Matthew 7:13-14 does not refute the eventual salvation of all

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Matthew 7:14 Interlinear: how strait is the gate, and compressed the way that is leading to the life, and few are those finding it!

I am not surprised everyone misses this:

Therefore, whatever you want others to do for you, do also the same for them--this is the Law and the Prophets. <----- Enter through the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the road is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who go through it.

The narrow gate is the royal law.
Matthew 7 Parallel Chapters
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
"Hell" refutes nothing - the word cannot be found in the Hebrew or the Greek. It comes from the languages of northern Europe, and from a time when those lands were pagan. the Norse goddess Hel is an excellent example.

4 For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell, delivering them in chains to be held in gloomy darkness until their judgment;
Word Origin
from Tartaros (a Gr. name for the abode of the damned)
Definition -
to cast into hell
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I am not surprised everyone misses this:

Therefore, whatever you want others to do for you, do also the same for them--this is the Law and the Prophets. <----- Enter through the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the road is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who go through it.

The narrow gate is the royal law.
Matthew 7 Parallel Chapters
The narrow gate is The Door, Jesus Christ.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Kenny'sID
Upvote 0

Lazarus Short

Well-Known Member
Apr 6, 2016
2,934
3,009
74
Independence, Missouri, USA
✟294,142.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
But you know, by any name, I somehow get the idea it exists. ;)

You are seriously going to play around with syntax as a means of doing away with Outer Darkness, Lake of Fire, Second Death, Gehenna, Everlasting punishment, and so on?

I'm not sure syntax enters into the question, but I see:

Outer Darkness - as just that, shoved out the door into the dark night. Nothing metaphysical needs to be invoked.

Lake of Fire - as a place of purification and refining. It is useful to read how God describes Himself, as a refining fire...even as soap.

Second Death - as temporary, for which, see I Corinthians 15.

Gehenna - as the place in the real world that it is.

Everlasting punishment - the debate rages as to whether the Greek word rendered as "everlasting" really means "forever and ever." I fall into the "not forever" camp. YMMV.

The basic problem is that we read our Bibles through different theological filters.
 
Upvote 0

Lazarus Short

Well-Known Member
Apr 6, 2016
2,934
3,009
74
Independence, Missouri, USA
✟294,142.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I'm not sure syntax enters into the question, but I see:

Outer Darkness - as just that, shoved out the door into the dark night. Nothing metaphysical needs to be invoked.

Lake of Fire - as a place of purification and refining. It is useful to read how God describes Himself, as a refining fire...even as soap.

Second Death - as temporary, for which, see I Corinthians 15.

Gehenna - as the place in the real world that it is.

Everlasting punishment - the debate rages as to whether the Greek word rendered as "everlasting" really means "forever and ever." I fall into the "not forever" camp. YMMV.

The basic problem is that we read our Bibles through different theological filters.

So, whatcha' got for me with that theological filter on eternal punishment and condemnation. :)

Matt 25:41-46 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

And finally just a general warning from the Lord:

John 5:28-29 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned. By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.

Explain how that doesn't mean Hell or whatever term you choose.
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
A word from pagan Greek mythology - USED ONCE - and you are going to hang doctrine on it?

And your going to base your argument on an exact word. whether that exact term is mentioned or not? it doesn't matter, call it a hair dryer if you want, it's still what it is. If that's the best you can do to argue it's existence away, you haven't got anything. Extremely petty, now get busy doing some actual refuting..
 
Upvote 0

Lazarus Short

Well-Known Member
Apr 6, 2016
2,934
3,009
74
Independence, Missouri, USA
✟294,142.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So, whatcha' got for me with that theological filter on eternal punishment and condemnation. :)

Matt 25:41-46 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

And finally just a general warning from the Lord:

John 5:28-29 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned. By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.

Explain how that doesn't mean Hell or whatever term you choose.

First, I really wish people would specify which translation they are using. With that said, I checked my YLT, and I believe Young's Greek scholarship was better than anyone's in 1611.

For the bolded words in Matthew 25:46, he uses the term "punishment age-during."

For the bolded words in John 5:28-29, Young uses the word "judgment" instead of the more loaded word "condemned."

