Could anyone ultimately reject God?

[Hmm]

It's great to see that DBH has as many votes as everyone else combined! Granted, only two in total though

 

[Saint Steven]

Apologies! I usually write on my phone and never read it back so my worms are often misspelt.

One of the benefits of UR is that you get your sense of humor back.

My Dad used to say that some Christians look like they were baptized in pickle brine. (sour look)

 

[Hmm]

One of the benefits of UR is that you get your sense of humor back.

My Dad used to say that some Christians look like they were baptized in pickle brine. (sour look)

Yes, you certainly stop taking yourself so seriously and it's liberating to know that God isn't going to torture you forever if you don't quite make the mark. I never thought He would btw but I used to be bothered by all the eternal punishment references. I found learning that that's all a translation error quite shocking but it resolved my conflict. I might have the words "aionios kolasis" put on my gravestone but I'd better get someone else to arrange it otherwise it would probably say "an erroneous koala bear" or something.

 

[Strong in Him]

Yes, you certainly stop taking yourself so seriously and it's liberating to know that God isn't going to torture you forever if you don't quite make the mark.

God doesn't torture anyone.
No one can "make the mark"; the word "Syn" is apparently an old archery term meaning "to miss the mark."

 

[Hmm]

God doesn't torture anyone.

I agree but the most popular eschatological view (ECT) is that He does.

No one can "make the mark"; the word "Syn" is apparently an old archery term meaning "to miss the mark."

That was my point.

 

[bling]

Yes I have. I'm not sure what you say about God doing better because I believe He will eventually succeed in breaking down everyone's hardened heart. We don't agree on this of course.

First off, this has to be the longest I have discussed this subject with a Universalist and you are responding quickly, thank you.

I see the perfect wisdom and Logic behind God having humans spend time in the messed-up world, but see no logic, in some world/place after this world that would be better for those who have repeated rejected God’s Love to the point nothing more can be done for them to change their autonomous free will choice of reject God’s charity. Remember the free will choice has to have likely alternatives or it is not a free will choice, the alternative choice is forced on them (the gun to the head choice).

I do see both of our problems with all those who are too young, lack mental capacity, were isolated, had a very poor environment, and all those who never had an opportunity to make a real choice to accept or reject God’s charity as charity.

Your solution to this problem is to provide another place before heaven for them and go on to say everyone who rejects God’s charity as charity failed for lack “understanding?” and will go to this other world and somehow God will over time provide “understanding?” so they will accept His charity as charity (am I understanding you?).

My understanding of the solution to this problem, of not having the opportunity, would be to have these children of God go on to heaven without ever obtaining Godly type Love and have those with Godly type Love protect and preserve them for eternity to keep from falling away like some angels did. They would have a very strong child for parent type love (similar to Adam and Eve’s love), but not a Godly type Love (the result of a truly free will choice, since there are no likely alternatives in heaven). My joy and pleasure come from helping others on earth, so in heaven it would be a joy and pleasure to protect and preserve these children, otherwise I do not know what I would be doing to equal that joy. I also see the need to help those here on earth to accept God’s charity, so they can work with me in heaven.

I do not see the problem with those who truly repeatedly had the opportunity to accept God’s charity and rejected it to the point they would never accept it. These people have to be allowed to exist on earth and go to hell (annihilation) at death, to help me with my choice to humbly accept God’s charity. Do not blame God for hell, but you can blame me. There is a definite “downside” to not humbly accept God charity as charity, that far outweighs the pleasures of sin. I see this as a real help, but you seem to see this as some detriment that makes God look bad (correctly if I am wrong here)? God is not sending some of His children to hell because He takes pleasure in it (He takes no pleasure from it), but to help people like me, to accept His Love now and not try to accept, after my heart becomes harden.

I do not fear hell now, because I am heaven bound, I feel sorrow for those going to hell (annihilation), but that was their choice (if they did not have a real choice they go to heaven, without Godly type Love, again partly my fault).

I believe, and see, some and maybe most people would never accept God’s charity as charity unless their autonomous free will ability was removed and they really had only the one choice to accept (which than is not a choice). What would they be like in heaven?

Another way to look at it: We need to go from a reliance on self to accepting a reliance on God. We are all relying on God, but do we acknowledge that reliance? Do we tend to rely on others, only when we are in trouble over our heads? We might feel deserving of other’s help, because we have helped them in the past, but what if we have always been nothing but a burden to God in the past? What can we do to deserve continued existence, so are we not all relying on God for our continued existence (eternal life)?

Would knowing we can do nothing to deserve continued existence and God is the only one who can give us continued existence help us to rely on God over relying on self?

We can try to convince ourselves: we automatically have continued existence and God will “make” us to go to heaven, but does that help us to express our reliance on God for eternal life and His charity? It would be one thing if we deserved eternal life and thus had it, but we do not deserve it, so why should we have it, unless it is a charitable gift we have not left on the table, but accepted?

An example would be someone who never had good relationships in this life and hadn't learnt that we are all mutually dependent on others and dependent on God.

You keep bringing up the concept of “something to be learned” and everyone will learn it, which would take time and God teaching that person, while I am talking about an autonomous free will choice, a miraculous ability allowed in the minds of people, for all those with the “knowledge”. Again, not everyone will have the “knowledge” to make such a choice and they go to heaven without Godly type Love, because earth is the only place where such a choice can be made with true likely alternatives. I am only considering those who had the true choice here on earth and really only those who choose to refuse God’s charity as charity, when they have the knowledge already? How could there be a “second” chance for them?

Why? That's like saying if you're starving and someone promises to give you food then you'll feel humility from your dependence on that person, but if they actually gave you food, you wouldn't.

There would have been some “gratitude” if the father had sent servants to drag the prodigal son in the pigsty starving back home, but that was not his free will choice to return, he might have still preferred to starve to death in the pigsty, especially after his older brother chastises him. The young son had not humbled himself to the point of accepting pure charity as charity, since it was something in the father that brought him back, so he still lacks that Love. Yes, both ways the young son is back home, but do you see the difference?

What universalism says is that when we die we are going to be purified by God. This may take place in the blink of an eye for some or most people, I of course have no idea but let's hope so. Scripture talks about an "age" for this process and that's an undefined (though finite) length of time but the word suggests that it could very well be a long time and, looking at the world, I imagine it will be for many, myself included. We will all come to see that we have, even unwittingly, caused a lot of hurt to a lot of people and this will lead to humility in all.

OK, this brings up huge point. The universalist like many Christians and even other religions teach is: the problem is sin, so we must be cleansed/purified of these sins, learn about sin, learn how not to sin, learn how to Love (be unselfish), which takes time, education, and change of will.

I see sin as the symptom of the problem and not the problem itself and I see sin as having purpose, yet not desired by God. Again, “…he that is forgiven much Loves much…” so sin has purpose and that is what I see gong on and from Jesus’ teaching. The problem is this lack of Godly type Love, which only comes to humans with the humble acceptance of God’s Love as pure charity in the form of forgiveness.

God is actually forgiving everyone of all their sins, but that does not mean forgiveness has taken place (Matt. 18), since the forgiving has to be accepted as pure undeserved charity over other possible choices.

Yes, the Garden of Eden didn't work so we can't go back there. Adam and Eve clearly need to learn a lesson about something. I guess the big question is What?

There is really no “lesson for them to learn”, but an acceptance of God’s charity as charity. Again, they like everyone else are accept God’s charity because that is who God is Love (charity), but how do you get Adam and Eve to humble themselves to the point of accepting pure charity as charity, when they have done nothing that would cause them not to accept God’s charity as deserving of that “gift”?

After sinning they would realize every thing God is doing for them is an undeserved gift/charity, but it is still up to them to accept it as charity. Would having eternity to accept God’s charity as charity (really His forgiveness) help them over them having the moment of being caught in sin to ask for forgiveness?

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

Yes, God is not, cannot be, active in the process.
If you reject God and his forgiveness, you are in Hell already.
The only difference between earth and hell is earth provides distractions.

 

[Hmm]

Yes, God is not, cannot be, active in the process.

Why not?

 

[Hmm]

First off, this has to be the longest I have discussed this subject with a Universalist and you are responding quickly, thank you.

It's a nice change to discuss Christian universalism with someone who is not simply content with all the straw man arguments that surround the subject and wants to learn something about it. I'm in that category too because I only heard about it last summer from one of the threads here so I'm just trying to learn about it and represent it as fairly as I can.

About responding quickly... while I may have done up to now, and it's nice you think so, it's a rare sunny day here in England so I'm just about to dig out my most floral shirt and, if it still fits, go to the local park to perform a pastoral dance or two. I'll respond soonist, if that's a word.

 

[bling]

It's a nice change to discuss Christian universalism with someone who is not simply content with all the straw man arguments that surround the subject and wants to learn something about it. I'm in that category too because I only heard about it last summer from one of the threads here so I'm just trying to learn about it and represent it as fairly as I can.

