quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
Specifically, what answer would you give, to the oft-repeated objection to christianity, that hell is an immoral concept?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
Increasingly fewer people believe in the tradition hell-fire doctrine,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
Freddy, I'm not so sure. I doubt that belief in God and belief in hell are quite as correlated as you think. I would guess that now, maybe more than ever, the opposite is becoming more and more true, though I admit there is still a majority that believes in some modified concept of hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
You think a loving God who condemns (perhaps predestines?) to Hell is more credible than universalism?

---

Papio, Digory is being ironic.

I think he is probably right.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gauk:
It might be interesting to replace one emotive term with another and see what difference it makes. Supposing one were to write, "it takes faith to believe in a God who condemns to gas chambers and saves"?

---

quote:

---

Anteater, are just talking about the UK? Worldwide I don't think that this is the case

---

quote:

---

what reasons do you give for throwing out a few thousand years of belief in a place where those who reject God go after they die?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Papio, Digory is being ironic.

---

quote:

---

The biggest obstacle any universalist-like theology has to overcome is the idea that it is much easier and nicer to believe in such a God, and therefore, the theology lacks credibility. In other words, it takes faith to believe in a God who condemns to hell and saves

---

quote:

---

First of all - am I? I've labelled the doctrine I reject as hell-fire to limit to a specific strict interpretation. If you hold that CSL's Great Divorce is within the tradition, then I don't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Is Hell the only immoral concept within Christianity?

---

Actually, this is a question worthy of discussion
 

---

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
A-a-a-a-gh. I'm having reall problems with getting these posts right. And I DO preview.
I hope you know what I mean now and apologise for the messy posts!
 

---

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
If you hold that CSL's Great Divorce is within the tradition, then I have not rejected the tradition, because I hold that as perfectly acceptable.

---

I wouldn't call CS Lewis's position in The Great Divorce universalist, to be honest.

What does 'the tradition' mean to you?

[Umm, replying to a post that's no longer there ]

[ 26. July 2006, 12:40: Message edited by: Demas ]
 

---

Posted by Gauk (# 1125) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Gas Chambers only end this life, they have nothing to say about an afterlife.

---

quote:

---

I wouldn't call CS Lewis's position in The Great Divorce universalist, to be honest.

---

quote:

---

What does 'the tradition' mean to you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
I feel that the effect of the current situation is that hardly anybody talks about judgement to come, because they want to steer away from this hot potato. In many churches there is a vocal minorty of hell-fire believers who "we don't want to offend".

---

quote:

---

I'd like views on this. Specifically, what answer would you give, to the oft-repeated objection to christianity, that hell is an immoral concept? Are you sure your church would back you? If you preached about against hell-fire, would you get beaten up?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
You think a loving God who condemns (perhaps predestines?) to Hell is more credible than universalism?

Wow.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gauk:
It might be interesting to replace one emotive term with another and see what difference it makes. Supposing one were to write, "it takes faith to believe in a God who condemns to gas chambers and saves"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
My point is that if belief in hell is a fading concept, it is fading only in populations where belief as a whole is fading.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:

quote:

---

I wouldn't call CS Lewis's position in The Great Divorce universalist, to be honest.

---

Neither would I, although I suspect that CSL would by hypothetically universalist, i.e. the doors never shut but people have to choose to walk in and may not. I'm not arguing for universalism, only against a specific strict interpretation of "hell-fire."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
My specific issue is:
Increasingly fewer people believe in the tradition hell-fire doctrine ... What I mean by this is the teaching about the unredeemed which says ... b) Their fate is a life of penal torment which could in no way be considered bearable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
You think a loving God who condemns (perhaps predestines?) to Hell is more credible than universalism?

Wow.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
what reasons do you give for throwing out a few thousand years of belief in a place where those who reject God go after they die?

---

quote:

---

I have to believe Hell exists as a state as Christ mentioned it. And, with the free will belief within me, I have to allow for the possibility that some people will not want to be in presence of God: as odd as that sounds -- otherwise God is overriding their free will.

But I pray it is empty nevertheless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lurker McLurker™:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
My specific issue is:
Increasingly fewer people believe in the tradition hell-fire doctrine ... What I mean by this is the teaching about the unredeemed which says ... b) Their fate is a life of penal torment which could in no way be considered bearable.

---

I disagree with the assertion that b) is part of the traditional doctrine of Hell. The idea that Hell is a punishment is not the earliest known Christian tradition, the early tradition (still taught by the Orthodox, among others- including some evangelical Protestants is that Hell is our choice, the natural result of a self-inflicted separation from God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhilA:
The problem of hell can be set out exactly the same as the problem of evil.

1) God is all powerful
2) God is all loving
3) Evil/hell exists

---

quote:

---

The problem of hell can be set out exactly the same as the problem of evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
The first obvious difference is that current Evil Events have happened, so we can't argue whether they are possible as we can with hell-fire. However, I take your point that if God allows great evil to exist, where do we place the boundary?

---

quote:

---

First: we believe there will be a time when the universe will come to be what God intends it to be. I think it is fair to say that this represents God's will in a clearer way that todays mixed world, where the "creation is groaning in travail until . . ". So there is a difference between God's allowance of temporal evil today and the idea of evil and good as co-eternal aspects of God's final kingdom.
Nobody believes that the Jewish genocide represents the full will of God. But I think most people believe that the final establishment of God's rule does, so it says more about God if this includes evil and suffering . . for ever.

---

quote:

---

Second, there is simply a judgement call. As for evil today, I take the view that the granting of autonomy to man, can be justified. I would myself accept a policy of granting independence to a country, even in the sure knowledge that the freedom would be misused. Other people may not accept this and say the price is too much to pay. I just disagree. Similarly, if someone believes that endless torture is a fit punishment for certain crimes: that is their call, and I disagree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gauk:
Hmm.

The difference between Hell and evil could be that Hell is arguably a designed feature and hurricanes, plagues, etc are not. This is open to dispute, if you believe that Hell is a naturally existing phenomenon that just happens to feature eternal torture. Or if you believe that God sends plagues and disasters.

---

quote:

---

What is certainly a difference is that traditional Hell is in the next world, and disasters are in this world. One can posit a theodicy in which God is unable or unwilling to intervene to stop evil in this world, but if the same applies in the next world ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Would not such an intervention have to override individual free will; if it did, what real value would it have?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhilA:
This is only a valid point if you think that hell is for the purpose of punishment - I have already said that this is not the case.

---

I'm glad you can be so authorative on this. I was aware of your opinion on this matter when I posted. However, some people believe that it is a place for punishment, and this belief is being debated in this thread by the OP. I did use the words "if you believe that ..." in the post you quote.
 

---

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :
 
Fair point Gauk. Sorry, I got a bit carried away.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Oh dear, I'll have to trot out "The River of Fire" again,[/URL].

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
You think a loving God who condemns (perhaps predestines?) to Hell is more credible than universalism?

Wow.

---

Yes - I for one think (on balance) that a God who could send Hitler to hell is better than one who would send him to heaven.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Ok different track Papio. How come Jesus seemed to take Hell for granted? More cultural relativism? A profoundly mistaken Messiah?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
You think a loving God who condemns (perhaps predestines?) to Hell is more credible than universalism?

Wow.

---

Yes - I for one think (on balance) that a God who could send Hitler to hell is better than one who would send him to heaven.

---

What is Hitler is is Heaven, but Old Mrs Miggins from down the road, who devoted her entire life to charitable works but never once believe in God is in Hell?

For me, that possibility (and it really doesn't have to be any more than an abstract possibility) alone is sufficient to show that EITHER there is a loving God OR there is a Hell but that BOTH existing at the same time is an impossibility.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
Somewhere, the issue of the immortality of the soul is likely to come up. I don't believe in it. It's not Biblical, not even in any of the ecumenical creeds,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
Somewhere, the issue of the immortality of the soul is likely to come up. I don't believe in it. It's not Biblical, not even in any of the ecumenical creeds, and I see not the slightest reason to believe it.

---

quote:

---

Psalm 23:6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life; And I will dwell in the house of the LORD Forever.

Psalm 37:27 Depart from evil, and do good; And dwell forevermore.

Psalm 37:29 The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell in it forever.

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.

Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Matthew 16:26 For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?

Revelation 20:4 Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

---

quote:

---

But the Apostles' Creed ends "resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting." What does that mean to you?

---

quote:

---

On the issue of free will--surely, if it exists, then one can choose to reject God and keep on choosing that way, for all eternity. Such an attitude would equal hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
What is Hitler is is Heaven, but Old Mrs Miggins from down the road, who devoted her entire life to charitable works but never once believe in God is in Hell?

For me, that possibility (and it really doesn't have to be any more than an abstract possibility) alone is sufficient to show that EITHER there is a loving God OR there is a Hell but that BOTH existing at the same time is an impossibility.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Ok different track Papio. How come Jesus seemed to take Hell for granted? More cultural relativism? A profoundly mistaken Messiah?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhilA:
Jesus took the story of 'Jonah and the whale' for granted too.( Matt 12:40 )Is that story literal? Was Jesus mistaken?

---

You could say that about any miracle. I think that the miracle of Jonah and the great fish really happened. Just like the manna and the parting of the Red Sea.
 

---

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
Thanks for saying most of what I would have if I'd got here sooner, Papio .

But I'd like to pick up on a few points.

The first is that Hell is Eternal. Therefore it is not the same as Evil, which is only transitive. I firmly believe that most evil is simply the result of a lack of balance or perspective - and entities in this world can not grow in a manner that is truly balanced - and do not have a complete perspective without omniscience. Therefore the problem with hell is not the same as the problem of evil. Or rather not all solutions for the problem of evil will work with the problem of hell.

The second is again that Hell is Eternal. This world is not. Therefore condemning someone to Hell for sins in this world is unjust no matter what the sin. Justice for Hitler may involve torment equivalent to the suffering of millions of people. And it may feel eternal to Hitler while it is taking place. But there is a point beyond which punishment ceases to be justice and becomes vengance. And any punishment that is eternal is vengance rather than justice.

And for a being who is Love and is Justice and is Mercy to take actions that are vengance demonstrates that such a being is not Love, or Justice, or Mercy. Such a being is an impostor masquerading as one of the above qualities. And as such is not fit to lick my boots.

So what would it take for a good God to have created a Hell? I see several possibilities.

The first is that Hell is not eternal but is instead a place where people are sent to learn their lesson before they can be admitted to Heaven. In which case, what we have is not Hell but Purgatory. Fairy 'Nuff. Unpleasant but perhaps necessary.

The second is that Hell is somewhere people directly and continually condemn themselves to and choose to remain in. If no one remains in Hell for eternity, you are in the same situation as the previous - with Hell actually being Purgatory. If there are those who choose to stay in Hell eternally, then you can have a good, kind, and merciful God - but he is imperfect as evidenced by the fact that he has wrought amiss with those individuals and can not persuade them to redeem themselves (or perhaps doesn't care).

The third is that Hell is death - a short sharp shock. Here, you not only have an imperfect God (who creates beings that are so amiss that he will not redeem them) but an unmerciful one (who will not use his omnipotence to show them how to redeem themselves). In short, such a Hell is vengance personified. And such a God is many things including Just - but not Merciful or Loving.

Finally, you get that Hell is reincarnation. This is a subset of Purgatory.

To sum up, there is no way any entity can be eternally condemned to Hell without making God more Vengeful than he is Just, Loving, or Merciful. And such a God I call good only on the principle that the Furies were known as the Erinyes or Kindly Ones.

[ 26. July 2006, 21:02: Message edited by: Justinian ]
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
You think a loving God who condemns (perhaps predestines?) to Hell is more credible than universalism?

Wow.

---

Yes - I for one think (on balance) that a God who could send Hitler to hell is better than one who would send him to heaven.

---

What is Hitler is is Heaven, but Old Mrs Miggins from down the road, who devoted her entire life to charitable works but never once believe in God is in Hell?

For me, that possibility (and it really doesn't have to be any more than an abstract possibility) alone is sufficient to show that EITHER there is a loving God OR there is a Hell but that BOTH existing at the same time is an impossibility.

---

Why would a loving God who is also just not solve the problem just as well?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
The second is that Hell is somewhere people directly and continually condemn themselves to and choose to remain in. If no one remains in Hell for eternity, you are in the same situation as the previous - with Hell actually being Purgatory. If there are those who choose to stay in Hell eternally, then you can have a good, kind, and merciful God - but he is imperfect as evidenced by the fact that he has wrought amiss with those individuals and can not persuade them to redeem themselves (or perhaps doesn't care).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
How come Jesus seemed to take Hell for granted?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
Why would a loving God who is also just not solve the problem just as well?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
If there are those who choose to stay in Hell eternally, then you can have a good, kind, and merciful God - but he is imperfect as evidenced by the fact that he has wrought amiss with those individuals and can not persuade them to redeem themselves (or perhaps doesn't care).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Justinian, are you sure that this makes God imperfect? If people stay in hell because they prefer it, why is God imperfect?

