Universal Reconciliation

[claninja]

OK, we all die. So the position is the wicked person partying and living happy doing so their entire life gets to die (without seemingly having been punished for his deeds).
So that God will then save that person later in the next life. So when in that persons life with the imbalance of unpunished wicked deeds does Justice for those deeds get restored?

Is the position saying they get roasted for the proper cooking time after death to restore the balance of Justice and then they get saved?

No. Let the person destroy themself with their lifestyle. Maybe when they hit rock bottom they'll be like the prodigal son. Someone who was dead, but now is a live.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

No. Let the person destroy themself with their lifestyle. Maybe when they hit rock bottom they'll be like the prodigal son. Someone who was dead, but now is a live.

We could imagine that being true, but in reality - the real world we live in the wicked do not always hit rock bottom.

Some skip merrily through life with no accountability present. Others may have to face some results of their choices, but in balance of what they did to have deserved those negative consequences we find an imbalance of Justice compared to the evil done.

So to me it is a denial of our reality to suggest ALL the wicked get everything they deserve before their death. Changing the subject to talk about what it means to be really "living" (which I agree) is not addressing my posted reply, which the above response was presumably directed toward since my post was quoted.

Realize too that in the same line of thinking, Christians may not always get everything they deserve in this life for their sins, especially un-forgiven sins (because we did not ask). So we have the same thought about extending the idea of balancing that injustice into the next life. For Catholics we call that Purgatory.

 

[claninja]

yes this is a UR claim. I do not see that claim based on Romans 9-11 consistent with what is written in the first 8 chapters.

Didn't know that was UR. Paul says all of Israel will be saved, but not all Gentiles. Unless we consider the fulness of gentiles to mean all gentiles?

Apples and oranges. My view we are all grapes (Jews and Gentiles=everyone), made with the same purpose and same choices.

The issue with your statement above is that we do NOT all get the same choices. Isaac was chosen over Ishmael and Jacob was chosen over Esau. Not based on works, but on Him who calls. God will have mercy on whomever he wills, regardless of works. Pharaoh's heart was hardened to magnify the power of God. Pharaoh had no choice in the matter, hence: He hardens whom he will, and the potter can mold the pot however he chooses. I do agree with you that we are all made with the same purpose: to glorify God. Hence whether the pot is made to be honorable or dishonorable, both glorify God. And you're right: definitely not apples and oranges. So we can say we are all grapes, but whether we are made into wine or raisins is ultimately up to God.

The view as presented is muddled in that many of the Israelites were declared righteous before Jesus day and initially most of the early Christian Church were converted Jews. So it is not like all Jews rejected God.

Not sure where you got many of Israelites were declared righteous before Jesus, but yea not all Jews rejected Christ. Paul literally says that in Romans 11:1-5. Paul himself is an Israelite. There is a REMNANT of Israel chosen by grace at the present time Paul is writing this. So no one is debating your statement above.

So I said, in that view the pot who has made poor choices in this life (whether experiencing fully the temporal punishment for those choices or not) has no ability or right to ask God why He made them that way. God did not make them wicked, they made themselves wicked. (we all do in fact and so our lives abhorrent to Him as CS Lewis points out in the Problem of Pain).

Ah, gotcha. That clears up what your saying. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. Your saying it's like a teenager who goes out and disobeys his parents and then gets upset at them when he/she gets punished for disobeying. Asking why he/she is getting punished would be a absurd question, as he/she clearly chose to disobey his/her parents rules. However, if the parents forced the teenager to commit the act of disobeying and then punished him/her for it, then the teenager would clearly have the right to ask why he/she was being punished. I would say that is a valid point if Paul was talking about eternal destinies of people post death.

But... Paul doesn't say it was the choice of the vessels. It is solely based on the choice of God. And we know this based on they way Paul words it. After He states that God will harden whom he will, Paul asks the rhetorical question, than how can God find fault, for who can resist His will? Paul's answer is that you don't get to ask that question. But he does go on to use an WHAT IF scenario: ie vessels of wrath/mercy

Why I lean toward my view, is that in the context of Romans 9-11, Paul gives us a possible answer as to why Israel would be a vessel of wrath. It is for the sake of the gentiles. This is clearly stated in Romans right after the part about the vessels of wrath/mercy in 9:24-29, and even more clearly in Romans 11.

IOW God creates them same as everyone else but in some manner forces them be bad during this lifetime to demonstrate something (unclear to me what God needs them to be bad for). Those people would have a right to ask Him why He chose them to be bad and not righteous like other people.

Well, Paul did say that God has consigned ALL to disobedience, so that he may have mercy on ALL. (romans 11:32).

So my point was the Roman's verses with the whole pot asking God why comments makes no sense in that view, because if I understood the point God did in fact make them do evil (hardens all the hearts) so He owes them an answer for why. It also rather begs the question for some of the lives of the wicked who seemingly suffer nothing like the lives of some of the righteous if at all.

If Romans 9 is talking about eternal destinies, it opens up another whole can of worms.
God knows who will believe and won't before he ever makes them, so why not make only believers? Why make people he knows who won't believe only to make them suffer for eternity for not believing? So that the believers know how merciful God is? Maybe, but it also makes God sound like a tyrant. But I guess God is God and can do whatever He pleases.
God sends rain to righteous and unrighteous. Bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people. We don't always know why. I would say that God suffered in human flesh more than any other human will. And if God suffered in human flesh, "righteous" people will also suffer.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Didn't know that was UR. Paul says all of Israel will be saved, but not all Gentiles. Unless we consider the fulness of gentiles to mean all gentiles?

No, I meant the UR idea we can take Scripture comments about "ALL" when taking about a race of people and attempt to make that a statement about specific individuals in that group. From the starting gate people like an Abraham, an Moses, an Elijah or an Enoch dispute the idea that everyone in that group was lost when that statement was made in the first century. Not to mention God depicting a dead Jew who was clearly not lost.
So in that context, ALL of Israel being "hardened" or lost to destruction is a general statement and cannot be a blanket statement covering each individual case.

The issue with your statement above is that we do NOT all get the same choices. Isaac was chosen over Ishmael and Jacob was chosen over Esau. Not based on works, but on Him who calls. God will have mercy on whomever he wills, regardless of works. Pharaoh's heart was hardened to magnify the power of God. Pharaoh had no choice in the matter, hence: He hardens whom he will, and the potter can mold the pot however he chooses. I do agree with you that we are all made with the same purpose: to glorify God. Hence whether the pot is made to be honorable or dishonorable, both glorify God. And you're right: definitely not apples and oranges. So we can say we are all grapes, but whether we are made into wine or raisins is ultimately up to God.

Non sequitur or misunderstanding what I meant by choices. The personal choices that matter have eternal consequence. Those are the choices we all have in common - to do or not do what we know is wrong. Being being selected for positions of honor are indeed special opportunities, but the choice that matters as individuals is what we do with the opportunities given. So I was not talking about everyone getting the same opportunities in life. Obviously that never happens, and often what does occur seems most unfair.
The wicked live and seemingly die very happy sometimes, while the righteous suffer. That has nothing to do with individual choices we make with eternal consequences.

Not sure where you got many of Israelites were declared righteous before Jesus, but yea not all Jews rejected Christ. Paul literally says that in Romans 11:1-5. Paul himself is an Israelite. There is a REMNANT of Israel chosen by grace at the present time Paul is writing this. So no one is debating your statement above.

