Questions About Hell

[zoidar]

Dear Zoidar: God our Father wants, and has determined, far more than "wanting everybody saved"! His purpose is reconciliation that extends to change and transformation. Please remember the Heavenly Equation.

Adam1 = "many made sinners" >>>>

Last Adam = "many made righteous"

I remember: "All who are in Adam died, and all who are in Christ will be made alive."

 

[FineLinen]

He has mercy on whom he wills to have mercy, at very least for a time.

Not if he is trying to redeem them. Such is the case for many on Earth.

Nope. Doesn't have to be.

I don't believe that the Bible teaches that all mankind are the objects of his love. Those who accept his open invitation to following him and become born again and follow him are the objects of his love.

He doesn't only love those who love him - he reached out in love while we were still sinners.

Please clarify your question.

Sure.

No, he will not be. But if he were to be, what would it matter?

Nope. It would demonstrate his righteous judgement. Evil deserves to be punished.

No. God has full privileges. Man has limited privileges, given by God. The very reason we are not to take revenge is because it is God's exclusively (Romans 12:19).

Deservingly so.

He does, when he has mercy upon people. That won't always be the case.

The Eastern Orthodox have an interesting view of Hell - they see it as sort of a reaction that evil people have to being in the presence of God, while the sanctified believers are able to enjoy it. I'm sure one of them could explain this view better.

Yes, because God is good.

No.

Dear Sketcher: Thank you for your participation and response.

You stated: "I don't believe that the Bible teaches that all mankind are the objects of his love. Those who accept his open invitation to following him and become born again and follow him are the objects of his love."

The Love of God is not an open invitation, it is who God is in His very essence. He loves His bad children, He loves His good children. He takes full responsibility for His entire creation, the all, the ta pante.

Those who are born anew are identified as His elect, chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. They come, not by invitation, they come because He has so determined!

Welcome to "especially">>>>

"God is the Saviour of ALL mankind especially those who believe/ trust in Him. Command this & teach this.."

 

[FineLinen]

I remember: "All who are in Adam died, and all who are in Christ will be made alive."

Dear Zoidar: The equation from Above is iron clad.

All= all

Some= some

Many= many

Polus= polus

The polus made sinners = >>>The polus made righteous.

 

[zoidar]

Dear Zoidar: The equation from Above is iron clad.

All= all

Some= some

Many= many

Polus= polus

The polus made sinners = >>>The polus made righteous.

Like I have told you before Paul is comparing Adam and Jesus. As people die through Adam, people are saved through Jesus. It's a parallel of effect, not of numbers.

 

[martymonster]

Like I have told you before Paul is comparing Adam and Jesus. As people die through Adam, people are saved through Jesus. It's a parallel of effect, not of numbers.

You might be able to get away with that argument, if it wasn't for the rest of scripture.

 

[Strong in Him]

1. As we are required to love our enemies, may we not safely infer that God loves His enemies? (Matt. 5:44)

Christ died for sinners, Romans 5:8.
Sinners are without God, far from God and enemies of God. So God loves sinners and those who hate/oppose him - with the exception of Satan.

2.If God loves His enemies, will He punish them more than will be for their good?

No.

3.Would endless punishment be for the good of any being?

No.

4.As God loves His friends, if He loves His enemies also, are not all mankind the objects of His love?

Christ died for sinners.
I believe God loves everyone because he created them and gave his Son for them; others seem to believe that God has chosen those whom he loves.
But his grace, love and offer of eternal life is a gift, Romans 6:23. He has given us the ability to choose whether to accept his gift, and his word, just as he did with Adam and Eve. He does not force acceptance on anybody.

5.If God loves those only who love Him, what better is He than the sinner? (Luke 6:32-33)

He doesn't do that.

6.As "love thinketh no evil," can God design the ultimate evil of a single soul? (1 Cor. 13:5)

No.
God is light, there is no darkness in him at all, 1 John 1:5.

7. As "love worketh no ill," can God inflict, or cause, or allow to be inflicted, an endless ill? (Rom. 13:10)

No.

8. As we are forbidden to be overcome by evil, can we safely suppose that God will be overcome by evil? (Rom. 12:21)

Can we safely suppose that God WILL be overcome by evil???
No; of course not.

