Think about this. Let's just SAY that there is biblical merit to what's being proposed: that God has unconditional openness to "prodigals"/"kings of the earth" and "nations in the "lake of fire" to bring their "glory" and "honor" into the Holy City (People of God) as DEFEATED FOES of God.

If this view of hell is true, how is it that people in heaven would see things? Let's hear Jesus on it...


Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.
Luke 15:7

Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.
Luke 15:10

Hmm. Two things I notice:

1) The attitudes of the "angels in heaven" are the polar opposite of that of the "elder brother" in the Prodigal Son parable. That "attitude" represents the heart of the Father, as seen in the a) unconditional openess of the Father for the Prodigal's return and b) exhuberant REJOICING that his son had metanoiaed and CAME BACK to his Father's house.

2) If the "gates" of the City are ALWAYS OPEN to bring in more repentant, defeated foes, doesn't it make sense to think that there would be CONSISTENT REJOICING because of the openness of the Gate? Every time a new defeated foe came in, the City would BURST into joyous party! Now imagine that happening with LARGE AMOUNT of people that are supposedly the "vessels of wrath". Every day would be a TOTAL PARTY, no matter HOW MANY people yet remained in hell at the time, because we would KNOW about the "openness" of the Gates and the loving heart of the Father as told to us in parables by Jesus. Wouldn't that align with the heart of the Father and the Woman who found her lost coin? I would think so. If what Jesus is saying is true.


Does this make sense?

PS: The fact that the elder brother did not rejoice in simply HIS FATHER'S rejoicing in the Prodigal's return clearly demonstrated that he did NOT have the heart of the Father. Isn't that interesting? :)

Post Edited (One Love) : 3/6/2012 8:32:07 AM (GMT-6)

From the other discussion board...

--------------------------------------

Simplelife:
The creator(divine person) doesn't have two natures, the person has two natures, one divine(the creator) and one human(creation).

UH OH. :eek:

You've got this wrong, my friend.

God the Son is an UNCREATED/DIVINE PERSON who take on a created/human nature along with his naturally held uncreated/divine nature. That's what the term Theotokos is even saying. Whenever the Church has held that "God was born" or that "God died", it was SPECIFICALLY to denote that is was the uncreated/divine person, God the Son/Word, who experienced birth and death. That's what John 1:1 means: The UNCREATED Word of God the Father became human.

It's not like we have some abstract idea of "person" and THEN attributes two natures to that "person". That is how heresies are formed!

The Chalcedonian Creed states...

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; (ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως – in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter) the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεὸν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

and...from the Nicene-Constanipolitan Creed...

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made:


Without this distinction, it is IMPOSSIBLE to affirm the Church's stance of Mary being the MOTHER OF GOD, meaning the Mother of the Incarnate God the Son/Word.

Quoting from Wiki...

In the Incarnation, as traditionally defined, the divine nature of the Son was joined but not mixed with human nature in one divine Person, Jesus Christ, who was both "truly God and truly man."

EXACTAMUNDO!

-------------------------------------------------------

simplelife

Quote:

---

In the Incarnation, as traditionally defined, the divine nature of the Son was joined but not mixed with human nature in one divine Person, Jesus Christ, who was both "truly God and truly man."

---

Yes, I am aware of this position, not many trins [trinitarians] on this board hold this position, it is taught as orthodox here by a unitarian (John Milton).

You are correct there is much historical evidence from theologians for this view. It is not a fellowship thing IMO.

At any rate, it doesn't effect the rest of my last post, it still stands if we view it either way.

From the Revelation Commentary on Chapter 21...

To be sure, there are former enemies in the picture who are not residents of the holy city. They are the nations and the kings of the earth, who appear as friendly vassals (v. 24). The kings of the earth had earlier been deceived into immorality with Babylon the prostitute (17:2; 18:3, 9) and had fought (unsuccessfully) against God and the Lamb (16:14; 17:12-14; 19:19-21).Now at last they have given their allegiance to the true "ruler of the kings of the earth" (1:5), who is "King of kings and Lord of lords" (19:16). The nations, or "Gentiles," were similarly deceived more than once (14:8; 18:3, 23; 20:3, 8) and were thrown into turmoil (11:18). Yet all along their destiny has been that Jesus and those who follow him would "strike down" (19:15) and ultimately "rule" (12:5; 19:15) them "with an iron scepter" (fulfilling Ps 2:1-2, 8-9).


Lemme show y'all something funny.

The Commentary writer did the math...but didn't finish the equation, so to speak.

The writer clearly understood the textual issues with the "kings of the earth" and "nations" (John's use in Revelation and general prophetic understanding of the terms ala Isaiah 24 and 60) as well as the flow of the whole apocalyptic movement. They nail it. They even clearly nail that these FORMER ENEMIES now become "vassals" of the City. TOTALLY GETS IT.


What they DIDN'T seem to catch is this:
The "kings of the earth" who had "fought unsuccessfully against God and the Lamb" in Revelation 19 were SLAIN. Dead. Kaput. And this BEFORE the second resurrection and "second death" tossing into the lake of fire. If all the bad dead people are thrown into the lake of fire by the end of Revelation 20, then the "kings of the earth" from Revelation 19 would have been tossed in as well.

So the only way that they could be "vassals" who "at last...have given their allegiance to the true 'ruler of the kings of the earth' " is BY THEM COMING FROM THE LAKE OF FIRE and playing that role.

That's the ONLY LOGICAL WAY it can work.

Does everyone see that?

Ain't that FUNNY?