We know of a handful that absolutely declared righteous. God gave a glimpse of their "existence" with two Jews aware of their state and also seemingly some awareness of the living in being able to express concern for the living. We see souls of the righteous dead walking around Jerusalem on a similar Friday long ago.
Most do not like to argue from omission, but I see no reason to restrict God to allowing any righteous individual the same treatment He is recorded showing a handful of Jews;Moses (less clear), definitely Elijah, Enoch and apparently Lazarus too. To imagine Him doing that and there never being any other individuals (Jewish or not) ever besides those few seems most odd. There must be more righteous people, and if the righteous are to be treated fairly, they should all be happy now wherever they are just as Lazarus was depicted in happy bliss.
Consider what is depicted is a sort of Paradise, a fitting place for the righteous dead, but it is not really Heaven - a place He said He was/is "preparing" for (essentially) all the righteous.

Ah, gotcha. That clears up what your saying. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. Your saying it's like a teenager who goes out and disobeys his parents and then gets upset at them when he/she gets punished for disobeying. Asking why he/she is getting punished would be a absurd question, as he/she clearly chose to disobey his/her parents rules. However, if the parents forced the teenager to commit the act of disobeying and then punished him/her for it, then the teenager would clearly have the right to ask why he/she was being punished. I would say that is a valid point if Paul was talking about eternal destinies of people post death.

OK so far.

But... Paul doesn't say it was the choice of the vessels. It is solely based on the choice of God. And we know this based on they way Paul words it. After He states that God will harden whom he will, Paul asks the rhetorical question, than how can God find fault, for who can resist His will? Paul's answer is that you don't get to ask that question. But he does go on to use an WHAT IF scenario: ie vessels of wrath/mercy

God's Will must mean whatever is, is. That does not mean everything that is, happens because He does it. He can choose (or not) to allow things to happen for instance. And this is in part the situation with Him deciding to create rational creatures designed to love, serve and know Him so He can share His Eternal Happiness with them, but properly allowing them the freedom to choose to do what they were made to do or not. So we can love God or not. The "not" must have consequences because it is rebelling against what He made us all to be. That rebellion must have consequence and the Bible repeatedly declares if we do not knock it off and straighten up (with respect to Him) in this life, the consequences of rebellion stretch into eternity.8

The Bible shows us the consequence - death - first as in a separation from God in this life but also showing us there is a chance to recover from this "death" during this life. Recover in a way that can then have a positive eternal outcome as opposed to the one mankind (as a whole) deserves for our rebellion -eternal separation from God - a second death. This chance the Bible shows us is necessary so that not all of us our lost so when we all each face Him individually in the next life to be Judged for this life, there is hope for a positive outcome. It is still our choices that matter. Choices He knows before He makes us we will or will not make and He makes us all anyway. Knowing the choices we would make, He made possible some assistance - through the application of His Grace on us (or not). It His choice to first give the selected (predestination) individual the gift of Faith, which begins a Christian walk in this life. Many of us believe we are still free to fatally (eternally) screw that gift up - throw the gift away in effect. The assistance He gives those He selects to persist in faith through this life (be the pot He made us to be) are in that sense predestined by Him for Heaven.

To me the whole idea of a pot facing the Maker and attempting to challenge the Maker for making him a pot only makes sense in a eternal/final judgement context. To make it temporal, as even you admit, it is God that makes the pot rebel. So we have what we consider Good acting not Good, and that most of us cannot abide. God never helping someone that will never choose to be a pot is simply allowing the pot to be what it has rather persistently willed itself to be - which means in rebellion to the what the Maker made him. And the final judgement is then just leaving said pot in that state. So the pot has no cause to ask why, since it was his own choices that left Him in rebellion and God is at that moment saying fine, stay that way forever more.
Alternatively if the same pot were forced by God to be wicked, the why is a very valid question, especially considering God is suppose to be Good.
As to Paul not mentioning choices in chapters 9 and 11 when in the opening of this letter he clearly says men must be taught to honor God, that God's Power brings men to believe (application of faith to whom He Will), that the "knowledge" of Him is clear to ALL of us (goes to the our common purpose for existing)so NO ONE, no pot has an excuse of ignorance, that God cannot err in Judgement on those pots, the idea the pot cannot escape His Judgement, with every one getting the Judgement they deserve;which is only offered according to same writer two opposing fates. Either eternal life for those pots persevering in being a pot, or experiencing God's anger for not doing that.
So, no Paul does not need to mention choices again in chapter 9 & 11 when he clearly mentions those choices already in the opening of his letter.

Why I lean toward my view, is that in the context of Romans 9-11, Paul gives us a possible answer as to why Israel would be a vessel of wrath. It is for the sake of the gentiles. This is clearly stated in Romans right after the part about the vessels of wrath/mercy in 9:24-29, and even more clearly in Romans 11.

Again, statements same writer made in first 8 chapters are inconsistent with this rendering of 9 & 11. Besides here again the writer is making general statements about two whole groups of people. Rather obviously I would think, that if we imagine all of Israel turning and remaining faithful pots when they left Egypt, am not sure we want to imagine a Good, Just or Loving God leaving all other humans in the ditch. God is our Maker, just as He is the Maker of His "Chosen" people, Israel - and that is a collective honor - not an individual honor. That it is not an individual special honor as in exception, is most obvious with the rich Jewish man in God's depiction suffering in the next life. So if that man is a vessel of wrath, then he obviously is still now a vessel of wrath and being that vessel in this life has eternal consequence for him, a Jew.
So as a people, they do apparently have a special honor the rest of us do not. Not the least of which is producing the Savior of Mankind. So no, the RCC does not take that honor away from the Israelite.

And having a chosen people to facilitate His Purpose of giving ALL of mankind a way out of our individual (not collective) position does not negate the fact all of us are called in the next life to stand before Him and give account for this life - ending with Judgement to one of two final fates. Fates that are in part already put in motion as soon as we die(see Lazarus and rich man, Moses, Elijah, Enoch, those walking around Jerusalem similar Friday as today long ago, or those in Saint John's vision)

Well, Paul did say that God has consigned ALL to disobedience, so that he may have mercy on ALL. (romans 11:32).

Correct, at least to the extent we are all born with the tendency to disobey, which we inherit from our parents - who get there tendency---->back to Adam who was not originally made that way but freely chose to make himself that way. Corrupting his nature and by that corruption our tendency. So yeah, the idea in brevity that Saint Paul is said to express is we all disobey, and God offers an out to everyone. If we did not all disobey, then he would not need to show Mercy on everyone.
Sort of "duh" and along with the idea the same offer of salvation is made for everyone, but not everyone will accept that gift. Those rejecting are predestined for being withheld the glory those who will accept will receive - and it is an eternal glory. That withholding is then the opposite eternal damnation.

If Romans 9 is talking about eternal destinies, it opens up another whole can of worms.
God knows who will believe and won't before he ever makes them, so why not make only believers? Why make people he knows who won't believe only to make them suffer for eternity for not believing? So that the believers know how merciful God is? Maybe, but it also makes God sound like a tyrant. But I guess God is God and can do whatever He pleases.

Good questions. And we should expect if this were indeed a "can of worms" someone long ago would have noticed. To me the best explanation is given in the words CS Lewis, which to cheat by cherry picking who He decides to make is rewriting the rules to manufacture a work around for Himself - which seems beneath him -sort of like Capt Kirk cheating by reprogramming the unbeatable scenario as cadet at Starfleet academy so that he had a way out whereas the lesson was suppose to be how to face (and probably recover from) defeat. God would not be facing the issue He creates by choosing to give us free will. And He certainly does not need help recovering from our screwups, not just because He cannot fail, but our failures are our own and of no consequence to Him.

God sends rain to righteous and unrighteous. Bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people. We don't always know why. I would say that God suffered in human flesh more than any other human will. And if God suffered in human flesh, "righteous" people will also suffer.

But the point as it relates to the pot that NEVER wants to be a pot, would be the suffering such a vessel of wrath may (or often not) experience in this life does account for, in Saint Paul's own words in the opening of Romans, everything they deserve. Since a single sin deserves separation from God, in a sense a death for a creature made to love, serve and know God. So am unclear how to imagine God giving everyone an individual life line to use in this life only to recover from that death caused by our sins and escape being left eternally in that separation (2nd death). Then claim He turns around and just gives same escape in the next life to those who refused His Gift of Mercy for/to them in this life.