9. Would not the infliction of endless punishment prove that God HAD been overcome by evil?

God doesn't inflict endless punishment.
If someone heard the Gospel when they were alive, deliberately, and knowingly, rejected it and continued to do so throughout their lives; when they die, they will meet God without having received forgiveness for their sin. They will die without a Saviour. They will also die having made the choice not to have God in their lives - so God will honour that choice.
Even if it was possible for an unforgiven sinner to be in the presence of God, why would someone who has constantly rejected God want to spend eternity with him and serving him?

10. If man does wrong in returning evil for evil, would not God do wrong if He was to do the same?

He doesn't do that.

11. Would not endless punishment be the return of evil for evil?

No.

12. If God hates the sinner, does the sinner do wrong in hating Him?

He doesn't.
God is love, and Christ died for sinners.

13. Is God a changeable being? (James 1:17)

No.

 

[FineLinen]

Like I have told you before Paul is comparing Adam and Jesus. As people die through Adam, people are saved through Jesus. It's a parallel of effect, not of numbers.

Dear Zoidar: I greatly appreciate you telling me.

The comparison between Adam & the Last Adam is beyond comparison. The predominance is weighted in favour of the Last & His "all the more".

The Divine equation stands!

The effect of one mans sin is more powerful than one Man's righteousness?

Nope!

 

[FineLinen]

Questions Without Answers On Hell

Questions Without Answers

1. As we are required to love our enemies, may we not safely infer that God loves His enemies? (Matt. 5:44)
2. If God loves His enemies, will He punish them more than will be for their good?
3. Would endless punishment be for the good of any being?
4. As God loves His friends, if He loves His enemies also, are not all mankind the objects of His love?
5. If God loves those only who love Him, what better is He than the sinner? (Luke 6:32-33)
6. As "love thinketh no evil," can God design the ultimate evil of a single soul? (1 Cor. 13:5)
7. As "love worketh no ill," can God inflict, or cause, or allow to be inflicted, an endless ill? (Rom. 13:10)
8. As we are forbidden to be overcome by evil, can we safely suppose that God will be overcome by evil? (Rom. 12:21)
9. Would not the infliction of endless punishment prove that God HAD been overcome by evil?
10. If man does wrong in returning evil for evil, would not God do wrong if He was to do the same?
11. Would not endless punishment be the return of evil for evil?
12. As we are commanded "to overcome evil with good," may we not safely infer that God will do the same? (Rom. 12:21)
13. Would the infliction of endless punishment be overcoming evil with good?
14. If God hates the sinner, does the sinner do wrong in hating Him?
15. Is God a changeable being? (James 1:17)

1. If God loves His enemies now, will he not always love them?
2. Is it just for God to be "kind to the evil and unthankful," in their present life? (Luke 6:35)
3. Would it be unjust for God to be kind to all men in a future state?
4. If all men justly deserve endless punishment, will not those who are saved, be saved unjustly?
5. If God "will by no means clear the guilty," by what means can just punishment be evaded? (Ex. 34:7)
6. As no man can measure endless punishment to his neighbor, will endless punishment be measured to him? (Luke 4:38)
7. Would it be merciful in God to inflict endless punishment? -- that is, merciful to the sufferer?
8. Can that be just which is not merciful?
9. Do not cruelty and injustice go hand in hand?
10. Can that be merciful which is not just?
11. Does divine justice demand the infliction of pain from which mercy recoils?
12. Does divine mercy require any thing that justice refuses to grant?
13. If the demands of divine justice are opposed to the requirements of mercy, is not God divided against Himself?
14. If the requirements of mercy are opposed to the demands of the justice of God, can His kingdom stand? -- (Mark 3:24)
15. If the justice and mercy of God are any way opposed, do they "keep the unity of the spirit in the bonds of peace?'

 

[Semper-Fi]

Ezekiel 33:11 (KJV)
Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God,
I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked;
but that the wicked turn from his way and live:
turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways;
for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

 

[Saint Steven]

“On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭9:20-22‬ ‭NASB‬‬

The phrase "What if" means he didn't. It's a question.

Romans 9:22-24
What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

 

[Semper-Fi]

The phrase "What if" means he didn't. It's a question.

