Thread: Purgatory: Will God allow anyone to go to hell? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000562

---

Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on :
 
I've taken the liberty of opening this thread - though I know it probably would have been better written by someone else. Anyways, this topic is from a tangent started on the "Personal Relationship with God" thread. If it may seem familiar...well its probably also a spin-off from Demas' excellence thread the "Unimportance of Hell." It seems we just can't get enough of fire and flames .

The crux of the matter is whether or not we think someone people will end up in hell. Some believe that God saves everyone and will forgive and redeem everyone and no one will suffer eternally the wrath of God. My take is that God won't force anyone to be with him eternally and that some people will end up in hell. I don't know any of this for sure. I just think that God does offer people a choice and I wouldn't want to be with a god that didn't give me the choice not to follow him. I feel that not having that choice would make me a robot - an automan without free will.

So here's the beginning:

quote:

---

Op'd by someone (?)
If "Jesus" will save, He will do so on the basis of my actions and not whether I felt distant or woozy.

---

quote:

---

Actually, Jesus has already saved you independently of any presumed "good conduct points" on your part. The question is whether you're yet aware of that.

---

quote:

---

I find this attitude completely arrogant (I don't mean that LutheranChik is arrogant at all - I mean the idea expressed). I just find the idea that God will save me without considering my choice flat out arrogant and disrespectful. Frankly, I don't want to be with a god that doesn't offer me a choice whether to be with him in eternity or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
If I see you drowning in a lake, and happen to be riding in a helicopter, would you like me to phone down to you first and give you a choice about being saved before I lower down the rope ladder?

Better yet, if you ever happen to be unconscious, should I attempt to get your permission before attempting CPR? If you don't respond, should I leave you under the argument that I did not want to arrogantly violate your sense of free will, and therefore left you there to die?

No offense meant, and not trying to derail the thread's aim, but I wanted to respond to your tangent.

-Digory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
That might be a good analogy, Professorkirke, if I were drowning and unconscious.

I believe God provides salvation to all, but it requires us to accept it to be saved. There is no salvation without God's work (it's not Pelagianism) but there is also no salvation without our voluntary acceptance (it's not Calvinism).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:
<first aid tangent> According to my first aid training, an unconscious victim gives implied consent. <end first aid tangent>

I do honestly believe that if there is a big salvation-fest at the end of time, not only will there be some surprises at who is there, but some of those folks will be surprised themselves. I don't think it's safe to assume that if you don't feel you have a relationship with God, that means God doesn't have a relationship with you. Your God's mileage may vary. OliviaG

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
I believe God has already forgiven everyone, and will not require anyone to go to hell.

-Digory

---

Now that you have heard these thought-provoking discussions, what's your take on the matter? Any other thoughts?

[ 27. February 2006, 22:43: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
 

---

Posted by Vikki Pollard (# 5548) on :
 
I was discussing this with one of my daughters the other day. The problem we felt was that if salvation depends on rational choice, it rules out people who have mental disabilities.

If they are allowed to be special cases, then surely we all are? After all, everyone has traits which make them have issues with 'accepting salvation'. Why would a loving God not allow for those too?

However I should add for clarity that according to my beliefs of twenty years ago, I'm damned already for no longer holding those beliefs, which is a bit of a double-whammy!

However, many years ago now I was struck by the lack of stress on the verses which state pretty clearly that all men are saved through Jesus. No qualifiers (I know there are in other places, of course - but it seems to me there has been an awful lot of Pik'n'Mix around this doctrine).

Perhaps I should also come clean and say that I really don't believe in Hell any more. It's a huge relief. Of course, one day it might not be...

[ 11. November 2005, 07:00: Message edited by: Vikki Pollard ]
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
The fact is that Jesus has 'by his suffering and death made an atonement for the whole world so that whosoever will may be saved.' (Salvationist doctrine).

In other words everyone CAN be saved but there has to be faith in order to appropriate this.

2 issues - those who have never heard, those who cannot 'hear'.

The first is resolved by judgment according to the light received, the second by the fact that God holds some people to be blameless and therefore, graciously, he will bring them into his Kingdom. Those who cannot choose - mentally ill and children, etc are welcomed into his kingdom of love.

There are of course, a whole multitude of people who will be saved 'extraordinarily' because of their circumstances.
 

---

Posted by Vikki Pollard (# 5548) on :
 
But what about people who are disposed to reject the Gospel? At what point are they exercising free will and rejecting God rather than simply being 'enable to hear' - that is, on a level which allows them to respond by accepting Him?

It could be argued that only someone who is deficient in some way would reject a loving God's approach. It could certainly be argued that there is a whole lot of difference between God's call to us and the spin the various denominations place on God's call to us.
 

---

Posted by Vikki Pollard (# 5548) on :
 
Whoops, D-cd. Unable, of course...
 

---

Posted by Neep (# 5213) on :
 
On Vikki Pollard's point, I find myself in a similar place: I want to believe that Hell does not exist, and for that and other reasons I'm damned very firmly by the person I was three or four years ago...

The way I seem to have got around it is that I've acquired a belief from somewhere that God accounts for the

quote:

---

traits which make them have issues with 'accepting salvation'

---

quote:

---

Will God allow anyone to go to hell?

---

IMO, the word 'allow' is key. It assumes God's sovreignty extends to the making of such choices. I think that God can and will make such decisions. I do not accept universalism as an acceptable resolution to what I see in Jesus' teachings concerning 'the outer darkness'. ISTM, that Jesus is quite clear about the real existence of a post-mortem state that is to be avoided at all costs. So yes, in answer to the OP, I think that some people will be 'cast into the outer darkness'. Just what that darkness is and what it entails I'm not certain.

[ 11. November 2005, 08:13: Message edited by: m.t_tomb ]
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Hi all,

Must say I'm with LutheranChik and Professorkirke on this (as so often ), particularly this :

quote:

---

Actually, Jesus has already saved you independently of any presumed "good conduct points" on your part. The question is whether you're yet aware of that.

---

. However I don't see that this necessarily violates free will, or an Orthodox understanding, (as I take Mousethief's to be), namely that our perception of that salvation may well depend on our will. If, in this life, we have made, as it were, heaven our home, if our treasures are laid up there, if our values are the values of the Kingdom of heaven, then we will feel at home and comfortable in heaven. If, on the other hand, we hate the things of God, then what to one person might be heaven, to me might be hell.

I'm tentative on this one, but if you were to push me, I would say this is what I believe...perhaps

[ 11. November 2005, 08:38: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vikki Pollard:
But what about people who are disposed to reject the Gospel? At what point are they exercising free will and rejecting God rather than simply being 'enable to hear' - that is, on a level which allows them to respond by accepting Him?

It could be argued that only someone who is deficient in some way would reject a loving God's approach. It could certainly be argued that there is a whole lot of difference between God's call to us and the spin the various denominations place on God's call to us.

---

Could you unpack this 'disposition' to reject the Gospel? Is it a psychological disposition, a genetic one? What?

Surely, on a spiritual level, we are ALL disposed to reject the Gospel: we all, like sheep, have gone astray.
 

---

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 
This problem, of course, isn't a problem for a Calvinist who believes in predestination to begin with. Modifying Calvinism to Universalism is merely a matter of believing that God elects all.

You can even keep your TULIP if you make the third point Limitless Atonement

But for someone who believes that we have to do our part in saving ourselves, that the job isn't all just God's, we have to explain how everyone can measure up to the standard of faith God requires of us.

One analogy I have heard is that of a chess game - if I play a Grand Master the outcome is never in doubt, although I am perfectly free to move as I choose, and the Grand Master neither controls my moves nor has the power to predict ahead of time which move I make. How then, can I escape God, who is all-knowing, and probably good at chess as well?

Here is another thought: Suppose I pray now "Dear God, if I reject your love then please override my faulty and fallen freewill, for I want to spend eternity with you, love Demas"; but after I die I am brought before God and deny him.

Shall the timeless eternal God respect my free choice now? Or my free choice later?
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
One analogy I have heard is that of a chess game - if I play a Grand Master the outcome is never in doubt, although I am perfectly free to move as I choose, and the Grand Master neither controls my moves nor has the power to predict ahead of time which move I make. How then, can I escape God, who is all-knowing, and probably good at chess as well?

---

I agree, Demas, and think this is a good analogy.

To my mind the chess analogy means that God will not fail to restore peace to the world. It means that the prophetic sayings depicting future of harmony and joy, in which all people will worship God, are going to be fulfilled. That is like a chess game with the Master, the outcome of which is not in doubt.

But in that chess game pieces will be lost on each side. To me this means that everyone has the chance to choose evil, and it is a real choice that some people will make. God couldn't save the whole in any meaningful way without allowing for that freedom of the individual.

A chess game with no pieces lost on one side would not be a chess game.
 

---

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 
I think you're stretching the metaphor a little there, Freddy

If anything, the pawns represent what we have to give up as we are drawn towards God - our pride, our hate, our fear.
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Good point. I hate to think that we are just pawns in the game of life.
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
Before I specifically respond, I wanted to say that this

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
Here is another thought: Suppose I pray now "Dear God, if I reject your love then please override my faulty and fallen freewill, for I want to spend eternity with you, love Demas"; but after I die I am brought before God and deny him.

Shall the timeless eternal God respect my free choice now? Or my free choice later?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
Then I posted:

quote:

---

I just find the idea that God will save me without considering my choice flat out arrogant and disrespectful. Frankly, I don't want to be with a god that doesn't offer me a choice whether to be with him in eternity or not.

---

Then ProfKirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
If I see you drowning in a lake, and happen to be riding in a helicopter, would you like me to phone down to you first and give you a choice about being saved before I lower down the rope ladder?

Better yet, if you ever happen to be unconscious, should I attempt to get your permission before attempting CPR? If you don't respond, should I leave you under the argument that I did not want to arrogantly violate your sense of free will, and therefore left you there to die?

-Digory

---

Then Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
That might be a good analogy, Professorkirke, if I were drowning and unconscious.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kayleigh:
As for those people with disabilities that mean they cannot understand or accept the gospel, I agree with someone who said that God will welcome them especially, judging every person on their abilities and merits. After all, we know that above all God's judgement will be just and perfect... and I'm also glad that it's Him making the decisions and not me!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Surely, on a spiritual level, we are ALL disposed to reject the Gospel: we all, like sheep, have gone astray.

---

I couldn't have said it better myself, Muddy.

-Digory
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
Oh, and by the way:

Nice to meet you, Kayleigh. Your avatar will be a source of confusion to me, as JoyfulSoul can explain, but it's great having you aboard the Ship.

Hope I didn't scare you off with my quick argument to your thread! You'll soon learn that it just means I like ya...

-Digory
 

---

Posted by kayleigh (# 10657) on :
 
Hello Professor, and thank you for your welcome!

No you didn't scare me off - constructive argument and criticism can only help everyone grow in their understanding.

Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly in my last paragraph. I wasn't referring to everybody being judged on their merits, as you are quite correct in saying that we can never make the grade by ourselves and rely solely on God's grace to make us perfect.

I also wasn't trying to come across as "we feel sorry for the disabled and they'll make it into heaven anyway"... I am aware that there are many disabilities from which we can all suffer that make no difference at all to our ability to receive or reject God. I was referring to those people who Vikki Pollard was talking about when she says it "rules out people with mental disabilities" - i.e. those people who are so severely impaired that they cannot understand or receive the gospel at all. I was thinking of the young children that Jesus welcomed in as much as they are too young to understand enough to reject or accept the gospels and yet were welcomed by the Saviour.

I hope that makes a bit more sense, and I still stand by my comment that I'm glad I'm not the one deciding who goes where! We can leave that up to someone a bit more reliable

~K~
 

---

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :
 
This whole idea of freedom and free will is something I would like to pick up on.

What exactly is free will? Is free will simply the choices we make, like for example, the freedom of choosing what to buy or wear? The freedom to choose to take drugs perhaps? Do these choices we have in life amount to our free will? Or is it something else?

Choices certainly are a part of it, but I would argue that they are not the be all and end all of free will.

Have you ever seen a true virtuoso play music? Someone like Yehudi Menuhin, or Steve Vai? Or a sports star doing what they do to such an incredibly excellent level that us mere mortals only dream of? When these people are doing what it is that they do, they are truly free - they exercise free will - at whatever it is. Take Vai as an example. When he plays his music, he is completely free within that music. He has the ability to play any piece of music to an excellent level, and when he is playing he can do anything he wants. But how did he attain that level of freedom? Did he simply choose to play that well?

It is obvious that he did not. Being a virtuoso performer is not simply a choice. It takes years and years of hard, sometimes slavish, work. As a young pupil, Vai must have sounded bad, just like everyone else does when they start to play, but he got good. He must have had some natural talent, probably a lot of natural talent for music and determination to be good, but this was coupled with hard, boring, repetitive work under the strict supervision of a teacher with no freedom at all. He would have had to do exactly what he was told, when he was told and be disciplined to practice every day. Then, as he got better and grew as a musician, he had more latitude to try different things and experiment a bit, to find his own voice in the music and not just repeat and parrot his teacher’s style. Then, he achieved the freedom. Then he got to the point where what he played was good, almost perfect, and became free. But this freedom came through hard work. He made choices to do this work – choice is certainly a large part of free will, but it is not everything. You cannot just choose to be a virtuoso, you must work at it too.

The same is true with people. Babies are born not knowing how to be good adults – they need to learn and work at it whilst growing, and parents guide and teach their children in how to be good and how to grow as adults. But everyone with children knows that the lessons need repeating and repeating and repeating. But would the child feel free at this point? Can a child exercise free will at this point? Would a parent say to a child that they are allowed, that they haver free will to touch a fire? Or are they simply as Vai did, doing boring, repetitive work under the supervision of a teacher? Then the child grows into a teenager, finding out the rules for themselves and working out their own voice, rebelling a bit against their parents rules and learning to make their own decisions.

Then, if the child has learned and been taught well, they will become a virtuoso adult, free to be what they want, to play what they want with their own voice and exercise they're own free will. Obviously, they must play within the rules. You cannot decide to kill someone and then continue being free, but Vai, for all his musical freedom must also play the right notes that fit with the music. But it is how they are played that gives the freedom, and the process a person must go through to become free is a long one.

Learning how to be free, is worth it, but when learning the ropes, like a child does, there is little freedom. Free will is so much more than the choices we make - it is the very lives we lead, learning to be free as we grow both in the world and in Christ.

At the moment I am not a human being, I am a human becoming.

Will God allow me to choose to go to hell? Only if I am a virtuoso adult and am able to make that choice. But then, If I was a virtuoso adult, why would I choose something like that anyway? Surely, doing so would be acting against my own free will.
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
PhilA, that's a marvelous post. Thank you.

(I have some responses coming later.)
 

---

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
It has just struck me that what we often mean by ‘free will’ in relation to God is more like ‘free won’t. We ‘won’t forgive’ and go on getting bitter and resentful towards people (or even God himself). We ‘won’t love’ someone: it’s too much like hard work, and might mean saying ‘sorry’. We ‘won’t give’ sacrificially of time/money: What? and have us ‘lose out’ what is ‘ours’?

Fundamentally we ‘won’t be’ the people He chooses us to be and prefer to be something less. In other words, we are inclined to make a lesser version of Satan’s choice (if you believe in his existence, and the traditional story of his fall): Not to be the Great Archangel Lucifer but to be the ‘lowest of the low’, while maintaining the illusion of greatness, but a fear-filled and terrible ‘inverted greatness’.

We ‘choose’ to be ‘prisoners in chains’ when offered true freedom, and delude ourselves that its our ‘exercising free will’ to remain so bound. From God’s perspective, He has left us with the key, and opened the prison door, and even calls our name from outside, under the blue skies of freedom to walk in His will. It is not Him sending us to Hell so much as leaving us there if we have consistently shown that that is where we choose to remain.
..................................................

I liked a lot of what you said, PhilA, and the way you said it, but I need to go away and think about what I agree with.
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
PhilA, that's a marvelous post. Thank you.

---

quote:

---

John 8.31 “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

---

It does give a very different idea of freedom.

In a sense there are two kinds of freedom. You are free to be good or evil. But you aren't truly free unless you "abide in My word" - that is, become a virtuoso...
 

---

Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on :
 
I think the virtuoso comparison is a poor one. It seems to say that someone who has been a good Christian all their life (whatever that may be) is somehow more free than someone who has just come to the Lord - or a flat none believer at that.

This then leads us on the road to salvation by works alone if we are not careful.

The virtuoso when deciding to take up say the violin was just as free at that point in his life to take it up than to not bother than he is twenty years later as an expert. In fact, surely it is a much easier decision for the beginner to decide to stop than for the guy who is now making his living playing.

Sorry about flies in the ointment and all of that.

Love,

Evo1
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:
This then leads us on the road to salvation by works alone if we are not careful.

---

Certainly.

So how do you understand Christ's words about becoming free by abiding in His word? Do we become free by not abiding in His word? Do we become free either way?
 

---

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :
 
Of course, its an analogy that breaks down at some point - all analogies do.

I'm not sure it leads to salvation by works though. The analogy works as one demonstrating the true meaning of the word freedom - the freedom that Christ has planned for us. It is not a model that fits with every aspect of our lives and certainly does not lead to salvation, but comes from a position of justification.

Isn't it strange though that salvation is often described as freedom in Christ? Is the goal perhaps to be a virtuoso in Christ? This does not mean that Christ won't accept us unless we make the final goal on our own - that is not how someone becomes a virtuoso - but he is the one who, through grace, is our teacher and our guide. What is important is that we accept his lessons - that we have faith. The Christian life is then about practising these lessons and we keep on practising, and getting it wrong, and Christ keeps picking us up, dusting us down and setts us on our way again. As Alaric the Goth said, we sometimes exercise a 'free won't' because we don't want him to pick us up and help us.
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhilA:
Isn't it strange though that salvation is often described as freedom in Christ? Is the goal perhaps to be a virtuoso in Christ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhilA:
Of course, its an analogy that breaks down at some point - all analogies do.

I'm not sure it leads to salvation by works though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhilA:
Of course, its an analogy that breaks down at some point - all analogies do.

I'm not sure it leads to salvation by works though.

---

Maybe not for you, but see Freddy's comment. [Notice I deliberately referred to "works alone"]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:
So again, I'm sorry.

Love,

Evo1

---

You have nothing to apologise for. If I wanted everyone to agree with me, I wouldn't post on the ship.
 

