Is Heaven heaven if anyone's missing?

[Saint Steven]

I do not questions the methods or the success of those methods that God uses, for me if God does something it will be done perfectly.

That's fine.
But wouldn't you also agree that God doesn't want mindless robots in heaven?
I would guess that we will be more superhuman than subhuman.
Which would include full mental faculties. Is that not what you anticipate?

Really the whole memory-wiping idea was a workaround anyway, right?

 

[FineLinen]

I read it as sawdust agreeing with you P1LGR1M.
I read a lot in these threads about free will and whether we really have it. But that's the thing that strikes me about Universal Restoration: you don't have any free will choice about whether you want to be part of Christ. To some that may be as scary as separation.
Maybe some of the universalists could explain that seeming lack of frW

I read it as sawdust agreeing with you P1LGR1M.
I read a lot in these threads about free will and whether we really have it. But that's the thing that strikes me about Universal Restoration: you don't have any free will choice about whether you want to be part of Christ. To some that may be as scary as separation.
Maybe some of the universalists could explain that seeming lack of free will a bit more...

 

[Hmm]

Maybe some of the universalists could explain that seeming lack of free will a bit more...

Essentially it's that no-one would freely run into the fire described in the OP.

 

[Saint Steven]

Sorry, David Harp read my post right. I was pretending to be a deluded universalist who has no understanding of evil and why it can't be converted and must be separated eternally.

I enjoy your posts. Keep it up.

Careful. We have some standards of behavior around here.

Statement of Purpose - Controversial Christian Theology Statement of Purpose

 

[FineLinen]

I read it as sawdust agreeing with you P1LGR1M.
I read a lot in these threads about free will and whether we really have it. But that's the thing that strikes me about Universal Restoration: you don't have any free will choice about whether you want to be part of Christ. To some that may be as scary as separation.
Maybe some of the universalists could explain that seeming lack of free will a bit more...

The Creator made mankind with a wee will. The will of the Creator prevails over the created.

Mankind is made subject to futility "not willingly".

 

[Hmm]

Careful. We have some standards of behavior around here.

Statement of Purpose - Controversial Christian Theology Statement of Purpose

As soon as someone calls other people deluded, they've already lost the argument.

I always think that the proponents of ECT put up a better case for universalism than anything we can do.

 

[David's Harp]

Sorry, David Harp read my post right. I was pretending to be a deluded universalist who has no understanding of evil and why it can't be converted and must be separated eternally.

I enjoy your posts. Keep it up.

Yes, I see. I feel your statement can be read both ways. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[P1LGR1M]

The best way to overcome your fear of God would be to trust Him.

Proverbs 1:7
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

You think it is wrong to fear God?

That too was the point of the post: Universal Salvation ignores that there is reason to fear God. There is reason to fear the consequences of being disobedient to His will. When I was saved God showed me the reality of the judgment that I was headed for and it scared the Gehenna out of me.

Just because I fear God doesn't mean I don't trust Him, that too is the point of preaching the Gospel instead of feel-good messages with no Biblical Basis.


God Bless

 

[P1LGR1M]

Sorry, David Harp read my post right. I was pretending to be a deluded universalist who has no understanding of evil and why it can't be converted and must be separated eternally.

I enjoy your posts. Keep it up.

Sorry, lol, I thought you were presenting one of their arguments, that "God would be forcing people and removing their free will."

God bless.

 

[Hmm]

You think it is wrong to fear God?

Of course it is. You need to realise that the word "fear" is more accurately translated as "awe" in the verses you have quoted.

Not for every verse though. Here fear really does mean fear:

"Perfect love casts out fear".

 

[P1LGR1M]

I read it as sawdust agreeing with you P1LGR1M.
I read a lot in these threads about free will and whether we really have it. But that's the thing that strikes me about Universal Restoration: you don't have any free will choice about whether you want to be part of Christ. To some that may be as scary as separation.
Maybe some of the universalists could explain that seeming lack of free will a bit more...

That's one of the problems with typed discussion, sometimes you can read things the wrong way. I still prefer it, though, because it gives you the opportunity to take the time to read and try to understand your antagonist before responding.

I am not a "free will endorser," nor am I a Calvinist or one that takes a hyper-view of Election.

Man has "free will" in regards to the mundane, physical, and temporal, meaning, yes, he can choose which shirt he is going to wear provided he has his wife's permission, but no, he does not have "free will" in regards to the spiritual things of God.

