Would you prefer it if “Christian universalism” were true?

[Saint Steven]

Does it? So a hundred, thousand, million years of torture allows one to make a choice freely?

Not sure what you are asking. Please clarify. Thanks.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Even Universalism still requires a choice. As I understand it.

 

[Hmm]

Somewhere in here we have do admit that those who recognize that God is not only loving but just as well. That's a difficult point to arrive at in debates like this one, but somewhere or other it has to be acknowledged.

I agree, God is just but this is not synonymous with an eternal hell - actually the existence of such a place would mean that God wasn't just. I know there are Bible verses that support the notion but there are for a temporary hell too so we have to make a value judgement here.

 

[Albion]

I agree, God is just but this is not synonymous with an eternal hell - actually the existence of such a place would mean that God wasn't just.

I'm not sure if that's so. It probably could be argued that something short of an eternity of conscious suffering is just, but if the idea is that there cannot be any hell at all or else that there is one but after awhile everyone who has been relegated to that realm simply is released to join the other souls in heaven, having "done his time," well, both of those make God unjust, and I have heard both advocated.

 

[sawdust]

Not sure what you are asking. Please clarify. Thanks.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Even Universalism still requires a choice. As I understand it.

Maybe I have misunderstood other posts you have made but I thought you believe those who reject Christ in this life still go into (and spend a certain amount of time) in the Lake of Fire. Do you think the LoF is not going to hurt ... a lot? The scriptures certainly don't describe it as a pleasant place to be. Assuming that is the case, any choice that is made would be a choice made under duress. How can that be a free choice?

This is why I say is makes a mockery of freedom and volition irrelevant.

 

[Hmm]

I'm not sure if that's so. It probably could be argued that something short of an eternity of conscious suffering is just, but if the idea is that there cannot be any hell at all or else that there is one but after awhile everyone who has been relegated to that realm simply is released to join the other souls in heaven, having "done his time," well, both of those make God unjust, and I have heard both advocated.

I agree that being sent to hell for a fixed length term with possible early release for good behaviour like not screaming too loudly doesn't make sense, but neither does an eternity in hell make sense. Time is unlikely to be anything like we experience it in this physical world anyway, is it? The solution to this riddle, to me anyway, is that hell is a realm where we are absent from God but He continues to knock on the door - we could be on there forever but that would only be because we continually refuse to open it. And this isn't something I've just thought up myself btw - I've come across this image in numerous books all written by sane and fairly mainstream Christian writers - I think I mentioned some of them earlier in the thread.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

So for everyone who isn’t a believer in the universal reconciliation of all things, would you prefer that universalism were true?

A simple yes or no answer to start your response would be great, then the rationale behind why you have picked either yes or no.

Would it be preferable if some get to heaven or all get to heaven? This is not a difficult question to answer.

 

[Albion]

The solution to this riddle, to me anyway, is that hell is a realm where we are absent from God but He continues to knock on the door - we could be on there forever but that would only be because we continually refuse to open it.

We do we presume that God not only puts a soul into hell but then "continues to knock on the door" hoping for some certain response? That doesn't seem to describe a just God so much as it suggests a being who is torturing someone until he says what the tormenter wants to hear. How can we make sense of that kind of god?

 

[Saint Steven]

Maybe I have misunderstood other posts you have made but I thought you believe those who reject Christ in this life still go into (and spend a certain amount of time) in the Lake of Fire. Do you think the LoF is not going to hurt ... a lot? The scriptures certainly don't describe it as a pleasant place to be. Assuming that is the case, any choice that is made would be a choice made under duress. How can that be a free choice?

This is why I say is makes a mockery of freedom and volition irrelevant.

There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Kind of like when you got saved. (remember) - lol

Better to pluck an eye out or lose a hand... (a common literary exaggeration)

Jesus said...

Mark 9:49
Everyone will be salted with fire.

The prophet said...

Malachi 3:2
But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap.

 

[Hmm]

We do we presume that God not only puts a soul into hell but then "continues to knock on the door" hoping for some certain response? That doesn't seem to describe a just God so much as it suggests a being who is torturing someone until he says what the tormenter wants to hear. How can we make sense of that kind of god?