---

Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:
This then leads us on the road to salvation by works alone if we are not careful.

---

Certainly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:
I think the virtuoso comparison is a poor one. It seems to say that someone who has been a good Christian all their life (whatever that may be) is somehow more free than someone who has just come to the Lord - or a flat none believer at that.

This then leads us on the road to salvation by works alone if we are not careful.

---

I think you may have missed the point of the analogy. PhilA was demonstrating a deeper meaning of the concept of freedom, rather than a means by which we are saved. Though a beginner is free to pick up a violin at any time (one understanding of freedom), s/he is not free to play music with it until s/he learns the instrument (a different understanding of freedom).

Now, something to be said about this is that you could make an argument that yes, the beginner is in fact free to pick up the violin and stike its strings, and who are we to say that it isn't music? This may or may not be true. But the truest form of freedom in music is somebody who knows how to work within the rules and guidelines, and is ABLE to do anything he or she wants. At that point, following those rules and guidelines is inconsequential.

Someone who picks up a violin and plucks one string repeatedly simply because they cannot do anything else is not free in music. Someone who trains for years and knows every in and out of the violin, yet chooses to pluck one string repeatedly, is a genius. (Perhaps that's why modern art is so astounding--though it looks like something my 2 year old niece would do, it comes from someone who is capable of far more, and is thus in fact free.)

The rules and guidelines I mentioned above are not to be analagous to rules of how to live, so as to say breaking them would be "sin". Rather, Christ calls us to discover the rules and guidelines of how his world works. Only when we've become masters of the art of living can we truly be free.

Something like that, perhaps. PhilA's description just resounded in my head in a way that I'd never thought of before, and I'm only just now developing what I think I might mean...



-Digory
 

---

Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kayleigh:
As for those people with disabilities that mean they cannot understand or accept the gospel <snip>

---

I'm not sure about this. I met a severely disabled person who was physically contorted and could but grunt and moan but had one of the most beautifulest (is that a word?) smiles I had ever seen. I was having a really terrible day and I was in the bookstore waiting in line. This person was in a wheel-chair while his caretaker was complaining to someone else in line about his patient no less!...and this severely disabled person just looked at me and gave me such a warm and loving smile...it really made my day.

I think perhaps this person had a understanding of what Jesus was getting at. Perhaps God is greater than we think or imagine at communicating his love and his good news to every person - no matter what their place in this world.

There are many other good things in this thread that I'm thinking through...
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:
This then leads us on the road to salvation by works alone if we are not careful.

---

Certainly.

---

In response to Freddy asking which comment I meant that showed that he had taken this to lead us down the road of "works alone" if we are not careful.

This is the one I was thinking of.

---

Oh. OK. You're right.

So how do you understand Christ's words about becoming free by abiding in His word? Do we become free by not abiding in His word? Do we become free either way?
 

---

Posted by Vikki Pollard (# 5548) on :
 
There are so many good posts on here that I'm a little scared of posting now... but I'd like to say a couple of things - firstly, that I too have seen people who appeared to have a direct line to God even though they couldn't communicate with other people; secondly that although I find the virtuoso analogy moving and beautiful, on thinking about it I don't believe it is a true one for the present case.

As I understand it, our response to the Gospel is meant to be 'a decision'. Not a series of decisions. I know some would say you have to choose afresh every day, which would fit with the musician idea, but for those who believe we stand or fall by that one moment of commitment to Christ, then it doesn't work.

Mudfrog, I suppose the answer to the question you ask me lies in your own rhetorical response to it. Perhaps we ARE all predisposed to reject God (though in fact I don't see the evidence for that - I see more evidence that we may grow away from doing so as we grow older). In which case, the whole 'free will' idea is a cruel trick.

This might be a red herring for this thread, in which case perhaps we could start another - but I firmly believe one can accept Christ yet reject 'the Church'. (In fact I believe 'the Church' may have missed the most recent revival, when God placed a love for the world and its needs in the hearts of people not even recognised by the Church - but that really is another thread! )

So that would take me back to my point that choosing God may not actually look how we expect it to look.

My daughter at University was saying to me the other night, "How CAN a group of 100 Christians in the CU honestly have the arrogance to believe they are the only ones going to Heaven out of the whole University?!"

I think that's another good question, personally.

[ 11. November 2005, 18:13: Message edited by: Vikki Pollard ]
 

---

Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhilA:
Will God allow me to choose to go to hell? Only if I am a virtuoso adult and am able to make that choice. But then, If I was a virtuoso adult, why would I choose something like that anyway? Surely, doing so would be acting against my own free will.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vikki Pollard:



Mudfrog, I suppose the answer to the question you ask me lies in your own rhetorical response to it. Perhaps we ARE all predisposed to reject God (though in fact I don't see the evidence for that - I see more evidence that we may grow away from doing so as we grow older).

---

Whoops. That doesn't say what I meant! I mean that people generally seem to accept the idea of God as children and young people, then get more predisposed to reject it later.

Joyfulsoul, I agree. I left my Evangelical faith behind after years of being challenged about its arrogance by my family. In the end I came to agree with them.

Now, if I'm wrong, God may therefore consign me to Hell. Or he may know better than I do myself that I was unable to resist the pressure due to my inherent personality type, and accept me anyway.

It's really much easier not to believe in
Hell.

Anyway what's 'wrong' with having the strength to reject a call to see oneself as inherently sinful? Has nobody else on here ever seen that damage that can do to people? Hasn't anyone else ever suspected that they have been manipulated into living their life for the good of others without any reciprocation from the body which has taught them to do so?

<lights blue touchpaper and watches from a distance>
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhilA:
Will God allow me to choose to go to hell? Only if I am a virtuoso adult and am able to make that choice. But then, If I was a virtuoso adult, why would I choose something like that anyway? Surely, doing so would be acting against my own free will.

---

This is the idea I find insulting. Its saying that if you are an adult you will chose God's way (what-have-you). I don't think so at all. Its insulting because it is saying that athiests and others are unable to make a choice because they are "children" and not adults.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Good point. But there are other ways to look at it. It means that if everyone were truly free they would always choose heaven. It also means that the genuinely "rational" person would be kind, loving, generous, a good spouse, a good employee, etc. It simply redefines "normal" as "good" or "the way it is supposed to be."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vikki Pollard:


My daughter at University was saying to me the other night, "How CAN a group of 100 Christians in the CU honestly have the arrogance to believe they are the only ones going to Heaven out of the whole University?!"

I think that's another good question, personally.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
Are you saying that Satan wasn't free?

I don't buy this argument. Adam and Eve were "free" from all sin. Nevertheless, they made a choice (less than savory).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vikki Pollard:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vikki Pollard:



Mudfrog, I suppose the answer to the question you ask me lies in your own rhetorical response to it. Perhaps we ARE all predisposed to reject God (though in fact I don't see the evidence for that - I see more evidence that we may grow away from doing so as we grow older).

---

Whoops. That doesn't say what I meant! I mean that people generally seem to accept the idea of God as children and young people, then get more predisposed to reject it later

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
This is the idea I find insulting. Its saying that if you are an adult you will chose God's way (what-have-you). I don't think so at all. Its insulting because it is saying that athiests and others are unable to make a choice because they are "children" and not adults.

---

Do you find it insulting every time someone tells you to do something? If so, surely you find your entire life being insulted. My boss tells me what time I am to get to work for. Its an outrage! Its an insult to my free will! My doctor tells me what I can't have for lunch. How dare he! The children's teacher tells me what time to pick them up from school, etc. etc.

Why is God not allowed to tell you what to do from time to time? Of course, you are perfectly free to ignore your alarm, your doctor and your children's teacher just as you are free to ignore God, but it is completely against your own interests to do that. Because you are on your way to being a virtuoso adult, you can see the stupidity in ignoring your boss etc. - you would loose your job/health/children which would adversely affect every aspect of your life, yet you could choose to do so if you wished. If you find it insulting that your boss etc. tells you what to do, then I do not see how you can ever be happy - you would be insulted all of your life.

Surely its much better to accept the idea that there are somethings that we do because we are on our way to being virtuosos and those are simply the ways of life that we must follow and somethings we do because we choose to. I am sure that if you really do want to negate on your own free will then God will allow you to do that, but it would be to go against your nature as a human being to do that. Many people go all the way through life without ever recognising God at all. I do not believe that those people go to hell though. I have a feeling that when anyone stands before God that denying him and asking if it would be all right if he would mind if he just went to hell, just because he can would be physically impossible.
 

---

Posted by Vikki Pollard (# 5548) on :
 
The CU IS pretty closed, I'm afraid. I doubt 100 atheists would be so militant about telling everyone they were condemned to - er - Heaven...

Hang on here... if anyone who was free 'would choose God', how is that 'free will'??

This simply doesn't hold water, does it?

Mudfrog said:

quote:

---

Faith does become real as you get older.

---

What if we're just more prone to falling for a line as we get older? Out of desperation as we see death drawing nearer?

Just a thought.
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vikki Pollard:
Hang on here... if anyone who was free 'would choose God', how is that 'free will'??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vikki Pollard:
Hang on here... if anyone who was free 'would choose God', how is that 'free will'??

This simply doesn't hold water, does it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:
I think the virtuoso comparison is a poor one. It seems to say that someone who has been a good Christian all their life (whatever that may be) is somehow more free than someone who has just come to the Lord - or a flat none believer at that.

---

quote:

---

This then leads us on the road to salvation by works alone if we are not careful.

The virtuoso when deciding to take up say the violin was just as free at that point in his life to take it up than to not bother than he is twenty years later as an expert. In fact, surely it is a much easier decision for the beginner to decide to stop than for the guy who is now making his living playing.

---

You're right, there is a risk of falling into the works camp - but there's also the component of "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" - and the sense of "work" here is like mining, to follow the vein of gold and dig it out, grapple with it. And the parable of the various soil types warns us that we can drift away early on, like the player who realizes that his neck hurts and his fingertips are sore, or we can drift away later for more complex reasons ("the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches").

Jesus talks more about hell, and the importance of avoiding it, than anybody else in the Bible - which makes me think He means it. Additionally, I had a rather alarming experience about 7-8 years ago when a series of friends (of varying proximity) died within about 10 months of each other. I would pray that God receive them and have mercy upon them and didn't get any particular feedback from the Almighty - until one certain person and I went to pray for his soul and God stopped me, it was like, "Don't even ask." Very strong. Freaked me out. And it's made me nervous, since, in praying for the deceased whose spiritual alignment is questionable - I realize I'm always sort of afraid God will do that again (and I *really* didn't like it).

I recognize this is my personal experience and bears no weight with anyone but me, but yeah, it makes me answer this question in the positive - I do think God will allow people to go to Hell... eeep.
 

---

Posted by Vikki Pollard (# 5548) on :
 
But how do you know GOD stoped you, and not some prior knowledge of the person's circumstances which at some deep level you have been trained to believe was unforgivable?

Sorry (I once had that experience too, in fact) - I am partly - though not wholly - playing Devil's advocate so this doesn't get too 'pat'. I think these are serious questions which deserve a lot of thought rather than Pavlovian responses.

And if you can't play Devil's advocate on a thread like this, where can you?
 

---

Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
The point is that people in heaven are free but people in hell are not, at least not very free.

People in heaven are free because they can do whatever they wish. People in hell are not free because what they wish for is not possible, and so their desires are their prison.

So is choosing slavery a true expression of freedom?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vikki Pollard:
But how do you know GOD stoped you, and not some prior knowledge of the person's circumstances which at some deep level you have been trained to believe was unforgivable?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
it's a good question, Vicki

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
So in panic and trepidation, I fly into the cage and sure enough, the hands fall away as soon as I enter - and the bars of the cage break up into a shower of stars: it only appeared to be a cage from the outside.

---

Wow. That's a beautiful story. I like everything about it.

Freedom and prison, I guess, are easy to mistake for each other!
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
Jesus talks more about hell, and the importance of avoiding it, than anybody else in the Bible - which makes me think He means it. Additionally, I had a rather alarming experience about 7-8 years ago when a series of friends (of varying proximity) died within about 10 months of each other. I would pray that God receive them and have mercy upon them and didn't get any particular feedback from the Almighty - until one certain person and I went to pray for his soul and God stopped me, it was like, "Don't even ask." Very strong. Freaked me out. And it's made me nervous, since, in praying for the deceased whose spiritual alignment is questionable - I realize I'm always sort of afraid God will do that again (and I *really* didn't like it).

I recognize this is my personal experience and bears no weight with anyone but me, but yeah, it makes me answer this question in the positive - I do think God will allow people to go to Hell... eeep.

---

Hello, Lynn.

If you'd like to keep this as just a personal anecdote, I would totally understand. But if you would like to enter it as anecdotal evidence to your belief and to discuss it, I'd love to hear more about what you think God was actually saying to you when he said "Stop," and why it necessarily meant to you that the person was destined for Hell no matter what.

-Digory
 

---

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
PhilA's analogies over free will were truly excellent!! This is why I get angry when people say. "no-one is in hell unless they want to be" I don't know anyone who would want to be in hell. A loving God who demands that we forgive seventy times seven will do at least as much as us. In the early church the condemnation to hell was usually piquish and reserved for anyone who didn't agree with the prevailing doctrine. But there were many universalists in the early church.

The idea that anyone would reject God eternally once death strips them of the veneer of security which money can provide in this world is to me absurd. The magnitude of eternal separation is enough to make the most hardened soul cry out to God for mercy. Will God refuse it? Never.

I have a question for Evo1 who seems to be a grand champion of eternal punishment. Ho also criticises any idea of works righteousness. So Protestant! Look at the passages in Matthew where Jesus says that the goats are going to outer darkness. It is always for wrong deeds or lack of good deeds. Especially Matthew 25. Jesus taught works righteousness, salvation by obediance to God and that entry to the kingdom of God comes from being a good Jew (Mark 12. 28-32).

A confusion of ideas seems to exist among believers in eternal hell. They take seriously that Jesus taught it. But they ignore that He said that hell is for the wicked unrighteous. They graft onto that, Paul's belief salvation is by grace, but Paul never taught about eternal torment. Thus in combining two ideas, Christians don't have to change or improve their lives because they are "saved". This is a monumetal cop out. There is no religion on earth which doesn't require strict adherance to moral precepts based on the golden rule. That is exactly what Jesus taught. Being saved by belief was invented by Paul, who believed in a total recreation of the cosmos and as such was probably a universalist himself. You can't have it all ways.
 

---

Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on :
 
As much as I honestly admire the "virtuouso" approach, I have a great longing for it to be true - however, I am not persuaded that God will remove someone's choice to be eternally separated from him.

Believe it or not, there are some people who have no desire to be with God. While some say that death will remove that lack of desire (especially faced with the eminent darkness and pain), I'm still not certain that is the case. I don't think that God would force anyone to go on the path of the "virtuouso" if they didn't want to.


P.S. I know PaulTH said that he knew no one - but I do.

[ 12. November 2005, 20:55: Message edited by: Joyfulsoul ]
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
As much as I honestly admire the "virtuouso" approach, I have a great longing for it to be true - however, I am not persuaded that God will remove someone's choice to be eternally separated from him.

Believe it or not, there are some people who have no desire to be with God.

---

quote:

---

P.S. I know PaulTH said that he knew no one - but I do

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
...sometimes people claim to want to go to hell because of the knowledge of their sinfulness, or inability to cope with past sins.

---

quote:

---

I think anyone who rejects him does so because they do not fully understand him

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
If you'd like to keep this as just a personal anecdote, I would totally understand. But if you would like to enter it as anecdotal evidence to your belief and to discuss it, I'd love to hear more about what you think God was actually saying to you when he said "Stop," and why it necessarily meant to you that the person was destined for Hell no matter what.

-Digory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
PhilA's analogies over free will were truly excellent!! This is why I get angry when people say. "no-one is in hell unless they want to be" I don't know anyone who would want to be in hell. A loving God who demands that we forgive seventy times seven will do at least as much as us.

---

quote:

---

The idea that anyone would reject God eternally once death strips them of the veneer of security which money can provide in this world is to me absurd. The magnitude of eternal separation is enough to make the most hardened soul cry out to God for mercy. Will God refuse it? Never.

---

quote:

---

Jesus taught works righteousness, salvation by obediance to God and that entry to the kingdom of God comes from being a good Jew (Mark 12. 28-32).

A confusion of ideas seems to exist among believers in eternal hell. They take seriously that Jesus taught it. But they ignore that He said that hell is for the wicked unrighteous. They graft onto that, Paul's belief salvation is by grace, but Paul never taught about eternal torment. Thus in combining two ideas, Christians don't have to change or improve their lives because they are "saved". This is a monumetal cop out. There is no religion on earth which doesn't require strict adherance to moral precepts based on the golden rule. That is exactly what Jesus taught. Being saved by belief was invented by Paul, who believed in a total recreation of the cosmos and as such was probably a universalist himself. You can't have it all ways.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vikki Pollard:
There are so many good posts on here that I'm a little scared of posting now... <snip>

---

Oh dear - me too - and this is the topic I feel most passionate about of any topic on earth. But now I feel somewhat outclassed by the Demas and PhilA s and others and all uncharacteristically tongue tied.

For me the response to the question will always begin with the psalmist's vision "though I descend to the depths of hell thou art there also." Regardless of our understanding of Hell - as non-being or as fire or as separation - it seems to me that this is a place where God is. Dante’s Give Up Hope cannot be activated where God is, or in Anselmian terms, despair, fire torment hopelessness or non-being becomes greater than God and God’s love.

So hell must be, if you like, a choice. I object to the forms of doctrine that depict death as the last opportunity to “decide for God/Jesus” for the same reason: death becomes bigger than divine love.

I believe the “Mental illness” analogy works for the entire human state. Am I able to see as yet the implications of God’s love with anything but the darkened glasses of Paul’s analogy? And can I see the implications of sin in relationship to divine perfection with anything but the darkened glasses of Paul’s analogy? So I am as yet maimed, incomplete, disabled. As are the gospel narratives and the church, even the sacraments in which I may encounter grace. I have not yet seen the face of the God whose love grinds away my imperfections. I have not seen my sin. I have not seen divine sorrow. Nor has Joe Blow next door who’s too busy, or Freda Blogg who’s having an affair or Osama bin Laden or George Bush who are trapped in their spiritual myopia.

