Questions About Hell

[AlexDTX]

Dear Alex: There is but one way to convince Christians of anything outside of their experience. That expansion is NOT in my power or domain!

Salvation is in three tenses all leading into deeper union with Him. The Great Commission cannot be "thwarted". He is the Saviour of All, some have not discovered it yet.

As I expected. You want to argue US. You ignored my first question: what is the point in trying to convince Christians who are already saved in this doctrine? There is no point, apart from undermining the Great Commission. This doctrine is a demonic doctrine and you are spreading a false gospel.

 

[AlexDTX]

Very interesting comparison.

“The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'" The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭3:2-6‬ ‭NASB‬‬

Thank you. This came to me after I posted, so I added it. I believe it was the Lord who was showing me this comparison.

 

[Light of the East]

Dear Zoidar: God our Father wants, and has determined, far more than "wanting everybody saved"! His purpose is reconciliation that extends to change and transformation. Please remember the Heavenly Equation.

Adam1 = "many made sinners" >>>>

Last Adam = "many made righteous"

Correction: In Adam ALL were made sinners, therefore, in Christ ALL are made righteous. The word "many" in this verse must mean all for all are under the condemnation of sin. This is only just and fair.

And God does not WANT people to be saved. It is His divine, omnipotent, and HOLY WILL!!! Can any created creature defy His will? If so, then He is not omnipotent, is He? And if not omnipotent, then what assurance do we have that Satan could not somehow in the future, find a way to defeat our all-powerful God? If a mere man can do this, then would not a fallen angel somehow find a way?

This whole idea goes back to creatio ex nilho, as David Bentley Hart speaks of in his new book. That is, creation is ordained to a telos, a final end and purpose. Does God bring all His holy will to pass, asks the catechism? The answer is yes, therefore, if any man is ultimately lost, then it was never God's will to save that man in the first place, and then, going back to creation, it was God's will that the man (men) not be saved when they were created.

And thus, the Calvinists are correct. God creates men to damn them for no other reason than His sheer good pleasure (and enjoyment?). Which would make Him not love.....but a monster.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Yes I agree, I believe in ancestral sin which is an Orthodox belief that we did not inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin but we did inherit his sinful nature in which causes us to sin and our guilt is of our own sins. I also don’t believe in total depravity. I do believe man can do good of his own free will but without Christ’s atonement our good deeds are tainted by our sin and worthless in God’s sight.

“Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭10:34-35‬ ‭NASB‬‬

I know the theology well. No one in the Bible mentioned ancestral sin from Adam. Inherited spiritual weakness because of the sin of the elders is true. But if they did not do that sin, we would not have a weakness there. No one in the Bible mentions sin nature.

Its really a lot easier to take James' view on the matter. "What causes conflicts and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from the passions at war within you? 2You crave what you do not have; you kill and covet, but are unable to obtain it. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask. 3And when you do ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may squander it on your pleasures." I believe what James says about why we sin and quarrel.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That scripture does not say all of mankind was brought into sin with Adam. Does not say we are sinners by nature. The "creature" is not us. We are the sons of God or children of God, a separate group in the scripture. So where do you think this supports in born sin nature?

By the way, I prefer James' explanation for sin: "What causes conflicts and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from the passions at war within you? 2You crave what you do not have; you kill and covet, but are unable to obtain it. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask. 3And when you do ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may squander it on your pleasures."

How come James did not blame a sin nature when discussing the subject?

If all have sinned then it’s obvious that we are sinners by nature.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Dear Alex: There is but one way to convince Christians of anything outside of their experience. That expansion is NOT in my power or domain!

There are rare Christians who are like the Bereans were and study the scripture (NOT EXPERIENCE) to see if the things they are taught are true. But I admit they are rare. They do not rely on their experience as the main reason they believe something. Experience is the mother of delusion.

Salvation is in three tenses all leading into deeper union with Him. The Great Commission cannot be "thwarted". He is the Saviour of All, some have not discovered it yet.

No one in the Bible equated salvation leading to deeper union with Him. Actually obedience to God leads to deeper "union" with GOd, if there is such a thing in the mind of God. I think God thinks of us as walking humbly with him, not experiencing some kind of spiritual union. I do not see that as a promise.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

If all have sinned then it’s obvious that we are sinners by nature.