I can easily imagine people prefering adultery to legitimate marriage. A God that allows them to do this seems more, not less perfect to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I can easily imagine people prefering adultery to legitimate marriage. A God that allows them to do this seems more, not less perfect to me.

---

Do parents who allow their children to drink in excess, do drugs, etc. seem more perfect than those who step in to remind, and occasionally interrupt their children's free will to teach them about the true dangers of certain life choices?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Justinian, are you sure that this makes God imperfect? If people stay in hell because they prefer it, why is God imperfect?

---

quote:

---

I can easily imagine people prefering adultery to legitimate marriage. A God that allows them to do this seems more, not less perfect to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
So God should not allow adultery after death? How about adulterous thoughts?

People aren't children. You have to let them follow their own desires - at least to some degree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chemincreux:
Lamb Chopped. It may be an attractive cliche, but I don't see quite how the doors of hell can be everlastingly locked on the inside. Not unless the process somehow involved voluntary insanity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
Some people tone down their view of hell from the traditional lake of eternal fiery torment; you can see this approach in The Great Divorce very clearly. Hell is still bad; but not so obviously sadistic.

The second approach I see is that people diminish God's role. He becomes no longer the Just Judge, righteously condemning the guilty, but a worried parent, looking on as his children jump off the cliff but unwilling to interfere with their 'free will'.

---

Demas, I see your point, and it's a good one. But I think we might have one of those concepts which can be communicated truthfully in more than one way (like the atonement, etc. etc.)

As for the "new hell" being not so very bad after all--I don't think anybody but a citizen (!) could ever find it remotely tolerable, and its citizens would be utterly miserable. The Biblical burning imagery conveys pain, suffering, and destruction; we could probably use a less colorful metaphor and say "utter spiritual destruction" to convey the same reality, but that simply doesn't have the same gut-gripping, terrorizing quality that fire does to most people. Which is a short way of saying that I think both sets of metaphors are useful and necessary to communicate in the modern Western world.

As for God as the righteous Judge who condemns the unrepentant to destruction--this is most certainly true. Yet I think the "worried parent" analogy is also true and Scriptural--witness passages like "How can I give you up, O Ephraim? How can I hand you over, O Judah? My heart turns within me.... I am God among you, and I will not come to destroy."

Again, I think we need both analogies. Frankly, it's difficult to preach the Gospel in the Western world, because those who hear us rarely feel any great sense of guilt or shame themselves. They are more likely to sit in judgement on God for his immoral behavior(witness this thread! ) than to see themselves as sinners in front of the Judge. How to reach such people? Before we can ever get to the good news (the acquittal Christ offers us) we have to preach the bad news of human guilt, sin and brokenness--and that news is very, very bad indeed.

So in these cultures, we generally begin from a different starting point. We try to meet people where they are, not where we think they ought to be.

Just how do you think it would go over if I were to say to your average, decent non-Christian who raises these issues, "How dare you sit in judgment on the Most High? He is the Creator, you are the creation. Stop being so cheeky."

It's certainly a biblical viewpoint (witness Job and parts of Paul), but it's apt to shut down the conversation immediately. AND the friendship. The person never gets to a point where that rebuke makes sense, because I've shoved it in his face when he hasn't got the wherewithal to understand it. Rebukes like that are probably best saved for those who already admit the Lordship of Christ--to those who have already "signed on," so to speak.

This is NOT an argument for hiding bits of the Truth, or sliding over troublesome bits of Scripture or doctrine. That would be dishonest and stupid, too. And if the person brings it up in conversation himself, it's time to talk about it. But jamming God's Lordship and Justice into every conversation with a non-believer is likely to have the same effect hellfire-and-brimstone preachers had on my granddad--to turn them away from the church before they ever really know what it's all about.
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
If God chooses not to convince people that Heaven is better for them than Hell over the timeframe of Eternity, God clearly does not want what is best for them. And as loving someone involves wanting what is best for them, God clearly isn't loving towards them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
Some people tone down their view of hell from the traditional lake of eternal fiery torment; you can see this approach in The Great Divorce very clearly. Hell is still bad; but not so obviously sadistic.

The second approach I see is that people diminish God's role. He becomes no longer the Just Judge, righteously condemning the guilty, but a worried parent, looking on as his children jump off the cliff but unwilling to interfere with their 'free will'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Again, I think we need both analogies. Frankly, it's difficult to preach the Gospel in the Western world, because those who hear us rarely feel any great sense of guilt or shame themselves. They are more likely to sit in judgement on God for his immoral behavior(witness this thread! ) than to see themselves as sinners in front of the Judge. How to reach such people? Before we can ever get to the good news (the acquittal Christ offers us) we have to preach the bad news of human guilt, sin and brokenness--and that news is very, very bad indeed.

---

quote:

---

Just how do you think it would go over if I were to say to your average, decent non-Christian who raises these issues, "How dare you sit in judgment on the Most High? He is the Creator, you are the creation. Stop being so cheeky."

---

quote:

---

But jamming God's Lordship and Justice into every conversation with a non-believer is likely to have the same effect hellfire-and-brimstone preachers had on my granddad--to turn them away from the church before they ever really know what it's all about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
If God chooses not to convince people that Heaven is better for them than Hell over the timeframe of Eternity, God clearly does not want what is best for them. And as loving someone involves wanting what is best for them, God clearly isn't loving towards them.

---

Justinian, this point of view doesn't allow for any differences at all, then. If God allows any person to have a weaker love than another, He does not want what is best for them.

---

quote:

---

Surely God allows for some degree of variety and extent in people's love of Him and His laws. It's just a question of how great you allow that variety to be. How much variety would you allow?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Frankly, it's difficult to preach the Gospel in the Western world, because those who hear us rarely feel any great sense of guilt or shame themselves. They are more likely to sit in judgement on God for his immoral behavior(witness this thread! ) than to see themselves as sinners in front of the Judge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
If God chooses not to convince people that Heaven is better for them than Hell over the timeframe of Eternity, God clearly does not want what is best for them. And as loving someone involves wanting what is best for them, God clearly isn't loving towards them.

---

Justinian, this point of view doesn't allow for any differences at all, then. If God allows any person to have a weaker love than another, He does not want what is best for them.

---

I don't understand your objection. Wanting what is best for my girlfriend is different from wanting what is best for my sister. And I treat them very differently. But in neither case do I condemn them to eternal torment. And in neither case do I kill them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
Part of the problem with these threads is that it becomes increasingly clear that there are deep differences in opinion between non-universalists as to what hell is, who gets there and how.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I think that's the problem here. I think that the medieval idea of hell is a straw man. Lewis' idea is more realistic and compassionate. I don't agree that it's watered down.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Frankly, it's difficult to preach the Gospel in the Western world, because those who hear us rarely feel any great sense of guilt or shame themselves. They are more likely to sit in judgement on God for his immoral behavior(witness this thread! ) than to see themselves as sinners in front of the Judge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
Let's leave compassionate to one side for the moment - I'm not sure what you're meaning when you say that Lewis' conception of hell is more 'realistic'?

Do you mean that it is closer to Jesus' conception? Paul's? The description of hell in scripture? More in keeping with certain philosophies? More in keeping with our empirical knowledge of the world?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
So where you would disagree with a universalist is whether or not God is willing and able to relieve us of our suffering if we have chosen to trap ourselves in it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Frankly, it's difficult to preach the Gospel in the Western world, because those who hear us rarely feel any great sense of guilt or shame themselves. They are more likely to sit in judgement on God for his immoral behavior(witness this thread! ) than to see themselves as sinners in front of the Judge.

---

They're not judging God; they're judging you.

More specifically, they're judging what you are telling them about God. They are comparing it with what other people are telling them about God, and with what their innate sense of right and wrong and their own knowledge of the nature of love tells them about a story which says that God is just and loving, and will also eternally torture (or allow to be tortured) the people he loves.

---

Well, first of all, I specifically said that this is not a form of "evangelism" I favor (hellfire and brimstone preaching). Second, I didn't make up the doctrine of hell. It's out of the Bible. So anyone who wishes to judge may do so, but it isn't me they're judging.

But I think you're missing my point. I have nothing against a person who hears the teaching about hell and says, "I simply can't believe it, I can't get my mind to take that particular shape, it just doesn't seem right to me." Nor do I think such a person is in any more danger of judgment than the rest of us.

What I WAS trying to say is that most cultures I'm aware of (I've studied quite a few, so this isn't total gas) have a deep-seated sense of "God (or the gods) is up there, and I'm down here, and I'd better keep that fact in mind." They may moan and bitch and complain, in extremely robust language (see the psalmists for example) but they don't usually lose track of who's on top. They consider hubris to be a sin, and they commend the man who knows his place--in the universe, in the world, in the family. And who functions in it properly, beautifully, and freely.

But in the West, many (most?) of us have lost that sense of hierarchy, of being under anyone's authority but our own. We sit in judgement on God, on our leaders, and on our parents. (Okay, in the case of some of our leaders, that's more than warranted. ) But we make our own personal judgement the standard of the universe, and we have a darned hard time in admitting that We Might Possibly Be Wrong. Or in bowing gracefully to the will of someone else when we are convinced that They Are Wrong--even in fairly trivial matters.

And God forbid that we should be asked to accept the authority of a sacred book, an old tradition, or the opinions of those older and more experienced than us.

(Yes, I know I'm talking heresy, and will likely be flamed for it. But I do think there is some medium ground between "I did it my way" and "Father knows best." Western culture leans far too heavily to the first, IMHO.)
 

---

Posted by professor kirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
My point is that God allows everyone to be different. Some love Him more and some less. Those who love Him less and love one another less need to be given that freedom.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Ok different track Papio. How come Jesus seemed to take Hell for granted? More cultural relativism? A profoundly mistaken Messiah?

---

A bloke who was in and of his time.

---

quote:

---

Self centered desires do provide joys, it's just that those joys are misery compared with heavenly joy. People are able to experience this in the world as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
[...] Second, I didn't make up the doctrine of hell. It's out of the Bible. So anyone who wishes to judge may do so, but it isn't me they're judging.

---

quote:

---

But in the West, many (most?) of us have lost that sense of hierarchy, of being under anyone's authority but our own. We sit in judgement on God, on our leaders, and on our parents. (Okay, in the case of some of our leaders, that's more than warranted. ) But we make our own personal judgement the standard of the universe, and we have a darned hard time in admitting that We Might Possibly Be Wrong.

---

quote:

---

How is it [the immortality of the soul]not biblical. The Bible has almost 400 references to the word "soul" and there are numerous indications that it is immortal.

---

I can't see how you can establish this based on the texts you cite. I don't think you're even close.
You can't argue from the everlasting reward of the righteous that immortality is something intrinsic to all humans. It just doesn't follow.
The only two you cite which mention those outside of God's favour talk about there soul being destroyed or lost. Why does this prove they are immortal?
The part this doctrine plays in the defence of hell, is the argument used by CSLewis that God would mercifully rub out the lives of the unsaved if he could, but he can't because as a metaphysical fact, the annihilation of the human soul is an impossibility.
I don't know a shred of evidence for this in the canonical scripture.
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
I think of Heaven and Hell like this.

If Heaven is fully-realised eternal life, none of us deserve to have it. We're agreed that we can't earn our way into Heaven, right? We can't be perfect enough to compel God from simple justice to grant us an entry pass to Heaven.

If we think of Hell as the alternative or perhaps the collective name for the alternatives to Heaven (whatever that might entail) then by this argument, everybody deserves Hell. So, the existence of Hell can't be said to make God unjust in the sense of "it would be unfair of God to send anyone to Hell."

A more nuanced argument is that it would be unfair of God to rescue some and not others, since nobody deserves Heaven anyway. I think this might be fair criticism of full-on predestination Calvinism but on the other hand, consider this...

...think about a person who eternally rejects God and ends up in Hell. From an eternity-eye view you could say that a loving God should either 1) have never caused this person to exist, 2) cause the person to cease to exist so as to avoid Hell, or 3) change something about the person such that they would not maintain their resistance.

1) and 2) are deeply problematic for me. How could you be said to love someone if your assessment of their value was that they should be wiped out of existence? If one of my children grew up to be a murderer, deeply unhappy and so on, would I be loving if I were to develop a time machine and then go back and kill him at birth?

3) is trickier but "Just as I am" and all that says that God really does love a person even if that person ends up in Hell. I'm approaching my level of philosophical incompetence here but I don't know how far you could change a person against their will without actually erasing them and replacing them with somebody else.

The crux (cough) of the matter is whether God is looking at Hell (whatever Hell is like) thinking "Bastards. I wonder if I could make it any hotter?" or if he would drag them out if it was meaningful and possible to do so.
 

