Challenge to those who believe in Eternal Hell

[Jpark]

I have decided to withdraw. I forfeit this match. Universalism has too much support.

 

[Bernie02]

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!

Actually, it doesn't follow that because evil is the opposite of good, there is something equal and opposite to God. Fire and water can be thought of as opposites, but a match is hardly 'equal' to an ocean.

Did you not say this?

Yes. Sorry, I thought it was obvious that I am a universalist. I didn't want to mention to those I asked if God can destroy good that I was working on an evidence that all would be saved because to destroy an entire human being in whom some good exists is logically incoherent. I know from experience that their minds would have immediately focused on the 'terrible heresy' of universalism and they would almost certainly have zealously supported the idea that God can destroy good. I've seen this happen on a number of occasions. Was I being deceptive? Maybe, but the principle served remains: people let presuppositions cloud their judgment such that they will immediately abandon a focus on truth in order to refute an idea they don't like.

Wonderful world, isn't it?

 

[Bernie02]

Sorry

What are you sorry about, and to whom are your posts aimed?

 

[ForceofTime]

Actually, it doesn't follow that because evil is the opposite of good, there is something equal and opposite to God. Fire and water can be thought of as opposites, but a match is hardly 'equal' to an ocean.

Fire is not the opposite of water. A match is not equal in proportion. E=mc2.
It does follow since, Up is equal and opposite to Down (the match/ocean equivalent would be to say that a hole is deep Down, but is no equal against the Up of the universe).

As to the Universalism, I am not familiar with such terminology, but I see your point.

 

[Bernie02]

Fire is not the opposite of water. A match is not equal in proportion.

Of course water and match are not technically opposites; it was an illustration. Surely illustration, metaphor, etc. is in use on your home planet?

The point is that opposites can be quantified, and if quantifiable, one can be greater or less than the other.

 

[ForceofTime]

Of course water and match are not technically opposites; it was an illustration. Surely illustration, metaphor, etc. is in use on your home planet?

I see. Hope you find what you are seeking.

 

[gort]

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.

Informed by God that He was going to Sodom to investigate and, if necessary, destroy the evil city, Abraham quickly struck up a conversation with his Creator—his nephew Lot and family were there, and Abraham, knowing God's intention for Sodom, was deeply concerned about his kin living there. He began with what we recognize to be his famous conversation with God in Gen 18 by asking in v. 23, “….’Wilt Thou indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?’”

Beginning here and running to the end of this chapter, God establishes a principle so fundamentally and harmoniously woven into both testaments of the Bible, it’s hard to see how the organized church has missed its significance. This principle, what I see as a kind of spiritual essentialism (which the rationally esoteric view of the salvation of all is founded on) is elaborated in vv. 24-25:

"Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; wilt Thou indeed sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous who are in it? 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?"

Abraham goes on to negotiate the number by which God will spare the whole, to 45, 30, 20 and finally, 10. The significance of this exchange should not be missed. There are two similar but equally important points here:
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?"

Resolution of the False Doctrine of Eternal Destruction/Separation/Torment in Hell of the Individual

It may be reasonably argued that there exists in every human being, even the most evil human, some degree of good. This is figuratively implied in the exchange between Abraham and God on the road to Sodom. Further, experience shows us that even the most hardened human minds have the capacity to express certain dispositions we immediately recognize to be good: love, forgiveness, empathy, etc. Thus for God to separate or annihilate a whole human being (body, soul and spirit) would be to perform a violation of His perfection, not only in the destruction of good per se, but in that doing so profanes the perfection of justice as He then destroys or condemns to torture and/or separation a being in whom some good exists and therefore is not 100% deserving of eternal punishment.

These infractions of logic are laid to rest in the view that the literal teachings and principle truths of Scripture are primarily elements used by God to produce a 'bigger picture'. William James used the analogy of paints on canvas as so much saleable material spread in certain ways, from which a greater, spiritual thing arises, the picture which exceeds the meaning and importance of the individual paints which make it up. Because the organized church controls what Scripture may say by the imposition of a "literal only" meaning on it, it must necessarily miss the point of Jesus' teaching and God's inspiration in Scripture in using people, events, authors, background, individual demeanors and acts, etc. as components or players on a grand stage--e.g., as particular elements arranged in such a way as to paint a larger picture. In this, the church--much of which claims to believe in an inspired Bible--ends up denying the greater truths which can only be seen when looking past the literal components to the bigger picture they actually form.

