Universalism VS. Scripture

[Mailman Dan]

I was doing some checking on those text provided, mostly the ones in Romans. In the Text, you can see that it looks as though Paul is addressing believers, not "everyone in the world."

I do my best to get everything in context, and see who it was being addressed too. Many passages give hope and assurance of salvation to believers, since thats who Paul was writting too. They also give warnings of judgement for those found to be in thier sins.

But ought we put our faith in a defective tool? If proof texting can be used to demonstrate error, and can likewise be used to demonstrate sound doctrine then it is, at best, a flawed tool.

This is a big problem then. If scripture is a flawed tool, then the doctrines you believe must come from men, and their ideas. They come flawed by nature, with almost 100% assurance they will be with fault. In the case of Universalism, a deadly fault if the man made doctrine proves false.

Scripture isn't as flawed as most in this forum believe it to be. There will be division until we see God and can ask Him who and what was wrong. I just hope we are all there to find out. Scripture, again, seems to differ in that opinion.

John 3:36
He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”


True or no?


Dan~~~>got alot of blessings today for some reason

 

[bloved]

And a few more verses to make things more complete.


Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Good verses, ballfan. Please see my new thread on Contradictory Scriptures for Human Destiny.

bloved

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

I

This is a big problem then. If scripture is a flawed tool, then the doctrines you believe must come from men, and their ideas.

Or... folks could follow Jesus and not worry one twit about flawed doctine and dogma.

 

[ottaia]

Scripture isn't as flawed as most in this forum believe it to be. There will be division until we see God and can ask Him who and what was wrong. I just hope we are all there to find out. Scripture, again, seems to differ in that opinion.

John 3:36
He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

It is not the scripture that is flawed, it is the interpretation that has flaws.

 

[Mailman Dan]

Or... folks could follow Jesus and not worry one twit about flawed doctine and dogma.

Alota folks don't follow Jesus, but I have posted a number of His quotes that didn't go over very well.....

It is not the scripture that is flawed, it is the interpretation that has flaws.

Who's is flawed? Yours, mine, the pastors of different christian based religions, or those with extended studies in various translations that still differ on this subject?

I do my best to keep things in context, look to see who is being addressed and by whom. I also read the chapters before and after to get the setting, looking for the entire context of something sound. While I am, as a human, flawed by nature, to suggest that it's out of context or being misinterperted by so many just doesn't fit.

Dan~~~>trying to stay to teachings within the bible

 

[Scholar in training]

Or... folks could follow Jesus and not worry one twit about flawed doctine and dogma.

Saying that is like saying that you can have a healthy family by letting your bum bro keep drinking.

I don't believe that one can follow Jesus without correcting a fellow brother/sister in the faith from time to time.

 

[flautist]

to suggest that it's out of context or being misinterperted by so many just doesn't fit.

#1)Just because the majority says it doesn't make it right. For a long time, "so many" people said that the earth was flat, but that didn't make it true.
#2)If that logic were true, we could say the exact same thing. There are more Universalist scholars (and laymen, for that matter) than you think.

Dan~~~>trying to stay to teachings within the bible

So, are the verses we are quoting not in the bible, then?

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

John 3:36
He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”


There's a problem with this verse,because in context we read things like EVERYONE who hides in the dark,or does evil is condemned already! Well, we ALL do evil!

Also, interesting this statement comes after the bit about God loving the World and sending Jesus... and it is said before Jesus died for ALL sins.

We are either all prone to evil and therefore condemned already, or we are all forgivien.

As for the word translated as "belief" in Jesus, or "seeing" Jesus...

 

[ottaia]

Who's is flawed? Yours, mine, the pastors of different christian based religions, or those with extended studies in various translations that still differ on this subject?

All of the above. Welcome to the world of humans. Welcome to the world that God created. The flaws in the system were built into the system by the Creator! When we claim ultimate authority, we are caliming something that is not even there. If the meaning of the Bible were written in stone, the Bible would be totally inapplicable. But, thank God, God created the Bible with all the contridictions and nuances that allows the Bible to speak to people 2000 years ago, 100 years ago, today, and even tomorrow.