Romans 9:22-24
What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

Do we apply What if to verse 24 also ?

24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

 

[Semper-Fi]

Destroy doesn’t mean death.

Malachi 4:3 (KJV)
And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall
be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day
that I shall do this, saith the Lord of hosts.

 

[FineLinen]

No.

Dear Hammster: The Lord of the all who has stated we are to love our enemies 70 X 7 lives by another standard?

 

[Hammster]

Dear Hammster: The Lord of the all who has stated we are to love our enemies 70 X 7 lives by another standard?

We are to love our enemies because we are no better than them. We are just as sinful.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Dr. Marvin Vincent

olethron aionion in 2Th. 1:9:

‘Aion, transliterated aeon, is a period of longer or shorter duration, having a beginning and an end, and complete in itself. Aristotle (peri ouravou, i. 9,15) says: “The period which includes the whole time of one’s life is called the aeon of each one.” Hence it often means the life of a man, as in Homer, where one’s life (aion) is said to leave him or to consume away (Iliad v. 685; Odyssey v. 160). It is not, however, limited to human life; it signifies any period in the course of events, as the period or age before Christ; the period of the millenium; the mythological period before the beginnings of history. The word has not “a stationary and mechanical value” (De Quincey). It does not mean a period of a fixed length for all cases. There are as many aeons as entities, the respective durations of which are fixed by the normal conditions of the several entities.

There is one aeon of a human life, another of the life of a nation, another of a crow’s life, another of an oak’s life. The length of the aeon depends on the subject to which it is attached.

It is sometimes translated world; world represents a period or a series of periods of time. See Matt 12:32; 13:40,49; Luke 1:70; 1 Cor 1:20; 2:6; Eph 1:21. Similarly oi aiones, the worlds, the universe, the aggregate of the ages or periods, and their contents which are included in the duration of the world. 1 Cor 2:7; 10:11; Heb 1:2; 9:26; 11:3. The word always carries the notion of time, and not of eternity.

It always means a period of time. Otherwise it would be impossible to account for the plural, or for such qualifying expressions as this age, or the age to come.

It does not mean something endless or everlasting. To deduce that meaning from its relation to aei is absurd; for, apart from the fact that the meaning of a word is not definitely fixed by its derivation, aei does not signify endless duration. When the writer of the Pastoral Epistles quotes the saying that the Cretans are always (aei) liars (Tit. 1:12), he surely does not mean that the Cretans will go on lying to all eternity. See also Acts 7:51; 2 Cor. 4:11; 6:10; Heb 3:10; 1 Pet. 3:15. Aei means habitually or continually within the limit of the subject’s life. In our colloquial dialect everlastingly is used in the same way. “The boy is everlastingly tormenting me to buy him a drum.”

In the New Testament the history of the world is conceived as developed through a succession of aeons. A series of such aeons precedes the introduction of a new series inaugurated by the Christian dispensation, and the end of the world and the second coming of Christ are to mark the beginning of another series. Eph. 1:21; 2:7; 3:9,21; 1 Cor 10:11; compare Heb. 9:26. He includes the series of aeons in one great aeon, ‘o aion ton aionon, the aeon of the aeons (Eph. 3:21); and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews describe the throne of God as enduring unto the aeon of the aeons (Heb 1:8). The plural is also used, aeons of the aeons, signifying all the successive periods which make up the sum total of the ages collectively. Rom. 16:27; Gal. 1:5; Philip. 4:20, etc. This plural phrase is applied by Paul to God only.

The adjective aionios in like manner carries the idea of time. Neither the noun nor the adjective, in themselves, carry the sense of endless or everlasting.

They may acquire that sense by their connotation, as, on the other hand, aidios, which means everlasting, has its meaning limited to a given point of time in Jude 6. Aionios means enduring through or pertaining to a period of time. Both the noun and the adjective are applied to limited periods. Thus the phrase eis ton aiona, habitually rendered forever, is often used of duration which is limited in the very nature of the case. See, for a few out of many instances, LXX, Exod 21:6; 29:9; 32:13; Josh. 14:9 1 Sam 8:13; Lev. 25:46; Deut. 15:17; 1 Chron. 28:4;. See also Matt. 21:19; John 13:8 1 Cor. 8:13. The same is true of aionios. Out of 150 instances in LXX, four-fifths imply limited duration. For a few instances see Gen. 48:4; Num. 10:8; 15:15; Prov. 22:28; Jonah 2:6; Hab. 3:6; Isa. 61:17.