But the persuasive love of God is greater than sin. So I believe in heaven (with a struggle), and with something like purgatory, but not in Hell. Which fortunately is not an article of faith, so I guess I can still be a part of the Christian community in all its myopia?
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I think God will allow anyone to go to Hell who really wants to and insists on it.
 

---

Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
It can't be much worse than some of the things I've seen here on Earth.

I'd check it out if I knew I had a Get Out of Hell Free card.
 

---

Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
Perhaps you and I could agree on this idea:

Hell will be filled with any and all who choose to be there, but any who ask God for mercy at any time will be lifted from darkness and brought into God's grace, no matter what they'd done or how long they'd rebelled.

Does that resonate with you?

-Digory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
I think anyone who rejects him does so because they do not fully understand him

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
This all hinges on a question I posted on a thread a few eeks ago. Would we get another chance after death, if like Doubting Thomas we had to see in order to believe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Dear Joyfulsoul

I disagree with you for these reasons. In this world God is obscure. We see through a glass darkly. For many people who have awful lives, poverty, oppression, abuse, sexual or phychological, the glass becomes so dark that they can't see God at all. I've had a lucky life. I had good loving parents, though perhaps a bit too severe. I have never been hungry, I've always had quite well paid work. And God is real to me. But what of those who never have that chance?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
To reject God here is easy: we can't see Him and the world around us is indifferent, or worse, downright hostile. When death strips us of these illusions, I am totally sure that almost every soul which rejected God on earth will cry out for His mercy. Will He grant it then? I believe so, because otherwise He is like a silly school child who says, "yesterday you didn't want to be my friend, so today I don't want to be yours".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Your name Joyfulsoul is intriguing. If you believe that most of creation is going to hell, there won't be much joy in your soul then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
Hypothetically, there might be people who will chose to live in the hereafter apart from God's presence. However, at some point they may change their mind and decide instead to rejoin others in the presence of God. No matter what they had done or how they had rebelled - both in their life on earth and their continued existence apart from God's presence, God's grace is so that he would allow them to leave hell and rejoin him in heaven?

If this is what you are saying...I still disagree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Your God appears to be saying, "You humans forgive others 70x7. Do as I say, not as I do."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Your God appears to be saying, "You humans forgive others 70x7. Do as I say, not as I do."

---

Maybe earth is the place where we can make meaningful choices though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
Hypothetically, there might be people who will chose to live in the hereafter apart from God's presence. However, at some point they may change their mind and decide instead to rejoin others in the presence of God. No matter what they had done or how they had rebelled - both in their life on earth and their continued existence apart from God's presence, God's grace is so that he would allow them to leave hell and rejoin him in heaven?

If this is what you are saying...I still disagree.

---

Your God is a harsh one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Your God appears to be saying, "You humans forgive others 70x7. Do as I say, not as I do."

---

Maybe earth is the place where we can make meaningful choices though.

---

Your example allowed for the idea that this was not the case, and yet God still wouldn't forgive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
That's not what you said. You said even if we could make choices after death, God would not forgive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Besides "meaningful and significant" isn't accurate. Your point would rather be that the decisions made in this lifetime are "final and irrevocable."

If we had sufficient data upon which to make such eternity-affecting choices, that might be fair and fine. But the data is far from complete, and even if it were complete, there are factors which make the decision nearly impossible to make, factors quite out of the control of the person who has to make the decision. It's a harsh God that would insist on a correct decision under such circumstances and reject anybody who chose incorrectly.

[sorry for the cross-post!]

---

That's a good point. If God is just and merciful, why would S/he act harshly - and in a way seemingly unfairly?
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Cool! We agree!

(I was afraid you'd gone to bed and weren't going to answer until tomorrow!)
 

---

Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on :
 
I'm not a universalist. But I also believe that God is both loving and just and would never sentence someone to eternal damnation unless they had as you said "sufficient data upon which to make such eternity-affecting choices." I believe that beings (both human, angelic) have those opportunities but still chose to reject God (hence Satan). I guess still believe that if there's a hell, some people will end up in there.


[bed - this early on a saturday... what about my social life? ]

[ 13. November 2005, 03:46: Message edited by: Joyfulsoul ]
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I believe that there's a hell and some people MAY end up there, if in fact they insist on rejecting God even when given all the info they need to make the decision. I hope and pray nobody ends up there, and nobody makes that decision -- but it is still a very live possibility. So I'm not exactly a universalist, and not exactly a non-universalist. I'm a wishy-washy universalist wannabe.
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
I'm not exactly a universalist, and not exactly a non-universalist. I'm a wishy-washy universalist wannabe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
Its kind of like if people do drugs - sure they may repent of it and stop doing drugs - but the affects of the drugs such as infertility, broken memory, episodes and some mental issues will remain because of those choices. What I'm trying to say (with this very poor analogy) is that our actions are meaningful and sometimes we have to live with the consequences of our choices. I think we should strive to live meaningfully and thoughtfully because we don't know if we get another chance to do so.

---

quote:

---

I don't think it is always the case that some people reject God because of incomplete knowledge. Satan himself was in the presence and glory of God and still rejected him. Adam and Eve knew the friendship of God and yet chose to distrust God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
Its kind of like if people do drugs - sure they may repent of it and stop doing drugs - but the affects of the drugs such as infertility, broken memory, episodes and some mental issues will remain because of those choices. What I'm trying to say (with this very poor analogy) is that our actions are meaningful and sometimes we have to live with the consequences of our choices. I think we should strive to live meaningfully and thoughtfully because we don't know if we get another chance to do so.

---

I am quite confident that you didn't mean this, but this line of thinking poses us that have "chosen God" as being better than those who do not, since their consequences are MUCH worse than ours.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

I don't think it is always the case that some people reject God because of incomplete knowledge. Satan himself was in the presence and glory of God and still rejected him. Adam and Eve knew the friendship of God and yet chose to distrust God.

---

Do you know that Satan had a complete understanding of God? Or Adam and Eve?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
[QUOTE]
Also, disobeying God is not the same as rejecting him or choosing Hell, in my opinion.

-Digory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
No, Universalist-Wannabe Indulgences. Try to keep up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by universalist:
For some, maybe most, the opportunity to finally see God may not occur until the next life (who says God can't save then?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
Hmm. I don't know if we could repent hell - that was Professor Kirke's illustration. (mommy, he started it!) Honestly, I wish it were the case that we could repent in hell. Maybe it is. Or maybe hell doesn't exist. For me, looking at the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus told by Jesus doesn't indicate the possibility of repentence in hell. The story has a great ending for Lazarus but a very sad ending for the Rich Man. Maybe Jesus didn't finish the story?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry Boam:
I know that it has been removed from one of the creeds that the UMC uses, but isn't there a tradition about Christ descending into hell? The harrowing of hell?

I am not at all familiar with the issues around this idea, but I took it as a way of saying that the salvation offered by God in the person of Christ transcends death--that people who were not saved in this life still have the option to accept the salvation that God desires for them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
This is one of those places where I think we're better off seeing that God, as King of the Universe, is Righteous Judge as well as loving Father - and we actually have some input into the decision whether we are treated as errant children who need help or treasonous rebels who need dispatching. IT COULD BE that the possibility of repentance in hell exists - but I would not want to hold out that hope to anyone, lest they say, "well, I can always repent later," but never get the opportunity.

---

I think, in my opinion, that this is the wrong approach. "You might get a chance later, but just in case you don't, you should probably just do it now!"

I think that if we encourage people on to pursue the truth of God, they'll find it. "Seek and ye shall find" etc. So, in that light, if you believe that God's nature seems to be saying that he will save everyone, I do not think it is damaging to make that suggestion.

The point of making meaningful decisions in this life is not to secure your future in the next. Our decisions here affect us here, and affect others here, and assist in bringing the Kingdom of God (whatever you believe that means) to earth.

-Digory
 

---

Posted by Vikki Pollard (# 5548) on :
 
<struggling to eat enough porridge to send the tokens to Mousethief>
 

---

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 
C S Lewis, in his allegory of hell "The Great Divorce" tried to tackle the problem of the sympathy of the saved for the unsaved - that is, if your child was in hell, how could you be happy in heaven, and, even more so, how could a God of Love be happy while many of his children suffer?

His argument was:

quote:

---

That sounds very merciful: but see what lurks behind it.... The demand of the loveless and the self-imprisoned that they should be allowed to blackmail the universe: that till they consent to be happy (on their own terms) no one else shall taste joy: that theirs should be the final power; that Hell should be able to veto Heaven.

---

quote:

---

I know it has a ground sound to say that ye'll accept no salvation which leaves even on creature in the dark outside. But watch that sophistry or ye'll make a dog in a manger the tyrant of the universe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
I think (and I am going on my own presumptions, quite arrogantly!) that Demas was saying that though Lewis SAID what you quoted him as saying, his point would necessitate that no one would end up in hell. That would seem to be the way that no one in heaven would have to wait in order to have joy.

But wouldn't true joy and love hold within it the patience to wait for those who have not yet been made complete for whatever reasons?

-Digory

---

quote:

---

There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell.

[italics are originals]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
I don't want to be caught up in who has the Right™ interpretation of Lewis or the bible because I think there's something I miss when I'm only trying to prove that I'm right.

---

Yes, exactly. When I said I thought you were right about what you were saying about Lewis, I meant you were right to point out that Lewis could've meant either thing. Who knows? Good show.

quote:

---

There's so much I can learn from you ProfessorKirke and Demas and I really appreciate dialoguing with you and all the others about this curious afterdeath (?) experience.

---

I can teach you how to make one sentence take the form of eight paragraphs. That's one of my special gifts.

-Digory
 

---

Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
I can teach you how to make one sentence take the form of eight paragraphs. That's one of my special gifts.

-Digory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
I think, in my opinion, that this is the wrong approach. "You might get a chance later, but just in case you don't, you should probably just do it now!"

I think that if we encourage people on to pursue the truth of God, they'll find it. "Seek and ye shall find" etc. So, in that light, if you believe that God's nature seems to be saying that he will save everyone, I do not think it is damaging to make that suggestion.

The point of making meaningful decisions in this life is not to secure your future in the next. Our decisions here affect us here, and affect others here, and assist in bringing the Kingdom of God (whatever you believe that means) to earth.

-Digory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
I'm not sure that it *IS* God's nature to save everyone - I know God is love, in a much more profound understanding of the word than any of us have. But I also know God is not sentimental. And I also know Jesus spent a fair chunk of time warning people to make decisions that will secure their future in the next world, and even the quality of our future in the next world.

---

quote:

---

I wonder to what degree our dismissal of that as a motive (even secondary or tertiary) is a little hell-inspired ("You don't want to be MERCENARY about this! A decision made in fear is a poor decision," etc.) - I'm not arguing that is the case, but I do wonder.

---

In all fairness, I have to concede this point. Part of my belief that there may be no hell is grounded in a desire to not have to preach such, to me, evil sounding theology, and to in some ways coerce people to think just like me or believe just like me about things that we cannot really be sure of.

It's important to remember our motivations, to be sure. I spend enough time pointing out other people's that I am content with conceding my own.

-Digory
 

---

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
This is one of those places where I think we're better off seeing that God, as King of the Universe, is Righteous Judge as well as loving Father - and we actually have some input into the decision whether we are treated as errant children who need help or treasonous rebels who need dispatching. IT COULD BE that the possibility of repentance in hell exists - but I would not want to hold out that hope to anyone, lest they say, "well, I can always repent later," but never get the opportunity.

---

I think, in my opinion, that this is the wrong approach. "You might get a chance later, but just in case you don't, you should probably just do it now!"

...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Let's suppose you were walking along the side of a river - one you cannot wade or swin across and there are no boats or materials to build a raft available.

On the other side of the river, some 5 miles down, your son/daughter. They are in grave danger - it seems obvious to you that death is imminent, but you believe you can prevent it. (Don't ask how, that is irrelevant).

Now, you know that there is a bridge across just ahead, but it is unstable, and may collapse if you were to try to cross it. However, you have no idea where the next crossing is, if there is one at all between here and your son/daughter.

Do you cross? Or, do you stay on this side and take your chances?

Now, let's say someone tells you "Sure, it will hold. Turst me. I have crossed it myself." Now, do you cross?

If you have a chance, why not take it? Especially if there may not be another?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
As Paul says, the wages of sin is death , not eternal punishment.

---

quote:

---

unless you want to embrace an entirely works-based sotierology...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro:
Will God allow anyone to go to hell - begs the question - Will God force everyone to to go to Heaven?

Unless you are a Calvinist and believe in Irresistable Grace can you say that people who reject God in life will not be allowed to go on rejecting him in the afterlife?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
One thing I don't think has been mentioned is this; Jesus spoke about hell in this way:

"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels."
Matthew 25 v 41

The significance of that verse is deafening, especially in the context of our discussion.

---

quote:

---

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

---

quote:

---

I would be careful in looking for a literal map of the afterlife in the parable of the sheep and goats if I were you; that is, unless you want to embrace an entirely works-based sotierology...

---

quote:

---

"For as in Adam ALL die, so in Christ shall ALL be made alive!. (I Cor 15.22)

I see no break in a coherant theology. Adam's sin is imputed to the whole human race, hence death. Christ's righteousness is also imputed to the whole, hence eternal life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by universalist:
Concerning "hell". All of God's punishments are remedial in nature, never punitive. Whatever "hell" is, it must also be redemptive, for every knee shall finally bow in worship of God (never forced: how could God care anything about that?).

But notice the fundamentalist view of Hell:

God created a place in order to punish his enemies forever and ever: a place of eternal suffering.

---

quote:

---

Heaven and hell are nothing more than the relatively pleasant or unpleasant lives that are the natural result of these associations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Heaven and hell are nothing more than the relatively pleasant or unpleasant lives that are the natural result of these associations.

---

Dear Freddy

You've posted these ideas before, but I've never fully understood them. Is this pleasant or unpleasant life people find before and after death in any way interchangeable? can anyone on the wrong end get themselves a place at the good end?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by universalist:
Whatever "hell" is, it must also be redemptive, for every knee shall finally bow in worship of God (never forced: how could God care anything about that?).

---

quote:

---

"I am he," Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) When Jesus said, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground. (John 18:5-6)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by universalist:
But notice the fundamentalist view of Hell:

God created a place in order to punish his enemies forever and ever: a place of eternal suffering.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by universalist:
But each of us, far less good than God, would never consign our incorrigble children to suffer endlessly. What manner of distorted reasoning thinks that God would torture HIS enemies forever? (while asking us to forgive ours).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by universalist:
In so many ways, our doctrines seem to point to a monstrous God...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Whether you like it or not, the New Testament can be used both to "prove" eternal damnation and it can be used to "prove" universal salvation.

<snip>

The teaching in Scripture is equivocal. We can interpret it how it sits best with our passions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
Freddy - the problem that I have with your way round this problem (and yes I do think it is an attempt to get *round* the problem) is that the way you try to make hell more palatable is by making it into a slightly disappointing package holiday. And heaven into a slightly less disappointing holiday.

In the end it doesn't seem to fit with any concept of judgement. And it smacks of desperation. For Jesus to use such strong language - hyperbole? - about a divine Thompson's holiday seems bizarre.

---

Luigi,

It only sounds like I'm trying to get around this problem because I am writing in response to it.

What I'm trying to convey is a more realistic idea of the next life than the charicature that Christians typically envision.

Anyone with a belief in life after death must realize that it takes place in a spiritual, not a material or natural, existence. Everything about that existence, then, is determined by the nature of spiritual, as opposed to natural, substances and phenomena.

It's not as if we know nothing about spiritual things, if we have a belief in the Bible. Many places in Scripture speak of such things as "treasure in heaven" and that people must become like children to go there. We know what they mean. We know what spiritual things are. They are internal, as opposed to natural or physical, qualities.

In a world that is spiritual "there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known" (Matthew 10:26).

What is so hard about envisioning a world based on internal qualities? Isn't it obvious how such a world, where internal qualities are visible, facilitates "the judgment"?

And if you think through what would happen in that arrangement, where people retain their basic character from this world, and separate themselves according to this basic, and now visible, character, it seems to me that this explains everything important about the nature of heaven and hell.

What Jesus said was not hyperbole. It was a way of explaining the realities of spiritual life to people who were both simple and materialistic. I guess I'm making it sound like a disappointing holiday to get away from thoughts of flames and pokers.

So is it really that hard to envision a spiritual world without just thinking of airy forms drifting in nothingness? Isn't it clear that the laws of a spiritual world would be strikingly different from those of this world?
 

---

Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I see - if you're in Adam you die...

The 'in Adam' bit must mean if you are descended from him, related to him, part of the human race, somehow involved in human existence. It must mean that by being descended from him, we share in his guilt. Yes, I see the logic.

Now, let's extend that logic to the next bit - 'so in Christ all shall be made alive...'

Hmmm, 'in Christ'. What would be the connection here then? We are not biologically related, we're not even racially similar. What could 'in Christ' mean? Paul certainly says that ALL who are in him will be made alive, but I fail to see how everyone is automatically in Christ in the same way that by common humanity they are in Adam.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
For me, this is the point - not all are "in Christ." This is the basis for the call to evangelize, first to Jerusalem, then Judea, and then all the world. If all are already in Christ, why evangelize?

---

quote:

---

Maybe I've said it before in this thread (!!), but I don't see the "downside" of believing a straightforward reading of scripture, in this regard. If I believe hell is a real threat and I therefore share with more passion because I don't want to see friends, family, or folk in general wind up damned, how is that a problem? But if I speak soothing words and say, "don't worry about it, Jesus' death on the cross covers you whether you ever agree with Him or not," and I'm WRONG, I've done them a hideous disservice (and possibly brought their blood down on my head, depending on how much Ez.33 applies to us today).

In grappling with the "once saved, always saved?" question, my brother-in-law said something wise, I think: "We're better off living as if we could lose our salvation," and I think this is a place where we're better off believing hell is a real possibility. I do not see the upside of disbelieving (other than it being more comfortable! and hey, I like comfort - I'm BIG on comfort).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
The downside to simply saying "we might as well be safe" is that we chance maintaining a very inaccurate concept of God. I understand that any theology is at risk of this by nature, but this only emphasizes my need to act on what I believe to be true rather than on what will be "the safest choice."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Dear Mudfrog

Whether you like it or not, the New Testament can be used both to "prove" eternal damnation and it can be used to prove universal salvation. Now I, as a universalist try to explain away the damnation texts or try to find a way of minimising their severity. This is because I passionately desire the salvation of all creation.

