Corey: Yes. I agree wholeheartedly that most will not choose God and thus will be condemned on judgment day; they don't have ears to hear.

Torkuda: I think that it’s rather silly to assume because someone doesn’t believe as you, automatically they go to hell. It’s not about belief, its about turning from wickedness. I have a hard time believing that if I believe in a God and ask his forgiveness, on judgment day, I’ll be thrown into hell anyway since I didn’t know it was Jesus I was praying to. I also have a hard time understanding why a “Christian” is said can lead a life of sin until a single moment of repentance and then be saved, but an atheist living a humble life trying hard to serve others, will be cast into hell because “you didn’t know Jesus and didn’t agree with person X”.

Corey: Yep. I completely agree that God will not coerce us to freely love him (which is metaphysically impossible). But God WILL unilaterally force us to die to sin (that's what hell is). After all that is sinful in one's life has been turned to ash, the person will be profoundly aware of their thirst for life. The God-shaped vacuum that makes up their existence will obsess their every thought. At this rock-bottom point, after dying to sin, they will freely but desperately search for life, but without the baggage they carry now. Inevitably they will eventually freely choose to make the leap of faith to God. 

This is not a coercion to love God, but only a coercion to die to sin.

Torkuda: I’d have to disagree, that sounds very much like a coercion to love God. It sounds like a prison, all you have to do to get out of incredible torment, it announce full allegiance to our way of life! Aren’t we merciful?

However, if it were really about having someone turning from his wicked way, not just say “I like Jesus!”, that would sound like the God I know and I could get on board with that maybe.

Corey: Universalist don't deny that we are called to repentance NOW. It profoundly matters. Just think of the seven "the kingdom of God is like..." parables in Mathew. The bottom line point of all those parables is that there will be a judgement, where the righteous will be separated from the unrighteous. The unrighteous will be forcibly sentanced (not self-select, as C.S. Lewis suggests) to the second death. We all will die to sin/self, either voluntarily now or forcefully later. Choosing to do it now is much better.

Torkuda: So in a sense, we agree. It’s so frustrating that that’s not uncommon for me to agree yet disagree so profoundly with my Christian brothers.

I Corinthians 15:22. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

20-28

20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he "has put everything under his feet."^[c] Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Actually, in greater context, the passage you reference says God's enemies will be conquered and destroyed and death itself will be no more. It really looks like a proof text for ECT. No death+ ultimate destruction and defeat of God's enemies = ECT. Perhaps that's viewing things to simply, but really, in context this passage doesn't help you. I can also see ways for annihilation to be promoted here to, but the idea that everyone will make it out of this okay in the end, really isn't stated here.

Colossians 1:19. For in him [Christ] all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

19-23

19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. 21Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of^[f] your evil behavior. 22But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel.

I zeroed in on the "if" on purpose. The death on the cross was to make reconciliation possible for all, to end the conflict. Yes, that also requires greater context, but is much better supported, considering verse 23.

Romans 5:18. Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.

18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

The very next verse clarifies. I don't think I need to elaborate.

Romans 11:32. For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.

28-32

28As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now^[h] receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you. 32For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

I have to admit I have touble with exactly what this passage is refering to. It can't mean to explain why God made people sin, since to do so would deny the rest of scripture that says that God causes no man to sin. Perhaps that He gave all the choice of good or evil and planned a sacrifice for repentence.

There is a case to be made here, however, that there is mercy that extends to all, does not mean necessarily that all recieve it. Rather, it could also mean the standards are the same for everyone.

I'll look at the articles you cited.

Whom are you really talking to? Me? I've stressed that living an evil life does send one to hell. Oh I get it! You're going after the belief part. Be honest!

I agree that a man should be damned if he pursues evil, and I agree that most of us here probably deserve hell in the end, but Jesus bore the sins of the world. Those who pursue righteousness, have their place assured. However, those with no desire to turn, or those who continue to pursue their wicked ways will stand condemned before Christ.

A parable.

Four men are trapped on a boat that is sinking. A life boat is sent to rescue them.

One of the men sees the life boat, jumps out and swims to safety.

The second, refuses to recognize any danger, and when told to get on the boat, and even shown the situation, refuses to be rescued, he drowns.

The third realizes his situation, but not the life boat, eventually he is reached and rescued, since a good rescue team tries to assist all in need.

The fourth, jumps overboard in a random direction and drowns.

The first man is like the Christian. He realizes his salvation and goes to it at once.

The second, is like a man who knows he is living a life of sin, even knows the truth of the gospel, but for some reason, turns it away.

The third is like a person who never hears the gospel, but still pursues the right path as much as he is able. God abounds in mercy I believe for such people. Salvation is not about getting details right in your head, its about getting your heart right.

The forth is like a wicked man, pursuing his own destruction, he will not be held back from his penalty.

I say Christians are privilaged in this life, for they understand the truth, but that makes them no better than anyone else. God sees no positions among men, all are equal. If you cannot recognize the privilage of serving God, without being singled out as one of the elite, only ones not to be damned forever, maybe you need to re-evaluate your beliefs.

A prayer of salvation from my story The 8th Sense

I wrote the prayer that way on purpose, to show this question.