About responding quickly... while I may have done up to now, and it's nice you think so, it's a rare sunny day here in England so I'm just about to dig out my most floral shirt and, if it still fits, go to the local park to perform a pastoral dance or two. I'll respond soonist, if that's a word.

It was 107 degrees in Dallas yesterday and just as hot today, I am spending most of my time inside at my computer with the A/C running.
Thank you for the discussion, I have learned more about The Universalism from you than with others, most Christians only have their pet arguments on both sides.

 

[Hmm]

I see the perfect wisdom and Logic behind God having humans spend time in the messed-up world, but see no logic, in some world/place after this world that would be better for those who have repeated rejected God’s Love to the point nothing more can be done for them to change their autonomous free will choice of reject God’s charity.

I think the general universalist idea is that no-one can ever reach a state "where nothing more can be done for them" even if they wanted to out of stubbornness, for example, or excessive pride where they want to be their own god. Once anyone gains a true understanding of the goodness of God, they would freely and rationally choose Him over being tormented forever.

I know it's a kind of circular argument but DB Hart argues that anyone who decides the opposite - to reject God having understood His love and beauty - would be delusional and could not be said to be acting freely. He likens it to a person with mental health issues who decides to run into a burning building for whatever reason they have in their mind. Is that person really acting freely and that we should just watch them do it because we have to respect their "free-will" decision at all costs?

Your solution to this problem is to provide another place before heaven for them and go on to say everyone who rejects God’s charity as charity failed for lack “understanding?” and will go to this other world and somehow God will over time provide “understanding?” so they will accept His charity as charity (am I understanding you?).

Yes, but in the same way that a teacher provides understanding in that at some point there has to be a level of cooperation and willingless from the student for education to take place.

My understanding of the solution to this problem, of not having the opportunity, would be to have these children of God go on to heaven without ever obtaining Godly type Love and have those with Godly type Love protect and preserve them for eternity to keep from falling away like some angels did. They would have a very strong child for parent type love (similar to Adam and Eve’s love), but not a Godly type Love (the result of a truly free will choice, since there are no likely alternatives in heaven). My joy and pleasure come from helping others on earth, so in heaven it would be a joy and pleasure to protect and preserve these children, otherwise I do not know what I would be doing to equal that joy. I also see the need to help those here on earth to accept God’s charity, so they can work with me in heaven.

While that is a compassionate viewpoint, the trouble with it, to me, is that it creates a kind of class system in heaven, where some people are prevented from ever reaching their true fulfilment of having this "Godly type Love". I agree that for a decision to be free, there must be viable alternatives (so the "Your money or your life!" kind of choice is not a free one) and that we won't have these alternatives in heaven. The universalist response is that this choice is made by all be before getting to heaven.

I do not see the problem with those who truly repeatedly had the opportunity to accept God’s charity and rejected it to the point they would never accept it. These people have to be allowed to exist on earth and go to hell (annihilation) at death, to help me with my choice to humbly accept God’s charity. Do not blame God for hell, but you can blame me. There is a definite “downside” to not humbly accept God charity as charity, that far outweighs the pleasures of sin. I see this as a real help, but you seem to see this as some detriment that makes God look bad (correctly if I am wrong here)?

Yes, I think if it needed others to be annihilated or go to hell in order for me to learn the humility to accept God's charity, it would not only look bad on God but also on me. It seems no different to me than believing that for me to be able to eat well and feel glad of God's bountifulness, there has to be a number of people in the world who are starving to death. I just don't think the premise is right.

I do not fear hell now, because I am heaven bound, I feel sorrow for those going to hell (annihilation), but that was their choice (if they did not have a real choice they go to heaven, without Godly type Love, again partly my fault).

How do you deal with the feeling that it's partly your fault?

Another way to look at it: We need to go from a reliance on self to accepting a reliance on God. We are all relying on God, but do we acknowledge that reliance? Do we tend to rely on others, only when we are in trouble over our heads? We might feel deserving of other’s help, because we have helped them in the past, but what if we have always been nothing but a burden to God in the past? What can we do to deserve continued existence, so are we not all relying on God for our continued existence (eternal life)?

Would knowing we can do nothing to deserve continued existence and God is the only one who can give us continued existence help us to rely on God over relying on self?

We can try to convince ourselves: we automatically have continued existence and God will “make” us to go to heaven, but does that help us to express our reliance on God for eternal life and His charity? It would be one thing if we deserved eternal life and thus had it, but we do not deserve it, so why should we have it, unless it is a charitable gift we have not left on the table, but accepted?

But again, it's not that God "makes" us go to heaven, it's that He teaches us the very things you say, that we need to learn that we reliance on His love and grace for our complete happiness and fulfilment. And that's not an obvious lesson to learn, is it? I wonder if I won the lottery, would I start to feel so independent of things that I don't need God or anything other that the material goods my money can provide to be happy, and end up living in a kind of well-appointed prodigal son's pig sty.

You keep bringing up the concept of “something to be learned” and everyone will learn it, which would take time and God teaching that person, while I am talking about an autonomous free will choice, a miraculous ability allowed in the minds of people, for all those with the “knowledge”. Again, not everyone will have the “knowledge” to make such a choice and they go to heaven without Godly type Love, because earth is the only place where such a choice can be made with true likely alternatives. I am only considering those who had the true choice here on earth and really only those who choose to refuse God’s charity as charity, when they have the knowledge already? How could there be a “second” chance for them?

But "autonomous free will choice" doesn't operate in a vacuum. A free-will choice is also called an informed choice and this is probably a better term because it brings out more clearly that learning is required. We can only make a free-will choice about smoking or drinking once we are aware of the risks involved.

You seem to be saying that all responsible adults are miraculously given the "knowledge" to make an informed choice about God, but I don't see why that is should be the case and that we can't learn it. Clearly, we don't all learn it in this life and therefore we must learn it in the next in order for God's stated intention to one day be "all in all" to be true.

There would have been some “gratitude” if the father had sent servants to drag the prodigal son in the pigsty starving back home, but that was not his free will choice to return, he might have still preferred to starve to death in the pigsty, especially after his older brother chastises him. The young son had not humbled himself to the point of accepting pure charity as charity, since it was something in the father that brought him back, so he still lacks that Love. Yes, both ways the young son is back home, but do you see the difference?

Yes, the son is back home but there's still a difference. But even if he returned home through the entirely selfish reason that he was sick of the pig sty and not out of a free-will choice to accept this Love, could it still not mean that this was just the start of his journey to realise that Love. It was a repentance, a turning away from sin and not yet a turning toward God but why can't that come later?

OK, this brings up huge point. The universalist like many Christians and even other religions teach is: the problem is sin, so we must be cleansed/purified of these sins, learn about sin, learn how not to sin, learn how to Love (be unselfish), which takes time, education, and change of will.

I see sin as the symptom of the problem and not the problem itself and I see sin as having purpose, yet not desired by God. Again, “…he that is forgiven much Loves much…” so sin has purpose and that is what I see gong on and from Jesus’ teaching. The problem is this lack of Godly type Love, which only comes to humans with the humble acceptance of God’s Love as pure charity in the form of forgiveness.

God is actually forgiving everyone of all their sins, but that does not mean forgiveness has taken place (Matt. 18), since the forgiving has to be accepted as pure undeserved charity over other possible choices.

Agreed.

There is really no “lesson for them to learn”, but an acceptance of God’s charity as charity. Again, they like everyone else are accept God’s charity because that is who God is Love (charity), but how do you get Adam and Eve to humble themselves to the point of accepting pure charity as charity, when they have done nothing that would cause them not to accept God’s charity as deserving of that “gift”?

After sinning they would realize every thing God is doing for them is an undeserved gift/charity, but it is still up to them to accept it as charity. Would having eternity to accept God’s charity as charity (really His forgiveness) help them over them having the moment of being caught in sin to ask for forgiveness?

I'm not sure I understand your question so do correct me is but is it how can see our need for forgiveness in those moments when we are caught up in sin and how would an eternity help?

If that is the question, then I'd liken it to a drunk or addict in their very worst "gutter" moments. If it's true that drink or drugs have an unbreakable hold on them and they are completely lost, then it's very ironical why it's at just those moments when the substance seems to have it's most powerful hold - when they've lost their family, jobs and find themselves homeless - that they find the resolve to renounce the substance and rebuild their lives. I think it's the same with sin, as the prodigal son demonstrates. No-one is ever so far gone that they can't decide to turn their lives around, and an eternity would help because some of us seem to need an awful lot of hard lessons to learn from our mistakes.

 

[bling]

I think the general universalist idea is that no-one can ever reach a state "where nothing more can be done for them" even if they wanted to out of stubbornness, for example, or excessive pride where they want to be their own god. Once anyone gains a true understanding of the goodness of God, they would freely and rationally choose Him over being tormented forever.