Why would we want to limit God?

 

[Charlie V]

John 3:36
He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”


There's a problem with this verse,because in context we read things like EVERYONE who hides in the dark,or does evil is condemned already! Well, we ALL do evil!

Also, interesting this statement comes after the bit about God loving the World and sending Jesus... and it is said before Jesus died for ALL sins.

We are either all prone to evil and therefore condemned already, or we are all forgivien.

As for the word translated as "belief" in Jesus, or "seeing" Jesus...

Good post. A few points about John 3:36, which also applies to other verses including John 3:16 and Romans 10:9.

1. We know elsewhere in scripture it says that every knee will bow and every tongue confess. (Isaiah 45:23, Romans 14:11, Phillipians 2:10-11) This will not be a lying confession as demonstrated by 1 John 4:15 and 1 Corinthians 12:3, not to mention the surrounding context of Isaiah 45:22-25.

So it's clear that every person will believe. If we accept the words of John 3:16, 3:36 and Romans 10:9, knowing that all will believe, it follows that all will be saved.

2. Some will say, "Yes, even the demons believe, and tremble." Perhaps, but we're not talking about demons, and, if taken in that manner, John 3:16 & 36 and Romans 10:9 become false.

3. Previously in John chapter 3:

Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,

The rest of the verse tells us that whosoever believes shall not perish, the verses I pointed to tells us that's everyone, every knee shall bow. However, I thought it significant to point out that God loved the world, not a portion of the world, not the elect of the world.

Jhn 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Jesus's purpose, then: To save the world! Any less than that is failure.

Some like to point to 3:18, which I've pointed out repeatedly, says not a word about hell, but about being "condemned already," a momentary condemnation, not an eternal hell, as condemned doesn't mean hell and already doesn't mean eternally.

Moreover, the condemnation, rather than being eternal hell:

Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

The condemnation is that they remain in the dark while they're in this world, that they fail to see the light, here and now, on Earth.

John 3:19 shows that John 3:18 is being taken out of context, that "condemnation" doesn't mean "hell," it means, here on Earth, failure to see the light of Christ's love.

Jhn 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Jhn 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

These verses follow from John 3:19, the light on this world is avoided because their deeds might be reproved.

John 3:22 - 30, John baptising, denies he is Christ, says that Christ will increase and he will decrease.

Jhn 3:31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.

Above all, except free will? Nay, He is above all, and His will for the salvation of mankind shall be done.

John 3:32-34, Jesus speaks the truth, God is true, and Jesus speaks the word of God.

Jhn 3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

All things are given to the Son, who we know is the "savior of the world," John 4:42, 1 John 4:14, who by His very nature forgives even unrepentant sinners, Luke 23:34.

Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

I thought it helpful to explore the context, but now I'd like to explore the Greek of this verse.

Another translation, Young's Literal, renders this:

he who is believing in the Son, hath life age-during; and he who is not believing the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God doth remain upon him.'

The word "life" here, "zoe," is the abundance of life, he who is now believeing has age-during abundance of life, he who is not now believing does not see this abundance of life, zoe, but the wrath of God remains or abides on him, not forever but during life.

Any other interpretation is inconsistant with the verses earlier in context. This interpretation fits the Greek, fits the context, and is consistant with Jesus as the saviour of the world.

Charlie

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

2. Some will say, "Yes, even the demons believe, and tremble." Perhaps, but we're not talking about demons, and, if taken in that manner, John 3:16 & 36 and Romans 10:9 become false.

Nice additions, old bean. Just one thing here in support of yer point... the word "believe" is "have knowledge of" so of course demons believe, because they have (erm... physical?) proof! So it is moot after all!

 

[elman]

Nice additions, old bean. Just one thing here in support of yer point... the word "believe" is "have knowledge of" so of course demons believe, because they have (erm... physical?) proof! So it is moot after all!

