• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Challenge to those who believe in Eternal Hell

Rajni

☯ Ego ad Eum pertinent ☯
Site Supporter
Dec 26, 2007
8,567
3,943
Visit site
✟1,373,667.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Single
I see those verses referring to the wrath of God that befell Jerusalem in 70AD. Those who didn't believe Jesus didn't flee to the mountains of Judea before that catastrophe took place, and as a consequence they suffered that day of destruction.

Through His sacrifice, Jesus paid too high a price to come away with only a relative handful in the End of that which He purchased through His blood.

The English word "everlasting" in that verse is "aiónios" and means "age-long" as opposed to endless.


 
Upvote 0

Bernie02

Regular Member
Jan 10, 2003
443
7
US midwest
Visit site
✟23,124.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Can you explain to me why there is distinction between this person and "the wicked"?
Excellent question. Salvation is the removal of that 'raw material' which causes humans to sin. The metaphors of Sodom and Israel appeal directly to this process, as do many other passages in Scripture. Here are the components of salvation as I understand them:
1) All creation is at base information. You, me, goats, mountains, universals, spirit, mind, mathematics...all different kinds of things, but at base all share the common attribute of being: all is information.
2) God infused creation (according to Gen) with the same qualititative component: truth. All information originally true.
3) Adam and Eve introduced falsity by the only true "free will" choice. False fragmentally and causally infects all forms of information, but appears to begin in human spirit.
4) Each human a representation of the fall: wrong choice infects one's spirit, hence we continually commit spiriutal suicide. God works in background to fragmentally heal even while we infect (all salted with regenerational fire, Mark 9:49) What God retains in salting/continual cleansing is some ability in intellect to overcome the flow of causation by maintaining ability to choose in moral matters. This ability is weak, probably limited to capacity to assent or reject call to participate in cleansing necessary to establish faith.

Sodom represents the love of darkness (falsehood) winning out over the call to consent to light of truth. Israel represents one who assents and is directed to cleansing necessary to gain reward: faith. In time, same regenerational fire is used (fragmentally and progressively) as is found in lake of fire: death and resurrection not of information of human spirit's substance, but of spirit's essence. Substance remains same, essence undergoes fire and is purified to wholly true state.

The distinction you ask about is only established in time, where change of informational state is possible and along with it change of mind. At physical death, change no longer possible and it is what it is: either we believed and were changed by God in life to walk through lake of fire (God's pure, true essence) unscathed as Daniel's friends in Nebuchadnezzar's furnace, or immediate, torturous change in lake of fire. Same fire. Same change. Same result. All in the end are purified, either easy way (in time) or hard way (in eternity).

agreed. scope of 'remain in Jesus' outlined above.

1b. I don't see it, unless you're saying that Isaiah 42:3 is saying that He will not destroy them completely. However, Isaiah 27:9 seems to contradict, as it indicates breaking.
Unbeliever is represented in Isa 42:3, choosing to ignore call to cleansing in time so little is left alive, hence dimly burning wick. Restoration from heavily falsified/darkened spirit to wholly true/light-filled spirit is breaking. It is destruction. It is death and resurrection, one iota at a time in life, all at once and without mercy at point of or after physical death. (This is only surface of truth, btw...there is an even greater picture, but one few will embrace....the closer we get to the perfection of God's attributes, the less we like it cause the more we're burned and want to resist it and refuse to see it.)

The contradiction in the Bible between some (individuals) lost and some saved is resolved in 1) what we find this destuction to be (regeneration), and 2) how it is applied (to components within each person instead of to individuals holistically). It's really very simple once understood, but the change necessary to get the mind's eye to see this after a lifetime of being taught to look at the Bible 'crosseyed' is staggering. Ever see one of those illusionist pcs. of art where a different picture underlies the obvious one, but you have to look at it differently to see it? Same with spiritual stuff.

3. But is this not at Christ's coming? What about before Christ's coming?

Would everyone accept God if God revealed Himself before Christ's coming?
I don't think there can be a "before Christ's coming", whether you're talking about for individuals at the point of physical death or in a grand premillennial event. God foreordained that Christ precede His wrath, perfectly and justly decreed upon all that is false (because God is only True) so that Christ may intercede and save each one. If Christ did not precede wrath, wrath would simply--and properly--destroy exactly what is false in each spirit. In all cases, this would diminish the particular entity to a tiny faction of what it originally was or destroy it completely. Christ intervenes not to prevent wrath, but to redirect wrath from a purely destroying force to a restorative one. Abraham typified Christ with Sodom, Moses did with Israel. Same protection, different circumstances and different aspects of the same lesson or principle. Jesus didn't die to protect us from destroying ourselves, but to assure that all that is destroyed will again be restored. Thus, Paul's truth in Gal 6:7: "Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap."