 

[HighwayMan]

It is actually the wrong way to look at the situation. We all have the same choices. God knows the choices we will all make. He knows before He makes us who will respond in faith to His call. He gives those the Gift of Grace for that faith to be nurtured and it can endure for some of those to a positive eternal outcome (or not in the belief of some Christians). We are all born in a state that is hostile to a positive eternal outcome, so those who do not endure or will never respond in this life remain by their own choice in direct rebellion when they die.
The paradox is imaginary as it results as soon as our Creator decides to make rational creatures with the freedom to not choose to be what he made them to be. Not from His Creative act, but from the creative acts of those creatures - in willfully attempting of the making themselves something they are not. The punish of the reprobate then is giving them what they desired most in this life - their will be done - not His. And leaving them to that, essentially alone, is imagined a large part of what creates their eternal suffering. It is an eternal deprivation of what would otherwise be their eternal happiness and glory.

So a person that will never choose God is putting himself in the fryer so to speak when this life is over. The criminal before the judge does not get to say, you made me this way how can you sentence me - because the criminal freely chose to be that way - which is what they are being sentenced for.

But neither options work.

If you say some people are born hard-wired to fail and go to hell....then any "choice" they have in life is not real. You cannot both be designed to do something, and then be "guilty" for doing exactly that thing you are designed for. Anymore than you can be "guilty" of being right-handed.

But if people are not hard-wired, and some people choose one path in life, and others another...then it is society and the environment they are born in that has influenced them to make whatever choices they make. It is factors beyond themselves that are responsible for their choices. While it would be tempting to say "no, I came from a rough background too, but I didn't do this or that" - that ignores the deep complexities of human psychology.

If we all came into the world with a blank slate, then it is the world that writes our story. If not, then we were damned/saved from the beginning, and there's nothing we could have done about that.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

But neither options work.

If you say some people are born hard-wired to fail and go to hell....then any "choice" they have in life is not real. You cannot both be designed to do something, and then be "guilty" for doing exactly that thing you are designed for. Anymore than you can be "guilty" of being right-handed.

But if people are not hard-wired, and some people choose one path in life, and others another...then it is society and the environment they are born in that has influenced them to make whatever choices they make. It is factors beyond themselves that are responsible for their choices. While it would be tempting to say "no, I came from a rough background too, but I didn't do this or that" - that ignores the deep complexities of human psychology.

If we all came into the world with a blank slate, then it is the world that writes our story. If not, then we were damned/saved from the beginning, and there's nothing we could have done about that.

One of the options was apparently not understood and what is being expressed goes much further than what I said - to something rather like a Calvinistic view of negative reprobation, which is a very modern view compared to the Church's teaching on predestination. Also a view condemned by the Church not long after Calvin first proposed the idea (and yes for any Calvinist reading this some claim Calvin was misunderstood on this point - none the less the condemned idea persists among some Christians today).

In a sense though you are correct, we are all "wired to fail" because of our inherited fallen nature from Adam. So it is correct to say absent Supernatural intervention in our life, we would all be destined for Hell. That nature is identical in all of us, and we are all designed for the same purpose. So being "predestined" for damnation is not an issue of being intentionally wired wrong compared to everyone else. And in at least one (if not all???) acceptable Catholic form of predestination (there are several) regarding the fate of the wicked, it is not really a predestination to damnation, but a withholding of the glory we were all made to be/share in. Subtle but it is the difference suggested when we say no matter what God does to get someone's attention in this life, they reject His Gift anyway compared to imagining God just saying "eeny meeny miny Hell" before He creates us.

We are all born destined for damnation unless we individually accept a free gift of Grace from God (and in the view of many Christians - hold to it, nourish it, grow in it and protect that precious gift). God knowing who will do that and who will not, is true but this changes nothing. Some have tried to suggest God could have only made those that would accept His Gift of Love during this lifetime.

The only sort of love worthy of being desired is one that is given freely. Given a desire to make creatures with free will the potential to reject what they were made to be out of foolish pride must be allowed or else those creatures were never truly free at all in that regard. The fact God not only knew some would (not all) need not be considered a detriment, since rather obviously He made us (and the angels) this way. Were this a real determent to Perfection (or to any of His Attributes) and considering the only thing God does is Perfection, then He would not have made any of us or the angels this way and instead made us some other way.

 

[claninja]

No, I meant the UR idea we can take Scripture comments about "ALL" when taking about a race of people and attempt to make that a statement about specific individuals in that group. From the starting gate people like an Abraham, an Moses, an Elijah or an Enoch dispute the idea that everyone in that group was lost when that statement was made in the first century. Not to mention God depicting a dead Jew who was clearly not lost.
So in that context, ALL of Israel being "hardened" or lost to destruction is a general statement and cannot be a blanket statement covering each individual case.

Paul does not say ALL of Israel was hardened. Romans 11:1-5, a REMNANT of Israel according to the election of grace remained. Remnant: a small quantity remaining. So just like in the days of Elijah, God kept himself a small remnant of Israel for himself and hardened the majority.

And why were they hardened? For the sake of the gentiles. And will the hardening last forever? No, as ALL Israel will be saved.

You will argue for non individual basis and some may argue individual basis. But what can't be argued is that ALL of Israel as a nation WILL be saved.

Non sequitur or misunderstanding what I meant by choices. The personal choices that matter have eternal consequence. Those are the choices we all have in common - to do or not do what we know is wrong. Being being selected for positions of honor are indeed special opportunities, but the choice that matters as individuals is what we do with the opportunities given. So I was not talking about everyone getting the same opportunities in life. Obviously that never happens, and often what does occur seems most unfair.
The wicked live and seemingly die very happy sometimes, while the righteous suffer. That has nothing to do with individual choices we make with eternal consequences.

So the people who never heard about Jesus, suffer eternal consequences for a choice they never had?

We know of a handful that absolutely declared righteous. God gave a glimpse of their "existence" with two Jews aware of their state and also seemingly some awareness of the living in being able to express concern for the living. We see souls of the righteous dead walking around Jerusalem on a similar Friday long ago.
Most do not like to argue from omission, but I see no reason to restrict God to allowing any righteous individual the same treatment He is recorded showing a handful of Jews;Moses (less clear), definitely Elijah, Enoch and apparently Lazarus too. To imagine Him doing that and there never being any other individuals (Jewish or not) ever besides those few seems most odd. There must be more righteous people, and if the righteous are to be treated fairly, they should all be happy now wherever they are just as Lazarus was depicted in happy bliss.
Consider what is depicted is a sort of Paradise, a fitting place for the righteous dead, but it is not really Heaven - a place He said He was/is "preparing" for (essentially) all the righteous.

With the exception of Lazarus and the rich man being a factual event and not a parable (another discussion for another thread), I agree with you.

God's Will must mean whatever is, is. That does not mean everything that is, happens because He does it. He can choose (or not) to allow things to happen for instance. And this is in part the situation with Him deciding to create rational creatures designed to love, serve and know Him so He can share His Eternal Happiness with them, but properly allowing them the freedom to choose to do what they were made to do or not. So we can love God or not. The "not" must have consequences because it is rebelling against what He made us all to be. That rebellion must have consequence and the Bible repeatedly declares if we do not knock it off and straighten up (with respect to Him) in this life, the consequences of rebellion stretch into eternity.

Free will or choice doesn't really matter if God knows your eternal destiny before he makes you.