I know it's a kind of circular argument but DB Hart argues that anyone who decides the opposite - to reject God having understood His love and beauty - would be delusional and could not be said to be acting freely. He likens it to a person with mental health issues who decides to run into a burning building for whatever reason they have in their mind. Is that person really acting freely and that we should just watch them do it because we have to respect their "free-will" decision at all costs?

Again, these Universalists see the problem as being a “learning” issue, lack of knowledge. If it were a lack of knowledge issue, then everyone will learn with time and can come around.

God is Loving them and they are getting that Love and they might express verbally, they are accepting God’s Love, but that is not the same as humbly accepting God’s Love as pure undeserved charity.

Think about this: If everyone is going to heaven and you are someone, then God is “obligated” to save you, since you are part of everyone. Your “salvation” has nothing to do with your free will and everything to do with God teaching you.

Think about this: You have to come to the realization: “I totally do not deserve salvation”, which makes salvation pure undeserved charity to be accepted as charity, but as a universalist, you believe, I deserve salvation because everyone is saved and I an one of everyone.

The choice is not governed by knowledge or even wisdom, but by choosing to be humble or have humility not be our choice. We all have the ability to be humble and we all can be made humble, so we can choose to humbly accept charity or refuse to be humble and have God make us humble by going to hell (being eventually annihilated).

The “burning building” analogy is often used, so why do people stay in the burning building (they are not running in, but are already in the burning building [physical earth])?

1. None can get out themselves without help, but there is trusted rescuer there wanting to help you.

2. Even though the building is burning and the fire is getting closer the building has a lot of nice activities, so there is the desire to stay as long as possible.

3. You see yourself as a rescuer and thus not in need of a rescuer, so you want to go it alone, but it is really too late.

4. The exist is through the fire which the rescuer can get you through, but it is easier the earlier you decide to leave.

5. You through your false words and actions have encouraged others to stay, so to leave makes you a hypocrite, others will see you as a hypocrite, others have been burned already by your untruths, so would your death not be payment for your actions, and you are responsible for starting the fire in the first place which you do not want to admit to. Should you not have the courage than to stay and be burned up?

6. If you burn up, you see it as God’s fault and not you’re accepting to be humble and humiliated, so is God to do something?

Does time really help this situation or would more time just help you be more set in your thinking and help you to forget about the fire coming?

How is knowledge going to add to your personal willingness to be humble? God making you humble is not your acceptance of being humble?

Yes, but in the same way that a teacher provides understanding in that at some point there has to be a level of cooperation and willingless from the student for education to take place.

See above.

While that is a compassionate viewpoint, the trouble with it, to me, is that it creates a kind of class system in heaven, where some people are prevented from ever reaching their true fulfilment of having this "Godly type Love". I agree that for a decision to be free, there must be viable alternatives (so the "Your money or your life!" kind of choice is not a free one) and that we won't have these alternatives in heaven. The universalist response is that this choice is made by all be before getting to heaven.

The big problem I see is this humility choice can only be made on earth for humans and no other place.

Yes, there is a variance in heaven, but it really is only by the amount of Godly type Love, with God/Christ/Spirit being at the top and the lowest being those without Godly type Love and having only a wonderful strong child for wonderful parent type Love, but who comes out “best” or “ahead” in that situation? If I sacrificially love a person more than they can Love me back, are they not better off than myself? Can we really “envy” God’s great Love, since He is Loving us, more than we Love Him?

Yes, I think if it needed others to be annihilated or go to hell in order for me to learn the humility to accept God's charity, it would not only look bad on God but also on me. It seems no different to me than believing that for me to be able to eat well and feel glad of God's bountifulness, there has to be a number of people in the world who are starving to death. I just don't think the premise is right.

It is OK, to feel bad about the innocent Christ going to the cross, because of you and to feel bad about guilty sinners, who repeatedly refused God’s charity to be annihilated and even tortured some, because of you. God also much more than you, does not like it. I am personally responsible for both those terrible things, but they helped me and unfortunately I needed them to happen and do not see a way around them, for me to humbly accept God’s charity.

Will this does get back to the reason for making humans in the first place. God does not “need” humans, they cannot fulfill some need God has. To make a being that is like Himself will be a huge sacrifice for God and one you do not feel He should make nor do I see the value of making Godly type beings over the sacrifice God will have to make. So why do it? God can make robots, but they cannot be like God.

The first huge problem is the fact if you make a being with true limited autonomous free will; few, if any, might choose to accept their place, over other likely alternatives.

Does God allowing His wonderful innocent son to be tortured, humiliated and murdered to help you; make Him look worse than allowing people unwilling to humbly accept God’s forgiveness be annihilated while helping some willing individuals to humble themselves?

OK, Christ was “willing” to go to the cross and these refusers of God help (at great cost to God) unwillingly die and go to torment (hell) for maybe a while and are annihilated, I am not talking about those who don’t know and did not have an opportunity to accept or refuse, but those who actually refused bigtime. If there is no bigtime major punishment for sins (hell and annihilation), but just a slap on the hand, then there is no unbelievable huge debt for God to forgive, only a little debt, so by Christ’s teaching in Luke 7, there would be just a little love generated and not a Godly type Love generated, so how would the person get this huge Love, if not by Luke 7? This Love is not something humans can initially learn.

You talk about this “other place” between earth and heaven, but if the person goes there without knowledge of his/her life on earth what difference could there be to help make the sinners humble self with a new place? If the sinner goes there with full knowledge of his/her life on earth, the “choice” becomes like at a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun (no real choice with likely alternatives).

How do you deal with the feeling that it's partly your fault?

The only thing that keeps my knees from buckling with the realization; I caused Christ to go to the cross and I needed people (even though they are guilty) to go to hell (where I should also be) is the fact the greatest Love possible is being shown to me by God/Christ.
Does anyone feel they deserve, over all the other people who have died, to continue to live forever?

It will take some greater power (really a Godly power) for me to live forever, but does that cause people to turn to God?

But again, it's not that God "makes" us go to heaven, it's that He teaches us the very things you say, that we need to learn that we reliance on His love and grace for our complete happiness and fulfilment. And that's not an obvious lesson to learn, is it? I wonder if I won the lottery, would I start to feel so independent of things that I don't need God or anything other that the material goods my money can provide to be happy, and end up living in a kind of well-appointed prodigal son's pig sty.

If you truly, “Loved your neighbor as yourself”, would you be as happy to see someone else win the lottery, as you winning the lottery?

There is a huge difference between God doing all He can to help you make the right choice and God forcing or making the choice for you. It is your autonomous free will choice with likely alternatives making it a real choice.

After death everyone knows they will be in the hands of a greater power, if there is a greater power. It takes a greater “faith” to believe there is no greater power, than there is a greater power.

We have been given already plenty of reason to believe (trust) God, if we have seen, experienced, received, given or felt Godly type Love and most will at sometime in their life, then we have seen God. The problem comes with what we cannot just learn: being humble. In fact, we teach the opposite: self-reliance, working hard to take care of yourself, do not rely on charity, be better than others, make us proud, and you can be what ever you set your mind to.

But "autonomous free will choice" doesn't operate in a vacuum. A free-will choice is also called an informed choice and this is probably a better term because it brings out more clearly that learning is required. We can only make a free-will choice about smoking or drinking once we are aware of the risks involved.

You seem to be saying that all responsible adults are miraculously given the "knowledge" to make an informed choice about God, but I don't see why that is should be the case and that we can't learn it. Clearly, we don't all learn it in this life and therefore we must learn it in the next in order for God's stated intention to one day be "all in all" to be true.

All mature adults have the ability to be humble and to make very limited autonomous free will choices, knowledgeable choices. Just because all are either humble now or will later be made humble, does not mean all people have humble themselves to the point of accepting charity as charity. The idea is there are some who are proud now, who God will make humble in the end, but not out of their free will choice to be humble.

It takes some “knowledge” to be counted as a mature adult, so I am not addressing those without this limited knowledge (I have addressed what happens to them already). I do not know how little knowledge is needed to be counted as a mature adult.

Yes, the son is back home but there's still a difference. But even if he returned home through the entirely selfish reason that he was sick of the pig sty and not out of a free-will choice to accept this Love, could it still not mean that this was just the start of his journey to realise that Love. It was a repentance, a turning away from sin and not yet a turning toward God but why can't that come later?

