OUR FEATURED MEMBER ARTICLE: Heaven, Hell and the Love of God by Jezz

[Editor]

Heaven, Hell and the Love of God
Jeremy Krieg

Heaven and hell is one of those topics that we don't like to talk about much in polite society. Even though as Christians we're supposed to believe in hell, many find themselves balking at the thought. The idea of wrathful God who sends people to a place where He punishes them for all eternity just doesn't sit right with us - it seems incompatible with the God of love and forgiveness revealed to us in Christ. And not only is hell something that many sincere Christians wrestle with, it is also a severe stumbling block to many earnest and sincere unbelievers - some of whom might otherwise be open to accepting Christianity. In the forms of Christianity traditionally found in the West (Roman Catholicism, Protestantism), we are accustomed to thinking of hell as a physical place where God pours out His wrath on sinners as punishment for their sins. The above reflects the typical gut reaction to this view of hell, and in my opinion it is not unjustified.

The Orthodox, however, have a somewhat different outlook. In this view, God's boundless love fills all people and all creation - "heaven" and "hell" are simply states within a person engendered by their reaction to this love. For those who love God, His love is a source of joy and bliss. But for those who are turned inward on themselves in selfishness, hiding from the truth, and hating God, His truth and His boundless and selfless love becomes the "consuming fire" and endless torment of their hell. In this present life the realities of heaven and hell are already here, but and in our weakness and spiritual blindness we are not always clearly able to distinguish them. But in the life to come, when Christ returns to raise the dead and fully reveals Himself (who is the Truth) and the love of the Father, then the difference will be clear for all to see. This is the final judgement.

I recently had the privilege seeing Les Misérables performed by Concordia College (a secondary school in Adelaide, South Australia). It was a fine production, and kudos must go to the students and staff for their efforts. But the thing that left the greatest impression on me was author Victor Hugo's deep and profound insights into the nature of God's love. I was deeply moved by the story, and I found that it perfectly illustrated the concepts which I have briefly outlined above.

(WARNING: for those who have not seen Les Misérables, the following contains spoilers.)

The story is set at around the time of the French revolution. It begins with the main character, Jean Valjean, in a labour camp - imprisoned for the heinous crime of stealing a loaf of bread to feed himself, his starving sister and her child. He has 14 years added to his 5 year sentence for trying to escape, but is finally released on parole. In his life in the real world he finds that he is discriminated against because of his convict status - being turned away by innkeepers, and paid poorly by employers (and treated badly by fellow employees). Finally he is taken in by the kindly bishop of Digne - who feeds him and offers him a place to stay. Despite the fact that the bishop is the first man to show kindness to him since he was paroled, during the night he steals some of the bishop's silverware and flees.

The police catch and quiz Valjean, asking how he ended up with the bishop's silverware. He tries to justify himself by telling them that the bishop had given it to him as a gift. So the police ask the bishop to confirm his story. And the bishop says a most extraordinary thing:

That is right.
But my friend you left so early
Surely something slipped your mind
You forgot I gave these also
Would you leave the best behind?

(All the lyrics for these songs can be found here (http://www.lyricsondemand.com/soundtracks/l/lesmiserableslyrics/).)

And he gave him two silver candlesticks in addition to that silverware that he had already taken. On account of this act of loving compassion and forgiveness, Valjean escapes conviction but is convicted by his consicence. He does as the bishop suggests and uses the gift to establish a new and honest life for himself. He tears up the parole slip and assumes a new identity and a new life dedicated to the service of others.

From the time he skips parole, Valjean is ruthlessly hunted by inspector Javert (the man who had released him on parole). Later in the story, Javert is caught by revolutionaries who wish to execute him. Valjean asks for Javert to be handed over to him, and at last the man who has been persecuting him is delivered into his hands. Javert insults him - "Once a thief, always a thief!" But instead of exacting the revenge that was due him (even though Javert's insult would have made it that much easier to do so), Valjean does as the bishop had done for him years before:

You are wrong, and always have been wrong.
I'm a man, no worse than any man.
You are free, and there are no conditions,
No bargains or petitions.
There's nothing that I blame you for
You've done your duty, nothing more.

As long as he had known him, Javert had always seen Valjean as an inferior - a lawbreaker, a sinner, a pathetic human being whom God would judge. Valjean's act of love and forgiveness towards him has turned things on its head. And so we come to one of the most profound pieces in the entire musical - Javert's Suicide. It is extraordinarily deep and rich in its theological content, so I will be quoting large sections of it. Confronted with such selfless love Javert is not sure how to act - he thinks that Valjean's action must be some sort of devil's trick:

Who is this man?
What sort of devil is he
To have me caught in a trap
And choose to let me go free?

He reasons that Valjean was actually trying to get dominion over him by letting him live, so that he would be in his debt. He believed that must be some sort of cruel punishment:
How can I now allow this man
To hold dominion over me?
This desperate man whom I have hunted
He gave me my life. He gave me freedom.
I should have perished by his hand
It was his right.
It was my right to die as well
Instead I live... but live in hell.

He is confused, and with his hardened heart is unable to even tell if Valjean's actions are from heaven or from hell:
And must I now begin to doubt,
Who never doubted all these years?
My heart is stone and still it trembles
The world I have known is lost in shadow.
Is he from heaven or from hell?
And unable to cope with the torment, he commits suicide:
And does he know
That granting me my life today
This man has killed me even so?

What does this tell us about the love of God? As Hugo so powerfully sums up in the closing verses:

Take my hand
And lead me to salvation.
Take my love,
For love is everlasting.

And remember
The truth that once was spoken
To love another person
Is to see the face of God!

In the story above, I gave two examples of God's face being seen in the love of another person. In the first, we have the old Valjean, who has been driven to bitterness and despair by a lifetime of suffering injustice, only to be confronted by the face of God in the forgiveness and generosity of the bishop. This love transforms Valjean into a new man, lifting him up out of the despair and bitterness of his old way of life which had driven him to stealing, and replacing it with the the same kind of selfless dedication to others (even his enemies) that he saw in the bishop's example. In stark contrast to this, Javert is so proud and assured of his own moral superiority (ie, self-justified) that not only does he not love, but worse - he does not even recognise true, selfless love when it stares him in the face! He is so blinded by the hardness of his heart that instead he thinks God's love is a cruel trick played on him by a devil in order to torment him! For my mind, this captures the very essence and horror of what hell is - the plight of a person who is no longer capable of love.

When we see a "good vs evil" story like Les Misérables, we are always tempted to cheer when the bad guy (Javert) meets with the end that we feel he deserves. Be on your guard against such feelings, because the one who feels that way will end up in the same hell as Javert did ("Judge not, lest thou be judged" - Matthew 7:1). Unless we can look upon with our enemies with compassion, love and forgiveness as Jean Valjean did, we too may find ourselves unable to recognise or to bear God's love when we finally see it. For those who do not love as God loves - loving even their enemies with all their heart - true love (that is, God's love) will be a source of eternal torment. Let us fall upon God's mercy and continually turn to Him with all our heart in repentance, and pray for our enemies, so that God will grant that we are able to love as He loves, and that "we may be sons of our Father in heaven" (Matt 5:45).

500

Notice - The featuring of a particular article does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view contained therein by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular article is that said article must not contradict the essentials articulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statement (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/mission/)or be blatantly offensive to the Christian worldview of the site Owners.


EDITOR'S NOTE:

This section of TheologyWeb is very closely moderated, please read this forum's decorum prior to posting anything questionable. If you have a question, or would like to submit an article, please contact me, the Editor, via PM.

Thanks,

The Editor.

[furay]

:thumb: Great stuff.

[spiritmech]

I love Les Mis. It's a great book ... one of the best ever written, I think. The Priest is great. I also love the part when Jean Valjean first takes the little girl's hand.
sm

[Rusty T]

Definitely a keeper.

[lee_merrill]

This is a great novel, however, the point is missed, that hell is not just a reaction, but an action, by God, a punishment, the interpretation given in this article makes it seem like God is sending love and blessing, and it turns into tormenting results, but not by God's design.

Are we to say that hell is frustrating God? That he said "A", and it came out "Z"?

No, hell is by God's design, and the punishment there, the result is what he intends, exactly that.

Blessings,
Lee

[George Blaisdell]

This is a great novel, however, the point is missed, that hell is not just a reaction, but an action, by God, a punishment, the interpretation given in this article makes it seem like God is sending love and blessing, and it turns into tormenting results, but not by God's design.

Are we to say that hell is frustrating God? That he said "A", and it came out "Z"?

No, hell is by God's design, and the punishment there, the result is what he intends, exactly that.

Blessings,
Lee

I think Jeremy can answer for himself, but the point he is making, vis a vis Hugo's Jean Valjean and Inspecter Javert is that Jean lived a redeemed, and thereby heavenly, life loving all, even his persecutor, whereas Javert lived a self justified life of always being right, and persecuting those he was convinced were in the wrong, and thereby lived such a demonized life that he was unable to know the grace of God when it came to him face to face in the person of the one he was persecuting.

In the novel, he muses to himself, fairly early, looking into the waters below [as I recall], "If ever you should err..." And he held himself up to this standard of righteousness, and when he found he had so overwhelmingly erred in his persecution of a man who can only now be described as a holy man, his self-destruction was unavoidable, and the more tragic...

Great story of triumph - And that priest is a Roman Big-O in my book, even though, of course, the work is fictional...

And a great story of tragedy...

Hugo is the best, right up there with the Russian Dostoyevski...

Arsenios

[Jezz]

This is a great novel,
It is more than just a novel. It is a parable - a story told in order to illustrate a spiritual truth about the nature of God. Just as Christ Himself spoke in stories to illustrate spiritual truths.

...however, the point is missed, that hell is not just a reaction, but an action, by God,
No, this is a strawman. I never said that hell was "just a reaction". Of course hell isn't "just a reaction" without any corresponding action - that's an oxymoron. By a definition, a reaction presupposes the existence of a corresponding action! And the action of God which causes hell, as I described in my article, is none other than the awesome, incomparable, boundless and selfless love of God Himself for His creation, which is an all-consuming fire.

...a punishment, the interpretation given in this article makes it seem like God is sending love and blessing, and it turns into tormenting results, but not by God's design.
Yes, that is the interpretation given in this article. That's because it is the correct interpretation. God is love. Everything God does is because He loves. You try and solve the dilemma of God's love and hell by claiming that God doesn't love those who end up in hell.

Are we to say that hell is frustrating God? That he said "A", and it came out "Z"?
No, hell is not frustrating God. God does not get frustrated. God says: "I will pour out my abundant love on all of my creation", and that's exactly what He does. Noone will be able to frustrate His intentions - not even the demons - will be able to stop Him from loving them, no matter how much they try. If some in His creation cannot bear the shame and torment that His love brings them, that is their problem - not His. God will love them anyway.

No, hell is by God's design, and the punishment there, the result is what he intends, exactly that.
Of course hell is by God's design. He desires to pour out His love on all, and He will love all.

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Arsenios: ... but the point he is making, vis a vis Hugo's Jean Valjean and Inspecter Javert is that Jean lived a redeemed, and thereby heavenly, life loving all, even his persecutor, whereas Javert lived a self justified life of always being right...
Yes, I agree, and it's a good novel and a good parable, and good counsel and warning, but not, I think a good description of the dynamics of hell.

Lee: ...however, the point is missed, that hell is not just a reaction, but an action, by God...

Jezz: By a definition, a reaction presupposes the existence of a corresponding action!
Just due to an reaction, then? Certainly I didn't mean hell is a reaction to no action, I meant that hell is not simply a bad reaction to the love of God, hell is an intention and a purpose on God's part, not a mistake in receiving transmission, of the love of God, and responding inappropriately.

Lee: the interpretation given in this article makes it seem like God is sending love and blessing, and it turns into tormenting results, but not by God's design.

Jezz: That's because it is the correct interpretation. God is love. Everything God does is because He loves. You try and solve the dilemma of God's love and hell by claiming that God doesn't love those who end up in hell.
Actually, I believe he does, "those who want to go over" (Lk. 16:22), does this not express God's desire here, within these people? He loves them, and he punishes them, and the wires have not been crossed, the pains of hell are not due to a misunderstanding.

Matthew 18:9 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.

Jesus doesn't say, "Understand and accept the love of God, and avoid hell!" He says, deal with sin, whatever it may cost you, and that way, avoid hell.

Jezz: If some in His creation cannot bear the shame and torment that His love brings them, that is their problem - not His.
Yes, but you must be holding that God did not have a purpose for that. So to have his purpose to love them and for them to receive that love, for that not to work out, implies frustration.

Blessings,
Lee

[George Blaisdell]

I [do not] think [Javert's response to Valjean's saintly grace] is a good description of the dynamics of hell.


It is, you are right, but a symptom of a tormented soul, whereas Valjean's extension of forgiveness and life saving love is but the symptom of a soul at peace. Yet can you not see that the one comes from hell, the other from heaven? For in this life, we are promised an earnest of the life of the kingdom to come, and that means that we can live in obedience to Christ's commandments, and thereby have "Thy will, as it is in heaven..." right here on earth, and not MY will, as it is in hell... We get more than just a taste of either or both, we get an earnest...


Jesus doesn't say, "Understand and accept the love of God, and avoid hell!" He says, deal with sin, whatever it may cost you, and that way, avoid hell.


Well, there is hell, and there is hell - there is hell on earth, and there is the hell of the last judgement - Yet if we come to Christ, we are given heaven on earth, and that heaven is found in the TRIBULATION of our earthly existence, because Christ tells us that His peace is not the peace of the world - And when He uses peace, He is referring to peace within, regardless of what goes on without, the person... It is noetic peace - It is salvation - It is heaven on earth that nothing can take away...

As for those who do not have this peace, but live in the ever-changing quick-sands of day to day successes and failures, they are bweing likewise a foretasting of the life of the kingdom to come for them... And it is hell... Javert's world...

[Rowland]

I love the story but not your conclusion. Jean Valjean is not God so does not have the power to save Inspector Javert from himself. God is all powerfull. He can even do the impossible such as saving Inspector Javert.

Not only is the idea of eternal torment repugnant to human sensibilities it is also damaging to God's reputation. How can God, who loves all of His children, not have the ability to save all of them? Why must we believe that Inspector Javert's suicide puts an end to the story of God's work to save him? When men make a rocket to go to the moon we expect that it may fail. If God has made His creatures to enjoy His presence for all eternity we should not expect Him to fail. This is not a matter of human beings succeeding or failing. We are talking about God succeeding or failing.

If the Bible is so clear in its teaching that human beings who rebel against God will spend eternity in hell why is there no mention of this in the entire OT? God doesn't mention hell to Adam and Eve. Nor is hell one of the punishments mentioned in the list of punishments given to the Israelites as a warning for disobedience. And if Christians are truely embarrassed by the doctrine of hell as I believe they are, shouldn't this be a sign that the doctrine of hell just might not be biblical? After all, aren't Christians guided by the Holy Spirit? Would the Holy Spirit give Christians feelings of embarrassment if these feelings were not pointing to a truth?

Rowland

[Jawa Man]

Jezz, I thought your article was da bomb diggity. However, I don't understand one thing. According to what you said, isn't it possible then that a person in hell can repent and admit they were wrong and had a corrupt understanding of God's love? This however doesn't seem to be a biblical teaching, as far as I know.

[smaller]

Most "great" stories revolve around biblical simulations. Most close, some fitting, but there is no replacing the "real" Good News. Lord of the Rings and The Matrix also come to mind.

You mention the distaste that unsaved society has about hell and it's promotion. Christianity that adhere's to people being fried alive forever is very distasteful. No man in his right mind would even consider bothering to waste his time doing such a vile thing. How much less God?

What Christians do not want to face is the possibility that God could possibly be greater than their own tepid imaginations. They want to overlook the FACT that God Himself openly stated through the pen of Isaiah and other writers that He both creates and uses EVIL and that conclusion should be inescapable for any true believer.

So we can look at the characters in this particular tome and we can praise the good, and rightfully so. The difficult part is to understand the what's why's and how's of how evil working in the protractor served as well.

That's the hard part, and I believe true Christianity holds a clear answer for that issue.

Most of you serve a God who says "bad dog" to evil and then not just punishes the dog, but then roasts the dog on an eternal spit. That is just abhorrent.

God can and does USE EVIL and EVIL is God's servant because He Is Greater than any "thing." You just have not gotten that far into the book yet. It' just too bad that God has slated most to see this from the other side of the ledger of life but it's not my story.

enjoy!

smaller

[George Blaisdell]

I love the story but not your conclusion. Jean Valjean is not God so does not have the power to save Inspector Javert from himself. God is all powerfull. He can even do the impossible such as saving Inspector Javert.


God sent each of them to the other, that they both should find love and salvation. One received it, and the other rrejected it. Unless you are arguing that God forces salvation on the unrepentant who keep on sinning when they know they are wrong to be doing so, and mock God...??