Now you do the opposite. You ignore or try to rationalise quite explicit texts which say that all will be ultimately be reconciled to God. But surely you don't do it for the opposite reason, ie that you positively relish in the thought that most of humanity is damned. I don't suggest this of you, but I have met countless Protestants who do that very thing. The teaching in Scripture is equivocal. We can interpret it how it sits best with our passions.

My passion is that ALL will be saved. It seems from what you write here that you positively want that strait gate to be as strait as possible and only include people such as yourself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So you can't offer a commentary on the 'as in Christ' text then.

---

quote:

---

In Christ, all our saved.
Go into all the world and make disciples.

We have traditionally linked up "salvation" and "discipleship." Looking back on it, I'm not sure they are equivalent. In which case, "evangelism" as we know it is somewhat misguided. -Digory [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So you can't offer a commentary on the 'as in Christ' text then.

---

You'll find such commentary all over the place if you look, Mudfrog. For a start you could read the chapter excerpt from the book The Inscapable Love of God that I mentioned before on this thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So you can't offer a commentary on the 'as in Christ' text then.

---

You'll find such commentary all over the place if you look, Mudfrog. For a start you could read the chapter excerpt from the book The Inscapable Love of God that I mentioned before on this thread.

---

I was actually asking PaulTH about his seeming unwillingness to engage on the meaning of the text and his response to me. I had looked at the text regarding being 'in Adam' and 'in Christ' and asked him for his interpretation, which he chose not to give.

Perhaps he couldn't give one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So you can't offer a commentary on the 'as in Christ' text then.

---

You'll find such commentary all over the place if you look, Mudfrog. For a start you could read the chapter excerpt from the book The Inscapable Love of God that I mentioned before on this thread.

---

I was actually asking PaulTH about his seeming unwillingness to engage on the meaning of the text and his response to me. I had looked at the text regarding being 'in Adam' and 'in Christ' and asked him for his interpretation, which he chose not to give.

Perhaps he couldn't give one.

---

Are you interested in the underlying discussion or in scoring points off PaulTH?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
You make some very good points in your post, and I agree with you about the error of thinking "making converts" and "making disciples" is the same thing, but I don't see where you get "we might as well be safe" from my "share with more passion" statement. I have *never* in my life said, "we might as well be safe! Accept Jesus now because better safe than sorry!" I have said, "I'm afraid that Hell is a real place and I'm afraid that you're headed there - you want to talk about it?!" and I get a variety of answers.

And I daresay we all have an inaccurate view of God - how could a finite human being have an accurate view of an infinite God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
What would people think if God decided that none of us had fulfilled the requirements sufficiently for salvation, and that we through our pride and misunderstanding of his will all ended up in Hell?

Is this a possibility for you who believe in hell?

-Digory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
What would people think if God decided that none of us had fulfilled the requirements sufficiently for salvation, and that we through our pride and misunderstanding of his will all ended up in Hell?

Is this a possibility for you who believe in hell?

---

• Love of God
• Love of the neighbor
• Love of worldly things
• Love of self

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
What would people think if God decided that none of us had fulfilled the requirements sufficiently for salvation, and that we through our pride and misunderstanding of his will all ended up in Hell?

Is this a possibility for you who believe in hell?

-Digory

---

1. (I may be unique in this - my word is not gospel) If I end in everlasting torment so be it. I know that I'm self-centered and I wouldn't want to fuck up heaven, too.

2. "Requirements for Salvation" sounds mighty peculiar to me. Mind explaining what exactly you mean by that? Please?

---

Well either you believe

a) We do nothing to effect our salvation, and God chooses that all, some or none of us are saved from the beginning. In THIS case, if you say God chooses that some are saved, it is God who decides which are and which aren't.

or

b) There is some requirement of us on our part which we must fulfill that will gain us salvation.


So if you disbelieve (a), which I think a lot of people do, then it's my understanding that you must believe some form of (b) (and I don't think this is a strawman, please let me know if there is some choice (c) I am forgetting). If you beileve in choice (b), then what if we all simply end up in hell due to not meeting the requirements for whatever reason, even though we believed that we had?

-Digory
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
Oh, and by the way, don't worry, Joyful.


You won't fuck up heaven any more than the rest of us would, so I would assume God must have one of his craaaaaaazy plans for not letting that happen.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
[/qb][/QUOTE]Well either you believe

a) We do nothing to effect our salvation, and God chooses that all, some or none of us are saved from the beginning. In THIS case, if you say God chooses that some are saved, it is God who decides which are and which aren't.

or

b) There is some requirement of us on our part which we must fulfill that will gain us salvation.


So if you disbelieve (a), which I think a lot of people do, then it's my understanding that you must believe some form of (b) (and I don't think this is a strawman, please let me know if there is some choice (c) I am forgetting). If you beileve in choice (b), then what if we all simply end up in hell due to not meeting the requirements for whatever reason, even though we believed that we had?

-Digory [/QB][/QUOTE]

Yes, there is a (c) We do nothing to effect our salvation, and God has chosen that all can saved through the cross. God doesn't choose who can and can't be saved but freely offers grace to those who believe.
 

---

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
Dear Mudfrog

I don't have the slightest idea what Evangelicals mean by the phrase "in Christ" which is why I didn't respond to your specific question. But we are both proficient in English even when it is a 17th century translation of koine Greek. These verses speak for themselves:

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgement came upon ALL men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon ALL men unto justification of life" (Rom 5.18)

"Who gave himself a ransom for ALL , to be testified in due time". (I Tim 2.6)

Now if you understand the word "all" in a different way than I, please tell me what it means to you. To me it is simple. All humans are under judgement for Adam's sin. All humans are restored to righteousness imputed to us by Christ, just as death was imputed to us by Adam.

As regards to the dual nature of Christ, we are saved;
" not by the conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God". (Creed of St Athanasius BCP)

Christ has raised mortal man into the immortality of the Godhead. But I ask you again. How strait do you want the gate to be? Who do you want to find outside it? Thomas Aquinas said that one of the pleasures of heaven is to watch the damned squirming in their pains. To me such a view belongs to a psychotic.
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yes, there is a (c) We do nothing to effect our salvation, and God has chosen that all can saved through the cross. God doesn't choose who can and can't be saved but freely offers grace to those who believe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
What I'm saying is that for you, sharing about hell is perfectly acceptable because it is what you believe to be true, NOT because it's the safest option. However, for ME to accept your premise that I should consider sharing about hell because it's less dangerous than sharing that hell doesn't exist, well, for me that'd be intellectually dishonest and amount to preaching a doctrine of "let's be safe."

So that's all my point was--hope that's a bit clearer.

-Digory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yes, there is a (c) We do nothing to effect our salvation, and God has chosen that all can saved through the cross. God doesn't choose who can and can't be saved but freely offers grace to those who believe.

---

So if God has chosen that all CAN be saved through the cross, but he doesn't choose who gets saved and who doesn't, how do you distinguish between those who get saved and those who don't? Is it not by some statement of belief? Or by some change of lifestyle? Or some belief you make in your heart? Or some other "x"?

In which case, you are back to choice (b).

-Digory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Christ has raised mortal man into the immortality of the Godhead. But I ask you again. How strait do you want the gate to be? Who do you want to find outside it? Thomas Aquinas said that one of the pleasures of heaven is to watch the damned squirming in their pains. To me such a view belongs to a psychotic.

---

quote:

---

but it looks to me that not all will receive Him as Savior .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
But I ask you again. How strait do you want the gate to be? Who do you want to find outside it? Thomas Aquinas said that one of the pleasures of heaven is to watch the damned squirming in their pains. To me such a view belongs to a psychotic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Thomas Aquinas said that one of the pleasures of heaven is to watch the damned squirming in their pains. To me such a view belongs to a psychotic.

---

Thomas Aquinas was much closer to the entertainment attitudes of the Roman Circus than we are: we cannot imagine going to a hanging and taking our kids with us, because it will be 'entertaining' - yet for many hundreds of years executions were rather like that. We cannot imagine (most of us, at least) that it would be entertaining to see someone of a faith we do not share torn limb from limb and consumed by lions in a public arena - but that's the age into which Christianity was birthed. From our perspective, taking pleasure in watching the damned squirm is sick & twisted; from a different cultural perspective, it makes perfect sense.

---

quote:

---

Ezekiel 18:23
Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

Ezekiel 18:32
For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!

Ezekiel 33:11
Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
I'm curious as to how many of us watch R-rated movies (PG-17+ for UK folks)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
To me, receiving Christ as saviour means progressively learning to obey Him. To feed the widows and orphans, to visit those misplaced in jail. To turn the other cheek and forgive seventy times seven. Your "born again" cop out which means that you don't have to do anything because you are "saved" is shallow, convenient religion with no connection to the radical change Jesus requires of us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
To me, receiving Christ as saviour means progressively learning to obey Him. To feed the widows and orphans, to visit those misplaced in jail. To turn the other cheek and forgive seventy times seven. Your "born again" cop out which means that you don't have to do anything because you are "saved" is shallow, convenient religion with no connection to the radical change Jesus requires of us.

---

Did you actually *read* my post? How do you get here (looks above) from reading my post?! I am amazed...

---

quote:

---

As to requirements for salvation: believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and accept His gift of life. *If* you do that, other things will follow - but that alone is sufficient to save, if the one thief on the cross was saved

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
So if God has chosen that all CAN be saved through the cross, but he doesn't choose who gets saved and who doesn't, how do you distinguish between those who get saved and those who don't? Is it not by some statement of belief? Or by some change of lifestyle? Or some belief you make in your heart? Or some other "x"?

In which case, you are back to choice (b).

-Digory

---

We have to repent, believe, be born again.
It's the means grace comes to us, but it doesn't actually contribute to the provision of salvation. It doesn't 'gain us salvation' because that would imply merit or an 'earning' of salvation. Salvation is completely available for everyone. It is a completed act of atonement for the whole world. There is indeed the small matter of choice left to us.

Jesus said, 'except ye be converted, (changed) ye shall never enter the kingdom of heaven.'

You have to believe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
(gently ruffling your feathers but not trying to make you snap):

---

Whoa there! I'm a married man!

quote:

---

...when you talk & share, does the *possibility* of hell ever come up? And if you reassure them that you believe all will ultimately be saved, do you point out that many Christians disagree with your perspective on the matter?

<snip>

Which leads me to my second question: were you raised (or taught) to believe the way you do or did you find, in reading scripture, that you disagreed with that position and came to the one you hold now?

---

1) Well, no. I do not deny that other Christians believe in hell, but reminding them of this fact would seem quite like reminding them that Christians believe in Christ. I think the concept is quite well known and doesn't need much reinforcement.

2)I was raised as an American Northern Baptist and I believed passionately in a general American Protestant Evangelical theology that included the doctrine of hell and many other traditional Christian doctrines. Over the past five years I have experienced a slow transformation through readings, thought, meditation, conversations (esp here), and general inspiration. That's a brief intro to my story. If you want to get a little idea of some of my opinions, you can check out my blog--the link is in my sig.

-Digory
 

---

Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
That by itself puts *born again sensitive* people like Paul and myself on alert. What you say here is *not* what Jesus said about salvation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
So if God has chosen that all CAN be saved through the cross, but he doesn't choose who gets saved and who doesn't, how do you distinguish between those who get saved and those who don't? Is it not by some statement of belief? Or by some change of lifestyle? Or some belief you make in your heart? Or some other "x"?

In which case, you are back to choice (b).

-Digory

---

We have to repent, believe, be born again.
It's the means grace comes to us, but it doesn't actually contribute to the provision of salvation. It doesn't 'gain us salvation' because that would imply merit or an 'earning' of salvation. Salvation is completely available for everyone. It is a completed act of atonement for the whole world. There is indeed the small matter of choice left to us.

Jesus said, 'except ye be converted, (changed) ye shall never enter the kingdom of heaven.'

You have to believe.

---

So, you have to believe.
Meaning, before you believe you are not saved.
In other words, you do not have salvation before you believe.
Once you believe, you have salvation.
Belief, then, gains you salvation. -- option (b)

I'm sorry, but this is important. You cannot paint it any other way.


-Digory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
That by itself puts *born again sensitive* people like Paul and myself on alert. What you say here is *not* what Jesus said about salvation.

---

John 3:3 - Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

I don't know what you pack into the terminology (lots of people pack lots of weird stuff into it) but the whole concept and language of born again comes directly from the mouth of Jesus Christ. I believe all those good things (the growth, the works) follow coming into agreement with Jesus (first about being sinner who needs salvation and second to accept His gift of salvation - and if they don't follow, as with the previously referenced parable of the soils, one questions whether salvation actually has taken place) - but if it is good works and growth that follow which *save us* then the person who accepts Jesus as savior and is killed by a drunk-driver on the way home the following week is not saved. Jesus, in speaking to the one thief on the cross, seems to be saying "because you agree with Me and have trusted Me for your salvation, you are saved." The man had no opportunity to grow, 'to progressively learn to obey Him' - and thus in your book the man is not saved. Happily, you and I do not make those decisions - but if God chooses to say, "this one is accepted in the Beloved," I don't want to disagree with Him.

But, *if you read my post*, you saw that I am not dismissing any of the 'progressive elements of growth' and recognize that talk is cheap. Jesus says, "If you love Me, you will obey Me" and there's LOTS to obey! I do not disagree with any of that. But yeah, "born again" is a real thing.

---

quote:

---

The "born again" that I am sensitive to is the one that comes with the assumption that it happens when a person accepts Jesus.

I would say that "born again" refers to the new will that God gives to those who both believe in and obey Him. This is formed over time.

The arguments about the thief on the cross, and the person who accepts Christ and is then somehow dies, as being evidence of salvation by faith are both spurious. Jesus knew the thief's heart, and this is what matters. That is, He knew how he would live if given the chance. Similarly, with the person who dies shortly after conversion, the question is what that person is actually like in their heart. Some people do make profound u-turns in their life, but most people progress more slowly over time. What counts is their actual quality, and whether they love themselves and the world or God and the neighbor.

Jesus' statements about salvation are almost all about obedience and turning away from "wickedness." Belief is also an essential element. I have a long list of passages if you are interested. But most of them are along the lines of "You are My friends if you do whatever I command you" (John 15.14). [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul - Titus 3:3-8:
At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:
I don't think anyone here is advocating a life of sordid sin - though continuing to trust in God to save us anyway. But I only say that we are not saved because of all the good deeds we do - they will help us to grow no doubt - but the saving is 100% mercy driven

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:
But I only say that we are not saved because of all the good deeds we do - they will help us to grow no doubt - but the saving is 100% mercy driven

---

Has to be one or the other, then? Can't be both?

---

quote:

---

but the saving is 100% mercy driven

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So, when IS a person born again? At what point is the transaction done?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In any case, being born again is accurately described as being born of the Spirit or born from above. There is no action on our part here. It is entirely a work of the Holy Spirit in the one who believes in the only begotten Son of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So, when IS a person born again? At what point is the transaction done?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by universalist:
For some, maybe most, the opportunity to finally see God may not occur until the next life (who says God can't save then?)

---

Augustine. Don't it figure?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
No question that "born again" is a real thing. The question is whether it happens by faith alone.

The "born again" that I am sensitive to is the one that comes with the assumption that it happens when a person accepts Jesus.

I would say that "born again" refers to the new will that God gives to those who both believe in and obey Him. This is formed over time.

The arguments about the thief on the cross, and the person who accepts Christ and is then somehow dies, as being evidence of salvation by faith are both spurious. Jesus knew the thief's heart, and this is what matters. That is, He knew how he would live if given the chance. Similarly, with the person who dies shortly after conversion, the question is what that person is actually like in their heart. Some people do make profound u-turns in their life, but most people progress more slowly over time. What counts is their actual quality, and whether they love themselves and the world or God and the neighbor.

Jesus' statements about salvation are almost all about obedience and turning away from "wickedness." Belief is also an essential element. I have a long list of passages if you are interested. But most of them are along the lines of "You are My friends if you do whatever I command you" (John 15.14).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In any case, being born again is accurately described as being born of the Spirit or born from above. There is no action on our part here. It is entirely a work of the Holy Spirit in the one who believes in the only begotten Son of God.

---

It is absolutely the work of God's mercy and the work of the Holy Spirit. But so is the work of reforming the tax codes. So is doing your job.

---

You know, I thought I understood what you're saying and now I'm completely confused - are you saying the work of reforming the tax codes is the work of the Holy Spirit?! somehow I don't think that's what you mean but I'm having a very hard time parsing this differently... help? clarify, please?
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Sorry. I'm not saying that it is God who reforms the tax code particularly. It may be the devil for all I know.

My point is that all good things are done by God. Humans have no power to do anything that is good.

But just as we appear to ourselves to have the power to reform the tax code, or do anything else that we see as good, so we also appear to ourselves to have the power to reform our lives.

It is important that we act on that appearance, just as it is important that we try to do other good things in our life.

Still, all good things are from God, not human power.

Does that make it clearer?
 

---

Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Sorry. I'm not saying that it is God who reforms the tax code particularly. It may be the devil for all I know. <snip>
It is important that we act on that appearance, just as it is important that we try to do other good things in our life.

Still, all good things are from God, not human power.

Does that make it clearer?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
I am in a small prayer group with someone who does, indeed, reform the tax code here in the USA...! I take comfort in knowing there's at least one faithful praying soul working for the I.R.S.!

---

May God bless his/her efforts!

To my mind this is one of the big sticking points of Christianity. Everyone feels that their life is from themselves, and that they have the power to do good or to do evil.

But the Christian knows that we can't do the least good from ourselves.

Unfortunately, we then get into the quagmire of thinking that our efforts to keep the commandments are unimportant to our salvation. Or even that it is impossible to make efforts in that direction.

Yet everyone in the world knows that people are able, to some extent anyway, to control their behavior. Human society is based on this assumption.

How do we extract ourselves from this conundrum?

My opinion is that we get out of it by acknowledging that even though we seem to ourselves to produce effort to avoid evil and do good, the truth is that it is the Holy Spirit working in us that gives us this ability.

At the same time, in His mercy God attributes these things to us, and forms us in accordance with our thoughts and actions over our lifetime. This is our Book of Life (Revelation 20.12). This is our free choice at work - a gift from God.

We then remain to eternity in the form that we have chosen and God has made for us. This form is essentially the form of what we love, because we are what we love. It changes and develops to eternity, but its basic nature, once the physical body in which it was developed dies, remains stable forever.

