Hell

[steve7150]

Interesting opinion, Steve. I'm curious to know more about what you are thinking here. Do mean that you THINK that God wants us to learn EVIL in order to be able to avoid it? Why do you THINK that God prohibited Adam and Eve from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Was it in order for them to disobey and become what God wants us to be?

Michelle

Posts: 670
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:16 pm



Hi Michele,

Yes i think it was in God's purposes that Eve and then Adam would disobey. Eve already had all the sins of the world (according to John) built into her heart. Lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes and the pride of life all emerged as she looked at the tree. If that wasn't enough then God either sent Satan or allowed him to deceive Eve, therefore i think it was meant to happen. I don't think there was a fall, i think this was God's purpose from before the foundation of the world.
Jesus said we should become more like God and in Genesis, God said "knowing good and evil they have become like us." I think this is prophetic and is the purpose of this encounter. As to why we need to experience evil, i can only guess but i think it has to do with maturation. God wants us "to man up" or "women up" as the case may be.

[backwoodsman]

And so the ad hominem continues.......

Hardly. JR has been encouraged a number of times (as have you, if memory serves) to educate himself a little on Christian universalism, and then address what it actually believes with which he disagrees, rather than continuing to argue against misunderstandings and (no doubt unintentional) misrepresentations of the position. So far, all indications are that both of you have failed to do so. Much as some apparently wish otherwise, it's simply not possible to carry on a discussion with someone who, for whatever reason, will not familiarize himself with the topic. The irony is, it could've been done in less time than he's spent attacking pseudo-Christian-universalist straw men in this forum, and the result would've been much more profitable for everyone.

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. That's why responses have become so sparse -- if you want a meaningful response, you have to make a meaningful point, or ask a meaningful question.

[Michelle]

Interesting opinion, Steve. I'm curious to know more about what you are thinking here. Do mean that you THINK that God wants us to learn EVIL in order to be able to avoid it? Why do you THINK that God prohibited Adam and Eve from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Was it in order for them to disobey and become what God wants us to be?

Michelle

Posts: 670
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:16 pm



Hi Michele,

Yes i think it was in God's purposes that Eve and then Adam would disobey. Eve already had all the sins of the world (according to John) built into her heart. Lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes and the pride of life all emerged as she looked at the tree. If that wasn't enough then God either sent Satan or allowed him to deceive Eve, therefore i think it was meant to happen. I don't think there was a fall, i think this was God's purpose from before the foundation of the world.
Jesus said we should become more like God and in Genesis, God said "knowing good and evil they have become like us." I think this is prophetic and is the purpose of this encounter. As to why we need to experience evil, i can only guess but i think it has to do with maturation. God wants us "to man up" or "women up" as the case may be.

Thanks for sharing your insight! Would you mind explaining further how God wants us "to man up" or "woman up"? I don't want to assume what you mean by this.

Michelle

[steve7150]

Thanks for sharing your insight! Would you mind explaining further how God wants us "to man up" or "woman up"? I don't want to assume what you mean by this.

Michelle









A not so good description of growing up or maturing. God is not looking for babes He wants mature people for something not yet revealed to us. Just my thoughts as i tend to try to reason things out.

[Homer]

Hi Backwoodsman,

You wrote:

Hardly. JR has been encouraged a number of times (as have you, if memory serves) to educate himself a little on Christian universalism, and then address what it actually believes with which he disagrees, rather than continuing to argue against misunderstandings and (no doubt unintentional) misrepresentations of the position.

To help JR and I out, would you be so kind as to list, say, the "top five" misunderstandings that you perceive in our ignorance of universalism? Perhaps then we can get to the heart of the matter.

[backwoodsman]

To help JR and I out, would you be so kind as to list, say, the "top five" misunderstandings that you perceive in our ignorance of universalism? Perhaps then we can get to the heart of the matter.