---

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 
So, in summary, we are back at the old position that if hell exists then God is either impotent or a bastard.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 

 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
So, in summary, we are back at the old position that if hell exists then God is either impotent or a bastard.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Earthling:
I find this idea interesting, that serving others = happiness = heaven, and serving oneself = (ultimately) misery = hell.

Don't you find that to live a happy, balanced life we need to do both, we serve other people which is good and we also sometimes do things for ourselves, which is also good? Perhaps eternal happiness might be spending the week serving in heaven and then partying in hell at the weekends?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
In your opinion Demas, would it be more loving to create somebody who doesn't make it to Heaven, or to fail to create them at all?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
I don't know a shred of evidence for this in the canonical scripture.

---

quote:

---

Matthew 18:8 “If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire.”

Matthew 25:41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels….45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Mark 9 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched— 44 where ‘ Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.
45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched— 46 where
‘ Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.
47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire— 48 where
‘ Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.’

Isaiah 66.23 And it shall come to pass
That from one New Moon to another,
And from one Sabbath to another,
All flesh shall come to worship before Me,” says the LORD.
24 “ And they shall go forth and look
Upon the corpses of the men
Who have transgressed against Me.
For their worm does not die,
And their fire is not quenched.
They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”

2 Thessalonians 1 “It is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, 7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
My point is that God allows everyone to be different. Some love Him more and some less. Those who love Him less and love one another less need to be given that freedom.

---

This is a confusing twist. Your objection to the idea that all could end up in heaven is that this would make everyone the same?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
So, in summary, we are back at the old position that if hell exists then God is either impotent or a bastard.

---

Sorry, Demas, but my was to Greyface, not you; I wouldn't describe God so much as impotent as lovingly self-limited
 

---

Posted by Lurker McLurker™ (# 1384) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
There have been a few posts seemingly influenced by Orthodox ideas, to the effect that Hell is a self-inflicted state. I can't tell whether they believe that the experience of hell is what I have called hell-fire, i.e. excruciating, everlasting and unavoidable. Pls clarify.

---

I'd say it is excruciating (if the souls in Hell are conscious enough to feel) as separation from God would mean separation from everything good.

Everlasting? I don't know if those in Hell are capable of repentance or not. I think that Jesus' descriptions of Hell aren't clear enough to say one way or the other.

Unavoidable. Of course not, if Hell is our choice then it is avoidable. Hopefully everyone will avoid it.

As for the Hitler question, what about Paul, who tried to stamp out Christianity? What about John Newton, involved in a crime against humanity of the same order of magnitude as the Holocaust? Would anyone say they don't belong in Heaven?
 

---

Posted by Jamac (# 11621) on :
 
I guess we need to have a God we can live with. I wonder if the issue in eternity is: What can God live with? The Bible describes him as not only good, but holy. Holy is problematic for me cos I'm not. But if he is then how can I dwell with him? Wouldn't I rather be somewhere else? Holy is scary. Holy is fire. Holy is hell for the unholy.
If God knowing his own nature knew that some of his created beings would be unable to handle being in proximity to him and consequently created a place or whatever that they could be given their immortality, wouldn't that be a loving act?
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Greyface, I agree with Matt about your post. I think you have it.

However, I'm not quite in line with this:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
If Heaven is fully-realised eternal life, none of us deserve to have it. We're agreed that we can't earn our way into Heaven, right? We can't be perfect enough to compel God from simple justice to grant us an entry pass to Heaven.

---

quote:

---

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Romans 3:10 As it is written: “ There is none righteous, no, not one;"

---

quote:

---

Matthew 7:21 Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”

1 John 2:17 And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.

---

Not that it is a matter of deserving. It is all from God. The reality, I think, is that doing God's will opens us up inside so that God can work within us. The process is really about our willingness to receive what God would give us.

In any case, your first statement above seems to contradict the statement below, which I really agree with, and which I think, is why Matt gave you the :

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
I'm approaching my level of philosophical incompetence here but I don't know how far you could change a person against their will without actually erasing them and replacing them with somebody else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
The crux (cough) of the matter is whether God is looking at Hell (whatever Hell is like) thinking "Bastards. I wonder if I could make it any hotter?" or if he would drag them out if it was meaningful and possible to do so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
What could conceivably _prevent_ God dragging the unfortunates off the toast-rack if he chose to do so?

---

quote:

---

But in what circumstances can it be more loving to let a person languish in Hell (whatever it is) than to drag him out?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
The crux (cough) of the matter is whether God is looking at Hell (whatever Hell is like) thinking "Bastards. I wonder if I could make it any hotter?" or if he would drag them out if it was meaningful and possible to do so.

---

What could conceivably _prevent_ God dragging the unfortunates off the toast-rack if he chose to do so?

Matt Black describes God in these circumstances as `lovingly self-limited', rather than logically or metaphysically limited. But in what circumstances can it be more loving to let a person languish in Hell (whatever it is) than to drag him out?

---

quote:

---

I think all this free-will-don't-interfere-with-personal-integrity stuff just doesn't cut the mustard. I regularly interfere with my kids' free will when they want to play in the traffic. Why should I expect less from God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
If dragging him out involves annihilating him?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

But in what circumstances can it be more loving to let a person languish in Hell (whatever it is) than to drag him out?

---

If dragging him out involves annihilating him?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
What I WAS trying to say is that most cultures I'm aware of (I've studied quite a few, so this isn't total gas) have a deep-seated sense of "God (or the gods) is up there, and I'm down here, and I'd better keep that fact in mind." They may moan and bitch and complain, in extremely robust language (see the psalmists for example) but they don't usually lose track of who's on top. They consider hubris to be a sin, and they commend the man who knows his place--in the universe, in the world, in the family. And who functions in it properly, beautifully, and freely.

---

quote:

---

But in the West, many (most?) of us have lost that sense of hierarchy, of being under anyone's authority but our own. We sit in judgement on God, on our leaders, and on our parents. (Okay, in the case of some of our leaders, that's more than warranted. )

---

quote:

---

And God forbid that we should be asked to accept the authority of a sacred book, an old tradition, or the opinions of those older and more experienced than us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Sorry, Demas, but my [Overused] was to Greyface, not you; I wouldn't describe God so much as impotent as lovingly self-limited

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
A merciful God allows me to say whatever idiotic thing I want, as long as I obey the Ship's Commandments. According to Justinian's argument, I think, God would not be loving if He allowed those who are wrong to keep on being wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
The one I favour most is that getting off the toast-rack requires freely-chosen repentance, not because God's sat there saying "I'm not letting you out until..." but because being Heavenly and repentance are intricately related.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

But in what circumstances can it be more loving to let a person languish in Hell (whatever it is) than to drag him out?

---

If dragging him out involves annihilating him? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Shreds are pretty small things. Would these qualify?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Surely annihilation is preferable to eternal torment?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

I think all this free-will-don't-interfere-with-personal-integrity stuff just doesn't cut the mustard. I regularly interfere with my kids' free will when they want to play in the traffic. Why should I expect less from God?

---

Because we should expect more from ourselves to the extent that we're not children. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Surely annihilation is preferable to eternal torment?

---

It might depend on the nature of the torment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Surely annihilation is preferable to eternal torment?

---

It might depend on the nature of the torment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
What I find tricky is why God would allow such a situation to develop in the first place. Again we come back to the old free-will chestnut, no? God creates us with sufficient free will to reject him if we choose. But why create people capable of rejecting him indefinitely?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
well I've tried to argue that it might be more loving to create such a person than have them never exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black::

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
I think all this free-will-don't-interfere-with-personal-integrity stuff just doesn't cut the mustard. I regularly interfere with my kids' free will when they want to play in the traffic. Why should I expect less from God?

---

quote:

---

Matt:Because we should expect more from ourselves to the extent that we're not children.

---

CC:But we are all like children before God, aren't we?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
That would be to absolve us from all responsibility for our actions - and I don't find that concept in Scripture or Tradition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Not if the action is the knowing and fully-informed refusal to be with God/ in heaven

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Not if the action is the knowing and fully-informed refusal to be with God/ in heaven

---

So you're giving humans Omniscience after death now? And full access to the mind of God? That's the only way they could be fully informed.

In short, the conditions you state are impossible for any lesser being than God. Thanks for arguing my case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Just for the record, I do NOT lie to people in an attempt to convert them, and I do not recommend this course to others. That's seriously fucked up.

---

quote:

---

There are two senses of the word "fear." One involves cringing and terror--the kind of thing you get with the pantheons you speak of, a sense of being in the hands of an irrational but powerful being. That's not what I'm recommending. Got it?

---

quote:

---

There is also the "fear" which refers to a healthy respect for someone worthy of respect--one's father, one's teacher, one's boss, or God. This is the "fear" that in most cultures (and sometimes in our own) prevents people from smart-mouthing their elders. Not the fear of being sent sailing across the room, but rather a sense that it's wholly inappropriate, and particularly coming from a person in a lower position to a person in a higher position.

---

quote:

---

I'm not concerned with people questioning, arguing, or even complaining to God. God knows I do this plenty myself. What bugs me is the culturally pervasive attitude of "God is my copilot," "me and Jesus-my-buddy," "God-you-better- come- through for me," "God- you- owe- me- one," and anything else that is based on an idea that the speaker is equal or higher than God, and has the right to cheek him that way. It's just damned rude. Though I'm sure those who do it, don't see it that way.

---

quote:

---

To be sure, God doesn't need my help to defend him--that would be just as presumptuous as the other. But I was trying to explain why this whole "God on trial" bit bugs me. I'll shut up now.

---

God is on trial because without such a trial he can not be given the sort of respect you want. Such respect attaches to beings rather than to power (which gives the respect based on fear). And in order to understand the being and whether they are worthy of respect, such a judgement is necessary.

Quick question so you can see the difference: If it turned out that the creator and omnipotent one was actually Lucifer, would you give him the same respect you give God?

And Matt, whether or not we can have excuses, we can not have full and informed consent without omniscience and experience. Therefore your condition is completely impossible for a human. We are not absolved of responsibility - but the outcome is not just and is ordained by God.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Okay, one quickie and I'm out like I promised--I would NOT cheek Lucifer either, even in his current position. One does not cheek a tiger, caged or not.
 

---

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Okay, one quickie and I'm out like I promised--I would NOT cheek Lucifer either, even in his current position. One does not cheek a tiger, caged or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by angelfish:
The point of love is that it can only be given, not procured. We can only love our children, show them how to love and then hope they love us in return. Isn't it the same with God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
Freddy:

quote:

---

Shreds are pretty small things. Would these qualify?

---

None is in the slightest bit relevant. Yes they ARE relevant to the issue of future judgement, hence all the arguments about their precise meaning. None of them has any bearing on the question as to whether the soul is metaphysically indestructable.

---

quote:

---

Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
If Heaven is fully-realised eternal life, none of us deserve to have it. We're agreed that we can't earn our way into Heaven, right? We can't be perfect enough to compel God from simple justice to grant us an entry pass to Heaven.

---

quote:

---

If we think of Hell as the alternative or perhaps the collective name for the alternatives to Heaven (whatever that might entail) then by this argument, everybody deserves Hell.

---

quote:

---

...think about a person who eternally rejects God and ends up in Hell.

---

quote:

---

How could you be said to love someone if your assessment of their value was that they should be wiped out of existence? If one of my children grew up to be a murderer, deeply unhappy and so on, would I be loving if I were to develop a time machine and then go back and kill him at birth?

---

quote:

---

I'm approaching my level of philosophical incompetence here but I don't know how far you could change a person against their will without actually erasing them and replacing them with somebody else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
2. Hell is defined as any alternative to Heaven.

This is a very loose definition that disregards most people's traditional concept of Hell being a place of misery (for whatever reason). If Hell can be an "okay enough place," what is it?

---

quote:

---

3. It is possible to eternally reject God.

Why is this so universally accepted as Absolute Truth™? What if it's not possible? What if it's extremely unlikely?

---

quote:

---

4. Hell is better than annihilation.

As others have said, this seems blatantly false. Eternal suffering, in any form, known or unknown, seems obviously worse than non-existence.

---

quote:

---

5. Some people were created to reject God, and causing them to accept God would change their fundamental being.

This boils down to flat-out Calvin's five

---

Absolute nonsense. You have to remove free will to be able to say this is one of my assumptions. What's wrong with Calvin's model is that God creates people who has no chance. Omniscience might be able to foresee what they will freely do, but that's not the same thing. They were not created to reject God. It's all in Boethius

quote:

---

If we are all created with the potential to love and accept God, then God's loving, coaxing, unending pursuit can win us all to him without changing anyone intrinsically.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:


A normal Bible reading gives us two options:

quote:

---

Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

---

Either way, the soul lasts forever. Are you aware of passages that say something different?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by angelfish:
The parent plucking a child from the path of an oncoming vehicle would not necessarily thereby elicit a change in the child's attitude to playing in the road. It would be a "one-off" save but not a "conversion". All the parent can hope for is that by following his example, the child will learn that roads are dangerous and cease, by his own volition, to play in the road.