Not only is the idea of eternal torment repugnant to human sensibilities it is also damaging to God's reputation. How can God, who loves all of His children, not have the ability to save all of them? Why must we believe that Inspector Javert's suicide puts an end to the story of God's work to save him? When men make a rocket to go to the moon we expect that it may fail. If God has made His creatures to enjoy His presence for all eternity we should not expect Him to fail. This is not a matter of human beings succeeding or failing. We are talking about God succeeding or failing.


We know that God loves Javert, and we do NOT know the outcome of his life at the Last Judgement... So do you conclude from this that he was NOT living a hellish life on earth, and that Valjean was NOT living a heavenly life on earth?


If the Bible is so clear in its teaching that human beings who rebel against God will spend eternity in hell why is there no mention of this in the entire OT? God doesn't mention hell to Adam and Eve. Nor is hell one of the punishments mentioned in the list of punishments given to the Israelites as a warning for disobedience. And if Christians are truely embarrassed by the doctrine of hell as I believe they are, shouldn't this be a sign that the doctrine of hell just might not be biblical? After all, aren't Christians guided by the Holy Spirit? Would the Holy Spirit give Christians feelings of embarrassment if these feelings were not pointing to a truth?
Rowland


Javert showed God, in his final act of life, his suicide, just WHO was in charge of Javert's life - And it was NOT God, but Javert himself. Hitler also committed suicide... It is a common way for such people to end their lives...

And on the issue of sin and hell, like most things, if you don't GO there, you won't have to BE there... And ig you insist on going there, then THERE is where you have chosen to be, and you will be there...

So as a morality tale, it tells us to not go there via Javert, and to go there via Jean Valjean...

No need to head off into the OT vs NT toolies... :-)

Arsenios

[Jezz]

Yes, I agree, and it's a good novel and a good parable, and good counsel and warning, but not, I think a good description of the dynamics of hell.
Of course. But you need to realise that no good descriptions of the dynamics of hell exist. None of us have yet experienced hell in its fulness (and I pray that none of us ever do), so we don't have the experience to draw on to describe the dynamics accurately. Allegory is the best we can ever do.

However, it would be fair to say that what Javert experienced was a foretaste of hell.

Just due to an reaction, then?
Due to a reaction, yes. But again you go with the "just". There is no such thing as "just" a reaction. It

Certainly I didn't mean hell is a reaction to no action,
Then why do you insist on saying "Just due to a reaction"? What else did you hope to imply?

I meant that hell is not simply a bad reaction to the love of God, hell is an intention and a purpose on God's part, not a mistake in receiving transmission, of the love of God, and responding inappropriately.
This is a classic case of false dichotomy. Monergists seem to love them.

Yes, I agree. God's action is intentional and purposeful. This does nothing to disprove the fact that it is also a reaction.

Hell is not "just" an action by God, and it is not "just" a reaction by His creatures. It is both.

You, as a monergist, seem to believe that God must determine both the action and the reaction, and that if He doesn't that somehow detracts from His sovereignty. Which is why synergists continually accuse your god of being nothing more than a puppeteer. It is interesting that many heresies have sprung up from the seemingly innocous premise of wanting to protect God's sovereignty (eg, Arianism and Nestorianism).

Actually, I believe he does, "those who want to go over" (Lk. 16:22), does this not express God's desire here, within these people? He loves them, and he punishes them, and the wires have not been crossed, the pains of hell are not due to a misunderstanding.
But the thing is, there is no such thing as "objective" punishment. What constitutes a punishment always depends on the subject.

Matthew 18:9 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.

Jesus doesn't say, "Understand and accept the love of God, and avoid hell!" He says, deal with sin, whatever it may cost you, and that way, avoid hell.
Another monergist false dichotomy. :smile:

All sin is the result of a failure to understand and accept the love God. Or, better put, all sin is the failure to love God. To say "deal with sin, whatever it may cost you" is to say effectively the same thing as "love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your mind, and all your soul, and all your strength".

If some in His creation cannot bear the shame and torment that His love brings them, that is their problem - not His.

Yes, but you must be holding that God did not have a purpose for that.
No, I believe that God had a purpose for that - the purpose is to allow His creatures the potential to reciprocate His love of their own free will.

So to have his purpose to love them and for them to receive that love, for that not to work out, implies frustration.
I don't see exactly what it is that you think isn't "working out" here. God's purposes are as follows:

1. To love all of His creatures.
2. To allow all of His creatures the free will to choose whether or not they wish to reciprocate His love.

In the Orthodox view, God accomplishes both of these goals. So which purpose of God is not being accomplished? Where is His frustration, in this view?

[Jezz]

I love the story but not your conclusion.
Well, our conclusions should not be based on what we like or dislike, but that which is true.

Jean Valjean is not God so does not have the power to save Inspector Javert from himself. God is all powerfull. He can even do the impossible such as saving Inspector Javert.
But that's just it - I don't believe that God can do the "impossible" - if by "impossible" you mean a logical contradiction. For example, God cannot make a square circle, or a rock so heavy that He can't lift it, or make Himself to cease to exist. These things are logically contradictory. More on this below.

Not only is the idea of eternal torment repugnant to human sensibilities it is also damaging to God's reputation. How can God, who loves all of His children, not have the ability to save all of them? Why must we believe that Inspector Javert's suicide puts an end to the story of God's work to save him?
I didn't say that Inspector Javert's suicide puts an end to God's work to save him. I don't believe that it is. I see "the love of God" and "God's work of salvation" as more-or-less synonymous. The torments of hell are the torments of those who do not want to be saved, caused by God saving them.

When men make a rocket to go to the moon we expect that it may fail. If God has made His creatures to enjoy His presence for all eternity we should not expect Him to fail. This is not a matter of human beings succeeding or failing. We are talking about God succeeding or failing.
Yes, we are talking about God succeeding or failing. And as I pointed out in my response to lee, I do not believe that God fails. Here are God's two goals (as I wrote to lee merrill):

1. To love all of His creatures.
2. To endow His creatures with the potential to freely love Him in return if they desire.

God does not fail in either goal.

But the thing is, if we take seriously the fact that God has achieved goal 2, then we must take seriously the fact that some of God's creatures may forever freely choose to not love God. Our will is not truly free unless we have this freedom. And if we have this freedom, then we must acknowledge the fact that some people may choose to exercise it the wrong way, and end up in hell. It is a logical contradiction to say that all of God's creatures - whom He created with the ability to love Him or not love Him, according to their own will - must all love Him.

I am certainly sensitive to the idea that God will not give up saving His creatures, and I believe that all people may be saved. But it is going beyond the evidence of Scriptural and Patristic tradition to suggest that this must happen. Indeed, it goes against Christ's warnings which indicated that, at the very least, hell is a real possiblity. It doesn't make much sense for Him to warn against an outcome which couldn't possibly eventuate.

And if Christ tells us that hell is a possibility, then all we can say is that all persons may be saved. We cannot say that all will be.

If the Bible is so clear in its teaching that human beings who rebel against God will spend eternity in hell why is there no mention of this in the entire OT? God doesn't mention hell to Adam and Eve. Nor is hell one of the punishments mentioned in the list of punishments given to the Israelites as a warning for disobedience.
There is barely any mention of any sort of afterlife in the OT. Christ revealed lots of new bits of information when He came to earth. So I wouldn't push this argument too far, or you'll end up disproving heaven along with hell.

And if Christians are truely embarrassed by the doctrine of hell as I believe they are, shouldn't this be a sign that the doctrine of hell just might not be biblical?
I'm not embarrassed at all by the Orthodox view of hell. I am embarrassed by (eg) lee merril's doctrine of hell, which is why I discarded it a long time ago.

After all, aren't Christians guided by the Holy Spirit? Would the Holy Spirit give Christians feelings of embarrassment if these feelings were not pointing to a truth?
Yes. I believe that they are pointing to a truth that Western Christianity got the whole idea of hell horribly wrong (notably Protestant fundies). The Orthodox have been saying this for some time.

[Jezz]

Jezz, I thought your article was da bomb diggity. However, I don't understand one thing. According to what you said, isn't it possible then that a person in hell can repent and admit they were wrong and had a corrupt understanding of God's love? This however doesn't seem to be a biblical teaching, as far as I know.
I don't know if it's a Biblical teaching, but I don't think the Bible explicitly teaches against it either. Thus, I don't think we can rule the idea out. The Orthodox tradition of prayers for the departed would seem to support the idea that repentance is possible after this life.

But one thing we can be sure of, though, is that the Bible does not encourage us to leave our repentance until eternity. So even if it is possible, we shouldn't depend on it. Indeed, we should live each moment as if it was the only chance we had to repent.

I'm not too sure about how the details work here, with respect to repentance in the afterlife. But to be honest, I don't really care. The moral of the story is: trust in God to act in a loving, just, and merciful way to all of His creatures, at all times.

[Jezz]

Most "great" stories revolve around biblical simulations. Most close, some fitting, but there is no replacing the "real" Good News. Lord of the Rings and The Matrix also come to mind.
As I said, Christ spoke in parables about hell. His was also a "Biblical simulation".

You mention the distaste that unsaved society has about hell and it's promotion. Christianity that adhere's to people being fried alive forever is very distasteful. No man in his right mind would even consider bothering to waste his time doing such a vile thing. How much less God?
I hope and pray that God's love burns in me and in all creation forever. Don't you? I don't find this the least bit distasteful.

What Christians do not want to face is the possibility that God could possibly be greater than their own tepid imaginations.
Oh, I'm quite certain that God is greater than my feeble imagination. And yours, for that matter.

They want to overlook the FACT that God Himself openly stated through the pen of Isaiah and other writers that He both creates and uses EVIL and that conclusion should be inescapable for any true believer.

So we can look at the characters in this particular tome and we can praise the good, and rightfully so. The difficult part is to understand the what's why's and how's of how evil working in the protractor served as well.

Hebrew has two words for "evil". The word used in the passage that you are thinking of is not the word for moral evil.


That's the hard part, and I believe true Christianity holds a clear answer for that issue.
Orthodox Christianity is true Christianity. That's basically what Orthodox means. And yes, it holds a clear answer for that issue. I outlined it in my article.

Most of you serve a God who says "bad dog" to evil and then not just punishes the dog, but then roasts the dog on an eternal spit. That is just abhorrent.
Speaking of tepid imaginations, yours seems to be somewhat fixated on this primitive idea of hell as a place of literal fire. See if you can expand your imagination a little, and see beyond the metaphor to an underlying spiritual truth.

As I have said, I the love of God is the fire of hell and the light of heaven. The fire is a purifying fire - purifying the saints, but tormenting those who do not wish to be purified.

God can and does USE EVIL and EVIL is God's servant because He Is Greater than any "thing." You just have not gotten that far into the book yet. It' just too bad that God has slated most to see this from the other side of the ledger of life but it's not my story.
Hmm, you seem to have tailed off into incoherence. Never mind.

enjoy!
I did, thankyou for your contribution. :thumb:

[smaller]

As I said, Christ spoke in parables about hell. His was also a "Biblical simulation".

Generally agree.


I hope and pray that God's love burns in me and in all creation forever. Don't you? I don't find this the least bit distasteful.

There is also a Godly Fire that burns and does not destroy so of course it depends on how you see the "fire."


Oh, I'm quite certain that God is greater than my feeble imagination. And yours, for that matter.

When our imaginations turn from loving our unsaved neighbors and enemies and love becomes eternal torture in fire for "others" then love for them has vanished from that heart except for themselves. That is not love.


Hebrew has two words for "evil". The word used in the passage that you are thinking of is not the word for moral evil.

Orthodox Christianity is true Christianity. That's basically what Orthodox means. And yes, it holds a clear answer for that issue. I outlined it in my article.

Orthodoxy is a very broad term depending on who wields it.


Speaking of tepid imaginations, yours seems to be somewhat fixated on this primitive idea of hell as a place of literal fire.

I believe in every eternal torment scripture and I believe that it will be literal and it will be torture. It is however not meant to burn God's offspring whom all of mankind are. (Acts 17:25-31)


See if you can expand your imagination a little, and see beyond the metaphor to an underlying spiritual truth.

Truth that renders eternal torment to others that I am commanded by God's Word to love is not truth. Love for one's enemies is the very highest form of Love. Anyone can love the ones who are "like themselves." Even the unsaved do that, and better than most believers IMHO.


As I have said, I the love of God is the fire of hell and the light of heaven. The fire is a purifying fire - purifying the saints, but tormenting those who do not wish to be purified.

And that is only a reflection of what is in your own heart if you are applying such things to people. Such a position is non-existing in the scriptures.


Hmm, you seem to have tailed off into incoherence. Never mind.

Perhaps you can polish up on your communications skills when you don't understand people who see differently than you?


I did, thankyou for your contribution. :thumb:

I don't expect people who are locked into the eternal torture of others to change. They are captives.

My observation remains untouched. God's use of evil for the greater ultimate good is a higher contemplation than most are abled to handle.

enjoy!

smaller

[Jezz]

Generally agree.
:thumb:

There is also a Godly Fire that burns and does not destroy so of course it depends on how you see the "fire."
Yes, of course. The Godly fire of hell is the Godly Fire that burns and does not destroy. It saves people from total destruction at the hands of their own selfishness.

12If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

The fire of God will reveal God's judgement. For some (v15) - those who have built with hay or straw instead of gold and silver - this will cause them to suffer loss (ie, torment = hell), though they themselves will be saved through the fire. The NIV translation is a bit airy for this verse (probably because Protestants don't quite know what to do with this verse), but the above is good enough to make the point.

When our imaginations turn from loving our unsaved neighbors and enemies and love becomes eternal torture in fire for "others" then love for them has vanished from that heart except for themselves. That is not love.
smaller, I'm afraid you missed the point of the article. The entire point of my article is that, for the hard of heart, God's love does torment them. Do you not agree that Valjean's love for Javert was the love of God? Do you not agree that Javert was tormented by this love?

Also: can I please get from you a promise to cease using the word "torture" with respect to the Orthodox understanding of hell.

Orthodoxy is a very broad term depending on who wields it.
Orthodoxy is a very narrow term when wielded by those who are Orthodox.

I believe in every eternal torment scripture and I believe that it will be literal and it will be torture. It is however not meant to burn God's offspring whom all of mankind are. (Acts 17:25-31)
You believe it will be torture? I don't. The word for "torture" is never used.

I do, however, think you are straining to try and restrict hell to those who aren't "God's offspring". Everything in existence is God's offspring - apart from God Himself. And 1 Corinthians makes it quite clear that the fire of the final judgement is applied to humans.

Truth that renders eternal torment to others that I am commanded by God's Word to love is not truth. Love for one's enemies is the very highest form of Love. Anyone can love the ones who are "like themselves." Even the unsaved do that, and better than most believers IMHO.
Again, smaller, you are missing the point. Your statement that "truth that renders torment to others is not truth" is shown to be false by the story of Javert. Please ponder the following questions:

1. Is it true that Valjean was not an evil, unredeemable sinner?
2. Did this truth torment Javert?

And that is only a reflection of what is in your own heart if you are applying such things to people.
Well, to an extent - yes. I love all people. Sometimes, people are tormented by my love - just like Javert was tormented by Valjean's love. Unfortunately, my love is but a pale reflection of the love of God, but I pray that God will help me to improve in this area.

Such a position is non-existing in the scriptures.
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." (See Romans 12:20 and Proverbs 25:21,22.)

The inspired writers of Scripture were well aware that Godly love could be tormenting for its recipient.

Perhaps you can polish up on your communications skills when you don't understand people who see differently than you?
Oh, I understand your position pretty well, I just didn't quite understand your last paragraph. Perhaps you could explain it to me in different words, in order to help me overcome my reading comprehension limitations?

I don't expect people who are locked into the eternal torture of others to change. They are captives.
As noted above, I don't believe in eternal torture.

My observation remains untouched. God's use of evil for the greater ultimate good is a higher contemplation than most are abled to handle.
I am quite capable of understanding that God is able to take humanity's evil intentions and turn them around to work for good. The story of Joseph and his brothers is a perfect example.

I just don't quite see what this observation has to do with the current topic. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

enjoy!
Again, I did. Thanks, and God bless.

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Lee: ... but not, I think a good description of the dynamics of hell

Jezz: But you need to realise that no good descriptions of the dynamics of hell exist.
But I meant that I think there are different descriptions, that tell us that this other description is a faulty one, that it is actually giving incorrect ideas here.

Lee: Certainly I didn't mean hell is a reaction to no action...

Jezz: Then why do you insist on saying "Just due to a reaction"? What else did you hope to imply?
It seems this description is saying that the pains of hell stem from a bad reaction to the love of God, thus hell is in a sense, due to a bad reaction, and primarily, and even only (it would seem, from what I read here) due to that.

Lee: ... hell is an intention and a purpose on God's part, not a mistake in receiving transmission, of the love of God, and responding inappropriately.

Jezz: God's action is intentional and purposeful. This does nothing to disprove the fact that it is also a reaction.
I agree that there is a bad reaction in unbelievers, to the presence of God, which could indeed be part of the pains of hell, I only insist that hell is not fundamentally a bad reaction, it is instead fundamentally a place prepared for punishment for sin. There is intent even in this pain from the bad reaction...