It is too easy to get stuck back on the point that God does everything, we can do nothing, and therefore our efforts to keep the commandments are meaningless.

I can see why this is a sticking point, but it is hard to understand why people find it so persuasive. Especially in the face of Jesus' many statements that would seem to contradict it.
 

---

Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
To my mind this is one of the big sticking points of Christianity. Everyone feels that their life is from themselves, and that they have the power to do good or to do evil. <snip>

How do we extract ourselves from this conundrum?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
So this "guitar string" attaches on one end to salvation by grace alone, through faith, and that not of ourselves - and runs down to the other extreme of "if you love Me, do My works!" Yes, I can do nothing good of myself - but if I sit on my butt, I do nothing good, period. There's another "guitar string" which attaches at "God is good and loving and doesn't want anyone to perish" and the other end attaches at "God is perfect and righteous and cannot look upon sin."

---

And the music that emerges is more beautiful than any of us could have imagined.

-Digory
 

---

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
I'm enough of a semi-Pelagian to believe that God can only do His saving work in us when we co-operate with Him, but it seems to me that the question of free will is what divides us over this issue. Everyone seems to believe that God wills the salvation of all and has provided for it in the atoning work of Christ, but we differ on the extent to which human free will could prevent God from achieving what He wants and what was His plan for creation.

It is the multiplicity of wills within creation which is responsible for all sin and disorder, and all separation both of creatures from God and from one another. But if God allows that to continue into eternity He has failed to achieve His will which is the reconciliation of all. God cannot fail. So sooner or later, what we consider to be our free will is just the freedom God allows us, inorder to experience the pains of separation, which lead us to repentance. James put it thus:

"Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: Wheras ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life?It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. For that ye ought to say, if the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that". (Jas 4.13-15)
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It is the multiplicity of wills within creation which is responsible for all sin and disorder, and all separation both of creatures from God and from one another. But if God allows that to continue into eternity He has failed to achieve His will which is the reconciliation of all. God cannot fail. So sooner or later, what we consider to be our free will is just the freedom God allows us, inorder to experience the pains of separation, which lead us to repentance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
May I pose a question to Demas, Freddy, and PaulTh*, and Professor Kirke?

When you get to a scripture which may indicate a hell or a separation of the peoples of earth into two different destinies - how do you respond?

---

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:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
When you get to a scripture which may indicate the universal saving triumph of God - how do you respond?

---

quote:

---

In other words, I interpret scriptures speaking of endless punishment and separation of God in the light of the other scriptures stating that God loves us, is almighty, and that love doesn't fail.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
I am guessing there are there other verses that more clearly express a universalist theology. But honestly I am not familiar with them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
I am guessing there are there other verses that more clearly express a universalist theology. But honestly I am not familiar with them.

---

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:2

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
I take it, the universalist position is that verse means that everyone's sins are atoned for hence everyone goes to heaven and no one goes hell (rather then saying Jesus' sacrifice was good enough for everyone in the world and not just for the Jews and so that means any gentile or barbarian can also choose to follow Christ).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
When you get to a scripture which may indicate the universal saving triumph of God - how do you respond?

---

To be honest, I have not been introduced to this approach. So,I looked up the verse at your sig and when I read the chapter surrounding it (1 cor 15) it is talking about the resurrection of christ and why we should believe he is resurrected. Then it says that Christ will take those who belong to him. This phrase could be refering to verse two of this same chapter. "By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you."

I am guessing there are there other verses that more clearly express a universalist theology. But honestly I am not familiar with them.

---

I've posted this a couple of times before, but will again - it's only about 25 easily read pages long - chapter excerpt from the book The Inscapable Love of God. It covers a lot of Paul, and looks at various passages (including the one in my sig) from a Universalist apologetic viewpoint. Read it - it's good, and free

I would argue that to claim that the second 'all' in 1 cor 15 actually only means 'some of the first all', you need to import that idea into the passage from outside.

(btw, who belongs to Christ? Jesus in Matthew 11:27 says that "All things have been committed to me by my Father.")

I'll mention a few scriptural highlights. I'm not attempting to prooftext, just to point out some prima facie examples to show I'm not just making this up The framework through which you view these texts may lead you to a different understanding of them; but here they are:

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."

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

Luke 3:6 - "And all mankind will see God's salvation."

John 12:32: "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself."

Ephesians 1:9-10 - "And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ."

1 Timothy 4:10 - "(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"

Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men"

Colossians 1:19-20 "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross."

---

Plus all the usual passages about Jesus taking away the sins of the world, God loving us, God caring for us, virtually all of Paul and most of the New Testament and Isaiah...

(Note that I'm not arguing that these passages support the idea that someone can be reconciled to God otherwise than through Jesus - that's another discussion for another day)
 

---

Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
It comes down to a choice, in a lot of ways.

-Digory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
(btw, who belongs to Christ? Jesus in Matthew 11:27 says that "All things have been committed to me by my Father.")

---

quote:

---

(Note that I'm not arguing that these passages support the idea that someone can be reconciled to God otherwise than through Jesus - that's another discussion for another day)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
I think I've mentioned it before, but Jesus' prayer in John 17:9 "I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours." - which, as I read it, indicates a division between the portion of humanity which God has given Him and the portion of humanity which He describes as "the world." In the context, it starts by looking pretty universalist and then shifts. Hard stuff - I think it goes back to tension...

---

While I'm in a biblical mood , Jesus is praying specifically for his disciples at that point. Read on to John 17:20 and he says "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one".

John is talking about the church as it was, and the triumph of God as it will be.

quote:

---

Chuck Missler (a bible teacher I get a kick out of) says, "God is the one who doesn't get what He wants" - referencing the fact that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked will die and suffer and His righteousness requires it be so. It's an interesting proposition.

---

It's an interesting viewpoint, I'll agree, but not really unsual. In fact I would go so far as to call it bog standard. I would also argue that it is unscriptural.

quote:

---

is there someplace where you're discussing your views on reconciliation with God through a source other than Jesus?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
I got confused there, Freddy.

Success of the long-term goal = everyone is saved, right?

So what is the long-term outcome you speak of, if it's different than that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
I suppose the argument could be made that perfect happiness is the love of God made complete in your heart, in which case if all people receive this love, they'd have an equal (meaning infinite) share of happiness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
May I pose a question to Demas, Freddy, and PaulTh*, and Professor Kirke?

When you get to a scripture which may indicate a hell or a separation of the peoples of earth into two different destinies - how do you respond?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
And it does provoke the thought: what about alternate realities?

---

Alternate realities? How do you get there from here? Is it because I mention a "spiritual world"? Or is it because of the statement that it is all one integrated system?
 

---

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 
I think Lynn is referring to the 'many worlds' interpretation of the quantum theory - subtly parodied by Terry Pratchett as the 'trousers of time'. I'm not sure how seriously anyone believes that interpretation, so I haven't given much thought to its theological consequences.

The idea that we exist as unresolved superpositions of metaphysical saved and unsaved states is more than a little bothersome, now I do consider it.

T.
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
1. Most of Jesus' threats of eternal damnation are for wrong deeds, not for unbelief or failure to accept Christ as saviour. They are therefore, in any event incompatible with the prevailing salvation by creed so important to Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
It looks to me like Jesus preaches conditional salvation for Gentile non-believers - those outside the church. I.e. any non-believer who gives charitably to a Christian will be treated as a Christian. The sheep and the goats is the main parable, but there are also sayings that anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name will receive a reward.

---

quote:

---

Matthew 7.21-23 “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. 22“Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Jesus preaches conditional salvation for everyone, Christian or not. <snip>
I agree with Paul. I don't think belief is as central "doing the will of My Father in heaven."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Jesus preaches conditional salvation for everyone, Christian or not. <snip>
I agree with Paul. I don't think belief is as central "doing the will of My Father in heaven."

---

Well, it's an interesting selective reading of scripture - In Mark 16: "And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." As has been observed elsewhere in this thread, we all read selectively or find some other means of balancing scriptural tension.

So, what makes you think believing is not primary in "doing the will of My Father in Heaven"? I actually do think "belief" is important in the salvation picture...

---

quote:

---

“But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do the things which I say? 47“Whoever comes to Me, and hears My sayings and does them, I will show you whom he is like: 48“He is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently against that house, and could not shake it, for it was founded on the rock. 49“But he who heard and did nothing is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, against which the stream beat vehemently; and immediately it fell. And the ruin of that house was great.” Luke 6.46-49

“But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, ‘Son, go, work today in my vineyard.’ 29 He answered and said, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he regretted it and went. 30 Then he came to the second and said likewise. And he answered and said, ‘I go, sir,’ but he did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?”
They said to Him, “The first.” Matthew 21

“You are My friends if you do whatever I command you." John 15.14

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20“teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you. Matthew 28.20

“Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20“Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
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. 22“Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ Matthew 7.19-23

“If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. 7“If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. 8“By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples.
9“As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. 10“If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love. John 15.6-10

“And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. 13“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.” 14Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie. Revelation 22.12-15

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
ah, I think we "load" the word "belief" differently - when I read these passages (your post, above), I'm assuming these people DON'T believe - that they have taken the outward form but not the inward conformation, so to speak.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
And yet, I believe it. I know I'm crazy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
And yet, I believe it. I know I'm crazy.

---

It's nice if people believe in things they can't understand. But when it's possible to understand, I think that understanding is the better option.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
And yet, I believe it. I know I'm crazy.

---

It's nice if people believe in things they can't understand. But when it's possible to understand, I think that understanding is the better option.

---

I'm going to say something that makes no sense:

I think admitting that we don't really understand and yet still believe is a huge step in really understanding how everything works.


If you don't understand what I said, consider it an ironic twist.

-Digory
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
Freddy and I very respectfully disagree on our reading of Jesus' commandments. I respect his position so much because he actually fully deals with what Christ says, whereas the traditional Christian understanding tends to gloss over them much more.

The Bible paints Jesus as proclaiming a very works-based salvation, if you read it a certain way. But like PaulTH has been saying, you can use Scripture to prove varying points.

I see Jesus' works-based commands through the following spectacles:

1. A reaction against the prevailing theology of salvation. Most Hebrews of the time believed strongly that salvation was entirely works-based, because of the Law and the Hebrew Bible scriptures (Old Testament). Keep the Law, enter heaven, don't, and you won't. Jesus often had to remind people that should they choose to espouse this belief, there was a lot more they would have to do to gain salvation than simply sit at home on Saturdays and avoid certain meats and heinous crimes.

2. "Producing fruit" does not necessarily mean keeping some set of ethical commands.

3. When Jesus refers to "all the things I have commanded you" or "my commandments," I'm not sure he is actually referring to every individual comment made to every individual person rather than the commandments he made specifically to the individual he is addressing at the time. I believe Jesus came to command people that they must begin to trust in the idea of Grace and accept the fact that they cannot do it on their own, contrary to their heritage. This would have been extremely difficult to do (as evidenced by the fact that none of the disciples quite got it), so Jesus continually reminded them "You are my disciples if you keep MY commands" as opposed to the commands espoused by the Pharisees.

4. Many will say Lord, Lord but be turned away. They claim all of the THINGS THAT THEY DID, and Jesus says he will respond "Away from me you who practice lawlessness!" He again points out that they are not perfect, so if they wish to be judged on the merits of what they've done, they will be condemned. Instead they must realize that it doesn't matter how many demons they've cast out or how many wonders they've done--Grace covers them.


Some thoughts...

-Digory
 

---

Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on :
 
PK:



That was great.
 

---

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 
Which, I think, brings us back to this post of Psyduck's...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Demas:

quote:

---

unless you want to embrace an entirely works-based sotierology...

---

I don't see this. I don't think you can import these Pauline assumptions into the parables.The whole "works" thing, it seems to me, is predicated on a misunderstanding of the demands of God's justice, and of justification. It always strikes me, for instance, that the people who had "done this for one of the least of these", in that parable, seem to place no trust at all in their works, and seem as surprised that they are 'saved' as the "Lord! Lord!" bunch are that they aren't. (I always thought that that was where Luther got James wrong. There are things we are required to do. Faith - and "faith in faith" - requires that we do them just as much.)

---

 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
Demas--

I'm a little thick under a post-Thanksgiving over-eaten haze. Could you elaborate on that last post of yours? I don't follow.

-Digory
 

---

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 
Paul is pretty uniformly positive. For him the enemy is Death, which is tied up with the Law and the Fall. He mostly talks about how this enemy (and all others) has been/will be/is being defeated; with side arguments about why the church he is writing to shouldn't use this as a reason to sleep with their step-moms or allow women to talk in church.

Jesus in the synoptics (esp Matthew) is prophetic and harsh. He uses language of division - sheep and goats. He talks of light and dark, of wedding guests thrown out into the cold and gnashing of teeth. He seems very interested in our attempting to be perfect; always internalising it (we commit adultery by lusting in our hearts) and always asking for more (keep the laws of the prophets, and he asks you to give away all your money).

And yet he also talks of fathers running to returning sons, shepherds looking for sheep, women looking for coins.

And he says that what is not possible for us is possible for God, and if only we had faith we could move mountains.

It is in harmonising these two visions that we get the omnipresent current calvarminian "Damned for your lack of works unless you become Christian" - taking the urgent command to perfect love from the syoptic Jesus and the healing by trust (salvation by faith) from John and Paul.

I simply can't see that any message that is not universalist can be Good News. Paul seems to have got that Good News from Jesus - can we get that same Good News from the synoptic Jesus, or is there something big missing from that fragmented picture?
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Digory,

I'm with you as far as being in a too-many-guests and too-much-turkey-induced haze.

I like your points. People often just don't know what to do with so many statements from Jesus that seem to make salvation works-based.

I wouldn't say that they teach that point of view so much as that Jesus looks at the whole person - pointing out that the state of eternal happiness that is called "heaven" is based on many factors.

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
I see Jesus' works-based commands through the following spectacles:

1. A reaction against the prevailing theology of salvation. Most Hebrews of the time believed strongly that salvation was entirely works-based, because of the Law and the Hebrew Bible scriptures (Old Testament). Keep the Law, enter heaven, don't, and you won't. Jesus often had to remind people that should they choose to espouse this belief, there was a lot more they would have to do to gain salvation than simply sit at home on Saturdays and avoid certain meats and heinous crimes.

---

quote:

---

Matthew 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things.
Matthew 15:8 (quoting Isaiah)‘ These people draw near to Me with their mouth,And honor Me with their lips,But their heart is far from Me.
Matthew 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
2. "Producing fruit" does not necessarily mean keeping some set of ethical commands.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
3. When Jesus refers to "all the things I have commanded you" or "my commandments," I'm not sure he is actually referring to every individual comment made to every individual person rather than the commandments he made specifically to the individual he is addressing at the time. I believe Jesus came to command people that they must begin to trust in the idea of Grace and accept the fact that they cannot do it on their own, contrary to their heritage. This would have been extremely difficult to do (as evidenced by the fact that none of the disciples quite got it), so Jesus continually reminded them "You are my disciples if you keep MY commands" as opposed to the commands espoused by the Pharisees.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
4. Many will say Lord, Lord but be turned away. They claim all of the THINGS THAT THEY DID, and Jesus says he will respond "Away from me you who practice lawlessness!" He again points out that they are not perfect, so if they wish to be judged on the merits of what they've done, they will be condemned. Instead they must realize that it doesn't matter how many demons they've cast out or how many wonders they've done--Grace covers them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
I simply can't see that any message that is not universalist can be Good News. Paul seems to have got that Good News from Jesus - can we get that same Good News from the synoptic Jesus, or is there something big missing from that fragmented picture?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
It should be obvious to anyone that people who actually accept and follow Jesus' advice really will be happy and productive people. Almost anyone would want this kind of person as an employee, employer, spouse, friend, etc.

---

Absolutely--in fact if anyone can keep the whole Law and all of Jesus' individual commandments, including never having an angry thought (which is murder), never having a lustful urge (which is adultery), and cutting off limbs that cause us to sin, we would end up being not only an amazing asset to the human community but we'd be saved from any and all damnation, too.

If you can't live up to this standard, then, grace covers you.

But then again, that's why we so respectfully disagree, Freddy. We just read it differently, and that's fine, because we're both grappling with the actual text and with our experience of God. I hope I recognize you in heaven someday so we can both have good laugh about how wrong we both were.

-Digory
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Digory,

So is it all or nothing then?

I would think that some would be more obedient, and some less obedient to Jesus.
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
But all that seems to be a separate argument, not really related to the topic of whether God will allow anyone to go to hell.

The real question to me isn't about whether God will allow people to go somewhere, but whether He will allow anyone to act contrary to His will in the long run.

So in the end must everyone do God's bidding?
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Sorry for not reading the whole thread yet, but to answer the OP afresh, how can He NOT? Particularly as He already has in Satan and his demons. And since Eden, more metaphorically but no less painfully. No Hell? No freewill. Conservatively it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to create transcendent children, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, friends without the dread possibility of reprobation.
 

---

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
No Hell? No freewill.

---

quote:

---

Conservatively it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to create transcendent children, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, friends without the dread possibility of reprobation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
The real question to me isn't about whether God will allow people to go somewhere, but whether He will allow anyone to act contrary to His will in the long run.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
No Hell? No freewill.

---

Do you have freewill? If I spike your drink, can you choose whether to get drunk? If you are drunk, can you choose whether to speak clearly or not? Are you not drunk on sin?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Omnipotence doesn't mean being able to make black=white, up=down, evil=good (unless you're the Bishop of New Hampshire).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Simplistic old fundy that I am Demas: If He could, He would.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Omnipotence doesn't mean being able to make black=white, up=down, evil=good (unless you're the Bishop of New Hampshire). Character cannot be created by fiat any more than inanimate material can create life and mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Funny how liberalism robs from grace just as legalism does, by adding to it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Sorry for not reading the whole thread yet, but to answer the OP afresh, how can He NOT? Particularly as He already has in Satan and his demons. And since Eden, more metaphorically but no less painfully. No Hell? No freewill. Conservatively it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to create transcendent children, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, friends without the dread possibility of reprobation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And Demas, if God could create morally perfect beings by fiat and spare us alienation, sin, horror, pain, meaninglessness and the possibility of reprobation and eternal oblivion, why didn't He?