I am sure God would be able to "physically" remove someone from Hell (or change her experience of Him so that she could bear to be in His presence if you prefer) but this could not guarantee the person would not stop wanting to turn away from Him at a future date. God can't change the individual's mind without somehow controlling her will.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
But can God bring about a state of affairs in which people are mostly free, and yet always freely accept him? I don't think that is a logical impossibility.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Because, for me at least, love can only be love if it is totally free. I can pluck my child from the road but I cannot force him to love me. If, as I believe, God's primary attribute is love, then that total freedom must be given by Him to us - and that includes our freedom to reject Him.

---

You can't make the child love you, this is true. But neither did the child have any choice to whether he was plucked out or not.

Another analogy would be someone who is about to jump of a building. Even if it were there expressed desire to jump, if I had the chance to forcibly stop them doing it I would. In this sense I would be acting against there free will because I think I have a greater persective on what is good for them.
Eventual salvation for all is not inconsistent with free will. For it to be an impossibility to be separate from God's presence is just a state of affairs of which we have no choice. We have no choice whether we die or not.

If there is a consioussness after death then I reserve the possibility that some will not be very happy to be in the presence of God, and if I knew there were some souls suffering eternal punishment while I am supposed to be enjoying my salvation, I might be one of those unhappy souls in heaven.
 

---

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :
 
I agree with you, Canlindreams

- but to say that if God is unable to make everyone happy in his presence He is therefore imperfect (as per Justinian above) is, I think, distorting the meaning of the word "perfect" to mean "can do anything, even something that is logically impossible". If that is your definition of the word "perfect" then yes, God is imperfect.

It is logically impossible to force a person's will, whilst maintatining their freedom to choose. I am sure God can be highly persuasive (as he is in many instances on earth - see the conversion of Saul/Paul for one such example) but it is still up to the individual to submit to the refining, "burning" process of being in contact with God and be made holy through it, or to fight/reject the process and forfeit a right relationship with God (and thus fullness of joy) as a result. Isn't it the spiritual equivalent of leading a horse to water but not being able to make him drink?

I think I may now be confounding the processes of sanctification and salvation - but what is the difference (if any)?

[ 28. July 2006, 11:28: Message edited by: angelfish ]
 

---

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 
I'm pretty sure I could make you happy in my presence by lacing your food with ecstasy. I could certainly make you happy by rearranging your neurons appropriately, had I the knowledge and power to do so.

I'm not sure why making me happy against my will is somehow a logical impossibility. I think that this thread is displaying a highly abstract and quite unrealistic conception of 'free will'.

I also think that this thread is displaying a view of judgment and hell which is at the very least as unorthodox as anything which a universalist could come up with!

Can you point me to a denomination which openly teaches that God allows us to choose to go to hell out of his love for us and respect for our free will, but that's OK because hell isn't that bad anyway?

(OK, maybe Freddy shouldn't answer that question )
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
(OK, maybe Freddy shouldn't answer that question )

---

I just might.

But I don't want anyone to think that I don't think hell is all that bad. The New Church teaches the hell that is in "The Great Divorce." It is pretty bad, but it is chosen nevertheless.
 

---

Posted by Calindreams (# 9147) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by angelfish:
I agree with you, Canlindreams

- but to say that if God is unable to make everyone happy in his presence He is therefore imperfect (as per Justinian above) is, I think, distorting the meaning of the word "perfect" to mean "can do anything, even something that is logically impossible". If that is your definition of the word "perfect" then yes, God is imperfect.

---

quote:

---

By Demas:
I'm not sure why making me happy against my will is somehow a logical impossibility.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
2. Hell is defined as any alternative to Heaven.

This is a very loose definition that disregards most people's traditional concept of Hell being a place of misery (for whatever reason). If Hell can be an "okay enough place," what is it?

---

Don't know, we only have metaphorical language about it.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

3. It is possible to eternally reject God.

Why is this so universally accepted as Absolute Truth™? What if it's not possible? What if it's extremely unlikely?

---

Free will theodicy requires it. Without it, why does any suffering exist?

---

quote:

---

So would you obliterate your children if you knew they'd be unhappy for ever? Or make them as happy as you could, even if that involved a fair bit of weeping and teeth-gnashing? Most people seem unwilling to answer that question.

Life as it is seems generally a mix of suffering and joy. At the moment for example I'm "suffering" from sinusitis but if you come round here recommending euthanasia and berating my mother for giving birth to me, I'll set the dogs loose.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

5. Some people were created to reject God, and causing them to accept God would change their fundamental being.

This boils down to flat-out Calvin's five

---

Absolute nonsense. You have to remove free will to be able to say this is one of my assumptions. What's wrong with Calvin's model is that God creates people who has no chance. Omniscience might be able to foresee what they will freely do, but that's not the same thing. They were not created to reject God. It's all in Boethius

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

If we are all created with the potential to love and accept God, then God's loving, coaxing, unending pursuit can win us all to him without changing anyone intrinsically.

---

Can, or necessarily must? You remove the ability to choose. If you're certain of this, you don't believe we have free will.

---

quote:

---

I also think that this thread is displaying a view of judgment and hell which is at the very least as unorthodox as anything which a universalist could come up with!

Can you point me to a denomination which openly teaches that God allows us to choose to go to hell out of his love for us and respect for our free will, but that's OK because hell isn't that bad anyway?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
Free-will requires that people can reject God. It does not require that some will eternally reject God. It's a strange, pessimistic approach to assume it does.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Great Gumby:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
Free-will requires that people can reject God. It does not require that some will eternally reject God. It's a strange, pessimistic approach to assume it does.

---

No, but it surely allows that some might?

---

Yes, but would they be those predestined to do so? They wouldn't be aware of their destiny, but God would.

Just an idea.
 

---

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
Oh, don't start on pre-destination!

It's an interesting question, but I'm probably not the best person to answer it, bearing in mind my previously expressed views on the subject.
 

---

Posted by professor kirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Great Gumby:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
Free-will requires that people can reject God. It does not require that some will eternally reject God. It's a strange, pessimistic approach to assume it does.

---

No, but it surely allows that some might?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
The point being that either scenario is consistent with free-will, thereby invalidating the argument that free-will necessitates that some will eternally reject God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
The point being that either scenario is consistent with free-will, thereby invalidating the argument that free-will necessitates that some will eternally reject God.

---

I agree. Has anybody been arguing that some necessarily will? Certainly not me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
The point being that either scenario is consistent with free-will, thereby invalidating the argument that free-will necessitates that some will eternally reject God.

---

I agree. Has anybody been arguing that some necessarily will? Certainly not me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

3. It is possible to eternally reject God.

Why is this so universally accepted as Absolute Truth™? What if it's not possible? What if it's extremely unlikely?

---

Free will theodicy requires it. Without it, why does any suffering exist?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
So the question remains, why is it so universally accepted that many most likely will?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
So the question remains, why is it so universally accepted that many most likely will?

---

Because many people have experience of obstinately evil people?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
It seems sad that they haven't experienced a more obstinately good God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
So, really ISTM, one of the following must be true since the FWD does not "work".

A) There is No God
B) God could not have stopped the Fall - but could could only be because God is Limited in Some way. That is to say, if the doctrine/dogma of omnipotence is explicitly rejected.
C) God is not all Loving after all
D) The Fall was God's original intention
E) Something else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Do you want to worship a utilitarian God?

---

Is that another option?

My point is that if you're going to list options they shouldn't be straw men.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Your option F is a utilitarian God - you know, the greatest good for the greatest number and so on, - Classic Jeremy Benthem, gawd ress is soul...

What straw men have I presented, please?

I assume you realise that my option E was there is case there was an an option, or option, I haven't thought of? As such, my list was not intended to be exhaustive!
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
I agree. The choice between loving God or rejecting God is far more clear as to which is better. Which is why I believe that when understanding is complete, the choice will be simple for everyone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Freedom to do X has to imply possibility to do X.

---

Don't tell the libertarians.

Actually, Digory, given your starting points I am still as confused as Mousethief about why you are so certain. Since I am not convinced there there is an all-loving, all-powerful God to choose (I know you are, but I'm not) why are you so convinced that I will choose him?

What about people who have died, rejecting God and repentance in their final breathes? Do you think they have "really" chosen God?
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Your option F is a utilitarian God - you know, the greatest good for the greatest number and so on, - Classic Jeremy Benthem, gawd ress is soul...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
What straw men have I presented, please?

---

quote:

---

A) There is No God

---

quote:

---

B) God could not have stopped the Fall - but could could only be because God is Limited in Some way. That is to say, if the doctrine/dogma of omnipotence is explicitly rejected.

---

quote:

---

C) God is not all Loving after all

---

quote:

---

D) The Fall was God's original intention

---

quote:

---

E) Something else.

---

quote:

---

I assume you realise that my option E was there is case there was an an option, or option, I haven't thought of? As such, my list was not intended to be exhaustive!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
If you think that no-one believe B, C or D you would appear to be less well read in theology than me.

If you believe that the "fact" that "no-one" thinks somethings means it is not possible, you would appear to be less well-read in philosophy and history.

---

Papio, I am very likely less well read than you in any number of areas.

In any case, I don't mean that literally no one thinks these things, because surely they do. Nor do I mean that none of them are possible.

I mean that they are straw men because they don't represent what, in your words, "must be true since the FWD does not 'work'."

quote:

---

As a rhetorical term, "straw man" describes a point of view that was created in order to be easily defeated in argument; the creator of a "straw man" argument does not accurately reflect the best arguments of his or her opponents, but instead sidesteps or mischaracterizes them so as to make the opposing view appear weak or ridiculous. (Wikipedia)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
The point being that either scenario is consistent with free-will, thereby invalidating the argument that free-will necessitates that some will eternally reject God.

---

I agree. Has anybody been arguing that some necessarily will? Certainly not me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
I agree. The choice between loving God or rejecting God is far more clear as to which is better. Which is why I believe that when understanding is complete, the choice will be simple for everyone.

---

I sincerely hope you're right, but don't understand the source of your certainty.

---

I'm only as certain as I am about anything else I believe about God, I suppose. Nothing I've experienced about God in my life has ever suggested that he will let anyone remain unfinished, unpursued, or incomplete because I've experienced Goodness to mean pursuit until completion. Nothing I've experienced about people has ever suggested that evils are anything but unfortunate chains of events, and that any of us are capable of any evil in the right environments, and that, conversely, any of us is capable of any good in another environment.

None of this is proof for anyone else, but it's why I am "certain" of what I believe. I don't know if I'm right, but I choose to act on what I sincerely believe to be true. If I'm wrong in the end*, I assume God will help me adjust, or else it won't matter, or else I'll pay dearly for my mistaken beliefs. Who knows?

*Or tomorrow?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Since I am not convinced there there is an all-loving, all-powerful God to choose (I know you are, but I'm not) why are you so convinced that I will choose him?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Has anybody been arguing that some necessarily will? Certainly not me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
Yes, here:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Free will theodicy requires it (the possibility of eternally rejecting God). Without it, why does any suffering exist?

---

---

quote:

---

"Free will theodicy" could exist without the possibility of eternally rejecting God, as we seem to have both agreed upon.

---

quote:

---

So the question remains, why is it so universally accepted that many most likely will?

---

quote:

---

What if it is very unlikely to the point of being almost impossible that anyone could eternally resist so great a good as God?

---

quote:

---

So would you obliterate your children if you knew they'd be unhappy for ever? Or make them as happy as you could, even if that involved a fair bit of weeping and teeth-gnashing? Most people seem unwilling to answer that question.

Life as it is seems generally a mix of suffering and joy. At the moment for example I'm "suffering" from sinusitis but if you come round here recommending euthanasia and berating my mother for giving birth to me, I'll set the dogs loose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
As I understand it, the problem most of us that are arguing against hell have, is that it makes God into a sadistic bully.

---

quote:

---

If, on the other hand, hell is comparable to the occasional bout of sinusitis then of course there isn’t much of a problem.

---

quote:

---

My point is that to make hell acceptable you have had to euphemise it so much as to make it unrecognisable as hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
In other words the possibilities you mentioned mostly seem weak or ridiculous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
Does free will require that we have every conceivable choice at our disposal? How many choices must we have in order to be said to have free will?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
I see the misunderstanding. My wording was confusing. What we have agreed upon is that free will can support the idea that the possibility of eternal rejection of God could go unfulfilled.

---

quote:

---

I maintain that the possibility isn't even necessary, but you haven't gone so far.

---

quote:

---

Does free will require that we have every conceivable choice at our disposal? How many choices must we have in order to be said to have free will?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Freewill isn't about the range of choices available to us, but our ability to freely choose from whatever choices we have.