Well, I could go back through all the universalism threads (and those that were hijacked to attack UR) over the last couple years and make a list, and I'd gladly do that if I thought it might help. But you could do it yourselves as easily as I could; and if you (a) ignored them the first time around, and (b) don't think it's important enough to do the legwork yourselves, then it seems to me that my doing it would accomplish nothing except to waste my time.

Actually, undoubtedly the best idea would be simply to get a well-chosen book or two on the subject and do a little reading. I've made suggestions in that regard multiple times (to John; I don't remember if I've suggested it directly to you), and since then I hear there's a new book that's very good.

[steve]

To help JR and I out, would you be so kind as to list, say, the "top five" misunderstandings that you perceive in our ignorance of universalism? Perhaps then we can get to the heart of the matter.

Homer,

Let's start with seven, drawn just from the past few days' posts. These same mistakes are found in both of your posts going back to the origins of this controversy at the forum. The points have never been raised without being clearly answered by others, but this doesn't stop you from coming back with the same red herrings again and again. I realize there are more citations from JR than from you, below, but that is simply because JR writes much more frequently. You have made more of these statements in the earlier years of the discussion:


1. Universalists don’t believe in a final judgment

“I tend to think scripture speaks of a definite Day/time of Judgment that separate’s the future and present age divided by a Judgment. This thinking spreads out across pre-Christian Judaism and apocryphal thinking.” (JR, 12/22/13, 4:45 PM)

“Indeed the church from ancient times has seen the "final" judgment as just that. And this is what I contend for and find unambiguous.” (Homer 12/18/13 5:16 PM)

The term "final judgment" will not be found in scripture. However, denial of such a judgment is not a necessary or common feature of restorationism. I don't know of any restorationist writer who suggests additional judgments after the one at the great white throne. Let us agree to refer to this as the "final judgment." From this point on, we can be either traditionlists, conditionalists or restorationists. Let's stop pretending that the "final judgment" is the sole property of one or another of the three views of hell, or that belief in such is somehow hostile to any of the views.


2. Universalism renders choices in this life meaningless

“And why was this whole world and the story of man from Adam to Christ created, played out, and detailed in a book full of warnings where we are commanded to 'believe' if it could be accomplished just by ‘seeing’ Jesus? “(JR, 12/22/13, 4:45 PM)

“Because [universalism] makes the whole effort spent on history, the Bible, and this world rather pointless if God had no purpose in all the warnings...so there must be some sense in making 'this' world the test.” (JR, 12/22/13, 4:45 PM)

Apparently, the only thing JR knows that would render a relationship with God desirable is its promise of escape from annihilation. Some Christians actually believe that there is a point in serving God throughout one's lifetime, even if deathbed repentance or post-mortem repentance are acknowledged as possibilities. Even if the only reason for serving God were (as JR seems to imagine) the escape from the horrors of hell, this reason would still pertain under the restorationist paradigm. Hell (like prison or any torture chamber) is a great place to avoid.


3. On the universalist view, there is no reason to worry about whether or not one dies prepared to meet God.

“A person could brush off what we see as clear warnings in scripture to the effect that you are without hope and dead unless you repent and believe in this world.” (JR, 12/10/13 6:37 PM)

“This may give the hearer a reason to put off repentance. UR says no matter how long you wait God will forever be ready to accept your repentance. UR can cause one to thinks it is ok to wait, even past death because the opportunity to repent will always be there for you.” (JR, 12/10/13 8:27 PM)

Many a child has known the fear of being taken by his father "to the woodshed"—though few imagined that their fathers would annihilate them there.These statements make one wonder whether the only thing that made JR, as a child, fear his father's wrath included the expectation that his father would exterminate him.



