Barclay was convinced (UR)

[Paidion]

I don't quite understand this objection. Why would a punishment (or discipline) that is calculated to restore the lost man from his delusive commitment to self-destruction be considered as anything other than loving? I never disciplined my children out of any motive other than love for them.

It is common for Christians to place God's love and His wrath in tension with each other. Thus, the argument seems to be, "God is often (usually?) loving, but we cannot deny His wrath and justice. Sometimes His love is overruled by His wrath and justice." If there is really a perceived conflict between God's judgment and His love (which I do not admit), then which would trump the other? Which is more dominant in God's character? If there is a tension between these two, doesn't mercy triumph over judgment (James 2:13)?

The Bible says that "God is love" (1 John 4:8). It does not add "but sometimes God simply cannot be loving." The Bible also says "God is Spirit" (John 4:24) and "God is Light" (1 John 1:5). Is it possible to think that God is only sometimes Spirit, and sometimes not. or that God is sometimes Light, but sometimes He has to be darkness? If God is love, then it is impossible for Him ever to act contrary to love—which is His nature. "He cannot deny Himself" (2 Tim.2:13).

Since punishment can as readily be loving as unloving, why should we doubt that God, who is love, would ever punish in any way that is not loving?

I completely agree with Steve's understanding concerning God's tough love.

For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.” (Hebrews 12:6)

If He disciplines His children with severe correction, why not his enemies also?

[Homer]

TheEditor wrote:

The questions I’ve posed for myself are: How is God to be viewed? How best to describe him? As a Judge to pardon or condemn? Or as a loving Father who would do anything within His righteous standards to save as many of His children as possible?

Which seems to beg the question. Who are God's children? The scriptures seem to teach that God has one child, Jesus, and the only others who could be called His children are adopted:

(All scripture quotes New King James Version)

John 1:12-13

12. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13. who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Romans 8:14

14. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

We see that some are not the children of God:

1 John 3:10

10. In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.

1 John 3:1

1. Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.

Notice, the world does not recognize us as children of God because they are not children of God themselves. The contrast is between those who accepted Jesus (the Children of God) and those who did not ("the world"). And the Fatherhood of God applies only to those who were not of "the world" but those who "know" Jesus Christ and thereby came out of the fallen world.

Where do we find in scriptures the universal fatherhood of God taught? Is it thought to be implied by our being created? But so were the animals. And Jesus taught that the opportunity to become God's children was limited:

John 12:35-36

35. Then Jesus said to them, “A little while longer the light is with you. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you; he who walks in darkness does not know where he is going. 36. While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.”

Paidion wrote:

If He disciplines His children with severe correction, why not his enemies also?

Are there examples from scriptures where God practiced this? It seems that He usually destroyed them, at least insofar as He interacted with them.

It seems to me that the universalist has a rather one-dimensional view of God and a faulty view of man. Man is not wicked or bad, just weak and/or ignorant.

[TheEditor]

Hi Homer,

I am not a firm supporter of UR, nor do I believe the Scriptures teach a "fatherhood of all" concept. I do believe that God (for some reasons, apparently known only to Him), recommended His love to us while we were yet sinners. God apparently thinks enough of His creation that He was willing to allow His unique son to suffer an ignominious death to reconcile us to Himself (however the Ransom works, which is another discussion entirely). Whatever justice God metes out I cannot help but believe will be in harmony with His mercy and love. When I was a JW, and I was breaking mindsets, I was known to occasionally quip "I can't envision God as some great cosmic Groucho Marx saying, 'Close but no cigar.'" Opportunity, to accept God's mercy is more my issue than whether or not everyone will ultimately avail themselves of it.

Regards, Brenden.

[jriccitelli]