---

quote:

---

To me hell is being separated from God and his ways. God as I understand it, is the source of all good things: love, beauty, joy etc. So I find the idea of anyone being subject to an endless existence with none of these present and there being no respite ever from all the negatives (pain, rejection, betrayal etc), to be utterly repugnant. I cannot see how anyone deserves that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Freewill isn't about the range of choices available to us, but our ability to freely choose from whatever choices we have.

---

What does it mean to choose freely in a matter though, if not being able to choose from two or more options?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
If you think that I am wrong in my conception of hell and that it is a very different place to this (much nicer) then please state why my depiction of hell is inaccurate.

---

quote:

---

At the moment you seem to be hiding behind conveiniently vague generalities....

---

quote:

---

Secondly I would never suggest that there is a point at which people should be put down. My argument was that I could accept that there might be a point at which people themselves might choose to be annhilated especially if the worst suffering we have ever seen on earth was nothing compared to the intensity of suffering in hell. I thought I'd made it clear. However, apparently I hadn't.

---

quote:

---

There is never true love, true care, true affirmation, true beauty. Then why would anyone choose to go there?

---

quote:

---

Originally stated by Greyface.

I'm a hopeful universalist but I don't deny the possibility. I hope nobody chooses in the end to jump off the cliff, but I don't believe there is no cliff.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
But surely you knew this, and I must be missing your point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
If the menu says you can have either the mashed potatoes or the fries, your choice as a diner between those two options is quite unencumbered, even though you can't have a baked potato which is what you'd really like. This "there's not enough choices so it's not free" nonsense is something I have run into many times with non-theists when discussing free will. It's a grave misunderstanding of what is meant by "free will".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Jesus seemed to think the threat was real. he could have been wrong of course, but that's not a line of thinking I'd want to go down without a great deal of thought.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamac:
Universalism is an attractive option but it seems to me that Christ did not in any way encourage us to adopt it. He threatens the Pharisees with Hell "You brood of vipers, how can you escape the fires of Hell?" [Matt23:33]"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Spears:
Check out this link :
A Challenge to the Doctrine of Eternal Torment

---

quote:

---

Matthew 25:41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:

Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Mark 3:29 but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation”—

Matthew 18:8 “If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire.

Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”

Revelation 20:10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Spears:
I certainly believe Christ made threats of judgement (which is part of why I don't believe in this "people send themselves to hell" idea) but I just don't believe that he intended to cast anybody off forever.

---

quote:

---

Matthew 7:2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.

John 12:47 And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
Exactly. This is why I believe it is possible to believe in free will without the possibility of eternally rejecting God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
Exactly. This is why I believe it is possible to believe in free will without the possibility of eternally rejecting God.

---

Then our choice to accept God is not free.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
Exactly. This is why I believe it is possible to believe in free will without the possibility of eternally rejecting God.

---

Then our choice to accept God is not free.

---

Why is this a problem?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
Or at that point does it become acceptable for God to remove our free will so that we all remain in our perfect heavenly state without choice to do evil?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Spears:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamac:
Universalism is an attractive option but it seems to me that Christ did not in any way encourage us to adopt it. He threatens the Pharisees with Hell "You brood of vipers, how can you escape the fires of Hell?" [Matt23:33]"

---

There is no word in the Bible that means "Hell". Gehenna, which is what he refers to here, is seen by many as a national judgement. Check out this link :

A Challenge to the Doctrine of Eternal Torment

I certainly believe Christ made threats of judgement(which is part of why I don't believe in this "people send themselves to hell" idea) but I just don't believe that he intended to cast anybody off forever. He punishes or chastises for the same reason any good creature would, to bring about repentance.

[code clarifications]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
That brings me to another question: do we still have free will in heaven? What stops us from doing evil there, if so? Or at that point does it become acceptable for God to remove our free will so that we all remain in our perfect heavenly state without choice to do evil?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamac:
I would LOVE not to believe in hell as it would make things a lot easier.

---

quote:

---

It would also make things a lot less urgent. Christ is described as the 'ark' of safety. Safety is defined by its opposite, danger. If there is safety in relationship with God in Christ, then there logically must be a problem for those outside the 'ark'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
There are some who dig and conclude that hell exists. There are some who dig and conclude that it does not. Neither is an "easy" conclusion, and neither is 100% consistent with scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
Jamac, could you do me the courtesy of pointing out a few scripture references that support the concept of hell completely, in your opinion?

---

quote:

---

Matthew 25:41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:

Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Mark 3:29 but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation”—

Matthew 18:8 “If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire.

Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”

Revelation 20:10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

---

quote:

---

Mark 9:43-48:
And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

44Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

45And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

46Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

47And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

48Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I don't think, though, that there are ANY Christian denominations that reject the idea of hell.

---

quote:

---

Here are a few [scriptures supporting hell]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
I don't doubt that these verses you've cited, as well as many others, certainly could support the idea of eternal hell for some. I see no reason, however, why they must.

---

Digory, are you saying that it is *possible* to interpret all the passages that speak of hell, eternal punishment, everlasting torment, etc. as not necessarily indicating that there is a hell?

Or are you saying that they really don't indicate that there is a hell?

Would you say that the biblical evidence for the existence of hell is weak?
 

---

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
The fourth verse is the most interesting. Of course, no one follows the first half of this passage literally. Why then am I to take the second half so? And if "cast into the everlasting fire" isn't meant literally, than the figurative interpretation is, again, up for discussion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jamac:
[qb]I would LOVE not to believe in hell as it would make things a lot easier.

---

quote:

---

Would it? I struggle to understand how it is easier to believe one or the other. In one respect it is much easier to believe in the accepted teaching of the church and to go along with their understandings of all relevant scripture without digging deep into the subject matter.

---

quote:

---

[qb]It would also make things a lot less urgent. Christ is described as the 'ark' of safety. Safety is defined by its opposite, danger. If there is safety in relationship with God in Christ, then there logically must be a problem for those outside the 'ark'.
[QUOTE] First, where is Christ described as such?

---

quote:

---

"For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust in order that he might bring us to God having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit in which also he went down and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison who were once disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the Ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. And corresponding to that ,Baptism now saves you - not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.."

---

quote:

---

Second, your logical progression says nothing about who would be inside or outside of "the ark," or why.

---

quote:

---

Jamac, could you do me the courtesy of pointing out a few scripture references that support the concept of hell completely, in your opinion?

-Digory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamac:

My thinking is that if you put all the references in scripture together you find overwhelming evidence that writers of scripture understood that there are places where the spirits of dead people go both righteous and unrighteous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamac:
The concepts are somewhat confused in translation to English but we have in the OT the concept of Sheol used in 64 passages of the OT some of which are Gen 37:35, 42:38,44:29,31,Job14:13 Ps16:10,Jonah2:2. These involve the righteous.

The following involve the unrighteous: Nu16:30,33,Job24:19,Ps9:17,Ps49:14 Eze32:21. Some scriptures teach that there are different compartments in Sheol eg Deut 32:22,Ps 86:13.

Its direction was 'downward' Gen 37:35,Num 16:30 Is5:14.

It was a place of consciousness Is14:9,Jonah2:2

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamac:
"it was not removed from God's jurisdiction Job26:6,Ps139:8 Deut 32:22. "

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamac:
"In the NT Sheol corresponds with the term Hades. (Matt1123,Matt16:18, luke 10:15 Luke 16:23. etc. It is best described as a waiting place rather than an eternal state. There are 10 NT references to it.

---

quote:

---

From the references, it appears it described the part of Sheol reserved for the unrighteous dead.

There are also references to the pit. with most of them being found in Ezekiel. It seems to deal with the same idea as Abaddon. Nothing positive is said about it..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamac:
Taken together I find that this is overwhelming evidence that what is described here is the eternal abode of the lost.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Digory, are you saying that it is *possible* to interpret all the passages that speak of hell, eternal punishment, everlasting torment, etc. as not necessarily indicating that there is a hell?

---

quote:

---

Would you say that the biblical evidence for the existence of hell is weak?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamac:
It is far easier in my opinion to reconcile a loving God with annhihilation or non-suffering alternative than it is to reconcile a loving God with a God of punishment. Wouldn't you agree?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamac:
My thinking is that if you put all the references in scripture together you find overwhelming evidence that writers of scripture understood that there are places where the spirits of dead people go both righteous and unrighteous.

---

quote:

---

The word 'hell' seems to be a catch all for a variety of scriptural concepts, as other posters have mentioned.

---

quote:

---

Taken together I find that this is overwhelming evidence that what is described here is the eternal abode of the lost.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
It does seem to me that although the appeal of both of these positions is obvious, their implications at some point become unacceptable when looked at systematically.

---

quote:

---

I would guess that one of the main problems would be that they involve rejecting Scripture, which is hard for denominations to formally justify.

---

quote:

---

The real question, I think, is what the passages actually mean.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
It does seem to me that although the appeal of both of these positions is obvious, their implications at some point become unacceptable when looked at systematically.

---

I find this view to be both insulting and arrogant. That the "appeal" of the positions are "obvious" speaks equally to their truth and their falsity, and should thus be left out of the argument altogether.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
That they typically become unacceptable speaks to a long tradition (which must be accounted for) and a human-need for the control that the Doctrine of Hell brings. Churches are organizations that require membership to survive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I would guess that one of the main problems would be that they involve rejecting Scripture, which is hard for denominations to formally justify.

---

The doctrine of hell requires the same rejection of Scripture and has been formally justified for centuries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Spears:
I think this is true - in my experience people are far more likely to take on a new negative belief about God than a positive one. I don't know exactly why that is, I am no psychoanalyst.

---

quote:

---

And so, believers will get their portion with the unbeliever. For the selfish, it isn't so appealing.

---

quote:

---

It also means you have no choice but to forgive. The person who hurt you, raped you, stole from you, beat you...will one day be your brother in Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Spears:
The Evangelical Church in Germany was openly Universalist. I'm not sure if they still are.

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America :

Click

---

quote:

---

Will, then, all people be saved in the end? We must say with Braaten, "We do not ... know the answer. (That) is stored up in the mystery of God’s own future. All (God) has let us know in advance is that he will judge the world according to the measure of his grace and love made known in Jesus Christ, which is ultimately greater than the fierceness of his wrath or the hideousness of our sin."

---

quote:

---

Talbot poses the problem like this. There are three presuppositions :
1.God wills all humanity to come to repentance, his atonement was for all people. (Arminians)
2.Gods will is eventually accomplished. (Calvinists)
3.Some will be eternally lost. (Annihilation or Hell)

---

quote:

---

They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power (NIV)

---

The common responses to this that I've seen include:

1. We should read this in the context of Paul's clear universalist arguments in his other letters such as I Corinthians 15:22, Colossians 1:19-20, Romans 5:18 etc. Accordingly, if there is a universalist interpretation of it, then that is the interpretation which does the least violence to Paul's line of thought and should be preferred.

2. The Greek word usually translated 'eternal' (above 'everlasting') is mistranslated. Oldstyle universalists wrote entire books about this word. Generally speaking, I think it is clear that the word at least doesn't always imply unending duration, the example usually given is Romans 16:25-26, where the same Greek word is used, but translated differently because of the obvious context: "Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him".

3. For the liberals among us, Paul didn't write II Thessalonians anyway

YMMV, but if you are really interested you should find and read one of several available books which look at these types of questions in depth.
 

---

Posted by professor kirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Digory, I agree that it is insulting. Sorry about that. The insult, I guess, is the implication that the main motivation for disposing of hell is to escape the consequences of our evil ways.

---

quote:

---

Do you mean the rejection of the Scripture that God is love and that He is all-forgiving? Wouldn't "reconcile" be a better word than "reject"?

---

quote:

---

[

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:

Originally posted by Freddy:

Digory, .. The insult, I guess, is the implication that the main motivation for disposing of hell is to escape the consequences of our evil ways.

---

Yes, that is the insult. It isn't the least bit true, but it's the easiest way to quickly dismiss the universalist position with a quick flick of the wrist.

---

quote:

---

God created humans with true and complete freedom--the ability to choose any option without any consequence at all. No need to choose between "good" and "evil" because they weren't created with the ability or need to do so.

Adam and Eve decide, however, that they want a chance to choose good for themselves. God warns strongly against it, but they decide they want it, and so it is granted. It doesn't take long before the whole world is filled with evil choices--ones that now have consequences--and the whole world is destroyed save Noah and his family. Finally, God gives the Hebrews the Law, as an experiment. Can man choose good over evil like they so desperately desire? Over a few thousand years, the answer is a resounding "No."

The Law proves man's inability to choose good over evil (as God had warned all along). Finally, the experiment has run long enough for men everywhere must surely understand that this was not how we were created. To solve the problem, God sends Grace, embodied in human form. Jesus comes as a physical manifestation of the all-encompassing pardon God has granted man, realigning him with his true purpose of complete freedom.