As for universalism, I have considered it possible, but only for a time. How do you explain Rev. 20:8-9?
All appeal to destruction in the Bible is led to the principle behind it: from the ashes new life comes forth. It's through all the Bible if we'll just see it. Once understood, Godly destruction results in life, giving life to the testimony of Hosea: "Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from death? O Death, where are your thorns? O Sheol, where is your sting? Compassion will be hidden from My sight." (Hos 13:14)
[many misinterpret God's pronouncement of no compassion; what He means is, "I don't care if it does hurt you to be reborn, I will not withold the restoration of your soul and lose you completely, despite your rejection of Me; I love you too much to allow this!" ]
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Challenge to those who believe in Eternal Hell

Lets examine what scriptures say on the subject.

From a paper I wrote:

 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

Continued...
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

Continued...
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

Continued...
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

Continued...
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

Continued...
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

Continued...
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

Continued...
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

Continued...
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

From my paper: "Speaking of Hell, A 21st Century Look at the Doctrine of Hell"

Believe it or not, makes no difference to me. I have fulfilled my part, I've put the word out. Now it is up to the Holy Spirit to convict.

God BLess

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

Bernie02

Regular Member
Jan 10, 2003
443
7
US midwest
Visit site
✟23,124.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Greetings Deacon Dean,

Thanks for posting. Unfortunately, nothing you posted had anything to do with the OP. I have heard every argument you presented many times over in many different ways from lots of different people. You have presented not a single new wrinkle than is already out there in plenty already. I used to use these arguments myself and am well aware of them. I believe my universalism, what I call the rationally esoteric approach to Scripture interpretation, defeats them all and restores the truth of Scripture to a higher level of verity than orthodox soteriology is able to present.

So....I invite you to read the OP and direct your efforts to a refutation thereof. All that you posted is merely the interpretation of salvation according to orthodox doctrine. I present a beginning principle in the OP which, if correct, casts the veracity of orthodox view of salvation into immediate doubt. Hence, to post only snippets of orthodox interpretation as a rebuttal accomplishes nothing. This is merely the parroting of what is largely believed in Christianity, while I want to debate whether the prinicples underlying what is believed are properly held.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

Then refute that vicious pack of truth.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

Bernie02

Regular Member
Jan 10, 2003
443
7
US midwest
Visit site
✟23,124.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Fair question. Salvation is a works-oriented scenario--the works of God in human spirit, in and of His sovereign choice and not ours. I believe as per Jn 1:9 that the enlightenment of every human is a regenerational feature, that in time regeneration is fragmental and not complete. Thus, God's seed is to some degree planted in human spirit such that this area of spirit will never die (1Jn 3:9) completely. The worst a human being can do after being born of God's Spirit to any degree is let their spiritual life/perception die (e.g., we stain our spirit to the degree we no long abide or see Christ's call to proper moral choice) to the point of life only as that of a smoldering wick, while those who follow the leading of Christ undergo sanctification to full, flickering flame of spiritual life--and thus faith is established. But Sodom, though destroyed, has hope (Isa 42:3).
So you see, the intrinsic good I equate righteousness with is only inherent in human thought because God has planted His seed in human spirit. It follows that righteous thought must necessarily arise from some inner impetus, which must be able to create that propriety in reason we call "right". Right thinking does not follow from the false. Something inside must be created to be in synchronization with higher truth. I believe human spirit is the receptor of God's information, which is then imparted to the intellect or soul, producing righteous thought and act. So Abraham believed God because God created the means in Abraham to receive of His call and believe. This is not at odds with orthodoxy, methinks.

I think I see what you're saying. You're right that I see a necessary connection between a literally true spirit or essence and the expression of literal righteousness in thought and act, as noted above. I do hold the imputed righteousness of Christ in time to be a different variety of righteousness, attained not entirely apart from the literal but distinct from it in that it is imparted to a human as a whole despite the whole's fragmented state. How can they not be mutually inclusive? If you can provide an explanation that makes sense, I can see where it might rebut the propositional structure of the OP.