To me the whole idea of a pot facing the Maker and attempting to challenge the Maker for making him a pot only makes sense in a eternal/final judgement context. To make it temporal, as even you admit, it is God that makes the pot rebel.
So we have what we consider Good acting not Good, and that most of us cannot abide. God never helping someone that will never choose to be a pot is simply allowing the pot to be what it has rather persistently willed itself to be - which means in rebellion to the what the Maker made him. And the final judgement is then just leaving said pot in that state. So the pot has no cause to ask why, since it was his own choices that left Him in rebellion and God is at that moment saying fine, stay that way forever more.
Alternatively if the same pot were forced by God to be wicked, the why is a very valid question, especially considering God is suppose to be Good.

So you are saying:

God knows if pre-created human will go to hell. God creates said human knowing it will suffer in hell for eternity. God is good.

God knows pre-created will go to heaven. God creates said human as temporal vessel of wrath on earth. God is not good.

I would say:
Again, free will doesn't really matter if God knows the person's eternal destiny before he makes them.

But again I'm not arguing for against heaven/hell, I'm only saying Romans 9-11 is most likely talking about Israel and gentiles and trying to explain to his fellow jews why the majority of Israel does not believe in Christ. And also telling the gentiles not be too proud about this.

As to Paul not mentioning choices in chapters 9 and 11 when in the opening of this letter he clearly says men must be taught to honor God, that God's Power brings men to believe (application of faith to whom He Will), that the "knowledge" of Him is clear to ALL of us (goes to the our common purpose for existing)so NO ONE, no pot has an excuse of ignorance, that God cannot err in Judgement on those pots, the idea the pot cannot escape His Judgement, with every one getting the Judgement they deserve;which is only offered according to same writer two opposing fates. Either eternal life for those pots persevering in being a pot, or experiencing God's anger for not doing that.
So, no Paul does not need to mention choices again in chapter 9 & 11 when he clearly mentions those choices already in the opening of his letter.

That there is a God who created us is clear through his visible creation. We have no excuse for that. However, No one knows that you have to specifically believe in Jesus and are saved by his death and resurrection, unless they HEAR the good news.

Now, if you can show me where I can find the words eternal hell, and not just judgement or death, in romans 1-8, that would be wonderful.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Paul does not say ALL of Israel was hardened. Romans 11:1-5, a REMNANT of Israel according to the election of grace remained. Remnant: a small quantity remaining. So just like in the days of Elijah, God kept himself a small remnant of Israel for himself and hardened the majority.

And why were they hardened? For the sake of the gentiles. And will the hardening last forever? No, as ALL Israel will be saved.

You will argue for non individual basis and some may argue individual basis. But what can't be argued is that ALL of Israel as a nation WILL be saved.

Well agree to disagree that Jesus showed a dead, rich Jewish man suffering in the next life. That suffering juxtaposed with Lazarus' happy bliss. I cannot fathom any context, fairy tail or real, where that depiction of the rich man is of a "saved" individual in the next life.

So the people who never heard about Jesus, suffer eternal consequences for a choice they never had?

No, unlike a lot of Protestants, Catholics believe we could see people like Genghis Khan or a Tecumseh of the Shawnee in Heaven. The whole point of saying we are created equal in God's eyes is that He gives all our natures the same purpose - love, serve and know God. In the pagan view/mind that may come up short as "know Good", but in a Catholic view at least that is the same thing. God=Good (absolute).

With the exception of Lazarus and the rich man being a factual event and not a parable (another discussion for another thread), I agree with you.

Again, whether factual setting or an imaginary setting, God never gave an "unreal" setting as background for a parable. So even in an imaginary setting the only way to view those two dead men in God's eyes, would be one was judged having a righteous life, the other not (and they are both Jews) with experiencing the afterlife those lives deserved.

Free will or choice doesn't really matter if God knows your eternal destiny before he makes you.

It matters a great deal.
Look at what Abraham was asked to freely choose to do. God knew whether Abraham would do what he was asked to do or not, so it was not a test of Abraham's faith by God. It was a lesson for Abraham about his doubts, his faith in God. Most of us could not imagine Abraham wanting to do that, so starting out on that journey and since being told of it, we sense he did not think himself capable of trusting God that much - he did not know if he could do the one thing God asked him to do. IOW he did not know he could possibly trust God that much.
So God showed Abraham that he could trust God implicitly. So here we see a case where God's Perfect Knowledge of what Abraham would do, did not matter because the event was meant for Abraham's benefit, not God's. The realization changed Abraham's life, not God's knowledge that he would do as he was asked. So God's knowledge did not matter to Abraham, it was Abraham's choice to trust God that mattered to Abraham's life.

So you are saying:

God knows if pre-created human will go to hell. God creates said human knowing it will suffer in hell for eternity. God is good.

God knows pre-created will go to heaven. God creates said human as temporal vessel of wrath on earth. God is not good.

No, at least that is not my understanding or what I meant to type if that was actually said. Wrath or Mercy. Look at it from God's view.
He made man to share in His Eternal Happiness. So we are all made that way. He also gave us free will, so He knows we do not have to live like we know we should. IOW we do not have to love Him. That life laid out before Him does not end with our death - it goes on - the only way being made to share in something Eternal makes sense is that our lives go on. So only in that sense and with God's Knowledge of all our choices, can He view our life as having a destination known to Him. So He makes us all the same anyway, with the knowledge of where our choices will lead each of us.
So He is making vessels. Some for Mercy (only because He knows where their choices lead) and some for Wrath (ditto). The vessels are still all the same "model" - in His Image, made for the purpose to love, serve and know Good, while also free not reflect that Image.

I would say:
Again, free will doesn't really matter if God knows the person's eternal destiny before he makes them.

But again I'm not arguing for against heaven/hell, I'm only saying Romans 9-11 is most likely talking about Israel and gentiles and trying to explain to his fellow jews why the majority of Israel does not believe in Christ. And also telling the gentiles not be too proud about this.

Having free will would matter to God as the only type of love worth having would be one given freely. So freely choosing to love God is what can make us lovable to God, as an object of His love with which He can be well pleased. And that as opposed to not being well pleased (again because of choices). So Mercy and Wrath are the required, and appropriate response to our life in total.
I see no Godly sense of claiming God makes people wicked so He can prove some point. We make our selves wicked and only He can fix that to make us worthy objects of His love again, the way He made all of us to be - as pleasing to Him.

That there is a God who created us is clear through his visible creation. We have no excuse for that. However, No one knows that you have to specifically believe in Jesus and are saved by his death and resurrection, unless they HEAR the good news.

I cannot fathom a God that would make us all the same and then condemn some of humanity simply because of timing/location of their birth. That is why I keep talking about how the idea of "His law" written on all humanities hearts, meaning part of our nature, allows people to make the same choices I can. Less informed choices, sure. But because He has made all of humanity to love, know and serve Good, those in ignorance are still made to do just that. So they know right/wrong - and just like us do wrong anyway. Because they know, they can also be heartily sorry for violating their nature. Their ignorance of the Good News then need not be held against them.
Same idea pre-Resurrection. While the entire OT is more Israelite focused, even there we get the hint that God is reaching out to and will offer all of mankind a way out of our "death" which in a spiritual sense is our choices that separate ourselves from pleasing Him and being worthy as objects (all of us) of His Love. So in the history of mankind pre-Ressurrection, it is not only Jews going to Paradise when they die - it would be any person whose life God could be "well pleased" with. This why you will see Catholics speak of Catholic "sections" (metaphorically) of Hell and atheist, pagan, agnostic sections of Heaven. Our labels as Christians are not viewed as making our total life in the only balance that matters - pleasing to God.
So for example, if I in rational mind and with willful intent maliciously slaughter people before taking my own life, it can hardly be said that on the balance my life would be pleasing to God. And that would be true no matter if all of my prior life was as Saintly as any human can be and no matter what I called myself (Baptist, pagan, Catholic, agnostic, Hindu....)

Now, if you can show me where I can find the words eternal hell, and not just judgement or death, in romans 1-8, that would be wonderful.