4. Universalism suggests that sin is “not that bad.”

“And as some UR would suggest it is ‘restorative punishment’, this would greatly reduce the fear I would have in regards to punishment for sin. I think I have just described the religion that most people believe; God will accept me as I am, and He wont let me suffer, or not for long because my sins are not so bad.” (JR, 12/10/13 8:27 PM)

The issue with restorationists is not whether sin is "that bad" or not. It is whether the atonement of Christ is "that good," and whether Christ has done all that is necessary to acquire to Himself what He came here to seek. Since JR is saved, rather than lost, it seems that he believes his sins are not as "bad" as those whom he thinks God would not, or should not, wish to save from hell.


5. Universalism denies that the wages of sin is death

“And again, this teaching is saying that you will not die, when scripture says you will die unless you repent, and the day is approaching (Heb 10:25).” (JR, 12/22/13, 4:45 PM)

No, universalism agrees that the soul that sins shall die. However, it also acknowledges that those who die will then be raised on the last day (John 5:28-29), and will thereafter be judged and sentenced. What becomes of them after that is what is being discussed here. JR has certainly been told this enough times that one would think he would recognize that this is what is under dispute.


6. Universalism is a dangerous doctrine, a perversion of a major Christian teaching.

“I think this teaching is as dangerous as denying the Deity of Christ, on par with salvation by works and disbelief in the authority of scripture.” (JR, 12/10/13 6:37 PM)

I, who am not a convinced universalist myself, find no reason to acknowledge the validity of this judgment. Nor has anyone provided any evidence that this assessment is correct. It is, in fact, counterintuitive. The only harm that you and JR have suggested may come from this teaching is that some people may not be adequately scared into submission. When I read the scriptures, I find that the norm is that we love God because He first loved us, not because He first frightened us. I imagine many do profess faith out of fear. However, I doubt if any genuinely come to love God out of fear. There is no fear in love.

What I think is a dangerous doctrine is the suggestion that God is such an unlovable character as to require Him, in order to find worshipers, to threaten grusome punishments to any who failed to find Him sufficiently attractive. Equally dangerous is the suggestion that a devotion which has only self-serving fear as its basis would be of any value in his eyes.



7. The universalist belief, in order to be valid, would require that someplace in scripture there should be a mention of a post-mortem “second chance.”

“…even the mention of a ‘second chance’ is absent…for those who reject Christ.” (JR, 12/9/13 11:24 PM)

“So where do we find that [the lost in hell] will be able or allowed to [repent], other than speculation?” (Homer 12/16/13 8:44 AM)

“I don't care to speculate on what the wicked may endure and see not one mention of post mortem salvation. So I think it is wise to maintain at least silence on the subject where the scriptures are silent.” (Homer 12/18/13 5:16 PM)

Silence may be construed as affirming or disconfirming. In law,** silence is deemed consent. If we ask the scriptures, "Is there any hope of salvation beyond the grave?" we might as easily construe the silence as consent as otherwise. I have maintained a hopeful agnosticism on the matter. You, on the other hand, are dogmatically speculating that God cuts off the opportunity for repentance at death—an entirely arbitrary speculation without a shred of scriptural support. Where the scriptures are silent, perhaps we should be.

Ironically, JR also wrote:

“I agree it is plausible that those who really never had a good chance may get a chance to respond. I can tell people that after death there ‘could’ be a first chance to hear and ‘possibly’ a second chance to ‘respond’ to the Gospel, and repent. But note the group you noted isn't those who reject, or worse. Many times, more than below, I have stated that ‘second chance’ is possible though, yet with considerations” (JR 12/14/13 10:21 AM)

“I guess you are missing the what I have already said many times previously in these debates: I believe there could be a second chance to repent post-mortem (I have noted this numerous times)...” (JR 12/16/13 6:34 AM)

Since there is no scripture that encourages this hope any more than there is for that of the restorationist, it is inconsistent to be hopeful for one and to leave no hope of the other. Of course, the reason for JR's hopefulness is his assessment of the benevolence of God. This is the same basis as that for the restorationist's hope.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** 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).

