Alternative Views of Hell

[Guest]

Sigh! So many verses wrenched from their context, often thrown out as though they proved a point, while the whole counsel of God is ignored. A wise man once said that it is not what the bible says that matters, but what it means.

A man says Eve gave birth to frogs. His friend replies "where did you get that idea?" Response: "Its in the Bible, in Genesis. Says right there in the scriptures tha Eve is the mother of all the living; frogs are alive aren't they?" I am reminded of much that has been said in this thread.

So it is God's will that all men be saved which supposedly guarantees universal salvation. I believe God's will is not always done. I must hasten add that in a sense God has more than one will. He has a determined will. All God determines will happen does in fact happen. God also has a desired will. It is His desire that certain things happen but He is not determined that they happen. It was not God's desired will that men live so wickedly that He had to destroy the earth in the flood. God was grieved over the state of man but in a sense it was His will because he permitted it to happen although He always has a veto. In the same way God desires all to be saved but he does not force it to happen. Forced love is no love at all.

My belief of the sovereignty of God is that nothing happens apart from His dertermination that it happen or His choosing to allow it to happen. "Not a sparrow falls apart from the Father". Not that God is busy killing sparrows but He is aware and permits their death.

In an article by Luke Post, "The Door Jesus Cannot Open", Post comments: "Suppose technology advances until manufacturers begin producing humanlike computers. These computers look and act like humans. They reason perfectly and always seem to do and say the right things. How many of us would really want one of these computer-humans for a spouse? How many people would line up to buy a 'robot-kid' rather than having a child naturally? The idea of putting robots in the place of those we love is repulsive to us, We innately recognize that no matter how perfectly something may act, if it is incapable of freely choosing its actions, it is incapable of love.....God can not force love. Forced love is a contradiction in terms and, therefore, nonsensical."

I attend a Christian Church, independent. They call us the "Indies".

Wonderful post, Homer.

We prolly attend similar churches. I regularly attend a non-denom.

[Guest]

As Paidion pointed out the translation of "aion" should not be eternal therefore in the original greek there is no eternal punishment. I do agree with Homer that forced love is not real love but people can change with the right motivation. Paul called himself the "chief sinner" and he changed from a Christ hater to a Christ lover in 30 seconds when he met Christ face to face. A human heart can be melted.
Since Jesus is God scripture says "he is the same yesterday,today and tomorrow." So his moral standards don't change,they remain the same.Therefore when he says "love your enemies" that's an eternal moral statement as is "pray for those who persecute you" and when his most vile haters crucified him he said "Father forgive them." Are these just empty words with no substance. He knew these people rejected him,he knew that his sacrifice would NOT COVER these people IN THIS LIFE yet he still prayed for their forgiveness. Jesus only prayed for things in his Father's will and Jesus has been given "ALL POWER in heaven and on earth" so it sounds like it's his call how to judge unbelievers.
Homer said forgiving unbelievers is "an insult to Christ" and JJ said it "cancels the atonement" but Jesus's opinion was to" FORGIVE THEM for they know not what they do."
That does'nt mean they get a free pass into heaven but it means there can be some process of repentance and reconciliation and restoration but still through Christ as Lord.

[Guest]

Steve 7150,

Certainly Jesus asked that God bring about forgiveness for those who crucified Him, but what did He mean? I doubt that He had in mind forgiveness apart from repentance. It seems to me quite likely God answered Jesus' request on the day of Pentecost, at least with 3000 of them, who, in Peter's words, "...this Jesus, whom you crucified... Peter went on to demand that they "repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins."

Did Peter faithfully carry out his commission or did he error in attaching conditions to their being forgiven? Wasn't this exactly what Jesus had in mind when He prayed?

I am very far from the universalist position. I have believed for some time that there may well be certain persons, prior to their death, whom God has already judged and who have no further chance to repent because they have become so hardened. The gospel is like "pearls before swine" to them and only hardens them further. "The spirit of God will not contend with man forever".

I must add that I would not dare to say who even one of these people might be.

[Guest]

Homer, I believe one can be forgiven but without repentence there can not be any reconciliation. So when Jesus on the cross said "Father forgive them" the them he means is every single human being who is responsible for his crucifixion which is everyone. Forgiveness just allows for the opportunity for repentence. And that brings us back to square 1 which is whether one's eternal destination is sealed in this life even though billions of people never heard of Christ such as muslims,hindus,buddahists etc. The disparity in opportunity of someone brought up in a Jesus loving christian family verses others is mind boggling. It makes salvation almost like a lottery game ,to whom are you born,where and when are you born. What if you were born before bibles were widely available or you were just illiterate or just deceived? Easy to love Jesus when you're brought up by believing God fearing parents,what if you're brought up by angry atheist parents who hate God and you die at the age of 16? Gonna spend eternity in hell? That's not justice and God is a just God. Steve7150

[Guest]

I have various problems with the doctrine of universalism. But first off it would be fair for me to state that I adhere to the Calvinist theological system.

According to Calvinist theology we as humans are totally depraved in our nature. We are walking abominations on the Lords creation. We abhor God and His ways in the deepest recesses of our hearts. The foolishness of our thinking is shown in how we constantly seek to be our own god and exalt ourselves above the Lord.

For me the doctine of universalism is a doctrinal stance that seeks to look at God from a humanitarian perspective. I believe that humanitarian philosophy has infiltrated the church. Just as you can see various other philosophies all throughout the ages influencing the thinking of individuals in the church.

