Hell

[Candlepower]

I've found that many (maybe most) people, until they make some effort to do otherwise, have certain topics on which they simply can't see, hear, or think clearly and objectively. Sadly, this is as much a problem with Christians, who should know better, as with anyone else. For you and John, Christian universalism seems to be one of those topics.

Well said, Backwoodsman.

Your observation reminds me of something I heard an Army General say. The General was answering questions at a press briefing (I think it was during the Gulf War), and during the briefing a particular reporter asked him the same question four times. The General was patient with the reporter, who apparently would not (or could not) process the General's thrice-repeated answer. But after the reporter repeated the question a fourth time, the exasperated General responded, "Sir, you are stuck on stupid!" That was a classic! And the General was right!

I think the General's rebuke, put bluntly, applies to folks who "until they make some effort to do otherwise, have certain topics on which they simply can't see, hear, or think clearly and objectively."

[Homer]

And on and on the ad hominem rolls. The implication is clear; JR and I are stupid.

Reminds me of years ago when William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal engaged in a series of televised debates. As the debates continued, Vidal soon degenerated into little more than name calling and invective. A sure sign of a loser.

[Homer]

Steve,

You wrote:

I am not sure what you find to mock in my application of Deut.22 to the principle of "silence gives consent." If you read the passage, you will see that, if the adulterous deed occurred in an unpopulated area where the woman's screams could not have been heard, she is to be given the benefit of the doubt about her lack of consent. However, if it occurred in the city, it is assumed that any such screams could have been heard, and she might thus have been rescued. Her silence, in a setting where cries for help could have been heard, implies her consent to the sexual encounter. It is therefore assumed not to be a case of rape, and she justly suffers the same penalty for adultery as does the man. Your mockery implies that you see the principle underlying this law differently. Can you explain the difference in meaning that you are seeing? Can you find a more precise biblical example of the principle to which I referred? How are you seeing this?

You ask how I am seeing this. I have no disagreement with the LOM regarding rape. What I do not see is that there is any broadly applicable principle established in the case in Deuteronomy. Perhaps I have missed it.

Consider:
“Luther desired to maintain in the Church all that was not expressly contrary to the Scriptures, and Zwingli (a Swiss reformer) to abolish all that could not be proved by them. The German reformer wished to remain united to the Church of the preceding ages, and was content to purify it of all that was opposed to the Word of God. The Zurich reformer passed over these ages, returned to the apostolic times, and, carrying out an entire transformation of the Church, endeavored to restore it to its primitive condition. Zwingli's reformation was therefore the more complete” (History Of The Reformation Of The Sixteenth Century. d'Aubigne, J.H.M. pp. 401-402).

So if your principle of "silence giving consent" is the rule in the Church we have nothing to stand on regarding infant baptism, for it is nowhere forbidden. And we must approve of the many innovations of the Catholic Church, including the Pope. Surely you must know this principle you cite is highly contested.

Consider the scriptures regarding this "silence gives consent" principle and see if it is valid (I will leave it to the reader to look them up). In Leviticus 10:1-2 we find Nadab and Abihu slain by the Lord because they offered strange fire "He had not commanded". They made an offering God was silent about. In Hebrews 7:11-14 we find that Moses said nothing about priests coming from the tribe of Judah. According to "silence is consent", someone from the tribe of Judah could be a priest. And Jesus said nothing about conversion after death, so you think it is fine to teach and promote it.

Regarding immediate repentance post-mortem you didn't respond to the point I was trying to make:

(me)

But suppose it is as claimed that this confession of Jesus as Lord is indeed the "ticket out of hell" you decry. According to your "silence" principle we can say that when confronted by Jesus on judgment day the condemned can say "Jesus is Lord" and go straight to heaven. And who can say they can't? Scripture says nothing about it so according to you we can advocate and teach it.

(you)

What is the "silence principle" that applies to this case? The scripture is not silent about the means of salvation. Why do you speak as if it is? That sincerity of repentance is required is a matter upon which scripture is far from silent.

(me)

But you say they haven't repented? How would you know they didn't when confronted with the risen Jesus? They all might repent en masse. Never to late they say, so how can they claim it to be too early?

(you)

Are you suggesting that, if their repentance is not sincere, God will be fooled by it? And if their repentance is sincere, do you begrudge them the same salvation that you received in precisely the same manner?

You know very well that the so called evangelical universalists teach that the lost will be reformed in hell which may take a thousand years or so (perhaps I should qualify that since in a speculative system there may be no uniform agreement). My point is that if UR is true, there is nothing to rule out immediate conversion upon being confronted by Jesus. And it can not be said the repentance will not be sincere. The question then is, is it too late? That is the whole of my argument.

I know you have some near and dear to you who aren't in the Church and this no doubt affects your inclination in this matter. I sympathize with you. We have one near and dear to us who is a professed atheist. He is a good guy as far as that goes; kind, generous, sympathetic with those suffering, opposed to war. He has many good qualities and is very intelligent. As far as Christianity goes, he says "I don't need it". And I have no doubt he will immediately and sincerely repent when faced with the risen Christ. So if universalism is true, why would he not immediately go to heaven? We have been repeatedly assured God's punishments are only corrective. What would be the point in him going to hell according to universalism?

You wrote:

The rule is: "qui tacet consentire videtur" (silence gives consent). This legal principle is also assumed (and therefore confirmed) in the Mosaic legislation (Deut.22:23-27).

From the Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs regarding silence is consent:

This is not a principle accepted in modern English law.

And if people repent and are saved post-mortem that is fine with me. But I see it as false teaching.

