The Positive Case For The Salvation Of All Men

[seer]

The older I get, the more I lean towards determinism and Christian Universalism.

Proof texts for my premise and the logic behind it:

1 Timothy 2:4-6

"God desires ALL MEN to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,who gave Himself a ransom FOR ALL, to be testified IN DUE TIME."

Cross referenced with

Job 23:13

"But He is unique, and who can make Him change? And whatever His soul DESIRES, that HE DOES."


That God has the desire to save all men, and the power and wisdom to bring it about.

[AcousticJS]

Why do I get nervous when people start talking about proof texts?

It's very nice joining these two sets of unrelated verses taken completely out of any context, but how does it even begin to stand up to the fact that Jesus clearly isn't a Universalist? A lot of His parables show that there are going to be people who He judges unable/unworthy to enter the Kingdom - even some of our "Bible-believing" Christian friends might not be judged well. Not everyone who calls Him "Lord, Lord" will enter His Kingdom. His words in Revelation show that there are some who are going to be thrown into the Lake of Fire and not enter the New Earth.

If Jesus' death accomplished what you are beginning to think it did based on those verses from Timothy, then why didn't God just wrap everything up after He rose from the dead - there's no point delaying the day of His coming so that as many people as possible can be saved (2 Peter 3:9) because they're all going to be saved anyway.

I would argue that although it is God's desire that all men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth, but it is equally His desire that no man should be forced to be saved which is what Universalism does. He has given us free will, and He will not violate this because He doesn't want to. So God is doing what He desires as the Job passage says - He is making the offer, wanting everyone to respond positively to it but not wanting to force people to do it.

The sacrifice of Jesus made the salvation of all men a possibility. In actuality the judgement verses show that this isn't going to be the case, but this still fits in with God's desires because He doesn't want any being forced into relationship with Him.

God bless
Jon

[seer]

I would argue that although it is God's desire that all men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth, but it is equally His desire that no man should be forced to be saved which is what Universalism does. He has given us free will, and He will not violate this because He doesn't want to. So God is doing what He desires as the Job passage says - He is making the offer, wanting everyone to respond positively to it but not wanting to force people to do it.

I'am glad you agree that God desires all men to be saved. But I guess that He does not have the wisdom to see His desires done? Also, I do not see a strong positive case for free will in scripture - it pretty much suggests that we are slaves to sin, not understanding spiritual things.

But tell me, why would anybody in his right mind choose everlasting pain over everlasting bliss? Why would a man choose against his own best interest?

[studyhound]

Today @ 03:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=199577#post199577)
seer:


But tell me, why would anybody in his right mind choose everlasting pain over everlasting bliss? Why would a man choose against his own best interest?


Thats the question of the friend and family member of every smoker, every drunk, every druggie, every one who takes their own life.

The point is some people do choose against their own best intererests

[seer]

Thats the question of the friend and family member of every smoker, every drunk, every druggie, every one who takes their own life.

The point is some people do choose against their own best intererests

Well yes and no. I am a recovering herion addict. In the beginning I really thought dope was in my best interest, it gave my troubled mind much peace and comfort . But as time went on it became evident that it wasn't in my best interest - and then it was too late because I did not have the power to stop.

So people, in their right minds, do tend to choose in their own best interest. And if they are not in their right mind - are they morally responsible?

Besides, how responsible are we?

Romans 7:15-18

For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.

[Paulbarbee]

But if all people are to be saved then why did Jesus command us

Matthew 28.19, 20
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.



It doesn't make sense to me that Jesus would tell us to go and preach if He were going to save all men anyway. If that were the case it doesn't even really make sense for God to tell us we are lost or even send Jesus. I mean if God was just going to save all men anyway why bother to inform them of their lost condition. It's just stuff they don't really have to know and would lead to confusion. I agree with AcousticJS in that Jesus many times in scripture says that not all will be saved even though this is clearly what God desires.

[seer]

It doesn't make sense to me that Jesus would tell us to go and preach if He were going to save all men anyway. If that were the case it doesn't even really make sense for God to tell us we are lost or even send Jesus. I mean if God was just going to save all men anyway why bother to inform them of their lost condition.

What? Why does that make sense? God saves through belief in Christ. Does hell/judgement have to be eternal to be feared?

[studyhound]

Today @ 04:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=199590#post199590)
seer:



Well yes and no. I am a recovering herion addict. In the beginning I really thought dope was in my best interest, it gave my troubled mind much peace and comfort . But as time went on it became evident that it wasn't in my best interest - and then it was too late because I did not have the power to stop.

Obviously, I can talk to your situation, but I am sure on some level you knew that heroin was a determent to you, aside from how it made you feel, for decades we as a culture have known that drugs like heroin are harmful if not deadly. So you are responsible for your own actions, you chose to introduce a chemical that is known to be deadly, fortunately you are with us today. Thank God!


So people, in their right minds, do tend to choose in their own best interest. And if they are not in their right mind - are they morally responsible?