I did already, they weren't viewed the way ancient Christians would view them.

"The knowledge of God is clear to their minds; God himself has made it clear to them; from the foundations of the world men have caught sight of his invisible nature, his eternal power and his divineness, as they are known through his creatures. Thus there is no excuse for them;"
​

I would say having no excuse does not mean none of those never hearing the Good news lived a life pleasing to God. The OT mentions several Jewish men that did. Surely there were others among the Jews too that did so, as we obviously see many more than the handful of names we know about walking around Jerusalem a while ago on a day similar to this past Friday. Those people have to be understood as having lived a life pleasing to God. If they could do and one believes God made us all to love, serve and know Him, then am unclear why we should assume no one else could do what they obviously did without ever hearing the Good News - which means there would be others besides Jews who lived lives pleasing to God.

 

[claninja]

No, unlike a lot of Protestants, Catholics believe we could see people like Genghis Khan or a Tecumseh of the Shawnee in Heaven. The whole point of saying we are created equal in God's eyes is that He gives all our natures the same purpose - love, serve and know God. In the pagan view/mind that may come up short as "know Good", but in a Catholic view at least that is the same thing. God=Good (absolute).

John 3:16 "for God so loved the world that he gave his one any only son, that whosever may believe in him will not perish, but have eternal life"

So you don't have to believe in Jesus to have eternal life?

Again, whether factual setting or an imaginary setting, God never gave an "unreal" setting as background for a parable. So even in an imaginary setting the only way to view those two dead men in God's eyes, would be one was judged having a righteous life, the other not (and they are both Jews) with experiencing the afterlife those lives deserved.

The parables are representative stories about the kingdom heaven used to confuse the people of Israel who have not been given ears to hear. This parable was directed at the Pharisees. Jesus isn't literally plant seed, people aren't literally wheat, tares, sheep, or goats.

It matters a great deal.
Look at what Abraham was asked to freely choose to do. God knew whether Abraham would do what he was asked to do or not, so it was not a test of Abraham's faith by God. It was a lesson for Abraham about his doubts, his faith in God. Most of us could not imagine Abraham wanting to do that, so starting out on that journey and since being told of it, we sense he did not think himself capable of trusting God that much - he did not know if he could do the one thing God asked him to do. IOW he did not know he could possibly trust God that much.
So God showed Abraham that he could trust God implicitly. So here we see a case where God's Perfect Knowledge of what Abraham would do, did not matter because the event was meant for Abraham's benefit, not God's. The realization changed Abraham's life, not God's knowledge that he would do as he was asked. So God's knowledge did not matter to Abraham, it was Abraham's choice to trust God that mattered to Abraham's life.

But God knew Abraham would trust before he made him.

So God knew pre created Abraham would choose God and eventually go to heaven. Then God creates Abraham. Therefore God created Abraham for heaven.

That works pretty nice for Abraham, but not so much for the vessel of wrath who suffer eternally.
But God is God and if he makes people to burn for eternity for his glory, he has the right I guess.

No, at least that is not my understanding or what I meant to type if that was actually said. Wrath or Mercy. Look at it from God's view.
He made man to share in His Eternal Happiness. So we are all made that way. He also gave us free will, so He knows we do not have to live like we know we should. IOW we do not have to love Him. That life laid out before Him does not end with our death - it goes on - the only way being made to share in something Eternal makes sense is that our lives go on. So only in that sense and with God's Knowledge of all our choices, can He view our life as having a destination known to Him. So He makes us all the same anyway, with the knowledge of where our choices will lead each of us.
So He is making vessels. Some for Mercy (only because He knows where their choices lead) and some for Wrath (ditto). The vessels are still all the same "model" - in His Image, made for the purpose to love, serve and know Good, while also free not reflect that Image.

Only if it were that easy to say "free will". However, many scholars much smarter than us have debated this for a very, very long time with no concrete outcome.

"So only in that sense and with God's Knowledge of all our choices, can He view our life as having a destination known to Him. So He makes us all the same anyway, with the knowledge of where our choices will lead each of us."

So you are saying that God knows a pre created man will make wrong choices and burn for eternity, then God creates said man. Therefore God created that said man for eternal hell as a vessel of wrath.

Again, IN THE CONTEXT of Romans 9, the vessels of wrath and mercy DON'T have a choice. They are specifically made the way they are. The pot is not a vessel of wrath because it "chooses" to be, but because God makes it that way. Hence the rhetorical question, how can God find fault? That question would not be asked if the vessel had made itself for wrath. Paul would have said 'Duh' your a vessel of wrath because you as the pot molded yourself for dishonor.

I see no Godly sense of claiming God makes people wicked so He can prove some point. We make our selves wicked and only He can fix that to make us worthy objects of His love again, the way He made all of us to be - as pleasing to Him.

It literally says in Romans 9:22-24" WHAT IF God desiring to show his wrath and make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy: US WHOM HE HAS CALLED, NOT ONLY FROM THE JEWS (REMNANT OF ISRAEL CHOSEN BY GRACE MENIONED IN ROMANS 11) BUT ALSO FROM THE GENTILES

There is the point.

I cannot fathom a God that would make us all the same and then condemn some of humanity simply because of timing/location of their birth. That is why I keep talking about how the idea of "His law" written on all humanities hearts, meaning part of our nature, allows people to make the same choices I can. Less informed choices, sure. But because He has made all of humanity to love, know and serve Good, those in ignorance are still made to do just that. So they know right/wrong - and just like us do wrong anyway. Because they know, they can also be heartily sorry for violating their nature. Their ignorance of the Good News then need not be held against them.
Same idea pre-Resurrection. While the entire OT is more Israelite focused, even there we get the hint that God is reaching out to and will offer all of mankind a way out of our "death" which in a spiritual sense is our choices that separate ourselves from pleasing Him and being worthy as objects (all of us) of His Love. So in the history of mankind pre-Ressurrection, it is not only Jews going to Paradise when they die - it would be any person whose life God could be "well pleased" with. This why you will see Catholics speak of Catholic "sections" (metaphorically) of Hell and atheist, pagan, agnostic sections of Heaven. Our labels as Christians are not viewed as making our total life in the only balance that matters - pleasing to God.

So we earn our way to heaven with good choices? Isn't that what the Pharisees tried to do?
Muslims know there is a God and do good works to get to heaven. Do Muslims go to heaven?

Pre-resurrected Jews going to paradise? Hebrews 11:39 "and all these (Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, moses, judges), though commended for their faith, did not received what was promised-since God has provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect."


[

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Now, if you can show me where I can find the words eternal hell, and not just judgement or death, in romans 1-8, that would be wonderful.

If we do not get "eternal life" then the loss rather demands another eternity or at least something other than what imagines 'eternal life' to be. I see no point of speaking of someone saved or destined for glory unless Saint Paul meant for that to mean in the next life eternally life, likewise those not so destined meant eternally the loss of whatever one thinks "eternal life" means and so not saved.

Rom 1
17 The knowledge of God is clear to their minds; God himself has made it clear to them; from the foundations of the world men have caught sight of his invisible nature, his eternal power and his divineness, as they are known through his creatures.

Rom 2:6-10
6 He will award to every man what his acts have deserved; eternal life to those who have striven for glory, and honour, and immortality, by perseverance in doing good; the retribution of his anger to those who are contumacious, rebelling against truth and paying homage to wickedness.

9 There will be affliction then and distress for every human soul that has practiced wickedness, the Jew in the first instance, but the Gentile too; 10 there will be glory and honour and peace for everyone who has done good, the Jew in the first instance, but the Gentile too
​

Since the object of His mercy is associated with a reward of "eternal life", it can only be that Saint Paul associates God's Wrath with an actual fate opposed to the ones He has Mercy on. So God's Mercy and Wrath are associated with two opposing fates in the next life, "eternal life" (glory, honor, and immortality) and the deprivation of all that.