This son, like people I have worked with in the past and myself as a witness, was humbly willing to accept pure undeserved charity (for selfish reasons) even if he thought a servant’s job would be the best he could hope for (knowing he did not deserve that). The forgiveness and other gifts the father showered on the son with the son’s humble willingness to accept the father’s charity would have overwhelmed the son with Love (with unbelievable forgiveness automatically results in unbelievable Love). That Love of the young son at that time would have been huge, but with use it can grow greater. I taught Bible in prison (long story), there were false converts trying to get out on parole someday, I thought were sincere, but were still gang members, carrying weapons and “going to school” as all the prisoners knew, but the guards and I did not know. There were also the real believers, they gave up: their gang membership, weapons and really all they had to their gang the day they were baptized. They would be beaten by the gang or other gangs wanting payback, until another Christian could jump between them and took the blows. These guys knew a happiness, power, and Love from the moment of their baptism, I did not realize could exist, so I do not like to limit God’s love to taking time.

I'm not sure I understand your question so do correct me is but is it how can see our need for forgiveness in those moments when we are caught up in sin and how would an eternity help?

If that is the question, then I'd liken it to a drunk or addict in their very worst "gutter" moments. If it's true that drink or drugs have an unbreakable hold on them and they are completely lost, then it's very ironical why it's at just those moments when the substance seems to have it's most powerful hold - when they've lost their family, jobs and find themselves homeless - that they find the resolve to renounce the substance and rebuild their lives. I think it's the same with sin, as the prodigal son demonstrates. No-one is ever so far gone that they can't decide to turn their lives around, and an eternity would help because some of us seem to need an awful lot of hard lessons to learn from our mistakes.

Our time on earth is plenty long enough for mature adults to come to that conclusion, as you know some reach these point in their youth.
When life goes on we tend to become harden. The people before the flood lived hundreds of years, so they should have done better than us today, right?
The rich man while in "a" hell, in the Rich man and Lazarus story, did not complain about not having the time, opportunities, learning or ability to keep out of hell. He did not say he was unfairly being treated.

 

[Hmm]

@bling, thanks for your post. Rather than go through it point by point, I'd like to try to understand the big picture of what you're saying and how that differs from a universalist perspective. I don't think I'm going to get this big picture if I focus on the individual points.

Is the following a fair summary of what you're saying? You believe that we need a sense of humility to be saved, by which you mean that we need to feel that we don't deserve salvation but, on the contrary, deserve any fate that God has reserved for us if we die in an unsaved state, whether that's annihilation or even ECT. Children and the like who are unable to make a proper response to God are exempt from this. But God gives everyone else sufficient evidence of His love and of the fact that we are totally undeserving of it, that He expects an acceptance from us that His love is so great and we are so undeserving of it that we can only be glad that, in our case, both things have happened and we have no right to be concerned about what happens to anyone else. No doubt I haven't got that right so please let me know what I've got wrong.

But let's assume that it is more or less right so that I can give a response from my universalist perspective, and this is just my perspective of course, I don't speak for anyone else with universalist views.

I don't think that humility to the extent you describe it is necessary or even laudable. I don't think we have to think that in our unsaved state we are worthy of annihilation or ECT because I believe both of these things do not exist. I think this because God is incapable of doing anything that is not good. Destroying or causing eternal suffering to a person is objectively bad and therefore God is incapable of doing this. So it's not a matter of pride to believe that God is going to preserve us forever, it is a matter of fact. And the fact that He is is enough to make us feel eternal gratitude for that and a right level of humility it seems to me that's based on love rather than self-abasement and fear.

It was really interesting about what you said about teaching the Bible in prison. Each one of these prisoners would have been an innocent child once and it makes you wonder what awful circumstances must have twisted their heart and mind to make it possible for them to choose (there is usually free will in this) to do the crimes they did.

You'd know better than me but did these prisoners feel that nobody cares about them? And bid they learn from the Bible that Jesus does care about them and it was this that brought them to faith? If so, I don't know why you keep saying that we can't learn about God's love, that it has to be instead almost a mystical experience of God's infinite love set against our infinite unworthiness. Just as an abused child or animal can learn to love when placed in a loving home, so can we learn to love God simply by being in his presence. The universalist view is that God's presence will be felt by all in the next life and that this will be experienced as a searing heat as far as our sin goes but an increasing loving warmth as we learn who God really is.

It's a very different paradigm to the one you hold so I'm sure you don't agree with this. It does make you realise though that the whole structure of our beliefs are built on a few grounding assumptions about God. The assumption of universalism is that God loves all with a depth, breadth and height we can't even imagine and that He desires us to be with Him for ever. It also believes that scripture teaches that He will one day achieve His wish to one day be "all in all". I believe it can give a coherent explanation of everything else, such as the free-will question, but these won't be convincing to anyone who faith rests on different assumptions. I don't know if you'd like to identify and share some of your assumptions about God?

 

[bling]

@bling, thanks for your post. Rather than go through it point by point, I'd like to try to understand the big picture of what you're saying and how that differs from a universalist perspective. I don't think I'm going to get this big picture if I focus on the individual points.

That is fine.

Is the following a fair summary of what you're saying? You believe that we need a sense of humility to be saved, by which you mean that we need to feel that we don't deserve salvation but, on the contrary, deserve any fate that God has reserved for us if we die in an unsaved state, whether that's annihilation or even ECT. Children and the like who are unable to make a proper response to God are exempt from this. But God gives everyone else sufficient evidence of His love and of the fact that we are totally undeserving of it, that He expects an acceptance from us that His love is so great and we are so undeserving of it that we can only be glad that, in our case, both things have happened and we have no right to be concerned about what happens to anyone else. No doubt I haven't got that right so please let me know what I've got wrong.

You are off in two areas:
God’s Loving actions are not in “expectation” of any one result, it is totally our choice either way. It is like the father in the prodigal son story, God will be extremely happy if we turn to Him and sad if we do not turn to Him, but God will continue to be who He is and keep offering the opportunity to other children.

Your second error comes with: our attitude toward the lost (this might be my fault). God is terrible saddened by those lost, so we share in that sadness and will do all we can to keep it from happening, but we cannot override the free will of another person. Those who remain lost will have pain and annihilation, but that is not meaningless or without benefit, since it does help some, not yet lost, in making the free will choice to accept God’s charity as charity.

But let's assume that it is more or less right so that I can give a response from my universalist perspective, and this is just my perspective of course, I don't speak for anyone else with universalist views.

I don't think that humility to the extent you describe it is necessary or even laudable. I don't think we have to think that in our unsaved state we are worthy of annihilation or ECT because I believe both of these things do not exist. I think this because God is incapable of doing anything that is not good. Destroying or causing eternal suffering to a person is objectively bad and therefore God is incapable of doing this. So it's not a matter of pride to believe that God is going to preserve us forever, it is a matter of fact. And the fact that He is is enough to make us feel eternal gratitude for that and a right level of humility it seems to me that's based on love rather than self-abasement and fear.

You show a lot of good logic here and a lot of things we are in agreement with: God is incapable of doing anything that is not good, and in our unsaved state we are worthy of annihilation or ECT.

“Bad” is a relative term, lets look at the story of the “Rich man and Lazarus” (which does not have to be a true story to get the lesson)

Luke 16: 19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ 25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’ 27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ 29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ 30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ 31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

In someway God is allowing Lazarus to “receive bad things” and Lazarus could have turned against God or Lazarus might have been mentally handicapped (not able to make a free will choice), but for good reason Lazarus held. Lazarus was there providing daily the very best opportunity for the Rich man to experience Godly type Love without being forced to do so. The rich man, may have had a hospital for the poor named after him for his donations, but is that the same as humbly stopping to help Lazarus?

The rich man dies and goes to a torturous place for a while (before I feel judgement and annihilation), but you do not hear him complaining about being unfairly or unjustly treated the drop of water would be out of grace. So, what is the benefit for us to have this story about a rich man in torment after death? I can tell you, like you already believe, if there is no good to come from it, God would not allow or do it. God allowed/caused Lazarus to lead a torturous life here on earth (you might know a Lazarus yourself), do you see the “good” in that?

Do you notice the fact that this rich man wants: “this story of his torment after death told to his brothers”, thus he is seeing the benefit to others of knowing his torment?

Abraham is saying the story is already known through Moses and the Prophets, whom his brothers would trust and believe as good Jews.

Also realize the rich man’s wrong thinking: The rich man still is seeing the problem as a lack of education for his brothers so, send someone back from the dead, but did not say that about himself with Lazarus right there. Abraham did not see it as a lack of education.

We have to come to the realization: “sin creates a huge debt” and the torture the rich man experienced only after death is the only way to “see” or “know” this huge debt created with people sinning, who seemed to have a wonderful life here on earth. You might think after look at Lazarus a good person has the “bad” life. If sin creates little or no debt, then the person forgiven of little will love little and will not immediately receive automatically an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love). How else can you obtain this Love?

It was really interesting about what you said about teaching the Bible in prison. Each one of these prisoners would have been an innocent child once and it makes you wonder what awful circumstances must have twisted their heart and mind to make it possible for them to choose (there is usually free will in this) to do the crimes they did.