....remember that Justice is also one of the colors used.
Not sure what significance this has in your thinking....? I think of the paints (the constituents of the metaphor) to be the raw materials God uses to communicate a higher principle. God's attributes (justice, mercy, lovingkindness, etc.) seem not to be of the paints themselves but part of the greater message each metaphor imparts. What do you see that I'm missing?


Yet the trees make up a forest. The individual people in Sodom were separated into wheat and tares just the same as all trees in the forest will be separated into wheat and tares at the very end of time.
Okay, agreed.

Correct. I agree insofar as I understand you.
What I'm not seeing is how you suppose what I've presented denies the importance of Christ's imputed righteousness. What I contend for is that all have a usable amount of moral ability, by virtue of God's having created this capacity in us by regeneration, to chose correctly. Not only are we granted this by God's grace, but He continues throughout our life patiently cleansing, restoring spirit such that enough freedom exists (in an otherwise significantly darkened soul) to be able to believe His call to conformity. If we deny Him often enough, He lets go and we fail to gain the imputed righteousness of faith in time. These die in their sin (Jn 8:21, Prov 1:21-33) and face God's pure essence sans Christ's imputed righteousness--thus gain their purification the "hard way" of the sinner instead of the special or easy way (1Tim 4:10) of faith.
So, the intrinsic good found on judgment day is decidedly not taken into account. This fragmental inner purity is only the raw material supplied by God to all so we can unite with His ideas enough to see and consent. To the extent good in intellect and act follow from this is only what is to be expected from us--to whom much is given, much is expected. If you teach a man to fix shoes, he becomes a cobbler, not a plumber. God sprinkles our spirit with good so we learn and act good. Good acts are thus not of us, or of our own righteousness, even though they come from us. They arise from what God has worked in us. If He does not purify, we do not see; if He does not cleanse, we retain our union with darkness. Participation in sanctification is not to gain personal righteousness, it is to provide only an ability to participate with God to establish our faith. We aren't building it, He is. He is sovereign, and because He has in my understanding sovereignly chosen to save all, the only offer He makes us is to conform with Him in time to saving faith, or to be jealously purified in a single, terrible event at life's end or in the afterlife. All we do to run the race is believe or not believe, He does the rest, and as we are sanctified we come to realize that it was actually Him who even created our belief.

I understand you to suppose that by presenting black and white in fragmented human essence as gray, I am placing varying degrees of goodness as inherent in human thought and behavior--and because of this, am not seeing the need for Christ's imputed righteousness. Is this correct? If so, I think I am not presenting my position adequately. In my thinking, "scarlet" would correctly describe the chasm between falsity and God's pure Truth. Further, the black + white = gray is only an view of causal reality, a technicality. B&W reality is how and where God deals with Israel and Sodom internally, in the literal. I see intellectual reality differently, as an emergent power that, while affected by the B&W reality of causation, yet exhibits its own unique capacities, including reason and will. This is where the imputation of Christ's righteousness is necessary and takes place. This is where scarlet appears. God deals with humans as a whole, and His declarations of blessing are to the person (soul, mind or intellect). But He deals in humans fragmentally, and His pronouncements of wrath find literal expression here. Inside human spirit, in behind the exclusive power of intellectual reality, bits and pieces, tares and wheat, sheep and goats are in constant, fluid motion, tidal forces rising and falling in the interactions between these contraries, imparting their undulating shades of 'gray' as dispositions to the receptive animation of life we call the soul. Thus imperfect, the vital soul is ever scarlet until that day God restores all in all to a complete true state of being. Literal and imputed righteousness, though they are interdependent and inexorably linked, are quite distinct in my thinking.

It would not be a violation of His Perfection to chop down and burn trees that are not white as snow. Dare I say that God is color blind?
Not unless there are any traces of whiteness in them, as noted in the OP. Not trying to be belligerent, just painting what I see, Gort.