Rom 6
22 Now that you are free from the claims of sin, and have become God’s slaves instead, you have a harvest in your sanctification, and your reward is eternal life. 23 Sin offers death, for wages; God offers us eternal life as a free gift, through Christ Jesus our Lord.

Rom 9
22 It may be that God has borne, long and patiently, with those who are the objects of his vengeance, fit only for destruction, meaning to give proof of that vengeance, and display his power at last;[9] 23 meaning also to display, in those who are the objects of his mercy, how rich is the glory he bestows, that glory for which he has destined them.[10] 24 We are the objects of his mercy; we, whom he has called, Jews and Gentiles alike.​

{10} IS 65:1 KJV I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found of them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name.
​

13:1-3
1 Every soul must be submissive to its lawful superiors; authority comes from God only, and all authorities that hold sway are of his ordinance. 2 Thus the man who opposes authority is a rebel against the ordinance of God, and rebels secure their own condemnation. 3 A good conscience has no need to go in fear of the magistrate, as a bad conscience does. If thou wouldst be free from the fear of authority, do right, and thou shalt win its approval; 4 the magistrate is God’s minister, working for thy good. Only if thou dost wrong, needst thou be afraid; it is not for nothing that he bears the sword; he is God’s minister still, to inflict punishment on the wrong-doer.
​

 

[claninja]

If we do not get "eternal life" then the loss rather demands another eternity or at least something other than what imagines 'eternal life' to be. I see no point of speaking of someone saved or destined for glory unless Saint Paul meant for that to mean in the next life eternally life, likewise those not so destined meant eternally the loss of whatever one thinks "eternal life" means and so not saved.

Rom 1
17 The knowledge of God is clear to their minds; God himself has made it clear to them; from the foundations of the world men have caught sight of his invisible nature, his eternal power and his divineness, as they are known through his creatures.

Rom 2:6-10
6 He will award to every man what his acts have deserved; eternal life to those who have striven for glory, and honour, and immortality, by perseverance in doing good; the retribution of his anger to those who are contumacious, rebelling against truth and paying homage to wickedness.

9 There will be affliction then and distress for every human soul that has practiced wickedness, the Jew in the first instance, but the Gentile too; 10 there will be glory and honour and peace for everyone who has done good, the Jew in the first instance, but the Gentile too
​

Since the object of His mercy is associated with a reward of "eternal life", it can only be that Saint Paul associates God's Wrath with an actual fate opposed to the ones He has Mercy on. So God's Mercy and Wrath are associated with two opposing fates in the next life, "eternal life" (glory, honor, and immortality) and the deprivation of all that.

Rom 6
22 Now that you are free from the claims of sin, and have become God’s slaves instead, you have a harvest in your sanctification, and your reward is eternal life. 23 Sin offers death, for wages; God offers us eternal life as a free gift, through Christ Jesus our Lord.

Rom 9
22 It may be that God has borne, long and patiently, with those who are the objects of his vengeance, fit only for destruction, meaning to give proof of that vengeance, and display his power at last;[9] 23 meaning also to display, in those who are the objects of his mercy, how rich is the glory he bestows, that glory for which he has destined them.[10] 24 We are the objects of his mercy; we, whom he has called, Jews and Gentiles alike.

{10} IS 65:1 KJV I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found of them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name.
​

13:1-3
1 Every soul must be submissive to its lawful superiors; authority comes from God only, and all authorities that hold sway are of his ordinance. 2 Thus the man who opposes authority is a rebel against the ordinance of God, and rebels secure their own condemnation. 3 A good conscience has no need to go in fear of the magistrate, as a bad conscience does. If thou wouldst be free from the fear of authority, do right, and thou shalt win its approval; 4 the magistrate is God’s minister, working for thy good. Only if thou dost wrong, needst thou be afraid; it is not for nothing that he bears the sword; he is God’s minister still, to inflict punishment on the wrong-doer.​

Tha begs the question, what is eternal life?

If a man has a beginning. How can he obtain that which has no beginning or end?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Tha begs the question, what is eternal life?

If a man has a beginning. How can he obtain that which has no beginning or end?

Saying He made made to share in His Eternal Happiness means we were created (made) to live happy in serving, knowing and loving Him without end (eternal). Most theologians associate "consumption" of Jesus for Adam's immortality before being denied access to that Tree and therefore loss of immortality. Am very much OK with that idea of Christ's Body being a supernatural spiritual food for us.

To be created takes care of the other end of infinity. Thanks for playing.

 

[claninja]

Saying He made made to share in His Eternal Happiness means we were created (made) to live happy in serving, knowing and loving Him without end (eternal). Most theologians associate "consumption" of Jesus for Adam's immortality before being denied access to that Tree and therefore loss of immortality. Am very much OK with that idea of Christ's Body being a supernatural spiritual food for us.

To be created takes care of the other end of infinity. Thanks for playing.

interesting answer. Thank you. I was just curious on your thought about that. Didn't know I was playing a game, what's my consolation prize

 

[DrBubbaLove]

John 3:16 "for God so loved the world that he gave his one any only son, that whosever may believe in him will not perish, but have eternal life"

So you don't have to believe in Jesus to have eternal life?

I do.
Am unclear who I should think I am, to say I can deny that someone who had never heard of Jesus could be deemed righteous in God's eye because of the life they led here. After all Saint Paul says no man has an excuse for not living righteously.

The parables are representative stories about the kingdom heaven used to confuse the people of Israel who have not been given ears to hear. This parable was directed at the Pharisees. Jesus isn't literally plant seed, people aren't literally wheat, tares, sheep, or goats.

And all the parables are presented with REAL setting from this reality (except this one according to you). So God can lie about reality to keep people confused. Interesting view of God and His Love for all of mankind.

But God knew Abraham would trust before he made him.

Exactly so. However up until that moment, Abraham did not believe he could trust God that much.

So God knew pre created Abraham would choose God and eventually go to heaven. Then God creates Abraham. Therefore God created Abraham for heaven.

Did God's knowledge that Abraham would trust Him create the trust in Abraham or was it the demonstration God asked for?
In context, God made Heaven for all mankind. The place the wicked "go" to was made for no man (sheep and goats).

"You will remember that in the parable, the saved go to a place prepared for them, while the damned go to a place never made for men at all. To enter heaven is to become more human than you ever succeeded in being in earth; to enter hell, is to be banished from humanity.
What is cast (or casts itself) into hell is not a man: it is "remains". To be a complete man means to have the passions obedient to the will and the will offered to God: to have been a man - to be an ex-man or "damned ghost" - would presumably mean to consist of a will utterly centred in its self and passions utterly uncontrolled by the will. It is, of course, impossible to imagine what the consciousness of such a creature - already a loose congeries of mutually antagonistic sins rather than a sinner would be like." C.S. Lewis - the Problem of Pain
​

That works pretty nice for Abraham, but not so much for the vessel of wrath who suffer eternally.
But God is God and if he makes people to burn for eternity for his glory, he has the right I guess.

I like the idea that God leaves the damned to themselves, after all their will be done was their utmost desire in this life. The deprivation of eternally being what one was meant to be has to be more than just a bummer to the damned. Much, much more. Facing an eternity with no purpose other than self service - has to be devastating. So we need to not imagine God stoking coals to bring about their self destruction as humans.

I think burning and fire are imagery meant to reflect the most painful experience humans can imagine, burning alive and that never stopping. Whether whatever Hell really is never stops or not, it was not the place any human was made to be in. Heaven is where we are all made to be. Hell would be the deprivation of that.

Only if it were that easy to say "free will". However, many scholars much smarter than us have debated this for a very, very long time with no concrete outcome.

"So only in that sense and with God's Knowledge of all our choices, can He view our life as having a destination known to Him. So He makes us all the same anyway, with the knowledge of where our choices will lead each of us."

