Why Fire?

[jriccitelli]

John; Who is suggesting here, me, or God? God is the one throwing people in fire and burning them, it is not 'my' suggestion. God has made it clear, He sent His Son and we must make a ‘choice’.
Steve: Really? Clear? I have not found this to be so. But then, I am not approaching the question with my mind already made-up.

What’s not clear now? The idea of having to believe, or the part about people being thrown and burned like wheat?
(Why do you think you are so removed from a mind made up position, that you can use this accusation against someone?)
Where did 'I' get this idea of the wicked unbelievers being thrown into fire? Only from one book, or, that is from Jesus and God.
(I don't have any 'other' book that I grew up with that said this)
I believe the Bible was written to the whole world, that a person could read or hear, and clearly and quickly know His standing before God, what we need to do, and the reasons for our dilemma. It is not the work of hypothesizing that maybe hidden behind all the judgment and punishment God is really planning to ignore all that and just reveal some other plan post-mortem, because why? Why, because the scriptures weren’t clear enough?

"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.… (John 3:17-18. Isn't this clear enough? The world is made up of believers and unbelievers, the choice is ours in 'this world', Jesus isn't talking about the next world, or post-mortem)
This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20"For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed” (John 3:19-20. He sent His Son into the 'world' not the post-mortem existence, this is the judgment - 'here - a test. You don't seem to think it is a 'good enough' test, or good enough plan)

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. 9 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.… (1 John 4:7-9. Some do not know God, thus they do not receive life. They are not sons, and they do not live)

God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.… (Gal 4:4. What were they before being adopted? Right, 'not' sons)

[steve]

My time is more limited than you may be aware of. If you really wish for me to take the time to answer (or even read) your posts, please show at least the following courtesies:

When quoting scriptures in a debate, try to ask yourself whether the scriptures cited resolve (or even address) any contested point, and whether the person on the other side of the aisle might also be aware of the same verses.

Then, before posting, see if you can figure out, from what you have heard about the other side of the issue, how someone coming from that position might understand the same texts (enough clues exist in the prior discussions).

In the process, you might consider reading what has already been posted from the other side, and not raising questions that have just been answered only hours earlier.

If you have done all of this, and still can't find anything relevant to post, you are not under obligation to post anything until you can.

If you think that the above post addresses any of the points contested in this controversy, then I am afraid we are not able to communicate fruitfully on the topic.

Thanks for trying, Bro. Rather than answering your points, I will rely on the many previous times I have answered them to satisfy your curiosity. Happy hunting!

[jeremiah]

Hello John,

You said:

Just because they are standing does not mean they are ‘alive’. Only the righteous are raised to life, the rest are raised to judgment.

If you as a conditionalist, are willing to make concessions in the language of scripture about "the dead"* who stand before God to be judged in Revelation 20, then maybe you should give a little (actually a lot) more leeway to restorationists when they make similar concessions in scripture. There is nothing dangerous in believing aionian punishment results in the wicked's restoration unto holiness.

*I consider myself a condtionalist, but I actually don't see anything wrong with affirming the dead (as named) in Revelation 20 to all be alive, I think what is being described is Judgement Day on which all of us shall stand to be judged. (Romans 14:10, 2 Corinthians 5:10)

Grace and peace to you John.

[jriccitelli]

My time is more limited than you may be aware of. If you really wish for me to take the time to answer (or even read) your posts, please show at least the following courtesies:

I work a 40+ hour week in commercial construction, generally outdoors in the sun, and I also have a regular ‘very’ busy amount of responsibilities after work. I am not here because I have nothing else to do. I like challenging my own understanding of scripture, and 'I do respect' your time.
Steve, It seems that since you feel sure your viewpoint says all scripture concerning destruction is speaking of temporal judgment you have thus ended their usefulness in the discussion.
Well who can argue with that?
If this was simply the same argument I would be bored, but I have seen many holes in your thinking and conclusions, that I have not seen addressed. And I know I have brought up angles that I have not seen brought up or answered elsewhere.
(Like the question of God blotting names out of the book of life in the OT, just as it is in Rev., I have not seen your answer to that)
In some respects you are a major spokesperson for this view, and although only a very small majority of Christendom would go along with you on UR, except for the handful here I see very few people seriously debating you on it. I think therefore it is not unreasonable to challenge you here on it. After all I was drawn to this sight because I was a fan of yours and I was friendly towards you. So I think I’m being reasonable since I have agreed with you on most all other matters, and only in this matter (and one other I am aware of) do we disagree a lot. Many reasonable people compliment me on my wide knowledge of scripture and my ability to explain scripture clearly, so your criticisms can’t be ‘entirely’ correct.

[steve]

I work a 40+ hour week in commercial construction

I have many friends in the trade. It is good employment, and in an economy like ours, you are fortunate to have it. I have never asked you to devote your precious time to reading anything I have written, nor responding. In fact, I think I have encouraged you, at times, to take an occasional break from this activity.

You have asked me specifically to defend statements I have made. You should know by now that I have no objection to defending any statement I make. However, when your request is that I cover the same ground that we have circled a dozen times before, I would rather that you read the prior discussion for answers, rather than request that I repeat the same information.

If this was simply the same argument I would be bored...