Well, the knocking is obviously a metaphor for God trying to communicate with the tormented soul. I think we can trust God to know what form of communication would be most effective for that individual so it wouldn't be fair to describe Him as torturing the person. As to whether that 'knocking' gets through or not would of course depend on how the person responds - he may have to. acknowledge a lot of cruel acts or inordinate pride for example to be able to hear God's loving voice.

 

[Albion]

Well, the knocking is obviously a metaphor for God trying to communicate with the tormented soul.

I know, but that doesn't seem to change anything.

I think we can trust God to know what form of communication would be most effective for that individual so it wouldn't be fair to describe Him as torturing the person.

But wait. No matter what wording is used, it makes hell's pains be designed to elicit repentance from the damned person. How else can that be seen other than as a device to leverage a confession...and that doesn't seem to me to make God be just.

As to whether that 'knocking' gets through or not would of course depend on how the person responds - he may have to. acknowledge a lot of cruel acts or inordinate pride for example to be able to hear God's loving voice.

To me, this scenario is close to the worst of all those that have been suggested so far.

 

[Hmm]

But wait. No matter what wording is used, it makes hell's pains be designed to elicit repentance from the damned person. How else can that be seen other than as a device to leverage a confession...and that doesn't seem to me to make God be just.

Why would that be unjust. You presumably believe that everyone on earth has to go through some form of repentance to get into heaven and that this is a demand of God. Why is it just if this process occurs on earth but unjust if it occurs in hell?

 

[sawdust]

There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Kind of like when you got saved. (remember) - lol

Better to pluck an eye out or lose a hand... (a common literary exaggeration)

Jesus said...

Mark 9:49
Everyone will be salted with fire.

The prophet said...

Malachi 3:2
But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap.

The weeping and gnashing of teeth was before I got saved. It tends to go with a lack of salvation.

Not everyone will be hurt by the LoF even though we will all go through the fire.

Rev.2:11 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who is victorious will not be hurt at all by the second death.

Apart from the above though, I fail to see how making a decision under duress should be considered right or just?

While I can agree with you that suffering can lead to obedience, (even Christ was not beyond this Heb.5:8), it does not make one love God.

 

[Albion]

Why would that be unjust. You presumably believe that everyone on earth has to go through some form of repentance to get into heaven and that this is a demand of God. Why is it just if this process occurs on earth but unjust if it occurs in hell?

To put it in Earthly terms that both of us know is not ideal, this is our start--and in a fallen world--in which we find our destiny (if everything goes as it should); but in the afterlife, that's where God's people are united to him while those who rejected God in the life we are now living are rejected.

All we two have been doing is debating 'for how long' and what about this makes God either just or unjust. So it may be just of him to reject or punish those who did evil in this life, were unrepentant about it, and did not commit to the Savior. HOWEVER, for God to then torture them until they decide to accept him just doesn't seem the way a 'just' god would operate. If it were being done by a human in wartime, for example, none of us would call that scenario fair or honest.

 

[Saint Steven]

Apart from the above though, I fail to see how making a decision under duress should be considered right or just?

Where did you get the idea that the decision is under duress?

 

[sawdust]

Where did you get the idea that the decision is under duress?

They're in the Lake of Fire. There is weeping and gnashing of teeth because it is painful. What are you going to do? You'll say anything to end the pain.

 

[Saint Steven]

They're in the Lake of Fire. There is weeping and gnashing of teeth because it is painful. What are you going to do? You'll say anything to end the pain.

So you think the LOF is torture intended to extract a confession?
This might help.

Anyone who has knees to bow and a tongue to speak, in heaven and on earth and under the earth (in the realm of the dead), will whole-heartedly, and without reservation, acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord. No one can say that “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” you will be saved. Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. (the reason for the bodily resurrection) Scriptural support below.

Philippians 2:10-11
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

1 Corinthians 12:3
Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says,
“Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart
that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 14:9
For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that
he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

Note on "acknowledge" in Philippians 2:11 from Strong's Concordance
S1843 eksomologéō (from 1537 /ek, "wholly out from," intensifying 3670 /homologéō, "say the same thing about") – properly, fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly (whole-heartedly); hence, to confess ("openly declare"), without reservation (no holding back).

Further reading: (Isaiah 45:23, Romans 14:11, Philippians 2:10, Revelation 15:4)

 

[bling]

As for your questions, who can say?
I just think that any (most) humans that meet God for the first time in the afterlife would love, rather than hate, him.

This is based on a God who is restoring all of creation. Not the angry volcano god caricature that some believe in.