No it is not. It is obvious that we want and do not have. We do not have because we do not ask. We ask and do not receive because we ask with wrong motives. We fight and destroy to fulfill wrong desires. THat is the reason we sin. IT is not at all as comfortable as some fictious sin nature we were born with and cannot help and are really not responsible for our sin. I actually know CHristians who instead of asking forgiveness, they tell those they sinned against it was not them, just their sin nature. THis is the fruit of that theology. People repent of something they cannot help and do not take responsiblity for the wrong they do blaming their sin nature which is Adam's fault.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I know the theology well. No one in the Bible mentioned ancestral sin from Adam. Inherited spiritual weakness because of the sin of the elders is true. But if they did not do that sin, we would not have a weakness there. No one in the Bible mentions sin nature.

Its really a lot easier to take James' view on the matter. "What causes conflicts and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from the passions at war within you? 2You crave what you do not have; you kill and covet, but are unable to obtain it. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask. 3And when you do ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may squander it on your pleasures." I believe what James says about why we sin and quarrel.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You agree that we have a sinful nature but our sinful nature was not inherited thru Adam?

 

[Light of the East]

QUOTE="Sketcher,

Nope. It would demonstrate his righteous judgement. Evil deserves to be punished.

Your answer shows that you haven't thought out the ramifications of what you said. It is not righteous to punish a man or woman beyond the degree of punishment that the sin deserves. This is not my idea, this was given to us by God in the form of lex talionis, that is, punishment equal to the crime. There is only one sin which would deserve eternal punishment, but it is impossible for a man to commit - you would have to destroy a soul completely, that is, to annihilate it. And we cannot do that.

Deservingly so.

Again, that is your idea completely. That is not what the Bible teaches.

He does, when he has mercy upon people. That won't always be the case.

So you are telling me that there will be a time that God will stop being love? Honestly, go get a nice cigar, a pint of some fine ale, and sit down and ruminate on what you have just said here.

The Eastern Orthodox have an interesting view of Hell - they see it as sort of a reaction that evil people have to being in the presence of God, while the sanctified believers are able to enjoy it. I'm sure one of them could explain this view better.

Yeah, we don't believe in it in the way that Western theology teaches it. It isn't a place, Dante was a nutcase, and God is not some sadist who is out for vengeance. He is loving, heavenly Father who desires the healing of all His sick children so that they may come Home and live with Him in love.

No.

Back up here a minute. You just inferred that somewhere down the road, God changes, that is, He stops being love and therefore stops giving grace to men. Make up your mind.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You agree that we have a sinful nature but our sinful nature was not inherited thru Adam?

When we sin, we make our nature sinful. Actually I am not suggesting any more than the BIble says as to why we sin. We want and cannot have and so we take, regardless of what it does to others. It is all our fault. THat is why the older Jews left the "stone the woman caught in adultery" scene first...they had lived long and had sinner more than the younger people there.

 

[BNR32FAN]

No it is not. It is obvious that we want and do not have. We do not have because we do not ask. We ask and do not receive because we ask with wrong motives. We fight and destroy to fulfill wrong desires. THat is the reason we sin.

Everyone does this, so how is this not the very definition of a sinful nature?

Just because some people blame their sinful nature in an attempt to dodge their guilt doesn’t negate that all of us have a sinful nature. It is a natural behavior trait that we all have.

 

[zoidar]

My reading of the Bible is our own sin separates us from God. Neither Jesus nor any of the disciples preached we are condemned by what Adam did, if we read what they preached to unbelievers.

Sure, but we sin because of Adam.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Everyone does this, so how is this not the very definition of a sinful nature?

Except you say it comes from birth. THe Bible says it comes from our desires. The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.

Just because some people blame their sinful nature in an attempt to dodge their guilt doesn’t negate that all of us have a sinful nature. It is a natural behavior trait that we all have.

Yes, I know the theology. It is very comforting to those who sin. They blame Adam. THis is a real fruit of the theology. Jesus said, btw, to just a tree by its fruit. It is a valid problem. IT is not some people. It is in some way everyone who embraces its Adam's fault I since theology. Very comforting theology. No one who wrote the BIble excused sin this way.