We see in Scripture that God can and has overrun the will of men to accomplish His determined will. Babel comes to mind. Jonah is a good example. But Paul stands out as an example concerning being born again: his will was to kill Christians, and God's will was that he beget children in the Lord, lol.

One of the scariest pictures I see in Scripture is God giving men over to their "free will:"


Romans 1:24-32
King James Version

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;


32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


No man or woman will stand before God and say, "But—you didn't tell me!"

Here is another scary statement in Scripture:


Ezekiel 3:18
When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.


This has a physical context, like most of the Hebrew Scriptures, but it reaches into the principles that underlie the physical terms of the Old Testament. This chapter deals with the Law, and the death penalty associated with the Law, but we see the principle made clear in the New Testament that we have a responsibility to first preach the Gospel and part and parcel is what men and women are saved from.

To cast aspersion on this principle is unthinkable, yet we see it being done in thread after thread. Universal Salvation is thriving on this forum and it is up to the members here who do fear God to attempt to shut this false doctrine down.

It is pulling the wool over the eyes of the blind.

It is whispering sweet nothings into the ears of the deaf.

I appreciate your support, Dave, and pray God bless your time here on this forum. I think today will be last day for the time being, and maybe even the last time I come here (I'm hoping we will be raptured before then, lol), but we will see. I have spent almost twice the time I usually spend on a forum these days, and this due to what I felt to be unfinished business that a round of Covid gave me an excuse to linger and seek to tidy it up, lol. I feel I have learned a lot here, from everyone I have interacted with, but you have been a source of encouragement, and I thank you.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Of course it is. You need to realise that the word "fear" is more accurately translated as "awe" in the verses you have quoted.

Not for every verse though. Here fear really does mean fear:

"Perfect love casts out fear".

"Reverent awe" is used, I think, to the point that the example we see in the context of Scripture as a whole is watered down and the reality of God's awesome power is exchanged for a buddy-buddy relationship. I see this as a problem in parenting as well: regardless of how much a parent wants to have that buddy-buddy relationship with their child, if the parent-child relationship is non-existent there is going to be trouble.

So too, there is always going to be that "parent-child" relationship between man and God. It is the Creator-creation relationship that doesn't change just because we know how much God loves us.

I love God, but that is because He first loved me, and took the time to show me that my actions had eternal consequences.

I love God, but I acknowledge that He is God, and I am but the dust that clings to the flea that King David was.

I love God, but I do not, for one minute, think I will be impervious to the fear John felt when he stood before Him. I expect to fall on my face in fear as well.

But I also expect to be comforted by Him as John was, and to hear those words, "Fear not!"

But you see, that is His call, not mine.

If we understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ at all it is to understand that there is going to be judgment for every word and for every deed—for every man and woman. We warn our brothers and sisters because of that judgment. Not that they might be saved, but that might stand in the judgment and fare bette than if we forego the command to warn, exhort, teach, rebuke, and comfort. We warn the lost so that they might have life.

And the only way that those who are dead in trespasses and sins will ever see life is to turn to Christ in this physical life.

Christ did not present the Rich Man as someone that had hope. Christ taught that the Rich Man had the opportunity during his physical life to avoid the torment he ended up in. The same opportunity that his brothers had:


Luke 16:27-31
King James Version

27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.


The Word of God has been given us for a reason.


30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.


The Cross of Christ and His Resurrection has been given us for a reason.

Here, Christ makes it clear that those who reject His Word would not be persuaded even if they witnessed the miracle of resurrection.

Blessed are those who believe who have not seen.

So why is it that we never see Universal Salvation teaching about Hades? Why do we not see Universal Salvation teaching that, despite their belief all will be saved ultimately, there is still torment for those who die outside of Christ, and that there is still a judgment in which there is potential for men and women not to be found in the Book of Life, and that the result is being cast into the Lake of Fire?

We don't see that. If it were a valid doctrine, why is there only one point ever made in the myriad of threads about it?

If you believe in Universal Salvation, why don't you teach more about the torment people will experience as the Rich Man did (and does)? Why is that aspect of it left out in all of these threads?

It is essentially walking by the desk of someone in a burning building and going outside and saying, "Gosh, it sure is sad they are burning up in there."

You wouldn't do that, would you? Most people wouldn't. So why do you do it when the stakes are even higher?

This is my last day here, and I know you are really, really, really sorry to hear that, but I just wanted to let you know that despite our doctrinal differences I have enjoyed the discussion.


God bless.