So you see, even if you don't like the YLT, the Greek can be rendered differently than in the KJV. Theological filters again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClementofA
Upvote 0

Lazarus Short

Well-Known Member
Apr 6, 2016
2,934
3,009
74
Independence, Missouri, USA
✟294,142.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
And your going to base your argument on an exact word. whether that exact term is mentioned or not? it doesn't matter, call it a hair dryer if you want, it's still what it is. If that's the best you can do to argue it's existence away, you haven't got anything. Extremely petty, now get busy doing some actual refuting..

If I posted my entire 200+ page book on this thread you would still reject my message, though it is based on much more than any "exact word." Telling me that I haven't got anything tells me that you don't. BTW, I think I did knock the props out from under you, but I would NEVER try to support a doctrine with a single use of a word from pagan sources.
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
First, I really wish people would specify which translation they are using. With that said, I checked my YLT, and I believe Young's Greek scholarship was better than anyone's in 1611.

For the bolded words in Matthew 25:46, he uses the term "punishment age-during."

For the bolded words in John 5:28-29, Young uses the word "judgment" instead of the more loaded word "condemned."

So you see, even if you don't like the YLT, the Greek can be rendered differently than in the KJV. Theological filters again.

Ok, I get it, some hotshot simply changes the meaning of the words in the bible in order to change the meaning to mean what they like. Nifty, and a very bad idea.

You say it "can" be rendered differently, and personally I look at the over all, as in all mentions o hell in the bible, and doing so makes that reads just how I have already read it, but at any rate, by "can" do you mean you may be wrong with your rendering too?

See we have be prepared to use some common sense and see what all scripture points to as a whole, instead of trying to change all terms to make it point to something else. Something you just won't be able to do unless, and here is the catch with what you teach and other feel good theology..."someone WANTS to believe what you teach" Those are the minds that you will be able to infiltrate and get to believe what most of us see very clearly is a lie.

"I want a religion where we skip along merrily merrily through life, la te de la te da, do as we wish, what's sinful what's fun, and eventually we will get it, and make it to heaven"

One chance, make it count.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If I posted my entire 200+ page book on this thread you would still reject my message, though it is based on much more than any "exact word." Telling me that I haven't got anything tells me that you don't. BTW, I think I did knock the props out from under you, but I would NEVER try to support a doctrine with a single use of a word from pagan sources.

Of course I would reject it. As I said, common sense and seeing what the bible says overall leaves me no doubt there is a hell, by whatever name you choose. And knowing the nature of people not only to want to feel holy by claiming a higher knowledge, they want to believe their loved ones/themselves will never go to hell if they live a sinful life, much like the faith only crowd.

Meaning you can get some to eat that stuff up, fill churches and the churches plates....just tell em' what they want to hear....others, not so much, they know what is real and though they may not be perfect they're on the right track and know it....immovable as solid rock, and the solid rock they believe in.
 
Upvote 0

Lazarus Short

Well-Known Member
Apr 6, 2016
2,934
3,009
74
Independence, Missouri, USA
✟294,142.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Ok, I get it, some hotshot simply changes the meaning of the words in the bible in order to change the meaning to mean what they like. Nifty, and a very bad idea.

You say it "can" be rendered differently, and personally I look at the over all, as in all mentions o hell in the bible, and doing so makes that reads just how I have already read it, but at any rate, by "can" do you mean you may be wrong with your rendering too?

See we have be prepared to use some common sense and see what all scripture points to as a whole, instead of trying to change all terms to make it point to something else. Something you just won't be able to do unless, and here is the catch with what you teach and other feel good theology..."someone WANTS to believe what you teach" Those are the minds that you will be able to infiltrate and get to believe what most of us see very clearly is a lie.

"I want a religion where we skip along merrily merrily through life, la te de la te da, do as we wish, what's sinful what's fun, and eventually we will get it, and make it to heaven"

One chance, make it count.

I think you have let your need to win an argument impel you to call a Bible scholar of high stature a "hotshot." That's a cheap shot.

The multitude of Bible translations PROVE that the Hebrew & Greek can be rendered this way or that way. The KJV translators played the same game, and btw, not all translations contain "Hell." I can send you a list of them, if you like, but you probably don't.

I don't believe or teach "feel good theology." I dig down to find how and where translators (KJV mostly) have tweaked words to fit doctrines. The other way around should be the proper order, don't you think? I mean, first the words (properly translated of course) and then the doctrines.

In case you think I teach "la te de la te da" Christianity, my book looks the Lake of Fire squarely in the face, and I admit that those thrown therein are really killed, really dead. Too many will miss an easy entry into the Kingdom, but your theology, correct as you think it is, turns multitudes away from the Gospel (Good News) and anyway, how is the Gospel good news for most if they suffer ECT?