In this view, which is simultaneously rational and esoteric, Jesus uses the example of the good man and evil man bringing forth their own kind of treasure (Mat 12:35) to represent an activity from within the same person; the sword drawn to cut off the righteous from the wicked (Ezek 21:2-5) is directed to the spirit of every individual, wheat and tares, goats and sheep, green tree and dry tree are elements within each person; those of Zion and those who forsake the Lord (Isa 1:27-28) are simultaneously elements within each of us; from the many trees of the forest destroyed by the flame of God, yet a remnant (Isa 10:17-22) will remain (elements within the whole), etc. Even in the aforementioned exchange between Abraham and God in Gen 18, God shows in metaphor how he saves the individual--he separates the righteous before destroying the unrighteous--just as Jesus speaks of the separation of goats from sheep (Mat 25) and wheat from tares (Mat 13) and branches cast off and burned while good branches are pruned to bear more fruit (Jn 15:1-6). We struggle to think beyond terms of good and bad individuals, and traditional theology is adjusted to this way of thinking, but God's thoughts and methods are greater than ours in all respects.

Sanctification is the same regenerational process. 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. The people and events are "paints" that create the bigger picture. The constituent elements which produced unbelief were 'cut off' from Israel in the wilderness in progressive, fragmented sanctification with the result that faith was brought forth. Hence, cleansing regeneration is wholly the sovereign work of God, though by granting assent in this life we participate with him in this process, just as Israel trudged through the wilderness until God had performed spiritual surgery in him (them) sufficient to build faith.

Summary

Traditional views of salvation impose logical deficiencies which cannot be resolved using current interpretive methods. When the destruction and eternal separation of God's wrath moves from the individual to her constituent parts, these deficiencies evaporate and how God saves all through the atonement and work of Christ Jesus in the spirit/soul of the individual is revealed.

Thus, the universal salvation of all souls by this essentialist methodology, becomes the "one stick" (Ezek 37:16-19) of truthful doctrine (the salvation of all) from metaphoric Calvinism (Judah) and Israel (Arminianism). After more than 400 years of irreconcilable differences, the violations imposed on tests of truth by the competing traditional views of salvation are laid to rest in the bigger picture of the salvation of all.

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.

And as Jesus pointed out the standard for good, only God is good and therefore, no else can be claimed good.

 

[Bernie02]

Hello Gort,

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.

And as Jesus pointed out the standard for good, only God is good and therefore, no else can be claimed good.

Actually, methinks it's your logic that's flawed. You have to think and see more deeply. This is a metaphysical thing. All manner of good is of God. You're not seeing that righteousness--literal righteousness, acts and thoughts--necessarily springs from some inner good. You can't separate the two. (This isn't to be confused with the imputed righteousness of Christ to individuals in whom both good and evil exist, btw)

The distinction you make is between whole people, individuals--which is where traditional views of salvation err. This is a metaphysical example. Most who ponder the logic come to the same conclusion I do: that good, per se, is a natural property of God. All goods arise from Truth, or the true, which is the highest value. Hence, all good thought and act necessarily proceed from a content of sort of inner good or truth.

This is not saying humans and God share a property in degree, but in category.

There is a difference between claiming to be good and being in possession of some degree of good. Jesus referenced the former, I reference the latter.

 

[gort]

Hello Gort,


Actually, methinks it's your logic that's flawed. You have to think and see more deeply. This is a metaphysical thing. All manner of good is of God. You're not seeing that righteousness--literal righteousness, acts and thoughts--necessarily springs from some inner good. You can't separate the two. (This isn't to be confused with the imputed righteousness of Christ to individuals in whom both good and evil exist, btw)

If all manner of good is from God, which I will agree with for the time being, then why did God destroy most of Sodom and save Lot and his family? You did argue that there is some degree of good in all people in your OP. So why Lot and his family? Was Lot so intrinsically good that he was worthy of not being destroyed?