You, as a monergist, seem to believe that God must determine both the action and the reaction, and that if He doesn't that somehow detracts from His sovereignty.
Well no, I believe the Bible teaches that hell is a place prepared specifically, for punishment:

They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Which is why synergists continually accuse your god of being nothing more than a puppeteer.
Well, no again, I believe people can really choose, within God's will:

2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is ... freedom!

But the thing is, there is no such thing as "objective" punishment. What constitutes a punishment always depends on the subject.
I would not insist on (if I'm understanding you correctly) one rigid penalty for a given sin.

George: It is [only] a symptom of a tormented soul, whereas Valjean's extension of forgiveness and life saving love is but the symptom of a soul at peace. Yet can you not see that the one comes from hell, the other from heaven?
Yes, but God is not in Valjean's position, I would say!

Lee: Jesus doesn't say, "Understand and accept the love of God, and avoid hell!" He says, deal with sin, whatever it may cost you, and that way, avoid hell.

George: As for those who do not have this peace, but live in the ever-changing quick-sands ... a foretasting of the life of the kingdom to come for them... And it is hell... Javert's world...
Yes, and by God's decision, that it be a place of punishment, I think that is the critical point to recall here.

Jezz: ... all sin is the failure to love God. To say "deal with sin, whatever it may cost you" is to say effectively the same thing as "love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your mind, and all your soul, and all your strength".
That's a good point, but isn't cutting of a hand or foot focusing specifically on the sin? Not on God, per se, and I think the focus must be on God, primarily, in loving him. Now we might do this in order to love God, more, but the counsel Jesus gives is not to understand better!

I meant "understand" here as the opposite of "misunderstand," how would keeping the hand or the foot be described as misunderstanding the love of God?

So an adjustment, a change of course, even, is not required, instead, we need surgery.

Jezz; If some in His creation cannot bear the shame and torment that His love brings them, that is their problem - not His.

Lee: Yes, but you must be holding that God did not have a purpose for that.

Jezz: ... the purpose is to allow His creatures the potential to reciprocate His love of their own free will.
But I meant that God did not have a purpose for them to be refusing his love, he might have a different purpose, of allowing free will, but not this other purpose.

Lee: So to have his purpose to love them and for them to receive that love, for that not to work out, implies frustration.

Jezz: God's purposes are as follows:

1. To love all of His creatures.
2. To allow all of His creatures the free will to choose whether or not they wish to reciprocate His love.

In the Orthodox view, God accomplishes both of these goals. So which purpose of God is not being accomplished? Where is His frustration, in this view?
But does God not love them (as in point 1) with a purpose of them returning his love? Surely he is not disinterested...

Blessings,
Lee

[Jezz]

But I meant that I think there are different descriptions, that tell us that this other description is a faulty one, that it is actually giving incorrect ideas here.
No, the problem is that you are taking one metaphor of hell (the penal metaphor) and absolutising it - making it the doctrine and ignoring the others. The other descriptions don't prove that this one is faulty - it proves that all of them are somewhat incomplete and fail if you try to push them too far.

It seems this description is saying that the pains of hell stem from a bad reaction to the love of God, thus hell is in a sense, due to a bad reaction, and primarily, and even only (it would seem, from what I read here) due to that.
No, this is just you force-fitting a false dichotomy again. In this picture, hell is due to both the love of God and the reaction. If Valjean had killed Javert instead of setting him free, then Javert would not have been tormented. Both Valjean's love and Javert's hate are necessary ingredients - if either ingredient is missing, then there is no torment. Likewise, without both God's action and the creature's negative reaction, there'd be no hell.

You simply cannot say that it is due only to the bad reaction. I don't know how to make this any more clear. You are simply wrong to say that the position I described implies that only the creature brings about hell, and all you have done here is restate the same opinion you stated last time. You are using the "Appeal to Consequences" fallacy to try and maintain an argument where you have none.

I agree that there is a bad reaction in unbelievers, to the presence of God, which could indeed be part of the pains of hell, I only insist that hell is not fundamentally a bad reaction, it is instead fundamentally a place prepared for punishment for sin. There is intent even in this pain from the bad reaction...
Why does God need to punish people for sin?

Well no, I believe the Bible teaches that hell is a place prepared specifically, for punishment:

They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Why?

Well, no again, I believe people can really choose, within God's will:

2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is ... freedom!
Then why do you insist on forcing the above false dichotomy on the picture of hell that I described?

I would not insist on (if I'm understanding you correctly) one rigid penalty for a given sin.
You understood me partially, but missed the bigger point.

For someone who loves God, the greatest blessing He can bestow upon them is to love them.
For someone who hates God, the greatest punishment He can pour out on them is to love them.

As I quoted to smaller from Romans 12:20, where St Paul cites a Proverb (25:21,22) - St Paul is describing how to leave room for God's wrath on your enemies: by showing God's love to them. Be nice to them, and you will heap burning coals on their heads (ie, bring down the wrath of God upon them).

That's a good point, but isn't cutting of a hand or foot focusing specifically on the sin? Not on God, per se, and I think the focus must be on God, primarily, in loving him. Now we might do this in order to love God, more, but the counsel Jesus gives is not to understand better!

I meant "understand" here as the opposite of "misunderstand," how would keeping the hand or the foot be described as misunderstanding the love of God?
If God metaphorically cuts your hand off so that you don't sin, don't you think that some people would see that as a punishment? Wouldn't you then be misunderstanding God's loving action and seeing it as a punishment?

So an adjustment, a change of course, even, is not required, instead, we need surgery.
No, you're pushing the metaphor too far again. What Christ is saying is simply this: "If you are sinning, then stop."

But I meant that God did not have a purpose for them to be refusing his love, he might have a different purpose, of allowing free will, but not this other purpose.
Why would God need a higher purpose? Isn't love a high enough purpose of in itself?

But does God not love them (as in point 1) with a purpose of them returning his love? Surely he is not disinterested...
No, He does not love them with a purpose of having them return His love. Yes, His love is disinterested. Of course, a synonym for "disinterested" is "selfless".

Yes, most people consider this a strange concept of "love" for most people when they first encounter it. That's because most people's conceptions of love are inherently selfish. One loves for what one can get in return, and if one doesn't get anything in return then there is no point in loving. Even those who say "love brings happiness" and other such nice warm-fuzzies are actually preaching a selfish form of love - making love a means to a selfish end (personal happiness).

God's love is unlike ours in that it is 100%, totally pure and selfless. That's why it seems strange to us and we cannot understand it properly. That is why, when it is described to us, our first reaction is to ask "Surely God loves with the intent of having us love back?" We simply can't comprehend that God would love us simply because He does - and not for anything He can get out of it.

Moreover, to suggest that God has something to gain from our love is to suggest that God is not self-sufficient. As if we impotent creatures actually have something that we could do for the omnipotent, self-sufficient God!

There is no "why" here, Lee. God loves His creatures because He does. Love is the ultimate purpose - not some means to achieve a higher purpose.

[smaller]

:thumb:

Yes, of course. The Godly fire of hell is the Godly Fire that burns and does not destroy. It saves people from total destruction at the hands of their own selfishness.

Does "it" save them all?


12If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

The fire of hell is prepared or made. God as The Consuming Fire is not such a thing or place. That fire of hell exists and is contained within The Greater as "all things" are. There exists then many different types of scriptural fires and it is an error to mix these fire types. The types and uses of scriptural fire is an extensive exhaustive study that demands scrutiny.

An encompassing statement regarding "fire" comes from Jesus' Mouth:

Mark 9:49
For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.

I see this fire as permanent preservative. That preservative? God Is Love and God is Consuming Fire, and of course God will be all in all.


The fire of God will reveal God's judgement. For some (v15) - those who have built with hay or straw instead of gold and silver - this will cause them to suffer loss (ie, torment = hell), though they themselves will be saved through the fire.

And that fire is the judgment fire of "works." What is worthy shall remain. This is not a judgment of the person, but of the works that transpired in the temporal bodies of those people whether to good or bad.


smaller, I'm afraid you missed the point of the article. The entire point of my article is that, for the hard of heart, God's love does torment them.

Well of course there is Perfection and there is everything else. What do you expect to find in this comparison of Perfection to every "thing?"

As it pertains to the acts and works of the temporal man, Valjean, those works were transcending yes. Perfection personified and eternal? Nope. Love expressed here is a candle by comparison to Divine Love.


Do you not agree that Valjean's love for Javert was the love of God? Do you not agree that Javert was tormented by this love?

My overall observation from a "christian" perspective is that God directs the hearts of both. One's love was proven and intensified by the other man's negative contrasting. The other departed in shame, knowing was a grave error was made to NOT LOVE (we hope.) The common denominator? That LOVEly four letter Word.


Also: can I please get from you a promise to cease using the word "torture" with respect to the Orthodox understanding of hell.

Let's not get into a discussion of "orthodoxy." You would not like my understanding of it whatsoever. Suffice it to say that men with sin indwelling them (all) taken as a lot will not alter a single jot or tittle of God's Direct Words through The Prophets or even more, through His Son. The scripture cannot be "broken."


You believe it will be torture? I don't. The word for "torture" is never used.

The ways to water down what "eternal tormentists" believe about "hell" and "punishment" will vary wildly amidst the respective sectors ranging from separation from God (as if such a thing was even possible) to permanent annihilation. Where you might be on this scale I do not know. Perhaps you are one of the "nicer" ones...;) (as if any can be nicer in that view.)


I do, however, think you are straining to try and restrict hell to those who aren't "God's offspring".

All of creation shall experience the freedom of the sons of God. (Romans 8)

There is also an anti-spirit that is against His creation that dispenses corruption, weakness, humility, darkness, and eventually death to creation.

Perhaps even the term anti-creation would be for them (the devil and his messengers) an adequate term. That portion that God Himself anti-created and uses against not only Javert, but Valjean (since all have sin, even the "good ones") shall be utterly set aside and terminated. The setting aside being a form of anti-heaven for the anti-spirit. A shrinking phenomena to containment and then nothing on the eternal scale of things.


Everything in existence is God's offspring - apart from God Himself.

Not true. Scripturally speaking only mankind is identified as offspring or children of God.

A "thing" can be created and not be termed an offspring i.e. devils and his messengers. They are no more than temporal tools for a temporal job. Like a piece of anti-spiritual exercise equipment for "creation" in preparation of His sons for the eternal realm. When God is finished using those tools He will discard them.

Evil then is also God's servant as He is far Greater.


And 1 Corinthians makes it quite clear that the fire of the final judgement is applied to humans.

I hate to make bolded statements but here is your citing lifted and clarified:

"the fire will test the quality of each man's work."

A man as an offspring of God and a man's work (as directed by their Father) are not the same things. Many people who you may view as deemed to eternal failure in actuality carry vile works to their respective crosses unto Divine Judgment and this is the work of God in them. Even Pharoah as an offspring was used in his temporal body to DEMONstrate the Power of God. And we know of course that it was God Himself who RAISED ENEMIES against Israel. Pharoah was such an enemy. Javert was such an enemy. God uses evil to put the polish on His Power which is of course LOVE.


Again, smaller, you are missing the point. Your statement that "truth that renders torment to others is not truth" is shown to be false by the story of Javert. Please ponder the following questions:

1. Is it true that Valjean was not an evil, unredeemable sinner?

All have sin and have sinned save One. What is your point? To say that Javert, even in some small way may not have loved? I am sure Javert must have loved at some point in time. I would not say there is any man who has not loved, at least his own life.

Both men from God's Perspective have the same condition. God Himself has bound all men to disobedience. Valjean was no exception. He was just "less" bound than his compatriot because he tracended evil with love while in this life.

It is not right to then only judge the one for his sin and not the other.

While we may rightfully say that which was done that was good was worthy to remain and continue, it is also true that God in that Grander Scale will use even what transpired in Javert to JUDGE THOSE THINGS that transpiried in him and use them as the permanent record to set aside and destroy those works and workers that also resided in Javert's flesh that enslaved that offspring of God, Javert.

This is a thought form that you may not be familiar with, but one that is held widely in traditional Judaism in various forms. They understand that it is God Himself who pulls the strings and raises the enemies for the testing of LOVE and the judgment of evil.


2. Did this truth torment Javert?

A slave performs the bidding of their master. I do not condemn the captives.

In fact I destest slavery in general particularly slavery to limited mindsets and fascist viewpoints. Such is the mind and body nearly devoid of LOVE.


Well, to an extent - yes. I love all people. Sometimes, people are tormented by my love - just like Javert was tormented by Valjean's love. Unfortunately, my love is but a pale reflection of the love of God, but I pray that God will help me to improve in this area.

Let it be so for us all my friend as this is our call and demand from Above. Let us all partake and request Him for more. You do understand that as much and as hard as we may try to love that is OUR reward in this life. Such things are nearly as nothing by Divine comparisons.


"If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." (See Romans 12:20 and Proverbs 25:21,22.)

The inspired writers of Scripture were well aware that Godly love could be tormenting for its recipient.

I understand that love heaps burning coals on the heads of my enemies. There is an enemy that is tortured by love. It is NOT your fellow man.

And the presumption you are making here is that only Valjean is love and that Javert is only evil. I would submit that as God's offspring each man's spirits will be used in the fashion that God has formed for them and that no man's life in this wicked and evil generation will be wasted. Not a one. The typical christian rhetoric in all of these matters of the judging of others is pathetically simpleminded.


Oh, I understand your position pretty well, I just didn't quite understand your last paragraph.

You may understand your own caricatures of my position and that held by many Christian Universalists but have you really figured out that Love is the far superior component in all things???

When you step onto that ground you are my brother. Til then you may very well be my brother who is trapped by his own exercise equipment.

I do not mistake these two positions, the offspring and the exercise equipment. Both components speak from the mouths of everyman. Valjean, Javert, you, me. We must compare our every word to His Word to know and understand ourselves first.

Jesus shows me this reality a hundred times and a hundred ways in the Gospel. I know who He came to war with and I know who He came to save.

You see only one entity, man, as the judged. I cannot blame another man for what I also have, sin. Neither can Valjean and IF Valjean steps onto his superior ground, I have the deepest respect and bond for what is happening. It is the very work of God building His Church.


As noted above, I don't believe in eternal torture.

Feel free to divulge your particular form of eternal judgment to your fellow man that you are commanded to love at any time...;)


I am quite capable of understanding that God is able to take humanity's evil intentions and turn them around to work for good. The story of Joseph and his brothers is a perfect example.

One of my favorite examples. Thank you!


I just don't quite see what this observation has to do with the current topic. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

There is enough here already to find agreement or contention. I leave that disclosure to The Revealer of the hearts and dance with either disclosure as provided.

enjoy!

smaller

[Rowland]

My reply to Jezz


But the thing is, if we take seriously the fact that God has achieved goal 2, then we must take seriously the fact that some of God's creatures may forever freely choose to not love God. Our will is not truly free unless we have this freedom. And if we have this freedom, then we must acknowledge the fact that some people may choose to exercise it the wrong way, and end up in hell. It is a logical contradiction to say that all of God's creatures - whom He created with the ability to love Him or not love Him, according to their own will - must all love Him.

Thanks Jezz for your comments on my post. I have a disagreement over your definition of human freedom. I tend toward the Calvinist postion regarding free will, but I'm not going to get into the Calvinist vs. Arminian debate, at least I hope I'm not doing so. My concern is over the definition of what it means to be saved. What is salvation? What are we saved from or for? I believe that salvation is-partly- the state in which a human being is free. Before a person is saved he is a slave to sin, he is not free. Freedom, in my view, is not the power or capacity to choose between doing evil (such as refusing to love God) and doing good (such as trusting in God and loving Him). If this power of choice is what being free means then God is not free for He cannot choose to commit moral evil. He cannot choose to not love himself. I believe that human freedom is the ability to be fully human, fully alive. It is the freedom from slavery to evil. It is the freedom to choose love over hate, kindness over meanness etc. So, a person who would choose not to love God, not to worship God is not a free person. Freedom is what salvation would bring to him. In view of this, how can you expect a person to choose to love God and therby avoid hell if he needs to be saved from his condition of slavery to hate, hatred of God. You want this person to have the very quality that only salvation brings in order for him to be saved-the freedom to choose to love God; the freedom to be fully human.

Inspector Javert's suicide shows that he was not a free man. He was ensnared by his despair, by his pride, by whatever. He was not free to love God because he had not yet been saved, been given the ability to love God. If men and women are by nature free then no savior is necessary. It is possible that, even before they sinned, Adam and Eve may not have had the freedom to love God. This freedom was made possible by the coming of the Son of God in the flesh. The Son of God joined his freedom to humanity and thus made our freedom attainable by our being included in the life of our Savior. The difference between Jean Valjean and Javert is one of timing only. God choose to grant freedom to Valjean first-in this life. He has choosen to grant freedom to Javert in the next age through a process we are only dimly aware of. But all of God's creatures will be free some day. And when they are truely free they will all declare that Jesus is Lord and will bend the knee to him in worship as the Bible says. When human beings are truely free they cannot not love God.

