Is belief in an eternal punishment in hell necessary?

[Halbhh]

Good advice, thanks.
However, I think most interpretation (through study) is a product of our perspective. We see what we want to see.
Basically, our study typically confirms our pre-existing beliefs.
Maybe your experience with it is different than mine? (hope so)

Ah, yes that's a tendency of humans. But, if a person tries, they can remember that God knowing more than we can means there is always more waiting for us to hear/ learn from His wording. In Christ's words that "will never pass away even when heaven and earth pass away".

This helps me wonderfully to listen.

 

[Hmm]

The purpose of hell is to show the holiness of God

God’s common grace extends to all men and, while God does not love elect and non-elect in the same way, the Bible is clear that He does love all that He has created.

but, all this talk about God’s wrath of sin, doesn’t this mean he hates sinners? I mean if someone’s fate is sealed and they end up in hell with no escape, it certainly sounds like God hates them.

It is important doctrine because it challenges me to consider if I have been truly saved myself.

Doesn't this make things a little insecure for Calvinists? That you'll never know in this life if you were born to be one of the Elect who God loves or one of the Non-Elect who He hates. What's your coping mechanism for that?

Universalism is not compatible with that message

Praise the Lord for that!

 

[didactics]

Doesn't this make things a little insecure for Calvinists? That you'll never know in this life if you were born to be one of the Elect who God loves or one of the Non-Elect who He hates. What's your coping mechanism for that?



Praise the Lord for that!

Praise the Lord for what? You need to keep it in context. Otherwise what you are praising God for is the inconsistency of universalism--it doesn't adequately explain the wrath of God. Calvinist or not, we are to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith (2Co 13:5). It is important to develop a biblical understanding of assurance of faith. Because here's the thing, if ECT is true, even though someone doesn't need to know that to be saved, it certainly helps to allude to the problem of hell or state it directly when presenting the gospel and ending with a call to repent and believe in Christ. Sure it might sound looney to most, if we don't explain the bad news well by pointing them to God's Law, but if we do it makes sense that God takes sin seriously and he's not just making these empty threats. This ties into our understanding of what Christ was doing on the cross. Because unless we understand that he paid our debt of sin, because we are not basically good people in his sight, but we store up his wrath everyday when we sin, we won't otherwise know why we are being called to repent of our sins and trust Christ.

 

[Hmm]

Praise the Lord for what? You need to keep it in context.

That He doesn't hate and predestine anyone to an eternal hell, despite what Calanism postulates. My context is scripture, church tradition, and the person of Jesus.

It is important to develop a biblical understanding of assurance of faith.

Indeed.

Sure it might sound looney to most, if we don't explain the bad news well by pointing them to God's Law, but if we do it makes sense that God takes sin seriously and he's not just making these empty threats. This ties into our understanding of what Christ was doing on the cross.

Jesus didn't make any threats on the cross but instead asked the Father to forgive those who put Him there because they acted out of ignorance.

This is all off-topic though. The thread is about universalism so I won't be commenting further on Calvinist philosophy, in which I have no interest in anyway.

 

[Saint Steven]

Doesn't this make things a little insecure for Calvinists? That you'll never know in this life if you were born to be one of the Elect who God loves or one of the Non-Elect who He hates. What's your coping mechanism for that?

Sounds like hell on earth. (not knowing)
Hoping against hope and risking those dreaded words, "Away from me, I never knew you."
And then be tossed into the LoF with no hope of escape.

John 14:27 NIV
Jesus came to give us life. That isn't it. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.

 

[Saint Steven]

Because here's the thing, if ECT is true, even though someone doesn't need to know that to be saved, it certainly helps to allude to the problem of hell or state it directly when presenting the gospel and ending with a call to repent and believe in Christ.

The gospel of spiritual extortion. An offer they can't refuse. (or else) Pay a church for protection. Gangster stuff.

I've noticed a lot of this "repent" before "belief" statements on the forum lately. I thought repentance (turning) was a result, not a precursor, to a restored relationship with God.