You'd know better than me but did these prisoners feel that nobody cares about them? And bid they learn from the Bible that Jesus does care about them and it was this that brought them to faith? If so, I don't know why you keep saying that we can't learn about God's love, that it has to be instead almost a mystical experience of God's infinite love set against our infinite unworthiness. Just as an abused child or animal can learn to love when placed in a loving home, so can we learn to love God simply by being in his presence. The universalist view is that God's presence will be felt by all in the next life and that this will be experienced as a searing heat as far as our sin goes but an increasing loving warmth as we learn who God really is.

People windup in prison for lots of reasons and really multiple reasons. There is usually someone who cares about them (like the father in the prodigal son story), but they all have selfish desires. It really has little to do with what I verbally “say”, but I and all the Christian teachers must be truthful. Seeing an unarmed Christian jump in front of a person being beaten, to take the blows themselves and stay there until the bully stops, cause a few to think: “How could he do such a thing?” It is the unbelievable which can awaken them and these Christians in prison were unbelievably Loving. That Love goes beyond something you can learn or develop, but you can desire to be Loved like that and desire to Love like that. How can you go from not desiring such a Love to desiring such a Love? I would say those, who have not: seen, accepted the experience, felt, or known unbelievable Love (Christian Godly type Love) have not been given the opportunity to make the choice to accept or reject God’s Love, so they have not rejected Godly type Love.

You say after death: “God's presence will be felt by all in the next life and that this will be experienced as a searing heat as far as our sin goes but an increasing loving warmth as we learn”, but what are the other alternative likely choices to make the choice a real choice?

This also seems to be saying Godly type Love is something we learn over time and it is like a “warmth”? It will take much more than a “warm feeling” to jump in front of someone being beaten and stay there.

It's a very different paradigm to the one you hold so I'm sure you don't agree with this. It does make you realise though that the whole structure of our beliefs are built on a few grounding assumptions about God. The assumption of universalism is that God loves all with a depth, breadth and height we can't even imagine and that He desires us to be with Him for ever. It also believes that scripture teaches that He will one day achieve His wish to one day be "all in all". I believe it can give a coherent explanation of everything else, such as the free-will question, but these won't be convincing to anyone who faith rests on different assumptions. I don't know if you'd like to identify and share some of your assumptions about God?

I fully believe: “God loves all with a depth, breadth and height we can't even imagine and that He desires us to be with Him forever.” I feel God Loves a rich man (a person like the rich man) and would sacrifice a Lazarus with a torturous life on earth to provide the very best opportunity for that rich man, but when nothing more can be done to help the rich man to cease the opportunity for Love, that rich man will be used by God to help other, who God also Loves, but God still Loves him.

I fully believe in man’s autonomous free will to make at least the one choice of humbly accepting or rejecting God’s Love in the form of forgiveness.

The problem comes with a free will person rejecting God’s Love to the point there is really nothing “better” to do for them, that would help them with their own free will choice to humbly accept God’s Love as charity. What more could be done in another place besides earth that could help in this true choice?

Earth is a very unique place really only established to provide some willing humans with the opportunity to become like God (in that they have Love) or refuse to be like God. Now I have a place in heaven for all those who never have this opportunity to accept or reject, but you feel there has to be a place for those who have repeatedly rejected God’s Love (those who do not want to be Loved unselfishly, in spite of who they are, but want a selfish type love). I cannot imagine such a place or the benefit in having such a place and you have not described to me this place. Heaven is something like a huge Love feast, but the only Love there for mature adults is Godly type Love, so if that is the Love a person does not like or desire for themselves, they would be very unhappy there. Another earth like place, would not work better than the first perfectly designed earth or God would improve earth. There is just no place for the refuser of God’s Love to go.

 

[Hmm]

You are off in two areas:
God’s Loving actions are not in “expectation” of any one result, it is totally our choice either way. It is like the father in the prodigal son story, God will be extremely happy if we turn to Him and sad if we do not turn to Him, but God will continue to be who He is and keep offering the opportunity to other children.

Thanks for clarifying then. I have to say that this sounds like a very passive God and not much like the God of Israel who never gave up on it however disobedient it was. He always persisted in His relationship with Israel and always tried to bring it back on track often by means of corrective punishment. Universalism views "hell" for the individual in much the same way.

Why would it be a bad thing for God to have "expectations" that we will have a good relationship with Him. Isn't that what any decent parent would want?

Your second error comes with: our attitude toward the lost (this might be my fault). God is terrible saddened by those lost, so we share in that sadness and will do all we can to keep it from happening, but we cannot override the free will of another person. Those who remain lost will have pain and annihilation, but that is not meaningless or without benefit, since it does help some, not yet lost, in making the free will choice to accept God’s charity as charity.

Again, I would ask if you think we are behaving freely if we do something that is clearly against our best interests? I read in the papers a few years ago of a woman in Austria I think who was arrested when a young woman was found living in her cellar. Turned out she was the woman's daughter and her defence was that she had gone down to the cellar as a young kind to play and had liked it so much that she didn't want to come out so the mother just let her stay down there for what turned out to be years. I don't see much difference between this and a God who would let us to "freely" choose hell. A choice has to be informed choice for it to be free.

Do you notice the fact that this rich man wants: “this story of his torment after death told to his brothers”, thus he is seeing the benefit to others of knowing his torment?

But this doesn't mean his torment was everlasting. It may have been remedial but still painful enough that may wanted to spare his brothers from it.

Seeing an unarmed Christian jump in front of a person being beaten, to take the blows themselves and stay there until the bully stops, cause a few to think: “How could he do such a thing?” It is the unbelievable which can awaken them and these Christians in prison were unbelievably Loving. That Love goes beyond something you can learn or develop, but you can desire to be Loved like that and desire to Love like that. How can you go from not desiring such a Love to desiring such a Love? I would say those, who have not: seen, accepted the experience, felt, or known unbelievable Love (Christian Godly type Love) have not been given the opportunity to make the choice to accept or reject God’s Love, so they have not rejected Godly type Love.

What sort of proportion of people who have experienced this "Godly type Love" are we talking about?

You say after death: “God's presence will be felt by all in the next life and that this will be experienced as a searing heat as far as our sin goes but an increasing loving warmth as we learn”, but what are the other alternative likely choices to make the choice a real choice?

I think this is too clinical a way of looking at it. Imagine taking in a seriously abused child and showing them love for the first time. Would they really respond by looking at all the alternative choices they have available to them - whether to accept or reject you - or would they respond to love in accordance to their nature of being made in the image of God. I'm not saying it would be easy and lots of psychological issues may need to be worked through first before they are able to accept love but it is certainly not about leaving that child to make a free-will decision by themselves.

This also seems to be saying Godly type Love is something we learn over time and it is like a “warmth”? It will take much more than a “warm feeling” to jump in front of someone being beaten and stay there.

I was clearly not talking about just a "warm feeling".

I fully believe: “God loves all with a depth, breadth and height we can't even imagine and that He desires us to be with Him forever.” I feel God Loves a rich man (a person like the rich man) and would sacrifice a Lazarus with a torturous life on earth to provide the very best opportunity for that rich man, but when nothing more can be done to help the rich man to cease the opportunity for Love, that rich man will be used by God to help other, who God also Loves, but God still Loves him.

I fully believe in man’s autonomous free will to make at least the one choice of humbly accepting or rejecting God’s Love in the form of forgiveness.

The problem comes with a free will person rejecting God’s Love to the point there is really nothing “better” to do for them, that would help them with their own free will choice to humbly accept God’s Love as charity. What more could be done in another place besides earth that could help in this true choice?

You may not be able to see how anything more can be done to help the rich man but that doesn't mean that God can't.

Earth is a very unique place really only established to provide some willing humans with the opportunity to become like God (in that they have Love) or refuse to be like God. Now I have a place in heaven for all those who never have this opportunity to accept or reject, but you feel there has to be a place for those who have repeatedly rejected God’s Love (those who do not want to be Loved unselfishly, in spite of who they are, but want a selfish type love). I cannot imagine such a place or the benefit in having such a place and you have not described to me this place. Heaven is something like a huge Love feast, but the only Love there for mature adults is Godly type Love, so if that is the Love a person does not like or desire for themselves, they would be very unhappy there. Another earth like place, would not work better than the first perfectly designed earth or God would improve earth. There is just no place for the refuser of God’s Love to go.

I agree that no-one is going to get into heaven unless they love God, and they probably wouldn't enjoy it unless they did. I don't really subscribe to this rarefied Godly type Love you speak about - the two great commandments commands us to love with a lower case "l" - love is usually very messy and imperfect and trying to make it something purely spiritual detracts from what it actually is IMO. Jesus didn't teach about a spiritual love, He spoke about loving the people we see in our everyday lives and that involves doing practical things like feeding the poor and housing the homeless.

