Hell

[steve7150]

It would seem to me that the doctrines of the universal love of God for His creatures, and the doctrine of God's sovereign and limitless power to save, would better qualify as "orthodox" doctrines—if we were to allow scripture to decide what we will call orthodox.









If i had to pick the single most important factor concerning the fate of the unsaved it would be God's will. As far as i can see it is a mile ahead of anything else and is the most significant argument for the UR view. If we think man has any ability to resist God's will in action, how long did it take for Paul to change his mind on the road to Damascus?

[robbyyoung]

If i had to pick the single most important factor concerning the fate of the unsaved it would be God's will. As far as i can see it is a mile ahead of anything else and is the most significant argument for the UR view. If we think man has any ability to resist God's will in action, how long did it take for Paul to change his mind on the road to Damascus?

Hi Steve,

I once argued with a dear brother concerning God's dealing with Paul during His conversion and said, "Could Paul have told God NO, when He(God) commanded him(Paul) what he will, not if you like, do?" and that dear brother said, "Yes, Paul could have told God NO!"

Well there it is, I guess God's will is at our mercy!

[steve]

Saul had a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge (1 Tim.1:13/Rom.10:2). Therefore, discovering that Jesus was the Messiah rocked his world, and redirected his life. I think, to anyone who knew him well, it would have been predictable that such a vision and such a commission would be accepted by such a one as Saul. Paul's later words, recollecting his conversion— "I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision" (Acts 26:19)—sound like he thought he had a choice, but I don't think he required very long to deliberate. I think there may be some men whose rebellion is so great that they might even say "No" to God at the risk of their lives, even upon seeing Him face-to-face. Saul was not such a person.I don't think God would have called a man who would not respond, as Paul did, to the task he had for him.

[jriccitelli]

If i had to pick the single most important factor concerning the fate of the unsaved it would be God's will (7150)

I need to see that all the precepts agree, one idea cannot trump, or oppose the other biblical mandates and prerequisites.
If we assumed Mary is the sinless mother of God, it would be a viable option to believe she was, but when you synchronize it with the other doctrines it can’t be true. If we said God has seven spirits, or even eight, we could imagine He could. Who is to say He couldn’t?
The scriptural support is there, but very lacking, ‘technically’ God could have 7 or more spirits, but...

I do not see why Gods will of all repenting cannot go hand in hand with God giving man freewill to do so?
The verse does focus on His will that 'they' repent, scripture has already expressed Gods utter disappointment with mans will, God made a way in Noah's time and men refused and God destroyed every last one, we see this event being used as an example of the future and we see the emphasis on mans part in the context throughout. Man is the loser not God, I cannot comprehend how 'God' could be said to lose in any regards to this.
Didn’t I note that it is not Gods will that anyone sin, but obviously God has allowed sin to happen. There are too many good reasons why freewill is ‘part of’ Gods will being done, in allowing people to love God freely. Freewill and choice are over emphasized in scripture, and it wouldn’t make much sense to suppose the emphasis wasn’t necessary. I also noted the other scriptural mandates, one doctrine does not trump the other precepts, they all should agree, that’s how you know what’s true.
Orthodoxy on the doctrine of hell may be wanting, but the doctrine of mans rebellious nature and utter sinfulness, faith, belief, the urgency of a decision, a final Judgment, unpardonable sins, etc. also have to be considered as questionable in order to support UR beliefs. Way too many basic doctrines, precepts and the logic and sense surrounding them must be redefined and glazed over to make UR work, like: faith, belief, sin, immortality, length of life, etc. The only difference I have with ET is over the length of time in hell, no other doctrines are affected.

If a car had run over Nicky and killed him before he repented, would he have a chance to repent in the next? Or would he have been one of those whom you consider as continuing rebels and therefore hopelessly lost for eternity?