So you are saying that God knows a pre created man will make wrong choices and burn for eternity, then God creates said man. Therefore God created that said man for eternal hell as a vessel of wrath.

Am not sure what is hard about the idea that the only love worth having would be love freely given. We know this to be true ourselves, surely God must know this too. The only way to avoid having free will creatures rebel, is to cheat as you suggest and God only make those free will creatures He already knows will not leave this life in rebellion. Problem (1)- God's knowledge of human lives presumes He actually made said creatures able to rebel rather than just dreamed it. (2) His Knowledge being used as a sort of retroactive abortion for creatures persisting in rebellion in this life, that is beneath, unworthy of the Who we imagine God to be.

Again, IN THE CONTEXT of Romans 9, the vessels of wrath and mercy DON'T have a choice. They are specifically made the way they are. The pot is not a vessel of wrath because it "chooses" to be, but because God makes it that way. Hence the rhetorical question, how can God find fault? That question would not be asked if the vessel had made itself for wrath. Paul would have said 'Duh' your a vessel of wrath because you as the pot molded yourself for dishonor.

In the context of the rest of Saint Paul Romans letter am unclear how to draw these conclusions. He specifically says those Judged righteous upon leaving this life are rewarded in with eternal life as a human - eternal life cannot be talking about some temporary aspect of this life. Likewise Saint Paul contrasts that reward of eternal life against what the wicked "deserve" for their "deeds" in this life - God's Wrath. Since reward of eternal life for the righteous is contrasted with God's Wrath on the wicked, am unclear how to conclude Saint Paul is just talking about a temporary state with God in this life.

It literally says in Romans 9:22-24" WHAT IF God desiring to show his wrath and make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy: US WHOM HE HAS CALLED, NOT ONLY FROM THE JEWS (REMNANT OF ISRAEL CHOSEN BY GRACE MENIONED IN ROMANS 11) BUT ALSO FROM THE GENTILES

And Saint Paul literally says in the openning of same letter:

"He will award to every man what his acts have deserved; eternal life to those who have striven for glory, and honour, and immortality, by perseverance in doing good; the retribution of his anger to those who are contumacious, rebelling against truth and paying homage to wickedness. "​

So I fail to see how can slice out the story of the Pot Maker later in the letter from that context. The pot maker made pots to be pots. Some rebelled. In judgement, even though the Maker delayed judgement to allow as many as would turn their lives around, some did not and ended this life (at Judgement) in rebellion, not wishing to be what the Maker made them to be. So they get the reward they deserve.

So we earn our way to heaven with good choices? Isn't that what the Pharisees tried to do?
Muslims know there is a God and do good works to get to heaven. Do Muslims go to heaven?

Pre-resurrected Jews going to paradise? Hebrews 11:39 "and all these (Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, moses, judges), though commended for their faith, did not received what was promised-since God has provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect."
[

No. The Pharisees turning being what we aught to be into their view of complying with a burdensome code/law. Following that code the way they made it was not being what we aught to be. In fact often they rewrote the code to avoid having to do what they knew they should do - put away a wife or one's parents to avoid responsibility for example.
I thought I made clear the position of the Church has forever been that God is our judge, no my opinion of what a good Catholic is or a Pharisees opinion of what a good Jew is.

God is able to judge us all, atheist, agnostic, Christian, Jew, Muslim, pagan, Hindu, Buddist....because of the way He made man - in the word of Saint Paul to the Romans:

Rom 1
It reveals God’s way of justifying us, faith first and last; as the scripture says, It is faith that brings life to the just man. God’s anger is being revealed from heaven; his anger against the impiety and wrong-doing of the men whose wrong-doing denies his truth its full scope. 17 The knowledge of God is clear to their minds; God himself has made it clear to them; from the foundations of the world men have caught sight of his invisible nature, his eternal power and his divineness, as they are known through his creatures.​

Because we are made that way, we all know what we aught to do or not do. So the righteous who could never have heard the Good News or if they did, did not understand it, can still have a faith God could Judge righteous. Abraham had such a faith, God proved to him that he could have it - and that faith was without hearing the Good News and he was deemed righteous by God. So again, who am I to say God could not do that for any number of non-Christians.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

interesting answer. Thank you. I was just curious on your thought about that. Didn't know I was playing a game, what's my consolation prize

No soup for you!

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Tha begs the question, what is eternal life?

If a man has a beginning. How can he obtain that which has no beginning or end?

Saint Paul indicated a partial view, in the intro to his letter to the Romans - to live in glory, honor and immortality for the rest of eternity.
Which as I keep repeating, has to be the only real and unending happy life a human can have as that means we are sharing in His Eternal Happiness, which is why He made us all.

 

[claninja]

I do.
Am unclear who I should think I am, to say I can deny that someone who had never heard of Jesus could be deemed righteous in God's eye because of the life they led here. After all Saint Paul says no man has an excuse for not living righteously.
And all the parables are presented with REAL setting from this reality (except this one according to you). So God can lie about reality to keep people confused. Interesting view of God and His Love for all of mankind.
Exactly so. However up until that moment, Abraham did not believe he could trust God that much.
Did God's knowledge that Abraham would trust Him create the trust in Abraham or was it the demonstration God asked for?
In context, God made Heaven for all mankind. The place the wicked "go" to was made for no man (sheep and goats).

"You will remember that in the parable, the saved go to a place prepared for them, while the damned go to a place never made for men at all. To enter heaven is to become more human than you ever succeeded in being in earth; to enter hell, is to be banished from humanity.
What is cast (or casts itself) into hell is not a man: it is "remains". To be a complete man means to have the passions obedient to the will and the will offered to God: to have been a man - to be an ex-man or "damned ghost" - would presumably mean to consist of a will utterly centred in its self and passions utterly uncontrolled by the will. It is, of course, impossible to imagine what the consciousness of such a creature - already a loose congeries of mutually antagonistic sins rather than a sinner would be like." C.S. Lewis - the Problem of Pain
​

I like the idea that God leaves the damned to themselves, after all their will be done was their utmost desire in this life. The deprivation of eternally being what one was meant to be has to be more than just a bummer to the damned. Much, much more. Facing an eternity with no purpose other than self service - has to be devastating. So we need to not imagine God stoking coals to bring about their self destruction as humans.

I think burning and fire are imagery meant to reflect the most painful experience humans can imagine, burning alive and that never stopping. Whether whatever Hell really is never stops or not, it was not the place any human was made to be in. Heaven is where we are all made to be. Hell would be the deprivation of that.
Am not sure what is hard about the idea that the only love worth having would be love freely given. We know this to be true ourselves, surely God must know this too. The only way to avoid having free will creatures rebel, is to cheat as you suggest and God only make those free will creatures He already knows will not leave this life in rebellion. Problem (1)- God's knowledge of human lives presumes He actually made said creatures able to rebel rather than just dreamed it. (2) His Knowledge being used as a sort of retroactive abortion for creatures persisting in rebellion in this life, that is beneath, unworthy of the Who we imagine God to be.
In the context of the rest of Saint Paul Romans letter am unclear how to draw these conclusions. He specifically says those Judged righteous upon leaving this life are rewarded in with eternal life as a human - eternal life cannot be talking about some temporary aspect of this life. Likewise Saint Paul contrasts that reward of eternal life against what the wicked "deserve" for their "deeds" in this life - God's Wrath. Since reward of eternal life for the righteous is contrasted with God's Wrath on the wicked, am unclear how to conclude Saint Paul is just talking about a temporary state with God in this life.
And Saint Paul literally says in the openning of same letter:

"He will award to every man what his acts have deserved; eternal life to those who have striven for glory, and honour, and immortality, by perseverance in doing good; the retribution of his anger to those who are contumacious, rebelling against truth and paying homage to wickedness. "​

So I fail to see how can slice out the story of the Pot Maker later in the letter from that context. The pot maker made pots to be pots. Some rebelled. In judgement, even though the Maker delayed judgement to allow as many as would turn their lives around, some did not and ended this life (at Judgement) in rebellion, not wishing to be what the Maker made them to be. So they get the reward they deserve. No. The Pharisees turning being what we aught to be into their view of complying with a burdensome code/law. Following that code the way they made it was not being what we aught to be. In fact often they rewrote the code to avoid having to do what they knew they should do - put away a wife or one's parents to avoid responsibility for example.
I thought I made clear the position of the Church has forever been that God is our judge, no my opinion of what a good Catholic is or a Pharisees opinion of what a good Jew is.