Universalists don't think that God has to improve the earth so that everyone's knee will eventually bow and they will confess Christ as Lord for the simple reason that it doesn't see earth as a last chance saloon. God doesn't turn from the endlessly loving and forgiving prodigal's father or the good shepherd rescuing his every sheep into an eternal torturer at the point of our death just because our faith wasn't good enough at that point. And actually believing that He does, is saying that our faith is a work because it's saying that any faith we have acquired while on earth has more merit than the faith we may learn in the next age.

 

[bling]

Thanks for clarifying then. I have to say that this sounds like a very passive God and not much like the God of Israel who never gave up on it however disobedient it was. He always persisted in His relationship with Israel and always tried to bring it back on track often by means of corrective punishment. Universalism views "hell" for the individual in much the same way.

Why would it be a bad thing for God to have "expectations" that we will have a good relationship with Him. Isn't that what any decent parent would want?

First God is very much like the father in the prodigal son story, so would you call that father “passive” and if so, what would you have that father do? God is very much active on an individual bases, sacrificially doing, just sometimes behind the seen to provide the very best opportunity for the willing individual to fulfill the objective (God cannot fulfill it for him). God allowed Lazarus to go through all he did to provide the rich man with the best opportunity, so was God passive with the rich man?

Let’s just say: God is going to make 30 billion people and 16 billion will have the opportunity they need to accept or reject His Love, with the other 14 billion going on to heaven without Godly type Love. God has set it up, at great sacrifice, for these 16 billion to have the very best opportunity to accept His Love as pure undeserved charity, but He cannot force them to choose to accept, since it has to be the result of their free will choice with likely alternatives. Unfortunately, God also knows from knowing the situation humans are in (even if it is the very best situation for them), most will choose not to humble themselves to the point of accepting His charity/forgiveness as charity. God can do no more, yet what He did, does cannot assure the person will make the right autonomous free will choice, since it is their choice. Yes, God has to “passively, sit back” allowing the person the choice, but He was extremely active in setting the person up to make the right choice.

In the Adam and Eve story, God provided nothing but the best for them, but He also would have realized they would fail in the Garden, because the Garden was not a place for humans to humble themselves to the point of accepting His charity as pure undeserved charity, so God “expects” them to fail and He must show disappointment, because it is a failure.

Again, I would ask if you think we are behaving freely if we do something that is clearly against our best interests? I read in the papers a few years ago of a woman in Austria I think who was arrested when a young woman was found living in her cellar. Turned out she was the woman's daughter and her defence was that she had gone down to the cellar as a young kind to play and had liked it so much that she didn't want to come out so the mother just let her stay down there for what turned out to be years. I don't see much difference between this and a God who would let us to "freely" choose hell. A choice has to be informed choice for it to be free.

I have repeatedly said: “It has to be a real choice.” A choice has to be some “knowledge”/be informed (so it is only mature adults [people with some knowledge]). Let’s go back to the “Rich Man and Lazarus” story as an example. God presented daily right in front of and for him to trip over, the very best opportunity for the rich man to fulfill the Old Law commands he would be very familiar with, to help Lazarus out (care for the poor and hurting). The rich man did not need further instruction, because he knew what he was to do, which would then help him experience Godly type Love. God could have forced the rich man to do something for Lazarus, by giving the rich man by maybe giving him a little taste of the place of torment every time he avoided Lazarus, but then it would not be the rich man’s free will choice. Did the rich man lack knowledge or humility? Why did the rich man not look down at Lazarus and say to himself: “Oh, but for the grace of God, go I?”

But this doesn't mean his torment was everlasting. It may have been remedial but still painful enough that may wanted to spare his brothers from it.

OK, I do feel it was not “forever”, but the rich man was annihilated afterwards. The first reason I think the rich man ceased to exist is, because he did not accept the gift of eternal life in heaven. The rich man would be unhappy in heaven, since he might have to sit next to Lazarus. (Remember: while the Rich man was in the place of torment, he did not ask Lazarus if he wanted and would be willing to leave paradise to go down to his brothers, but asked Abraham to “order/force” Lazarus to go to his brothers. The rich man is still treating Lazarus like he is a no body.) The “Love” the rich man rejected is the Love in heaven, so he would be extremely unhappy there. The rich man’s choice is not between heaven and hell and annihilation, but between having or not having a Love like God’s Love, which must be the result of a free will choice.

What sort of proportion of people who have experienced this "Godly type Love" are we talking about?

Good question. Most people prefer to be “loved”, respected, feared, submitted to for the way they want others to perceive them to be (this is a carnal type satisfaction). Most people want their selfish desires fulfilled and not to be unselfish and only take pleasure from others’ happiness. Christians do not need to start out totally unselfish, since Godly type Love grows with use, but they just need to be willing at humble themselves to the point of being willing to accept pure undeserved charity as charity. A person in this life would not have to humble themselves to accept pure charity as charity, in this life, if Universalism is true, but where could you go and what would you need to know and not know in order to make a truly autonomous free will choice with likely alternatives to humbly accept God’s pure charity?

I think this is too clinical a way of looking at it. Imagine taking in a seriously abused child and showing them love for the first time. Would they really respond by looking at all the alternative choices they have available to them - whether to accept or reject you - or would they respond to love in accordance to their nature of being made in the image of God. I'm not saying it would be easy and lots of psychological issues may need to be worked through first before they are able to accept love but it is certainly not about leaving that child to make a free-will decision by themselves.

First off: this serious abused child most likely cannot, in that situation, make the choice to humbly accept God’s charity as charity, their choice is survival.

The half dead Jewish man on the side of the road may have previously said: “I would prefer to die, then have a Samaritan touch me”, but allowed or did not know a Samaritan helped him at the time. The Samaritan caring for this Jewish man might not have changed the mind of the Jewish man toward Samaritans at that time, but would give him reason to think and hopefully at some point be willing to humbly accept (God’s help).

You may not be able to see how anything more can be done to help the rich man but that doesn't mean that God can't.

My though is this: “If God could help the rich man further, knowing God, He would have.” The big issues I have with this “other place” would be than why have us waste time in this messed up world, beside it not being in scripture and it not being logical.

I agree that no-one is going to get into heaven unless they love God, and they probably wouldn't enjoy it unless they did. I don't really subscribe to this rarefied Godly type Love you speak about - the two great commandments commands us to love with a lower case "l" - love is usually very messy and imperfect and trying to make it something purely spiritual detracts from what it actually is IMO. Jesus didn't teach about a spiritual love, He spoke about loving the people we see in our everyday lives and that involves doing practical things like feeding the poor and housing the homeless.

Again, there are books written on Godly type Love.. I would define it as everything Christ did and said, but you can also add 1 Cor. 13 and 1 John 4. Jesus defines Loving your neighbor to a Jew, who probably hated Samaritans (it is a Love your enemy scenario).

1 Cor. 13: 1 If I speak in the tongues 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.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

There are lots of different kinds of “love”, but if you do not have this Godly type Love (the Love Paul is talking about in 1 Cor. 13) those other loves are: a clanging cymbal, nothing and nothing is gained from them.

Universalists don't think that God has to improve the earth so that everyone's knee will eventually bow and they will confess Christ as Lord for the simple reason that it doesn't see earth as a last chance saloon. God doesn't turn from the endlessly loving and forgiving prodigal's father or the good shepherd rescuing his every sheep into an eternal torturer at the point of our death just because our faith wasn't good enough at that point. And actually believing that He does, is saying that our faith is a work because it's saying that any faith we have acquired while on earth has more merit than the faith we may learn in the next age.

What does that do for the significance of sinning? I have seen in my life and in the lives of others: “a Godly type Love automatically resulting from people humbly accepting forgiveness from what they know to be an unbelievable huge debt created by their sins.” Luke 7, Jesus’ teaches us that. The huge amount of debt is determined by the amount of “punishment” needed to pay that debt (hell and being annihilated). If people are taught there is very little “debt” created by sin (you go to school for a while in another world prior to your going to heaven) then they will have a little “love” automatically given them (not a Godly type Love). The Luke 7 method works, but it requires an unbelievable huge payment for sin (hell), so if the Luke 7 method is taken away, what other possible method could there be?

 

[Hmm]

Good post. I'd rather respond to a few points in some detail rather than try to give a short response to everything you raise - I don't want to post a text wall! We can always talk about your other points later if you bring them up.

This seems to be a key part in what you're saying:

Unfortunately, God also knows from knowing the situation humans are in (even if it is the very best situation for them), most will choose not to humble themselves to the point of accepting His charity/forgiveness as charity. God can do no more, yet what He did, does cannot assure the person will make the right autonomous free will choice, since it is their choice. Yes, God has to “passively, sit back” allowing the person the choice, but He was extremely active in setting the person up to make the right choice.

