Could anyone ultimately reject God?

[Hmm]

Just to briefly explain the options offered in the poll:

C.S. Lewis envisages hell as a place where the door is always shut from the inside, so that we can always open it whenever we want. It's our choice if we're in Hell and God is largely passive.

N.T. Wight thinks that if we continually reject God we are in effect saying that we don't want to be human any longer (because as humans we're created in the image of God), that God will honour that and that we'll eventually become a kind of non-human reflecting only ourselves rather than God into the world. Here God lets us make a big mistake and there's no way back.

D.B Hart (to keep to the two initials and surname although he's usually referred to as David Bentley Hart) believes that to the extent that we reject God, we are not truly free. Our true happiness lies in being right with God and so, if we choose to reject God, we're not really making an informed choice any more than we would be if we ever vote for Trump again (or Biden, take your pick!). Here, God forgives us for we know not what we do and He'll work towards setting us free so that we can make a capable decision. This is, of course, the universalist view.

A.N. Other could be ECT, Annihilationism or anything frightful like that designed for others and not ourselves.

So I wonder what you guys think and what option you think is true.

 

[Tolworth John]

Salvation is determined in this life only, as Hebrews 9 says after death comes judgement.
There is no second chance.

 

[Hmm]

after death comes judgement

Does judgment always have to mean the death penalty or, even worse, eternal torment in a fiery pit complete with pitchforks (though not sure how you can have both)? Could it not result in a £5 fine or a week's community service doing the washing up in the local elderly person's home?

Have you completed the poll? It would be interesting to see some numbers.

 

[Blade]

none of those

 

[Hmm]

none of those

Okay, what option would have catered for you? I don't think I can add it retrospectively though.

 

[Tolworth John]

Does judgment always have to mean the death penalty or, even worse, eternal torment in a fiery pit complete with pitchforks

As Death preceeds judgement it is dificult to have one without the other.

Dantes inferno is not in the bible, so demons, pitchforks etc are irrelevant.

 

[Hmm]

Dantes inferno is not in the bible, so demons, pitchforks etc are irrelevant.

True, but Dante's Inferno informs, or governs, most people's (and Christians are included in that, they're not a different species) opinion of hell, red devils and pitchforks as mad as that is, no?

Churches in my experience do very little to correct that opinion because it's the hill to die on for most of the diminishing number of church-going Christians. You do wonder where the church is going next - the Good News belongs to everyone so where will the Spirit lead it? Universalism probably as the only coherent intellectual, emotional and moral framework for an increasingly sophisticated and cynical (of the establishment) population

 

[Der Alte]

True, but Dante's Inferno informs, nay governs, most people's (and Christians are included in that, they're not a different species) opinion, no?

Irrelevant, smoke and mirrors. In Israel, at least 6-700 year, before and during the time of Jesus there was a significant belief in a place of eternal fiery punishment and they called it both Ge hinnom and Sheol, written as "Gehenna and Hades" in the 225 BC LXX and the NT.

 

[Hmm]

Irrelevant smoke and mirrors.

What does relevant smoke and mirrors look like? Just curious.

 

[Der Alte]

What does relevant smoke and mirrors look like? Just curious.

Look again.

 

[Der Alte]

Here is God not saving all mankind.

Romans 1:21-26
(21) Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
(22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
(23) And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
(24) Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
(25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
(26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Romans 1:28
(28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;​

;

 

[Hmm]

Look again.

I did but there was so much irrelevant smoke around I couldn't see anything.

 

[Der Alte]

I did but there was so much irrelevant smoke around I couldn't see anything.

No you didn't!

 

[Hmm]

No you didn't!

See nothing is sometimes better than seeing something. It makes us wonder at the mystery of things at least and maybe even lets us leave it as a mystery rather than trying coming up with an explanation of it!