The word believe that Christians are supposed to do is not just having knowledge of, but obediance to and in conformity with that knowledge. It is a mistake to teach that we connect to God and eternal life by simply mentally accepting the existence of God. That is not the faith Paul is talking about when he says the the only thing that counts is faith working itself out in love or John when he says if we do not love we do not belong to God who is love.

 

[elman]

Good post. A few points about John 3:36, which also applies to other verses including John 3:16 and Romans 10:9.

1. We know elsewhere in scripture it says that every knee will bow and every tongue confess. (Isaiah 45:23, Romans 14:11, Phillipians 2:10-11) This will not be a lying confession as demonstrated by 1 John 4:15 and 1 Corinthians 12:3, not to mention the surrounding context of Isaiah 45:22-25.

So it's clear that every person will believe. If we accept the words of John 3:16, 3:36 and Romans 10:9, knowing that all will believe, it follows that all will be saved.

2. Some will say, "Yes, even the demons believe, and tremble." Perhaps, but we're not talking about demons, and, if taken in that manner, John 3:16 & 36 and Romans 10:9 become false.

3. Previously in John chapter 3:

Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,

The rest of the verse tells us that whosoever believes shall not perish, the verses I pointed to tells us that's everyone, every knee shall bow. However, I thought it significant to point out that God loved the world, not a portion of the world, not the elect of the world.

Jhn 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Jesus's purpose, then: To save the world! Any less than that is failure.

Some like to point to 3:18, which I've pointed out repeatedly, says not a word about hell, but about being "condemned already," a momentary condemnation, not an eternal hell, as condemned doesn't mean hell and already doesn't mean eternally.

Moreover, the condemnation, rather than being eternal hell:

Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

The condemnation is that they remain in the dark while they're in this world, that they fail to see the light, here and now, on Earth.

John 3:19 shows that John 3:18 is being taken out of context, that "condemnation" doesn't mean "hell," it means, here on Earth, failure to see the light of Christ's love.

Jhn 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Jhn 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

These verses follow from John 3:19, the light on this world is avoided because their deeds might be reproved.

John 3:22 - 30, John baptising, denies he is Christ, says that Christ will increase and he will decrease.

Jhn 3:31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.

Above all, except free will? Nay, He is above all, and His will for the salvation of mankind shall be done.

John 3:32-34, Jesus speaks the truth, God is true, and Jesus speaks the word of God.

Jhn 3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

All things are given to the Son, who we know is the "savior of the world," John 4:42, 1 John 4:14, who by His very nature forgives even unrepentant sinners, Luke 23:34.

Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

I thought it helpful to explore the context, but now I'd like to explore the Greek of this verse.

Another translation, Young's Literal, renders this:

he who is believing in the Son, hath life age-during; and he who is not believing the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God doth remain upon him.'

The word "life" here, "zoe," is the abundance of life, he who is now believeing has age-during abundance of life, he who is not now believing does not see this abundance of life, zoe, but the wrath of God remains or abides on him, not forever but during life.

Any other interpretation is inconsistant with the verses earlier in context. This interpretation fits the Greek, fits the context, and is consistant with Jesus as the saviour of the world.

Charlie

Yes God loves everyone and yes Jesus died for everyone and yes it is God's will that everyone repent and turn to Him. It is a mistake to say that this means that if God allows the wicked to die forever, He has failed. These verses do not prove that God will force everyone including the wicked to live with Him forever.

 

[Charlie V]

Yes God loves everyone and yes Jesus died for everyone and yes it is God's will that everyone repent and turn to Him. It is a mistake to say that this means that if God allows the wicked to die forever, He has failed. These verses do not prove that God will force everyone including the wicked to live with Him forever.

I never claimed God would force anyone to do anything. That's a straw man, addressed here --> http://www.christianforums.com/t88108-%93abandon-hope-all-ye-who-enter-here%94.html&page=32#post19290685

I would further add that the "wicked," (or, more appropriately, the misguided,) when God has finished His creation, are no longer wicked (misguided.)