I agree that it's true that that "most people choose not to humble themselves to the point of accepting His charity/forgiveness as charity" in this life. And also that "God can do no more" for these people in this life.

What I'm obviously highlighting is in this life. If what we do in this life is the final determiner of our eternal fate then I probably wouldn't disagree with what you say but because I don't believe it is, I do disagree with most of what you say!

As I mentioned in my last post, I believe that the entire edifice of our belief structure is built on a small number of axioms, those things that we take to be true, and whether there are further chances for salvation after death or not is one of those assumptions. Scripture is argued both ways on this point, whether legitimately so or not, so let's not go there.

Universalism is not a monolithic block but I think it's true to say that most universalists adhere to the Christus Victor model of atonement and would take 1 John 2:2 "and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" as being literally true.

Just to differentiate Christus Victor from what's probably the most popular atonement model, Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). PSA is a Calvanist model where Jesus is vicariously punished in pour place in order to pacify the wrath and honour of God. It's a modification of Anselm’s earlier Satisfaction Theory of Atonement.

Christus Victor is the more classic model held by much of the early church where the work of Christ is a victory over the powers which hold humankind in bondage. In this framework, the cross didn't not pay anyone off (neither God, nor Satan), but rather defeated evil thereby setting us free to become what we are meant to be... in God's likeness.

So universalism sees sin as something we must be cured from, not in order to pacify the justice and wrath of God but to be healed and made whole. And so we will suffer from our sin until we are saved from our own sinful condition. Universalism sees this picture of Jesus as a Saviour who heals and frees us from a sinful state of being as much more aligned with true nature of God’s love and mercy than the PSA view of paying a blood ransom to placate an angry God.

I think what you are saying in the above above speaks more to a PSA theology. You talk about achieving certainty that our sins are forgiven through being given and accepting God's charity as charity in this life from all the opportunities that God gives us to do this in this life. So we make the right choice and are then rewarded with eternal salvation. But IMO this misses out on embracing the greater salvation that comes from the Christus Victor model where we are actually healed and inwardly transformed. And healing takes time and it may not be, and looking around, hardly ever is, completed in this life.

I know I haven't addressed a lot of your other points but I'm happy to try to do so if our conversation continues. I'm a man so can't multi-task and happier looking at one thing at a time!

Do you agree with what I said about the difference between PSA and Christus Victor being a large part of the difference between our views? It's like if we have different seeds, we're going to display very different flowers. And you can't transplant flowers onto different plants and expect them to grow!

 

[bling]

Good post. I'd rather respond to a few points in some detail rather than try to give a short response to everything you raise - I don't want to post a text wall! We can always talk about your other points later if you bring them up.

This seems to be a key part in what you're saying:



I agree that it's true that that "most people choose not to humble themselves to the point of accepting His charity/forgiveness as charity" in this life. And also that "God can do no more" for these people in this life.

What I'm obviously highlighting is in this life. If what we do in this life is the final determiner of our eternal fate then I probably wouldn't disagree with what you say but because I don't believe it is, I do disagree with most of what you say!

As I mentioned in my last post, I believe that the entire edifice of our belief structure is built on a small number of axioms, those things that we take to be true, and whether there are further chances for salvation after death or not is one of those assumptions. Scripture is argued both ways on this point, whether legitimately so or not, so let's not go there.

Universalism is not a monolithic block but I think it's true to say that most universalists adhere to the Christus Victor model of atonement and would take 1 John 2:2 "and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" as being literally true.

Just to differentiate Christus Victor from what's probably the most popular atonement model, Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). PSA is a Calvanist model where Jesus is vicariously punished in pour place in order to pacify the wrath and honour of God. It's a modification of Anselm’s earlier Satisfaction Theory of Atonement.

Christus Victor is the more classic model held by much of the early church where the work of Christ is a victory over the powers which hold humankind in bondage. In this framework, the cross didn't not pay anyone off (neither God, nor Satan), but rather defeated evil thereby setting us free to become what we are meant to be... in God's likeness.

So universalism sees sin as something we must be cured from, not in order to pacify the justice and wrath of God but to be healed and made whole. And so we will suffer from our sin until we are saved from our own sinful condition. Universalism sees this picture of Jesus as a Saviour who heals and frees us from a sinful state of being as much more aligned with true nature of God’s love and mercy than the PSA view of paying a blood ransom to placate an angry God.

I think what you are saying in the above above speaks more to a PSA theology. You talk about achieving certainty that our sins are forgiven through being given and accepting God's charity as charity in this life from all the opportunities that God gives us to do this in this life. So we make the right choice and are then rewarded with eternal salvation. But IMO this misses out on embracing the greater salvation that comes from the Christus Victor model where we are actually healed and inwardly transformed. And healing takes time and it may not be, and looking around, hardly ever is, completed in this life.

I know I haven't addressed a lot of your other points but I'm happy to try to do so if our conversation continues. I'm a man so can't multi-task and happier looking at one thing at a time!

Do you agree with what I said about the difference between PSA and Christus Victor being a large part of the difference between our views? It's like if we have different seeds, we're going to display very different flowers. And you can't transplant flowers onto different plants and expect them to grow!

Let me explain again one huge problem with this “temporary between place” for refusers of God’s Love to go at death and before heaven. God is doing all He can to have mature willing adults perceive and realize: sin creates an unbelievable huge debt, which hell and annihilation can be perceived as being, so when we correctly humbly accept God’s forgiveness as pure undeserved charity of our debt, we automatically obtain an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love). I have seen and experienced that happening in my life and in other people’s lives and I also, see no other way for humans to obtain Godly type Love, but will listen to what you see as another way.

I do not see the problem as being an educational issue or sin issue, but a humility issue with accepting God’s forgiveness as charity. Making the problem educational, means it is God’s fault.

As far as Atonement goes:

I am in total contrast to the: PSA, Christus Victor, Satisfaction and Ransom Theories of atonement and all the other popular models as far as that goes. I could write a book on Atonement and might need to. Our extremely poor understanding of atonement causes us to come up with some really wild ideas and/or our wild ideas have generated some very poor theories of atonement.

The “classic” Christus Victor presents a very broad description of what Christ accomplished, so when it addresses specifically what Jesus did with the cross it reverts back to the Ransom Theory of Atonement with a ransom paid to satan, but you seem to have found some other version (which is fine), but did not explain specifically what Christ did on the cross and how, which is OK. If you can explain your understand of Christus Victor explanation specifically about the cross, please do.

I take what I consider a very logical approach to the cross, but it takes a lot of explaining, since the cross is foolishness to most logical people.

Atonement is much easier understood by experiencing atonement, than it is by explaining it, but both become difficult for the new convert, hearing lots of false explanations first.

You use lots of good logic, which I have pointed out in the past, but start with some bad assumptions, like bad assumptions about atonement. I can see how you draw a bad conclusion with good logic from bad assumptions, so we need to address the assumptions.

First logically think about this:

It is total unjust (and thus unbiblical) to see to the punishment of the innocent in order to allow the guilty to go unpunished.

If God forgives 100% there is nothing to be paid, forgiveness does not include a payment.

The proponents of (PSA) have to “add” man’s acceptance/faith to try to limit the atonement yet it is not in their (PS) description.

There are a dozen other issues with PSA and all the other popular theories of atonement.

Think logically about this: When you go up to a nonbelieving sinner what are you trying to get them to accept: a book, your church, a doctrine, fellowship, baptism, etc. No, you are trying to help them to accept Jesus Christ and Him Crucified! If the person does accept Jesus Christ, a child is set free and allowed to enter the Kingdom to be with his/her Father, but if the sinner refuses to accept Jesus Christ and Him Crucified than a child is held out of the Kingdom and away from his/her Father.

This “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified” is described by Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and the author of Hebrews as a literal ransom payment and in this scenario the criminal kidnapper holding the child away from their Father is the sinner himself. The ransom being offered by the Father and Son is unbelievable huge, yet can still be rejected.

Let us look at the way those first century Jews would have understood atonement and especially the sin offering, since they had firsthand experience with atonement sin offering. This goes back to Lev. 5, were there was atonement for very minor sins (unintentional sins and almost accidental sins). Here we have the sinner doing something more than just sinning. The atonement process includes confessing, securing a good offering, personally bringing the offering to the priests at the temple altar, the priest has to offer it correctly and after the atonement process is correctly completed the sinner’s sins will be forgiven.

Lev. 5: 5 when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. 6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin. … 10 The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.

the relationship between the sinner and the offering, the offering is “as a penalty for the sin” and not a replacement for the sinner. The idea of “penalty” is a “punishment” for the sinner, yet punishment of your child is better translated “disciplining”.