 

[bling]

We sometimes think our choice is between accepting or rejecting Christ/God, but the choice really comes before that. It would be righteous, worthy, honorable to choose Christ over rejecting Christ and sinful man is not capable of righteous behavior.
The unbelieving sinful human is rejecting God's Love in the form of charitable forgiveness and it must be accepted as it is given (as pure undeserving charity).
This messed up world with Christ going to the cross, satan roaming around, tragedies of all kinds, death, hell and sinning, all are the very best help for willing individuals to fulfill their objective.
Sinners can reach the point when there is nothing more that can be done that would cause the person to accept God's help. This would be like the prodigal son deciding to be macho, hang in there, take the punishment he fully deserves and not pester his father further with a selfish undeserving request.
The sinner who reaches this point of never willing to accept God's charity, will take on the lesser objective of helping others still able and may even loss their free will ability. Hell is not there to help the sinner, but to help others in making their choice to accept God's help, just like the prodigal son looking at starving to death in the pigsty (which has to be a real alternative, we can look at hell as being a real alternative and choose to avoid such a place. (More can be said)

 

[Hmm]

(More can be said)

I hope you do say more.

sinful man is not capable of righteous behavior.

I'd agree with that we're not capable of righteous behaviour at all times but would you say that we are sometimes capable of it e.g. if someone falls into a river and is drowning and someone else risks their life to jump in and rescue them, is that not perfectly righteous behaviour? If it's not, how could it be improved? I don't see how it possibly could be.

The unbelieving sinful human is rejecting God's Love in the form of charitable forgiveness and it must be accepted as it is given (as pure undeserving charity).

By this, do you mean that it's sometimes hard to accept love without feeling that you have done anything to deserve it?

Sinners can reach the point when there is nothing more that can be done that would cause the person to accept God's help.

Would you not accept though that this is something that is beyond our experience? We may know someone who we can't ever imagine repenting and turning to God, but can we say from this that if God is trying to get through to them and He has an eternity of time in which to work, that He can't succeed?

Hell is not there to help the sinner, but to help others in making their choice to accept God's help

But is it God's help we should be hoping for or should it be His love? If it's love, how can the warning sign of hell help us? We could cling to God out of fear of the abyss but this would be out of fear, not love.

 

[Der Alte]

When I first heard the Calvinist proof text about a leopard not being able to change his spots, nor the Ethiopian his skin, I needed to see the context. I found that God was speaking to the king and queen of Israel not, necessarily, all of mankind, Jer 13:18. And as I read further in this chapter I found another passage, which refutes Calvinism.
Note this passage from Jeremiah 13. God said “I have caused to cleave” That word is הדבקתי/ha’dabaq’thi. It is in the perfect or completed sense. God’s express will, clearly stated, for the whole house of Israel and Judah, to cling to God as a belt clings to a man’s waist.
It was done, finished, completed, in God’s sight, and, according to some arguments, nothing man can do will cause God’s will to not be done. But they, Israel and Judah, would not hear and obey, their will, vs. God’s will, So God destroyed them, vs. 14.
…..This passage very much speaks to God’s sovereign will, and man’s free will and agency. God stated very clearly what His will was, in terms that cannot be misunderstood. But, because the Israelites and Judeans would not hear, and obey, God destroyed them, instead of them being unto God, “for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory, vs. 10.”

Jer 13:1 Thus saith the LORD unto me, Go and get thee a linen girdle, and put it upon thy loins, and put it not in water.
2 So I got a girdle according to the word of the LORD, and put it on my loins.
3 And the word of the LORD came unto me the second time, saying,
4 Take the girdle that thou hast got, which is upon thy loins, and arise, go to Euphrates, and hide it there in a hole of the rock.
5 So I went, and hid it by Euphrates, as the LORD commanded me.
6 And it came to pass after many days, that the LORD said unto me, Arise, go to Euphrates, and take the girdle from thence, which I commanded thee to hide there.
7 Then I went to Euphrates, and digged, and took the girdle from the place where I had hid it: and, behold, the girdle was marred, it was profitable for nothing.
8 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
9 Thus saith the LORD, After this manner will I mar the pride of Judah, and the great pride of Jerusalem.
10 This evil people, which refuse to hear my words, which walk in the imagination of their heart, and walk after other gods, to serve them, and to worship them, shall even be as this girdle, which is good for nothing.
11 For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave [הדבקתי/ha’dabaq’thi] unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear.· · ·

14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.​

Note, verse 14, God said “I will NOT have pity, will NOT spare, and will NOT have mercy but destroy them.”

 

[bling]

I hope you do say more.