Steve responded to my post (on Dec 6) saying; "There is no injustice in giving people the opportunity to repent"
I already stated a few times (Note Dec 2) that I 'hope' all people get a second ‘chance’ to repent, and that a second chance to accept the Gospel is ‘possible’ but I cannot teach it as confirmed from the Bible. Universalism reconciliation means that everyone (and it must be every 'one' or it is not universal) will be saved.
If just ‘one’ does not repent, then it is then Conditional.
"God can do anything He wants to do" (Steve)
Now there is something I can affirm.
"The contention of most Christians, whether UR or not, is that God’s love compels Him to want to save all and to destroy none' (Steve)
Sure ‘I want’ everyone to be saved, as well ‘God wants’ everyone to be saved, but that still does not mean they 'all' will repent.
"I have never read a follower of universal reconciliation who believed that people will be saved who “remain sinners" (Steve)
I was making a point, of course not. UR says every single human will have a true sincere acceptance of the Gospel, you are saying every single person will want to be saved, we just have no good evidence of men behaving this way, in scripture, or in life. Some may live out their punishment, and still never want a holy life with God. It just gets absurd to have people tortured solely so they make a confession; maybe even after there sentence is finished. I think some people may not want to live eternally with God, seems to me God’s grace is to let them die.
"The idea is that hell is a place that brings people to a change of heart" (Steve)
Still many do not see UR verses containing ‘all’, and such, to be conclusive evidence that all ‘will accept’ the Gospel. As you yourself have said, "The truth is, if the Bible really told us, clearly and unequivocally… this discussion wouldn't exist" (Steve)
You said; "I am not sure why this would be difficult to imagine. When we discipline our children, we hope that this will turn them around"
Yeah we ‘hope’ that this will turn them around, but that is not always the case. In fact the Bible and life gives us example after example of people going back to sin, and punishment not having a lasting effect. We simply do not know if everyone will repent.
"God encourages me to think it possible for the same to happen to others. Why not" (Steve)
Miracles happen, but not often enough. For example; God encouraged me to think about Thanksgiving day; All over the whole country people had opportunity to simply give God thanks, I know ‘some’ did, some more so. But still many don’t give thanks or even a thought to God. Many ‘christians’ even. It seems everyone is more interested in gossip, TV, and who knows what else. God rarely seems to be much of a thought to many people I observe. I think those who have never heard 'may' have opportunity, but those who have been surrounded by Churches on every corner of the western world may be held accountable for their neglect. Indeed our Word has gone out.
"Is your objection that God might confuse fake repentance for the real thing?" (Steve)
Of course not. I am perplexed by you twice referring to me as a ‘traditionalist’, I think you must think I am arguing for the ET view (?) It seems clear to me that God will punish and destroy (Eventually annihilate) sinners who do not repent, pre, or post mortem.

[jriccitelli]

..."I don’t see how there is any risk in saying that God will accept all who truly repent"
I don’t see any risk in that either, no problem if all 'do' repent, but UR has it that ‘Everyone will repent’, that is the thing that is wrong. We do not know this for a fact.
It is dangerous because it may be a false hope, this is a stretching of truth, and a stretching of the 'true' hope contained in scripture. People may believe it and think the Bible clearly teaches everyone ‘will’ be saved, and that they will all, without a doubt, have a second chance to repent.
We do not know for sure, and to base this doctrine on the ‘irresistible love idea of UR’, and the misuse of the term ‘Fatherhood’ of God (Which I see Homer addressed) is to the dismissal of mountains of verse to the effect that salvation is;
Conditional, through faith, that it is urgent, that the great and terrible day of the Lord is coming, that many did ‘not’ enter in, that these things were written as an example to us, that men are but beasts to return to the dust, men are as the grass, then the ground opened up and the people went alive down to sheol, today I am setting before you a blessing and a curse, today I have set before you life and death, the fear of the lord is the beginning of knowledge, I have come to test you, and the Lord was sorry he had made man on the earth… I will blot out man who I have created, God wipes out entire cities and tribes, He destroys all the first born, unless they had the blood of the Lamb, unless they look upon the serpent that Moses lifted up, unless they are born again, unless I come and strike the earth with a curse, unless you repent you too shall likewise die in your sins, etc., every page has warnings, I cannot put any faith in a doctrine that supposes that all men will repent, or will have the opportunity, we don’t know that, and it ‘may’ be too late if they reject the opportunity they have here and now.
So I must warn them, because I love them, and because someone warned me.
If I say 'peace peace' and there is no peace, I will be responsible for misleading them.

And as Steve said this morning to the caller Maria: Jesus wasn’t as concerned with drawing huge crowds, as he was with making ‘true’ disciples.

[Paidion]

I don’t see any risk in that either, no problem if all 'do' repent, but UR has it that ‘Everyone will repent’, that is the thing that is wrong.

What's "wrong" about it? Why does it seem impossible to you? Do you see the following assertion as "wrong"?

Every healthy adult in the United states will eat food at some point before a month expires.

No one forces them to eat. They choose to eat. You could say that their physical structure "forces" them to eat. But it doesn't. Every one of them has free will, and could choose to refrain from eating if they wanted to do so. After all, some people have fasted for 40 days. The bolded statement above is likely true, but it could be false.

Now in the case of hell as a place or state of correction, with the influences upon the people who will be sent there — the words of the manifested sons of God whom God may send to minister to them, combined with the influence of God Himself, combined with their suffering, they can still hold out. They have the free will to do so. I suppose it is possible for some of them to hold out for 100 years ... or even 1000 years. But is it reasonable to say that any of them can hold out forever? It is theoretically possible, but in practice it will not happen. Just as it is theoretically possible to throw a die forever and never have a 6 turn up. But in practice, a 6 is going to turn up — sooner or later.