 

[Light of the East]

I keep reading all this nonsense about aion and aionios from 19th century theologians. Do you really think Robert Young and Marvin Vincent understood the teachings of the apostles or the Greek language better than Iranaeus who was a Greek bishop who lived from 130AD-202AD? I mean this man literally came right behind the apostles when their teachings were still fresh on the minds of the church. I mean we have Robert Young, a 19th century, Scottish, self taught, reformed theologian; Martin Vincent, another 19th century reformed theologian from New York vs Iranaeus a 2nd century, Greek, Catholic bishop from Turkey who wrote and spoke Greek fluently while the language was still widely used, and was taught by men who were directly taught by the apostles. Why on earth would anybody take the word of men who lived 1600 years after the apostles died, who believed in reformed theology which has been refuted by the early church writings from as far back as the 2nd century; over a man who was taught by the very men who were taught by the apostles themselves? Not only that but who’s writings have been substantiated throughout the history of Christianity and accepted by every single church the apostles established. Reformed theology, on the other hand, has been refuted by every single church the apostles established. So on one side you have men who were trying to learn what the early church was teaching and on the other you have a man who directly heard and taught what the early church was teaching. Ya know, I keep hearing a lot of talk about how the early church taught universalism but haven’t seen a shred of evidence to support that theory. Sure Origen entertained the idea of universalism as a possibility I’ll give you that but it has been refuted by both the church and several early church fathers throughout Christianity. One man does not determine the doctrines of the church. You quoted, if I’m not mistaken, about 7 different early church authors whom you claimed supported universalism and I provided evidence from their writings that, again if I’m not mistaken, that 4 of them out of the 7 you listed actually taught against it. I’ll have to continue the later. Have a blessed day brother.

Your appeal to the Early Fathers as your standard by which you defend hell strikes me as a real piece of hypocrisy unless you belong to the Orthodox Church. The Early Fathers taught absolutely nothing which could be construed as modern Evangelicalism (non-denominationalism).

One other thing. The Eastern Church was part of the Roman Empire and thus was very much influenced by the Roman mindset. This is why there were three different eschatologies being taught in five different theological schools for the first five centuries of the Church: Universalism, ECT, and Annihilationism. You can find Fathers of the Church who taught ECT and you will also find Fathers such as St. Gregory of Nyssa who taught Universalism. It all depends on the cultural milieu in which they were raised and who taught them.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Sure, but we sin because of Adam.

Again, I know the theology that blames Adam instead of us. I can only say that if a person refuses to accept their own desires as the reason for their sin but instead blame Adam, they are missing grace. God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. THis is the opposite of humbling oneself. It is keeping human pride fully in tact. Blame Adam instead of yourself. Pride pleased but no grace given.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Sure, but we sin because of Adam.

It is an excuse.

 

[Light of the East]

Your questions are clearly set up to argue Universal Salvation.

Why is it so important to US people to convince other Christians that their doctrine is true? We already know we are going to heaven. Are you trying to thwart the Great Commission commandment of Christ? Or are you saying we should tell the world, "Do nothing, believe nothing, and live your life as you wish because you are already saved?"

This is the same message Satan gave Eve in the Garden:

Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

Stop with the red herring already. You apparently know NOTHING about Patristic Universalism. If you understood it, you would know that we should be warning people that there will be chastisement - and that being quite painful - for every sin we have done and left unconfessed. No one who is a Universalist would dare suggest to go out and live as sinful as you wish because in the end you will be saved.

St. Paul, that Great Universalist who wrote that God will have mercy on all and that it is the will of God to save all, also strictly warned His people against sin.

Honestly, this accusation from hellists is more than a little tiring and annoying.

And while I am at it....since you believe that God is going to fry everyone forever who hasn't "accepted Jesus," when was the last time you pleaded with a sinner to get saved with tears in your eyes? Do you spend every free moment you have handing out tracts and witnessing on street corners? If not, why not? Don't you know that if we don't live people as we love ourselves, we will forfeit heaven? And if you are saved from eternal hell and this is is a good for you, then why are you not out sharing this with the world instead of sitting at your computer answering us Universalists?

 

[Light of the East]

Without JUSTICE, no Integrity. No value. No worth for ANY person.

No one is saying that there is not punishment. That is not the issue. The issue is the idea of an unjust punishment which goes far beyond any sin committed in chronological time.

 

[zoidar]

Again, I know the theology that blames Adam instead of us. I can only say that if a person refuses to accept their own desires as the reason for their sin but instead blame Adam, they are missing grace. God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. THis is the opposite of humbling oneself. It is keeping human pride fully in tact. Blame Adam instead of yourself. Pride pleased but no grace given.

We sin because of our sinful nature given to us from Adam. We can't blame Adam because we choose to listen to the sinful nature through free will. Without the sinful nature we couldn't choose sin.

 

[zoidar]

It is an excuse.

How do you understand the story of Adam and Eve and the fall of man?