No, you yourself WANT to believe that most of humanity, your personal enemies included, no doubt, go to Hell, while you get a special dispensation. I see that as carnal and evil. Christ died for ALL, and Damnationists consistently ignore the inclusive passages of the Scriptures.
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The multitude of Bible translations PROVE that the Hebrew & Greek can be rendered this way or that way.

There you are with that word "can" again. Again use some of that common sense an how I mentioned to use it in this case, and it will help you distinguish "can" from "does".

In case you think I teach "la te de la te da" Christianity, my book looks the Lake of Fire squarely in the face, and I admit that those thrown therein are really killed, really dead.

You are back peddling...that's not what the title of your post says at all. And with flakiness like that, you still tell me I'M the on turning people away from Christianity?

No, you yourself WANT to believe that most of humanity, your personal enemies included, no doubt, go to Hell, while you get a special dispensation. I see that as carnal and evil.

You made that up, but that's what it's going to take to get to the few that will let you, just as you are taking what you say "can" mean something and implying or flat out stating it's a fact, and it "does" mean whatever you say.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
First, I really wish people would specify which translation they are using. With that said, I checked my YLT, and I believe Young's Greek scholarship was better than anyone's in 1611.
For the bolded words in John 5:28-29, Young uses the word "judgment" instead of the more loaded word "condemned."
So you see, even if you don't like the YLT, the Greek can be rendered differently than in the KJV. Theological filters again.
What is your basis for preferring YLT? Do you have any education in Greek which enables you to make that determination? Or do you consider it "literal" because it appears to support your assumptions/presuppositions? There go those dratted theological filters again. Just because a scholar claims a translation is "literal" that doesn't make it so. That some "scholars" translate verses differently than the KJV does not mean they are accurate. Why do you consider the word "condemned" to be loaded?
.....The full definition of krisis from Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich Greek Lexicon of the NT is about 3 pages long but here is the relevant subdivision. Credible scholars do not just go eeny meeny miney moe and pick a definition from a list. The numerous sources on which the credible scholars based their translations highlighted in blue.

κρίσις b. The word oft. means judgment that goes against a person, condemnation, and the punishment that follows ( Sib. Or. 3, 670) GP 7:25. dissh;n e{xousin th;n kr. they will receive double punishment 2 Cl 10:5. hJ kr. sou your judgment Rv. 18:10 . kajkeivnoi" kr. ejstivn judgment comes upon them, too ISm 6:1. foberav ti" ejkdoch; krivsew" a fearful prospect of judgment Hb 10:27 ( Iambl. , Vi. Pyth. 30, 179 a reference to the kr. tw`n yucw`n serves to arouse fovbo" t. ajdikiva"). hJ kr. aujtou` h[rqh his punishment was taken away Ac 8:33 ; 1 Cl 16:7 (both Is 53:8 ). uJpo; krivsin pivptein come under judgment Js 5:12 ; cf. 2:1 3a, b. hJ kr. th`" geevnnh" being punished in hell Mt 23:33 ( gen. as Diod. S. 1, 82, 3 qanavtou kr. =punishment by death). kr. katav tino" upon , against someone ( Aelian , V.H. 2, 6) poih`sai krivsin kata; pavntwn execute judgment upon all Jd 15 ( En. 1, 9).—( Opp. zwhv) e[cei zwh;n aijwvnion kai; eij" kr. oujk e[rcetai J 5:24 ( cf. Philip [= Demosth. 12, 16] eij" kr. ejlqei`n). ajnavstasi" zwh`" — ajnavstasi" krivsew" vs. 2 9. krivsi" tou` kovsmou touvtou judgment of (or upon ) this world 12:3 1; cf. 16: 8, interpreted as a judgment on the prince of this world 16:11 ( cf. 12:31 b; IQM 1, 5; but s. also LJLutkemeyer, CBQ 8, ’46, 225 f ‘good judgment’, and BNoack, Satanas
u. Soteria ’48, 79; also s. on dikaiosuvnh 2, end).—In 3:19 kr. has in addition to the senses ‘judgment’ and ‘condemnation’ the clear connotation of ‘separation, division’ (Hecataeus [320 BC ] in Diod. S. 40, 3, 2 Dind. krivsi" tw`n kakw`n =‘separation fr. the evils’.—A double sense as in J is found in Artem. 5, 5 krithv" =‘judge’ and ‘divider’). The ‘judgment’, which is operative here and now, consists in the fact that men divide themselves into those who accept Christ and those who reject him ( Hdb. ; Bultmann).— Pl. judgments, punishments ( Diod. S. 1, 75, 2; Appian , Bell. Civ. l, 96 §446 krivsei" pikraiv =severe punishment) ajlhqinai; kai; divkaiai aiJ krivsei" sou Rv 16:7 ; 19:2 .— Bousset, Rel. 3 257 ff ; LRuhl, De Mortuorum Judicio ’03; JBlank, Krisis (J), diss. Freiburg, ’64.
b. of the judgment of one person upon or against another— a. of men toward men kr. dikaiva B 20:2; D 5:2. kr. a[diko" unjust judgment Pol 6:1; ajpovtomo" ejn kr. relentless in judgment ibid. th;n dikaivan krivsin krivnate J 7:24 ( krivnw 6a). Cf. hJ kr. hJ ejmh; ajlhqinhv ejstin 8:1 6.
Link: A Greek-English Lexicon Gingrich & Danker
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Oldmantook