The distinction you make is between whole people, individuals--which is where traditional views of salvation err. This is a metaphysical example. Most who ponder the logic come to the same conclusion I do: that good, per se, is a natural property of God. All goods arise from Truth, or the true, which is the highest value. Hence, all good thought and act necessarily proceed from a content of sort of inner good or truth.

This is not saying humans and God share a property in degree, but in category.

But you are the one who used whole people as the basis of your metaphysical example. You've used an example of Sodom that you should have completely steered away from if you wanted to speak metaphorically and categorically. I can agree with you, good comes from God and yes, those destroyed in Sodom each had some degree of good but nevertheless, God still destroyed the city. Whether that destruction is eternal or temporal, God still destroyed a degree of good which would be a violation of His perfection as noted from the OP.

There is a difference between claiming to be good and being in possession of some degree of good. Jesus referenced the former, I reference the latter.

I think the reference by Jesus was more along the lines of being bonafide good rather than claiming to be good considering He used God as the goal post, so to speak. And if such is the goal post then what Jesus said is literally true, there are none who are good. And if such is valid, then how much weight is there in you referencing the latter?

 

[Bernie02]

Hi Gort,

If all manner of good is from God, which I will agree with for the time being

For the time being? Is the truth something you keep or throw away according to the whims of the moment?

then why did God destroy most of Sodom and save Lot and his family? You did argue that there is some degree of good in all people in your OP. So why Lot and his family? Was Lot so intrinsically good that he was worthy of not being destroyed?

Good question. This goes to the heart of the issue. My point is that the Gen 19 account is one of several metaphors describing how God saves. Sodom, the angels, Lot, his family, the Sodomites--these are arranged to portray a principle like paints are arranged on cavas to convey something higher, something greater in importance-- a beautiful mountain scene, for example. Look at the story as metaphor: the Sodomites represent evil elements, Lot and family good elements. Sodom represents the 'body' all those elements are contained within. This separation is painted over the entire Bible. Separation of wheat and tares, sheep and goats (Mat13 & 25), rotten figs from good figs (Jer 24), the righteous from the wicked (Ezek 21:2-5), etc.

The primary principle, that God wil not --cannot, if He is to remain perfect--destroy evil and good together is established in the conversation between Abraham and God in Gen 18. The fact that He separates the good from the bad, and destroys the latter, seals and testifies to the truth of the principle established earlier. The fact that God deemed Lot and family righteous and the Sodomites unrighteous and worthy of destruction is, as is true of all such passages in Scripture, irrelevant to the point being made in the metaphor.

But you are the one who used whole people as the basis of your metaphysical example.

But don't you see, the use of whole people, historical events, places, particular things of all types are the materials God uses to paint His pictures? The scenes, people, places, events, etc. of the Bible are all actors upon God's stage, paints to be spread on the canvas of His creation. He gathers them together and arranges them in ways that paint pictures much more grand than any of the particular paints themselves. I did not choose this, God did in His sovereign and good pleasure.

You've used an example of Sodom that you should have completely steered away from if you wanted to speak metaphorically and categorically. I can agree with you, good comes from God and yes, those destroyed in Sodom each had some degree of good but nevertheless, God still destroyed the city. Whether that destruction is eternal or temporal, God still destroyed a degree of good which would be a violation of His perfection as noted from the OP.

You're staring too hard at the trees to see the forest, Gort. God performed the same seapration of elements from the individual Sodomites even as He used them to portray the evil elements in His metaphor. There is no violation of His perfection if He applied that principle of separation to the individuals who died in Sodom, is there?

I think the reference by Jesus was more along the lines of being bonafide good rather than claiming to be good considering He used God as the goal post, so to speak. And if such is the goal post then what Jesus said is literally true, there are none who are good. And if such is valid, then how much weight is there in you referencing the latter?

God is wholly good. Man is fragmentally good...good mixed with evil, true with false, light with darkness. In this context, Jesus spoke truly: only God is (wholly) good. Further, you and I will likely agree that even the fragmental goodness in humans only equates with God's goodness in category or kind, certainly not in potency.

The distinction I was making was literal righteousness (or good) compared to imputed righteousness, not, as you suggest, actually good compared to claiming to be good. This distinction fits coherently and harmoniously with Jesus' statement that only God is good.

And BTW, thanks for tackling the problem in the op thoughtfully and rationally...you and Jpark are the first persons to do so in about a year of posting this on two or three other sites.