‘I’ wouldn’t have said that everyone repenting is ‘impossible’ myself, but since scripture notes that: so many refuse to repent, so many are stubborn, for some it is impossible, some have already been judged severely and violently by God himself, etc. then I would have to put my money on scripture, rather than what 'I' might ‘hope’ people will do. Some like Nicky may repent post-mortem, yet scripture does not imply even a ‘majority’ would do so, rather it seems that the path is narrow. I didn’t see Nicky blaspheming God, only rebelling, but either way God is the Judge not me, and this is the way He set this up and outlined it in 'His' book (and His Word will Judge us all in the end).

[Paidion]

I'm basically in agreement with you, JR, that God doesn't override man's free will. It's not that man's free will "trumps" God's will. For if God always had his will done, then man wouldn't and couldn't have free will. Also, if God's will were always done, Jesus would not have taught His disciples to pray, "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven", for everything that happens would be God's will being done on earth.

I, too, believe that Paul could have said "no" to the vision of Christ. But as Steve Gregg pointed out, God knew Paul's heart and Paul's character. He knew Paul's zeal for God's ways as he (as a diligent Pharisee), understood God's ways. God knew Paul was likely to repent.

My belief that all eventually will repent and submit to the Lordship of Christ is not based on God's will "trumping" our free will. In fact, God never interferes with man's ability to choose. I think He sometimes arranges circumstances to make it difficult for a person to make the choices he was accustomed to making. In other words, He influences people's choices. But God never removes man's free will.

My belief in eventual universal reconciliation is based firstly on the scripture which points in that direction, and secondly on the fact of God's influences on man's choices, influences which probably will be all the greater in the post-mortem state. A person may be able to resist these influences for a long time, but can they resist God for an infinite amount of time? I don't think so. If they could, then THAT would indicate that man's will is stronger than that of God who wills that ALL should come to repentance.

[steve]

but can they resist God for an infinite amount of time?

It seems unlikely that finite man possesses any infinite qualities—including infinite endurance or infinite rebellion. Therefore,

1) if God does indeed continue to give opportunities to repent post-mortem, and

2) if His patience never wears out until He obtains His object (since infinite patience would be an option for Him),

...then it would be predictable that He would eventually wear down the resistance of every last rebel, and all would eventually come to repentance.

Premise #1 is contested, but not ruled out (even by JR), and no one could reasonably rule-out premise #2. Therefore, it is hard for me to understand the insistence that universal reconciliation is impossible—or even unlikely.

[mattrose]

It seems unlikely that finite man possesses any infinite qualities—including infinite endurance or infinite rebellion. Therefore,

1) if God does indeed continue to give opportunities to repent post-mortem, and

2) if His patience never wears out until He obtains His object (since infinite patience would be an option for Him),

...then it would be predictable that He would eventually wear down the resistance of every last rebel, and all would eventually come to repentance.

Premise #1 is contested, but not ruled out (even by JR), and no one could reasonably rule-out premise #2. Therefore, it is hard for me to understand the insistence that universal reconciliation is impossible—or even unlikely.

My issue here is the same one I had with Paidion a while back. I get from both of you the assumption that the wicked are being continually worn-down... That no matter how slow the process, each wicked individual will eventually cave to the pressure of God's grace. I think it is a faulty assumption that opportunity plus time equals actuality. Opportunity plus time only equals potentiality. There is no reason to think that, during even an unlimited amount of time, the wicked person is actually moving toward repentance (slowly or otherwise). They could very well be moving further AWAY from God. In such a case, the longer the time, the LESS LIKELY their reconciliation becomes. We certainly see this sort of trajectory in this life and there is no good reason that I can think of for believing that it might not continue in the next.

Of course, in my view, as the person moves further and further away from God... they are simultaneously moving further and further away from the very source of life. This leads to their death. They are like an aging laptop. At some point they are unplugged from the power source for too long, too often, that even their formerly efficient battery life dies out. I'm holding to a merged position of eventual extinction with a hopeful universalist slant.

