johnkw said:
me said:
So Johnkw it is ok in your view for God to allow people for a limited time to suffer, but not a "little longer".
and I see suffering for a limited time as fundamentally different from suffering for eternity.
Well the only difference I see is that one ends. Suffering is still suffering, just because it ends does not make it ok. Am not sure how to see suffering as
"fundamentally" different from other suffering just because one ends.
The former is consistent with what God revealed about his nature (He's just *and* loving) and plan (to reconcile all--Col. 1). The latter is not.
These are statements about God's Nature. Whether one view is consistent or not with His Nature is not proven by just stating it is so. It is just a claim.
To me God is Good, Love and Mercy even if there is suffering. We know there is suffering now and we still believe He is Good, is Love, is Just and is Mercy. I do not understand how to see God needing suffering to end in Hell in order for Him to retain His Nature. So I say He does not need suffering to end in order to be Good, be Love or be Mercy.
I'm sorry, but I don't accept your view of reconciling as a simple 'making right' to be what Paul's talking about in the context of Colossians 1. In fact, v. 21 says, "And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled", so that clearly the reconciliation Paul has in mind is something good for both parties.
Am not sure what reference this is to from my posts, perhaps Heb 3. In that case we were talking about there being only one death followed by Judgment, which is a reconcilliation process. I can agree Paul spoke of a positive side of reconcilliation. That does not mean there is NOT a negative.
My statements regarding reconciliation were more general and directed at the end of the time. God is our Creator. Originally there was no riff, everything perfect. It could have remained that way if there had been no sin and would still be Love, Nercy, Good and Just. It did not stay that way. Like the angels, mankinds rebellion(sin) created a riff. In God's Love and Mercy for man He offered His Grace to repair that riff. He did not have to do that in order to be and remain Love, Mercy, Good but it is what the whole Bible story indicates that He did do and why He did it.
The moment man sinned he deserved annihilation and God could have done that then (though I have other issues with Him exercising this option). To have done that when Adam sinned would be a reconcilliation for sinning against God (negative). He did not do that. While there was a separation, it was not complete. The Bible says and shows Him working on the hearts of men. Normally when we offend someone, we can be reconcilled to them by some act on our part. Because our sin offends an Infinite God, there is nothing we can do ourselves to make that right. God already had a plan for making it possible.
So the relationship was not completely severed. He could have separated completely, but He did not. Why?
Because He willed that we could still freely choose (or for your view be elected to) to receive the Grace necessary in order to have that relationship eventually restored fully.
So let us put that all together.
Had God not offered us the Grace we need there would be no repair of that riff. God could have just annihilated mankind and started over (and still be Good, Just, Mercy and Love). He did not annihilate the race. He could have done nothing. No plan to offer Grace to us, no working on the hearts of men. So if there is no Grace offered, then all mankind would die, be raised and then (depending on one's view of Hell) either annihilated or spend eternity in Hell to which there would be no return depending on what one believes regarding our ultimate fate. Hopefully the universalist are NOT going to here still argue that some or all of manknd might eventually bow and then return to Heaven. All of these possibilities would be consistent with the Nature of God, His being Love, Mercy, Just and Good. But none of those are what He did or said He will do. No He offered His Grace for us.
The only difference between all those scenarios and the one the Bible says will play out is that God's Grace is offered and the Bible shows Him working on the hearts of men. I cannot see how adding God's Grace to the mix suddenly makes Him not Good, not Mercy, not Love or not Just, if one view of the afterlife holds that some of us will still recieve what all mankind earned because of sin. That possible fate was included in ALL the scenarios where His Grace IS NOT offered, and yet He is still Good, is still Love, is still Mercy and is still Just in those scenarios EVEN though ALL MANKIND has a reconcilliation that is quite negative. And that is true no matter what one believes that final negative to be (annihilation or eternity in Hell).
God's Nature cannot change. Do I think He demonstrates His Love more fully in willing that mankind be offered His Grace, His Love, His Merch, His Just? Absolutely. But do I think that is outcome is REQUIRED to make that His Nature. ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Do I think this world and the plan He had to reconcile ALL CREATION is the best possible world He could have made, and one that MOST demonstrates His Glory?
No question, because if it were not so then we would be in a different (best) scenario. But none of those possible scenarios REQUIRE that God's Nature change. The Creator is not limited or bound by the acts of the created beings. He gets all the do overs He wants and His Nature is not changed if He willed things another way. We do not get do overs.