 

[Jpark]

I know I said I would leave this thread, but there is one thing I forgot.

Isaiah 57:16-18 "For I will not contend forever,
Nor will I always be angry;
For the spirit would grow faint before Me,
And the breath of those whom I have made.
17"Because of the iniquity of his unjust gain I was angry and struck him;
I hid My face and was angry,
And he went on turning away, in the way of his heart.
18"I have seen his ways, but I will heal him;
I will lead him and restore comfort to him and to his mourners,

On the surface, this Scripture seems to indicate that God will not always be angry towards a person. Perhaps implying universalism. But the following verse indicates that this is not so.

Isaiah 57:20-21 But the wicked are like the tossing sea,
For it cannot be quiet,
And its waters toss up refuse and mud.
21"There is no peace," says my God, "for the wicked."

Verse 20 indicates that the promise in verses 16-18 is conditional, as indicated in Ezekiel 18. Also, there is distinction between the aforementioned person and the wicked.

Verse 21 means John 13:8.

What I would like to know is:

1. Will the dead have the opportunity to repent, to be cleansed by God?
2. Will the living repent and/or be cleansed by God?
3. If God were to reveal Himself, would everyone repent? Would everyone be pardoned?

 

[Rajni]

I know I said I would leave this thread, but there is one thing I forgot.

Isaiah 57:16-18 "For I will not contend forever,

Nor will I always be angry;
For the spirit would grow faint before Me,
And the breath of those whom I have made.
17"Because of the iniquity of his unjust gain I was angry and struck him;
I hid My face and was angry,
And he went on turning away, in the way of his heart.
18"I have seen his ways, but I will heal him;
I will lead him and restore comfort to him and to his mourners,

On the surface, this Scripture seems to indicate that God will not always be angry towards a person. Perhaps implying universalism. But the following verse indicates that this is not so.

Isaiah 57:20-21 But the wicked are like the tossing sea,
For it cannot be quiet,
And its waters toss up refuse and mud.
21"There is no peace," says my God, "for the wicked."

Verse 20 indicates that the promise in verses 16-18 is conditional, as indicated in Ezekiel 18. Also, there is distinction between the aforementioned person and the wicked.

Verse 21 means John 13:8.

What I would like to know is:

1. Will the dead have the opportunity to repent, to be cleansed by God?
2. Will the living repent and/or be cleansed by God?
3. If God were to reveal Himself, would everyone repent? Would everyone be pardoned?

My answer to #1 -- Yes.
My answer to #2 -- For those yet living who are elected to believe before their physical death, Yes
My answer to #3 -- Yes, I believe everyone would repent. They are already pardoned as He has taken upon Himself the sin of the world. I also attribute a lot of one's change of heart to simply stepping outside their fleshly body. The flesh influences so much in the way of rebellion; I speculate that the release from the physical body at death itself, combined with being in God's visible presence at that point, will go a long way in assisting a person to rest in Him and believe.

I believe that everyone is already saved, but not everyone realizes it yet.

And when I consider that God is Love (1 John 4:8, 16), and then bear that in mind when reading 1 Corinthians 13 which describes the characteristics of Love (a.k.a. God), I find little room for the belief that He would keep a record of wrongs. Mercy triumphs over judgement (James 2:13).

 

[Jpark]

My answer to #1 -- Yes.
My answer to #2 -- For those yet living who are elected to believe before their physical death, Yes
My answer to #3 -- Yes, I believe everyone would repent. They are already pardoned as He has taken upon Himself the sin of the world. I also attribute a lot of one's change of heart to simply stepping outside their fleshly body. The flesh influences so much in the way of rebellion; I speculate that the release from the physical body at death itself, combined with being in God's visible presence at that point, will go a long way in assisting a person to rest in Him and believe.

I believe that everyone is already saved, but not everyone realizes it yet.

And when I consider that God is Love (1 John 4:8, 16), and then bear that in mind when reading 1 Corinthians 13 which describes the characteristics of Love (a.k.a. God), I find little room for the belief that He would keep a record of wrongs. Mercy triumphs over judgement (James 2:13).

I see.

Concerning already pardoned, what are the Scriptures that say that support this reasoning and that He took upon Himself the sins of the world?