How do we know the emphasis in Lev. 5’s atonement is on being disciplined? Reading all of Lev. 5: we have a lamb, two doves and a bag of flour all being an atoning sacrifice for the exact same sin, but vary with the wealth of the sinner, yet God does not consider the wealthy person of great value then the poor person, so what is happening? We can only conclude there is an attempt to equalize the hardship on the sinner (penalty/punishment/discipline).

Please notice there is an “and” just before “they will be forgiven”, suggesting a separate action, so the forgiveness could be separate from the atonement process, but comes afterwards.

To understand the difference between how sins were handled under the Law and under Christianity, I would go to Ro. 3:25:

God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished... (Rom. 3:25, NIV)

This verse does provide a lot of information about how sins prior to Christ going to the cross were handled.

First off: Paul is giving the extreme contrast between the way sins where handle prior to the cross and after the cross, so if they were actually handled the same way “by the cross” there would be no contrast, just a time factor, but Paul said (forgiven) sins prior to the cross where left “unpunished”, but that also means the forgiven “sinner” after the cross were punished.

From Romans 3: 25 Paul tells us: God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. …

Another way of saying this would be “God offers the ransom payment (Christ Crucified and the blood that flowed from Him) to those that have the faith to receive that ransom. A lack of faith results in the refusal of the ransom payment (Christ crucified).

God is not the undeserving kidnapper nor is satan, but the unbeliever himself is holding back the child of God from the Father, that child that is within every one of us.

Paul goes on to explain:

Ro. 3: 25 …He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished

I do not like the word “unpunished” but would use “undisciplined” (you discipline your children and do not punish your children).

So, prior to the cross repentant forgiven people (saved individuals) could not be fairly and justly disciplined for their rebellious disobedience, but after the cross if we repent (come to our senses and turn to God) we can be fairly and justly disciplined and yet survive.

If you think about the crucifixion, you would realize, at the time Christ was on the cross, God in heaven out of empathy/Love for Christ would be experience an even greater pain than Christ. We as our Love grows and our realization of what we personally caused Christ to go through will feel a death blow to our hearts (Acts 2:37). We will experience the greatest pain we could experience and still live, which is the way God is disciplining us today and for all the right reasons because Loving discipline correctly accepted results in a wondrous relationship with our parent. (We can now comfortably feel justified before God.)

God and Christ would have personally preferred Christ’s blood to remain flowing through his veins, but it is I, who needs that blood outside of Christ to flowing over me and in me cleansing my heart. I need to feel that blood and know it is cleansing me.

There is a book of information and scripture I could go over, if you want to discuss further.

 

[Hmm]

Let me explain again one huge problem with this “temporary between place” for refusers of God’s Love to go at death and before heaven. God is doing all He can to have mature willing adults perceive and realize: sin creates an unbelievable huge debt, which hell and annihilation can be perceived as being, so when we correctly humbly accept God’s forgiveness as pure undeserved charity of our debt, we automatically obtain an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love). I have seen and experienced that happening in my life and in other people’s lives and I also, see no other way for humans to obtain Godly type Love, but will listen to what you see as another way.

I do not see the problem as being an educational issue or sin issue, but a humility issue with accepting God’s forgiveness as charity. Making the problem educational, means it is God’s fault.

As far as Atonement goes:

I am in total contrast to the: PSA, Christus Victor, Satisfaction and Ransom Theories of atonement and all the other popular models as far as that goes. I could write a book on Atonement and might need to. Our extremely poor understanding of atonement causes us to come up with some really wild ideas and/or our wild ideas have generated some very poor theories of atonement.

The “classic” Christus Victor presents a very broad description of what Christ accomplished, so when it addresses specifically what Jesus did with the cross it reverts back to the Ransom Theory of Atonement with a ransom paid to satan, but you seem to have found some other version (which is fine), but did not explain specifically what Christ did on the cross and how, which is OK. If you can explain your understand of Christus Victor explanation specifically about the cross, please do.

I take what I consider a very logical approach to the cross, but it takes a lot of explaining, since the cross is foolishness to most logical people.

Atonement is much easier understood by experiencing atonement, than it is by explaining it, but both become difficult for the new convert, hearing lots of false explanations first.

You use lots of good logic, which I have pointed out in the past, but start with some bad assumptions, like bad assumptions about atonement. I can see how you draw a bad conclusion with good logic from bad assumptions, so we need to address the assumptions.

First logically think about this:

It is total unjust (and thus unbiblical) to see to the punishment of the innocent in order to allow the guilty to go unpunished.

If God forgives 100% there is nothing to be paid, forgiveness does not include a payment.

The proponents of (PSA) have to “add” man’s acceptance/faith to try to limit the atonement yet it is not in their (PS) description.

There are a dozen other issues with PSA and all the other popular theories of atonement.

Think logically about this: When you go up to a nonbelieving sinner what are you trying to get them to accept: a book, your church, a doctrine, fellowship, baptism, etc. No, you are trying to help them to accept Jesus Christ and Him Crucified! If the person does accept Jesus Christ, a child is set free and allowed to enter the Kingdom to be with his/her Father, but if the sinner refuses to accept Jesus Christ and Him Crucified than a child is held out of the Kingdom and away from his/her Father.

This “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified” is described by Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and the author of Hebrews as a literal ransom payment and in this scenario the criminal kidnapper holding the child away from their Father is the sinner himself. The ransom being offered by the Father and Son is unbelievable huge, yet can still be rejected.

Let us look at the way those first century Jews would have understood atonement and especially the sin offering, since they had firsthand experience with atonement sin offering. This goes back to Lev. 5, were there was atonement for very minor sins (unintentional sins and almost accidental sins). Here we have the sinner doing something more than just sinning. The atonement process includes confessing, securing a good offering, personally bringing the offering to the priests at the temple altar, the priest has to offer it correctly and after the atonement process is correctly completed the sinner’s sins will be forgiven.

Lev. 5: 5 when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. 6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin. … 10 The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.

the relationship between the sinner and the offering, the offering is “as a penalty for the sin” and not a replacement for the sinner. The idea of “penalty” is a “punishment” for the sinner, yet punishment of your child is better translated “disciplining”.

How do we know the emphasis in Lev. 5’s atonement is on being disciplined? Reading all of Lev. 5: we have a lamb, two doves and a bag of flour all being an atoning sacrifice for the exact same sin, but vary with the wealth of the sinner, yet God does not consider the wealthy person of great value then the poor person, so what is happening? We can only conclude there is an attempt to equalize the hardship on the sinner (penalty/punishment/discipline).

Please notice there is an “and” just before “they will be forgiven”, suggesting a separate action, so the forgiveness could be separate from the atonement process, but comes afterwards.

To understand the difference between how sins were handled under the Law and under Christianity, I would go to Ro. 3:25:

God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished... (Rom. 3:25, NIV)

This verse does provide a lot of information about how sins prior to Christ going to the cross were handled.

First off: Paul is giving the extreme contrast between the way sins where handle prior to the cross and after the cross, so if they were actually handled the same way “by the cross” there would be no contrast, just a time factor, but Paul said (forgiven) sins prior to the cross where left “unpunished”, but that also means the forgiven “sinner” after the cross were punished.

From Romans 3: 25 Paul tells us: God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. …

Another way of saying this would be “God offers the ransom payment (Christ Crucified and the blood that flowed from Him) to those that have the faith to receive that ransom. A lack of faith results in the refusal of the ransom payment (Christ crucified).

God is not the undeserving kidnapper nor is satan, but the unbeliever himself is holding back the child of God from the Father, that child that is within every one of us.

Paul goes on to explain:

Ro. 3: 25 …He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished

I do not like the word “unpunished” but would use “undisciplined” (you discipline your children and do not punish your children).

So, prior to the cross repentant forgiven people (saved individuals) could not be fairly and justly disciplined for their rebellious disobedience, but after the cross if we repent (come to our senses and turn to God) we can be fairly and justly disciplined and yet survive.

If you think about the crucifixion, you would realize, at the time Christ was on the cross, God in heaven out of empathy/Love for Christ would be experience an even greater pain than Christ. We as our Love grows and our realization of what we personally caused Christ to go through will feel a death blow to our hearts (Acts 2:37). We will experience the greatest pain we could experience and still live, which is the way God is disciplining us today and for all the right reasons because Loving discipline correctly accepted results in a wondrous relationship with our parent. (We can now comfortably feel justified before God.)

God and Christ would have personally preferred Christ’s blood to remain flowing through his veins, but it is I, who needs that blood outside of Christ to flowing over me and in me cleansing my heart. I need to feel that blood and know it is cleansing me.

There is a book of information and scripture I could go over, if you want to discuss further.

Thanks for your reply. It made read over my last post and I saw all the awful typos so sorry about that, I was writing on my phone! Let me mull your reply over and get back.

 

[bling]

Thanks for your reply. It made read over my last post and I saw all the awful typos so sorry about that, I was writing on my phone! Let me mull your reply over and get back.

Sound good.