[Homer]

“So where do we find that [the lost in hell] will be able or allowed to [repent], other than speculation?” (Homer 12/16/13 8:44 AM)

“I don't care to speculate on what the wicked may endure and see not one mention of post mortem salvation. So I think it is wise to maintain at least silence on the subject where the scriptures are silent.” (Homer 12/18/13 5:16 PM)


Silence may be construed as affirming or disconfirming. In law,** silence is deemed consent. If we ask the scriptures, "Is there any hope of salvation beyond the grave?" we might as easily construe the silence as consent as otherwise. I have maintained a hopeful agnosticism on the matter. You, on the other hand, are dogmatically speculating that God cuts off the opportunity for repentance at death—an entirely arbitrary speculation without a shred of scriptural support. Where the scriptures are silent, perhaps we should be.

** 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).

That is rich Steve. Profound application of the Mosaic law about rape. Now we see that we need to give the Mormans, Muslims, etc. some slack regarding all that stuff the scriptures are silent about.

Apparently, the only thing JR knows that would render a relationship with God desirable is its promise of escape from annihilation. Some Christians actually believe that there is a point in serving God throughout one's lifetime, even if deathbed repentance or post-mortem repentance are acknowledged as possibilities. Even if the only reason for serving God were (as JR seems to imagine) the escape from the horrors of hell, this reason would still pertain under the restorationist paradigm. Hell (like prison or any torture chamber) is a great place to avoid.

One of the universalists arguments is that since all will confess Jesus as Lord, all will be saved, in spite of Jesus' warning "not all who say unto me Lord, Lord.....". You claim you are not a universalist, just correcting "poor exegesis", but I have never heard you rebut that argument**. 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. 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?

Just making up stuff like a good universalist.

**You claim you are not persuaded by any view about hell. How is it you never, at least as far as I can recall,
make an argument for any view other than universalism? What's up with that?

All I got time for now.

[steve]

That is rich Steve. Profound application of the Mosaic law about rape.

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?

Now we see that we need to give the Mormans, Muslims, etc. some slack regarding all that stuff the scriptures are silent about.

Absolutely! I should think we ought to give these people a pass about things on which the scriptures are silent. The only serious contention I would have with Mormons and Muslims is on matters about which the scriptures are not the least bit silent.

One of the universalists arguments is that since all will confess Jesus as Lord, all will be saved, in spite of Jesus' warning "not all who say unto me Lord, Lord.....". You claim you are not a universalist, just correcting "poor exegesis", but I have never heard you rebut that argument**

**You claim you are not persuaded by any view about hell. How is it you never, at least as far as I can recall,
make an argument for any view other than universalism? What's up with that?.

Have you read my book? If not, is it because you cannot afford it, or is it because you don't want to hear the full battery of arguments presented and critiqued for each view? If the former, I can send you a free one, if you will promise to read it. If the latter, why should I waste my keystrokes telling you here what I have presented at length there, if you don't really want to hear?

At this forum, I am found defending universalism more than I defend annihilation for three very good reasons:

1) Universalism is attacked here; annihilation is not, and thus requires no defense;

2) The arguments against universalism that are presented here are almost universally flawed arguments—either because they misrepresent the view, or they misrepresent scripture.

3) Restorationism is attacked as if it is inconsistent with the teaching of scripture. I do not find this to be the case.

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.

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.

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?

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?

Just making up stuff like a good universalist.

I find nothing in the quality of your arguments that resembles those of a "good universalist." The fact that you do means either that you have paid no objective attention to the arguments of good universalists, or that you and I have very different assessments of what constitutes good argumentation.

[steve]

I have to say that I have been perplexed by your attitude on this matter, Homer. I know that you believe that Jesus died for all, so I can't understand the revulsion you exhibit toward any suggestion that He might ultimately gain what He paid for, rather than suffer loss and defeat at the hands of His creatures. Then I remembered another doctrine you hold—that there is no salvation without water baptism. This clears things up for me. In the afterlife there is no baptism, so if someone missed it in this life, there is no hope. Am I right?