 

[Hmm]

"Reverent awe" is used, I think, to the point that the example we see in the context of Scripture as a whole is watered down and the reality of God's awesome power is exchanged for a buddy-buddy relationship. I see this as a problem in parenting as well: regardless of how much a parent wants to have that buddy-buddy relationship with their child, if the parent-child relationship is non-existent there is going to be trouble.

Are you saying that a parent-child relationship should be based on fear then? If so, why?

Why do you equate "reverent awe" with "buddy-buddy"? I don't see the connection.

 

[Der Alte]

***
All of heaven and earth yearns for the restoration of all things, and will continue to do so until God draws all things to himself, things in heaven and earth and under the earth alike.
Or is that just silly of heaven and earth and it should just grow a pair and learn to love Eternal Conscious Torture/Torment (ECT) instead?

First the Biblical term is "eternal punishment." The words, "eternal conscious torture/torment" do not occur anywhere in the Bible.
I assume that you are referring to Joh 12:32

John 12:32
(32) And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.​

To UR-ites this vs. appears to mean that Jesus will forcibly draw/drag to Himself all mankind, righteous and unrighteous alike, willing or not.
If that is correct, please explain to me what this passage means.

Matthew 7:21-23
(21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
(22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
(23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

Dumb ol' me thinks it means Jesus is saying "Not everyone will enter the kingdom of heaven." And on the day of judgement, many, not a few, will call Jesus, Lord, Lord and brag about all the wonderful things they claim they have done in His name. But Jesus will say to the many, "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Perhaps you can explain to me how this relates to UR?

 

[Petros2015]

Depends on what you remember, and how you see it from the new perspective that you now have.

Imagine a fire-alarm going off at our place of work or wherever we are and we run outside and the register's taken. Some are not accounted for so, while we're naturally glad we survived, we are also affected by sadness.

Not if I don't remember ever having worked with them and the register shows no record of them
Or if the police tell me (much to my surprise) that they were the ones who set the fire.

"We love because He first loved us". Christ never turned His back on tax-collectors or prostitutes or sinners of any kind. Indeed, He descended from the heavens and broke open the gates of Hades for them. Should we not also strive to do the same?

I completely agree with this part.

 

[Hmm]

Perhaps you can explain to me how this relates to UR?

Of course it doesn't relate to UR as you understand it to be when you say things like this:

To UR-ites this vs. appears to mean that Jesus will forcibly draw/drag to Himself all mankind, righteous and unrighteous alike, willing or not.

I don't mind discussing UR with you but there's no point addressing the same strawman arguments you continually bring up. It has been repeatedly explained to you, perhaps in other threads, what the word "draw" means in this context.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Are you saying that a parent-child relationship should be based on fear then? If so, why?

Why do you equate "reverent awe" with "buddy-buddy"? I don't see the connection.

No, I am saying that there still needs to be a parent-child relationship, not a buddy-buddy relationship. The buddy-buddy relationship seeks to make an equality between parent and child, and this is disastrous for young children.

There is no equality with God for believers. Because we partake of His divine nature doesn't mean we are gods. We are still the creation, He is still the Creator.

And I do not equate reverent awe with buddy-buddy. I did not say reverent awe is a bad thing, what I said was that the fear of God is a Biblical Doctrine that has been exchanged for a buddy-buddy system. You yourself still continue to treat the fear of God as something heinous, and contrary to trusting God.

Whereas Scripture teaches it as a no-brainer:


Proverbs 1:7
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Essentially it's that no-one would freely run into the fire described in the OP.

On the contrary, some very special people (we call them firemen) do just that on a daily basis.


John 15:13
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.


God bless.

 

[Der Alte]

Of course it doesn't relate to UR as you understand it to be when you say things like this:
I don't mind discussing UR with you but there's no point addressing the same strawman arguments you continually bring up. It has been repeatedly explained to you, perhaps in other threads, what the word "draw" means in this context.

First point out to me what you think is a straw man argument and/or a misrepresentation of UR belief.

 

[Hmm]

First point out to me what you think is a straw man argument and/or a misrepresentation of UR belief.

As I say, there's no point in doing so because UR has been explained to you many times and you merely respond with the same copypasta.

 

[Der Alte]

As I say, there's no point in doing so because UR has been explained to you many times and you merely respond with the same copypasta.

So all you can do is make accusations of straw man argument and misrepresentation but cannot or will not prove it.
Speaking of "copy paste" UR-ites copy paste the same out-of-context proof texts and UR arguments over and over etc. I am doing nothing different than they are.