Saint Steven said: ↑
I mean meeting God in the afterlife where there is no room to doubt who it is.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Anyone that doesn't love God hasn't met him yet. End of story.

So the reason your giving for bad people in this world is, because God has not undoubtedly revealed Himself to people, in other words God’s fault?

When Jesus was sincerely asked by His disciples: “Shows the Father and we will be satisfied”, His answer was: “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father”, but you are saying that is not good enough?

What kind of “love” are you talking about, when you say “(most) humans that meet God for the first time in the afterlife would love, rather than hate, him?” If they “love” God because He is giving them a heavenly home, instead of sending them to hell, they might like the fact they got away with doing lots of really bad stuff on earth, and now have a push over for a God. They can be really happy; they do not have to humble themselves to the point of accepting pure undeserved charity.

Are selfish people ever satisfied?

How would all this make them unselfish?

The 12 were around an unselfish truly Loving Christ for three years, so did that make them unselfish?

 

[Saint Steven]

So the reason your giving for bad people in this world is, because God has not undoubtedly revealed Himself to people, in other words God’s fault?

Right, that's exactly what I said. - lol
Seriously?

Saint Steven said: ↑
As for your questions, who can say?
I just think that any (most) humans that meet God for the first time in the afterlife would love, rather than hate, him.

This is based on a God who is restoring all of creation. Not the angry volcano god caricature that some believe in.

Saint Steven said: ↑
I mean meeting God in the afterlife where there is no room to doubt who it is.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Anyone that doesn't love God hasn't met him yet. End of story.

 

[sawdust]

So you think the LOF is torture intended to extract a confession?
This might help.

Anyone who has knees to bow and a tongue to speak, in heaven and on earth and under the earth (in the realm of the dead), will whole-heartedly, and without reservation, acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord. No one can say that “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” you will be saved. Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. (the reason for the bodily resurrection) Scriptural support below.

Philippians 2:10-11
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

1 Corinthians 12:3
Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says,
“Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart
that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 14:9
For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that
he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

Note on "acknowledge" in Philippians 2:11 from Strong's Concordance
S1843 eksomologéō (from 1537 /ek, "wholly out from," intensifying 3670 /homologéō, "say the same thing about") – properly, fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly (whole-heartedly); hence, to confess ("openly declare"), without reservation (no holding back).

Further reading: (Isaiah 45:23, Romans 14:11, Philippians 2:10, Revelation 15:4)

No I don't think that is the purpose of the LoF but it would end up like that for anyone who has rejected Christ in this life and is still spiritually dead in their sin. The pain they would endure would lead them to say anything to make it stop. That's the point of what I am saying and you seem to keep missing it. It would make a mockery of freedom.

Now, when we choose for Christ, God the Father ensures we see the truth and are made free in that moment to choose for or against. That requires grace. There is no such grace given in the LoF. There is only the burning away of the lies until only that which is of faith remains. How much faith do you think the unsaved have?

I acknowledge our Prime Minister as being the Prime Minister whether I voted for him or not and I obey the law of the land whether I agree with it or not. Satan acknowledged Jesus is the Son of God and knew He is the Lord but that doesn't mean he acknowledged Him as his Lord. Just because people acknowledge something as true doesn't mean they embrace that truth for themselves.

Why do you think everyone must go through fire and what do you think it does?

 

[Hmm]

We may be some kind of agreement

All we two have been doing is debating 'for how long' and what about this makes God either just or unjust. So it may be just of him to reject or punish those who did evil in this life, were unrepentant about it, and did not commit to the Savior.

I agree that some form of rejection or punishment may be just but I think the question 'for how long' is key. If it's going to go on forever with no opportunity of redemption then I can't see how this can be considered moral.

HOWEVER, for God to then torture them until they decide to accept him just doesn't seem the way a 'just' god would operate. If it were being done by a human in wartime, for example, none of us would call that scenario fair or honest.

I agree again, the idea of God torturing someone is totally abhorrent. I believe He never gives up on any of us and tries to call us to Him in ways we simply can't comprehend even though we may be in 'hell'. The possibility of eternal separation comes from us persistently choosing to reject His calls.

At the end of the day, of course, I don't know but I do know that if there turned out to be a hell of everlasting fire and torment I would rather be there than in heaven - it would feel to me like the choice between the gulag or being in Stalin's inner circle.