 

[Bernie02]

Isaiah 57:16-18 "For I will not contend forever,
Nor will I always be angry;
For the spirit would grow faint before Me,
And the breath of those whom I have made.
17"Because of the iniquity of his unjust gain I was angry and struck him;
I hid My face and was angry,
And he went on turning away, in the way of his heart.
18"I have seen his ways, but I will heal him;
I will lead him and restore comfort to him and to his mourners,

On the surface, this Scripture seems to indicate that God will not always be angry towards a person. Perhaps implying universalism. But the following verse indicates that this is not so.

Isaiah 57:20-21 But the wicked are like the tossing sea,
For it cannot be quiet,
And its waters toss up refuse and mud.
21"There is no peace," says my God, "for the wicked."

Verse 20 indicates that the promise in verses 16-18 is conditional, as indicated in Ezekiel 18. Also, there is distinction between the aforementioned person and the wicked.

Look again to the metaphor. Sodom is the individual. God calls to Sodom to repent. He refuses, hardens his heart and turns his back on God. God sees (according to the principle laid out in the OP) that Sodom will not repent, so...He destroys those elements within Sodom which cause Sodom's enmity toward God after separating the Lot parts. Sodom is a type of the unbeliever who faces God's wrath in the lake of fire after physical death.

Next consider the metaphor of Israel, wandering in the wilderness. Israel represents the one who chooses to follow the Lord in life, but is weak and in need of sanctification. Like all humans, Israel had some bad parts in him, parts which were corrupt, which influenced Israel to lack faith when God brought him to the promise land and bid him enter. But Israel, pricked by those inner, bad parts which caused fear, lacked faith to enter promised land (see Num 13:31-14:3). Israel had some good parts in him, but the bad outweighed the good (14:6-9).

Moses as a type of Christ Intercessor, prevailed with God to not destroy Israel (Num 14:11-20), but pronounced an Ezek 18 on him and sent him back to wander in the wilderness for 40 years. God decreed destruction to Israel's bad parts (vv. 22-23), but pronounced His pleasure with Israel's good parts (v. 24), which coheres with the OP. Study closely God's pronouncement of bringing new life from from the destruction of Israel's bad parts (vv. 27-38), which corresponds to Ezek 18. What dies? That inner stuff which causes the individual to set himself against God's will for him for blessing and benefit. During the winlderness time, with Israel not even aware of what was happening to him, the bad parts were destroyed from him and new parts were born. When after his time of cleansing in the wilderness he again returned to take the promised land, he was changed in his thinking and attitude not by any power of his own, but by a work of destruction and rebirth which took place among the components of his inner fabric.

Sodom and Israel undergo the same process, though one conforms to faith in time and the bad parts of the other meet the roaring flame of God's purity in the afterlife. In both cases, though, God's justice is perfect and He treats both the same, both meet the same end, only by different paths.

Verse 21 means John 13:8.

Are you sure Jn 13:8 is the right verse? Doesn't make sense, or I'm not getting it.

What I would like to know is:

1. Will the dead have the opportunity to repent, to be cleansed by God?
2. Will the living repent and/or be cleansed by God?
3. If God were to reveal Himself, would everyone repent? Would everyone be pardoned?

1a No. (Ezek 7:4, 9:10, Jer 11:11) 1b yes (Isa 42:3, Isa 27:9,
2. Some (Rom 11, 2Thes 3:2, Jer 6:29)
3.a Yes (Mat 24:30*, Phil 2:10 ) 3b. Yes (Psa 145:21, Luke 3:6)

* All will mourn at our lifetime of scourging and resisting Jesus when all eyes are opened to the truth of our salvation

 

[Evergreen48]

Look again to the metaphor. Sodom is the individual. God calls to Sodom to repent. He refuses, hardens his heart and turns his back on God. God sees (according to the principle laid out in the OP) that Sodom will not repent, so...He destroys those elements within Sodom which cause Sodom's enmity toward God after separating the Lot parts. Sodom is a type of the unbeliever who faces God's wrath in the lake of fire after physical death.

