Jeff,

The distinctions as to who inherits what/when/where are reserved for those that make it through the heavily guarded doors of Heaven.   If you read the passages Laika posted in their entirety, you would find many never ever make it into Heaven.  Jesus says, the rest will be heading south on a long vacation, gnashing for or a long, long time, forever.

21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?' 23 Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.' Matthew 7:21-23

The Narrow Door

22 Jesus went through one town and village after another, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. 23 Someone asked him, "Lord, will only a few be saved?" He said to them, 24 "Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able. 25 When once the owner of the house has got up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, 'Lord, open to us,' then in reply he will say to you, 'I do not know where you come from.' 26 Then you will begin to say, 'We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.' 27 But he will say, 'I do not know where you come from; go away from me, all you evildoers!' 28 There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrown out. 29 Then people will come from east and west, from north and south, and will eat in the kingdom of God. 30 Indeed, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last." - Luke 13:22-30

Post Edited (Truth Aficionado) : 11/2/2008 9:20:45 PM (GMT-6)

Rachel-

This sort of thing happens on our board here. Sorry. You wanted to specifically discuss Strobel/Moreland’s points. I’m cool with that. But as I’m sure you already know, mentioning UR in some contexts is like pouring blood into the ocean. The sharks eventually show up for a feeding frenzy. Never mind Laika and me. We go round and round on this stuff once a year whether we need to or not! Actually I wish Laika was right about perception levels and free choice. It would make the UR position more, not less, plausible. I’ll let him figure out why.

As it is, Moreland’s point is that there’s no possible way people can make free and responsible after they die because they’ll be too overwhelmed by the truth at that point. This objection of his only makes sense because Moreland also agrees with me (against Laika) that free and responsible choice between options takes place when we’re NOT so overwhelmed by the truth. My point against Moreland is that there’s no need to assume that dying automatically ushers the lost into the fullest revelation of truth. Why assume that people who have over time chosen to believe in and hide in their lies would be instantly stripped of that solidified state just because they’ve died? It makes more sense to me to suppose that people enter the next world in basically the same state of solidification they exit this world.

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

Laika: Quotes from Rom. 1.

Tom: I said moral accountability requires sufficient knowledge. You’re not listening.

Laika: Universalists say that Jesus’ wuv will pursue sinners throughout eternity.

Tom: It’s ‘love’.

Laika: Jesus says “depart from me, all you workers of iniquity, I never knew you.” If Jesus was going to pursue them throughout eternity, why would He command them “Depart from Me?”

Tom: Oh, I missed that verse, the one that says, “Depart from me for all time irrevocably since I now hate you.” What version is that?

Of course his telling sinners to depart (for judgment) is compatible with his loving them and intending to redeem them. There’s no contradiction generated here. When a father sends a disobedient child to her room with “Get out of my sight. Get yourself up to your room!” do you conclude from this language (the point is the language) that the father has ceased loving his child and that he never intends the judgment to end? Of course you don’t.

Sheesh.

Hey, Laika and Mark, you guys gonna give us your interpretation of Col. 1? I'm all ears.

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 11/3/2008 12:04:02 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Truth Aficionado) : 11/10/2008 9:57:45 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Truth Aficionado) : 11/4/2008 1:31:20 AM (GMT-6)

Yeah sorry, that Tommy is a silly little wounded rabbit that I chased over here from another thread. But hey, if you got your crosshairs on him, fire away.

Not a view I can hold, Laika. Not at all.

The whole free will defense rests upon the necessity of libertarian choice to the becoming of finite creatures and not just to the redemption of sinful creatures. That infants are ‘innocent’ is beside the point. They’re finite, created beings, and the entire “love requires freedom” that I know you are big on (as am I) applies here as well. It’s not “love requires freedom for sinners but not for others.” It’s “love requires freedom for creatures—period.”

Furthermore, if you’re right that innocent babies who die wake up in heaven—poof—without having to determine themselves freely with respect to God, then we have serious problems as free will theists, because then we have no rationale for why it is not the case that God did not simply create us—poof—to begin with in such a state, that is, in heaven, already arrived and without the necessity for having to freely determine ourselves. If babies who die wake up in heaven and come into the full enjoyment of all God created them for, then what the he** is this world about at all? Why the risk (of sin and hell and pain and suffering) if the risk isn’t necessary to getting human being as such into a state of loving relationship with God? And when you assert what you do about babies who die you most certainly claim that there is in fact a risk-free road to getting human beings into the fullest experience of heaven. But if God can get a human being into the state of glorification he desires without the risky business of free choice, then he would do so across the board. I personally could not characterize as “good” a God who did otherwise. What would you suggest is the reason for the risk then? Is there something we who choose and fall into sin and then freely choose redemption come to know and experience that babies who die and automatically inherit heaven don’t come to know?

Tom

Tom:

The whole free will defense rests upon the necessity of libertarian choice to the becoming of finite creatures and not just to the redemption of sinful creatures.

Laika:

Becoming what?  Four year olds?  Eleven year olds?  Thirty year olds? 

Suppose a seven year old dies.  They didn't have the opportunity to become a thirty year old or a forty nine year old.

The first step with God is overcoming the sin problem, the redeeming of sinners.  That's the main point of Genesis to Revelation. 

Hebrews 9:27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment.

The thief on the cross only dealt with the sin issue, he had no time to become anything else.

Tom:

That infants are ‘innocent’ is beside the point. They’re finite, created beings, and the entire “love requires freedom” that I know you are big on (as am I) applies here as well. It’s not “love requires freedom for sinners but not for others.” It’s “love requires freedom for creatures—period.”

Laika:

Again, redemption for sins is the first step and you cannot start any journey until you solve that issue.  And that only happens before you die and are judged.

Tom:

Furthermore, if you’re right that innocent babies who die wake up in heaven—poof—without having to determine themselves freely with respect to God, then we have serious problems as free will theists, because then we have no rationale for why it is not the case that God did not simply create us—poof—to begin with in such a state, that is, in heaven, already arrived and without the necessity for having to freely determine ourselves. If babies who die wake up in heaven and come into the full enjoyment of all God created them for, then what the he** is this world about at all?

Laika:

UR has the same problem.  What's the point of this world if UR is true?

In fact, we all believe God has created a world [W] where:

1. Free-will exists.

2. He is maximizing good in the world.

If there is evil, it's due to 1.

If there is good, it's due to 2.

Yet, if UR is true, then this [W] is not true.  Because 2 would assume that He is doing all He can to bring all people into His kingdom in THIS world and that is in fact NOT happening.  And the fact that UR believes He will succeed in doing this in the NEXT world despite His failing in THIS world shows how much this [W] is not true under UR.

The law of large numbers bites you in the ass.