But all coming to Christ in time is possible in my soteriology. It may be that those who resist most stubbornly will be purified to faith in the waning moments of life, in the possible small eternity between one's last breath and the moment the spirit exits the body. God is more merciful than we know.
But even what I consider to be the more likely view, the one I contend for 'out front':
1) Christ atones for all. Atonement cancels death by promise that all false things will be restored to true.
2) God elects all in eternity, seals all in time (Jn 1:9), offers the easy way through conformity to Christ in life (sanctification to faith) by belief/acceptance of call. Reason: all will die in fragmented state, and white will be separated from black, sheep from goats, wheat from tares in judgment.
3) Those who conform in time acquire faith; those who refuse do not.
4) All die, all must pass through the lake of fire (God's holy essence); those with imputed righteousness of Christ are not harmed by roaring flames, but their falsity is repaired in a twinkling (1Cor 15:52); those not of faith undergo refinement in God's fiery embrace. The lake of fire is itself the great judgment.
You see, there is no "out" for unbelievers. Regeneration is regeneration, whether it's gradual and fragmentally applied in life or all at once in the lake of fire. In all cases, it is entirely Christological as it is only by His atonement that man is regenerated at all. Christ died that all who die are reborn and restored to life, whether accepting of Him in life or brought to conformity in the furnace. Paul teaches this in Rom 11.

btw, thanx for the good conversation
No, thank you. Funny, it's been a while, but I vaguely recall that we've had intereraction here before. Don't recall that you were a universalist, I have vague memories of Gort as a Calvinist. Getting old, don't retain very well these days. God bless.
 
Upvote 0

Bernie02

Regular Member
Jan 10, 2003
443
7
US midwest
Visit site
✟23,124.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If universalism is true, that means there will be no one opposing Christ in His coming. That means that 2 Thess. 1:7-9 is nonsense.
No it doesn't. You seem to contend for the same type of Christological salvation as Gort. Look at it this way: Jesus died to save all, all are elected and sealed in eternity. Thus justified, God decrees that the purification of all to the proper state (wedding robes of literal righteousness) will be attained by regeneration because all sin stains and stains must be removed to make robes white. Regeneration hurts in ways God likens to plague, wind, hail, sword and, mostly, fire in OT. This requisite spiritual surgery can be applied two ways: gradually, having bits and pcs. purified/reborn over time, or all at once. First is hidden in trials and triublations of life, and is hardly noticeable. Second is 'all at once' and hurts like....you know what.

So, God offers salvation the easy (by sanctification to faith in time) way or hard (in the lake of fire) way, so that some choose the former and others the latter. Same method for believers and unbelievers, regenerational fire. Salted in time or thrown into the furnace after. Our in time, God's choice after. None escape Him. All are saved. God's will is done.
 
Reactions: Tavita
Upvote 0

gort

pedantric
Sep 18, 2003
10,451
194
70
Visit site
✟34,392.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hey Gort,


Can you explain this? What definition or what elements of savific Christology do you feel my view fails to address?

From your last post you stated:


This is the crux of your error; in equating righteousness with intrinsic good. Intrinsic good simply has no value on Salvific Avenue. I agree that intrinsic good is inherent in human thought and actions and I agree that it is in the same category as the righteousness of God but it stops at that point and has no further value in terms of salvation.


I don't think the christian can get to the point of a smoldering wick. Being reborn is comparable to the difference between night and day almost. The scriptures say those who are not reborn practice sin and those who are reborn cannot practice sin.



The are in the same category of sorts, yes, but are not mutually inclusive simply because one of them does'nt count in terms of salvation. At all. If Grace is defined as unmerited favour before God then it is by unmerited favour we are saved and having the commonality of intrinsic good in all peoples is simply how we were fashioned along with the commonality of body parts and no more. Salvation really has nothing to do with intrinsic good, salvation has entirely to do with sin.


Perhaps I'm wrong, but I see you pointing out that we have a usable amount of moral abitlity by virtue of creation (I agree) but you phrase it in a process of regeneration. Regeneration can only occur the moment one has the imputed righteousness of Jesus instilled within them, the moment of being reborn, a new creation, a new creature. Otherwise there is no regeneration involved at all. There is no cleansing, no restoration of spirit attained to get to the point of being able to believe His call to conformity in the beloved Son.

Of course there is a general sort of Grace that is a light shed on all peoples; a rain that falls on both the just and unjust. But it is not regenerative and the imputed righteousness of Christ Jesus is contained within it.


We simply cannot lose imputed righteousness under any circumstances. One becomes sealed by the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption. Jesus is with us always and the HS indwells us and convicts us of sin. There can be no other form of purification other than the blood of Christ Jesus.