Paul said that he himself was the foremost of all sinners, but most of us wouldn't follow that by saying that Paul is either burning in hell or forced to live with God against his will.

I have to wonder about these strawmen though. In all honesty, it's getting frustrating. Since I never said, "God will force everyone including the wicked to live with Him forever!" why would people lie and claim that that's what I said? I never mentioned force, nor did I call people wicked, yet here someone is, presuming that that's what I meant. It's a distortion, and in fact, an outright lie, to claim that I ever suggested any such thing.

It is God's will to reveal the truth to all men. 1 Timothy 2:6.
That's not forcing -- that's revealing.

When we understand the truth, we become changed people. That's not force either. That's change -- and change turns us away from wickedness.

"Jesus is the savior of the world" is what the Bible says, and what I say. If you want to say I said, "God forces the wicked to be with Him," you might as well put those words in the mouth of God as well as me, if you believe both those sentences mean the same thing.

Charlie

PS. I came back with an afterthought that occurred to me.

I shouldn't be frustrated that there are those who would distort my view and create strawmen of my position. By creating strawmen, they actually concede the strength of my position.

(The fact that two different people on two different threads created the same strawman is interesting, perhaps showing limitation in the thoughts of those trying to argue against the Biblical position of God's universal love.)

The reason for the straw man argument is that a straw man is easier to "knock down" than a real man. If my argument were not a strong one, there would be no need to create a straw man. They could just attack my real position.

But since my real position--the power of God to influence the hearts of people, that God "devises a way that a banished person might not be estranged from Him" 2 Samuel 14:14--is stronger than the straw man--a God that forces wicked people to be imprisoned in heaven, they must create a straw man. Because they are afraid to address my real position, the real man.

The very fact that they build straw men draws light to the fact that the real man, the argument that the true God sent Jesus as the savior of the world, is too strong an argument to fight.

Charlie

 

[elman]

I never claimed God would force anyone to do anything. That's a straw man, addressed here --> http://www.christianforums.com/t88108-%93abandon-hope-all-ye-who-enter-here%94.html&page=32#post19290685

I would further add that the "wicked," (or, more appropriately, the misguided,) when God has finished His creation, are no longer wicked (misguided.)

Paul said that he himself was the foremost of all sinners, but most of us wouldn't follow that by saying that Paul is either burning in hell or forced to live with God against his will.

I have to wonder about these strawmen though. In all honesty, it's getting frustrating. Since I never said, "God will force everyone including the wicked to live with Him forever!" why would people lie and claim that that's what I said? I never mentioned force, nor did I call people wicked, yet here someone is, presuming that that's what I meant. It's a distortion, and in fact, an outright lie, to claim that I ever suggested any such thing.

It is God's will to reveal the truth to all men. 1 Timothy 2:6.
That's not forcing -- that's revealing.

When we understand the truth, we become changed people. That's not force either. That's change -- and change turns us away from wickedness.

"Jesus is the savior of the world" is what the Bible says, and what I say. If you want to say I said, "God forces the wicked to be with Him," you might as well put those words in the mouth of God as well as me, if you believe both those sentences mean the same thing.

Charlie

PS. I came back with an afterthought that occurred to me.

I shouldn't be frustrated that there are those who would distort my view and create strawmen of my position. By creating strawmen, they actually concede the strength of my position.

(The fact that two different people on two different threads created the same strawman is interesting, perhaps showing limitation in the thoughts of those trying to argue against the Biblical position of God's universal love.)

The reason for the straw man argument is that a straw man is easier to "knock down" than a real man. If my argument were not a strong one, there would be no need to create a straw man. They could just attack my real position.

But since my real position--the power of God to influence the hearts of people, that God "devises a way that a banished person might not be estranged from Him" 2 Samuel 14:14--is stronger than the straw man--a God that forces wicked people to be imprisoned in heaven, they must create a straw man. Because they are afraid to address my real position, the real man.

The very fact that they build straw men draws light to the fact that the real man, the true God who sent Jesus as the savior of the world, is too strong to fight.