Rowland

[George Blaisdell]

My concern is over the definition of what it means to be saved. What is salvation? What are we saved from or for? I believe that salvation is-partly- the state in which a human being is free.
Rowland

Please forgive me for slipping in here, but this is something I have wanted to ask a follower of Calvin...

We find in John 17 the following:
"22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one:
23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."

So that we can assume, for the sake of taking a look, that the Apostles were, in Calvin's terms, saved, yes? And this state of being saved consists in their having the glory that God the Father gave God the Son in the world, and that they be one as Christ is one with the Father, that through them, the world will know that the Father sent the Son...

And my question is this: How many people do you know who fit this description?

In Orthodoxy, these are the saints, the wonder workers, the holy ones of God who entered and finished the 'race', the contesting of 'evil powers and principalities in high places'... They are no longer sinning...

Who, according to the followers of Calvin, are fitted to this description? Is it just the first 12?? [minus 1]

Arsenios

[Rowland]

Hi, Arsenios,

Please forgive me for slipping in here, but this is something I have wanted to ask a follower of Calvin...

We find in John 17 the following:
"22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one:
23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."

So that we can assume, for the sake of taking a look, that the Apostles were, in Calvin's terms, saved, yes? And this state of being saved consists in their having the glory that God the Father gave God the Son in the world, and that they be one as Christ is one with the Father, that through them, the world will know that the Father sent the Son...

And my question is this: How many people do you know who fit this description?

In Orthodoxy, these are the saints, the wonder workers, the holy ones of God who entered and finished the 'race', the contesting of 'evil powers and principalities in high places'... They are no longer sinning...

Who, according to the followers of Calvin, are fitted to this description? Is it just the first 12?? [minus 1]

I hope that I am a follower of Jesus, not Calvin. In any event, all believers, in one sense, are sinless (see 1 John 3) "Those who have been born of God do not sin, because God's seed abides in them; they cannot sin because they have been born of God." John writes this just after he has written, "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (1 John 1:8)." So, my friend, even though you don't see any sinless Christians they are there. Their glory is hidden. All of creation waits for this glory to be revealed on the last day. In our unresurrected bodies we still sin. But in our spirit existence we have the seed of God, which will come to full bloom when we are fully glorified at the resurrection on the last day.

Unfortunately, Christians achieved the unity that Christ prayed for for only a short time. Because of differences we stopped loving one another. As a consequence the world for many centuries has not been able to see in us that Jesus was sent by the Father, by God. This lack of love for one another is what really has dimmed the glory that is in us Christians.

Because of what I have just said, I reject the Orthodox and Roman Catholic practice of setting aside some Christian believers as somehow being more saintly than the majority of believers. All believers are saints. The Virgin Mary, St. Paul etc. are no holier than any other believer and should not in any way be put on a pedestal, or given honors not given to ordinary Christian believers. "For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:22)." Yes, even Mary, the mother of God, was a sinner until the day she died.

Poor Arsenio. I'm your worst nightmare as, not only am I an iconoclast, I also reject the notion that there are such things as holy places, sacred places or objects. Should I have the true cross upon which Jesus was crucified I would consider it just so much worthless wood. The place where Jesus was born has no special sacredness. It's just a piece of real estate like any other. We saints have glory because God abides in us: "But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you... But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness (Romans 8:9-10)." It is the Spirit that gives life, not the flesh, not the material world, including the wood of the cross or the ground upon which Jesus was born. (Even if the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation is true, that the bread and wine is indeed the body and blood of Jesus Christ, this would mean nothing as there is nothing special about Jesus' physical body.) Our glory is hidden; outwardly we appear as vessels of clay, "...vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory...(Romans 9:23)."

Rowland

[7thangel]

In this present life the realities of heaven and hell are already here, but and in our weakness and spiritual blindness we are not always clearly able to distinguish them. But in the life to come, when Christ returns to raise the dead and fully reveals Himself (who is the Truth) and the love of the Father, then the difference will be clear for all to see. This is the final judgment

I guess the real issue that concern all of us about hell is "ignorance"(spiritual blindness), even of the reality of the existence of hell itself. As you characterize Javert himself, he is actually a lover of good and justice but failed to appreciate it due to ignorance, and thus suffered hell from such ignorance. And the simple question is that if it is really right to convict a person to be in hell with such ignorance, or either remain in such a state of hell because of such ignorance. Much more if hell be eternal, I cannot fathom any sense of justice in sending an ignorant to hell.

Do not atheists feel like Javert's in dealing with the Christians who believe in hell? My point would be, how can we convict atheist's as God-haters because the Christians presented a God sending people to hell eternally and cannot present the fairness of it? And quite simply, if we, Christians, would doubt the fairness of hell, how much more would the atheist's be? And so, also, how would you convince atheists to think you are a just person in such a case?

So, aren't the the people who believe in hell are actually in the state of Javert's, being like their god who is unjust and "UNFORGIVING"....just think of being what is in "ETERNAL" hell is? - I guess this should be the resounding question deep inside of us.

[George Blaisdell]

Hi, Arsenios,



I hope that I am a follower of Jesus, not Calvin. In any event, all believers, in one sense, are sinless (see 1 John 3) "Those who have been born of God do not sin, because God's seed abides in them; they cannot sin because they have been born of God." John writes this just after he has written, "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (1 John 1:8)." So, my friend, even though you don't see any sinless Christians they are there. Their glory is hidden. All of creation waits for this glory to be revealed on the last day. In our unresurrected bodies we still sin. But in our spirit existence we have the seed of God, which will come to full bloom when we are fully glorified at the resurrection on the last day.

Unfortunately, Christians achieved the unity that Christ prayed for for only a short time. Because of differences we stopped loving one another. As a consequence the world for many centuries has not been able to see in us that Jesus was sent by the Father, by God. This lack of love for one another is what really has dimmed the glory that is in us Christians.

Because of what I have just said, I reject the Orthodox and Roman Catholic practice of setting aside some Christian believers as somehow being more saintly than the majority of believers. All believers are saints. The Virgin Mary, St. Paul etc. are no holier than any other believer and should not in any way be put on a pedestal, or given honors not given to ordinary Christian believers. "For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:22)." Yes, even Mary, the mother of God, was a sinner until the day she died.

Poor Arsenio. I'm your worst nightmare as, not only am I an iconoclast, I also reject the notion that there are such things as holy places, sacred places or objects. Should I have the true cross upon which Jesus was crucified I would consider it just so much worthless wood. The place where Jesus was born has no special sacredness. It's just a piece of real estate like any other. We saints have glory because God abides in us: "But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you... But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness (Romans 8:9-10)." It is the Spirit that gives life, not the flesh, not the material world, including the wood of the cross or the ground upon which Jesus was born. (Even if the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation is true, that the bread and wine is indeed the body and blood of Jesus Christ, this would mean nothing as there is nothing special about Jesus' physical body.) Our glory is hidden; outwardly we appear as vessels of clay, "...vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory...(Romans 9:23)."

Rowland

Dear Rowland -

Thank you for the elegance and truth of your repy.

I will never again criticize a follower of Christ who is in the tradition of Calvin.

You have the poignancy of my heartfelt sorrow...

And the worthlessness of my prayers...

May you find sacred holiness in this world of sorrows...

And more than merely old dirt, dead bones, and rotted wood...

Thank-you again

And again...

Arsenios

[lee_merrill]

Hi Jezz,

Lee: I meant that I think there are different descriptions, that tell us that this other description is a faulty one...

Jezz: No, the problem is that you are taking one metaphor of hell (the penal metaphor) and absolutising it - making it the doctrine and ignoring the others.
Isn't this analogy of misunderstood love ignoring the penal metaphor, though? And should we ever stop at a boundary of meanings? I think indeed we should, sometimes, simply to include more meanings in order to avoid any false distinctions seems to be inappropriate, each meaning should be examined, to see if it applies.

Lee: It seems this description is saying that the pains of hell stem from a bad reaction to the love of God, thus hell is in a sense, due to a bad reaction...

Jezz: No, this is just you force-fitting a false dichotomy again. In this picture, hell is due to both the love of God and the reaction.
Well, yes, and they must have existed as persons, and have had a will to choose, but I am focusing on the critical turning point here, for if the love of God is a given, we may focus on what may vary, and call that a cause, though I agree that all elements are needed here.

For example, one ball striking another causes the other ball to go into motion. But more is required! The second ball has to be able to roll, and cannot burst into flames at the moment of impact, etc. Yet we don't mention these other aspects that are considered givens, when discussing the cause, though they are all required in this event.

Jezz: You are simply wrong to say that the position I described implies that only the creature brings about hell...
Well, if all else in this situation is a given, then we may speak of the person's decision being the (crucial) cause here, in the sense given above, recognizing that these other elements must be present, and also recognizing that they certainly will be present.

Lee: I only insist that hell is not fundamentally a bad reaction, it is instead fundamentally a place prepared for punishment for sin. There is intent even in this pain from the bad reaction...

Jezz: Why does God need to punish people for sin?
Do you really not believe that sin should be punished? And this is all through Scripture, you may need to ask him, though, if it seems unreasonable.

1 Thessalonians 4:6-8 ... and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God ...

Lee: Well no, I believe the Bible teaches that hell is a place prepared specifically, for punishment:

"They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

Jezz: Why?
Because this quote is a Scripture verse, speaking of hell, and calling it punishment.

Lee: Well, no again, I believe people can really choose, within God's will:

2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is ... freedom!

Jezz: Then why do you insist on forcing the above false dichotomy on the picture of hell that I described?
Because unbelievers can't choose, they are slaves to sin, slaves to their desires, slaves to the devil.

As I quoted to smaller from Romans 12:20, where St Paul cites a Proverb (25:21,22) - St Paul is describing how to leave room for God's wrath on your enemies: by showing God's love to them. Be nice to them, and you will heap burning coals on their heads (ie, bring down the wrath of God upon them).
That's a good point, but this loving them is "leaving room for God's wrath," thus this loving them, heaping coals of fire on their head, is not yet God's wrath at this point. Nor is wrath the same as love, in Scripture, the concepts are quite different.

Lee: I meant "understand" here as the opposite of "misunderstand," how would keeping the hand or the foot be described as misunderstanding the love of God?

Jezz: If God metaphorically cuts your hand off so that you don't sin, don't you think that some people would see that as a punishment? Wouldn't you then be misunderstanding God's loving action and seeing it as a punishment?
But this is about the person themselves cutting off the hand or foot (or not doing so), this is not about God doing this or not doing this. And not cutting of the hand or foot doesn't seem to fit well as an analogy of a misunderstanding.

Lee: So an adjustment, a change of course, even, is not required, instead, we need surgery.

Jezz: No, you're pushing the metaphor too far again. What Christ is saying is simply this: "If you are sinning, then stop."
Yes, but it seems odd to describe understanding as a loss of a member. Shouldn't it be a gain here, if that is what is meant?

Proverbs 16:16 How much better to get wisdom than gold, to choose understanding rather than silver!

Jezz: He does not love them with a purpose of having them return His love. Yes, His love is disinterested. Of course, a synonym for "disinterested" is "selfless".
Well, I meant more "uninterested," as in "uncaring," it doesn't matter to God whether we love him or not. But surely it does, he wept over Jerusalem...

Blessings,
Lee

[Rowland]

Dear Rowland -

Thank you for the elegance and truth of your repy.

I will never again criticize a follower of Christ who is in the tradition of Calvin.

You have the poignancy of my heartfelt sorrow...

And the worthlessness of my prayers...

May you find sacred holiness in this world of sorrows...

And more than merely old dirt, dead bones, and rotted wood...

Thank-you again

And again...

Arsenios

My dear precious brother,

The Calvinists reject me because I believe in universal salvation. Actually, Calvinist or Reformed theology leads to the belief in universal salvation. Reformed theology emphasizes divine sovereignty over human freedom. I also believe that God indeed wishes that everyone would come to the knowledge of truth and be healed. God's will cannot be thwarted even by so called human free will. Therefore God's desire will be accomplished; all people will, in the end, be saved. The Calvinists also teach that God's mercy is separate from His wrath whereas I believe that since God's very nature is love, His wrath is only a subset of His mercy. His mercy is forever while His wrath is only temporary and always subject to His mercy. Lastly, I was a devout Roman Catholic for many decades and still have Catholic impulses. For example, Protestantism is focused on the individual whereas I have more of a corporate or communitarian view of salvation. The individualistic, me and my Bible, feel of American Protestantism just doesn't sit well with me. And I could never get used to their worship sevice as it seemed to me to be nothing more than a Bible class. I wanted to fall down at my Reformed pastor's feet and beg him for at least one lit candle during the service. I am now unchurched as I cannot be true to myself and be in a church that either disrespects the Bible as Catholics do or fails to appreciate God's love for lost humanity as the Reformed do. The Reformed are almost gnostic in their demand that people must know and believe in certain truths before they can be saved. Knowledge saves the lost rather than God saves the lost. So, although my theology tends toward Calvinism, go ahead and blast the Calvinits. Be my guest. But, on the other hand, try to be nice about it. Their feelings are easily hurt.

I must say that I was pleasantly surprised by your loving response to what I thought would be somewhat offensive to you. I didn't mean to be offensive-I was just speaking from my heart. But I am touched by the love that you have shown me and by your uncommon humility. Your words give me a peace and a feeling of oneness with you in our Savior, Jesus Christ.

God bless you, my friend. I'll see you in heaven. I'll wear a yellow robe so that you can spot me among all the white. Please come up to me and say hello. :smile:

Rowland

[George Blaisdell]

My dear precious brother,

Thank-you...


The Calvinists reject me because I believe in universal salvation. Actually, Calvinist or Reformed theology leads to the belief in universal salvation. Reformed theology emphasizes divine sovereignty over human freedom.


So what do you do with Christ's ei tis thelei when He calls all mankind to salvation? [eg If anyone is willing after Me to be following, let him first deny himself, take up his own cross, and be following me." I mean, there is never any question regarding His sovereignty over the human will, but the fact is, it is the free human will that He seeks from us to give to him, that He can strengthen it and increase it and perfect it, and through that effort on our part, to conform us to His divine image( eikwn=icon), in which we are created.


I wanted to fall down at my Reformed pastor's feet and beg him for at least one lit candle during the service. I am now unchurched as I cannot be true to myself and be in a church that either disrespects the Bible as Catholics do or fails to appreciate God's love for lost humanity as the Reformed do.


What??? So what are you doing? Avoiding Orthodox services? Have you ever been to an Orthodox service? Catholics tell me it is a lot like their 'high mass', whatever that is - in that there is incense and chanting and singing throughout - We do that every service -


The Reformed are almost gnostic in their demand that people must know and believe in certain truths before they can be saved. Knowledge saves the lost rather than God saves the lost.


They think that God's Word saves, and so they think studying God's word is worship, so they read the Bible and preach about it a lot in services, thinking that this will somehow yield them salvation. Others, more spiritually inclined, have a salvation experience, and think they are thereby saved by God direct, with no 'middleman', like the Church...


So, although my theology tends toward Calvinism, go ahead and blast the Calvinits. Be my guest. But, on the other hand, try to be nice about it. Their feelings are easily hurt.


Your theology??? The Orthodox simply take the theological teachings of the Church, over a 2000 year span of writings and commentaries, and embrace it in discipleship so as to make it a reality in their hearts of flesh... We don't each of ushave "our own" personal theology that we tell the Church to adapt itself to, but instead we adapt ourselves to what the Church teaches... And nowhere in the Bible will you find the teaching that we are supposed to read our own Bible and have our own theology and find a Church to match. That be nutzoroonioos


I must say that I was pleasantly surprised by your loving response to what I thought would be somewhat offensive to you. I didn't mean to be offensive-I was just speaking from my heart. But I am touched by the love that you have shown me and by your uncommon humility. Your words give me a peace and a feeling of oneness with you in our Savior, Jesus Christ.


Kindness is far more important than proving one'self right... And lovingness is better than anything... Your words gave me great pain for you... That's all.


God bless you, my friend. I'll see you in heaven. I'll wear a yellow robe so that you can spot me among all the white. Please come up to me and say hello. :smile:
Rowland


Please pray for me...

Arsenios

[Jezz]

Hi, 7th angel! Thanks for commenting on my article.

I guess the real issue that concern all of us about hell is "ignorance"(spiritual blindness), even of the reality of the existence of hell itself. As you characterize Javert himself, he is actually a lover of good and justice but failed to appreciate it due to ignorance, and thus suffered hell from such ignorance.
No, actually. The way I characterise Javert is that he loved "good" and "justice" only to the extent that they served his selfish purpose. He used them as means to an end, and his end was to prove his superiority over those who were (in his estimation) inferior to him (eg Valjean). He wasn't really interested in true justice - if he was, he would have had compassion on Valjean for the terrible turn of events that led him into prison, and especially he would have been thankful for the kindness that Valjean showed towards him.