Regarding baptism as necessary for salvation, I just heard you say so on the radio. Perhaps you misspoke. But you are wrong about what I have said for a long time, and said to you: It is normative to conversion.

[steve]

You know very well that the so called evangelical universalists teach that the lost will be reformed in hell which may take a thousand years or so (perhaps I should qualify that since in a speculative system there may be no uniform agreement). My point is that if UR is true, there is nothing to rule out immediate conversion upon being confronted by Jesus. And it can not be said the repentance will not be sincere. The question then is, is it too late? That is the whole of my argument.

I think I do know what universalist writers believe, since I read as many of them as I could obtain in my preparation for writing on the subject. It is my impression that they believe that all God is requiring of man is sincere repentance. I don't think any of them would object to the possibility of such repentance being immediate upon seeing Jesus, though, if it is not immediate, there are further dealings at God's disposal to soften their hearts. Therefore (as has been recently pointed out), your argument seems to come from an ignorance of the actual position you are eager to refute.

We have one near and dear to us who is a professed atheist. He is a good guy as far as that goes; kind, generous, sympathetic with those suffering, opposed to war. He has many good qualities and is very intelligent. As far as Christianity goes, he says "I don't need it". And I have no doubt he will immediately and sincerely repent when faced with the risen Christ. So if universalism is true, why would he not immediately go to heaven? We have been repeatedly assured God's punishments are only corrective. What would be the point in him going to hell according to universalism?

None, if he is repentant. The object is to bring someone to genuine repentance. Universalists do not require any particular minimum amount of time for that to occur. If it happens immediately, its all good! Would you be disappointed if your friend genuinely repented at the judgment seat of Christ, received forgiveness, and avoided hell altogether? You sound like this is your sentiment.

Regarding baptism as necessary for salvation, I just heard you say so on the radio. Perhaps you misspoke.

I always try to make it clear that I regard salvation as a restoration to a life of obedience to God, and that baptism is an important part of that obedience. I do not regard "salvation" as a synonym for "escaping hell." Therefore, I believe that salvation is a necessary part of what the Bible refers to as salvation. However, it may not always be a prerequisite for escaping hell, since we know there will be many unbaptized people in heaven (e.g., Abraham, Moses, David, the thief on the cross, etc.).

[jriccitelli]

"...an unarmed man." (Steve)

I have found that scripture, a sense of humor, and common sense of the obvious are a good defense. Your UR position lacks scripture…

[jriccitelli]

Steve and Backwoods, a Mormon will say he believes Jesus is his savior, and that Mormons believe they are saved by grace. Do I understand their position? Yes, that is why I argue that they do not really believe Jesus is their Savior, nor do they actually believe they are saved by grace.
This is semantics, UR changes the definitions so that you think you are saying the same thing as scripture, but you do not believe the plain meaning. UR is adding to the words of scripture, adding another scenario, and suggesting another way to be saved. When God says you will surely die, God means just that. The UR position is saying the death God speaks of is ‘only’ the temporal death (UR is saying no one will surely die). God says that there is a Judgment and a second death, UR tells you death is temporal, we cannot believe you cannot see how UR changes this, and the difference this makes. UR has people walking out of the Lake of fire and you think I’m the crazy one???

[steve7150]

UR has people walking out of the Lake of fire and you think I’m the crazy one???











Exactly right JR, that's the image i have. A shallow lake that folks can walk out of and into the open gates of New Jerusalem. God could have conveyed an abyss which could be sealed or he could have said the gates of New Jerusalem are always shut and with either image UR would be in dire straits.

[Michelle]

’Universal love of God for His creatures’? I think maybe a general love, but not an intimate or relationship love for creatures. This is clear in the fact that this ‘love’ has to synchronized with God destroying creatures and telling us He has the right to do so, I think that is the uniform teaching of scripture.

Hi, jriccetelli. When you are done with this UR discussion (will it ever be done??) could you expound this? I'm really curious about what you believe about God's love. I am pretty sure that for you the topic of love is vast. Maybe it is for everyone, come to think of it. Would you at least contrast for me the idea of "general love" vs. "intimate or relationship love"? I could start a new thread in a different area of the board if you'd like...if you're interested in answering, that is.

So...no?

[Singalphile]

Hello all,

For what it's worth, I more or less agree with jr. I too wish that all people who ever live(d) would reconcile themselves to God, but I'm persuaded (so far) by the teachings of Scripture that some will rather not.

Hope you all have a good and peaceful Christmas!

[jriccitelli]

7150, Sorry, I did not mean ‘you’ are crazy, because you are willing to reason for your position. What I find disingenuous and crazy is ‘pretending’ that the other arguments have been effectively answered (and endorsing or using schoolyard slander and insults to try and win their position, and then acting as if they are innocent).

You actually model the opposite, you engage (I like talking to you, and your reasonable spirit). I appreciate that many others here who hold to UR, and otherwise, have been able to engage these arguments, and see the differences, and try to reason them through, and educate me too, this is the great part , maybe I'm wrong, but where?
Nevertheless, since we’re on the subject:
How can God use any physical analogy at all if such a picture cannot be conveyed?
You have ‘fire’, in hundreds of previous contexts denoted irreversible destruction and finality, again in the clear context of a final Judgment, you have God Himself ‘throwing’ them into a ‘Lake’ of fire. The throwing part can’t be understated or missed, as it has been used in scripture before of intentional discard and rejection.

What if I threw my neighbors Christmas gift into a lake of fire, what would I be conveying?
(Just trying to keep in the context of the holidays)