Words which are habitually applied to things temporal or material cannot carry in themselves the sense of endlessness. Even when applied to God, we are not forced to render aionios everlasting.

Of course the life of God is endless; but the question is whether, in describing God as aionios, it was intended to describe the duration of his being, or whether some different and larger idea was not contemplated. That God lives longer then men, and lives on everlastingly, and has lived everlastingly, are, no doubt, great and significant facts; yet they are not the dominant or the most impressive facts in God’s relations to time.

God’s eternity does not stand merely or chiefly for a scale of length. It is not primarily a mathematical but a moral fact. The relations of God to time include and imply far more than the bare fact of endless continuance. They carry with them the fact that God transcends time; works on different principles and on a vaster scale than the wisdom of time provides; oversteps the conditions and the motives of time; marshals the successive aeons from a point outside of time, on lines which run out into his own measureless cycles, and for sublime moral ends which the creature of threescore and ten years cannot grasp and does not even suspect.

There is a word for everlasting if that idea is demanded.

That aiodios occurs rarely in the New Testament and in LXX does not prove that its place was taken by aionios. It rather goes to show that less importance was attached to the bare idea of everlastingness than later theological thought has given it. Paul uses the word once, in Rom. 1:20, where he speaks of “the everlasting power and divinity of God.” In Rom. 16:26 he speaks of the eternal God (tou aioniou theou); but that he does not mean the everlasting God is perfectly clear from the context. He has said that “the mystery” has been kept in silence in times eternal (chronois aioniois), by which he does not mean everlasting times, but the successive aeons which elapsed before Christ was proclaimed. God therefore is described as the God of the aeons, the God who pervaded and controlled those periods before the incarnation. To the same effect is the title ‘o basileus ton aionon, the King of the aeons, applied to God in 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 15:3; compare Tob. 13:6, 10.

The phrase pro chronon aionion, before eternal times (2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:2), cannot mean before everlasting times. To say that God bestowed grace on men, or promised them eternal life before endless times, would be absurd. The meaning is of old, as Luke 1:70. The grace and the promise were given in time, but far back in the ages, before the times of reckoning the aeons.

Zoe aionios eternal life, which occurs 42 times in N. T., but not in LXX, is not endless life, but life pertaining to a certain age or aeon, or continuing during that aeon. I repeat, life may be endless. The life in union with Christ is endless, but the fact is not expressed by aionios. Kolasis aionios, rendered everlasting punishment (Matt. 25:46), is the punishment peculiar to an aeon other then that in which Christ is speaking. In some cases zoe aionios does not refer specifically to the life beyond time, but rather to the aeon or dispensation of Messiah which succeeds the legal dispensation. See Matt. 19:16; John 5:39. John says that zoe aionios is the present possession of those who believe on the Son of God, John 3:36; 5:24; 6:47,54. The Father’s commandment is zoe aionios, John 1250; to know the only true God and Jesus Christ is zoe aionios. John 17:3.

Bishop Westcott very justly says, commenting upon the terms used by John to describe life under different aspects: “In considering these phrases it is necessary to premise that in spiritual things we must guard against all conclusions which rest upon the notions of succession and duration. ‘Eternal life’ is that which St. Paul speaks of as ‘e outos Zoe the life which is life indeed, and ‘e zoe tou theou, the life of God. It is not an endless duration of being in time, but being of which time is not a measure. We have indeed no powers to grasp the idea except through forms and images of sense. These must be used, but we must not transfer them as realities to another order.”

Thus, while aionios carries the idea of time, though not of endlessness, there belongs to it also, more or less, a sense of quality. Its character is ethical rather than mathematical.

