being baptized. My only point is its another place 'the dead' are mentioned in a context that suggests that 'the dead' means 'those who have died before the event being discussed.'

FreeGrace2 · Sep 10, 2015

Percivale said:
There are no Scriptures that indicate there is not a second chance.

Yes there is. Heb 9:27. There is nothing in Scripture to suggest any kind of "second chance".

Percivale · Sep 10, 2015

FreeGrace2 said:
Yes there is. Heb 9:27. There is nothing in Scripture to suggest any kind of "second chance".

I've already presented an argument that Hebrews 9:27 cannot be used to rule out repentance and salvation after death, because that interpretation would rule out Christ doing anything between his first and second comings. I grant that there is no scripture that directly says there is a second chance besides I Peter 4:6, if interpreted as I do. But it is a logical inference from I Timothy 2:4. Why do you think it would be bad to believe in the possibility of salvation after death?

FreeGrace2 · Sep 10, 2015

Percivale said:
I've already presented an argument that Hebrews 9:27 cannot be used to rule out repentance and salvation after death, because that interpretation would rule out Christ doing anything between his first and second comings.

The argument was not persuasive. What is meant by "Christ doing anything between 1st and 2nd comings"? And I don't see any reason why the straight forward reading of Heb 9:27 would "rule out" anything.

I grant that there is no scripture that directly says there is a second chance besides I Peter 4:6, if interpreted as I do. But it is a logical inference from I Timothy 2:4. Why do you think it would be bad to believe in the possibility of salvation after death?

Because of Heb 9:27. Judgment follows death, though I know it does not follow immediately. But that doesn't necessarily give room for the idea of any second chance.

And my explanation of 1 Pet 4:6 wasn't refuted; only disagreed with.

Percivale · Sep 10, 2015

FreeGrace2 said:
The argument was not persuasive. What is meant by "Christ doing anything between 1st and 2nd comings"? And I don't see any reason why the straight forward reading of Heb 9:27 would "rule out" anything.

Because of Heb 9:27. Judgment follows death, though I know it does not follow immediately. But that doesn't necessarily give room for the idea of any second chance.

And my explanation of 1 Pet 4:6 wasn't refuted; only disagreed with.

As you say, the straightforward reading of Hebrews 9:27 does not rule out anything. It says first death, later judgment, with no comment on whether or not anything, such as a second chance, might come in between. Read the context of the verse and see if you see the parallel that is made between men dying and then the judgment, and Jesus dying at his first coming and judging at his second.

I can't say your explanation of 1 Peter 4:6 is certainly false, only that mine uses a more straightforward understanding of the word 'dead,' and gives more of a connection to chapter 3 where Christ preaches to the 'spirits in prison.'

FreeGrace2 · Sep 11, 2015

Percivale said:
As you say, the straightforward reading of Hebrews 9:27 does not rule out anything.

What I meant was, the verse doesn't support "something happening" between death and judgment, other than the obvious time between everyone's death and final judgment. If there were any kind of second chance, why would the Bible be so coy?

Further, the Bible plainly says that people will go to the lake of fire for eternity. If there were a second chance after death, it would be pretty clear about what awaits everyone who has yet to believe in Christ. I don't see how anyone would pass up a second chance in that scenario.

Now, we have to take God at His Word, which is trust and faith. After death, there would be clear and hard evidence that there is going to be an afterlife. So any "second chance" would have to include the only 2 alternatives to eternity: being with God, through faith in Christ, or being in the lake of fire, suffering for eternity. And there would be no guessing at this. It would be quite clear.

It says first death, later judgment, with no comment on whether or not anything, such as a second chance, might come in between.

And no other passage suggests any second chance. So there is no reason to make such a huge assumption.

Read the context of the verse and see if you see the parallel that is made between men dying and then the judgment, and Jesus dying at his first coming and judging at his second.

I don't. Please explain and clarify.

I can't say your explanation of 1 Peter 4:6 is certainly false, only that mine uses a more straightforward understanding of the word 'dead,' and gives more of a connection to chapter 3 where Christ preaches to the 'spirits in prison.'

The word 'spirits' can refer to humans who have previously died, or the angels who have been imprisoned since Genesis 6. Which do you think it meant?

Percivale · Sep 12, 2015

FreeGrace2 said:
What I meant was, the verse doesn't support "something happening" between death and judgment, other than the obvious time between everyone's death and final judgment. If there were any kind of second chance, why would the Bible be so coy?