---

quote:

---

He'd rather annihilate may be billions forever for the heck of it, for the craic, than just make us all pain-free instant godlets.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Sorry for not reading the whole thread yet, but to answer the OP afresh, how can He NOT? Particularly as He already has in Satan and his demons. And since Eden, more metaphorically but no less painfully. No Hell? No freewill. Conservatively it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to create transcendent children, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, friends without the dread possibility of reprobation.

---

Satan and the demons are almost certainly not literal beings. Same as Eden never existed and so there was no Fall.

Otherwise, I can only repeat my old contention that a God who allows hell to exist is neither wholey good nor wholey loving, so far as I can see. No interest in worshipping such a god. Why should I have any such interest?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And Papio, they certainly are and it certainly did. Your turn. Stalemate in how many is it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Gene Robinson makes good evil by proclaiming his superiority in being led by the Holy Spirit beyond Christ and the Apostles.

---

quote:

---

If he is good, then they are evil. Relatively. By comparison. By what they 'lack'. Furthermore the evil they proclaim from their persective, he proclaims good. He has improved on the Bible.

---

quote:

---

But like all liberals you start from behind and assume you're ahead. You're behind Ruth. The conservative, hard, faithful bits of the Christian thesis is all too easy for mean spirited old bastards like me to hold. You can't touch it because, for all your brilliance, you have not and cannot do the intellectual work without being intellectualist, without invoking a mythical level of understanding that I can't have or worse, without invoking an esoteric understanding that cannot be communicated.

---

quote:

---

You, Gene Robinson, mistake your goodness for Christ's.

---

quote:

---

You aren't going to win this fight Ruth and neither am I. I offer a truce AFTER your rebuttal.

And I don't feel bad now, just real. And I wish the same for you. We'll find out how wrong BOTH of us are soon enough.

Love, what little I can express - Martin

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
While I await Ruth's response, Digory, the dialectic decides. It hasn't been entered in to yet. It never is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
My own pet annoyance is God and free will. That's got to be the worst of them all.

Maybe this discussion comes down to the question of the belief in free will?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
That puts a little different spin on things.

-Digory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And Demas, if God could create morally perfect beings by fiat and spare us alienation, sin, horror, pain, meaninglessness and the possibility of reprobation and eternal oblivion, why didn't He?

---

No idea. Presumably even if God couldn't create morally perfect beings by fiat, he could have created us flawed, but in a world without earthquakes, droughts and bubonic plague. He didn't do that either.

quote:

---

He'd rather annihilate may be billions forever for the heck of it, for the craic, than just make us all pain-free instant godlets.

---

You're the one saying that God is annihilating billions forever, not me. We both have to explain bubonic plague; only you have to explain a loving eternal torturer.

Martin, me old salt, you have tried to answer me by a logical argument from the existence of evil (begging the question of hell while doing it) - I thought you were a fundy: show me where God says that he cannot create character by fiat.

Or do you believe that God cannot save you without your help?

---

quote:

---

posted by RuthW

quote:

---

Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
If he is good, then they are evil. Relatively. By comparison. By what they 'lack'. Furthermore the evil they proclaim from their persective, he proclaims good. He has improved on the Bible.

---

He may just be mistaken. You may be mistaken. You are putting everything in black and white terms, and without much basis for doing so, as far as I can see.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
I think we tend to fall into the wrong assumptions and ask the wrong questions - we assume God is created in our image and not we in His - we don't consider that Perfect Love is not sentimental or co-dependent in the least, and what does that look like? We see through a glass darkly - and try as I might, I cannot get the whole word of God to support a universalist view (a selective reading, yes - but it's kind of like creating a string of paper dolls by clever folding and snipping, or so it seems to me).

---

quote:

---

[/qb]"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!"

<snip>

...we run great risk if we say, "we know better now and even though God called that behavior evil, He didn't know what He was talking about," or "God didn't call it evil, homophobic men called it evil" because we then might conclude that it is as legitimate a use of human sexuality as marriage and we have just called evil "good."[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
That puts a little different spin on things.

-Digory

---

Why?

(Well, that was odd.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
Forcing people to remain in hell against their cries for mercy is a much different problem than simply allowing those who do not wish to remain in heaven to leave and take up residency outside of heaven (which I believe would be a biblical representation of what hell is).

---

This is how I see it too.

Are we thinking that there are signs that say: "Leaving heaven" or "Hell - 15 miles ahead"?

I would expect that there would be some disagreement about which was which.
 

---

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 
I'm not really convinced that professorkirke's difference is real, because I'm not really convinced of the definitions of heaven and hell being used here.

Firstly, there is a reason why traditional imagery of hell is of a bad place - the prooftexts are of wailing and gnashing of teeth, eternal fire and darkness where the worm never sleeps, hell as punishment. These prooftexts have been (wrongly imho) used to construct a common understanding of hell as a place of eternal punishment; not merely substandard hotel accomodation on a holiday.

I think that to redefine hell as you are doing is to make yourself a firm universalist, but not admitting it

Secondly, this language continues to be one of place rather than internal goodness - we still are thinking of ourselves as we are now, just in a nice place or a not nice place. We still haven't started to talk in terms of theosis, or in terms of how an imperfect warped person can be one with a being of perfect love.
 

---

Posted by Papio. (# 4201) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
Forcing people to remain in hell against their cries for mercy is a much different problem than simply allowing those who do not wish to remain in heaven to leave and take up residency outside of heaven (which I believe would be a biblical representation of what hell is).

That was what I was getting at. (What was odd?)

-Digory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:
I suppose that I would like a more consequentiality, as opposed to Kantian (?) explanation. Maybe there isn't one. It's just that I find fine logical distinctions to be a bit hollow when people's (eternal) lives are at stake. I'm also not entirely sure that I buy the argument that says letting people starve when you could prevent it is meaningfully morally different then forcing them to starve. It's not that I can see a difference in how words are used but that I cannot see any real difference in the outcome and, therefore, cannot really see that one is more or less blameworthy than the other. Hey Ho.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
I'm not really convinced that professorkirke's difference is real, because I'm not really convinced of the definitions of heaven and hell being used here.

Firstly, there is a reason why traditional imagery of hell is of a bad place - the prooftexts are of wailing and gnashing of teeth, eternal fire and darkness where the worm never sleeps, hell as punishment. These prooftexts have been (wrongly imho) used to construct a common understanding of hell as a place of eternal punishment; not merely substandard hotel accomodation on a holiday.

I think that to redefine hell as you are doing is to make yourself a firm universalist, but not admitting it

---

quote:

---

Secondly, this language continues to be one of place rather than internal goodness - we still are thinking of ourselves as we are now, just in a nice place or a not nice place. We still haven't started to talk in terms of theosis, or in terms of how an imperfect warped person can be one with a being of perfect love.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
I would like to double that entire paragraph from above here, with one very small word change. Take "universalist" out and substitute "damnationist" for it. Either view requires a selective reading of scripture--we're just much more accustomed to hearing and studying and believing the damnationists' reading. Fortunately, that doesn't make it right.

---

quote:

---

"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!"

Luckily for us, I think, the Isaiah verse you mention here does not continue by saying, "And thanks be to those who are here on earth to clearly point out all of those evildoers who have substituted evil for good!"

---

quote:

---

Gathering this back to the OP, I believe the real risk is attempting to suggest that we know full well what God will say and how God will judge anyone for their current actions. It is a matter between the person and God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Sorry for not reading the whole thread yet, but to answer the OP afresh, how can He NOT? Particularly as He already has in Satan and his demons. And since Eden, more metaphorically but no less painfully. No Hell? No freewill. Conservatively it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to create transcendent children, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, friends without the dread possibility of reprobation.

---

Satan and the demons are almost certainly not literal beings. Same as Eden never existed and so there was no Fall.

Otherwise, I can only repeat my old contention that a God who allows hell to exist is neither wholey good nor wholey loving, so far as I can see. No interest in worshipping such a god. Why should I have any such interest?

---

quote:

---

Character cannot be created by fiat any more than inanimate material can create life and mind.

---

quote:

---

The "being changed vs. changing location" (PK's condensation of Demas' post) is an interesting question indeed. Over the weekend a friend of mine threw out the question of whether there might be the equivalent of "purgatory" for those heading to hell, removing everything of value - kind of a chilling notion (he's a twisted guy and I mean that in a good way). It makes me think of the end of the parable of the talents, when the master has the one talent taken from the hapless servant and given to the servent with ten talents... eeep!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Mudfrog, I just don't see how your last post is in any way related to the quotation from Papio. Lots of perfectly orthodox Chritians believe that the fall is a parable rather than a historic account, yet the whole house of cards doesn't fall down on them. As Demas has pointed out, universalism has an excellent scriptural pedigree, and in fact was the default position of most of the church for the first 500 or so years of its existance, Origen notwithstanding. Howso, then, is it that believing that doctrine compromises the need for redemption, sacrifice or reconciliation. Care to unpack?

---

quote:

---

I was referring to the Fall is the origin of the problem of sin, evil, rebellion, etc in the world. If there is no 'Fall' then we are saying there is no evil that needs redemption. If no fall, we have a perfect argument for there being no hell.

---

I think it is plain from the context of Papio's words that he was questioning the historicity of the Fall ("Eden never existed") rather than its' metaphysical reality. I see no reason to beleive that acceptance of a literal reading of the first chapters of Genesis is necessary for the acceptance of the objective reality of evil. It may, of course, help to explain this reality, but I still think you were unnecessarily dismissive of Papio's argument, the thrust, if not the detail, of which I find myself in agreement.

With regard to universalism, I think there is a cast iron case to be made that it is at the very core of Paul's theology. With John, the case from his writings is less explicit, but the letters certainly seem to have a universalist feel. The early church in Ephesus, which, traditionally, was his home congregation, seems certainly to have been universalist. Peter would seem, from his letters, to have been an anihilationist in his beliefs, but his writings were mostly practical rather than theological. In the case of Jesus Himself, as PaulTH pointed out, there may have been a growing understanding as his ministry progressed, and as He grasped more of the meaning of His ministry as the cross approached. It may be that, right up to the resurrection, He Himself did not fully appreciate the scope of the Atonement, just as He did not know the hour or the day of His return. Certainly John 6:31 coupled with Matthew 11:27 doesnt preclude universalism.

That said, however, I was not saying that a universalist reading of the scriptures was the only possible reading, but rather that the scriptures do not compel a non-universalist understanding, which seems to be your position. You might disagree with universalism, but to characterise those who hold this, as I believe, intellectually cohesive viewpoint as comatose does not do justice to the power of their argument.
 

---

Posted by Papio. (# 4201) on :
 
As I was saying to someone last night, I find the idea of any afterlife really quite appaling.

But maybe this is because, if I am honest, I tend to see God, when I believe in God's existance, as a sort of Cosmic Meanie who is constantly looking over our shoulders looking for an excuse to damn us into hell (and, to make sure I am being fair to my friend, that is not the sort of God she worships at all). I also have both moral and philosophical objections to the exclusivity of conservative teaching on the Eschaton.

My grandfather always used to tell me to imagine millions of lemmings throwing themselves of a cliff and God saving a few here and there but letting most shatter their bodies on the rocks below. I am not sure my grandfather will ever understand why I find this analogy to be abhorrent. Basically, I suppose it seems very arbitary to me and there seems no clear moral reason to save some but leave most to their fate. Those who know my politics know that I am very much a "we're all in this together" sort of bloke. The individualism and elitism of the doctrine of Hell makes me want to

Sorry, but it does.

Then again, I am aware that my feelings on the subject are not relavent to the truth or untruth of such a doctrine.

I would probably prefer that there was no afterlife at all. If there has to be an afterlife, then universal salvation to paradise is certainly no less arbitary or moral then the doctrine of Hell, so far as I can see and makes God a vastly more attractive being.
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
I'm not really convinced that professorkirke's difference is real, because I'm not really convinced of the definitions of heaven and hell being used here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
Firstly, there is a reason why traditional imagery of hell is of a bad place - the prooftexts are of wailing and gnashing of teeth, eternal fire and darkness where the worm never sleeps, hell as punishment. These prooftexts have been (wrongly imho) used to construct a common understanding of hell as a place of eternal punishment; not merely substandard hotel accomodation on a holiday.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
I think that to redefine hell as you are doing is to make yourself a firm universalist, but not admitting it

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
Secondly, this language continues to be one of place rather than internal goodness - we still are thinking of ourselves as we are now, just in a nice place or a not nice place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:
As I was saying to someone last night, I find the idea of any afterlife really quite appaling.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
Mind if I ask why you would prefer no afterlife to a universalist theology?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The root of Purgatory is medical, the purgeing of "badness" (infection, maybe, pushing the analogy) from the body. Whilst, in medical terms this may be unpleasant (for example, chemotherapy) that is incidental rather than inherent in the process. It is not the unpleasantness that makes the medicine effective, rather it may be unpleasant because the medicine is effective. I have to say that I am sceptical about the the idea that God's removal of everything of value from a person, whilst it may have some benefit for character improvement, is likely to do much to improve that person's disposition towards God.

---

quote:

---

Papio said
To posit an afterlife of any description is in my view to impose an unbearable burden on every action, on every thought, on every sentence that we utter and upon eveything that we feel. It makes the act of being a parent far more complex and difficult if one's children shall be eternal.

---

quote:

---

I have not included a belief system in which a loving and just God co-exists with eternal damnation because, try as I may, I simply cannot make head nor tail of such a belief and consider it to be an a par with arguing for the existance of square circles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
I'm not saying that it's easy to live in the tension of it, but as I grow more in my experience and understanding of God and His word, I am convinced that God is both infinitely more loving and infinitely more perfect and just than I can imagine. At the end of the day, HE is the one who has to make it work, not us. You are accountable for what you do with the knowledge you have; you don't have to figure out how it works out for prehistoric aborigines who never had the opportunity to hear about Jesus as Savior. God, in His complete and perfect love, has that mastered (and we will find His solution is better than anything we could have come up with).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
"Hey, God knows what he's doing. He's just probably SO loving and SO just that he damns people to hell on the basis of their beliefs on earth, which has to be pretty much the HIGHEST form of love and justice. I mean, how amazing is that? Praise God!"

---

quote:

---

Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.

---

quote:

---

It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet,if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or another of these destinations.

(from Weight of Glory)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
[God]would never sentence someone to eternal damnation unless they had as you said "sufficient data upon which to make such eternity-affecting choices." I believe that beings (both human, angelic) have those opportunities but still chose to reject God (hence Satan). I guess still believe that if there's a hell, some people will end up in there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:
How do we know what other animals are conscious of and we shouldn't they be eternal if we are?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:
How do we know what other animals are conscious of and we shouldn't they be eternal if we are?

---

My understanding is that, say a dog, might know as much about its world as we do about ours, but it doesn't know that it knows. It's this knowing what we (think we) know that seems to be what makes us different. I've only known one dog well, but for all the relationship I had with her and my sadness when she died, I never saw any reason to doubt that.

We've no way of knowing what an animal or any person except ourselves is conscious of, but we make a guess about other people. I'm making a similar guess about the dog.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
If God really is so much more loving and so much more just than I can imagine, and I can imagine him saving everyone from damnation, then he'd have to be EVEN MORE loving and EVEN MORE just than saving everyone, get it?

How on earth does anybody go from that premise to the idea that what is MORE loving and MORE just than saving everyone is probably damning a large portion of humanity to hell?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
The concepts of "saving" and "damning" are pretty fuzzy, though, when you think about it. What do these ideas really mean?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by muchafraid:
i think that writing definitions based on feelings and what we can piece together from the scriptures is a dangerous game to play.

---

But but but ... that's 99.44% of all modern theology! How can you be so cruel?!
 

---

Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
If God really is so much more loving and so much more just than I can imagine, and I can imagine him saving everyone from damnation, then he'd have to be EVEN MORE loving and EVEN MORE just than saving everyone, get it?

How on earth does anybody go from that premise to the idea that what is MORE loving and MORE just than saving everyone is probably damning a large portion of humanity to hell?

---

The concepts of "saving" and "damning" are pretty fuzzy, though, when you think about it. What do these ideas really mean?

---

quote:

---

I do think we load all this terms, including "loving" and "just," with our own preconceived notions of what those words mean, as we do with all language, all the time - but when we're talking God-stuff it gets much more dicey. So, with all respect, Digory, you may discover that your sense of what is "loving" is a wisp and a shadow of something quite different and much bigger.

---

quote:

---

Actually, I think the earthquakes/floods/bubonic plague do go hand-in-hand with fallen humanity - "creation groans," sin has weight and consequences even for the "innocent," so entropy grasps all of creation, like a giant shock-wave moving out from Eden and impacting the whole universe. The nature of what was created was changed by the creature.

---

This is my understanding also, and therefore seems to me to be spot on!
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Eee, I'd love to reply Ruth, in positive terms believe it or not ... mainly, but a truce is a truce.

And Papio, what cosmology of Genesis? I same a poem or two about God's absolute soveriegnty over creation.

And if you're rationalistically and way post-apostolicallymodernly right, there there's no harm done. But if you're wrong, on Satan and his demons (performing def metal at a venue near you SOON) then (i) there is HARM done, now, in many subtile and not so subtile (that's ravening lions for you) ways and (ii) your reaction in the resurrection is going to be a picture.

Of course for Satanic literalists there is also the potential for harm, but orders of magnitude less impacting.
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalen:
...So, with all respect, Digory, you may discover that your sense of what is "loving" is a wisp and a shadow of something quite different and much bigger.

---

...Now I have no problem whatsoever with the concept that my idea of love may be infinately inferior to God's idea of love. In fact, I rather assume and hope that it is the case! What I have the greatest difficulty in believing is that it can mean the polar opposite. To suggest that God's idea of love is to condemn perhaps the bulk of humanity to an eternity in hell seems, to me, to rob the word "love" of all its' meaning. We're in the realms of Alice, where a word means what we want it to mean, niether more nor less. As a means of imparting knowledge, it becomes meaningless.

---

What Jolly said.

-Digory
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
same? ... see, strewth, Alzheimers ...
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by muchafraid:
i think that writing definitions based on feelings and what we can piece together from the scriptures is a dangerous game to play. to accurately assess who god is going to choose to save, we need to be able to penetrate through the hearts of each individual person. fortunately, we lack that ability.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
What I have the greatest difficulty in believing is that it can mean the polar opposite. To suggest that God's idea of love is to condemn perhaps the bulk of humanity to an eternity in hell seems, to me, to rob the word "love" of all its' meaning. We're in the realms of Alice, where a word means what we want it to mean, niether more nor less. As a means of imparting knowledge, it becomes meaningless.

