Universalism VS. Scripture

[Scholar in training]

Wrong. We don't have free will when we're so miserable that we choose to torture ourselves. Any God worth Her/His salt would heal us of the desire to harm ourselves, and then, sane, we'd choose God. Simple as that. No self-inflicted torture. That's not denying anyone free will. That's RESTORING free will to them.

And how do you know that they HAVEN'T had the chance to change and to choose God? Does someone who is addicted to cigarettes, although heavily influenced by his addiction, lose the ability to stop smoking if someone else enables him to see the ramifications smoking has on him and others?

The Tridentine dogma teaches that the freedom of the will has not been destroyed under original sin, and that this freedom remains unimpaired under the influence of Divine grace. This has interesting ramifications in regards to Peter.

As for your alleged "Peter analogy," you mean you're still clinging to the idea that sane people knowingly reject God?

My main reason in using the analogy was to illustrate the importance of human co-operation when God offers salvation to someone. If a person isn't willing to be in God's presence, then God will not force him/her to be - indeed, someone who does not want to be in his presence might see hell as, well, a Godsend.

That's silly. Pagans, Muslims, Hindus, Jehovah's Witnesses, atheists, no one knowingly rejects God. Atheists honestly believe there is no such being.The others honestly believe they are following Her to the best of their ability.

The atheist who said that he would "fight" God if hell existed is being bull-headed, not honest.

 

[elman]

Under the paradigm of eternal shame I have already discussed (which is hardly a cop-out, but rather a social analysis of the issue of hell) anyone who does end up in hell would be torturing themselves in the sense that they would want to get away from God. That limit would be self-imposed, not forced upon them. To draw upon an analogy from C.S. Lewis, the shame of living in the presence of God would be too much for those in hell, and they would endeavor in vain to run from his presence.


To do otherwise would be to deny his creation freewill. I have heard at least one person say that he would rather "fight" God than enter gehenna (hypothetically assuming that God and hell exist and that he was not going to heaven). Some people (the same people who advocate relativism, in some cases) believe that their opinions about God are objective, and would rather not experience theosis in the presence of God for eternity.


Discussing a topic doesn't always entail changing the other person's mind.


Then how about you respond to the Peter analogy and interpersonal responsibility rather than use a "said-so" statement in support of your belief.

The lack of eternal torture in hell does not remove free will. We have the choice of being loving or not loving. If we chose to be loving we have the gift of the afterlife with God. If we chose to be unloving we do not get that gift and are left to our mortality and the grave which is death and non existence, not life in pain.

 

[Rae]

If a person isn't willing to be in God's presence, then God will not force him/her to be

But since no person isn't willing to be in God's presence, that situation will never come up, unless the person is insane.

The atheist who said that he would "fight" God if hell existed is being bull-headed, not honest.

Especially since there is no hell.

 

[AndreLinoge]

If a person isn't willing to be in God's presence, then God will not force him/her to be

Does it not say in Romans that none seek after god?

 

[GraceMan]

I recommend to all who have been posting to this thread to read Professor Thomas Talbott's, The Inescapable Love of God on this subject. There you will find all arguements for Universal Reconciliation. You can find the book at Amazon or BN. You can also go to google and do a search on The Inescapable Love of God.

There is no other book out there that explains this subject better, IMHO.

~G-Man

 

[loriersea]

I recommend to all who have been posting to this thread to read Professor Thomas Talbott's, The Inescapable Love of God on this subject. There you will find all arguements for Universal Reconciliation. You can find the book at Amazon or BN. You can also go to google and do a search on The Inescapable Love of God.

There is no other book out there that explains this subject better, IMHO.

~G-Man

Agreed. It's a great book.

 

[Charlie V]

I recommend to all who have been posting to this thread to read Professor Thomas Talbott's, The Inescapable Love of God on this subject. There you will find all arguements for Universal Reconciliation. You can find the book at Amazon or BN. You can also go to google and do a search on The Inescapable Love of God.

There is no other book out there that explains this subject better, IMHO.

~G-Man

This is indeed a great book.

Though it's overstepping to say it contains all arguments for Universal Reconciliation. There are too many arguments for Universal Salvation to fit into a single book.