It was ultimately Javert's selfishness that caused him to try to flee from the love of God. Selfishness is the very essence of hell. Which is why Christ said "Anyone who wants to come with me must deny his self".

And the simple question is that if it is really right to convict a person to be in hell with such ignorance, or either remain in such a state of hell because of such ignorance. Much more if hell be eternal, I cannot fathom any sense of justice in sending an ignorant to hell.
I think you're missing the point of the story slightly. Let me in turn ask you a simple question, so that you might for yourself ponder what my answer to your question would be:

Was it really right for Valjean to let Javert go free, without exacting revenge?

Do not atheists feel like Javert's in dealing with the Christians who believe in hell? My point would be, how can we convict atheist's as God-haters because the Christians presented a God sending people to hell eternally and cannot present the fairness of it? And quite simply, if we, Christians, would doubt the fairness of hell, how much more would the atheist's be? And so, also, how would you convince atheists to think you are a just person in such a case?
I agree. That is why I reject the Western view of a God who sends people to hell because He is incapable of forgiving them. And I can certainly sympathise with atheists (and there seem to be many) who have rejected God based on what is actually an incorrect picture of Him. Those who have born false testimony about God will need to give an account for their blasphemy of His good Name. I pray that the Lord have mercy on such offenders, of whom I am the worst.

So, aren't the the people who believe in hell are actually in the state of Javert's, being like their god who is unjust and "UNFORGIVING"....just think of being what is in "ETERNAL" hell is? - I guess this should be the resounding question deep inside of us.
Well, to be quite honest - yes. I believe that people who believe in an unjust and unforgiving god are in a hell of their own to an extent. Their denial of the truth and their self-justifications for their beliefs are very reminiscent of the behaviour of Javert. And of course, this criticism isn't limited to people who believe in God as the Punisher: we are all in a hell of this kind to an extent, which is why we must fall on the mercy of God to save us from it.

But remember, the view of God and hell that I tried to present in my article (which, to the best of my feeble ability, was supposed to correspond to the Orthodox view) was not the view that you are criticising here. It is not a picture of God Who sends people to hell because He doesn't forgive them! Think about the allegory of Valjean and Javert. Why was Javert tormented? He was not tormented because Valjean was unforgiving! It was, in fact, 100% the opposite - Javert was tormented because of Valjean's forgiveness!

Was what Valjean did cruel? Was it unloving? Should he have not forgiven Javert? Would that have been a more loving thing to do? No, of course not.

So it is with God and those who hate Him. Just like Valjean, He forgives their hate, and just like Javert, they hate Him all the more for it. The torment of hell is the forgiveness of God experienced by the unforgiving, the justice of God for the unjust, the love of God for the unloving, etc. What is God to do - stop forgiving them so that their torment will cease? Of course not - that would only make their torment worse!

To others who have posted: I am sorry I haven't got around to responding yet... I will try to do so in the next few days.

[Rowland]

My friend, Arsenios

Your theology??? The Orthodox simply take the theological teachings of the Church, over a 2000 year span of writings and commentaries, and embrace it in discipleship so as to make it a reality in their hearts of flesh... We don't each of ushave "our own" personal theology that we tell the Church to adapt itself to, but instead we adapt ourselves to what the Church teaches... And nowhere in the Bible will you find the teaching that we are supposed to read our own Bible and have our own theology and find a Church to match. That be nutzoroonioos

You make a good point. I only wish that I could take the theological teachings of the Church for the last 2000 years as my theology. I can't because the theology of the Roman Catholic Church, at least, has changed many times over the last 2000 years. Calvinism actually began with St. Augustine. St.Thomas Aquinas also taught predestination. The Church moved to the free will position with the Jesuit run Counter Reformation (or Catholic Reformation as it is now called). The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception regarding Mary being conceived without original sin was only promulgated in the year 1854 or thereabouts. The pope was declared infallible in 1870. In his writings, St. Augustine admitted that most Christians of his time believed that all would be saved; he disagreed and put the Church on the path of teaching the doctrine of eternal torment. So, if the Roman Catholic Church into which I was born does not have a consistent theology, what theology should I adopt? If the Catholic Church teaches error how can a find a church that doesn't unless I already have a theology that I think is correct? What would cause me to join the Orthodox Church other than my opinion that it teaches correct theology? Your take on the Church and theology only works if one believes that one's Church is the true Church right from the get go. But once this belief is shattered, as in my case, then one is on his own and has no choice but to develop his theology from the reading of Scripture. The loss of faith in the Church in the West in the 16th century caused millions of people to take the same journey that I have taken. The result has been disastrous-a denomination on every corner-but what alternative did they have or do I have?

Rowland

[George Blaisdell]

My friend, Arsenios

You make a good point. I only wish that I could take the theological teachings of the Church for the last 2000 years as my theology. I can't because the theology of the Roman Catholic Church, at least, has changed many times over the last 2000 years. Calvinism actually began with St. Augustine. St.Thomas Aquinas also taught predestination. The Church moved to the free will position with the Jesuit run Counter Reformation (or Catholic Reformation as it is now called). The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception regarding Mary being conceived without original sin was only promulgated in the year 1854 or thereabouts. The pope was declared infallible in 1870. In his writings, St. Augustine admitted that most Christians of his time believed that all would be saved; he disagreed and put the Church on the path of teaching the doctrine of eternal torment. So, if the Roman Catholic Church into which I was born does not have a consistent theology, what theology should I adopt? If the Catholic Church teaches error how can I find a church that doesn't unless I already have a theology that I think is correct? What would cause me to join the Orthodox Church other than my opinion that it teaches correct theology? Your take on the Church and theology only works if one believes that one's Church is the true Church right from the get go. But once this belief is shattered, as in my case, then one is on his own and has no choice but to develop his theology from the reading of Scripture. The loss of faith in the Church in the West in the 16th century caused millions of people to take the same journey that I have taken. The result has been disastrous-a denomination on every corner-but what alternative did they have or do I have?

Rowland

I agree. The only consolation which I would offer to you is that the Roman Church has been out of communion with the rest of the communion of Christian Churches since 1054. So that the way home for you, as a Roman Catholic, is to return to the pre-1054 Church, and that Church is the communion of Churches that still holds to the first 7 Ecumenical Councils, and has not 'developed' any theology, but only holds unchanged the faith delivered once, for all, to the Apostles.

It looks that now, with their new Pontif, Rome is going to be making a concerted effort to return to the communion of the [Eastern] Orthodox Church that She left so long ago, and from which She has become so prodigal... We have been praying for Her return a long time. If you are still in Her communion, you can still go to your priest, and tell him you want to worship as a pre-1054 Catholic. Or, you can become Orthodox. Rome FULLY recognizes the Mysteries [Sacraments] of the Orthodox Church. It is WE, who do NOT recognize Rome's communion. So that you can become Orthodox with Rome's blessings, but not vice versa.

But the real way is not to criticize Rome, develop your own theology from the Bible, and find a Church to match - That is animal crackers... The real way is to say that Rome strayed and changed Her doctrines, for that is obvious to all... She will tell you so, that Her theology underwent 'development' across the centuries. And then to admit that you do not know what the correct theology of Christianity is... And then to submit yourself to the Apostolic Church in discipleship.

And if you want to find ontological verification of this faith, go on a 6 month sabbatical from the world, and make pilgrimages from Orthodox monastery to Orthodox monastery, staying at each for a week or so, living as the monks live, and deciding from that if you want to enter their communion. You might try going to several Roman Catholic monasteries as well - I hear there is even a Lutheran monastery you might visit. Then you will have a basis, in prayers and services and talking with the monastics, to decide the way to God...

The alternative to Roman error and Protestant pseudo-corrections is the original faith of the Holy Fathers of the undivided Church of the first millenium... It still exists - persecuted and wounded - In some places shattetred and in mere remnants [Christian militia groups in Palestine, for instance], but still strong and vibrant in Thessalonika and Greece and most especially on Mount Athos, and in the Russian Church now coming back...

The hatred of the world for this Church has been horriffic. The 20th century killed of tens of millions of them, in Mesopotamia, in Russia, in Eastern Europe, to name but a few... Being called to this Church is a call to willingness to be martyred if need be, but to live a radically different life from the world, in self denial, self sacrifice, and love of God and man... And in this effort, sure - There is theology - But living an ontological life of prayer and service are core, not the possession of a theoretical intellectual construct of beliefs.

No small matter, this faith....

Arsenios

[furay]

nutzoroonioos
That is animal crackers...

You are in top form in this thread, Arsenios. :teeth: :hug:

[George Blaisdell]

You are in top form in this thread, Arsenios. :teeth: :hug:

I'd better be - That Rowland guy is a hard case - Unflinching honesty, good perceptives, and been betrayed...

And besides, he's sweet and broken-hearted...

And my grand-daughter Lina is a gorgeous 4 week old, and the relics of St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco are an awesome veneration... Seems like all I do is cry anymore when I go into Churches... This is a big trip...

Leaving SF this afternoon for SD... My daughter's computer...

Arsenios

[furay]

I'd better be - That Rowland guy is a hard case - Unflinching honesty, good perceptives, and been betrayed...

And besides, he's sweet and broken-hearted...
Yup, he seems to be a cool cat. :smile:

And my grand-daughter Lina is a gorgeous 4 week old
Share some pictures if you ever get a chance. I'll have to show you some of my baby niece, Jessica, who is a 10 month old fatty. Have to keep this brief because she is on her way over to my house as I type.

and the relics of St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco are an awesome veneration...
Truly a great Saint of the Church. I would like to visit his relics sometime... the pictures I've seen online are quite humbling.

Seems like all I do is cry anymore when I go into Churches...
:thumb: Hey, it's very profitable to cry in the Temple... thank the Good Lord, you are not outside it - laughing and jeering!

This is a big trip...

Leaving SF this afternoon for SD... My daughter's computer...

Arsenios
I pray for you at my Icon Corner and throughout the day as well.... as best I can. I know God will keep you safe. Have a blessed trip and look forward to talking with you more soon.

Now, I have to go watch over my little porker of a niece. :teeth:

[Jezz]

Does "it" save them all?
Yes. Some of them don't like it, though.

The fire of hell is prepared or made. God as The Consuming Fire is not such a thing or place. That fire of hell exists and is contained within The Greater as "all things" are. There exists then many different types of scriptural fires and it is an error to mix these fire types. The types and uses of scriptural fire is an extensive exhaustive study that demands scrutiny.

An encompassing statement regarding "fire" comes from Jesus' Mouth:

Mark 9:49
For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.

I see this fire as permanent preservative. That preservative? God Is Love and God is Consuming Fire, and of course God will be all in all.
Ok, I mostly agree with that - especially the last sentence. But my point is that people who hate God will be tormented by that fire - that love.

And that fire is the judgment fire of "works." What is worthy shall remain. This is not a judgment of the person, but of the works that transpired in the temporal bodies of those people whether to good or bad.
I agree. And for a person who is proud of himself and what he has achieved, only to see all of their works that they are so proud of be consumed by the fire of God's judgement? Do you not think that such a person would be tormented by their loss? The passage does in fact say that they will suffer loss - it doesn't say that they will find the loss an enoyable experience.

Well of course there is Perfection and there is everything else. What do you expect to find in this comparison of Perfection to every "thing?"

As it pertains to the acts and works of the temporal man, Valjean, those works were transcending yes. Perfection personified and eternal? Nope. Love expressed here is a candle by comparison to Divine Love.
Well, again I agree - Valjean's love, while extreme by human standards, is only a pale reflection of the love of God. But then, how do you think Javert would have felt if Valjean had loved him more than what he actually did? Would Javert's torment have been less, or more?

My overall observation from a "christian" perspective is that God directs the hearts of both. One's love was proven and intensified by the other man's negative contrasting. The other departed in shame, knowing was a grave error was made to NOT LOVE (we hope.) The common denominator? That LOVEly four letter Word.
Again, I agree. But how does that change my point? Javert was shamed knowing that he made an error to not love. Would our shame not be all the greater - all the more tormenting - if we made the error to not love God?

Let's not get into a discussion of "orthodoxy." You would not like my understanding of it whatsoever.
I'm simply telling you what the understanding of the Orthodox Church is - the Church of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Russia, Serbia, Croatia, etc... This is what they believe.

The ways to water down what "eternal tormentists" believe about "hell" and "punishment" will vary wildly amidst the respective sectors ranging from separation from God (as if such a thing was even possible) to permanent annihilation.
It's not a watering down - it's a matter of choosing the right terms. You're deliberating choosing terms that I don't agree with in order to try and demonise my position. This is known as the "strawdemon" fallacy. Don't you think it would be courteous of you to attack my position, rather than attribute a different position to me and attack that one instead?

As for the difference between "torture" and "torment" - it is more than semantic. "Torture" refers to inflicting physical pain on someone - eg, the wrack, thumbscrews, flogging, etc. "Torment" refers more to mental anguish. To appreciate the difference, I ask you to again think back to my allegorical interpretation of the relationship between Valjean and Javert:

1. Did Valjean torture Javert? No.
2. Did Valjean torment Javert? Yes.

Valjean did not reign down fire and brimstone on Javert. He did not put him on the rack. He did not rip out his still-beating heart with his bare hands. He did nothing that was obscene or grotesque or evil or torturous. All that Valjean did was love Javert. And Javert was tormented by it.

Hence, maintaining a distinction between "torment" and "torture" is important. They mean different things. And I would appreciate it if you could do this, rather than continue to accuse me of things of which I am not guilty. Especially after I have corrected you on the matter already.

Personally, I think that Javert's torment was far worse than any kind of torture. I'd much prefer the torture, which destroys the body only - than to undergo the torment of Javert which is the result of a soul bent on its own destruction.

Where you might be on this scale I do not know. Perhaps you are one of the "nicer" ones...;) (as if any can be nicer in that view.)
??? How could you not know where I am on this scale? I've stated my position quite clearly - in fact, that is what my article was all about.

All of creation shall experience the freedom of the sons of God. [quote]Not true. Scripturally speaking only mankind is identified as offspring or children of God.

A "thing" can be created and not be termed an offspring i.e. devils and his messengers. They are no more than temporal tools for a temporal job. Like a piece of anti-spiritual exercise equipment for "creation" in preparation of His sons for the eternal realm. When God is finished using those tools He will discard them.

Evil then is also God's servant as He is far Greater.
I'm confused. Are you saying that God created evil?

I hate to make bolded statements but here is your citing lifted and clarified:
I already addressed this above, so I will not repeat it here.

All have sin and have sinned save One. What is your point?
My point, which unfortunately you utterly missed, was to address your assertion that "truth that renders torment to others is not truth". It was Javert's realisation of the truth that rendered torment to him - and this example disproves your claim.

To say that Javert, even in some small way may not have loved? I am sure Javert must have loved at some point in time. I would not say there is any man who has not loved, at least his own life.

Both men from God's Perspective have the same condition. God Himself has bound all men to disobedience. Valjean was no exception. He was just "less" bound than his compatriot because he tracended evil with love while in this life.

It is not right to then only judge the one for his sin and not the other.
I'm afraid you missed the point again. I'm not judging Javert or Valjean. I pray that the Lord will have mercy on the Javert's of this world, of whom I am the worst. I am merely observing the fact that Javert was tormented because of Valjean's love, and because of his own prideful superiority complex.

While we may rightfully say that which was done that was good was worthy to remain and continue, it is also true that God in that Grander Scale will use even what transpired in Javert to JUDGE THOSE THINGS that transpiried in him and use them as the permanent record to set aside and destroy those works and workers that also resided in Javert's flesh that enslaved that offspring of God, Javert.
I agree that God will lovingly work to save Javert. But that's not my point. The point is that Javert - in the condition into which he had driven himself - would find such love tormenting.

This is a thought form that you may not be familiar with, but one that is held widely in traditional Judaism in various forms. They understand that it is God Himself who pulls the strings and raises the enemies for the testing of LOVE and the judgment of evil.
Of course I am familiar with it. It is all through the OT. But it has nothing to do with the point that I am making.

A slave performs the bidding of their master. I do not condemn the captives.

In fact I destest slavery in general particularly slavery to limited mindsets and fascist viewpoints. Such is the mind and body nearly devoid of LOVE.
Again, I agree. Again you are missing the point. The mind and body nearly devoid of love is hell. There is nothing more tormenting for such a mind/body to be subjected to true love.

Let it be so for us all my friend as this is our call and demand from Above. Let us all partake and request Him for more. You do understand that as much and as hard as we may try to love that is OUR reward in this life. Such things are nearly as nothing by Divine comparisons.
Again I agree. Again you are missing the point. The point is that, even as I love others, I find that some appreciate it and some are tormented by it. Why would God's perfect love not have the same effect - only to an infinitely greater degree?

I understand that love heaps burning coals on the heads of my enemies. There is an enemy that is tortured by love. It is NOT your fellow man.
I'm sorry, but in the context of that passage - both in Romans and in Proverbs - the enemy being spoken of is very much human.