 

[Hmm]

An offer they can't refuse.

Or, for the Reprobates (those predestined to hell), an offer they can't accept.

Imagine believing in a system of thought where you won't know whether God loves or hates you and whether you're going to heaven or hell until you die, and it's all fixed in advance before you were born and it makes no difference what you do or even what you believe!

And just to preempt the expected response before I go and speak of the off-topic Calvinism no further, the standard Calvinist response is that God loves everyone even those He has doomed to hell. When squeezed like an orange, or a stone, they will tell you that although God does love the Reprobates, it's a different kind of love that he (I won't use the capital 'H' here) has for the Elect. He loves all equally but only in the sense that he makes the sun shine on the Elect and the Reprobates alike but he has a special love for the Elect because Jesus died for their sins (He didn't die for the sins of the Reprobates - this is the meaning of the 'L' for 'Limited Atonement' in the Calvinist five-point TULIP belief system).

It's this changing of words like 'love' from their usual meaning and the understandable reluctance to make this clear that makes it impossible to discuss Calvinism with a Calvinist.

I should have honoured what I said in my last post not to discuss Calvinism but I couldn't resist my opening joke! But no more!

 

[Saint Steven]

Or, for the Reprobates (those predestined to hell), an offer they can't accept.

Ouch. - LOL
Probably one of the best arguments against ECT. Exclusivity. Everyone is predestined to either heaven, or hell. (nothing anyone can do about that)

Nonsense.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The gospel of spiritual extortion. An offer they can't refuse. (or else) Pay a church for protection. Gangster stuff.

I've noticed a lot of this "repent" before "belief" statements on the forum lately. I thought repentance (turning) was a result, not a precursor, to a restored relationship with God.

I'm just wondering, Steven: Where in the Bible is extortion prohibited?

I'm just asking because I'm wondering, too, if I should see God the Father instead as "The God Father."

Maybe Marcion was on to something that we should all pay attention to?

 

[didactics]

Or, for the Reprobates (those predestined to hell), an offer they can't accept.

Imagine believing in a system of thought where you won't know whether God loves or hates you and whether you're going to heaven or hell until you die, and it's all fixed in advance before you were born and it makes no difference what you do or even what you believe!

And just to preempt the expected response before I go and speak of the off-topic Calvinism no further, the standard Calvinist response is that God loves everyone even those He has doomed to hell. When squeezed like an orange, or a stone, they will tell you that although God does love the Reprobates, it's a different kind of love that he (I won't use the capital 'H' here) has for the Elect. He loves all equally but only in the sense that he makes the sun shine on the Elect and the Reprobates alike but he has a special love for the Elect because Jesus died for their sins (He didn't die for the sins of the Reprobates - this is the meaning of the 'L' for 'Limited Atonement' in the Calvinist five-point TULIP belief system).

It's this changing of words like 'love' from their usual meaning and the understandable reluctance to make this clear that makes it impossible to discuss Calvinism with a Calvinist.

I should have honoured what I said in my last post not to discuss Calvinism but I couldn't resist my opening joke! But no more!

Just to be clear, I googled, “does calvinism teach some are predestined to hell” and a snippet from wikipedia reads:

Calvinists teach that God remains just and fair in creating persons he predestines to damnation because although God unilaterally works in the elect producing regeneration, God does not actively force the damned to sin.

I’m not well studied on the teaching of calvinism, but I’m convinced it is the best explanation on predestination. John MacArthur who is a calvinist comments on 2Pe 3:9 as this: Those who do parish and go to hell, go because they are depraved and worthy only of hell and have rejected the only remedy, Jesus Christ, not because they were created for hell and predetermined to go there.

In other words, I think it’s a both/and. God predestines persons to damnation and they are responsible for their choices because God doesn’t tempt anyone to sin (Jas 1:13). Matthew 6:13 a request not to be led into temptation may seem like a contradiction to James 1:13 but it is about dependance on the Lord to stand up under trial.