Christ, while on earth, spoke of the consequences for man should he choose to remain in his unnatural state. "Man was not created with the ability to choose good, but you have asked for it and it has been granted to you," he said. "In this way, you must be perfect and follow every last letter of the Law, and not just the parts you have deemed as important." Otherwise, men would be subject to eternal torment and everlasting punishment.

But man didn't rejoice. Instead, men reacted violently to protect their prideful hope of one day choosing good of their own power. They even killed God's manifestation of Grace on a cross (crucifixion), rejecting it in hopes that it would never return. But though man is free, God is also free. And in God's great freedom, he rejected man's rejection (resurrection) and granted Grace once and for all.

As we continue today to try and choose good on our own power, we are reminded that failure to do so completely would result in a very real Hell. It is wonderful for us that God has seen beyond our stubbornness and granted us Grace, though we would reject it to our grave.

---

quote:

---

As an ex-calvinist, I still think you are unfair in stating they reject 1. It is true that this has been debated, but the mainstream calvinist churches accept 1, labelling those who reject it as hyper-calvinists. Their position ends up sounding contradictory, but they tend to view this as a virtue!

---

quote:

---

"The system of truth revealed in the Scriptures is not simply one straight line, but two; and no man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once... That God predestines, and yet that man is responsible, are two facts that few can see clearly. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory, but they are not. The fault is in our weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one part of the Bible that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find, in another Scripture, that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these two truths can ever contradict each other"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamac:
What you seem to be suggesting in your last post is a scenario of a 'fall' without the taint of sin if I read you right. God's job in response is not to bring about a radical alteration in man's nature but rather to reeducate him in the area of making correct choices by showing him the consequence of wrong choices and sending Christ as a beacon toward correct ones?

---

quote:

---

It seems to me that the doctrine of the fall suggested by Paul in Romans argues a major corruption of Man's very essence as a result of it. By one man, sin entered... by the first Adam. Christ as the 'last Adam' achieved the goal of making a reversal of that corruption possible.

---

quote:

---

The concept Paul teaches here is, I believe, inferred from Christ's teaching when he said such things as he did not trust man as he "knew what was in Man," and His accusations to adversarial Jews that they were "of their Father, the Devil." Christ's injunction to Nicodemus that he must be born from above argues the need for an exceedingly radical personal change.

---

quote:

---

The writer to the Hebrews makes quite a deal about blood sacrifice culminating in the point that it is Christ's blood that was needed to cleanse our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. This was the way such radical change was to become possible. Peter in his writings also mentions this 1 Pet 1:18.

---

quote:

---

I guess if you deny Man's sinful nature, then you can deny the atonement teaching.
To take such a line though, you surely have to ignore or revise much of the plain gist of scripture. I cannot do this.

---

quote:

---

From a personal POV, I find myself confronted again and again with my own flaws. We all do if we're honest I suspect. Jeremiah made the point that the heart of man is deceitful and desperately wicked. It is so easy to lie, to lust,to do stuff we know not to do but seem compelled towards. It is the realisation of this that convinces me that there is no solution for the old nature but the cross. Reeducation simply isn't radical enough.

---

quote:

---

Will,then,allpeople be saved in the end? We must say.."We do not...know the answer..."

---

quote:

---

So they don't quite have the courage of their convictions...

---

quote:

---

Well it sounds contradictory because it is contradictory. Probably the single most frustrating thing about Calvinism and Calvinists is this incessant need to suggest that even intrinsic impossibilities and possible for God.

---

quote:

---

So God can desire all men to be saved...and at the same time desire that some of them not be saved. Either he does or he doesn't.

---

quote:

---

It's the same with the free will/ moral responsibility issue. I read this quote from spurgeon

quote:

---

"The system of truth revealed in the Scriptures is not simply one straight line, but two; and no man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once... That God predestines, and yet that man is responsible, are two facts that few can see clearly. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory, but they are not. The fault is in our weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one part of the Bible that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find, in another Scripture, that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these two truths can ever contradict each other"

---

(Charles H. Spurgeon, Autobiography Vol. 1: The Early Years. pp. 173, 174).

Which is just immensely annoying. He basically says they can attribute completely contradictory nonsense to God if they think it's in the Bible.

---

quote:

---

The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth
-Niels Bohr

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Um, when we ask Her to?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chemincreux:
Quoted by Demas:

quote:

---

Will,then,allpeople be saved in the end? We must say.."We do not...know the answer..."

---

Comment by Demas:

quote:

---

So they don't quite have the courage of their convictions...

---

Oh, come on, even Jesus, when asked who would sit at his right and left hand side in heaven, wasn't able to answer (unless you think he was being diplomatic, or fudging the issue?)

---

quote:

---

There are some extremely interesting points being made on this thread, but it seems that few people want to acknowledge Percy Dearmer's most telling point - that the Doctrine of Hell is NOT about separation, or spiritual loss, or temporary discomfort. It's about everlasting, irredeemable, unimaginable physical and mental torture - a fate, moreover, which the "innocent" were encouraged to enjoy.

Tertullian got off on sadism, and the compilers and enforcers of the doctrine seem to have been spiritually in bed with him. When Dearmer wrote
The Legend of Hell (1929) the doctrine described above was still preached in a number of mainstream churches. How many still hold to it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
And so we end inevitably up with works based salvation, with the cut off point just low enough that everyone we love makes the grade, and the only people who fail are people like child abusers and Hitler.

---

quote:

---

Matthew 7.2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:

[QUOTE] God created humans with true and complete freedom--the ability to choose any option without any consequence at all. No need to choose between "good" and "evil" because they weren't created with the ability or need to do so. Adam and Eve decide, however, that they want a chance to choose good for themselves. God warns strongly against it, but they decide they want it, and so it is granted.

---

quote:

---

It doesn't take long before the whole world is filled with evil choices--ones that now have consequences--and the whole world is destroyed save Noah and his family. Finally, God gives the Hebrews the Law, as an experiment. Can man choose good over evil like they so desperately desire? Over a few thousand years, the answer is a resounding "No."

---

quote:

---

The Law proves man's inability to choose good over evil (as God had warned all along). Finally, the experiment has run long enough for men everywhere must surely understand that this was not how we were created. To solve the problem, God sends Grace, embodied in human form. Jesus comes as a physical manifestation of the all-encompassing pardon God has granted man, realigning him with his true purpose of complete freedom.

---

quote:

---

Christ, while on earth, spoke of the consequences for man should he choose to remain in his unnatural state. "Man was not created with the ability to choose good, but you have asked for it and it has been granted to you," he said. "In this way, you must be perfect and follow every last letter of the Law, and not just the parts you have deemed as important." Otherwise, men would be subject to eternal torment and everlasting punishment.

---

quote:

---

But man didn't rejoice. Instead, men reacted violently to protect their prideful hope of one day choosing good of their own power. They even killed God's manifestation of Grace on a cross (crucifixion), rejecting it in hopes that it would never return. But though man is free, God is also free. And in God's great freedom, he rejected man's rejection (resurrection) and granted Grace once and for all.

---

quote:

---

As we continue today to try and choose good on our own power, we are reminded that failure to do so completely would result in a very real Hell.

---

quote:

---

It is wonderful for us that God has seen beyond our stubbornness and granted us Grace, though we would reject it to our grave.

---

quote:

---

Certainly not flawless, but mostly reconcilable with scripture while supportive of a universalist position. There is no overwhelming case for either position in the scriptures. As I've said, we draw our conclusions about Hell based on Pillars 2 and 3 (Tradition and/or Reason).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Personally, I like the symmetry of teachings like this:

quote:

---

Matthew 7.2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.

---

Not that I think that anyone actually judges us. We judge ourselves.

---

quote:

---

Romans 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamac:
Christ as an embodiment of grace is a great image isn't it? The issue of course is how to turn this into a doctrine of unconditional pardon. Where is justice? Are there any conditions to this grace being effective? On what basis (scripturally) can you make it unconditionally available to all?

---

quote:

---

Romans 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

Romans 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

I Timothy 4:9-10 This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

I Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

---

quote:

---

You seem in your scenario here to suggest that there is such a thing as eternal punishment. Is not this the fundamental point at issue?

---

quote:

---

There seems to be a big logical jump here. On what basis is man now granted grace once for all if he rejects the stated embodiment of that grace? Or are you suggesting this is not possible? If so then why? How can you say God rejected man's rejection? On what authority?

---

quote:

---

Are you actually suggesting that we do this (reject [grace]) but that it is not possible to reject it?

---

quote:

---

I can't see how this is reconcilable with the scriptures about the atonement or with the stated scriptural injunction that God is just. The position as outlined seems to neglect justice and consequence in any real sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
God's justice does not require that some be damned. If it were so, then it would require that we all be damned, as we all fall short.

---

quote:

---

Romans 3:23 is an oft-quoted verse, part of the "Romans Road to Salvation." It says, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," but interestingly, the second half is usually ignored, which continues "and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." Justified is the same root as justice. God's justice involves free, unconditional redemption through grace that came by Christ Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Jamac says:
I think it (God's justice) requires that the availability of grace is contingent on acknowledgement of fault and on repentance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:

quote:

---

Jamac says:
I think it (God's justice) requires that the availability of grace is contingent on acknowledgement of fault and on repentance.

---

You believe grace is contingent on our actions?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:

quote:

---

Jamac says:
I think it (God's justice) requires that the availability of grace is contingent on acknowledgement of fault and on repentance.

---

You believe grace is contingent on our actions?

---

The grace is available to all. Whether we avail ourselves of it, through repentance, is up to us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:

quote:

---

Jamac says:
I think it (God's justice) requires that the availability of grace is contingent on acknowledgement of fault and on repentance.

---

You believe grace is contingent on our actions?

---

The grace is available to all. Whether we avail ourselves of it, through repentance, is up to us.

---

<old chestnut>
Why is this not Pelagianism?
</old chestnut>

---

quote:

---

Wikipedia: Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature (which, being created from God, was divine), and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Spears:
It is a works based salvation though?

If you did a work that someone else did not (repenting) then your salvation is dependent upon you and a work you did, hence it is works based.

---

Indeed; that's my point -- it does at least require a work, however nugatory one may feel it to be.
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Um. So repentance is not necessary?
 

---

Posted by John Spears (# 11694) on :
 
I'm not saying repentance isn't neccesary to get right with God.

However, if one's "eternal destiny" or "salvation" is dependent upon something you have done, be that feeding the poor or "making a decision for christ" then it's a reward for a certain work......

I'm not arguing that you can't "freely choose" to repent tonight and be right with God tonight, rather than at a later date. The point is, if your "eternal destiny" hangs in the balance of a choice you have made, then it is a work you did...works based salvation.

That's why the Calvinists call arminians "semi-pelagian".
 

---

Posted by John Spears (# 11694) on :
 
I like what Talbott says about this :

"Christians are never permitted to take credit for their own redemption or even for a virtuous character (where such exists). All credit of this kind goes to God. But the Christian religion also stresses the importance of free choice, of choosing this day whom you shall serve. Nor need there be any tension between these two emphases,
provided that we regard our free choices as determining not our eternal destiny, but
the means of grace available to us”
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Spears:
However, if one's "eternal destiny" or "salvation" is dependent upon something you have done, be that feeding the poor or "making a decision for christ" then it's a reward for a certain work......

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Spears:
That's why the Calvinists call arminians "semi-pelagian".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Spears:
No you don't have to go either way. You can believe humans have free will and God wants to free us from the bondage of death here and now - but that if we don't partake in that - then he will get us through judgements.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Spears:
Basically that we don't have the final word in human history.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Spears:
Canon F.W. Farrar writes of early church father Clement of Alexandria:
"There are very few of the Christian fathers whose fundamental conceptions are better suited to correct the narrowness, the rigidity and the formalism of Latin theology. It is his lofty and wholesome doctrine that man is made in the image of God; that man's will is free; that he is redeemed from sin by a divine education and
a corrective discipline; that fear and punishment are but remedial instruments in man's training; that Justice is but another aspect of perfect Love;that the physical world is good and not evil; that Christ is a Living not a Dead Christ; that all mankind from one great brotherhood in him; that salvation is an ethical process, not an external reward; that the atonement was not the pacification of wrath, but the revelation of God's eternal mercy. That judgment is a continuous process, not a single sentence; that God works all things up to what is better; that souls may be purified beyond the grave."

---

quote:

---

"I agree. God, not we, will change the world."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Um. So repentance is not necessary?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Spears:
Repent or we will be judged is what I believe, but as it says - we are judged by our own standards.

---

quote:

---

Matthew 7:2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.

---

quote:

---

John 12:48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Spears:
I do believe in both free will and judgement, but I don't believe they affect our salvation - which is entirely a work of God.

---

quote:

---

Matthew 7:21 Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Spears:
I guess what I'm saying is whatever happened at the cross assured eventual Salvation for all people (I admit this isn't a popular view in conservative circles) but Jesus tells us to repent today and live.