It does contain some of the best explainations I've read for many of the key scriptures connected with this issue, and is perhaps my favorite book on the topic, and I've read easily a dozen books on universal salvation.

I especially liked Talbott's explaination of the parable of the sheep and goats, and his explaination of "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated."

Charlie

 

[Scholar in training]

But since no person isn't willing to be in God's presence, that situation will never come up, unless the person is insane.

How about you offer a rebuttal to my post - which responds in part to this area of your argument - rather than just repeating what you have previously said.

 

[Rae]

How about you offer a rebuttal to my post

I did. I showed, quite plainly, that no one knowingly rejects any God. It's your turn to offer a rebuttal to my counter-argument.

 

[Hello There]

How do these verses line up?

Romans 14:11--"It is written, 'As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to
Me, and every tongue shall give praise to God."

Phil 2:9-10 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: {10} That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

Free will or not?

 

[ahab]

Hi Carl Unger,

How do these verses line up?



Romans 14:11--"It is written, 'As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to

Me, and every tongue shall give praise to God."



Phil 2:9-10 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: {10} That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;



Free will or not?

Free will to accept or reject Jesus now until the point at which we will have to acknowledge Him as Lord. This is what is meant by every knee bowing and confessing.

For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. It is written:

" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,

'every knee will bow before me;

every tongue will confess to God.' "So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.


peace

 

[Scholar in training]

I did. I showed, quite plainly, that no one knowingly rejects any God. It's your turn to offer a rebuttal to my counter-argument.

You said: "But since no person isn't willing to be in God's presence, that situation will never come up, unless the person is insane. " which is not a rebuttal. If you are referring to post #459, I already responded to it in post #461.

 

[elman]

I did. I showed, quite plainly, that no one knowingly rejects any God. It's your turn to offer a rebuttal to my counter-argument.

Have you ever knowingly rejected God? Done what you knew He would not approve of? I think your assumption that everyone wants to be in His presence is unfounded. It seems to me that evil and unloving people do not want to be in the presence of God.

 

[Rae]

If you are referring to post #459, I already responded to it in post #461.

Inadequately, in my opinion. And you didn't answer my question. Are believing Hindus rejecting God, or do they believe they are honestly serving God?

Have you ever knowingly rejected God?

No.

Done what you knew He would not approve of?

I've done things I know my parents wouldn't approve of. Is that rejecting my parents and wishing that they'd never see me again, deny me as their daughter, and hoping they'd torture me forever as a consequence? I think not. I think that idea is utterly ridiculous. Don't you?

I think your assumption that everyone wants to be in His presence is unfounded.

Could you answer my previous question? Do you think that a believing Hindu is knowingly rejecting God, or believes s/he is lovingly serving God?

 

[Scholar in training]

Inadequately, in my opinion.

Great, but you still haven't actually replied to it.

You haven't at all demonstrated that "someone who doesn't want to be in God's presence must be insane".

And you didn't answer my question. Are believing Hindus rejecting God, or do they believe they are honestly serving God?

I did respond to this: "My main reason in using the analogy was to illustrate the importance of human co-operation when God offers salvation to someone. If a person isn't willing to be in God's presence, then God will not force him/her to be - indeed, someone who does not want to be in his presence might see hell as, well, a Godsend."

The analogy was used to illustrate the importance of human co-operation with God, not whether a person from another religion thinks they are honestly serving God. As I believe that some people who, though intellectually ignorant of God, can display his presence in their lives (and as I believe that truth from whatever source, at some level, indicates inspiration), I also believe it is possible for some people to deny being in communion with God but actually be saved. That does not, however, mean that I agree with the actual premises and conclusions of other religions.

I've done things I know my parents wouldn't approve of. Is that rejecting my parents and wishing that they'd never see me again, deny me as their daughter, and hoping they'd torture me forever as a consequence? I think not. I think that idea is utterly ridiculous. Don't you?

Drinking booze and getting stoned every night might make one's parents kick one out. Rejecting one's parents' generous gift of housing by breaking their rules - enforced for their son or daughter's benefit - is completely irresponsible and absolutely ungrateful. Refusing to bear interpersonal responsibility towards one's parents is a disgrace, and an inappropriate response to the parents' patronage.