I'm also an open theist, so I think even God is only a 'hopeful' universalist.

[steve7150]

There is no reason to think that, during even an unlimited amount of time, the wicked person is actually moving toward repentance (slowly or otherwise). They could very well be moving further AWAY from God. In such a case, the longer the time, the LESS LIKELY their reconciliation becomes. We certainly see this sort of trajectory in this life and there is no good reason that I can think of for believing that it might not continue in the next.










There are a lot of things we don't know since we are looking through a glass darkly. Also we don't know what actual effect Satan has on the "wicked." According to Paul, Satan blinds minds so what might these wicked people really be like without Satanic influence.
From a Christian perspective Paul was wicked and could not have faith in Christ yet when he saw Christ he was changed in an instant. He couldn't have faith in Christ but seeing him changed everything and i suspect many people are like this.
If you look at people, everyone looks to be associated with something greater then themselves. It may be a sports team, or a country, or a club or group of like minded people, or political figures or political parties or enviormentalists. The list just goes on endlessly so the instinct to be part of something greater then us is inherently in everyone. Once Christ is seen face to face in the next age i think even the wicked and other unbelievers will want to be part of the kingdom of God.

[mattrose]

It's possible. I hope you are right.

[Paidion]

According to Paul, Satan blinds minds...

This may be a bit of a diversion from the topic, but Paul doesn't actually say that Satan blinds the minds of them that believe not. Consider Irenæus's explanation of this passage:

1. As to their affirming that Paul said plainly in the Second [Epistle] to the Corinthians, "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not,"51 and maintaining that there is indeed one god of this world, but another who is beyond all principality, and beginning, and power, we are not to blame if they, who give out that they do themselves know mysteries beyond God, know not how to read Paul. For if any one read the passage thus-according to Paul's custom, as I show elsewhere, and by many examples, that he uses transposition of words-"In whom God," then pointing it off, and making a slight interval, and at the same time read also the rest [of the sentence] in one [clause], "hath blinded the minds of them of this world that believe not," he shall find out the true [sense]; that it is contained in the expression, "God hath blinded the minds of the unbelievers of this world." And this is shown by means of the little interval [between the clause]. For Paul does not say, "the God of this world," as if recognising any other beyond Him; but he confessed God as indeed God. And he says, "the unbelievers of this world," because they shall not inherit the future age of incorruption. I shall show from Paul himself, how it is that God has blinded the minds of them that believe not, in the course of this work, that we may not just at present distract our mind from the matter in hand, [by wandering] at large.

2. From many other instances also, we may discover that the apostle frequently uses a transposed order in his sentences, due to the rapidity of his discourses, and the impetus of the Spirit which is in him. An example occurs in the [Epistle] to the Galatians, where he expresses himself as follows: "Wherefore then the law of works?52 It was added, until the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator."53 For the order of the words runs thus: "Wherefore then the law of works? Ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator, it was added until the seed should come to whom the promise was made,"-man thus asking the question, and the Spirit making answer. And again, in the Second to the Thessalonians, speaking of Antichrist, he says, "And then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus Christ54 shall slay with the Spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy him55 with the presence of his coming; [even him] whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders."56 Now in these [sentences] the order of the words is this: "And then shall be revealed that wicked, whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the Spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the presence of His coming." For he does not mean that the coming of the Lord is after the working of Satan; but the coming of the wicked one, whom we also call Antichrist. If, then, one does not attend to the [proper] reading [of the passage], and if he do not exhibit the intervals of breathing as they occur, there shall be not only incongruities, but also, when reading, he will utter blasphemy, as if the advent of the Lord could take place according to the working of Satan. So therefore, in such passages, the hyperbaton must be exhibited by the reading, and the apostle's meaning following on, preserved; and thus we do not read in that passage, "the god of this world," but, "God," whom we do truly call God; and we hear [it declared of] the unbelieving and the blinded of this world, that they shall not inherit the world of life which is to come.