And the presumption you are making here is that only Valjean is love and that Javert is only evil. I would submit that as God's offspring each man's spirits will be used in the fashion that God has formed for them and that no man's life in this wicked and evil generation will be wasted. Not a one.
I agree. I don't agree that those in hell are "wasted" lives. They are still human beings, and they still have intrinsic value. Which is why God will not destroy them.

The typical christian rhetoric in all of these matters of the judging of others is pathetically simpleminded.
Don't you think that this is an extremely judgemental statement? Something to ponder...

You may understand your own caricatures of my position and that held by many Christian Universalists but have you really figured out that Love is the far superior component in all things???
Yes. And such is God's love that He will never, ever, force anyone to love Him against their will.

When you step onto that ground you are my brother. Til then you may very well be my brother who is trapped by his own exercise equipment.

I do not mistake these two positions, the offspring and the exercise equipment. Both components speak from the mouths of everyman. Valjean, Javert, you, me. We must compare our every word to His Word to know and understand ourselves first.

Jesus shows me this reality a hundred times and a hundred ways in the Gospel. I know who He came to war with and I know who He came to save.

You see only one entity, man, as the judged. I cannot blame another man for what I also have, sin. Neither can Valjean and IF Valjean steps onto his superior ground, I have the deepest respect and bond for what is happening. It is the very work of God building His Church.
I don't blame Javert for his sin. But that doesn't change the fact that he is tormented by it. I pray for his release from his torment, because prayer is the most effective weapon that I have.

Feel free to divulge your particular form of eternal judgment to your fellow man that you are commanded to love at any time...;)
Again, I did that in my opening article. Apparently, you're not reading what I've written.

One of my favorite examples. Thank you!
You're welcome!

[Jezz]

Hi Jezz,
Hi lee,

Isn't this analogy of misunderstood love ignoring the penal metaphor, though?
No. It just means that "punishment" is understood differently. In the Western view, God punishes because He must - He has no choice, and He must punish sin in order to balance the books. In the Orthodox view, God punishes because He loves - as a form of discipline.

4In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. 5And you have forgotten that word of encouragement that addresses you as sons:
"My son, do not make light of the Lord's discipline,
and do not lose heart when he rebukes you,
6because the Lord disciplines those he loves,
and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son."

7Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? 8If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons. 9Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live! 10Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. 11No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.

Hell consists of those people who perpetually reject God's discipline and never progress past the stage where God's discipline seems painful.

And should we ever stop at a boundary of meanings? I think indeed we should, sometimes, simply to include more meanings in order to avoid any false distinctions seems to be inappropriate, each meaning should be examined, to see if it applies.
The various metaphors for heaven, hell and redemption are all meant to be complementary, not contradictory. I'm not advocating that you throw any of them out - I'm advocating that you understand them as complementary, not contradictory.

As for "each meaning should be examined, to see if it applies"... well, that seems to me to be a bit of an airy statement. "Examined" in the light of what? See if it applies to what?

Well, yes, and they must have existed as persons, and have had a will to choose, but I am focusing on the critical turning point here, for if the love of God is a given, we may focus on what may vary, and call that a cause, though I agree that all elements are needed here.
No, this is just more silliness and the same attempt to force-fit your false dichotomy as a given.

What causes a person to fall off of a cliff? We take gravity as a given, but this does not mean we dismiss gravity as a cause and say that it is caused entirely by the person jumping! A person in zero-gravity may decide to fall off of a cliff, but they will be unable to. That's because their decision is not the sole determining factor, nor the "critical turning point". All the ingredients are critical.

For example, one ball striking another causes the other ball to go into motion. But more is required! The second ball has to be able to roll, and cannot burst into flames at the moment of impact, etc. Yet we don't mention these other aspects that are considered givens, when discussing the cause, though they are all required in this event.
But that's not a good analogy. For a better analogy, we'll say that the striking of the first ball is analogous to the love of God - the action. Let us take the striking of the first ball as a given. This does not mean that it isn't a cause.

Well, if all else in this situation is a given, then we may speak of the person's decision being the (crucial) cause here, in the sense given above, recognizing that these other elements must be present, and also recognizing that they certainly will be present.
See above. You simply cannot single out the person's decision as being the crucial cause, because the decision has absolutely no causative power unless the other factors are present. Much as a person cannot cause themselves to fall off a cliff unless gravity is present, no matter what they may have decided.

Do you really not believe that sin should be punished?
I did not say that. That was your projection, based on your own preconceived notions about the nature of sin and of God's wrath. I believe that sin should be punished.

But that's not what I asked. The question I asked was: Why does God need to punish sin? If He is sovereign, then isn't He free to do as He wishes?

Lee: Well no, I believe the Bible teaches that hell is a place prepared specifically, for punishment:

"They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

Jezz: Why?

Lee: Because this quote is a Scripture verse, speaking of hell, and calling it punishment.
I completely agree with that verse. It is entirely consonant with the view I have been putting forward. But you claimed something else entirely:

1. That hell is a place.
2. That this place is prepared specifically for punishment.

Neither of those things are supported by the verse that you cited.

Because unbelievers can't choose, they are slaves to sin, slaves to their desires, slaves to the devil.
Given that I don't share this presupposition, it would be pointless for me to comment at this point. It would open up a whole new can of worms.

That's a good point, but this loving them is "leaving room for God's wrath," thus this loving them, heaping coals of fire on their head, is not yet God's wrath at this point.
Why? If "loving them" is actually God's love (albeit it in muted form), then surely the wrath they experienced was also God's wrath (again, in muted form)?

Nor is wrath the same as love, in Scripture, the concepts are quite different.
I disagree. God's wrath is God's love towards sinners. Loving sinners means undoing the effects of their sins.

But this is about the person themselves cutting off the hand or foot (or not doing so), this is not about God doing this or not doing this. And not cutting of the hand or foot doesn't seem to fit well as an analogy of a misunderstanding.
Well, if it is about the person themselves cutting off the hand or foot, then it has nothing to do with the current scenario, does it? After all, we're talking about what God does to cause hell.

The way I see it is this: if something is causing you to sin, it needs to be removed for the good of the person. If you don't do it yourself, then God will do it. And if a person leaves it so long that God has to do it, then they are unlikely to see it as a blessing.

Yes, but it seems odd to describe understanding as a loss of a member. Shouldn't it be a gain here, if that is what is meant?

Proverbs 16:16 How much better to get wisdom than gold, to choose understanding rather than silver!
??? I'm sorry, but you seem to have made a leap across some vast chasm, and I'm having trouble seeing the other side.

Well, I meant more "uninterested," as in "uncaring," it doesn't matter to God whether we love him or not.
"Uncaring" is still not an appropriate description. God does care - which, of course, is a synonym for love. To say that our response doesn't matter to God doesn't mean that He doesn't care for us. It simply means that He is not so self-centred that He cares about what effect our response will have on Him.

At this point, I don't know that there's much that I can say to you apart from that which I have already said. God's love is selfless. He doesn't love for what He can get in return - He doesn't care about what He gets out of the bargain. He cares about us. He has no needs, no cares of His own. I know that this kind of absolute, selfless love is a truly mind-boggling concept, and one that is hard for us selfish human beings to understand. But we really must try, because understanding this love is the key to salvation.

But surely it does, he wept over Jerusalem...
Anthropomorphic language should never be pushed too far. Otherwise you'll end up a Mormon claiming that the Father has a right hand and a face and other human features. And also remember that this was said by Christ as a man.

[smaller]

Yes. Some of them don't like it, though.

I'm very glad to hear you say that Love saves all. Are you a Christian Universalist...;)


Ok, I mostly agree with that - especially the last sentence. But my point is that people who hate God will be tormented by that fire - that love.

Unfortunately for most christian tormentists of others the construction is a tad more complex than what you present, Love as torment. Love may very well be torment to the sin indwelling mankind. Valjean AND Javert have that condition. To say then that this condition is only black and white, one way or the other is just too simplistic. There are actions wherein Valjeans produce will be deemed worthy on perhaps some very small eternal scale. Perhaps Javert will have to grow after his departure. To say that neither of their lives served God (as it relates to reality, not a story) is a false presentation of tormentist of others christian thought forms.


I agree. And for a person who is proud of himself and what he has achieved, only to see all of their works that they are so proud of be consumed by the fire of God's judgement? Do you not think that such a person would be tormented by their loss?

Not at all. They may very well be relieved to be relieved of those things that were never worthy. You may be likewise relieved.


The passage does in fact say that they will suffer loss - it doesn't say that they will find the loss an enoyable experience.

The entire point that Paul made was that the man would be saved. What more do you want is the real question? If you see more than the end result then you have looked into your own subjective eyes to the detriment of others.


Well, again I agree - Valjean's love, while extreme by human standards, is only a pale reflection of the love of God. But then, how do you think Javert would have felt if Valjean had loved him more than what he actually did? Would Javert's torment have been less, or more?

I leave the judgment of people apart from love, (temporally) tormented by love to God. On an eternal scale all will be overcome. Valjean AND Javert, in God's Own timing.


Again, I agree. But how does that change my point? Javert was shamed knowing that he made an error to not love. Would our shame not be all the greater - all the more tormenting - if we made the error to not love God?

You think God is in need of our love? Never. We are only a reflection, some strong, some nearly none of His Love. We did not originate Love. Every good thing comes from Above. Every bad thing as well. In the end analysis only Perfection Prevails and good and bad will be gone. Perfection has a very firm grip on both good and bad.


I'm simply telling you what the understanding of the Orthodox Church is - the Church of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Russia, Serbia, Croatia, etc... This is what they believe.

There is no consensus amongst any who claim orthodoxy. Those who are orthodoxy are no different than the others. Good and bad, NOT Perfect.


It's not a watering down - it's a matter of choosing the right terms. You're deliberating choosing terms that I don't agree with in order to try and demonise my position.

If you are saying that your position is perfect then I can only say that delusions are never perfect but delusion serves Perfection as well...;)


This is known as the "strawdemon" fallacy. Don't you think it would be courteous of you to attack my position, rather than attribute a different position to me and attack that one instead?

If you are saying that Perfection means love is torment to some and not to others then I can only say you are binding perfection to your position and of course that is not logical by any sense to me. That is no strawman from my observation. Love is much more complex and overcoming than you allow in that one sided attribution.


As for the difference between "torture" and "torment" - it is more than semantic. "Torture" refers to inflicting physical pain on someone - eg, the wrack, thumbscrews, flogging, etc. "Torment" refers more to mental anguish.

As if anguish is not torture? lol with that one. Torture is not required to be only physical pain my friend and you know it. Mental anguish can be much more painful TORTURE than just physical pain so perhaps you are on a scale of torture to others that surpasses even eternal physical pain of frying in fire?


To appreciate the difference, I ask you to again think back to my allegorical interpretation of the relationship between Valjean and Javert:

1. Did Valjean torture Javert? No.
2. Did Valjean torment Javert? Yes.

If you assumption is either one without God being involved then you have missed the entire point of my response. Both men are God's servants NO MATTER what transpires and that is a greater and true observation. Yours is just too simplistic.

When God comes to play as He does is all things then the measure really just turns to Him and I find Him apart from such measures.


Valjean did not reign down fire and brimstone on Javert. He did not put him on the rack. He did not rip out his still-beating heart with his bare hands. He did nothing that was obscene or grotesque or evil or torturous. All that Valjean did was love Javert. And Javert was tormented by it.

And again NEITHER of them was perfect. When Valjean has Perfect Love applied even in your measure he may very well be tormented eh? Even YOU will be screaming in the face of Perfection using your theory. My observation will stand. Perfection is the only survivor and all things will be overcome by same.


Hence, maintaining a distinction between "torment" and "torture" is important. They mean different things. And I would appreciate it if you could do this, rather than continue to accuse me of things of which I am not guilty. Especially after I have corrected you on the matter already.

Not quite. You additionally overlook the fact that Love does NO ILL nor does Love keep ANY RECORD of wrongs. So on what basis do you expect to find your intended TORMENT TO OTHERS? And what I really object to even further is letting yourself off the hook for same. That is just christian hypocrisy IMHO. If you measure torment to others then you will receive same yourself and that's all there is too it.


Personally, I think that Javert's torment was far worse than any kind of torture. I'd much prefer the torture, which destroys the body only - than to undergo the torment of Javert which is the result of a soul bent on its own destruction.

To think that only Javert will receive that punishment and that Valjean will not be likewise tested would be foolishness applied to your theory of torment. Perfection may be less tormenting to good but tormenting nevertheless, HOWEVER if Love is Perfect than none should fear Love but rather be absorbed by Love. It would appear that this transition would be a good/bad trade off.


??? How could you not know where I am on this scale? I've stated my position quite clearly - in fact, that is what my article was all about.

My continued complaint will be the imaginary and non-existing line(s) that you draw between these men, real or imaginary. They are both God's offspring and your lines are drawn short of many other scriptural facts such as them being offspring of God and servants of God BOTH.

All of creation shall experience the freedom of the sons of God.
I'm confused. Are you saying that God created evil?

God said so and DID SO Himself in many places in the scriptures. My theodicy does not have to hide from this fact. The creation and uses of evil also serves His Greater Purpose.


My point, which unfortunately you utterly missed, was to address your assertion that "truth that renders torment to others is not truth".

And that is not the definition of Truth. Mormons have many volumes of truth but all of those combined plus all of yours and mine and everyone else's will not equal Truth with a Captial T. Perfection/Truth is only known in full unto Himself and that is where my truth must bow as yours will (eventually) as well.


It was Javert's realisation of the truth that rendered torment to him - and this example disproves your claim.

And I say your truth in this matter is no more than chasing the wind on many measures.


I'm afraid you missed the point again. I'm not judging Javert or Valjean.

That's a laugher. On one hand you say Love is innocent of torment YET the "cause" of torment??? Perfect Love does not bow to that formation.

And I have gone so far to say that LOVE created torment and uses torment. So where do you want to go?


I pray that the Lord will have mercy on the Javert's of this world, of whom I am the worst. I am merely observing the fact that Javert was tormented because of Valjean's love, and because of his own prideful superiority complex.

Well at least I am seeing that you may accept the torment of your measures as well.


I agree that God will lovingly work to save Javert. But that's not my point. The point is that Javert - in the condition into which he had driven himself - would find such love tormenting.

If you are a Christian Universalist then I apologize for my tormenting of you and I have little complaints with any who hold that true and final analysis. You see when we mutually take the eternal tormenting of others off the table our love increases as well.


Of course I am familiar with it. It is all through the OT. But it has nothing to do with the point that I am making.

Yes, God's creation and using of evil is undeniable in the scriptures so do we then BLAME Javert? No. We sympathize with his slaveship and seek his release from same as we seek our own release from same in the process. Love is the transcending factor here.

My observation is that Divine Love is beyond the measure and can overcome ANYTHING and ALL THINGS including the sum total of ALL POSSIBLE EVIL.


Again, I agree. Again you are missing the point. The mind and body nearly devoid of love is hell. There is nothing more tormenting for such a mind/body to be subjected to true love.

And that view discounts the Greater One nearly entirely. The Position of Perfection is occupied by ONLY ONE.


Again I agree. Again you are missing the point. The point is that, even as I love others, I find that some appreciate it and some are tormented by it. Why would God's perfect love not have the same effect - only to an infinitely greater degree?

You assume that the "others" are somehow "outside" of God. Another persona non grata. The scriptures clearly teach otherwise. All things serve The Maker of all things BECAUSE He Is forever Greater and that is all there is to all of it.


I'm sorry, but in the context of that passage - both in Romans and in Proverbs - the enemy being spoken of is very much human.

How you see "the enemies" is only as another person. I say we are ALL bound with our enemies who are not the same as us and this is a scriptural teaching as well. People cannot be simultaneously the offspring of God and not be Perfect as their Father has commanded them to be. We will be as we are commanded to be by Him/Perfection regardless of what we currently think or are bound with.


I agree. I don't agree that those in hell are "wasted" lives. They are still human beings, and they still have intrinsic value. Which is why God will not destroy them.

There is no record of any "human being" in hell nor will God eternally torment His Own offspring. There is no scriptural record of any such view. The devil and his messengers however are another story YET where is it that they dwell?? That's right. They are in your flesh as well. All have SIN and SIN is OF THE DEVIL. The Devil will be utterly destroyed in the fire preserved for him and his own.


Don't you think that this is an extremely judgemental statement? Something to ponder...

My judgment of the temporal exercise equipment to destruction holds all of the eternal torment sciptures in accord and denies not a Word of God.


Yes. And such is God's love that He will never, ever, force anyone to love Him against their will.

I do not understand how you attribute any offspring of God an eternal resisting will. By doing such a thing your really saying that Perfection eternally resists Himself. Such resistance is futile. If however Perfection has temporarily separated out perfection from Himself to GAIN for Himself then I have no fear.


I don't blame Javert for his sin. But that doesn't change the fact that he is tormented by it. I pray for his release from his torment, because prayer is the most effective weapon that I have.