---

Yes, it can be understood that way. Or it can be understood as saying that the world will eventually be reformed because of the Incarnation, with all people believing and obeying Jesus. This doesn't necessarily imply that those in hell will also be saved, nor has it traditionally been understood that way. But it is a possible and not unreasonable way of seeing it.

Except that it contradicts so many other teachings.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Spears:
If I did something that my neighbour did not (repent) that decided my eternal destiny how could I say it was entirely a work of God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Spears:
I couldn't, Jesus would be my co-saviour.

---

quote:

---

"Yes, salvation is a work of God, not our own work. He gives us the power to believe and the power to obey. Otherwise it is predestination. If we do not make use of this free gift and believe and obey Him, we will not be saved."

---

quote:

---

Matthew 7:21 Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

---

I don't know how relevant it is to start proof texting now. I am well aware that on the surface at least, some scriptures seem to speak against Universal Salvation - but thats not the issue at hand. I can whip out a lot of proof texts for Universalism and I'm sure you can match me with verses about "eternal" destruction etc but that's not what we're doing here! We're discussing how we are saved, by God or by God and us.

Jesus taught repentance - nothing about this contradicts the belief that all will eventually be saved.

Jesus taught judgement - nothing about this contradicts the belief that all will eventually be saved.

p.s. I agree with Mathew 7:21 - it doesn't say they will "never" be saved but they will not gain entry when they are simply not ready. A lot of Evangelists are just about the most unchristlike people I have ever met, yet they think they have a free pass into heaven because they have said the right prayer.

Ok, lets approach this from another angle. Which of these statements is true?
1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.
2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.
3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.
 

---

Posted by professor kirke (# 9037) on :
 
John,

Of course, your option (3) is true. However, if man rejects Christ's forgiveness, what more can God do?

That is the standard approach. And Freddy's argument is well known to me, and does begin to make some sense after a while. As I have summarized before, his final line is that salvation does rest upon a choice we must make, but that the ability to make that choice at all is granted completely by God. Though you must choose, you gain no credit since you would not be able to choose without God's enablement.

The difference comes down to an issue of "free will" as has been described earlier, and just how important it is.
 

---

Posted by John Spears (# 11694) on :
 

quote:

---

As I have summarized before, his final line is that salvation does rest upon a choice we must make, but that the ability to make that choice at all is granted completely by God. Though you must choose, you gain no credit since you would not be able to choose without God's enablement

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Spears:

quote:

---

As I have summarized before, his final line is that salvation does rest upon a choice we must make, but that the ability to make that choice at all is granted completely by God. Though you must choose, you gain no credit since you would not be able to choose without God's enablement

---

That's quite a non-sequiter though, it just unnecesarily complicates matters. As God gave us life in the first place, it follows that any gift we have is a gift from God.

---

quote:

---

So it seems to me that the bottom line for the stated universalist scenario, is that every one is really 'in Christ' whether they know it or not or choose it or not? Everyone is a Christian? Salvation through Christ need not be chosen but salvation is granted gratis despite evil committed, good done or faith exercised?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamac:
If I'm a Buddist am I really a Christian or a Moslem or a Hindu?..I need help here!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Jamac, I in no way accept universal salvation. But I do accept the idea that people are accepted in heaven regardless of their religion on this earth.

If they sincerely live as Christ taught then they are prepared for heaven whether that preparation has been as Jew or gentile.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Spears:
[QUOTE] [QB] Well weren't they "in Adam" without ever hearing or believing in him?

---

quote:

---

Whats to stop them being "in Christ" without them ever hearing or believing in him?

---

quote:

---

All are in Adam; by nature, by birth. We come to Christ as a faith choice

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Spears:
[QB]

quote:

---

All are in Adam; by nature, by birth. We come to Christ as a faith choice

---

How do you know that? Where does it say in the Bible "we come to be in Christ by a faith choice"?

---

quote:

---

1 Timothy 4:10: "We have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe."

What is the plain meaning of this?

---

quote:

---

It was Adam who cast all people into sin, yet Christ is only powerful enough to save some?Jesus 'will see His desire and be satisfied'. if schindler was completely dissatisfied with the number of jews he saved, how would Jesus feel seeing most of those He attempted to save perish? Completely dissatisfied, would be my answer. You do not hold up someone's hand and declare Him the victor and the saviour if most of the people He tried to save refused to be saved. If a man went to save children from a burning building and couldn't get the kids to come out from under the bed, you would commend him for his attempts, but everyone would grieve for the failure and there would not be rejoicing, but sorrow. Can you imagine the inappropriateness of rejoicing over his attempts and giving him a hero party in the face of such tragic failure?

---

quote:

---

We've got slightly off track here and started proof texting, which is not what I wanted to do.

We've got to what demas said on the last page, where Freddy has admitted that good people of other religions can get into heaven based on their works....which is works based salvation, just as relying on your mental choices for salvation is works based salvation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamac:
The proviso to being accepted is being 'in Christ' first surely. It is Christ who creates the unity of Jew, Greek. How can someone Who is a sincere practitioner of say Islam or Buddah or Krishna be in Christ? if they may have never heard of him or disespouse him in favour of their own religious particularity?

How can this be Biblically reconciled without the Universalist mind-set?

---

quote:

---

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

---

I don't know what I think about all this at the moment, but I can see that the sort of 'inscrutable mystery' that calvinists go on about and John Spears finds so annoying might actually make sense from a different, eternal perspective - I'm with Lamb Chopped on the importance of remembering our place in the scheme of things, and to answer Demas on this point, I do in some sense 'fear' the Devil in a similar way to God to the extent that he is a being of a higher order than I.

Finally, I have another question.

Somebody mentioned reincarnation way back. If there is a resurrection to some kind of meaningful existence after death, and we have the ability to choose in this life hereafter, what is the difference between that and reincarnation
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Somebody mentioned reincarnation way back. If there is a resurrection to some kind of meaningful existence after death, and we have the ability to choose in this life hereafter, what is the difference between that and reincarnation

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
But in the Christian scenario, people in the next life are aware that they have lived on earth and that they are now living in heaven. Whether they are in a place and live a life that is similar to life on earth is another question.

---

This is complicated. I've moved away from what Melon seems to term "spiritual salvation" here because I see it as removing us too much from getting on and making a difference in the world here and now. And I'm keen to emphasise the incarnate nature of our resurrected bodies... but it's just occured to me that if we insist on them being incarnate again, that is more or less reincarnation...

Would the only difference would be that next time round, we will all remember this time?

And are people in Hell (assuming there are any, if it exists, etc etc etc) incarnate? The NT talks about believers being 'raised incorruptible' but it is very quiet about the bodily resurrection of unbelievers. Wouldn't being "raised incorruptible" mean they had been redeemed too? And wouldn't being "raised corruptible" be even more like reincarnation ("try again")? Or is Hell just a state of disembodied torment?

[ 05. August 2006, 13:07: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
And are people in Hell (assuming there are any, if it exists, etc etc etc) incarnate? The NT talks about believers being 'raised incorruptible' but it is very quiet about the bodily resurrection of unbelievers.

---

quote:

---

Revelation 20.11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Wouldn't being "raised incorruptible" mean they had been redeemed too? And wouldn't being "raised corruptible" be even more like reincarnation ("try again")? Or is Hell just a state of disembodied torment?

---

quote:

---

1 Corinthians 15:35 But someone will say, “How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?” 36 Foolish one, what you sow is not made alive unless it dies. 37 And what you sow, you do not sow that body that shall be, but mere grain—perhaps wheat or some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as He pleases, and to each seed its own body.
39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds.
40 There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamac:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Spears:
Well weren't they "in Adam" without ever hearing or believing in him?

---

All are in Adam; by nature, by birth. We come to Christ as a faith choice.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Whats to stop them being "in Christ" without them ever hearing or believing in him?

---

Their failure to respond to his appeals through conscience, revelation of scripture or drawing of the Holy Spirit

Ro 8:9 "..If anyone does not have the spirit of Christ he does not belong to him.."

---

quote:

---

Let's take 1 Cor 15:22

"For as in Adam all died, so in Christ shall all be made alive.."

It means contextually that believers in Christ will be resurrected see v.19 which creates a context of 'we, who have hoped in Christ..' In v17 it says if Christ was not raised 'our faith'is worthless.

In v23 this resurrection is contextualised as for '..those who are Christ's."

Yet, v22 says: "in Christ ALL shall be made alive."

---

quote:

---

Do we not have to decontextualise it to make it support a universalist framework?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

• The NT talks about believers being 'raised incorruptible' but it is very quiet about the bodily resurrection of unbelievers.
• Wouldn't being "raised incorruptible" mean they had been redeemed too?

Originally posted by Freddy:

• Corinthians seems to be mainly talking about good people, but it can be read as speaking about everyone.
• Revelation 20 seems to assume that both the good and evil will be raised up and judged:
  

  quote:

  ---

  Revelation 20.11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.

  ---

• The bad ones, of course, don't fare so well, and the good ones get to enter the gates of the holy city. Both the bad and good seem to have bodies.

---

If you notice, the Revelation verse that Freddy quotes requires Freddy's addendum "The bad ones, of course, don't fare so well..." in order to make it necessarily point to some being unredeemed. Otherwise, the verse simply says that each person is judged, with no speaking of how this judgment turns out for anyone specifically.

The NT is "very quiet" about the resurrection of unbelievers, perhaps because 'unbeliever' made little sense in a resurrection sense because at that point there will be none?

And Eutychus's question about being raised incorruptible meaning that all would be redeemed, juxtaposed with Freddy's answer that the verse can be read to be speaking about everyone, 'good' and 'bad'?

Pardon me, folks, but your inner-universalist is showing.

-Digory

[ 05. August 2006, 16:23: Message edited by: professor kirke ]
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
I would like to point out a few (selectively biased) things that Eutychus and Freddy have just said, and see what implications can be drawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

• The NT talks about believers being 'raised incorruptible' but it is very quiet about the bodily resurrection of unbelievers.
• Wouldn't being "raised incorruptible" mean they had been redeemed too?

---

---

Whoa, you are mistaking my speculation for conviction and compressing it into a logical sequence I didn't intend.

If 1 Cor 15 can be held to be speaking about a bodily resurrection for all (and I think that is a pretty big 'if' - just because the NT doesn't say much about the physical condition of unbelievers after death doesn't mean this passage necessarily applies) then the question of some kind of universal redemption is raised.

I wonder whether Hell isn't disembodied. (I might wonder à la Great Divorce whether it was just less substantial, but Freddy would be welcoming me into the Swedenborgian church ).

I think the premise that a lot of evo types are closet universalists and/or annihilationists is not inaccurate, but it's not quite where I'm at. For reasons much like those outlined by others here, I still tend to think Hell is a reality worth being saved from, even if I can't support that conviction by flawless metaphysics.

[ 05. August 2006, 17:11: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
If you notice, the Revelation verse that Freddy quotes requires Freddy's addendum "The bad ones, of course, don't fare so well..." in order to make it necessarily point to some being unredeemed. Otherwise, the verse simply says that each person is judged, with no speaking of how this judgment turns out for anyone specifically.

---

quote:

---

Revelation 20.14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Digory, you should have checked. My quote ended at verse 13. The next verses say:

quote:

---

Revelation 20.14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

---

So it does speak of how this judgment turns out for the evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think the premise that a lot of evo types are closet universalists and/or annihilationists is not inaccurate, but it's not quite where I'm at. For reasons much like those outlined by others here, I still tend to think Hell is a reality worth being saved from, even if I can't support that conviction by flawless metaphysics.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamac:
How can this be Biblically reconciled without the Universalist mind-set?

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
By taking a careful look at what Christ says about salvation, Jamac.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamac:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Spears:
Well weren't they "in Adam" without ever hearing or believing in him?

---

All are in Adam; by nature, by birth. We come to Christ as a faith choice.

---

This must be read with the clause, "by my specific understanding." If you define salvation a certain way from the beginning, of course you will come to certain conclusions about every verse you encounter. See below.

quote:

---

Whats to stop them being "in Christ" without them ever hearing or believing in him?

---

Their failure to respond to his appeals through conscience, revelation of scripture or drawing of the Holy Spirit

Ro 8:9 "..If anyone does not have the spirit of Christ he does not belong to him.."

---

What if the point here is that all have the spirit of Christ, though?

quote:

---

Let's take 1 Cor 15:22

"For as in Adam all died, so in Christ shall all be made alive.."

It means contextually that believers in Christ will be resurrected see v.19 which creates a context of 'we, who have hoped in Christ..' In v17 it says if Christ was not raised 'our faith'is worthless.

In v23 this resurrection is contextualised as for '..those who are Christ's."

Yet, v22 says: "in Christ ALL shall be made alive."

