Good tidings of great joy, which shall be to SOME people?

[Servus]

I find it interesting that UR folks when really challenged, just decide to block instead of see how their doctrine is incorrect. The sad thing is is that because they believe everyone will be saved in the end, they will lead others astray. Others who will hear they will be saved and will decide not to believe now and live for themselves and for their wicked hearts. Then when they stand before God and are cast into the Lake of Fire, they will have more to chew on and be angry about. Of course they will have no excuse, but the UR fills will have something to answer for even though they are entering heaven.

All the "UR fills" are saying is they don't believe most of mankind will end up in an everlasting torture dungeon.

The other view of annihilationism teaches you've got nothing to worry about, because it fills the atheistic belief that there's no afterlife. Thus no afterlife consequences.

 

[Servus]

the anti-gospel team

That's a good one. I see you've taken it up a notch.

 

[Andrewn]

they will lead others astray. Others who will hear they will be saved and will decide not to believe now and live for themselves and for their wicked hearts. Then when they stand before God and are cast into the Lake of Fire,

Gal 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.

they will have more to chew on and be angry about. Of course they will have no excuse, but the UR fills will have something to answer for even though they are entering heaven.

Jam 3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

 

[Andrewn]

All the "UR fills" are saying is they don't believe most of mankind will end up in an everlasting torture dungeon.

No, this is not what full Universalists are saying. They believe that every single person will ultimately get to heaven.

 

[Servus]

No, this is not what full Universalists are saying. They believe that every single person will ultimately get to heaven.

What other alternative would there be between the two, other than annihilation, which I also addressed in the same post?

 

[Andrewn]

What other alternative would there be between the two, other than annihilation, which I also addressed in the same post?

I find all 3 views unsatisfactory and the more argument I read in these threads the less confidence I feel in any of them. A majority of people either tormented forever or annihilated does not make sense to me. And full UR does not make sense either.

Like EO, I believe in post-mortem progression. This belief is based on Christ's harrowing of hades. But, as I stated before, perhaps 1% of people may remain stubborn or they are full of evil. I suspect you may have a similar, middle of the road, understanding.

 

[Servus]

I find all 3 views unsatisfactory and the more argument I read in these threads the less confidence I feel in any of them. A majority of people either tormented forever or annihilated does not make sense to me. And full UR does not make sense either.

Like EO, I believe in post-mortem progression. This belief is based on Christ's harrowing of hades. But, as I stated before, perhaps 1% of people may remain stubborn or they are full of evil. I suspect you may have a similar, middle of the road, understanding.

You suspect correctly. Although of the three UR seems to make the most sense to me. Maybe not full UR. But I tend to think a large portion of mankind won't face some horrifying fate. And there hopefully will be a lot of hope for mankind. Maybe there's a percentage of souls who will end up being like demons of their own free will.

I like EO views too.

 

[Lazarus Short]

I think you know good and well that the Good News is not that everyone gets to be in hell.

Please think for a minute about the above...

 

[Hmm]

But, as I stated before, perhaps 1% of people may remain stubborn or they are full of evil.

I know of two ways universalism addresses this. One way is that espoused by David Bentley Hart which is that our true nature is to want to be with God because that's where we see where our true happiness. So once God has stripped us of our ignorance and selfish delusions we will all confess Him as Lord. It won't really be a choice anymore than a sunflower alway turns to face the sun, assuming they actually do that that!

The second one I read is from Keith DeRose which is that It's theoretically possible that someone could hold out against God indefinitely if they really wanted to, although it's hard to think of a good reason why they would. But, as God is God and has an endless amount of time to win that person over, the probability of the person holding out as time goes on becomes vanishing small, just like the probability of always getting heads when tossing a coin again and again becomes vanishing small as time goes on. It's still theoretically possible but will it actually ever happen. You could resolve it anyway by saying that in this extreme case God reserves the right to overrule that person's decision - I don't see that as being unreasonable although I don't think it will ever be needed seeing that God has an eternity in which to work on that person, and of course, being infinitely resourceful.

Do you have a view on that?

 

[Servus]

I know of two ways universalism addresses this. One way is that espoused by David Bentley Hart which is that our true nature is to want to be with God because that's where we see where our true happiness. So once God has stripped us of our ignorance and selfish delusions we will all confess Him as Lord. It won't really be a choice anymore than a sunflower alway turns to face the sun, assuming they actually do that that!

The second one I read is from Keith DeRose which is that It's theoretically possible that someone could hold out against God indefinitely if they really wanted to, although it's hard to think of a good reason why they would. But, as God is God and has an endless amount of time to win that person over, the probability of the person holding out as time goes on becomes vanishing small, just like the probability of always getting heads when tossing a coin again and again becomes vanishing small as time goes on. It's still theoretically possible but will it actually ever happen. You could resolve it anyway by saying that in this extreme case God reserves the right to overrule that person's decision - I don't see that as being unreasonable although I don't think it will ever be needed seeing that God has an eternity in which to work on that person, and of course, being infinitely resourceful.

Do you have a view on that?

It's quite a prolific teaching in Christianity that everyone has a "God shaped void" that needs to be filled. That many drink and do drugs etc to try filling that longing desire that only God can fill.

 

[Andrewn]

I know of two ways universalism addresses this. One way is that espoused by David Bentley Hart which is that our true nature is to want to be with God because that's where we see where our true happiness. So once God has stripped us of our ignorance and selfish delusions we will all confess Him as Lord. It won't really be a choice anymore than a sunflower alway turns to face the sun, assuming they actually do that that!