Next consider the metaphor of Israel, wandering in the wilderness. Israel represents the one who chooses to follow the Lord in life, but is weak and in need of sanctification. Like all humans, Israel had some bad parts in him, parts which were corrupt, which influenced Israel to lack faith when God brought him to the promise land and bid him enter. But Israel, pricked by those inner, bad parts which caused fear, lacked faith to enter promised land (see Num 13:31-14:3). Israel had some good parts in him, but the bad outweighed the good (14:6-9).

There is no record of "God's calling Sodom to repent". If the story of the destruction of the cities of plains ( Sodom & Gommorrah) was meant as a metaphor, or if it were a type to teach what has been proposed here, there would be no loose ends such as there not being any record of God calling to Sodom to repent.


You have made metaphors where no metaphors were intended.

In order that evil be destroyed its source must be destroyed.


Matthew 15:18. "But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. 19. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20.These are the things which defile a man . . . . "

The source of evil is the mind of the carnal or fleshly man.

Rom. 7:18 "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not."

Matthew 10: 28. And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna."


Job 24: "19.Drought and heat consume the snow waters: so doth the grave those which have sinned.

20. The womb shall forget him; the worm shall feed sweetly on him; he shall be no more remembered; and wickedness shall be broken as a tree."

 

[Jpark]

Look again to the metaphor. Sodom is the individual. God calls to Sodom to repent. He refuses, hardens his heart and turns his back on God. God sees (according to the principle laid out in the OP) that Sodom will not repent, so...He destroys those elements within Sodom which cause Sodom's enmity toward God after separating the Lot parts. Sodom is a type of the unbeliever who faces God's wrath in the lake of fire after physical death.

Next consider the metaphor of Israel, wandering in the wilderness. Israel represents the one who chooses to follow the Lord in life, but is weak and in need of sanctification. Like all humans, Israel had some bad parts in him, parts which were corrupt, which influenced Israel to lack faith when God brought him to the promise land and bid him enter. But Israel, pricked by those inner, bad parts which caused fear, lacked faith to enter promised land (see Num 13:31-14:3). Israel had some good parts in him, but the bad outweighed the good (14:6-9).

Moses as a type of Christ Intercessor, prevailed with God to not destroy Israel (Num 14:11-20), but pronounced an Ezek 18 on him and sent him back to wander in the wilderness for 40 years. God decreed destruction to Israel's bad parts (vv. 22-23), but pronounced His pleasure with Israel's good parts (v. 24), which coheres with the OP. Study closely God's pronouncement of bringing new life from from the destruction of Israel's bad parts (vv. 27-38), which corresponds to Ezek 18. What dies? That inner stuff which causes the individual to set himself against God's will for him for blessing and benefit. During the winlderness time, with Israel not even aware of what was happening to him, the bad parts were destroyed from him and new parts were born. When after his time of cleansing in the wilderness he again returned to take the promised land, he was changed in his thinking and attitude not by any power of his own, but by a work of destruction and rebirth which took place among the components of his inner fabric.

Sodom and Israel undergo the same process, though one conforms to faith in time and the bad parts of the other meet the roaring flame of God's purity in the afterlife. In both cases, though, God's justice is perfect and He treats both the same, both meet the same end, only by different paths.

Can you explain to me why there is distinction between this person and "the wicked"?

Are you sure Jn 13:8 is the right verse? Doesn't make sense, or I'm not getting it.

John 14:27 " Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful.

"John 16:33 These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world."

Only if one remains in Jesus can he have peace. That is only possible by being cleansed.

1a No. (Ezek 7:4, 9:10, Jer 11:11) 1b yes (Isa 42:3, Isa 27:9,
2. Some (Rom 11, 2Thes 3:2, Jer 6:29)
3.a Yes (Mat 24:30*, Phil 2:10 ) 3b. Yes (Psa 145:21, Luke 3:6)

* All will mourn at our lifetime of scourging and resisting Jesus when all eyes are opened to the truth of our salvation

1a. I see.

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.

2. I see.

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?

As for universalism, I have considered it possible, but only for a time. How do you explain Rev. 20:8-9?

 

[Rajni]

I see.

Concerning already pardoned, what are the Scriptures that say that support this reasoning and that He took upon Himself the sins of the world?