A good understanding of the objective answers most questions:

God’s objective to do all He can to help willing individuals in fulfilling their objective. “All He can” included causing or allowing: Christ going to the cross, satan roaming the earth, tragedies of all kind, death, hell, and sin.

Man’s mission statement seems to be: “Love God and secondly others with all your heart, soul, mind and energy.” the problem being is obtaining this Love.

There are just somethings even an all-powerful Creator cannot do (there are things impossible to do), like create another Christ, since Christ has always existed, the big impossibility for us is; create humans with instinctive Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive. Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it the person’s Love apart from God. In other words: If the Love was in a human from the human’s creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also, if God “forces” this Love on a person (Kind a like a shotgun wedding) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type Love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice with real alternatives (for humans those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)

This Love is way beyond anything humans could develop, obtain, learn, earn, pay back or ever deserve, so it must be the result of a gift that is accepted or rejected (a free will choice).

This “Love” is much more than just an emotional feeling; it is God Himself (God is Love). If you see this Love you see God.

All mature adults do stuff that hurts others (this is called sin) these transgressions weigh on them, burden them, to the point the individual seeks relief (at least early on before they allow their hearts to be hardened). Lots of “alternatives” can be tried for relief, but the only true relief comes from God with forgiveness (this forgiveness is pure charity [grace/mercy/Love]). The correct humble acceptance of this Forgiveness (Charity) automatically will result in Love (we are taught by Jesus and our own experience “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”). Sin is thus made hugely significant, so there will be an unbelievable huge debt to be forgiven of and thus result in an unbelievable huge “Love” (Godly type Love).

I will address your questions which will generate more questions.

I'd agree with that we're not capable of righteous behaviour at all times but would you say that we are sometimes capable of it e.g. if someone falls into a river and is drowning and someone else risks their life to jump in and rescue them, is that not perfectly righteous behaviour? If it's not, how could it be improved? I don't see how it possibly could be.

1 Cor. 13: 1 If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

This “Love” Paul is talking about is only a Godly type Love, which today only Christians can have (Love is a huge topic which books have been written on)

If you have this Love, it will compel you to do great righteous things, but if you do not have this Love what ever you do is worthless.

There are lots of motivations for doing “good” stuff, so tell me how it is “worthless”?

If am an atheistic humanist trying to sell people on the value of being a humanist, does some “good” deed, is that “good” for those observing this “good” as compared to, someone doing it because of Godly type Love and others come to realize that.

By this, do you mean that it's sometimes hard to accept love without feeling that you have done anything to deserve it?

People will do almost anything to avoid having to humble themselves to the point of accepting pure undeserved charity, especially from a sacrificial giver.

Furthermore: some people believe, since you can do absolutely nothing to obtain God’s charity (it would be a work) you did not and could not personally humble yourself to accept pure undeserved charity to get it, since God just already gave it to you, yet a beggar correctly accepting charity is not working.

Would you not accept though that this is something that is beyond our experience? We may know someone who we can't ever imagine repenting and turning to God, but can we say from this that if God is trying to get through to them and He has an eternity of time in which to work, that He can't succeed?

Go to the Prodigal Son Luke 15, the father is doing everything perfectly to help his sons become like He is (Loving), to help them humbly accept forgiveness of a huge offence, so they will automatically Love like he Loves (Luke 7). If the prodigal son decided to be macho, hang in there, take the punishment he fully deserves and not further disturb his father with undeserved requests thus dying in the pigsty, what more could the father have done to help the son accept his charity as charity? Did the father fail in anyway, even if the son does not return?

God only would know when a person reached the point of never accept His charity as charity. This has to be done as a humans’ free will choice with truly likely alternatives. There has to be likely alternatives (for humans these likely alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin [which most people choose]). These likely alternatives can only be found on earth for humans. Yes, people would “say”: they accept God’s Love, if they “Knew” hell was their only alternative, but hell is like putting a gun to their head and saying accept my charity or else. Would that truly be accepting God’s Love as pure undeserved charity or because you have no other choice?

God succeeds in providing the choice to all mature adults to become like God himself in that they truly have His Love.

But is it God's help we should be hoping for or should it be His love? If it's love, how can the warning sign of hell help us? We could cling to God out of fear of the abyss but this would be out of fear, not love.

God’s “help” is charity and charity is Love.