The deepest significance of the life beyond time lies, not in endlessness, but in the moral quality of the aeon into which the life passes. It is comparatively unimportant whether or not the rich fool, when his soul was required of him (Luke 12:20), entered upon a state that was endless. The principal, the tremendous fact, as Christ unmistakably puts it, was that, in the new aeon, the motives, the aims, the conditions, the successes and awards of time counted for nothing. In time, his barns and their contents were everything; the soul was nothing. In the new life the soul was first and everything, and the barns and storehouses nothing. The bliss of the sanctified does not consist primarily in its endlessness, but in the nobler moral conditions of the new aeon, the years of the holy and eternal God. Duration is a secondary idea. When it enters it enters as an accompaniment and outgrowth of moral conditions.

In the present passage it is urged that olethron destruction points to an unchangeable, irremediable, and endless condition.

If this be true, if olethros is extinction, then the passage teaches the annihilation of the wicked, in which case the adjective aionios is superfluous, since extinction is final, and excludes the idea of duration. But olethros does not always mean destruction or extinction. Take the kindred verb apollumi to destroy, put an end to, or in the middle voice, to be lost, to perish. Peter says “the world being deluged with water, perished (apoleto, 2 Pet. 3:6); but the world did not become extinct, it was renewed. In Heb. 1:11,12, quoted from Ps. 102, we read concerning the heavens and the earth as compared with the eternity of God, “they shall perish” (apolountai). But the perishing is only preparatory to change and renewal. “They shall be changed” (allagesontai). Compare Isa. 51:6,16; 65:22; 2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1. Similarly, “the Son of man came to save that which was lost” (apololos), Luke 19:10. Jesus charged his apostles to go to the lost (apololota) sheep of the house of Israel, Matt. 10:6, compare 15:24, “He that shall lose (apolese) his life for my sake shall find it,” Matt. 16:25. Compare Luke 15:6,9,32.

In this passage, the word destruction is qualified.

It is “destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power,” at his second coming, in the new aeon. In other words, it is the severance, at a given point of time, of those who obey not the gospel from the presence and the glory of Christ. Aionios may therefore describe this severance as continuing during the millenial aeon between Christ’s coming and the final judgment; as being for the wicked prolonged throughout that aeon and characteristic of it, or it may describe the severance as characterising or enduring through a period or aeon succeeding the final judgment, the extent of which period is not defined. In neither case is aionios, to be interpreted as everlasting or endless.

If we cross-reference olethros with 1Co. 5:5, with its derivative olothrūo in He. 11:28, we will see that utter annihilation does not fit. For example, take the extermination of the “first-born” of Egypt (He. 11:28): Were all these innocent babies utterly annihilated before God? Also, though Satan destroys the flesh of the saved, we know God restores it in the resurrection (1Co. 5:5). Even were God to utterly annihilate someone, has He not the power to restore (De. 32:39; 1Sa. 2:6; Mt. 3:9)?

Also, if we cross-reference olethros with 1Co. 5:5, with its derivative olothrūo in He. 11:28, we will see that utter annihilation does not fit. For example, take the extermination of the “first-born” of Egypt (He. 11:28): Were all these innocent babies utterly annihilated before God? Also, though Satan destroys the flesh of the saved, we know God restores it in the resurrection (1Co. 5:5). Even were God to utterly annihilate someone, has He not the power to restore (De. 32:39; 1Sa. 2:6; Mt. 3:9)?

I keep reading all this nonsense about aion and aionios from 19th century theologians. Do you really think Robert Young and Marvin Vincent understood the teachings of the apostles or the Greek language better than Iranaeus who was a Greek bishop who lived from 130AD-202AD? I mean this man literally came right behind the apostles when their teachings were still fresh on the minds of the church. I mean we have Robert Young, a 19th century, Scottish, self taught, reformed theologian; Martin Vincent, another 19th century reformed theologian from New York vs Iranaeus a 2nd century, Greek, Catholic bishop from Turkey who wrote and spoke Greek fluently while the language was still widely used, and was taught by men who were directly taught by the apostles. Why on earth would anybody take the word of men who lived 1600 years after the apostles died, who believed in reformed theology which has been refuted by the early church writings from as far back as the 2nd century; over a man who was taught by the very men who were taught by the apostles themselves? Not only that but who’s writings have been substantiated throughout the history of Christianity and accepted by every single church the apostles established. Reformed theology, on the other hand, has been refuted by every single church the apostles established. So on one side you have men who were trying to learn what the early church was teaching and on the other you have a man who directly heard and taught what the early church was teaching. Ya know, I keep hearing a lot of talk about how the early church taught universalism but haven’t seen a shred of evidence to support that theory. Sure Origen entertained the idea of universalism as a possibility I’ll give you that but it has been refuted by both the church and several early church fathers throughout Christianity. One man does not determine the doctrines of the church. You quoted, if I’m not mistaken, about 7 different early church authors whom you claimed supported universalism and I provided evidence from their writings that, again if I’m not mistaken, that 4 of them out of the 7 you listed actually taught against it. I’ll have to continue the later. Have a blessed day brother.