God is able to judge us all, atheist, agnostic, Christian, Jew, Muslim, pagan, Hindu, Buddist....because of the way He made man - in the word of Saint Paul to the Romans:

Rom 1
It reveals God’s way of justifying us, faith first and last; as the scripture says, It is faith that brings life to the just man. God’s anger is being revealed from heaven; his anger against the impiety and wrong-doing of the men whose wrong-doing denies his truth its full scope. 17 The knowledge of God is clear to their minds; God himself has made it clear to them; from the foundations of the world men have caught sight of his invisible nature, his eternal power and his divineness, as they are known through his creatures.​

Because we are made that way, we all know what we aught to do or not do. So the righteous who could never have heard the Good News or if they did, did not understand it, can still have a faith God could Judge righteous. Abraham had such a faith, God proved to him that he could have it - and that faith was without hearing the Good News and he was deemed righteous by God. So again, who am I to say God could not do that for any number of non-Christians.

You're saying we can obtain righteousness by good choices, not necessarily by believing in Jesus. As long as we know there is a god and live a moral life (not like the pharisees; but true genuine goodness), we can earn salvation.

Now I understand why you can't view the vessels of wrath as purposely hardened by God. It does not go well if you believe eternal life is up to the person to earn it based on their good choices. If eternal life is up to the person to earn it and God forcefully hardens them, how could they ever have a chance to earn it? After all, that's not fair, and God is good.

So that's why you say Paul, in Romans 9, doesn't really mean God hardens anyone. What he really means is that we harden ourselves by choice.

No soup for you!

Haha, that was good

 

[DrBubbaLove]

You're saying we can obtain righteousness by good choices, not necessarily by believing in Jesus. As long as we know there is a god and live a moral life (not like the pharisees; but true genuine goodness), we can earn salvation.

What is it with Protestants that as soon as someone starts talking about a free Gift of Grace from God that He offers to us it becomes a work. I don't get it. So no, the "choices" (even if that is the wrong word), that are relevant are as it applies to sin. So where we decide to do or not do what we know we should not do (or even not do what we know we should. Am not talking about whether to eat seafood or chicken for dinner.
If by "work" it is meant when we sin, we have to ask God to forgive us - then yes we are suppose to do that. Simply asking however is not what makes it right.

Now I understand why you can't view the vessels of wrath as purposely hardened by God. It does not go well if you believe eternal life is up to the person to earn it based on their good choices. If eternal life is up to the person to earn it and God forcefully hardens them, how could they ever have a chance to earn it? After all, that's not fair, and God is good.

What part about my saying God has to first give a person faith was not understood?
This would include someone like Abraham for example, who obviously was "saved" without ever hearing the Good News.

So that's why you say Paul, in Romans 9, doesn't really mean God hardens anyone. What he really means is that we harden ourselves by choice.

I believe to the degree He does not give them faith, they are hardened, but it is more of a deprivation thing than the idea of God creating a wicked person. Good cannot create the opposite of or anything opposing Good. That is creation/realm of free willed creatures and humans excel at it.

 

[claninja]

What is it with Protestants that as soon as someone starts talking about a free Gift of Grace from God that He offers to us it becomes a work. I don't get it. So no, the "choices" (even if that is the wrong word), that are relevant are as it applies to sin. So where we decide to do or not do what we know we should not do (or even not do what we know we should. Am not talking about whether to eat seafood or chicken for dinner.
If by "work" it is meant when we sin, we have to ask God to forgive us - then yes we are suppose to do that. Simply asking however is not what makes it right.

Don't assume my denominational identity. lol
But seriously, now I'm really confused. I don't think faith is a work. When you said choices I thought you meant making the right choices like loving you neighbor/not stealing/etc...Or when you said there is an atheist section in heaven.

What part about my saying God has to first give a person faith was not understood?
This would include someone like Abraham for example, who obviously was "saved" without ever hearing the Good News

God has to give give the person faith first? But not everyone gets faith. I thought everyone had the same choices? If he doesn't give faith to everyone that is not fair, especially if our choices have eternal consequences.

I believe to the degree He does not give them faith, they are hardened, but it is more of a deprivation thing than the idea of God creating a wicked person. Good cannot create the opposite of or anything opposing Good. That is creation/realm of free willed creatures and humans excel at it.

harden
Wait, so now God does harden people into unbelief?

I think were just going in circles. So i'll just leave it at that. God bless friend. We may have different views of scripture but i know we can both agree we can be so very grateful for Christ. Happy belated easter.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Don't assume my denominational identity. lol
But seriously, now I'm really confused. I don't think faith is a work. When you said choices I thought you meant making the right choices like loving you neighbor/not stealing/etc...Or when you said there is an atheist section in heaven.

And we agree faith is not a work, as in nothing we can do will gain us a faith we need to believe what God wants all mankind to believe. Which is why I keep asking people to stop saying the Catholic/my view of faith is one of works.
If there is a specific question on a point made previously I would be happy to explain if a more direct expression of what is confusing about it were given.

God has to give give the person faith first? But not everyone gets faith.

If God does not freely offer the same Gift to everyone, how is obtained? And He does not do it, then is that not claiming we do it?
This is the reason I keep denying my view of faith is something we do.

I thought everyone had the same choices?

In the first place God creating the possibility that everyone could be "saved" is a Gift of Love for everyone. It cannot be a choice to obtain the faith needed to believe God as He wants us to believe, which is beyond the sort of belief Satan has that He is God - surely that is not enough, but it actually is a rational sort of "belief" we are all capable of obtaining. But that sort of belief does nothing for Satan, so am unclear why we should think it would do anything for us.

Because of our fallen nature, if He just gave the gift of faith to everyone and nothing more given or expected from us, it would be unlikely any of one would be saved. Consider the angels first and then Adam are setup perfectly to "believe" (as in already given a supernatural gift of faith to believe in God) yet some of the angles lost it and Adam lost it for himself and everyone else. Remember to in the story of Abraham his belief resulting from God having given him Faith grows and the NT is full of teaching that a Christian beliefs, yes Knowledge of God, should grow with their gift of faith.

So it seems contradictory to assume God just needs to give everyone that same thing He gave Adam and some of us (or all of us) will be saved. Especially given He is giving it to people already having a corrupt nature tending to rebel against that level of "belief". (Satan still knows who God is). IOW if a man set up perfectly to retain that belief fails, how could we in our fallen state inherited from Adam's fall, given the same supernatural gift Adam had, be expected to succeed?
I think a better question is why does He give this gift (a seed of faith) to as many people as He does, not just those that protect that gift to the end of this life. He mentioned Himself that some after receiving His free Gift of Faith will believe for a while and then essentially give the gift part or all of it back - not believe (as expressed in Saint Peter's denial).
Further, God gives it to some of them again, and again through out their life, while others that formerly "believed God" just fall away. I can only answer that with for His Glory - and perhaps a demonstration that we are still free to continue growing in our beliefs with that faith or not. Judas comes to mind, seemingly rejecting his beliefs over self interests. Unlike Saint Peter, Judas does not seem to have recovered from that loss of faith.