Charlie

You say it is a strawman then you say God is too strong for us to fight. That translates into my not coming to Him because I chose to come to Him but because He is too strong for me to be able to not come to Him. That is the stawman again, but not really a strawman. That is describing force and not free will. The Bibical position of universal love is no more correct than the Bibical position of eternal life for the righteous and not for the wicked. Universal love is only half of what is being said.

Prov 11:19

19 The truly righteous man attains life,
but he who pursues evil goes to his death.
(from New International Version)

Actually I hope you are correct in your theology, but it is not the most logical or scriptural. And howevermuch you protest, if we do not come to God because we chose to love Him, then the only alternative is that we had not choice. When we have no choice, that means we were forced to act as we acted. Here comes that strawman of force again, except it is not really a strawman.

 

[Charlie V]

You say it is a strawman then you say God is too strong for us to fight.

No, I didn't. Not that God isn't too strong to fight, but I didn't say that.

I said that the "real man," the true argument that I am making, is too strong an argument to fight.

Perhaps I should re-word that sentence to avoid any ambiguity.

Charlie

 

[elman]

No, I didn't. Not that God isn't too strong to fight, but I didn't say that.

I said that the "real man," the true argument that I am making, is too strong an argument to fight.

Perhaps I should re-word that sentence to avoid any ambiguity.

Charlie

"the true God who sent Jesus as the savior of the world, is too strong to fight." That is a direct quote.

 

[Charlie V]

That translates into my not coming to Him because I chose to come to Him but because He is too strong for me to be able to not come to Him.

Obviously, I didn't say what you say I said.

God is omnipotent, and it is within His power to devise a way that we will all come to Him of our own free will. His love, when known, is truly irresistable. This is not "force" in the sense you are making it.

That is the stawman again, but not really a strawman.

No, it really is a straw man.

That is describing force and not free will.

"That," of course, is not what I said, so it's only you who is describing what you are saying.

The Bibical position of universal love is no more correct

"For God so loved the world" is both correct and Biblical. Otherwise, John would have written, "For God so loved some of the world."

Prov 11:19

19 The truly righteous man attains life,
but he who pursues evil goes to his death.
(from New International Version)

This is true. As I explained in another thread, yes, doing bad things can get you killed. Just as it is said that, "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword." This speaks of Earthly death, nothing more nor less.

Actually I hope you are correct in your theology, but it is not the most logical or scriptural.

It is the truth according to the Holy Spirit, both logical and scriptural. You can not only hope but take faith in His redeeming Spirit and His promise.

And however much you protest, if we do not come to God because we chose to love Him, then the only alternative is that we had not choice. When we have no choice, that means we were forced to act as we acted. Here comes that strawman of force again, except it is not really a strawman.

By no means have I said that we are forced to love Him. I said quite clearly it is impossible to force someone to love you. (Though nothing is impossible for God, I do not believe this would be His method, though if it were, that would also be Biblical as we are merely the clay, while He is the potter.)

God devises ways that a banished person may not be estranged from Him. He enlightens us. This is not force, unless you consider the force of Love and the force of Truth to be "force." It is certainly not "force" in the sense of being enslaved or imprisoned. If anything, He forces open the doors of the prisons that bar us in. He does not force us, He enlightens us.

Charlie

 

[Charlie V]

"the true God who sent Jesus as the savior of the world, is too strong to fight." That is a direct quote.

It is a direct out of context quote. Read the whole sentence, and the preceding paragraph.

But since my real position--the power of God to influence the hearts of people, that God "devises a way that a banished person might not be estranged from Him" 2 Samuel 14:14--is stronger than the straw man--a God that forces wicked people to be imprisoned in heaven, they must create a straw man. Because they are afraid to address my real position, the real man.

The very fact that they build straw men draws light to the fact that the real man, the true God who sent Jesus as the savior of the world, is too strong to fight.

The "strawman argument" refers to the distortion of an initial argument, the "real man" into a false argument, the "straw man." I describe the "real man," my real position, and I describe the "straw man," the false position. Then I state that the real man, which is the argument for the true God who sent Jesus, is an argument too strong to fight.