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
3,633
1,526
64
USA
✟99,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
ClementofA asks a simple question about a particular verse of scripture and wants the responses to be on topic. Why do the usual suspects continue to try and hijack the topic? Please either address the direct question or butt out so this topic does not get locked.
Thank you for your voice of reason. The OP has the right to ask those respondents to address the particular scripture of his choosing as all Scripture must somehow be reconciled with one's doctrinal belief. One cannot conveniently ignore certain scripture(s) because they may be problematic with one's own belief.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: ClementofA
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
What the OP is implying that everyone on earth will eventually be saved. This means that Adolf Hitler and his gang of murderous criminals will end up sharing heaven with me. No, thank you very much! Okay. I suggest that if that is the case, the OP can share his heavenly mansion with the gang of ISIS rapists and murderers and their 49 virgins each.

But, even with a great answer like you gave, you will be accused of just wanting everyone to go to hell...I was. :)

When the reality is, I would much rather all those people would not have done what they did, or do, get saved and go to heaven...why would we not want what God/Jesus wants?

In the parable where the rich man asks for a drop of water to cool his tongue (that's hell BTW for the OP's information :)) and that a message be conveyed to his people not to end up in hell, and he was told that can't be done but it doesn't matter, if they wouldn't listen before, they won't listen to someone who has been there. Same thing with second chances, if they didn't do right the first time around, there may be no reason to believe they ever will.

A huge problem with teaching this stuff is people latch on to it, act accordingly, then find out, they only got the one chance....Ooopsy.

Sounds just like something the devil would pull on people.
 
Upvote 0

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
You, yourself, brought other verses into your own original post, but you chastise anyone else who does the same? That's an interesting strategy.

I restricted the anti-universalism verses to Mt.7:13-14 & the context, any others related to it, such as parallel synoptic accounts, if any. I didn't restrict pro universalism verses, but have only referred to them in the OP. If Mt.7:13-14 is a "proof text" refuting universalism, as many say, then no other passages are needed. If that is not your position, then maybe this isn't the topic for you.

Destruction usually implies finality.

Really? "Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."

"Damage" would have been a better word if he had not been intending to imply that.

See above. Is there a Greek word for "damage"? I don't recall ever reading that word in any English translation.


Looking at the verse with an honest mind, one sees a passage that contradicts universalism. You seem intent to ferret out the exceptions, but this is a fallacious way of approaching the matter. This is on top of the other fallacy of forcing the opponent to use only your evidence. Let me give a quick example, and then I'm through with you:

Jesus does not say that the "destruction" in view is endless, or final destiny, or non corrective...

He also does not say that it regards humans. It could be a passage about lemurs, by that logic. It does not say that the destruction has nothing to do with eating yourself to death at an ice cream buffet, so we might say that it does not disprove the newfound doctrine that Hell is an everlasting ice cream buffet. The logic of your argument is to hold to the exception or the unstated possibility. It should be your burden to prove that the scripture proves your positive point, and not the burden of your opponent to show that it does not. It's a great way to win an argument while proving nothing.

Nobody thinks the passage refurs to lemurs & not humans. That is ridiculous.