2 Corinthians 5:21 & John 1:29

 

[he-man]

2 Corinthians 5:21 & John 1:29

see
Job 21:30 That the wicked is reserved to the day of destruction? they shall be brought forth to the day of wrath.
2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

9 Who shall pay a penalty of everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

 

[gort]

Hi Gort,


For the time being? Is the truth something you keep or throw away according to the whims of the moment?

For the time being in the context of your thread title, yes. Biblically, salvation is not dependent upon ones level of good as none of it counts before God. Only imputed righteousness in Christ Jesus counts.

Good question. This goes to the heart of the issue. My point is that the Gen 19 account is one of several metaphors describing how God saves. Sodom, the angels, Lot, his family, the Sodomites--these are arranged to portray a principle like paints are arranged on cavas to convey something higher, something greater in importance-- a beautiful mountain scene, for example. Look at the story as metaphor: the Sodomites represent evil elements, Lot and family good elements. Sodom represents the 'body' all those elements are contained within. This separation is painted over the entire Bible. Separation of wheat and tares, sheep and goats (Mat13 & 25), rotten figs from good figs (Jer 24), the righteous from the wicked (Ezek 21:2-5), etc.

Rather than think along the lines of equating righteousness with intrinsic good, had you thought that Abraham was righteous before God because Abraham believed God as Paul had stated? The same being true of Lot and his family? Otherwise it seems your metaphor has put into place a works orientated scenario of who is wicked and who is good.

The primary principle, that God wil not --cannot, if He is to remain perfect--destroy evil and good together is established in the conversation between Abraham and God in Gen 18. The fact that He separates the good from the bad, and destroys the latter, seals and testifies to the truth of the principle established earlier. The fact that God deemed Lot and family righteous and the Sodomites unrighteous and worthy of destruction is, as is true of all such passages in Scripture, irrelevant to the point being made in the metaphor.

Again, that conversation revolved around righteous people such as Abraham who would have faith in God. As a christological universalist I can see you rationalizing your metaphor into what you've portrayed it as. Were you to think along the lines that righteousness was not mutually inclusive with the intrinsic good in people the you would understand why I stated that your logic was flawed in my first post of this thread. But I do understand your broader point of view.

But don't you see, the use of whole people, historical events, places, particular things of all types are the materials God uses to paint His pictures? The scenes, people, places, events, etc. of the Bible are all actors upon God's stage, paints to be spread on the canvas of His creation. He gathers them together and arranges them in ways that paint pictures much more grand than any of the particular paints themselves. I did not choose this, God did in His sovereign and good pleasure.

I agree but also remember that Justice is also one of the colors used.

You're staring too hard at the trees to see the forest, Gort. God performed the same seapration of elements from the individual Sodomites even as He used them to portray the evil elements in His metaphor. There is no violation of His perfection if He applied that principle of separation to the individuals who died in Sodom, is there?

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. All the trees will make up a forest on a painted canvas. However, God created the canvas, supplied the paints, painted a lush background and roughed in individual sketches of trees and left jars of paint for us'n all to finish the artistry.

The level of His perfection is found in imputed righteousness of Jesus and not in intrinsic good found in peoples. A violation of such perfection would come about if the intrinsic good found in peoples were to be taken into account on judgement day. I'm sure you would agree with me on this.

God is wholly good. Man is fragmentally good...good mixed with evil, true with false, light with darkness. In this context, Jesus spoke truly: only God is (wholly) good. Further, you and I will likely agree that even the fragmental goodness in humans only equates with God's goodness in category or kind, certainly not in potency.

Categorically speaking, the colour palette contains only two; black and white. The colour palette in terms of potency is scarlet red, not varying shades of grey, because of the mixture of the two. It is this colour of scarlet red that God is dealing with which violates His perfection. The colour of white is not to be seen in it at all which is His Perfection.

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?


Bernie, we agree on most things. I just think you're trying to rationalize christological universalism in that eventually all peoples who are condemned to the lake of fire will go through an exit door. I've yet to find any allusion in the scriptures to such an exit door. However, my faith is cemented in the thought that God is not willing that any should perish, that all might come to a knowledge of Jesus.

btw, thanx for the good conversation

 

[RadicalDissenter]

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.

I can't say I believe in unversal salvation, but your argument is not valid.

The phrase "in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus." does not imply eternity at all. It only shows that those who don't know God and don't obey Christ's gospel will be punished. It never says "with endless torture".