---

I don't think that "condemning perhaps the bulk of humanity" is what love means. But what do you mean by "condemning"?

My own premise is that people in the next life are pretty much like they are in this world. That is, they retain the same interests, preferences, beliefs, and personality. They are the same people. To change them radically would be to make them into a different person.

I may casually say that I would like God to take away all of my less desirable predilections, and fill me with love for all people. But the truth is that it would be pretty unpleasant to have my basic characteristics yanked out of me without my permission.

As I see it, a person's beliefs, opinions, likes and dislikes, and many similar things, are what make up the person. A person is essentially what they love.

How could a God of love take away a person's fundamental character?

Or do we think that people can be eternally happy irrespective of their basic character and interests?
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
Freddy, do you think the descriptions usually ascribed to hell (or "not-heaven" if that suits us better) like "torment," "torture," "weeping," and "eternal suffering" are inaccurate? I like your idea that it is a fire that burns from our desires, but the typical vision of hell is a place that one cannot escape even if one desires to do so. It is usually thought of as a place of conscious suffering, rather than some sort of passive suffering that comes from "never being fully satisfied" etc.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I think the picture of Not-Heaven that you paint is hard to reconcile with many of the Biblical pictures typically pointed to. What do you do about that?

-Digory
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
Freddy, do you think the descriptions usually ascribed to hell (or "not-heaven" if that suits us better) like "torment," "torture," "weeping," and "eternal suffering" are inaccurate? I like your idea that it is a fire that burns from our desires, but the typical vision of hell is a place that one cannot escape even if one desires to do so. It is usually thought of as a place of conscious suffering, rather than some sort of passive suffering that comes from "never being fully satisfied" etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
We're in the realms of Alice, where a word means what we want it to mean, niether more nor less. As a means of imparting knowledge, it becomes meaningless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
Don't claim someone is going to hell--how do you know?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by muchafraid:
it just scares me that if we can take the idea of god's love and come up with who knows how many definitions to fit our own criteria, how many other factions of the scriptures do we do that with? where do we draw the line? dare i say it - who defines the truth?

god help us if we do...

---

We don't. I believe that Christians use Scripture to draw these lines. In theory the truth can be found by the intelligent, informed, contextual comparison of what is said on a topic throughout the Scriptures.

If that doesn't work, or if we don't have confidence in that method, then, yes, it gets pretty subjective.
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
It is usually thought of as a place of conscious suffering, rather than some sort of passive suffering that comes from "never being fully satisfied" etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
I also want to add, looking at scriptures and looking at where Jesus is talking about hell, none of the parables that he told ended up like: "Yesiree, Bob. Elwin did not accept me as Lord and Savior or have a personal relationship with me- so I tossed him in a lake of burning fire."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Everything follows from a person's basic interests and beliefs. Self-centered interests, and willfully erroneous beliefs, lead to the same kind of misery that they do in this world. Hell is all about failed relationships, miserable work situations, abusive friendships, addictions, poverty, hunger and disease.

---

quote:

---

I don't think that "condemning perhaps the bulk of humanity" is what love means. But what do you mean by "condemning"?

---

quote:

---

My own premise is that people in the next life are pretty much like they are in this world. That is, they retain the same interests, preferences, beliefs, and personality. They are the same people. To change them radically would be to make them into a different person.

I may casually say that I would like God to take away all of my less desirable predilections, and fill me with love for all people. But the truth is that it would be pretty unpleasant to have my basic characteristics yanked out of me without my permission.

As I see it, a person's beliefs, opinions, likes and dislikes, and many similar things, are what make up the person. A person is essentially what they love.

How could a God of love take away a person's fundamental character?

Or do we think that people can be eternally happy irrespective of their basic character and interests?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
But if we accept that God chooses to communicate with us, at whatever level, through a book, using the medium of words, then for that communication to be worth anything at all, the concepts conveyed by the words must be consistent, else there can be no meaningful communication at all, and we might as well pack up and go home. Now I have no problem whatsoever with the concept that my idea of love may be infinately inferior to God's idea of love. In fact, I rather assume and hope that it is the case! What I have the greatest difficulty in believing is that it can mean the polar opposite. To suggest that God's idea of love is to condemn perhaps the bulk of humanity to an eternity in hell seems, to me, to rob the word "love" of all its' meaning.

---

quote:

---

posted by Freddy

No, I think the descriptions of hell are perfectly accurate. It is a place of torment. But it isn't a place but rather the state of unhappiness that is inherent in wicked loves and desires.

---

quote:

---

The trouble is that it is difficult to convince people who have wicked loves and desires that these things are actually tormenting them. It becomes apparent only over the long run.

---

quote:

---

Jolly Jape said:
However, I believe that this character, which will have its' individuality, if you like, intact, has never been fully manifested in this life because it has been, to a greater or lesser extent, marred by the "disease" of sin. When that disease is healed at the resurrection of the body, our character will be revealed as it would have been if we had never sinned! Of course, for some of us, who have begun our healing process in this life, the apparent change will be relatively small. For others, whose lives on this earth have been so disfigured that the image of God in them appears to us to be almost totally absent, the change will seem, to the onlooker, to make that person almost unrecognisable. But the person themselves will know it is still them, save only that they are released from the constraints which excluded them from being who they really were.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
I think there's a lot of truth in that, and it addresses an aspect of Freddy's view which troubles me ("we're pretty much the same, there and here"). I work with some profoundly damaged individuals whose capacity to trust and love and live with any kind of freedom has been severely limited by truly the evil behavior perpetrated upon them. I do not believe these people will continue in that state of brokenness in heaven.

---

quote:

---

I am simply not able to manage a universalist reading of scripture, which leaves me in a place where it looks like God does, lovingly, allow people to distance themselves from Him.

---

quote:

---

I think the twisting and torquing of language is very much something the enemy does and if he can connive to get a bunch of Christians to believe that God is mean because He is just, that's quite an accomplishment. I do not have complete confidence in our 21st century view of the word "love," having watched a number of good and powerful words undermined and denatured in my relatively short lifespan - consider "tolerance," which now means "approval," and "awesome," which now means "dude, that is sooo cool!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And if you're rationalistically and way post-apostolicallymodernly right, there there's no harm done. But if you're wrong, on Satan and his demons (performing def metal at a venue near you SOON) then (i) there is HARM done, now, in many subtile and not so subtile (that's ravening lions for you) ways and (ii) your reaction in the resurrection is going to be a picture.

Of course for Satanic literalists there is also the potential for harm, but orders of magnitude less impacting.

---

I assumed that a fundy would deny that there were two vreation accounts in Genesis.

As for the existance of demons - I'll take the risk, thanks.

As for Death Metal - I like some of it. Do you really think demons would play death metal? Oh, come on. They would be much subtler than that. The lady I overheard on the bus the other who claimed that heavy metal was powered by Dark Spirits knows less about those Spirits then I do - and I don't even belive they exist.
 

---

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:

quote:

---

While we may not know a specific person's heart, that is not to deny that people do make choices and I believe that God respects them and loves them enough to allow them to make choices.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:

quote:

---

While we may not know a specific person's heart, that is not to deny that people do make choices and I believe that God respects them and loves them enough to allow them to make choices.

---

Again we come down to that interpretation of free will. I think I could walk the length and breadth of this island(Gt Britain) and never find anyone who wants to suffer eternal damnation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Even more so when they die and it stares them in the face. This idea which I have heard so many times that "no-one goes to hell unless they choose to" is as absurd as it is obscene.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
This is the greatest and most despicable evil of Christian doctrine. What the hellmongers invariably say is: believe what we believe or roast.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Not everyone who has difficulties with certain aspects of Christian doctrine is rejecting Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Not everyone who doesn't get it right in their head is rejecting Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
No-one will reject Christ when the appalling misery of their sinful lives is brought home to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
This idea which I have heard so many times that "no-one goes to hell unless they choose to" is as absurd as it is obscene. People lead heedless lives oblivious of the potential consequences of their hedonistic lifestyles, but that is a far cry from wanting to go to hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
To the extent that Jesus is usually understood as talking about hell it would appear to be in the nature of a punishment externally imposed - and very much against the will of the people being punished/chastised.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
Paul talks about grace overcoming our inability to choose the Good - he talks about us being saved despite our desires.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
I am also wary of extrapolating to Hell as Eternal Torment (which is the usual use of the word) from our experiences of evil and suffering on earth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
This idea which I have heard so many times that "no-one goes to hell unless they choose to" is as absurd as it is obscene. People lead heedless lives oblivious of the potential consequences of their hedonistic lifestyles, but that is a far cry from wanting to go to hell.

---

Paul,
In agreement with Joyfulsoul, I think the question is whether people really will change or not.

I agree that it would seem that people would give up a hedonistic lifestyle if they realized that it was harming them. But it would also seem that people would eat less if they realized that what they were eating was harming their health. Statistics show otherwise.

As Woody Allen said in "Love and Death": "Sex without love is an empty experience, but as empty experiences go, it's not bad."

People seek empty experiences all the time. Once they realize how empty they are many, or even most, people give them up. But not everyone.

There are things much worse, and more addictive, than empty experiences. People behave in ways that are self-centered and hurtful to others. Why do we think that everyone will be willing to give these up after death?

---

quote:

---

Amazingly, God does an end run around the ultimate consequence, substituting the perfect blood of Christ for my foul substance. But saying, "I reject the blood of Jesus and I want no part of God - I want to do as I damn well please," leads inevitably to separation from God as much as my lousy diet leads to my impressive girth.

---

quote:

---

in a place where it looks like God does, lovingly, allow people to distance themselves from Him.

---

quote:

---

However, If we take the second approach, put simply, as Paul would have it, that we are slaves to sin, then no-one's free will is violated by the fact that God takes away (not forgives, that's a done deal) sin from us at the resurrection of the body. We simply become free to choose what we would always have chosen had we been free to so choose, that is, life over death.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
I line up with those who have enormous problems with hell and don't think your efforts to euphemise them away are convincing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
As far as I can gather in trying to minimise the problem of hell, you end up with all humanity facing an eternity in which we are all just as screwed up as we are in this life. Put simply, you've made the whole concept of an after life (including heaven!) deeply unattractive.

---

• 1. Since there is no space in heaven, distance is replaced by similarity of spiritual state. Therefore you are nearest those you love and those with whom who you share common interests.
• 2. Therefore if you are a person who loves God and the neighbor you will be with people who are similar.
• 3. A life with people who are like this is exceedingly pleasant.
• 4. In the next life people's surroundings exactly match their inner states. So people who happily receive God's love are surrounded with astounding beauty.
• 5. And they themselves are beautiful in the exact measure of their inner beauty, or to the exact extent to which they are able to receive God's love.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
How you fit in any concept of separation I don't know?

---

quote:

---

Luke 12:2 For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known. 3 Therefore whatever you have spoken in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have spoken in the ear in inner rooms will be proclaimed on the housetops.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
Also the idea that those of us who subordinate our worldly ideas to spiritual desires, will be fine, probably doesn't have legs. Many of my decisions that were most orthodox (small o) have been very self-centred. Indeed, if the reason that we should act in certain ways is to give us long term benefits rather than short term ones - as you are arguing we should - then this exemplifies my point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
Finally, you seem to think that metaphor can get us out of every difficult corner. (You did the same with the OT genocides). Whilst metaphor is important and useful in our discourse about God, I don't think it makes every problem so vague and ill-defined that it makes them disappear in a puff of smoke.

---

quote:

---

Psalm 78: 2 I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old, 3 Which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us.
Matthew 13:13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
Matthew 13:34 All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: “ I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
You take all the risks you want, Papio

---

Thanks for your kind permission, Martin.

If it make you feel any better, then maybe the birth of self-consciousness at whatever stage of evolution it appeared by concieavbly be a sort-of fall, in my view.

But a literal fall from a literal Eden with a literal devil temping a literal Adam and a literal Eve with the resulting eschatology? Not on your nelly, mate.
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:
But a literal fall from a literal Eden with a literal devil temping a literal Adam and a literal Eve with the resulting eschatology? Not on your nelly, mate.

---

Papio, I think this bold assertion must have killed this thread.
 

---

Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Papio, I think this bold assertion must have killed this thread.

---

quote:

---

"I reject the blood of Jesus and I want no part of God - I want to do as I damn well please

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

"I reject the blood of Jesus and I want no part of God - I want to do as I damn well please

---

Never known anyone say that. "I don't believe that Christianity is true" is rather more common. It's hardly the same thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
I've had more than one person tell me that if Christianity, as in the Christian story of who God is and what he's done, is true then the problem of pain still leads them to believe he's evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
I have a question for the Universalists in this conversation - why do you think Jesus spent so much time and energy warning people about hell if it's not a real threat? Chances are there are a variety of answers and I'd really like to hear them - thanks!

---

Here's a couple of answers from someone who's not a universalist.

1. Christ's warnings may be the means by which some of those who could have ended up in hell, avoid it as part of God's redemption of all.

2. Some of the apparent hell-warnings could in fact be purgatory-warnings. True, purgatory is an infinitely better place in which to find oneself than hell, but a million years having your sinful nature transformed might involve a certain amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth.

3. (Stretching it a bit) the warnings could be metaphorical ones for this life. Heaven and hell do effectively start here, after all.
 

---

Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
Thank you, GreyFace - those are good answers but I'm *still* hoping for the genuine universalist slant(s), as it were... nudge, nudge.

(edited to spell his name right!!!)

[ 07. December 2005, 08:51: Message edited by: LynnMagdalenCollege ]
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
You rang??

Ok, very quickly, as I have to go to work, and will be "on shore" for the next ten days or so.

1) Many of the passages where Jesus speaks about "Hell" do not actually refer to the "end-times" as we would call them, at all, but to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in AD 70? He seems to relate the fate of the Jewish nation with their rejection of Him. It's not hard to see why. In their desire for a Messiah after their own image, as political leader, they were on a collision course with Rome. Their refusal to repent of their hatred of the Romans led ultimately to their being cast out, desolate, from Jerusalem.

2) Other passages, such as the Lazarus and Dives parable, have been interpreted over literally by some over the years. If this parable is a literal picture of Hell, then why do we not go to a literal "Abraham's Bosom"? Jesus seems to have adapted a pre-existing Jewish story (Abraham and Eleazar?) to make a point that it is impossible to scare people into the Kingdom. Only a real change of heart is enough to alter conduct. This is congruent with the rest of his teaching.

3) Jesus was speaking in an accepted idiom of the time, which stressed the need for repentance in the face of what the people saw as God's wrath. What He added was the fact that (and I know Freddy will disagree with me here ) it is impossible for anyone to live to those standards, and that only Jesus himself could obey the Law fully. His object was to point out how hopeless, without Christ's work of salvation, was the lot of any person, and thus turn them towards Himself as saviour. The pictures of Hell are there because that would be all our fates, apart from Him, and would have been familiar images to his hearers. It does not follow that anyone will actually end up "there". The cross made sure that this would not happen. Of course, this is also preaching, rather than theology. Jesus discourses with His disciples, and particularly, the events of Maundy Thursday, give a more nuanced picture of Jesus' theological (if such a word can be used of Him) position.
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
GreyFace and Jolly, I would have been happy to attempt an answer for Lynn, but now I see no need to!!! Outstanding.

Lynn, does this resonate with you at all? Does it seem like too much squirming to get out of something that, to you, seems obvious (even if unfortunate)?

-Digory
 

---

Posted by Papio. (# 4201) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

"I reject the blood of Jesus and I want no part of God - I want to do as I damn well please

---

Never known anyone say that. "I don't believe that Christianity is true" is rather more common. It's hardly the same thing.

---

I've had more than one person tell me that if Christianity, as in the Christian story of who God is and what he's done, is true then the problem of pain still leads them to believe he's evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:
Even if it were not for this, the idea of Hell is so monstrous that any God who could allow Hell to exist would be evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:
However, our highest logical and moral truths would tend to say that Hell is not just and is not rational.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:
I can't see any reason to change my mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
I'm curious what do you think of the god who allowed so much wrong in this world. Isn't that just as bad (or similar to) hell?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
[QB(who the heck is Dives? I don't know this name!)[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
But you're not arguing that "Lazarus" was not *also* a name?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
*looks up* - I realize I mis-stated that - actually, I speak French like a 6-year-old and just enough Italian to find the toilets and buy food... sorry, off-topic but a valid correction nonetheless! It's *English* of which I only have a late 20th century mastery...

---

If you phrase your Italian like you just phrased this English, people may look at you sideways when they think you are looking to buy food from the toilets...



-Digory
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
Of course, I want everybody not to suffer but to enjoy life and I would be some sick person if I wanted people to burn, burn, burn. But that is far from the reality of life. Sometimes shit happens that is not our faults and sometimes shit happens that we induce. One example, (that has been mentioned before) is my lack of exercise. It has serious reprecussions/consequences.

The most logical and moral and rational response would be to get off my butt - but most of the time I do not do the just and right and most rational and higher moral thing.

So unfortunately, I gain weight and hurt myself. Is this god's fault that I'm in pain? And what if god doesn't even exist at all? It doesn't take away the consequences of my life, choices and actions, behavior, and thoughts.

I guess I don't arrive at the position that hell is unjust because I see it as something that starts here on earth - and it is just a part of life/death. Hell, to me, is no more irrational or unjust than the consequences of an action that is harmful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
...when you talk about the Lazarus and Dives parable ... I would argue that it's not a parable - if you note, when telling parables Jesus says, "a man was going down to Jericho" (for instance), but in THIS case He says, "there was a certain beggar named Lazarus..." (omits the name of the rich man to protect the innocent?) - which leads me to believe He's talking about an actual event.

---

quote:

---

My understanding of "sheol" ("the grave") is that up until the cross we all went to the grave but there was a gulf between portions, so you'd have the more pleasant and the less pleasant side - but "sheol" is a temporary abode of the dead. At the cross, the pleasant side is opened to heaven ("to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord") but the unpleasant side continues to receive inhabitants until "the Great White Throne Judgement" when all the dead will be raised and judged.

---

quote:

---

So-- how does that pan out? Why does Jesus, post resurrection, having received the revelation from Father God, talk about judgement and suffering as He does (Rev.20)? I just can't reconcile all this talk of hell, damnation, suffering, torment, and exhortations to *avoid* such a fate, with the knowledge that "nobody's going to go there, anyway." How does one get from here to there?