 

[AlexDTX]

Questions Without Answers On Hell

Questions Without Answers

1. As we are required to love our enemies, may we not safely infer that God loves His enemies? (Matt. 5:44)
2. If God loves His enemies, will He punish them more than will be for their good?
3. Would endless punishment be for the good of any being?
4. As God loves His friends, if He loves His enemies also, are not all mankind the objects of His love?
5. If God loves those only who love Him, what better is He than the sinner? (Luke 6:32-33)
6. As "love thinketh no evil," can God design the ultimate evil of a single soul? (1 Cor. 13:5)
7. As "love worketh no ill," can God inflict, or cause, or allow to be inflicted, an endless ill? (Rom. 13:10)
8. As we are forbidden to be overcome by evil, can we safely suppose that God will be overcome by evil? (Rom. 12:21)
9. Would not the infliction of endless punishment prove that God HAD been overcome by evil?
10. If man does wrong in returning evil for evil, would not God do wrong if He was to do the same?
11. Would not endless punishment be the return of evil for evil?
12. As we are commanded "to overcome evil with good," may we not safely infer that God will do the same? (Rom. 12:21)
13. Would the infliction of endless punishment be overcoming evil with good?
14. If God hates the sinner, does the sinner do wrong in hating Him?
15. Is God a changeable being? (James 1:17)

Your questions are clearly set up to argue Universal Salvation.

Why is it so important to US people to convince other Christians that their doctrine is true? We already know we are going to heaven. Are you trying to thwart the Great Commission commandment of Christ? Or are you saying we should tell the world, "Do nothing, believe nothing, and live your life as you wish because you are already saved?"

This is the same message Satan gave Eve in the Garden:

Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

 

[BNR32FAN]

The phrase "What if" means he didn't. It's a question.

Romans 9:22-24
What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

To me it says that even tho these vessels were made for destruction He had already foreseen their disobedience and chose to make an example of them so that His glory can be seen by man.

 

[FineLinen]

Your questions are clearly set up to argue Universal Salvation.

Why is it so important to US people to convince other Christians that their doctrine is true? We already know we are going to heaven. Are you trying to thwart the Great Commission commandment of Christ? Or are you saying we should tell the world, "Do nothing, believe nothing, and live your life as you wish because you are already saved?"

Dear Alex: There is but one way to convince Christians of anything outside of their experience. That expansion is NOT in my power or domain!

Salvation is in three tenses all leading into deeper union with Him. The Great Commission cannot be "thwarted". He is the Saviour of All, some have not discovered it yet.

 

[RaymondG]

If He let evil doers who refuse to give up the evil they live and love, into Heaven, it would become Hell, a place where evil is freely enjoyed. There is a time for justice, where the perpetrators of evil who refuse to give it up are separated from the victims of their evil who tried to win them away from the evil they loved by goodness. This is forever.

Actually you just described Earth, not the traditional Hell.......a place with victims live with the perpetrators.....Evil doers live with those who try to do good. etc... evil is enjoyed freely by those who wish to enjoy it, and likewise with those that desire to enjoy good.

Do you feel like you are in Hell now? If so, is this not enough to make you desire a better place.....or do you need to imagine someplace worse?

 

[RaymondG]

The pastor told the young man that he didn't have to do anything especially terrible; hell requires no effort. All that one has to do is be themselves, i.e. act naturally and they'll get there because hell is the default whereas heaven is optional.

Nice! This speaks greatly to the power and effect of Adams disobedience.. What a great and powerful man he must have been, to be able to make a way for us to enter into His cause requiring "No effort" on our part..."All that one has to do is be themselves"

YET...What does this say about the power and effect of Christ Sacrifice and obedience?