And I pray the torment you express for Javert comes upon your head as well. To think that you are immune or that you will come to a different conclusion than your brothers of mankind is disingenuous. Love would take the place of the tormented RATHER than torment them. Hello Jesus.

If the "opposers" are a temporal tool, a temporal piece of equipment meant for destruction then I have no issues with that destruction. It would be no different than discarding that home gym when the building of my body is completed.

Herein then is the difference between our judgments.

enjoy!

smaller

[George Blaisdell]

smaller, that is some post!

So that you really believe that all humans are children of God? And that the torturer and the tortured are of equal moral mein? That Pilate and Christ are on the same footing? That we are not held to our choices and our actions, but are all destined to salvation in Christ's good time? That Javert, who killed himself in the face of Valjean's mercy to him, because he was merciless to Valjean, is on the same footing with Valjean, who was a giver of mercy, even to Javert who was not? You think they are both equal? And this because salvation, in your view, is universal?

So you can look ol' Charlie [Manson] in the eye, and tell him: "Go ahead on, Bro'! Kill and torture and maim and rape as many as you want - You're gonna be redeemed and spend eternity all right with God no matter what you do!"

Am I really reading you correctly here in this? We really don't have to worry about what we do, because Christ will save us all anyway?

You seem pretty consistent... Have I got your understanding aright?

I sure hope not!

Arsenios

[smaller]

smaller, that is some post!

So that you really believe that all humans are children of God?

Paul made that presentation in Acts 17:25-31. I only acknowledge the fact. All of Israel are called God's children throughout the O.T. as well and we know that not all of them "believed" either. Deut. 14:1, Psalm 82:6 etc.


And that the torturer and the tortured are of equal moral mein?

I did not say that at all George. I said some are less bound with evil than others but all are bound to the degree that all have sin and sin is of the devil.


That Pilate and Christ are on the same footing?

Christ was without sin. Don't bother trying to set me up with that kind of stuff.

That we are not held to our choices and our actions, but are all destined to salvation in Christ's good time?

We are commanded to overcome evil with good and love our neighbors and our enemies. What do you want to do Arsenios is the real question. What "choice" will you make?


That Javert, who killed himself in the face of Valjean's mercy to him, because he was merciless to Valjean, is on the same footing with Valjean, who was a giver of mercy, even to Javert who was not?

Those who believe not are blinded to the Good News by the god of this world. I do not blame the captives of sin for sin's works. Neither does God.


You think they are both equal? And this because salvation, in your view, is universal?

The Word tells us that Love overcomes all things.


So you can look ol' Charlie [Manson] in the eye, and tell him: "Go ahead on, Bro'! Kill and torture and maim and rape as many as you want - You're gonna be redeemed and spend eternity all right with God no matter what you do!"

Not at all. I say Charles Manson is a slave in his flesh to very vile things and as such he should be punished because those things control him and he is a threat to others. So are you when you want to see C. Manson fried alive forever for the work of the devil. Your position is worse IMHO.


Am I really reading you correctly here in this?

You would be well advised to ask before you shove your strawmen forward as my positions. Your strawmen will be rightly shown as foolish and burned.


We really don't have to worry about what we do, because Christ will save us all anyway?

I don't believe in salvation by works. Do you?


You seem pretty consistent... Have I got your understanding aright?

I'd suggest you read a little slower in order to comprehend better. You may not have even heard the Good News yet.

enjoy!

smaller

[TuckEverlasting]

I started reading Dante's Purgatory today, and there is some very interesting stuff in the introduction (written in 1954). The writer (who I think is RC, certainly not EO) says:

It has been well said by a great saint [St. Catherine of Genoa, according to the footnotes] that the fire of Hell is simply the light of God as experienced by those who reject it; to those, that is, who hold fast to their darling illusion of sin, the burning reality of holiness is an unbearable thing. To the penitent, that reality is a torment so long and only so long as any vestige of illusion remains to hamper their assent to it: they welcome the torment, as a sick man welcomes the pains of surgery, in order that the last crippling illusion may be burned away.... There is no difference in the justice [between hell and purgatory]; the only difference is in the repudiation or acceptance of judgement.

As a Protestant, I don't hear too much about the idea of Purgatory, but this makes me think a little bit. Viewing hell this way, it almost seems like Purgatory makes a great deal of sense - you can't 'be in heaven' (that is, you can't withstand the presence of God) until you gradually learn to accept hs love. I think it may also allow us to examine from a new angle the question of whether or not a person could indeed 'get out' of hell. It's interesting, anyway.

[George Blaisdell]

Paul made that presentation in Acts 17:25-31. I only acknowledge the fact. All of Israel are called God's children throughout the O.T. as well and we know that not all of them "believed" either. Deut. 14:1, Psalm 82:6 etc.


He does say that WE are His children, and that we are all His creation, but not that we are all children of God - Perhaps that we are called to become children of God, as John tells us, born not of flesh, and not of the will of a man, but of God - And being born of God is what Christ came to earth to establish for anyone who is willing to turn to Him in repentance. Those who DO not, ARE not... Our earthly and human life is but to provide us an opportunity to turn from thie world and ourselves in repentance and to turn unto God, that we should correct our birth in Adam, who was turned FROM God...

And IF we do so, as Valjean did, then God's love and grace will flow through us, and the good things that happen to us will be received joyfully. And if we do not, and we harden our hearts in judgementalism of others, and persecute others through whatever means, because we can but prove that they are, say, in violationo f the law, regardless of their lives that we see are good, then when God extends His mercy to us through the Valjeans of the world, we will be unable to receive it. That seems to be the point of the Hugo story of Valjean and Javert. When the turning point came for Valjean, with the priest, he embraced the love that was offered. And when it finally came to Javert, he rejected the love and killed himself. The morality play shows us a soul tormented in judgement from both sides of the law, and shows that the heart is not the body, that the inside is not the outside, that Godliness is not necessarily a function of the law and law enforcement...

But yours is more this idea of universal salvation, and your conclusion that both Javert and Valjean are in the same boat, because both, like all of mankind, have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God.

You wrote: Love may very well be torment to the sin indwelling mankind. Valjean AND Javert have that condition. To say then that this condition is only black and white, one way or the other is just too simplistic.

And in this context, the consequences of being turned one way, vs being turned the other, are shown in the consequences of each, the one toward mercy and lovingkindness, and the other toward judgement and error and suicide... You seem to want to affirm that both will be saved even so, in the afterlife, by God, because both are God's creation... I share your hope, and certainly pray for both types of person every day - Yet the whole idea of universal salvaiton does seem to fly in the face of ethical accountability, which the Bible most certainly affirms, and the accontability is right into each and every thought and action and inaction. There is, Biblically, a difference in kind between the Children of God, and the childrren of perdition.



I did not say that at all George. I said some are less bound with evil than others but all are bound to the degree that all have sin and sin is of the devil.


The difference is not in the respective sinfulness of each, but in the presence or absence of their repentance, of their willingness to follow Christ in Love and repentance. Christ's call to universal salvation for mankind begins: "IF anyone is WILLING..." [and goes on to read "...after Me to be following, let him first deny himself, take up his own cross, and be following Me." The whole of the Christian walk is predicated upon our willingness, and if we are not willing, it won't happen. And if we ARE willing, our willingness is not enough. God's grace will give us the willingness and all else we need for salvation - Yet it is willingness that is needed on our part, without which we are lost.

And some are willing, and most are not. And that arrays both kinds of people. And some are willing to actually be evil, and not just kindly self-willed... These are differences in kind, and in degree... And we are warned that if we turn from God, we will suffer for it... Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom... So please, refrain if you will, from demonizing those who disagree with your universal salvation theory as being "Christian Tormentists"... There doubtless are lots of these among those who imagine themselves to be Christians, but a Christian only pities and prays for those who are lost in their sins, and have neither repentance nor love as significant operative forces in their souls. God tells us that even what little they have will be taken away... There is no room for smug satisfaction in anyone who has grounds for hope of salvation in his or her soul at the prospect of future for those who choose evils in their actions...


We are commanded to overcome evil with good and love our neighbors and our enemies. What do you want to do Arsenios is the real question. What "choice" will you make?


We are NOT commanded to overcome our NEIGHBOR"S evil with good, but our OWN. We are commanded to love our neighbor, yes, and even our enemies, yes? Doing good to one's enemies is a real test. Blessing, forgiving, and seeking mercy for the terrorist who is cutting your head off on TV, for instance, is a VERY Christian thing to do... I would HOPE that I could do that... I slip all too easily into judgement of others, rather than mercy and forgiveness. Sometimes I even think about calling them names, and in my heart, I have to cast out thes demonic influences. And I cannot do so, except that I call upon the Name of the Lord...

How about you?


I do not blame the captives of sin for sin's works. Neither does God.


"Depart from me, ye workers of iniquity - I never knew you."

Those are God's words. So that doubtless, God does not blame them, nor does He embrace them. The dread and last judgement bodes ill for those who are workers of iniquities, yes?

[
The Word tells us that Love overcomes all things.


Yes, within ourselves - We are not called to correct and heal our neighbor's sinfulness with love, but to overcome our judgement of his sinfulness with the love of God in our souls, and with our loving of the sinful neighbor, who may even be our enemy.


Not at all. I say Charles Manson is a slave in his flesh to very vile things and as such he should be punished because those things control him and he is a threat to others. So are you when you want to see C. Manson fried alive forever for the work of the devil. Your position is worse IMHO.


Are you saying that I want to see Charley fired alive in hell for eternity???

Can you yet see that this is flat out not true? I pray for him to turn from sins, and turn toward God in repentance, and am horrified at his future if he never turns from his sinful ways. And I see myself the same way, in horror at what will happen to me if I turn from God's Love and embrace evils in place of it... Paul as well feared greatly what would happen to him IF he turned from God....


I don't believe in salvation by works. Do you?


Salvaiton is only by Grace, and our works are but poor rags that are already owed - Yet woe to us if we turn away from these works... And turn instead to the works of iniquity, yes?


I'd suggest you read a little slower in order to comprehend better. You may not have even heard the Good News yet.


Please forgive me for reading too hastily your words...

Will you please pray for me? - I am the worst of sinners... And greatly have need for your prayers of intercession on my behalf that God should have mercy on me and grant me salvation...

Thank-you for your prayers...

Arsenios

[George Blaisdell]

In this regard, perhaps the words of St. Gregory Palamas might prove helpful:

Homily 22:11

In this way the Lord restricted and curbed our words and actions, and enclosed our lives in truth, righteousness, purity and freedom from anger. How does He advise us, though, to behave towards those who are angry with us and oppose us in word and deed and oppress us? "Overcome", says the Scripture, "evil with good and "give place unto wrath" [Rom. 12:21, 19]. "Resist not evil" [Matt. 5:39] and "recompense to no man evil for evil" [Rom. 12:17], or insult for insult, but "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you" {Matt. 5:44]. What will be the outcome of this life of constraint and the reward for these struggles? "That ye may be", it says, "children of your Father which is in Heaven" [Matt. 5:45], "heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ" [Rom. 8:17]; that you may have immortal life and receive an ineffable, unshakeable unshakeable, unending kingdom, living and reigning with God for endless ages.

Arsenios

[smaller]

He does say that WE are His children, and that we are all His creation, but not that we are all children of God - Perhaps that we are called to become children of God, as John tells us, born not of flesh, and not of the will of a man, but of God - And being born of God is what Christ came to earth to establish for anyone who is willing to turn to Him in repentance. Those who DO not, ARE not...

You can dissect this scripture however you want Arsenios, but I can read and not deny or overlook this fact to support doctrinal biases:

Acts 17:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God

Jesus taught this as well when He said call no man on earth your father for we all have but one Heavenly Father.

HENCE my observation applied to this thread, that even any real life Javert must also be considered as such an offspring, even though BLINDED by the "god" of this world.


Our earthly and human life is but to provide us an opportunity to turn from thie world and ourselves in repentance and to turn unto God, that we should correct our birth in Adam, who was turned FROM God...

I do not see life as a "CHANCE" to perform in order to attain to salvation Arsenios, neither do I worship a god of "chance." God can make children out of stones if He wanted to do so.

HENCE my observation as applied to this thread that this life also serves many of God's Purposes EVEN with people such as Javert.


And IF we do so, as Valjean did, then God's love and grace will flow through us, and the good things that happen to us will be received joyfully.

IF you think that you will receive only good things IF you perform what can I do but laugh??? True Love will receive only persecution in this wicked and evil generation.

HENCE my observation that temporal love is it's own reward in this life and that was the reward RECEIVED by Valjean. Temporal and perhaps very pale compared to Perfect Love.


And if we do not, and we harden our hearts in judgementalism of others, and persecute others through whatever means, because we can but prove that they are, say, in violationo f the law, regardless of their lives that we see are good, then when God extends His mercy to us through the Valjeans of the world, we will be unable to receive it.

Judgementalism of others sounds very funny as well coming from the mouths of people who eternally condemn people like Javert.

HENCE my observation that our judgment should be directed in the correct manner and that eternal judgment is NOT meant for your fellowman, but for the devil and his messengers who steal, KILL, and destroy our fellowman EVEN through people such as Javert or worse. We cannot blame Javert, but the sin indwelling him that deceived him while in this flesh and just as ALL are likewise deceived, even Valjean for all have sin and sin is of the devil, even in VALJEAN.


That seems to be the point of the Hugo story of Valjean and Javert. When the turning point came for Valjean, with the priest, he embraced the love that was offered. And when it finally came to Javert, he rejected the love and killed himself.

And my continual complaint with "christians" of the eternal torture of others color is that they fail to see the good in those who are "not like themselves and their doctrinal co-parts" and they so EASILY excuse themselves from the judgment of Love thinking they are right and accepted and that other of God's offspring are not likewise accepted. I have no reason to believe from the scriptures that ALL will not receive DIVINE MERCY. They absolutely WILL. (Romans 11:32) There is no evil that will restrain God's Mercy. There is no good that will avoid God's Wrath. I am certain that Javert errantly thought he was serving some bizarre form of good when he was not. So it is unfortunately with most of Christianity.


The morality play shows us a soul tormented in judgement from both sides of the law, and shows that the heart is not the body, that the inside is not the outside, that Godliness is not necessarily a function of the law and law enforcement...

The Law is specifically meant to condemn ALL people, Valjean AND Javert. More accurately The Law is meant for the undeniable revealing of SIN INDWELLING ALL MEN and that SIN is utterly condemned by The Word in BOTH MEN and both have SIN.

There is no performance that will fool God from either Valjean OR Javert. Love is a much higher standard than performances of "good." I would say then that by your observations everything you do is colored by your own doctrinal biases in how you judge these men.

Scripture advises us to know NO MAN after the flesh, Valjean, Javert, or even Jesus. Scripture also tells us we must call NO MAN common or UNCLEAN, Javert included.


But yours is more this idea of universal salvation, and your conclusion that both Javert and Valjean are in the same boat, because both, like all of mankind, have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God.

One who thinks themselves free of sin is sorely deceived. I am not so foolish to make that claim, and then EXCUSE MYSELF in the name of God while simultaneously eternally condemning others for their sins. That is the actions of RIPE HYPOCRISY my friend in any doctrine.

But that is exactly what most of you will see in Javert. You want to eternally condemn Javert and conveniently IGNORE any sins that Valjean HAS based solely upon his temporal works or conformance to your subjective doctrinal sequences.

I can still openly condemn the actions of Javert and eternally condemn the sin indwelling that man and STILL understand that Jesus paid for those sins as well as my own and He will SEPARATE THAT MAN, Javert from his sins just as He will separate ME from mine.

In this understanding I can rightly separate myself and others from their "sins" and this frees me to love that person while simultaneously hating the "temporal cause" of sins, the devil and his messengers that work in all men.

God honors this understanding by His Word, and will TURN THE HEARTS of those meant to be turned to Love, or harden those things IN MEN as God desires, and ALL of his offspring without exception, Valjean OR Javert will carry those vile things to eternal judgment in their bodies via their respective crosses. In this later way we all serve God and God will serve us all a practical Living Lesson in DIVINE MERCY as we all will NEED it. Javert then carries only MORE very vile things to judgment, just as our previously touched upon Charles Manson, but both of those men will be freed from that which has captured and enslaved their flesh by The Living Word of God NOT by their inactions, just as Valjean will be likewise SEPARATED from his sins and not by his temporally good actions.


And in this context, the consequences of being turned one way, vs being turned the other, are shown in the consequences of each, the one toward mercy and lovingkindness, and the other toward judgement and error and suicide... You seem to want to affirm that both will be saved even so, in the afterlife, by God, because both are God's creation... I share your hope, and certainly pray for both types of person every day -

Then you should EXPECT that your fervent prayers for ALL WILL BE ANSWERED eh? Waffling prayers are from double minded men.


Yet the whole idea of universal salvaiton does seem to fly in the face of ethical accountability, which the Bible most certainly affirms, and the accontability is right into each and every thought and action and inaction.

The Command and performance of loving ones enemies is much greater than the expressed desire to see them fried alive forever in fire while hypocritically excusing ones self from the same fate.