[jriccitelli]

Take a parable of the baker; My wife was baking a batch of cookies last night, and after having put a large batch of sheet cookie dough into the oven she realized, after baking for a couple minutes, that she had only mixed the butter and sugar and had left out the flour (bread), she pulled the large dish out of the oven and I helped her add the flour, which did not mix very well, and we put it back in the oven. Despite the chocolate flavor they were hard and well unfit, only to be spewed out of the mouth. (This really happened!)
I have a feeling 'some' people just get harder, and the Words of God just don’t mix after awhile.
I know God is compassionate and long suffering to a thousand generations, that being true still, my wife responded to this 'keeping people in hell a long time till they repent' by saying; “If it’s gonna take that long, why bother? Even God knows when to toss them.” (She said it, not me)

“Every person in the United states who has tasted the Good Word of God, and then falls away… if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless, and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned”
The above statement is likely true, like it, or not.
I think every person who has spent a night out shivering in the cold has said “Lord help me”, but do people call his name when they are 'comfortable', fed, prosperous, entertained, having everything? As Adam and Eve did.
The real test is when things are good;

7 "Remember the days of old, Consider the years of all generations. Ask your father, and he will inform you, Your elders, and they will tell you…14 Curds of cows, and milk of the flock, With fat of lambs, And rams, the breed of Bashan, and goats, With the finest of the wheat-- And of the blood of grapes you drank wine.15 "But Jeshurun grew fat and kicked, You are grown fat, thick, and sleek, Then he forsook God who made him, And scorned the Rock of his salvation…18 "You neglected the Rock who begot you, And forgot the God who gave you birth…20 "Then He said, 'I will hide My face from them, I will see what their end shall be; For they are a perverse generation, Sons in whom is no faithfulness…22 For a fire is kindled in My anger, And burns to the lowest part of Sheol, And consumes the earth with its yield, And sets on fire the foundations of the mountains…26 'I would have said, "I will cut them to pieces, I will remove the memory of them from men… 29 "Would that they were wise, that they understood this, That they would discern their future!
(Deuteronomy 32:7-29)

However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" (Romans 10:16)

[Paidion]

"Would that they were wise, that they understood this, That they would discern their future!(Deuteronomy 32:7-29)

Yes, they would certainly be wise if they discerned their future — if they understood the pain of the tough love they would experience, they would surely repent NOW.

However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" (Romans 10:16)

True enough. They did not all heed the good news. However, that fact does not imply that they never will.

Can you quote any passage which teaches that death is the cutoff point after which there is no possibility of repentance? Or do you accept this idea only because you were taught it?

[Colin]

Can you quote any passage which teaches that death is the cutoff point after which there is no possibility of repentance? Or do you accept this idea only because you were taught it?

I guess my question back to you would be if you can quote any passage that clearly states that subsequent to the judgement and sentencing of Revelation 20:11-15, those who are sentenced to the LOF can have their sentence lifted. It seems that this is the last direct mention of these folks in scripture. To say that they will be corrected, reach out to Christ, be justified and released from the LOF may be a theory but it doesn't seem to say that those events will actually occur specifically post-LOF anywhere in the Bible, unless I'm really missing something. Every time there is a mention of casting into the LOF, or otherwise casting out, etc. that is the end of the matter. There doesn't seem to be a verse that says "I will cast them out into the LOF, correct them, and then bring them back." If that is the game plan scripture seems to be silent on it.

If you believe either in ET or CI, the LOF is the endgame and this silence would be consistant with that. If you are looking at UR, this silence isn't fatal to your theory, but it certainly makes one curious why the events that would occur in UR are not mentioned when so much else is.

[TheEditor]

Greetings,

I'm not sure if this helps the conversation or has been considered, please forgive me if I am being redundant. When I was a JW the official teaching of the organization was that in order to survive the wrath to come, one needed to be "right with God", which really meant, be a Witness. One of the first things that struck me as I started to reevaluate my postions while still a JW, was Jesus teaching on the unforgivable sin.

“Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.--Matt. 12:31, 32.

I was always troubled by this passage, as presumably, in order to be outside of the pale of God's forgiveness, one would have to be guilty of this sin. Various commentators have reasoned that this sin would be a sin against knowledge, as in the case of the Jews who knew that Jesus was performing works of God, by lyingly attributed them to that of Satan. (Compare Luke 10:13-15; Matt. 11:20-24) If then, a person is ignorant, can one be guilty of eternal condemnation? This crack in the bullwork I had built up around my theological paradigm ultimately resulted in my leaving the JW community.

However, I wonder if this point could also be germaine to our discussion here of UR and perhaps more pointedly of future probation/opportunity to enter into God's family?

Regards, Brenden.