---

So, it depends when verse you use to interpret the others, no? If we start with saying "in Christ ALL shall be made alive," then the other verses mean that all are in Christ, and if they weren't, they wouldn't have the spirit of Christ in them, etc.

quote:

---

Do we not have to decontextualise it to make it support a universalist framework?

---

The passages express conflicting ideas about salvation. You use Tradition and Reason to choose one, and then reinterpret or "reconcile" the others. It's what we all do.

-Digory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamac:
I don't think any linguist would accept that you can randomly select a passage from a text that suits you and read the rest of the text in the light of your interpretation of that one piece.

---

quote:

---

You contextualise texts by looking for antecedents. In this case it is the resurrection that creates the framework for the discussion. Those resurrected are believers not everybody.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
You've missed my point. We all do exactly that. Exclusionists take the passages on hell and use them to interpret all of the passages about God's eternal, undying love for us. Universalists take the passages on God's love and use them to interpret the passages about eternal punishment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Digory, you should have checked. My quote ended at verse 13. The next verses say:

quote:

---

Revelation 20.14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

---

So it does speak of how this judgment turns out for the evil.

---

Yes, if you believe that there will be any not found written in the Book of Life. Of course, there might not be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
You've missed my point. We all do exactly that. Exclusionists take the passages on hell and use them to interpret all of the passages about God's eternal, undying love for us. Universalists take the passages on God's love and use them to interpret the passages about eternal punishment.
Do you deny that?

---

quote:

---

Only those who are resurrected are dead in Adam, then, also? Otherwise, you have employed a self-serving double standard, haven't you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
And which doctrine is more clearly outlined in the New Testament - that God will eternally torture some people, or that God is love?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
I would say that the teaching that God loves us and is seeking to save us is clear and undeniable, repeated many times in unambiguous language.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
And the doctrine that God will fail in this attempt and that some will be lost mostly rests upon specific prooftexts from parables and highly symbolic apocalyptic passages.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
(This paper is a good starting point if you don't feel like tackling an entire book, btw)

---

quote:

---

(1) It is God's redemptive purpose for the world (and therefore his will) to reconcile
all sinners to himself;
(2) It is within God's power to achieve his redemptive purpose for the world;
(3) Some sinners will never be reconciled to God, and God will therefore either
consign them to a place of eternal punishment, from which there will be no
hope of escape, or put them out of existence altogether.

---

quote:

---

Talbott's argument is that there is an inconsistent set of three propositions:

quote:

---

(1) It is God's redemptive purpose for the world (and therefore his will) to reconcile
all sinners to himself;
(2) It is within God's power to achieve his redemptive purpose for the world;
(3) Some sinners will never be reconciled to God, and God will therefore either
consign them to a place of eternal punishment, from which there will be no
hope of escape, or put them out of existence altogether.

---

He then goes on to show that all three of these can't be true, specifically that 1) and 2) eliminate 3).

My own opinion, though, is that the three are perfectly consistent if you understand the importance of genuine autonomy to God's ultimate purpose, and if you understand the metaphors associated with the biblical descriptions of hell.

---

• Love desires to have an object that is not itself.
• Love desires to be joined freely with the object of its love.
• Love desires to make the object of its love happy.

If humans aren't genuinely free to be joined or not joined to God, then God's purpose can't be fulfilled.

Is that worth destroying people to eternity over?

I think that it is, if you understand the meaning of the biblical metaphors associated with hell. The biblical images of hell describe the relative unhappiness of a self-centered and worldly life, compared with a God centered and heavenly one. People aren't punished to eternity, they are simply frustrated because of the impossibility of accomplishing their ends. This frustration, the obstacles that they encounter, and the resulting unahppiness, are what are described as the fires and punishment of hell.

At any point, however, they prefer their situation to a heavenly one because it gives them the opportunity to continue to pursue their goals and desires.

The process is very similar to the situations that many people get into in this world. Many people's unhappiness is self-generated. Poor work-ethics, poor relationship skills, and poor impulse controls lead to unhappy situations. In the next life the temporal causes of these conditions are accounted for and dissipated, leaving only the person's actual freely chosen motivations.

As long as people are free to lead their lives as they choose, some people will inevitably make choices that bring them less happiness than others. All that the doctrine of hell asserts is that some people will use that freedom to make choices that are radically poorer, and therefore radically less happy, than others.

This is the scenario in Lewis' "Great Divorce."

You can say that it is possible that no one will make those choices, or especially that no one will continue to make those choices forever. That would be nice. I don't think, though, that this is a realistic appraisal of human nature.

More importantly, I need to realize that I myself would be quite happy to make choices that please only myself, and which actually do the opposite. I need to realize that this could damage me, and my potential to serve God, permanently. It makes it a serious business. It is entirely different if the consequences are not really essential.

One thing that I wonder about the universalist position is where the dividing line is between eternal punishment, fairly long-lasting punishment in the next life, very short term punishment in the next life, and no punishment at all. Is it possible that all of our selfishness will be immediately dissipated when we rise again after death, and that there is no unpleasantness at all, ever, for anyone?
 

---

Posted by Ophthalmos (# 3256) on :
 
I don't think that heaven and hell are worth bothering thinking about. No one knows for sure, so why spend time worrying about it either way?

It's not like any of us actually thinks we're going to hell ANYWAY! We're all sinners. Perhaps we should look at Jesus' teachings first and worry about "the afterlife" after life*. He didn't have much to say about it, did he?

* Which, as the clever ones will have noted, will answer our question without us needing/being able to ask it...
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophthalmos:
I don't think that heaven and hell are worth bothering thinking about. No one knows for sure, so why spend time worrying about it either way?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophthalmos:
Perhaps we should look at Jesus' teachings first and worry about "the afterlife" after life*. He didn't have much to say about it, did he?

---

Heh-heh.
 

---

Posted by Ophthalmos (# 3256) on :
 
Fancy being a bit more oblique there on the latter point, Freddy?

Of course, the difference between heart disease and heaven is that believing in heart disease has an observable consequence in the here and now.
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Sorry Op. I thought you were joking.

Good point about the consequences of a high-fat diet.

As for Jesus, I thought that almost all of His statements were about heaven and how to get there, not to mention avoiding hell and its unpleasantness. As far as explicit statements go, here is a quick, and not very accurate, count of Jesus' statements about

• heaven - 34 verses
• Eternal life - 16 verses
• Everlasting life - 15 verses
• Hell - 10 verses
• Hades - 4 verses
• Our resurrection - 5 verses

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophthalmos:
I don't think that heaven and hell are worth bothering thinking about. No one knows for sure, so why spend time worrying about it either way?

It's not like any of us actually thinks we're going to hell ANYWAY!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
[QB] Sorry Op. I thought you were joking.

Good point about the consequences of a high-fat diet.

As for Jesus, I thought that almost all of His statements were about heaven and how to get there, not to mention avoiding hell and its unpleasantness. As far as explicit statements go, here is a quick, and not very accurate, count of Jesus' statements about

• heaven - 34 verses
• Eternal life - 16 verses
• Everlasting life - 15 verses
• Hell - 10 verses
• Hades - 4 verses
• Our resurrection - 5 verses

Not to mention dozens of other references to judgment, condemnation, being prepared, being forgiven, salvation, blessing, the fate of the rich and poor, and similar topics.

Jesus talks quite a bit about the next life, but it is true that He doesn't say much about what it looks like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamac:
Freddy, in reading your previous posts I get the impression that you see the concept of Hell as a metaphor for what is basically bad 'karma.' Is this the impression you intend? If so is heaven the opposite?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamac:
I ask because I'm essentially a literalist since simplicity seems the clear route to faith for me. The apparent anomalies one does find in scripture are in my belief and experience, paradoxical but not irreconcilable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamac:
I'm not denying there is metaphor in the scripture but it seems to me that it is clearly signalled and that you can't read something figuratively, or as allegory without good textual justification.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamac:
I've noticed for instance elsewhere that folk regard the story of lazarus and the rich man as a parable. To me there is little evidence for it being such and so I read it literally. ie There is a bloke in Sheol right now who had words with Abraham from the other side of a great gulf in the nether regions of sheol..

---

• There is a life after death.
• Some are happy there, and some are unhappy.
• Don't trust in riches, they can't help you after death.
• Do trust in Moses and the prophets.
• If you go to hell you can't cross the gulf and go to heaven.
• People in this world believe what they wish to believe and act the way that they wish to act - sending one from the dead to each person would not persuade.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamac:
Does it really come down to agreed rules of reading? Literary theory in other words. If that is the case it's a wonder any of us are ever on the same page. The more you see text as only one ingredient in the transmission of meaning rather than the medium of that transmission the more confusion and cross-purposes will abound.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamac:
The text thus becomes non objective. It is only one element of a variety of factors that conspire to create meaning, others being the audience's previous knowledge, or the author or even the mores of the times. It is thus free for all to bring in their premises, stipulations and preconceptions however well grounded or not. The consequence is we can never objectively know anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Spears:
then

he suddenly stops speaking in parables and gives a warning to people that if they are rich, they will go to hell and if they are poor they will go to heaven (thus making a mockery of all this faith and good works business).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Spears:
The thing about the five brothers is surely the most interesting facet of the whole tale, is five significant? I think so.

---

• The five kings of the Amorites that attack Gibeon and are defeated by Joshua. Joshua 10
• The five lords of the Philistines. I Samuel 6
• The five men of the failing tribe of Dan who took Micah’s idols. Judges 18
• The number that will frighten you if you are unfaithful – “At the threat of five you shall flee.” Isaiah 30:17
• The number of foolish virgins. Matthew 25:2
• The number of husbands the Canaanite woman had. John 4:18
• The number of kings who have fallen. Revelation 17:10

• The five golden tumors and five golden mice that was the Philistines trespass offering. 1 Samuel 6:4
• David’s five smooth stones that he gathered to attack Goliath. 1 Samuel 17:40
• The five wise virgins. Matthew 25:2
• The five loaves that Jesus used to feed five thousand men. Matt. 14:15-21; Mark 6:38 seq.; Luke 9:12-17; John 6:5-13

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamac:
One reason I don't think it is a parable is that it uses a name. No other parable Jesus spoke seems to do this.

---

Jamac, I like what you are saying in most of this post, but this first point makes me wonder what you think a parable is and what this story is by comparison.

Are you thinking that this is a story about an actual person that Jesus knows, and whose fate Jesus knows because He is God? Would Jesus have literally seen into the next life and witnessed these events?

I'm not doubting that He could have done this, or that Jesus knew precisely what happens with everyone after death. But I'm thinking that at the very least this is a hypothetical situation that He is describing here. To my mind, this makes it a parable - a story with a meaning.

Most of Jesus' parables are perfectly possible and even likely stories. Many of them could easily have been based on actual incidents - the prodigal son, the good samaritan, the unforgiving servant. They are called parables because they have a meaning beyond what is obvious from the text, not because they may or may not have literally happened. We assume that they are not literally true stories because that seems probable, but it doesn't especially matter either way.

The story of the rich man and Lazarus has the typical elements of a parable. It has a moral at the end about the importance of belief. It features the very poor and the very rich, who seem to be being compared with the pharisees. It has some elements that seem to be literally improbable - actually sitting in Abraham's bosom, having a dialogue between hell and heaven.

I guess the real issue is that those who speak about it being a parable sometimes emphasize that it has nothing to do with heaven and hell or the life after death. This, as I said, seems farfetched to me, since the picture of heaven and hell and the fate of the good and evil in the parable is consistent with everything else Jesus says. But I'm wondering if this is your main point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamac:
Also.. The context of all of the previous parables, beginning with the lost sheep, is to suggest God's attitude to the needy is far different to that of the Pharisees who taught (at least some of them) a health and wealth gospel viz that wealth was a sign of blessing. Thus the Lazarus and rich man story, has an outcome that would have affronted them. as it is opposed to their own teaching.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamac:
Another interesting point is that this story comes chronologically (according to A.T. Robertson's 'A Harmony of the Gospels,' ed 1950 originally 1922) not too long before a guy named Lazarus is actually raised from death by Jesus. This he called a 'sign of Jonah' and was to be his last public sign to affirm his credentials as messiah. The evidence for the chronological point is that of the gospel writers, only Luke ever claims chronlogical order in Luke 1:3

---

I'm not sure how relevant this point is, or how likely the chronological connection between the two Lazarus' is. I agree that Luke presents itself far more chronologically than the other gosepls. I don't know if we are meant to see this chronology as literally precise.

I have often wondered whether there is any connection between the two Lazarus'. Jesus evidently loved them both. I very much agree with John that they stand for the Gentiles, or those who are humble and needy and long for an understanding of God. I have always been taught this. But I don't know why Jesus would want to portray his close friend as a misreable beggar - except prerhaps to bring some immedicay to the story. Teachers often include present individuals in stories like these.

In any case, Jamac, good luck with your talk. Tell us what further ideas you come up with.
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0