However I needed to make an edit to my post so that I can fill in the rest of the quote from MacArthur. And there, you will notice it does appear to be a contradiction. He says some are not predetermined to for hell. I'm a little puzzled to be honest.

If I’m not mistaken, MacArthur used the word predetermined instead of predestination. I thought they were synonymous but not entirely. Predestination is a theological term while predetermination is a philosophical term. Maybe that’s just his way of saying, God does not actively force the damned to sin.

 

[Saint Steven]

I’m not well studied on the teaching of calvinism, but I’m convinced it is the best explanation on predestination. John MacArthur who is a calvinist comments on 2Pe 3:9 as this: Those who do parish and go to hell, go because they are depraved and worthy only of hell and have rejected the only remedy, Jesus Christ, not because they were created for hell and predetermined to go there.

Back when I was steeped in evangelicalism, we used to say, "We are predestined by our own choice." Which makes ABSOLUTELY no sense.
Objections were met with: "God foreknew what their decision would be and predestined accordingly." More AMAZINGLY irrational thought.

Why purposely create something for destruction and then have your followers claim it is to your greater glory to display your wrath?
And what is the wrath for when the problem was self-created? Punish the creation for the creators mistake? Did God do that?

Hard to buy the Noah's Flood story when you look at it that way. Floodgate. Global genocide to erase the problem.
But hey,,, we did get a rainbow out of the deal. Sorry, it didn't come with unicorns.

 

[Saint Steven]

If I’m not mistaken, MacArthur used the word predetermined instead of predestination. I thought they were synonymous but not entirely. Predestination is a theological term while predetermination is a philosophical term. Maybe that’s just his way of saying, God does not actively force the damned to sin.

Or perhaps he meant that God is easier to understand in philosophical, rather than, theological terms. I'm sure @2PhiloVoid would be glad to hear that. But maybe not...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Or perhaps he meant that God is easier to understand in philosophical, rather than, theological terms. I'm sure @2PhiloVoid would be glad to hear that. But maybe not...

I'd say that understanding God in "Interdisciplinary terms" is more suitable to my mindset. And I never, ever, ever let Axiology alone run the show when I attempt to evaluate the ideas embedded in an ancient, foreign religion ...

 

[didactics]

Back when I was steeped in evangelicalism, we used to say, "We are predestined by our own choice." Which makes ABSOLUTELY no sense.
Objections were met with: "God foreknew what their decision would be and predestined accordingly." More AMAZINGLY irrational thought.

Why purposely create something for destruction and then have your followers claim it is to your greater glory to display your wrath?
And what is the wrath for when the problem was self-created? Punish the creation for the creators mistake? Did God do that?

Hard to buy the Noah's Flood story when you look at it that way. Floodgate. Global genocide to erase the problem.
But hey,,, we did get a rainbow out of the deal. Sorry, it didn't come with unicorns.

Well, why don't you explain predestination? At the very least I take it you agree that God knows everything that has happened and everything that will happen and he does not have to learn anything. Unless of course you are open to open theism, we agree God is omniscient.
Acts 15:16-18; Amos 9:11, 12

 

[Saint Steven]

Well, why don't you explain predestination?

That's the point, I can't. Neither can anyone else, except for the typical apologetic that leaves us nowhere.
Would you like to take a stab at it? I'll be happy to critique your response.

At the very least I take it you agree that God knows everything that has happened and everything that will happen and he does not have to learn anything. Unless of course you are open to open theism, we agree God is omniscient.
Acts 15:16-18; Amos 9:11, 12

Yes, God is omniscient. But I don't believe that he "predestines" anyone to "damnation" based on the known "outcome". Do you?

 

[Hmm]

That's the point, I can't. Neither can anyone else, except for the typical apologetic that leaves us nowhere.
Would you like to take a stab at it? I'll be happy to critique your response.