As far as "rewards" for "accountability" I would think that if you showed up loving all your enemies your reward could theoretically be very great indeed. People are the jewels that we bring to God. If ALL OF THEM ARE SOUGHT DILIGENTLY then that reward is very great indeed, even NOW wouldn't you say Arsenios?

There is, Biblically, a difference in kind between the Children of God, and the childrren of perdition.

Romans 11:25-31 pretty well convinced me that even enemies of the Gospel shall be saved even after death.

All of Israel are called God's Children many places in the O.T. We know that very few of them believed but Paul tells us that ALL OF ISRAEL shall be saved so there goes salvation by performances OUT THE WINDOW.

God saving even those who do not deserve or perform makes Him Very Great indeed IMHO.


The difference is not in the respective sinfulness of each, but in the presence or absence of their repentance, of their willingness to follow Christ in Love and repentance.

What you are really saying Arsenios is that if you do not do good you fear that you will be fried alive forever. To me that is just performance via FEAR and you then serve FEAR rather than God who IS LOVE.

A believer does good because it is good NOT for the rewards. Whenever I do good my reward is INSTANT but not "eternal." Good works are far different than the Perfect Love of God expressed in and through Jesus Christ.

Christ's call to universal salvation for mankind begins: "IF anyone is WILLING..." [and goes on to read "...after Me to be following, let him first deny himself, take up his own cross, and be following Me." The whole of the Christian walk is predicated upon our willingness, and if we are not willing, it won't happen. And if we ARE willing, our willingness is not enough. God's grace will give us the willingness and all else we need for salvation - Yet it is willingness that is needed on our part, without which we are lost.

All the will in the world cannot save you Arsenios. If that were the case our wills are sufficient for salvation. My willingness then is my salvation? I could just as easily blame the MANufacturer of the wills for their SORRY PERFORMANCES eh?

No.

Of course you "willingly wish" that God will not FRY YOU ALIVE FOREVER and as such you are "willing."

If a man came up to me in a dark alley and put a gun to my head I can guarantee you I AM WILLING to give him my money rather than my life. This is your "type" of salvation will.

IF your position were true then God should have said "if anyone is willing then I will not fry him alive forever." But of course this version of the Good News does not exist.

I would say that if anyone is willing to love their enemies as themselves without the thought of gain but rather guaranteed punishment, THEN you have made a quantum leap towards Divine Love. Do you understand this difference???


And some are willing, and most are not. And that arrays both kinds of people.

But you see your version leaves both God's making of people's wills and the devils influences on people's wills entirely OUT of the equation. What is the use of such a position from a theological perspective??? I cannot rightfully extract either God or the devil and his messengers from this stewing of flesh.


And some are willing to actually be evil, and not just kindly self-willed... These are differences in kind, and in degree... And we are warned that if we turn from God, we will suffer for it... Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom...

Awesome reverential fear of God is far far different from the pansy fear of God for one's life. The later fear is just another form of manipulation and slavery using FEAR that is the common practice of the "world."


So please, refrain if you will, from demonizing those who disagree with your universal salvation theory as being "Christian Tormentists"...

I demonize no man but I talk to demons in many men hoping to reach the children of God by binding their strongmen with The Truth of The Word.


There doubtless are lots of these among those who imagine themselves to be Christians, but a Christian only pities and prays for those who are lost in their sins, and have neither repentance nor love as significant operative forces in their souls. God tells us that even what little they have will be taken away...

Using your understanding one should be extremely cautious about measuring eternal torment to another person as that measure may come upon you as well eh?


There is no room for smug satisfaction in anyone who has grounds for hope of salvation in his or her soul at the prospect of future for those who choose evils in their actions...

Evil is not a choice. Evil is binding enslavement in the flesh of all men in the hope that Love will arise and prevail and be tested and strengthened. IF that test is failed that person's life STILL serves God's Purposes for the expression of Divine Mercy by God to His offspring and the eternal judgment for the evil that enslaved that child. This is the essence of my comments about Valjean and Javert.


We are NOT commanded to overcome our NEIGHBOR"S evil with good, but our OWN. We are commanded to love our neighbor, yes, and even our enemies, yes?

I cannot in good faith LOVE MY ENEMIES in one breath and then turn and condemn them to fry alive forever for non conformance with my "doctrines."' All the doctines in the world laid end to end that reached the heavens that did not result in a successful final product, LOVE are worth NOTHING.

If Love is not the end result of your doctrines THEN your doctrines have missed the point nearly ENTIRELY.


Doing good to one's enemies is a real test. Blessing, forgiving, and seeking mercy for the terrorist who is cutting your head off on TV, for instance, is a VERY Christian thing to do... I would HOPE that I could do that... I slip all too easily into judgement of others, rather than mercy and forgiveness.

It takes a "real" christian to believe Divine Love to be vastly superior to all thingsd and be able to save all people. My performances will always fall very far short of that mark whatever they are, and I am not expecting any rewards for those works, even if praising God whilst being beheaded by terrorists.

My youngest daughter is a very high achiever in athletic performance at the Div. 1 College level. For a time she had a problem IMHO of praising God everytime a newspaper interviewed her. She had to give God a pat on the back. I didn't comment on the practice for a couple of years when it was just in our small local papers, knowing that it was a part of her growth. I went throught a similiar thing when I first came to the Lord.

When she started that practice at a higher level of national publicity I asked her if she really thought that God needed such pats or if she thought that God was going to reward her for patting Him on the back. She honestly did believe that. I said that God neither needed her pats NOR is God going to reward her for patting Him to the detriment of other competitors. You see many of them were likewise patting. She has not done it since. Such actions are just various forms of Divine butt kissing. I get my own share of that in the "world" and I hate that kind of activity honestly. It makes me ill.


"Depart from me, ye workers of iniquity - I never knew you."

Those are God's words. So that doubtless, God does not blame them, nor does He embrace them. The dread and last judgement bodes ill for those who are workers of iniquities, yes?

How you see that scripture chain and how I see it will be vastly different. I have a writing on that particular subject here on TWeb if you are interested in the understanding that many Christian Universalists hold on the eternal damnation scriptures. It is called "Stumped Lumps" in Theology 201. Suffice it to say that one can believe that ALL PEOPLE shall be saved and STILL believe in every eternal torture scripture without violating the rules.

The short version is the goats are the devil and his messengers who will be separated from the flesh of the sheep, mankind. The devil and his messengers are the only disclosed parties to the fires. Javert will be separated from his sins (Romans 6:7) and receive Divine Mercy (Romans 11:32)


Yes, within ourselves - We are not called to correct and heal our neighbor's sinfulness with love, but to overcome our judgement of his sinfulness with the love of God in our souls, and with our loving of the sinful neighbor, who may even be our enemy.

See how easy that was...;) Love is always the superior answer. Only dictators kill their enemies.


Are you saying that I want to see Charley fired alive in hell for eternity???

Can you yet see that this is flat out not true? I pray for him to turn from sins, and turn toward God in repentance, and am horrified at his future if he never turns from his sinful ways. And I see myself the same way, in horror at what will happen to me if I turn from God's Love and embrace evils in place of it... Paul as well feared greatly what would happen to him IF he turned from God....

My remarks about this errant thought form are already addressed above.

Love does no ill and keeps no record of wrongs.


Salvaiton is only by Grace, and our works are but poor rags that are already owed - Yet woe to us if we turn away from these works... And turn instead to the works of iniquity, yes?

I do not embrace bondage to evil. It is the worst form of restriction and slavery and it is NOT a choice. Most people who openly practice evil are BLIND SLAVES of the lowest order.


Please forgive me for reading too hastily your words...

Will you please pray for me? - I am the worst of sinners... And greatly have need for your prayers of intercession on my behalf that God should have mercy on me and grant me salvation...

Thank-you for your prayers...

Arsenios

You have a good heart Arsenios. There is always hope and prayers for such ones. You have mine as well as all who read my posts.

It is a gift from above to be associated with Divine Love.

enjoy!

smaller

[Timothy Leary]

I also reject the notion that there are such things as holy places, sacred places or objects.

That's not what my scripture says.

"Do not come any closer," God said. "Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground." (Exodus 3:5)

"Moses said to the LORD, "The people cannot come up Mount Sinai, because you yourself warned us, 'Put limits around the mountain and set it apart as holy.' " (Exodus 19:23)

" You must distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean" (Leviticus 10:10)

In fact, yours was the argument of Korach

"They (Korach and his comrades) came as a group to oppose Moses and Aaron and said to them, "You have gone too far! The whole community is holy, every one of them, and the LORD is with them. Why then do you set yourselves above the LORD's assembly?""

[Rowland]

That's not what my scripture says.

"Do not come any closer," God said. "Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground." (Exodus 3:5)

"Moses said to the LORD, "The people cannot come up Mount Sinai, because you yourself warned us, 'Put limits around the mountain and set it apart as holy.' " (Exodus 19:23)

" You must distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean" (Leviticus 10:10)

In fact, yours was the argument of Korach

"They (Korach and his comrades) came as a group to oppose Moses and Aaron and said to them, "You have gone too far! The whole community is holy, every one of them, and the LORD is with them. Why then do you set yourselves above the LORD's assembly?""

You make a very good point, Yoshi. However, I believe that God no longer resides on mountain tops or in temples. When Jesus died on the cross the curtain to the Holy of Holies was torn in two, from top to bottom. Thirty seven years later the Romans completely destroyed the Temple. To me, these events show that God has put an end to holy places that are inaccessible to what is common. Now all Jews, whether of the tribe of Levi or not, and all Gentiles have free access to the throne of God. God now resides in a person of flesh and blood rather than in a house built of stones or on a mountain in Arabia. This person is Jesus Christ. And this person is present wherever two or three are gathered together in his name. He is present in his church where he is the head and we believers are his body.

There are no holy places or objects. There is only a holy people. A people within whom Jesus Christ dwells through the presence of the Holy Spirit and a people who are in Christ. Why would a person in whom God dwells take off his shoes to go into a holy place? The person himself or herself is now the holy place and makes holy all places that he or she is in. Korach was wrong only because Jesus had not yet been born of a virgin in the town of Bethlehem. He declared himself and the people holy when Jesus was not yet among them. When God became man, He became intimate with the common, with the profane. He took upon Himself common, dirty, smelly, sinful human flesh. God desecrated Himself by making a home among men. We now walk in God's presence fully shod. You have unknowingly been in the presence of the holy with your shoes on when you have been in the presence of believers in Jesus of Nazareth. Some day, all human beings will confess Jesus as Lord and the whole human race, including all who have ever lived, will be the people of God-a holy people.

In the time before Jesus walked the earth, God insisted on separating the clean from the unclean. Now that God has cleansed the earth through the shed blood of His Son there are no more unclean things or people. God reprimanded Peter, a devout Jew, with these words: "'What God has made clean, do not call common (Acts 10:15).'" With God's entrance into sinful flesh, we lepers, we gentiles, we sinners, we the physically and mentally and spiritually broken are no longer unclean. In effect, there are no holy places or objects as there are no unholy places or objects. With the Incarnation, the whole world, the whole universe, has been make holy. God is with us.

God bless you, my friend. I'll see you in paradise.

Rowland

[A-Man]

Jezz, thank you for your article.
Jezz and George, in the NT we learn that Hell was created for the devil and his demons, not people. Do you think that Satan will be tormented in the same way as the unrepentant? And, how do you interpret being "cast into outer darkness"?
Thank you.
A-man

[A-Man]

:bump:

[Jezz]

Sorry A-man - I'd long since left this thread for dead. I think it must have been by the providence of God that I stumbled across it again and found your post. :smile:

Jezz, thank you for your article.
You're welcome. But really, the thanks should be to God and to His Church, because it is His tradition that I am retelling here.

Jezz and George, in the NT we learn that Hell was created for the devil and his demons, not people.
Do you have the specific verse in mind, A-man? I can't think of it off the top of my head, but if memory serves me correctly the verse that you have in mind talks about tartarus, which is not the same thing as hades or gehenna. Remember that these three words are all translated "hell", but they don't all mean the same thing.

Do you think that Satan will be tormented in the same way as the unrepentant?
Not real sure, but I would think probably yes. I work on the assumption that Satan and the demons are God's creatures, and thus He loves them too. We see this in Job, for example, and even in Christ's temptation in the desert - God rebukes Satan, but never destroys him - though surely it is within His power to do so.

Some in the Orthodox tradition have even prayed for the salvation of Satan and his demonic followers - after all, Christ did tell us to pray for our enemies. Whether or not it is actually possible for them to be saved, I don't know, but I do know that if it is possible, God is certainly the one to do it. :smile:

If you've ever read the Screwtape Letters, I think that you'll get a good picture of the fate of demons. The reason that God keeps thwarting their plans is that they think that God is evil and that they are good. I guess the demons really are the archetypical Javert - ones that have become so consumed by evil that they are no longer capable of recognising good, and in fact think that good is evil.

And, how do you interpret being "cast into outer darkness"?
God is light. I think that the "outer darkness" is "where" (or rather, those in whom) God limits the intensity of His presence, because those people can't bear it. Because He does not burn as brightly in such people as He does in the saints, they are in "outer darkness". I believe that this is what the Orthodox tradition teaches, but if someone can show otherwise, I will yield to their explanation.

[Colossians]

Jezz,


God is love, but this is not the same thing as saying "God loves everyone". Rather, it is saying only what it says: "God is love", and not "God is loving".

Because God is love, He is loving to those in Him (meaning those in Him eternally, which includes the elect alive today who are not yet born again).
It therefore also means the converse: God is not loving to those not in Him eternally.


Scripture declares that "love takes no account of wrong suffered".
God in fact most specifically takes account of wrong suffered: "I was naked and you did not clothe me".
So God demonstrates through such words that He does not love everyone: it is not possible for God who is love to love someone and at the same time to take account of the wrong suffered by that someone.


The crux of the matter is this:
God loves only one person: Jesus Christ. Those in Jesus Christ, get to go along for the ride.

[Giver]

Yes if a brother sins against us we are to forgive him. (Matthew 18:21-22) “Then Peter went up to him and said ‘Lord, how often must I forgive my brother if he wrongs me? As often as seven times? Jesus answered, ‘Not seven. I tell you, but seventy-seven times.”

If we deliberately commit a sin, now that is another matter.

(Hebrews 10:26-31) “If, after we have been given knowledge of the truth, we should deliberately commit any sins, then there is no longer any sacrifice for them. There is left only the dreadful prospect of judgment and of the fiery wrath that is to devour your enemies. Anyone who disregards the Law of Moses is ruthlessly put to death on the word of two witnesses or three; and you may be sure that anyone who tramples on the Son of God, and who treats the blood of the covenant which sanctified him as if it were not holy, and who insults the Spirit of grace, will be condemned to a far severer punishment. We are all aware who it was that said: Vengeance is mine; I will vindicate his people. It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”


(Hebrews 6: 4) “As for those people who were once brought into the light, and tasted the gift from heaven, and received a share of the Holy Spirit, and appreciated the good message of God and the powers of the world to come and yet in spite of this have fallen away it is impossible for that to be renewed a second time. They cannot be repentant if they have willfully crucified the Son of God and openly mocked Him.”

Giver

[Tladatsi]

[QUOTE=Editor]Heaven, Hell and the Love of God
Jeremy Krieg
Heaven and hell is one of those topics that we don't like to talk about much in polite society. Even though as Christians we're supposed to believe in hell, many find themselves balking at the thought.

Why is it Christians are expected to believe in heaven and hell? Nowhere in either the old or new testiment does it ever say "When you die you will be judged by God and the good will go to heaven and the sinners will go to hell". What happens after death is rarely discussed at all and when it is the image is of the dead sleeping beneath the earth in Sheol. For example in 1 Sam 28 Saul uses a medium in Endor to bring Samuel's spirit (elohim) up from the earth. When this happens Samuel complains of being awakened. Elsewhere the common phrase to described recently dead kings was he slept with his (fore) fathers, even those kings who "did evil in the eyes of God". Paul in 1 Th 4 compares the living with those who were put to sleep, i.e. the dead. Paul tells the Thesselonians that when the Lord descends from heaven, those sleeping (believers) will arise and along with the living (believers) shall meet the Lord in the air (between heaven and earth). The believers who were dead were clearly not in heaven or hell or all of 1 Th 4: 13-18 makes no sense whatsoever.

One of the most ancient expressions of the Christian thought is the Apostles Creed, which says - in part - "He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell (katelthonta eis ta katôtata). On the third day he rose again". Between His death on the cross and resurrection Jesus descended into hell to preach to the dead. This story is told in 1 Peter 3:19-20 and elipically in 1 Peter 4:6, 2 Corinthians 2:14 (if Sheol is included in "everyplace"), and Ephesian 4:8-10 (if we take that his ascent is from hell and the captives are the dead). This story has traditionally been described in English as the Harrowing of Hell. It is obviously at odds with the idea of the good going to heaven after death while the evil suffering in eternal hellfire.

In both the OT and NT, both the good and bad sleep in Sheol.