From mans' perspective we are called to look at each other as equals. So naturally the idea of one man going to heaven and another to hell seems unjust to us. Especially if that hell consists for all eternity. But I constantly need to humble myself and ask if I'm seeking to understand God and His ways from my own understanding. Am I seeking to see Him through the lens of my own fallible man-made philosophies? Philosophy has it's place but only when submitted to the light of Scripture.

I'm not much for debating but my main issue is that it would be unjust for me to minimize the reality of sin and of God's wrath.

[Guest]

From mans' perspective we are called to look at each other as equals. So naturally the idea of one man going to heaven and another to hell seems unjust to us. Especially if that hell consists for all eternity. But I constantly need to humble myself and ask if I'm seeking to understand God and His Same for myself and i see nothing in Calvinism that is scriptural. We have sinful desires but i don't see total depravity as scriptural nor do i see the totality of scripture supporting that God preordained to save a chosen few. IMO we become chosen by responding as scripture encourages us to do numerous times. We are capable of responding to the light that we see and if that is true then we are'nt totally depraved.
The universalism that i think may be possible does'nt preclude judgement in the lake of fire it only precludes eternal judgement for making wrong choices in our very brief life on earth. The word translated as eternal "aion" or "aionios" does not mean eternal it means age or ages upon ages. And the verse "once to die and then the judgement" which is usually used to preclude salvation after death does'nt mean "once to die and then the conviction" as the greek word "krisis" is like the english word crisis.

[Guest]

In my view, Calvinism and Universalism are VERY similar.

In Calvinism, God chooses some to go to heaven.

In Universalism, God chooses all to go to heaven.

Man's freedom of choice is totally out of the picture in both doctrines. To me, they are both equally destructive and illusory.

[Guest]

As far as eternal punishment, "ever and ever" seems like a pretty long time, and I'm not going to take my chances to find out.

"And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for <b>ever and ever</b>: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and <b>whosoever receiveth the mark of his name</b>" (Rev. 14)

[Guest]

In Universalism, God chooses all to go to heaven.

Man's freedom of choice is totally out of the picture in both doctrines. To me, they are both equally destructive and illusory.

Man can choose to remain in the lake of fire and still disobey God. In scripture "forever and ever" is often not literal i.e. Jonah was in the belly of the fish forever meant 3 days and nights. Forever usually means for as long as the thing lasts it is not used literally. Also if "forever" meant eternal why would the words "and ever" be added since you can't add to eternal. Also the "forever and ever" is directed at the devil and his helpers , it never says how long unbelievers are in the LOF but at some point (Rev 22.17) after New Jerusalem has come down the "Spirit and the bride" invite whosoever to partake in the water of life.

[Guest]

Hi frankandbeans,

Thanks for posting your thoughts. I myself am not a Universalist, though I am not sure why the adoption of a Calvinist view of God's sovereignty would work against adopting Universalism. If God can unilaterally elect and irresistibly call as many as He wishes to save, then there is nothing intrinsically illogical about Him wanting to save everybody, and doing so. In fact, such a desire on the part of God is frequently affirmed in scripture (Ezek.33:11/ Luke 14:23/ 1 Tim.2:4/ 2 Peter 3:9).

I would think it would be the Arminian, like myself, that would find Universalism difficult. I believe that God desires all men to be saved —not only in eternity, but in this life as well—yet, man's stubborn will prevents God's will from being done in many lives (e.g., Luke 7:30/ Matt.23:37). If God cannot overcome a man's stubbornness in this life, I am not sure that He can do so in the next. It seems that an Arminian view of free will is the greatest hindrance to belief in Universalism.

You indicated a disinclination to debate, and I wish to honor that. Without starting a debate, I would like to simply give a response to one of your paragraphs. You wrote:

"According to Calvinist theology we as humans are totally depraved in our nature. We are walking abominations on the Lords creation. We abhor God and His ways in the deepest recesses of our hearts. The foolishness of our thinking is shown in how we constantly seek to be our own god and exalt ourselves above the Lord. "

You are correct, I believe, in your representation of what Calvinist theology teaches. Though I was never a complete Calvinist, in my years as a Baptist, I would have been comfortable with this paragraph as well. In my own searching of the scriptures, I have come to doubt that the Bible actually teaches these things about all men. What I now believe the scriptures to teach seems to conform to that which is observable in the world of unregenerate men—namely, that some are worse than others.

There are many, indeed, who seem to "abhor God and His ways in the deepest recesses of [their] hearts," but I do not observe this to be universally so. It seems that many who are not Christians actually are interested in spiritual things and desirous to please God. Others may have few thoughts of God at all, but when He is mentioned, there is no evidence of deep abhorence, but of apparent curiosity and even reverence.

I think Calvinist (Augustinian) theology developed at a time when most Europeans were "officially" Christian, and when those who did not embrace Christianity were either scandalous reprobates or else the ruthless Barbarians that threatened the empire. It was easier to cast the non-Christian in such a bad light in those days than it is today, when Christian leaven has greatly permeated every village in every Western nation—resulting in many unregenerate people who have been civilized by the culture's adoption of Christian ideas and morals, some of whom even go to church, and exhibit no great abhorence toward God.

At least this is the impression I get from my contacts with the unconverted. If the Bible taught otherwise, I would, of course, submit to the scriptures on this. However, I know of no passage of scripture that broad-brushes the human race outside of Christ quite in the way that the Calvinistic doctrine of total depravity does.