Further, the Bible plainly says that people will go to the lake of fire for eternity. If there were a second chance after death, it would be pretty clear about what awaits everyone who has yet to believe in Christ. I don't see how anyone would pass up a second chance in that scenario.

Now, we have to take God at His Word, which is trust and faith. After death, there would be clear and hard evidence that there is going to be an afterlife. So any "second chance" would have to include the only 2 alternatives to eternity: being with God, through faith in Christ, or being in the lake of fire, suffering for eternity. And there would be no guessing at this. It would be quite clear.

God knows hearts, so he will know which of those in hades are genuinely sorry for their sins and which are not but want to say the right thing to get into heaven. Also there will be those whose rebellion and anger against God are too much part of themselves for them to accept his mercy.
Most world religions believe in an afterlife, and we don't know just how clear things are in Hades. Maybe there will be Hindus there who think they have been reborn in a lower realm, for instance. After all, if Christ preached to them, it was probably because there were things they did not know, and so they still have the choice whether to believe what Jesus tells them or not.

And no other passage suggests any second chance. So there is no reason to make such a huge assumption. [/QUOTE said:
I think saying there is no second chance is an equally huge assumption. Doesn't God often give second chances in this life? He has not told us a lot of detail about the afterlife, so either to affirm or deny any uncertain point is speculative.

I don't. Please explain and clarify. [/QUOTE said:

Note that Heb 9:27 begins with "just as," and verse 28 begins with "so." Just as men die once, so Christ was sacrificed once. Just as after that men face judgment, so Christ will come a second time to save those who await him.

The word 'spirits' can refer to humans who have previously died said:

Looking at the verse by itself it could be either, but if there is any connection between that and 4:6 it would be humans, since fallen angels are not dead--they are immortal. I see how Noah's time being mentioned specifically would give the idea of fallen angels, if that's who 'sons of God' are, but I don't know why Christ would preach to them.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

FreeGrace2 · Sep 12, 2015

Percivale said:
God knows hearts, so he will know which of those in hades are genuinely sorry for their sins and which are not but want to say the right thing to get into heaven. Also there will be those whose rebellion and anger against God are too much part of themselves for them to accept his mercy.

Sorry, but being sorry for sin has NEVER been a part of getting saved. Believing in Christ for eternal life is the issue for getting saved.

btw, recall Jesus' story of the rich man and Lazarus? Recall that in Hades, the rich man wanted Abraham to send Lazarus back to earth to warn his 5 brothers so they wouldn't end up where he was; in torments. Obviously awaiting the lake of fire, or second death.

Now, if there are second chances, consider what the rich man requested of Abraham: 27“And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house— 28for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ Luke 16:27,28

It is clear from this that there are no second chances.

Most world religions believe in an afterlife, and we don't know just how clear things are in Hades.

Jesus' story is rather clear.

Maybe there will be Hindus there who think they have been reborn in a lower realm, for instance. After all, if Christ preached to them, it was probably because there were things they did not know, and so they still have the choice whether to believe what Jesus tells them or not.

Read the whole account of Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31. I disagree.

Marvin Knox · Sep 12, 2015

FreeGrace2 said:
Sorry, but being sorry for sin has NEVER been a part of getting saved. Believing in Christ for eternal life is the issue for getting saved.

btw, recall Jesus' story of the rich man and Lazarus? Recall that in Hades, the rich man wanted Abraham to send Lazarus back to earth to warn his 5 brothers so they wouldn't end up where he was; in torments. Obviously awaiting the lake of fire, or second death.

Now, if there are second chances, consider what the rich man requested of Abraham: 27“And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house— 28for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ Luke 16:27,28

It is clear from this that there are no second chances.

Jesus' story is rather clear.

Read the whole account of Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31. I disagree.

I agree with you. The Bible seems to teach that once you die that is the end of your opportunity for repentance and or believing on Christ.

Few things could make me happier than to find that everyone on earth got a second chance at salvation after death. I would, in fact, jump for joy if I found that everyone who ever lived was saved.

Unfortunately - an honest reading of the Word of God seems to show otherwise.

Salvation and eternal destiny trilemma

Senior Veteran

Sam

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Sam

Sam

Senior Veteran

Sam

I'm a Saint. Not because of me, but because of Him

Senior Veteran

Sam

Sam

Senior Veteran

Sam

Senior Veteran

Sam

Senior Veteran

Sam

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Similar threads