Why would Christians have a “fear” of the abyss, that is not where they are going?

Non-Christians as I have explained: do not have Godly type Love and cannot be motivated by Love, yet they can be motivated by fear.

To have a fear of hell, you have to have some believe in the Christian God and if you have just that little faith, that faith is enough to accept God’s help.

The soldier battling his hated enemy can surrender to his hated enemy and while still hating his enemy, be willing to humbly accept pure undeserved charity from his enemy. God will shower such hater of Him with unbelievable wonderful gifts, which will then cause the soldier to Love Him.

 

[fhansen]

Just to briefly explain the options offered in the poll:

C.S. Lewis envisages hell as a place where the door is always shut from the inside, so that we can always open it whenever we want. It's our choice if we're in Hell and God is largely passive.

N.T. Wight thinks that if we continually reject God we are in effect saying that we don't want to be human any longer (because as humans we're created in the image of God), that God will honour that and that we'll eventually become a kind of non-human reflecting only ourselves rather than God into the world. Here God lets us make a big mistake and there's no way back.

D.B Hart (to keep to the two initials and surname although he's usually referred to as David Bentley Hart) believes that to the extent that we reject God, we are not truly free. Our true happiness lies in being right with God and so, if we choose to reject God, we're not really making an informed choice any more than we would be if we ever vote for Trump again (or Biden, take your pick!). Here, God forgives us for we know not what we do and He'll work towards setting us free so that we can make a capable decision. This is, of course, the universalist view.

A.N. Other could be ECT, Annihilationism or anything frightful like that designed for others and not ourselves.

So I wonder what you guys think and what option you think is true.

I think that the only reason that God would allow moral evil, aka sin, resulting from the abuse of our free wills, is so that, ultimately, we might come to hate and shun that evil in favor of good. But if His plan is simply to make everyone embrace the good (Himself) at the end of the day, why bother allowing evil to begin with? From our perspective this involves choice. We don’t know how all will choose but some seem much more attracted to evil, and opposed to God, than others.

 

[Davy]

Just to briefly explain the options offered in the poll:

C.S. Lewis envisages hell as a place where the door is always shut from the inside, so that we can always open it whenever we want. It's our choice if we're in Hell and God is largely passive.

N.T. Wight thinks that if we continually reject God we are in effect saying that we don't want to be human any longer (because as humans we're created in the image of God), that God will honour that and that we'll eventually become a kind of non-human reflecting only ourselves rather than God into the world. Here God lets us make a big mistake and there's no way back.

D.B Hart (to keep to the two initials and surname although he's usually referred to as David Bentley Hart) believes that to the extent that we reject God, we are not truly free. Our true happiness lies in being right with God and so, if we choose to reject God, we're not really making an informed choice any more than we would be if we ever vote for Trump again (or Biden, take your pick!). Here, God forgives us for we know not what we do and He'll work towards setting us free so that we can make a capable decision. This is, of course, the universalist view.

A.N. Other could be ECT, Annihilationism or anything frightful like that designed for others and not ourselves.

So I wonder what you guys think and what option you think is true.

NONE of the options you offer are Biblical, but only opinions of men.

God's Word reveals that even after Christ's future return, and even the wicked leftovers that came up against Jerusalem will then be made from year to year to go up to Jerusalem and worship The KING, The LORD of hosts, and keep the feast of tabernacles, that some nations will STILL rebel, and there will be no rain on their lands.

Zech 14:16-19
16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
KJV

That reveals that even after... Christ's future return, and all peoples are without excuse and will 'know' Jesus Christ is GOD The Son, and that The Father is real, they will still... reject Him.

Thus those... who still reject Him by the end of His thousand years future reign, will have made their own choice to perish in the "lake of fire" at the end of that reign.

So those who don't know their Bible need to stop trying to do away with thinking it is God Who will punish those wicked unbelieving when it is actually THEY THEMSELVES that will choose to perish!

Why... would those wicked and unbelieving choose to perish in the lake of fire? Simple, because if they can't be their OWN gods and their OWN authority on all things, then they don't want to continue to exist, which is the ultimate rebellion against The Father and His Son. That is the spirit of antichrist in them from the Devil, as that is why he is already judged and sentenced to perish.