How strange. Someone who believes in predestination asks you, someone who has made it quite clear that doesn't, to explain the concept! Is the Calvinist school system failing somewhere?

Yes, God is omniscient. But I don't believe that he "predestines" anyone to "damnation" based on the known "outcome". Do you?

Agreed. God is not constrained by this space-time physical universe as we are and so can know what will happen in the future without determining that it is so. We are persons created in the divine image which entails freedom, not as Calvinist robots. The idea behind the robot theory is that God can't possibly make mistakes. But Calvinism buys into the ECT theory so they have to somehow explain how it is that God created someone He loves, sent Jesus to die for their sins, but then ends up torturing them forever. In order to preserve the idea that God can't make a mistake - and Jesus dying for someone's sins who ends up in hell would certainly qualify as a failure on His part!- we get the Calvinist notion of Limited Atonement instead: the "L" in TULIP - that God didn't die for their sins, but only for the sins of the Elect. It's a sticking plaster in an attempt to hold the whole structure of ECT together. Much easier just to dismantle the structure and say that God doesn't torture us, even when we're very naughty.

I just remembered I said I won't discuss Calvinism any further on this thread so apologies to the OP.

 

[Andrewn]

At the very least I take it you agree that God knows everything that has happened and everything that will happen and he does not have to learn anything. Unless of course you are open to open theism, we agree God is omniscient.

Everyone accepts that God is omniscient, even those who believe in open theism. But this is not how your Calvinist preachers define Predestination. The Calvinist belief in limited atonement is a pernicious error. "John Calvin rejected the idea that God permits rather than actively decrees the damnation of sinners, as well as other evil.[53]"

Predestination - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Saint Steven]

How strange. Someone who believes in predestination asks you, someone who has made it quite clear that doesn't, to explain the concept! Is the Calvinist school system failing somewhere?

Yes, very strange. Didn't occur to me at the time. Your observation is spot on.
The apologetics crew will not acknowledge a mystery. If they don't have an answer, they'll make something up. (and declare it truth)

Agreed. God is not constrained by this space-time physical universe as we are and so can know what will happen in the future without determining that it is so. We are persons created in the divine image which entails freedom, not as Calvinist robots. The idea behind the robot theory is that God can't possibly make mistakes. But Calvinism buys into the ECT theory so they have to somehow explain how it is that God created someone He loves, sent Jesus to die for their sins, but then ends up torturing them forever. In order to preserve the idea that God can't make a mistake - and Jesus dying for someone's sins who ends up in hell would certainly qualify as a failure on His part!- we get the Calvinist notion of Limited Atonement instead: the "L" in TULIP - that God didn't die for their sins, but only for the sins of the Elect. It's a sticking plaster in an attempt to hold the whole structure of ECT together. Much easier just to dismantle the structure and say that God doesn't torture us, even when we're very naughty.

It's madness really. And tribalism makes them go down with the ship. Loyal to the end.

It seems to be lost on most Christians that God REALLY has our BEST interests at heart. And when I say OUR, I mean the WHOLE world. All of creation!

 

[sawdust]

Yes, God is omniscient. But I don't believe that he "predestines" anyone to "damnation" based on the known "outcome". Do you?

He doesn't and that is because the doctrine of predestination has nothing to do with unbelievers. It is a doctrine applicable to believers only. Therefore it is not about whether God destines men to be saved or unsaved but rather it is about what he chooses to do with believers so that His plan is worked out. His plan being to avenge Himself and show He is indeed worthy of our trust. Not all believers (through the ages) have been placed in Christ. Only the Church age believer has been placed in Christ to reach the full stature of Christ.

Romans 8:29
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

Ephesians 1:5
he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—

Ephesians 1:11
In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,

It's not about us and salvation (or the lack of it), it's about God and His plan to avenge His name.

 

[Saint Steven]

His plan being to avenge Himself and show He is indeed worthy of our trust.

Trustworthiness is not what I get out of that. If he does that to others, who's next?