 

[Charlie V]

You haven't at all demonstrated that "someone who doesn't want to be in God's presence must be insane".

The way I figure it, there are three possibilities.

1. Someone who doesn't want to be in God's presence must be insane.

2. Someone who doesn't want to be in God's presence must be lacking in knowledge. (For example, one might mistakenly believe God is an evil tyrant, which of course, God isn't, but the person lacking in knowledge doesn't know that, so he doesn't want to be in the presence of the evil tyrant he mistakenly believes God is. But, of course, that person doesn't "not want to be with God," that person doesn't know who God is and doesn't want to be with the mistaken notion he thinks God is.)

3. God isn't so great. There are valid and good reasons not to want to be in God's presence. (For example, hypothetically, God might actually be an evil tyrant.) I do not believe this, but it's the only other hypothetical possibility I can come up with.

I'd personally be inclined to go with # 1 or # 2. Both of which negate free will, because I think free will requires both knowledge and sanity.

The only argument left is argument # 3 -- that there are logical, rational and sensible reasons to want to be away from God, for example, that God is a tyrant, that being with God is a horrible experience.

Otherwise, why would a knowledgable sane person want to be away from Him, if He's good and great and being with Him is literally like being in heaven? What are some logical, rational reasons that a person who is rational, sane person who is knowledgable about God would not want to be with God in heaven? Is there something bad about heaven, some logical reason a sane person would want to avoid it?

Charlie

 

[Scholar in training]

2. Someone who doesn't want to be in God's presence must be lacking in knowledge. (For example, one might mistakenly believe God is an evil tyrant, which of course, God isn't, but the person lacking in knowledge doesn't know that, so he doesn't want to be in the presence of the evil tyrant he mistakenly believes God is. But, of course, that person doesn't "not want to be with God," that person doesn't know who God is and doesn't want to be with the mistaken notion he thinks God is.)

This is true; however, what of those who stubbornly persist in mistaken notions even when corrected? The atheist that I have previously mentioned would fall into this category.

 

[Rae]

My main reason in using the analogy was to illustrate the importance of human co-operation when God offers salvation to someone.

--I see no reason why God can't just give it, whether or not human beings co-operate. Please establish that God cannot save human beings without them co-operating.

Drinking booze and getting stoned every night might make one's parents kick one out.

--Gods aren't human parents. Gods can heal us of every unhealthful desire with the flick of a finger. I'm amazed that you somehow believe Gods are limited to what frail, finite, human beings can do.

what of those who stubbornly persist in mistaken notions even when corrected?

--A God who can't convince someone of the truth, cher ami, isn't much of a God, is it?

 

[Charlie V]

This is true; however, what of those who stubbornly persist in mistaken notions even when corrected? The atheist that I have previously mentioned would fall into this category.

God hasn't come down and corrected anybody.

If you mean that you corrected them -- they would say that they corrected you, and that you are the one who is in error.

Charlie

 

[Scholar in training]

--I see no reason why God can't just give it, whether or not human beings co-operate. Please establish that God cannot save human beings without them co-operating.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10437a.htm

I agree primarily with this article. Do you believe that the article's theology contains logical contradictions?

--Gods aren't human parents. Gods can heal us of every unhealthful desire with the flick of a finger. I'm amazed that you somehow believe Gods are limited to what frail, finite, human beings can do.

I don't believe it has anything to do with God's limitations. God has sovereignty over his creation; I believe that God's grace stimulates and co-operates with the human will. But he has also granted his creation freewill. Should God revoke this gift when, according to the scientia media, he already grants sufficient grace even to the unwilling, who by refusing this sufficient grace make it ineffective?

--A God who can't convince someone of the truth, cher ami, isn't much of a God, is it?

A God who won't force someone to change their mind isn't very omnipotent, is he?

God hasn't come down and corrected anybody.

Jesus corrected many people in his ministry.

If you mean that you corrected them -- they would say that they corrected you, and that you are the one who is in error.

Yes, people say lots of things, but that is why we are forced to support our beliefs with reason. Otherwise all arguments would be mere shouting matches.