This view assumes that all people, once stripped of ignorance and selfish delusions, will turn to face God. This assumption did not work with the angels who fell.

The second one I read is from Keith DeRose which is that It's theoretically possible that someone could hold out against God indefinitely if they really wanted to. . . . But, as God is God and has an endless amount of time to win that person over, the probability of the person holding out as time goes on becomes vanishing small,

Yes, this is plausible. God has been dealing with fallen angels for billions of years. Nobody can say what will happen in the next billions of years.

You could resolve it anyway by saying that in this extreme case God reserves the right to overrule that person's decision -

I don't think God would overrule a person's decision. But He is God and can decide what is best.

So, of the 3 possible scenarios, the 2nd makes most sense to me. But in that scenario, torment is so protracted that it is almost forever or everlasting anyway.

 

[Hmm]

It's quite a prolific teaching in Christianity that everyone has a "God shaped void" that needs to be filled. That many drink and do drugs etc to try filling that longing desire that only God can fill.

That's all too true, as I know from personal experience!

 

[Hmm]

This assumption did not work with the angels who fell

I suppose that begs the question of whether angels and humans are the same in this regard? I suppose also that Adam and Eve raise the same question. They walked with God in the cool breeze of the evening (something like that) and so knew God face to face yet still rebelled. Perhaps our restored, saved nature is deeper and more stable somehow than our innocent nature? Just throwing that question out there, I don't have any answers or even an opinion!

So, of the 3 possible scenarios, the 2nd makes most sense to me.

Do you mean annihilation?

 

[Andrewn]

I suppose also that Adam and Eve raise the same question. They walked with God in the cool breeze of the evening (something like that) and so knew God face to face yet still rebelled.

Good point.

Perhaps our restored, saved nature is deeper and more stable somehow than our innocent nature?

Yes, this is what Church Fathers agree about. Presumably, it is why people can repent / change their mind in Hades but not in Paradise.

Do you mean annihilation?

No, I was referring to DeRose's scenario. In that scenario, torment is so protracted that it is almost forever or everlasting.

 

[rjs330]

All the "UR fills" are saying is they don't believe most of mankind will end up in an everlasting torture dungeon.

The other view of annihilationism teaches you've got nothing to worry about, because it fills the atheistic belief that there's no afterlife. Thus no afterlife consequences.

Typo, UR believes everyone is saved. They base this primarily on they don't believe in ETC. But you can choose not to believe in ETC and still not believe in UR.

In both cases of UR and Annihilation there are no consequences to failing to believe in Jesus. In one case you can live however you want and do whatever you want totally reject Christ and the Father and you'll be saved anyway. In the other case you can do the same and youll be wiped out of existence. Which to most people they could care less. Cause a lot of people don't believe in an afterlife anyway. And they certainly don't believe there is a heaven like scripture teaches. So both belief systems have no real need for repentance and belief. Unless you belong to the UR folks (fills ) that believe in a shorter hell to purge you of you unbelief.

 

[rjs330]

No, this is not what full Universalists are saying. They believe that every single person will ultimately get to heaven.

And avoid eternal punishment.

 

[rjs330]

You suspect correctly. Although of the three UR seems to make the most sense to me. Maybe not full UR. But I tend to think a large portion of mankind won't face some horrifying fate. And there hopefully will be a lot of hope for mankind. Maybe there's a percentage of souls who will end up being like demons of their own free will.

I like EO views too.

I'd like to see scriptural evidence for that though. Evidence that shows man has an ability to still get saved after they die.

 

[rjs330]

Please think for a minute about the above...

I have that's why I posted that.

 

[Servus]

Typo, UR believes everyone is saved. They base this primarily on they don't believe in ETC. But you can choose not to believe in ETC and still not believe in UR.

In both cases of UR and Annihilation there are no consequences to failing to believe in Jesus. In one case you can live however you want and do whatever you want totally reject Christ and the Father and you'll be saved anyway. In the other case you can do the same and youll be wiped out of existence. Which to most people they could care less. Cause a lot of people don't believe in an afterlife anyway. And they certainly don't believe there is a heaven like scripture teaches. So both belief systems have no real need for repentance and belief. Unless you belong to the UR folks (fills ) that believe in a shorter hell to purge you of you unbelief.

Don't forget free grace, and once saved always saved, which also amount to live like the devil and still be saved; just so long as you believed first. And deathbed confessions. Live like the devil up to the end and then repent and belive.

Here's the thing though, is staying out of eternal hell the best or only reason to turn to Christ? And why are all those listed above practicing Christians anyways, since according to their belief regarding salvation, they don't have to be?

One of the reasons why I like concepts such as OSAS, Free Grace, UR and even annihilation, is once the threat is taken away, then I have a true love motivation to worship and serve God.

Who's more loyal, those who have to be or else, or those who want to be purely out of love and devotion? Which version would God want?

 

[Hmm]

No, I was referring to DeRose's scenario. In that scenario, torment is so protracted that it is almost forever or everlasting.

I see the scenario differently I think in that I don't see any torment because there is no tormenter. God is always the prodigal's father, desperately waiting for his child to realise what it is that will make him truly happy and then come home. The prodigal's son did truly suffer for sure but that wasn't through torment byhis father - for some reason it was necessary and we don't really know why. And this suffering did have an end and there was a joyous ending. Is there not a qualitative difference between endless and purposeless suffering by a wrathful tormenter as advocated by Team Hell and the educational and redemptive suffering that causes so much pain to the loving father as is taught in the parable of the prodigal son?