The burden of proof is not on me when Damnationists claim it as a "proof text" against universalism. They need to conclusively prove that. To refute them i only need to show reasonable doubt.

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Please either address the direct question or butt out so this topic does not get locked.

If that is not your position, then maybe this isn't the topic for you.

Are you now suggesting that if we don't meet your exact criteria for refuting this we should just say nothing, even though some feel this could lead well meaning people down a very very wrong road only to catch them by surprise in the end? You are essentially trying to tie our hands while you post freely...a bit on the controlling side if you ask me.

There are other ways of refuting this than meeting your expectations, and even though it's clear you are hoping to stop that, this thread may very well be for any of us who strongly disagree with the OP...it may even be our duty.

The main thing that refutes this whole way of thinking is pretty much no one gets the OP's ideas from the bible as they read it on their own, it has to be taught. Sat 10 people down, let them read the bible for the first time, then ask them what about the second chance? Ad I'd bet you they would all answer, Huh? I strongly suspect that they would all get that there is one chance, and there is a place of punishment if we don't make the grade.

So, why would God, who wants us to understand his word, (I mean he gave it to us, of course he wanted us to understand it) encrypt it so nearly everyone would miss the most important parts, and had to hope someone would get to us eventually to show us what the bible really means? Makes no sense whatsoever he would do that.

I actually feel for the OP, having spent so much time on this.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,333.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
But, even with a great answer like you gave, you will be accused of just wanting everyone to go to hell...I was. :)

When the reality is, I would much rather all those people would not have done what they did, or do, get saved and go to heaven...why would we not want what God/Jesus wants?

In the parable where the rich man asks for a drop of water to cool his tongue (that's hell BTW for the OP's information :)) and that a message be conveyed to his people not to end up in hell, and he was told that can't be done but it doesn't matter, if they wouldn't listen before, they won't listen to someone who has been there. Same thing with second chances, if they didn't do right the first time around, there may be no reason to believe they ever will.

A huge problem with teaching this stuff is people latch on to it, act accordingly, then find out, they only got the one chance....Ooopsy.

Sounds just like something the devil would pull on people.
God never wants to send people to Hell. This is why He sent His Son, Jesus Christ to die for us on the cross. The Scripture says that He is not willing that any should perish but that all come to repentance. That is God's first choice. But He made us with the power to choose for ourselves. He does not want conscripts in heaven. He wants willing volunteers.

Our police would love it if no one got killed on our roads. The police don't send people out on the road to get killed. People make their own choices about how they drive their cars. If people drove safely, within the speed limit and did not drink and drive, we would have a lot fewer people dying on our roads. I was taking my daughter to the airport this morning and we were on the motorway. It was a 100km speed limit. Suddenly a car roared by us doing at least 130km. It sounded like the driver had the pedal right down to the floor and was driving the car and full speed. He roared past us like a mustang fighter. Now, if that driver had jumped the barrier and killed himself and several other drivers, whose fault would that have been. Did the police send him to his death? No. He sent himself to his own death and the deaths of innocent people.

So, in the same way, God never actually sends anyone to Hell. He has given us a choice - choose life - if not, accept the alternative. If a person chooses life in Christ, God is with him or her; if not, God is not there.

Some people treat God in a way that they would never parent their children. They will discipline and ground their child if the child disobeys instructions. The parent gives the child a choice - obey or suffer the consequences. It is not that the parent imposes the consequences. He gives the child a choice. Therefore the child chooses to obey or not. What sane parent allows their children to run amok? In some states, if a child skips school and burgles houses, the parents are held to account and can be charged with child neglect and have to pay for any damage the child causes. But if a parent is able to prove to the court that he did everything he could to discipline and set the rules for the child and the child still chose to flout them, then the court would not hold the parents responsible, because it would be child's own choice in spite of the parents' efforts to control the child.

God has a rule for life. Accept Christ as Saviour. If a person complies, he receives life in the presence of God for eternity. If he flouts the rule, he chooses the alternative - a Christless and Godless eternity. It doesn't make God happy to have that happen to anyone, but that's the way things are.

For those who believe that God is monster because people suffer consequences for disobeying Him, let them see what happens if they stop setting rules for their children and letting them do anything they like without any limits or consequences. I'll bet they will set rules and consequences because they will see what harm can come to their children and other innocent people if they don't. Does that make them monsters if they ground their child or take privileges away from them if the child disobeys? Let those people be the judge of that.
 
Upvote 0