In the story, Simon has learned that the Biblical God is real, but as of yet, does not know about Jesus. He doesn't know the name Jehovah or any of the Jewish writings. He hasn't really read any of the Bible or heard a single verse. Rather, he was talked into belief in God and the forces of light and darkness. He knows, or at least hopes, the price for his sins was paid, but does not know, by whom, why or how. His prayer doesn't mention the name of Jesus once, since really that's not a name Simon knows.

The prayer has a dramatic context, that explains the setting (maybe the rain storm is over the top), but just looking at the prayer itself, tell me, could a prayer like this, to the idea of God, with zero knowledge of Jesus, save a man? If not, why not?

Another parable

A man is walking home from work one day. On the road he is attacked, beaten and then left naked for dead.

Along comes a Baptist, upon seeing the man, in the buff, is offended and walks away with his noes on the air.

Later the Baptist thinks about the scene again, realizing perhaps the man needed assistence. He decides God forgave him for the sin of not acting, and therefore, he should get on with his life.

A Catholic has a similar first impression.

Upon later thinking of what happened, he realizes the error in leaving a man in such a condition, and immediately rushes to confess to the priest!

An athiest comes along, again, has a similar reaction.

But upon refelection, realizes the man he left was not attemting to offend, but in need. He rushes back to the scene and gets the man assistence.

Who did the right thing?

Hey Tim, I saw what you wrote on page 2 and I saw some of it hasn't been addressed yet. I haven't listened to the recording yet (hopefully tomorrow...), but you wrote some interesting stuff...

Tim: 1) That hell is the eternal absence of God. How does that match with Revelation saying that people will be tortured in the presence of the Lamb? God's presence is a consuming fire, and those who are in Christ can walk around in the fire, but everyone else gets burned up.

VFG: I have an idea of how both ideas can be reconciled in a sense with some minor adjustments (and I haven't done extensive studies on the issue of hell yet). What if "hell is the eternal absence of God" from person X's perspective? In other words, if they are in a sense blind to the presence of God, thus it's only an apparent absence to person X.

Just to give a disclaimer as to why I'm approaching this topic dispassionately, this is a morbid topic altogether, and perhaps I haven't studied this topic because I don't like the idea of it. I know... cop-out! I'm a loser.

Tim: 2) That hell is actually a grace of God because someone who hates God would really hate being in God's presence in heaven. I would say that hell is awful for people because it is so full of with God. If people hate God then they won't like being near him.

VFG: Perhaps he's thinking of C.S. Lewis' idea of "thy will be done" from Mere Christianity. But either way, it's strange to say that hell is some kind of extension of "grace", so yeah, I agree with you that it's kind of a wierd way of putting it. We'd have to extend the definition of "grace" a bit more broadly than one would usually define it.

Tim: I don't believe Hell really exists yet, or at least it's not got anyone in it yet.

VFG: Could you share your reasons? I've never considered this before.

...is the doctrine of ECT a necessary part of the [self-chosen hell] view you just described? Must they eternally remained hardened against God? 

I was already clear on your position, it use to be mine. Unfortuanately for you, all you've done is prove my case. First, you offer a rather uncertain method for salvation, no real concrete solution bascially making it so no one knows what you think the standard is. Then you did what you had to when referencing people favored by God in the Bible, you referenced a person, not favored because of his belief, no doubt more than just Noah believed before the flood (several of those in Noah's time, according to the Bible, could have even known Adam) but because of his desire for rigtheousness. Again, not because of his sinlessness either, rather the position of his heart, remember what happened after the flood with Noah.

Post Edited (TGB) : 6/27/2006 9:11:16 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (TGB) : 6/28/2006 8:18:16 AM (GMT-5)

These sayings are not a separate statement on the "the unpardonable sin," but in their Matthean context they are a constituent element of Jesus' response to the Pharisees' charge that he performs exorcisms and healings by the power of Beelzebul. In this case, the meaning of the text can be illuminated by a consideration of its trajectory from Jesus' original pronouncement through its various NT forms. The following sketch is, in the nature of the case, hypothetical but has substantial support.²⁶⁶

 

(1) Jesus' original saying was an absolute and universal pronouncement of divine forgiveness, "All things shall be forgiven to human beings, whatever they have blasphemed." [omitting discription of aramaic.]

 

(2) This radical pronouncement was considered too revolutionary in early Christianity, so it was modified in a number of ways.... [omitted here, too much typing] .... As elsewhere in Matthew, such procouncements against the Pharisees at the narrative level function as warnings to church members and especially to church leaders. Their function here is not to provide a doctrinal category of "unforgivable sins" about which Christians should be anxious.

 

^266. For a more complete treatment and bibliography, see M. Eugene Boring, "The Unforgivable Sin Logion Mark 3:28-29/Matt 12:31-32/Luke 12:10: Formal Analysis and History of the Tradition," Novum Testamentum 17 (1976) 258-79; The Continuing Voice of Jesus: Christian Prophecy and the Gospel Tradition (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991) 219-21.

Post Edited (Corey) : 6/28/2006 11:05:51 AM (GMT-5)