Challenge to those who believe in Eternal Hell

[ForceofTime]

Is it logically possible for God to destroy prescriptive, moral or spiritual good of any kind? If so, why?

I guess the real question then is, "Can God alter himself to such an extent that HE is no longer God, thereby assuring there is NO God?"

 

[Bernie02]

Can God be destroyed? No. It is not ordained by God.

Can goodness be destroyed? Yes, as it is not God. It is merely a possession of God.

I would gently suggest that you either haven't a sufficient grasp of the subject to make a proper judgment or you're grasping at straws in order to avoid a conclusion.

I asked the question 'can God destroy good' to an audience with no mention of why I was asking. I didn't want them to know what I was working on because I know how fickle my fellow Christians are in matters of truth. We are supposed to hold truth in highest esteem, its pursuit as our highest goal, but people will quickly abandon truth if it's taking them in directions they don't want to go.

I got a more intellectually honest result from those who weren't trying to disprove something, but were responding without the constraint of presupposition, which is about as close to 'for truth's sake alone' as we get. I suspect you push the truth aside others freely see because you're on a vendetta, Jpark. Hurt though it may, logically, for God to destroy any good--because literally all goods proceed from Him and His essence--is an impossibility. God created all and every good--love, sympathy, unity, forgiveness, kindness,

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]pleasure, happiness, contentment, wisdom, freedom, justice, health, virtue, etc. To not see how His destruction of even the tiniest bit of any of these is a complete abomination to even the notion of Godliness as Holy perfection.

[/FONT]​

To brush this aside because you don't like where it's leading is a an error you might give some serious though to in your quiet times.

 

[Bernie02]

I guess the real question then is, "Can God alter himself to such an extent that HE is no longer God, thereby assuring there is NO God?"

I have no idea where you came up with an idea like this in light of what is being discussed. Would you care to attempt a rational refutation of the OP?

 

[ForceofTime]

There should be no disagreement that God may be said to be characterized by one superintending principle: perfection. many attributes are found in God--mercy, love, justice, compassionate, forgiving, etc.--but if He lacks perfection in these or any facet of His essence, He must ultimately fall from being God to being at best, a god....or no god at all.

I thought i was?

 

[ForceofTime]

1) a logical difficulty exists here for annihilationists and eternal tormentists--because all goods proceed from truth, and God is pure, perfect Truth. For Him to destroy or eternally separate literally any good from His creation is a logical impossibility. Corresponding to this, of course, is the fact that all His pronouncement of wrath and destruction in the Bible is only ever toward evil, never good.

2) Abraham elaborated the truth that to destroy good would violate the fundamental perfection of God when he said, "Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from Thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?"

In the story of the Exodus, the nation Israel is a metaphor for the individual who is brought to the gates of promise, fails for lack of faith and is turned back into the wilderness until sufficient unbelieving parts are destroyed such that Israel is brought back to the land of promise with faith created from hardship.

1) True

2) True

Exodus: "until sufficient unbelieving parts are destroyed") False

 

[Bernie02]

Draw in this instance might indicate compulsion, but other Scriptures (i.e. James 4:8) make it clear that man comes to Him by their own will after being invited.

I question whether the whole "invited" thing is even Biblical, though it's a popular notion today.

After a lengthy explanation of how we are grafted into the vine of Christ by our obedience, Paul makes a startling statement in Rom 11: "For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery, lest you be wise in your own estimation, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in; and thus all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, 'THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB.' AND THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS." From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." (vv. 25-29)
Study Rom 11 closely. Compare what Paul writes there to 1Tim 4:10, 1Cor 15:22, Rom 5:18 or Col 1:20. If you will lay aside your presuppositions, you may be able to see where Paul is going in his theology...or you can parrot the organized church which modifies Paul's message to conform it to popular doctrine. Which do you see?

 

[Rajni]

If Jesus already has come, then who were His elect (BibleGateway.com - Keyword[bless and do not curse]Search: elect gather )?

I believe "the elect" are elected not simply for heaven-some-day, but rather for God's purposes in furthering His Kingdom here and now, during the earthly phase of their existence, in whatever age that happens to be (AD70 or otherwise). As far as salvation goes, all mankind are elected. As far as believing and living a life of service to God before physical death, not everyone is part of the elect.

You mean that partial salvation says that God is incompetent? This sounds similar to osas theology...

Perhaps, but it also sounds to me like common sense... it's the logical conclusion to the belief that the self-named Savior Of The World would turn out being merely the Savior of Only Some Of The World.

If a deity's ability to save his creation is only as powerful as any fallen human's ability to comprehend/accept it as they gaze "through a glass darkly", then it's difficult to conclude that the deity in question really accomplished much, at least in the area of salvation.

 

[Rajni]

If the coming has already happened, then the "all" only applies to those who were living before that. If your reasoning is correct, after AD 70, everyone who has lived is excluded from renewal and therefore, inheritance.

1 Corinthians 15:24-28 "Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all."
​

I see "the end" in this passage as being the end of the Old Covenant age, rather than the end of the world as we know it today. Therefore, I don't see anyone being excluded from renewal/inheritance. I believe that God has accomplished what He set out to do on the redemptive front as well as the eschatological front (though the latter I'm more flexible on because I understand completely how Scripture could be easily interpreted from other than a fulfilled endtimes standpoint). And as for death in that passage, I believe it's spiritual death that has been addressed. Physical death was always a given, even before the fall in the Garden (see Genesis 3:22).