I reworded it to avoid the ambiguity. Check out the reworded version.

The very fact that they build straw men draws light to the fact that the real man, the argument that the true God sent Jesus as the savior of the world, is too strong an argument to fight.

I'm not saying God is true strong to fight, which would be true if I said it, but it's not my point. You're distorting my point, this time I believe unintentionally as I was a bit ambiguious, but earlier I'm convinced the distortion was intentional. I've never said God forces people into heaven against their will, but that He enlightens us.

The noun is "the real man," described in the preceding paragraph, an argument, not a person. (Just as a straw man isn't a man made of straw, the "real man" in a straw man discussion isn't actually a person.) The verb "is" and the phrase "is too strong to fight" is meant to refer to "the real man," the argument itself, not God, which is what the argument is about.

This is a fact which is too strong an argument to fight, which requires the creation of a straw man.

It's a shame I had to explain my language due to an accidental ambiguity, it sort of draws attention away from what I actually tried to say.

Charlie

 

[elman]

"God is omnipotent, and it is within His power to devise a way that we will all come to Him of our own free will. His love, when known, is truly irresistable. This is not "force" in the sense you are making it."

If it is irresitable that means I do not have a choice to resist. That is describing force and not free will.

The Bibical position of universal love is no more correct than the bibical position that the wicked will not receive eternal life.

"For God so loved the world" is both correct and Biblical. Otherwise, John would have written, "For God so loved some of the world."

No it is correct to say God loves all men. That does not mean He is not going to give anyone any opportunity to go away from Him and stay away if they chose to co so. We have the choice and opportunity to leave the Father and once in that pig pen we have the choice to come to ourselves and go home or stay in that pig pen and die.



Prov 11:19

19 The truly righteous man attains life,
but he who pursues evil goes to his death.
(from New International Version)

"This is true. As I explained in another thread, yes, doing bad things can get you killed. Just as it is said that, "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword." This speaks of Earthly death, nothing more nor less."

The scripture above makes no sense if it is only speaking of physical death. The righteous also die physical deaths and sometime it is because the wicked kill them and the wicked go on living for awhile. How has the righteous man attained life if the evil man kills him?

Actually I hope you are correct in your theology, but it is not the most logical or scriptural.

"It is the truth according to the Holy Spirit, both logical and scriptural. You can not only hope but take faith in His redeeming Spirit and His promise."

Not the Holy Spirit that is talking to me. He is saying I can depend on the grace of God, if I am not unloving to my neighbor. If I am unloving I cannot depend on the grace of God to give me eternal life. That is also what Matt 25:31 and following says. That seems to be what John is saying in First John and what the rest of scripture is also saying.

And however much you protest, if we do not come to God because we chose to love Him, then the only alternative is that we had no choice. When we have no choice, that means we were forced to act as we acted. Here comes that strawman of force again, except it is not really a strawman.

"By no means have I said that we are forced to love Him. I said quite clearly it is impossible to force someone to love you. (Though nothing is impossible for God, I do not believe this would be His method, though if it were, that would also be Biblical as we are merely the clay, while He is the potter.)"

I agree that forced love is not love, but you say I cannot resist the power of God's love. That is saying I am not given the ability by God to not love Him. If that is true then I am not given the ability to love Him either. My choice to love Him is worthless if I am unable to chose otherwise.

"God devises ways that a banished person may not be estranged from Him. He enlightens us. This is not force, unless you consider the force of Love and the force of Truth to be "force." It is certainly not "force" in the sense of being enslaved or imprisoned. If anything, He forces open the doors of the prisons that bar us in. He does not force us, He enlightens us."

No we are not connected to God by knowledge, but by love. The wicked know it is evil to not love and be cruel to people but they chose to do it anyway. They are not acting from lack of knowledge but from lack of love. If they were acting without knowledge that it was wrong, it would not be sin or evil. It is the fact that they know better that makes them responsbile for their evil acts.