---

Well, there's not quite as much as you think. Though Jesus talks about hell more than anyone else, he in fact doesn't mention it as much as our theology would suggest that he does. Could you point to what you see as the top 3 to 5 passages in support of Eternal Punishment? I think I could explain how I see each and every one. In the meantime, I will get 3 to 5 passages that I think support Universalism.

Keep in mind: I don't need you to become a universalist. I would only hope that somewhere down the road, perhaps, you could at least see how myself and others could come to such a conclusion. I guess that's what a discussion is for, eh?


Hoping that gets me off the hook for now,
Digory
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

"I reject the blood of Jesus and I want no part of God - I want to do as I damn well please

---

Never known anyone say that. "I don't believe that Christianity is true" is rather more common. It's hardly the same thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
It's just not similar to earthly consequences at all, neither in foreknowledge nor severity.

-Digory

---

Digory, you rock.
 

---

Posted by Papio. (# 4201) on :
 
I am having a very interesting conversation with an Orthodox Christian. The God he worships is not the one I reject. At all.

I need to think about this more carefully.
 

---

Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
I know the consequences, I know how to avoid them. When I choose not to exercise, I know what I'm going to get for it, but I just don't care.

That's very far away from being told that if I don't do this or that or this other thing, I will end up in hell after I die. "How do you know?" I ask. "Well, I just believe that you do because that's how I interpret the Bible. Oh, and by the way, there are about seven million different possible ways to avoid hell, and only one that will work. Hope you pick the right one, like I did!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
It's just not similar to earthly consequences at all, neither in foreknowledge nor severity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
I know the consequences, I know how to avoid them. When I choose not to exercise, I know what I'm going to get for it, but I just don't care.

That's very far away from being told that if I don't do this or that or this other thing, I will end up in hell after I die. "How do you know?" I ask. "Well, I just believe that you do because that's how I interpret the Bible. Oh, and by the way, there are about seven million different possible ways to avoid hell, and only one that will work. Hope you pick the right one, like I did!"

---

- Can hell exist and will God allow people to go there?

is substantially different from:

-who goes there and how does one avoid going there?

I was trying to work through the first one.

---

Excellent point. So, God may allow people to go to Hell by nature of their choices leading to consequences, desired or not. I could agree with this, if the consequences were clearly laid out and the choices were made freely.

And in working out the second one, for me, I come to the conclusions that no, the consequences are not laid out clearly, and the choices we make are not free. We are slaves to sin.

So that's my further take on the subject. But like I said, good point.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
It's just not similar to earthly consequences at all, neither in foreknowledge nor severity.

---

Hmm. I have many thoughts about this. None of them organized.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
So, God may allow people to go to Hell by nature of their choices leading to consequences, desired or not. I could agree with this, if the consequences were clearly laid out and the choices were made freely.

And in working out the second one, for me, I come to the conclusions that no, the consequences are not laid out clearly, and the choices we make are not free. We are slaves to sin.

So that's my further take on the subject.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
the choices we make are not free. We are slaves to sin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
no, the consequences are not laid out clearly

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
It's just not similar to earthly consequences at all, neither in foreknowledge nor severity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
You must anticipate my next question then, right? Out with it!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
the choices we make are not free. We are slaves to sin.

---

This where I disagree with you. I believe we can make choices. I'm not a Calvinist - in the sense that I believe we are somehow intrinsically evil and fore-doomed to one destination or another without any choice or say in the matter.

---

quote:

---

I believe that while we are all slaves to sin, we are simultaneously allowed to make choices contrary to it. How else could you explain non-Christians being selfless and charitable and Christ-like - even when they are still "non-believers" and "slaves to sin"? An athiest I know is actually quite kind and considerate and generous and selfless and does noble deeds. He does not believe in any god and openly rejects Christ outright, yet is still able to manage being selfless and thoughtful and kind.

So I don't buy the argument that says that we are complete and utter robots without any choice but sin and so are not responsible for our actions and thoughts etc. I believe that the divine image that God placed in us and helps us make better and noble choices as human beings.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
no, the consequences are not laid out clearly

---

I don't know if I agree with that statement.

Across most cultures, general morals are consistent: don't steal, don't take someone else's woman, don't murder, don't lie... etc. There are very few societies where lying and thievery and murder and canabalism are an acceptable social and moral norm and those societies tend to disentigrate and die out.

---

quote:

---

I know in the OT, in the book of Joshua - God was like, "I'm going to level with you, kids. Do good and I'll bless the socks outta ya. Do bad and I'm going to bust you big time and your life will really suck. So do good, ok?"

The consequences were really,really clear and that didn't really work, either.

---

Yes, and here is where my mind really starts spinning fast. See, I think the consequences were made and the rules drawn out so clearly so as to be a hyperbolic rhetorical device for God to demonstrate to all of the world, through the Hebrew people, what it's like to try to do it on our own! And you're right, JS, it does not work at all. But we want it to work so badly, and God knew that, so he gave us a few thousand years of a chance. When he finally feels that we've had a sufficient display of how we just will never get it right with the Salvation-by-Law thing, he fills Mary with Grace, who was born to the earth as God's free gift to the whole world. I know you like choice, humans. I know you like feeling like you're in control. But when you ARE in control, you destroy everything, including yourselves, and your headed for some bad, bad destruction. So here's what I'm going to do--I'm going to wipe it all clean and save you all, and you can either start living like that now, or you can go on living like you're in control, and like you can do it all by yourself like you really want to. It's up to you, but until you start living like you are free and forgiven (as you really truly are), you won't ever get the Kingdom of God here on earth, where it is, and where I have brought it.

Something like that. (With many obvious holes, clearly. )

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
It's just not similar to earthly consequences at all, neither in foreknowledge nor severity.

---

Maybe that's a matter of interpretation, no?

---

Well, of course it is. But my interpretations have something all the other ones lack--they're right. Clearly.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
You must anticipate my next question then, right? Out with it!

---

<sigh> My psychic abilities have diminished. I'm afraid I can't.

---

Haha I thought this was a dangerous way of putting it. Sorry! All I meant was that you said you had many thoughts on the matter. So my next question, not-so-obviously, is "what are these thoughts?" Out with it! was my cry for the thoughts of Joyful Soul's mind!

-Digory

[ 08. December 2005, 22:32: Message edited by: professorkirke ]
 

---

Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
*looks up* - I realize I mis-stated that - actually, I speak French like a 6-year-old and just enough Italian to find the toilets and buy food... sorry, off-topic but a valid correction nonetheless! It's *English* of which I only have a late 20th century mastery...

---

If you phrase your Italian like you just phrased this English, people may look at you sideways when they think you are looking to buy food from the toilets...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:
I am having a very interesting conversation with an Orthodox Christian. The God he worships is not the one I reject. At all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
Honest question: do you really honestly think that if you got to heaven, whatever that is, and you had hated God on earth and not wanted anything to do with him but he'd saved you anyway, that once you truly and fully understood all of who God was and all of what his presence really meant, that you'd feel sleighted and "fore-doomed"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
So if we're not responsible for our slavery, which affects our decisions, then how can those decisions be truly pure?

As Jolly Jape usually points out in a really neat (I think) way, if God removes our sickness, we're free to be who we were always meant to be, at which point I don't see there being any choice in the matter, free will or not!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
I've said this before: some choices aren't choices. Like, do you want a million dollars or to have pencils jammed in your loved ones' eyes**? The superiority of an option doesn't negate the freedom of the choice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
**Apologies if this example was a bit graphic. I went for the "shock value" device...

---

No worries.

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
The sociologist in me just awoke. Is this really because everyone has the same internal moral compass, or because over thousands of years people finally figured out that if you don't limit things like thievery and murder, your society will tend to disintegrate and die out?

Causal relationships are so tricky.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
It's just not similar to earthly consequences at all, neither in foreknowledge nor severity.

---

Maybe that's a matter of interpretation, no?[/qb][/QUOTE]Well, of course it is. But my interpretations have something all the other ones lack--they're right. Clearly. [/qb] [/QUOTE]

Perhaps this is what the whole thing boils down to - we have a disagreement over:

1) free will
2) value of choice in eternal destinies

[eta code]

[ 09. December 2005, 06:01: Message edited by: Joyfulsoul ]
 

---

Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
At the end of the day, I believe God is trustworthy. I read scripture and it seems pretty clear to me that He judges people according to the light they've received - so those who are blind are simply not held to the same standard of accountability.

It's about you (each of us, individually, by the grace of God) working out your salvation with fear and trembling (I've been told recently that the Greek term for "working out" is like a mining term, "dig it out - the vein is there, expose it" and that helped me). You can't work out anybody else's. You can't look at somebody else's situation and say, "God, you're not fair!" (then you head into Job territory - don't wanna go there!) - it really boils down to each one of us being real and faithful to God as He has made Himself known to us.

As for being slaves to sin, isn't that what Paul is trying to sort through in Romans 7 (well, so much of Romans! not just chapter 7) ??
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
But I can imagine someone not giving me a choice. And yes I would feel like a deceived robot foredoomed.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

[QUOTE]Originally posted by professorkirke:
I've said this before: some choices aren't choices. Like, do you want a million dollars or to have pencils jammed in your loved ones' eyes**? The superiority of an option doesn't negate the freedom of the choice.

---

Apologies but I don't understand what you are trying to say here. I feel the portion in bold supports my interpretation - but I'm not clear how you are using it.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps this is what the whole thing boils down to - we have a disagreement over:

1) free will
2) value of choice in eternal destinies

---

It's probably a little bit about (1) free will and probably even more about (3) definition of choice or understanding of what choice is.

But still, it's a good discussion.

-Digory
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
So the fact that once everyone understands the choice, they all will choose heaven and none will end up in hell would not mean it was suddenly an unfree decision.

---

I don't think anyone would have any hesitation about choosing Heaven over Hell, if it was indeed such a straightforward choice with no other consequences.

If, on the other hand, that choice would entail changes to one's personality, it may become more difficult. And it would. I know I have elements of my psychological make up that, while not in any way Heavenly, are nonetheless so much a part of me that I can't concieve of being without them.

To use a (probably very ill-concieved) analogy, it would be like knowing that no-one in heaven had arms. Now I may know at the theoretical level that I'd be better off just accepting those terms, but it sure wouldn't be a straightforward decision to get rid of them!

Of course, you may make the argument that any such "unHeavenly" personality traits we have are a result of our slavery to sin, thus by the time the choice is to be made they would already have been removed. It's a complicated issue, this, isn't it ...
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
Yeah, Marvin, it really is!

There's also the option that the traits that you are attached to that you perceive as "bad" are only "bad" because of how they relate to earthly circumstances. Perhaps in a heavenly world, those things aren't recognized as harmful?

-Digory
 

---

Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on :
 
I'm going to respond to your thoughts in a backward order. Apologies - I wrote my last reply when I was tired and today I realized it didn't really make much sense or come across clearly.

quote:

---

It's probably a little bit about (1) free will and probably even more about (3) definition of choice or understanding of what choice is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
Well, I was kind of speaking to the complexity of our choice again here. In my rather graphic example, you could imagine that no one would choose the worse choice if they understood the choice perfectly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
So the fact that once everyone understands the choice, they all will choose heaven and none will end up in hell would not mean it was suddenly an unfree decision.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
So the fact that once everyone understands the choice, they all will choose heaven and none will end up in hell would not mean it was suddenly an unfree decision.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
It seems to me, that the idea that people's wrongful actions that have detrimental consequences is appalling to you. You don't find this view palatable or perhaps you find it inconsistent with experience or even at odds with theology.

---

quote:

---

So in order to address this - all that is necessary to avoid the negative consequences - is to say that we are slaves to sin and so not held accountable at all for any actions or choices we make.

---

quote:

---

People are simply like robots and cannot be held responsible for the choices they make. Since God cannot be unjust - he cannot allow the consequences to take place of something that we did not choose in the first place. So, our response is to acknowledge this (we all will someday before God) and God has made a way for his grace to cover our sin.

I have issues with this interpretation of human behavior/sin/free will. I think that people do have free will - that they can make choices (for good or for evil). And because we are able to make these choices, we can be held responsible for them.

---

Here is where you misunderstand me, though. I DO believe in free will, I do! I do! We're not robots, we're slaves. Or like I said, if you end up unconscious on a fast-moving raft, maybe you shouldn't have been drinking so much before getting on this raft? We all have choices we make, and there are consequences. But what is the point of God protecting our free will at all costs so he can rob us of it as soon as we meet death? At the very point where we become most like ourselves (as Jolly talks about) and fully realize the nature of the choices we have, at that point our choice is revoked and we are forced to live with the eternal consequences of only our pre-death choices?

Not that you, or Freddy, or anyone here really believes this because I know some people have said that they feel people will have choices after death and still choose hell. That they will continue to choose hell, forever, some of them. I can at least see this argument a little better, but it seems to be just as inconsistent with the biblical view of hell re: Lazarus/Dives, etc. And even further, I just don't see how we will make a choice for hell once we are fully aware and seeing things clearly As They Truly Are.

quote:

---

I'm not sure if our views can be resolved???

---

Perhaps not, but that doesn't have to be the goal.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
Well, I was kind of speaking to the complexity of our choice again here. In my rather graphic example, you could imagine that no one would choose the worse choice if they understood the choice perfectly.

---

What you are suggesting is that all bad choices are simply a result of some sort of information failure issue. I disagree. How many people have chosen to have an affair knowing full well the potential havoc and damage that could ensue? I have known a few people who have confessed (to other things) that they knew full well the possible damaging outcome yet decided to do it anyway. It was not the case that the information (namely – pain and wrongness of the choice) was absent at all.

<snip>

I think we all understand the choice between heaven and hell. I don’t think is the case that someone truly wants hell (misery and suffering). Full information does not guarantee anything though.

---

Okay. I think (could be wrong) that what you and Freddy are both suggesting is that no matter how much evidence a person has, it won't necessarily change the decision. Those are more Freddy's words than yours, Joyful, but I think it's kind of what you are saying in this above portion I've quoted. And I'm saying--I agree.

Evidence is what we have on earth to replace understanding, since we can't have understanding here. Somebody had an affair knowing full well the consequences--did they? Or did they know what other people's consequences typically tend to be? That's what evidence is, looking around at what's happened before and assuming it'll happen again, or looking at what we know and trying to use it to deduce things we don't know or don't fully understand. We use it here in a broken and sick world to try to make sense of things. But in a perfect, timeless place where we are stripped of our sickness and allowed to become the core of who we really were, where we can fully and totally see and comprehend our choices, this is not evidence!

I don't believe someone would have an affair once they could fully become someone else and experience their pain firsthand, in order to fully understand it, and to fully understand how their choices are negatively affecting someone they so very love. And that's another thing--here we don't really truly LOVE. We try so hard sometimes but our love is cracked and imperfect, too. But in a place where we could fully love, would we cheat? I don't think so--I don't think it was ever who we were meant to be.

Let me reiterate--that's not making us robots or robbing us of choice. It's illuminating our true desires. If God thought we were capable of discerning what our true desires were, why would he have had to assure us to "Trust in the Lord with all your mind soul and strength and he will give you the desires of your heart." You may not "like" what you get, but when you trust him, you realize it was what you really deeply truly wanted.

So no, evidence is worthless in affecting a decision most times. It typically enacts selfishness and self-preservation. But true understanding? I think that's totally different.


(I know I'm all over the place here towards the end---I just got carried away a bit. Sorry! )


-Digory
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Just catching up on this thread.

PK:

quote:

---

When he finally feels that we've had a sufficient display of how we just will never get it right with the Salvation-by-Law thing, he fills Mary with Grace, who was born to the earth as God's free gift to the whole world. I know you like choice, humans. I know you like feeling like you're in control. But when you ARE in control, you destroy everything, including yourselves, and your headed for some bad, bad destruction. So here's what I'm going to do--I'm going to wipe it all clean and save you all, and you can either start living like that now, or you can go on living like you're in control, and like you can do it all by yourself like you really want to. It's up to you, but until you start living like you are free and forgiven (as you really truly are), you won't ever get the Kingdom of God here on earth, where it is, and where I have brought it.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by professorkirke:
So if we're not responsible for our slavery, which affects our decisions, then how can those decisions be truly pure?

As Jolly Jape usually points out in a really neat (I think) way, if God removes our sickness, we're free to be who we were always meant to be, at which point I don't see there being any choice in the matter, free will or not!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can see that we have different understandings regarding this matter. In my view, choice is crucial. I think God values choice. He doesn't want to overwhelm us - he wants faith. I don't completely get the whole thing - but from what I gather, he desires trust in doubt. I think he values free will (meaning to choose to do right or wrong)...a lot.

---

quote:

---

I have issues with this interpretation of human behavior/sin/free will. I think that people do have free will - that they can make choices (for good or for evil). And because we are able to make these choices, we can be held responsible for them.

---

Well, yes, we could be. But there is no imperative that we must be. God chooses not to so hold us. I think that here we should note the difference betweeen forgiveness and salvation. We make bad choices, God forgives us for them. If that were the whole story, then there would have been no need for Jesus to die. He did not, as the hymn puts it, "..die that we might be forgiven." The truth is that we are already forgiven, just as the Prodigal was forgiven before he was even tired of the scraps in the pigsty. He died, rather, to free us from the death that was the end product of that sin. As far as our salvation is concerned, God is not so much concerned with moral culpability as with rescuing us from Digory's raft as it approaches the rapids.
 

---

Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on :
 
PK & Jolly Jape,

I haven't had time to respond - but I just want to say how much I appreciate both your responses and that they are so thoughtful.
 

---

Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
At the end of the day, I kind of suspect that some of the universalists (said in all respect and in no way derisively) don't actually believe that anybody chooses rebellion against God, actively chooses to align with Satan ("better to be a prince in Hell...!") - so work with me for a moment here, even if you don't believe anybody actually chooses that, and PRETEND that a person makes that choice - is God then going to impose salvation upon them?

quote:

---

joyfulsoul said:
What you are suggesting is that all bad choices are simply a result of some sort of information failure issue. I disagree. How many people have chosen to have an affair knowing full well the potential havoc and damage that could ensue? I have known a few people who have confessed (to other things) that they knew full well the possible damaging outcome yet decided to do it anyway. It was not the case that the information (namely – pain and wrongness of the choice) was absent at all.

---