 

[ForceofTime]

Also, when the Scriptures say only God is good, they mean only He possesses absolute goodness.

I was a bit hasty to dismiss the aspect of truth in this statement! I see what you mean (intentionally or not) and agree. In fact, it is quite instrumental in discovering the truth of the thread. So my apologies to you.

 

[Bernie02]

Hi Force,

Exodus: "until sufficient unbelieving parts are destroyed") False

Why do you say this?

 

[ForceofTime]

Hi Force,


Why do you say this?

If good cannot be destroyed, how can evil?

 

[Bernie02]

If good cannot be destroyed, how can evil?

First, a question: what is evil? How do you define evil?

Example: When the arrogant man is shamed and humiliated in the midst of his acting arrogant--say while he is showing off in front of a crowd--he suffers something internally. (We all knows what it feels like to be humiliated)

The next time the arrogant man feels the urge to be arrogant, he will also feel a twinge of constraint, remembering how he was formerly humiliated. Something has changed inside which is purely spiritual and ethereal--he didn't change physically, yet lost some of his arrogance. What makes up the content of this change? What changes took place, what did he lose (or gain?) that makes him slightly 'better' for his experience?

Scripture examples: "Therefore through this Jacob’s iniquity will be forgiven; And this will be the full price of the pardoning of his sin: When he makes all the altar stones like pulverized chalk stones; When Asherim and incense altars will not stand." (Isa 27:9)


"But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner’s fire and like fullers’ soap. And He will sit as a smelter and purifier of silver, and He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, so that they may present to the LORD offerings in righteousness." (Mal 3:2-3)

Again, an internal change is decreed in each...something inside a human which God likens in metaphor to the worshipping of false gods is brought to ruin, pulverized, by which the pardoning of sin is accomplished. Something is inside a human which, in a process God likens to purification by fire, has the result of internal change such that offerings become proper and acceptable.

I submit that evil is destroyed, especially in light of the fact that evil MUST be destroyed from human essence because it's not allowed into the presence of God (see Rev 22:14-15 for example).

 

[ForceofTime]

First, a question: what is evil? How do you define evil?

Example: When the arrogant man is shamed and humiliated in the midst of his acting arrogant--say while he is showing off in front of a crowd--he suffers something internally. (We all knows what it feels like to be humiliated)

The next time the arrogant man feels the urge to be arrogant, he will also feel a twinge of constraint, remembering how he was formerly humiliated. Something has changed inside which is purely spiritual and ethereal--he didn't change physically, yet lost some of his arrogance. What makes up the content of this change? What changes took place, what did he lose (or gain?) that makes him slightly 'better' for his experience?

I submit that evil is destroyed, especially in light of the fact that evil MUST be destroyed from human essence because it's not allowed into the presence of God (see Rev 22:14-15 for example).

How would you propose to destroy darkness?

As far as the man is concerned, it was the realization that what he thought was there was, in fact, not there.

 

[ForceofTime]

What I am curious to know is just what is it you are holding in reserve which you fear will be misconstrued.

I admit, I too am holding in reserve.

 

[Bernie02]

What I am curious to know is just what is it you are holding in reserve which you fear will be misconstrued.

I admit, I too am holding in reserve.

I'm not holding anything "in reserve" that I'm aware of. Just trying to engage in robust, honest discussion. What leads you to suspect I might be holding something in reserve?

But let's back up a bit to your statement, "If good cannot be destroyed, how can evil?" The OP focused not on whether good could be destroyed as in whether God was capable or had the ability to do so, but whether it's logical to suppose that He would. Presupposing a perfect God, I think it's pretty universally understood in Christian thinking that He would not destroy good as this would constitute an obvious violation of His perfection.

Now as to evil, it's again a matter of common sense that because God is wholly good and evil is good's opposite, that it is not only natural for God to destroy evil, but necessary that He do so. I used examples in my last post to lead you to this conclusion, but apparently they didn't do the trick. In fact, the entire Bible is full of God's pronouncement of destruction of evil. The fact that you post lots of Scriptures tells me you're well versed in your knowledge of the Bible. I don't see how you can have read it and missed this fundamental principle, frankly.

 

[Bernie02]

How would you propose to destroy darkness?

As far as the man is concerned, it was the realization that what he thought was there was, in fact, not there.

Ah, of course.....you are legion. After a time, your traits give you away, you know.

 

[ForceofTime]

I asked the question 'can God destroy good' to an audience with no mention of why I was asking. I didn't want them to know what I was working on because I know how fickle my fellow Christians are in matters of truth.

Did you not say this?

 

[ForceofTime]

Now as to evil, it's again a matter of common sense that because God is wholly good and evil is good's opposite, that it is not only natural for God to destroy evil, but necessary that He do so.

I used examples in my last post to lead you to this conclusion, but apparently they didn't do the trick. In fact, the entire Bible is full of God's pronouncement of destruction of evil. The fact that you post lots of Scriptures tells me you're well versed in your knowledge of the Bible. I don't see how you can have read it and missed this fundamental principle, frankly.

If this is indeed common sense, then God is in trouble. By the statement that 'God is wholly good and evil is good's opposite' then you are saying that there is something EQUAL and OPPOSITE to God!

 

[ForceofTime]

Brother, you are wading in murky water.

 

[Soulgazer]

Sorry