It is the same argument, which is why I am bored. Different scriptures making the same points are not a different argument. If the point has been answered, more scriptures backing up the same assertions do not help. All the scriptures on destruction can be applied to something other than ultimate annihilation. Perhaps they do teach annihilation, but this has not been demonstrated. it remains only a possibility. That is my point, and it will be my point no matter how many of the same kind of passages, which are subject to the same analysis, are cited.

but I have seen many holes in your thinking and conclusions, that I have not seen addressed. And I know I have brought up angles that I have not seen brought up or answered elsewhere. (Like the question of God blotting names out of the book of life in the OT, just as it is in Rev., I have not seen your answer to that)

I don't remember that argument. If I had seen it before, I would have asked, "How does that promote your thesis?" I am aware of the book of life passages, and I agree that names can be blotted out of it. What do we know about this book or about the act of being blotted out of it that would impact the controversy about ultimate fates after judgment?

In some respects you are a major spokesperson for this view

I doubt that anyone who advocates this view would elect an undecided person, like myself, as their major spokesman. They have much better.

only a very small majority of Christendom would go along with you on UR

I would hope that every open-minded Christian would go along with me as far as I go on UR, since I only affirm the things the Bible unambiguously says about God, and suggest that UR would be consistent with those things. No one has scripturally refuted this stance, since it is clearly irrefutable. Whether UR is the only position that is consonant with what we know about God's character is another point, and whether there are solid scriptures to establish conditionalism is yet another. You and I are usually arguing about the third point.

I think therefore it is not unreasonable to challenge you here on it.

Not unreasonable at all—unless the challenges are irrelevant to the arguments. Presenting such is unreasonable.

Many reasonable people compliment me on my wide knowledge of scripture and my ability to explain scripture clearly, so your criticisms can’t be ‘entirely’ correct.

"Many people" tell me I am a good musician. Most of them are not musicians. The criticism that real musicians would bring would tell me more about the quaity of my performance. Their negative reviews might be "entirely correct" despite the flatteries of those who know little about the craft.

[Homer]

Many reasonable people compliment me on my wide knowledge of scripture and my ability to explain scripture clearly, so your criticisms can’t be ‘entirely’ correct.

"Many people" tell me I am a good musician. Most of them are not musicians. The criticism that real musicians would bring would tell me more about the quaity of my performance. Their negative reviews might be "entirely correct" despite the flatteries of those who know little about the craft.

Hmmm. Is someone being put down here or is it my imagination? JR, the people he has taught, or both?

[steve]

Put-down? How about corrected?

If I said to you, "So many people tell me that I am great that I can't take seriously any criticisms from you," would you think I might need my statement (and my attitude) corrected?

I think, if it was I making such a statement, Homer, you would not object to one bringing me down a notch. Nor would I!

I don't know JR's friends, but to question their expertise in scripture based upon their reported comments would seem neither gratuitous nor uncharitable.

[Singalphile]

I think that the question of the symbolism of fire is a good starting point with people. Then one can read through the Bible with a mind towards how the imagery is used and what message it was most likely meant to convey. (I'm of the opinion that the "fire" is entirely symbolic.)

If you take each passage that speaks of final judgment/conditions/punishment * as if it were the only passage in the Bible about the topic, you can usually categorize it as best supporting one or the other position, even if only slightly.

After this, you'll wind up with at least a few passages in each category, which means you have to examine the counter-arguments from each of the other views re those passages. After this, I think that a person should be able to decide - at least if they're basing their opinion only on Scripture - which view is more likely correct.

What is somewhat frustrating is the idea that since side A has an argument and side B has an argument, it's a draw and therefore I can pick the one that I like best. That may true in a very few 50-50 cases, but most of the time it's not hard to see that one side has a better argument even if just by a hair.

So far, it has been difficult to find much in support of the view of judgment "fire" as refining/corrective (or just as an image of gravity/danger).

I am still reading, though (through NT). I would be happy if the church could put our heads together and conclude that the Bible is not 100% (or even 80%) clear on the matter. However, if one view could be said to be 60% likely, another 30%, and another 10%, then we should say that the 60% view is most likely correct, even if just tentatively.

Paidion is 100% UR, I think. Jr may be up close to that in the CI camp. I don't know Homer's view (except that it's not UR). Mattrose leans CI (aka, ED) and jeremiah and me, too. Steve7150 leans UR, as does backwoodsman, I think. Steve G. is not ECT, I think, but otherwise unclear. I can't remember now or am unsure about anyone else.

So there are and will be disagreements obviously, but I would like to see ECT put in it's place (maybe 15% chance of being correct, at best) in the church and popular culture. When everyone realizes that the Bible is unclear on this topic (but most likely not ECT), I think that we can move on to what the Bible is more clear about with much greater results since the clear things are obviously the more important things.

tl;dr, I know.

* A number of passages are often applied to final judgment/punishment when it is not at all clear (to me) that they should be, but they still must be given a thought and place in the matter.

[steve]

I read you (it was not too long), Singalphile. I think you made a good analysis. I am eager to hear, after my book has been published and read, what the percentages seem like in the minds of the readers. On the other hand, many may find my book tl; dr.

[john6809]

When everyone realizes that the Bible is unclear on this topic (but most likely not ECT), I think that we can move on to what the Bible is more clear about with much greater results since the clear things are obviously the more important things.

This.