I can generally agree with you until you get to the point I put in bold above. I do not hold with your thoughts of purification, regeneration and sanctification though at all. These are processes for the reborn only and are already a finished process in heaven. The natural man (and we all were or still are) are born into a world which we gaze upon in awe and we all ask the same questions of ourselves concerning life, the universe and all the wonders we see. We all have ten fingers an inherent good instilled within us and we all get up in the morning and put our pants on one leg at a time. And we were all blind to God. We all, deep down had a conviction, knew what we're supposed to do about God and we didn't do it. We might have gone to church anyways, we prolly could'nt wait to get out. Perhaps we were a Pharisee in church. Perhaps we were like Billy Graham, an alter boy for years before he got saved. Or maybe we thought we were good to go by giving a concerted lip service and then practice a little bit of sin. There really is no purification nor sanctification involved here because there really is no godly repentence involved.


No, I see you putting the imputed righteousness of Christ in the proper place. But I do see you putting a value of sorts in inherent good simply because we have an intrinsic good. In my refute of your OP I am putting no value whatsoever in inherent good just as I put no value in having 10 toes. In my thinking, the colour scarlett is in reference to the shade of sin only and I feel justified with it from biblical terminology.


Yes, I recall past conversations with you, about what I don't remember. That age thing, yes? I don't hang around here much anymore. Gort is stuck somewhere between Calvinist and Arminianism but leaning more to Calvinism. I consider it all Gods work in the salvific process but there is an educated...cough..very educated ...individual choice involved I recall Calvinists hold to Adam and Eve making the same educated choice in the garden, I would hold the same view for all today. If those who make such an informed choice, then it is holding with the thought of those that God is searching for; those who would worship Him in spirit and truth.
 
Upvote 0

Bernie02

Regular Member
Jan 10, 2003
443
7
US midwest
Visit site
✟23,124.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Greetings Gort,
Thanks for responding.
After more than a year of trying to find an educated rebuttal of the principle established in the OP, only you have attempted a rational, reasonable response. I appreciate and applaud your willingness to engage in honorable debate.
I wanted to respond to some points you've made in the discussion thus far. Also, will list the reasons I feel your refutation doesn't work...
From your last post you stated:

1) Just to clarify again, I'm not saying we're saved because we practice some good, but we practice some good because we're saved.
2) You've appear to admit a necessary connection between some real inner state and the outer production of righteous acts. In light of this, your steadfast refusal to allow any connection whatever (unless I've misunderstood you) between this inner state and salvation itself is puzzling as it seems to me to lead to an incoherent metaphysic and doctrine. For example, you state, "Being reborn is comparable to the difference between night and day almost. The scriptures say those who are not reborn practice sin and those who are reborn cannot practice sin." While you don't elaborate on this condition of being reborn and its associated effects, to say the reborn do not sin seems at least an implicit acknowledgement of something produced (not sinning) from some inner state (rebirth), which would presumably be taken as a sign of being saved. Even if by "not sinning" you mean the knowledge by an individual that all sins, past and future, are forgiven by one's faith (with which I would agree), there would still be presented to other viewers that certain knowledge possessed by the one who has faith--and thus a connection between a supposed state of inner righteousness and its outer expression. In this, you appear to allow yourself the freedom to associate certain effects and conditions with salvific reality while denying the same courtesy to me. Beyond this, though, although you deny me a working rationale for the elements of inner spiritual life, you offer no real competing spiritual/moral mechanism as an alternative. This is one part of a larger incoherence, more about which in a moment.
Your logic is flawed because you are confusing the good with the righteous. It is not that God is going to eternally punish or destroy the good, it is the unrighteous who will suffer.
3) I believe I've provided a reasonable working Biblical theology refuting this alleged 'confusion', which you either are not grasping or simply won't allow, despite its coherence. By demanding that the unrighteous suffer [presumably in hell] while the unrighteous do not, you are actually bringing into the open the tension orthodox salvation produces which the OP solves. The fact that you're using this to "refute" my universal salvation brings us to the primary incoherence of your position....
4) The main reason your refutation fails is that your reasoning is circular. I establish in the OP a principle by which the traditional view of salvation fails logically. Doctrine is an interpretation established from both the literal meaning of the Scriptures and the principles which arise from it--yours, mine, tradition's and everyone else's. Your refutation fails because you try to refute a logical principle with established doctrine. This is circular and backwards. You are essentially saying, "Your logic fails because it does not harmonize with popular doctrine". One of my biggest frustrations with traditionalists is that they use doctrine as though it were truth itself. Doctrine is not identical to truth, it cannot be wholly true until all tensions within it have been resolved.
The point is, all interpretations should be subjected to tests of truth. A big part of the reason the OP was developed is to show that traditional salvation does not pass at least one very important truth test. This test is crucial because it immediately throws into doubt the veracity of the orthodox understanding of hell as a condition of eternal torment. Not only that, if correct, it leads automatically and logically to a domino effect which culminates in a resolution of the main tensions orthodox views of salvation present and are unable to resolve.
It seems to me that to refute the proposition noted in the OP--that the notion of God destroying or assigning to eternal separation and/or punishment a human in which some good exists is discordant--you will have to show how the presented logic is itself faulty according to its own merits. Hence, the use of the distinction between imputed and literal righteousness (an orthodox, primarily Calvinist, doctrine) does nothing to contradict the logic of the OP. In using it you are only really stating "God can do what He wants because He chooses to whom He imputes righteousness and to whom He chooses not to impute righteousness and this choice alone determines who is saved and who is not." The Op was presented in large part to show the futility of this very doctrine, and further, that God anticipated its value in debunking the notion of eternal hell by hiding its refutation in esoteric (hidden) form--in plain sight, near the beginning of the Bible.
Finally, you posted this in another thread on universal salvation:
....and restated it in this one....
This went over my head when I read it, but find it important to respond now that I caught it. I think you have tried to understand my broader point of view, and I applaud your efforts, Gort. But I think you miss enough of the details to not put the pieces together.
First, the fact that you see no one finding an 'exit door' from the lake of fire does not mean there is not one. It only means that you have not found one. The most weight this observation can carry is to say the Scriptures are silent on the matter in your understanding. Silence has no power to prove or disprove...it only has the power to say that the Bible says nothing on a particular issue or idea.
Second, in my universalism I make no claim that anyone finds an exit door from the lake of fire. Tradition fails, imho, to understand what hell and the lake of fire really are because they do not see the metaphors God paints and harmonizes in both Testaments on this subject.
1) The lake of fire is God Himself. Representationally, it is God's pure Truth: His holy essence. But this is only half the tale; the definition of hell is the other half.
2) Hell, generally speaking, is the word used to describe:
a) the annihilation of any iota of falsity, that opposite property of God's purity, and,
b) the tension and resistance raised in the human mind by "a".
Thus, there is no 'exit door' from the lake of fire, as testified to by God: "'Now the end is upon you, and I shall send My anger against you; I shall judge you according to your ways, and I shall bring all your abominations upon you. For My eye will have no pity on you, nor shall I spare you, but I shall bring your ways upon you, and your abominations will be among you; then you will know that I am the LORD!’" (Ezek 7:3-4) What is destroyed in the hell of the lake of fire is the fragmental falsity which stains human spirit. Once these 'tares', 'goats', etc. are destroyed, hell disappears from the perception of the one who was previously writhing in fiery torment. The "hell" of tension and resistance (torment) is raised in the apprehension of the one not dressed in the wedding robes of faith as his purification is performed without mercy: "Therefore thus says the LORD, 'Behold I am bringing disaster on them which they will not be able to escape; though they will cry to Me, yet I will not listen to them.'" (Jer 11:11)
No exit door. All must pass through the furnace of God's holiness (Heb 9:27). Those of faith will walk into the presence of God (lake of fire) like Daniel's friends in Nebuchadnezzar's furnace (Dan 3). And when even unbelievers are brought to a state of perfection (a wholly true soul), hell disappears. As the stain of sin is burned away from human spirit, the pain recedes, the torment wanes. As spiritual death is consumed and replaced by new life, the Scriptures are reconciled: "And death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire." (Rev 20:14), and, "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." (Rev 21:8) Hell disappears as falsity is consumed and the soul is made one (existing in a true state) with God. This comes first in the special salvation (1Tim 4:10) of faith in time (Jn 17:17-23), with Jesus' promise for all (Jn 12:32) being fulfilled without mercy in the lake of fire judgment (1Cor 3:11-15). This view resolves the tensions traditional salvation raises.
Death is a product of the false, that which corrupts the truth. All goods proceed from the highest value, the true, with life itself a primary good. Thus, death (which is replaced with life as falsity is destroyed) is destroyed in the lake of fire, along with hell (the mind's apprehension of falsity's destruction). When finished, the unbeliever is also restored to the purity of life and walks in the furnace unscathed, death and hell gone and the smoke of their former torment gone up forever and ever, never to return.
 
Upvote 0