Besides, how responsible are we?

Romans 7:15-18

For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.


At some point most people are in their right mind and start making wrong choices and start on a slippery slope to being not in a balanced frame of mind. I have had many friends who have done this very same thing, some make it back to a health lifestyle, some unfortunately do not and they pay for their choices.

We are totally responsible for all our actions, like I said at some point they started down a road that brought them to this point.

I don’t think Paul was making a case for people to claim ignorance in responsibility; rather Paul was making the case that he knew it was wrong but he still did it. So I think Paul answers your question that people in their right minds do make choices that are not in their best interests.

[doogieduff]

seer, seer, seer,

If you are going to be a universalist, at least get a decent prooftext. The word for "desire" in 1 Timothy 2:4 is the greek word thelema.

1 Timothy 2:4
4 who thelema all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

This same word, describing God's will, or desire, is also found in 1 Thessalonians 4:3.

1 Thessalonians 4:3
3 For this is the thelema of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality;

How does your logic fit here seer? Well, it obviously doesn't. Many suffer from sexual immorality.

[seer]

If you are going to be a universalist, at least get a decent prooftext. The word for "desire" in 1 Timothy 2:4 is the greek word thelema.

1 Timothy 2:4
4 who thelema all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

This same word, describing God's will, or desire, is also found in 1 Thessalonians 4:3.

1 Thessalonians 4:3
3 For this is the thelema of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality;

How does your logic fit here seer? Well, it obviously doesn't. Many suffer from sexual immorality.

All a matter of timing doogieduff - God will eventually have us completely sanctified - agreed?

Job 23:13

But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth.


Desire: hebrew 'avah

"desire, incline, covet, wait longingly, wish, sigh, want, be greedy, prefer."

[seer]

For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.

I don’t think Paul was making a case for people to claim ignorance in responsibility; rather Paul was making the case that he knew it was wrong but he still did it. So I think Paul answers your question that people in their right minds do make choices that are not in their best interests.

But again, Paul says that it is not *I* who sins. And though Paul may understand what is right - he can not find HOW to perform what is good.

Jeremiah 10:23

"O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps."



Obviously, I can talk to your situation, but I am sure on some level you knew that heroin was a determent to you, aside from how it made you feel, for decades we as a culture have known that drugs like heroin are harmful if not deadly. So you are responsible for your own actions, you chose to introduce a chemical that is known to be deadly, fortunately you are with us today. Thank God!

But it was in my short term interest - I believed. Besides I thought I could "handle" it. It's funny though, it was dope,crime and prison that finally lead me to Christ.

[mickiel]

As there are of any religon. even not all baptist believe the same. No religon on earth has a perfect individual belief system. Yet all think they are in the perfect one. Universal salvation is not the belief that God can save all, its that he will save all, so its acceptance demamds total committment to everything being restored. Restored?, restored to what? There was a time sin and evil simply did not exist, nor did humans. There was God, Christ, and all they have made, along with perfection in every area. There is no way imperfection can be an end result to this reality. If just one human is destroyed or lost, that is imperfection. If sin and evil will exist for eternity, so must imperfection, and God, by simple default, is imperfect in some area. Reality was in perfect peace when God thought of the plan of salvation, if his plan bears any imperfect result, then he himself is imperfect. If anyone is left out, i question why? What about them is different from those who are included--- NOTHING! All men are basically the same, and all need salvation the same.

Christians want to believe there is a difference in the sinner and the saint. They want to believe Gods predestined mind has excused this difference and uses free will as the seperation line of hope and doom. If God foresaw the terrible results of free will, why would he set it in place, he is still ultimately responsible for all of us NO MATTER WHAT WE DO. Christians think God is only responsible for believers, the "good" people. So in this view, Christ has come for the righteous, not the sinners or the unbeliever. All have sinned, or some think only believers sin is worthy to be forgiven. Perhaps they feel God was thinking that when he created free will, or the real definition of free will- doom thyself with thy thinking because God allows i, Gods predestined perfect mind allows the foolish limited mind of man to doom himself.

No, this is not the mind of God, it is the explination of a man who thinks he knows God. Free will is not more powerful or holy than Gods perfection, but this cracked view demands that must be true. For free will to be Gods gift to mankind, then it means a gift of God resulted in the doom of most of a species God created. That is an insult to the integrity and awesome power of God. God is universal, so is true religon.

[seer]

Good points mickiel, and even though some degree of human freedom may exist, I believe that God is wise enough to work in and around that freedom to bring all men to repentance.

Even if, as George MacDonald states, it takes hell;

From "Our God is A Consuming Fire"

http://www.ccel.org/m/macdonald/unspoken1/unspoken1.htm


If the man resists the burning of God, the consuming fire of Love, a terrible doom awaits him, and its day will come. He shall be cast into the outer darkness who hates the fire of God. What sick dismay shall then seize upon him! For let a man think and care ever so little about God, he does not therefore exist without God. God is here with him, upholding, warming, delighting, teaching him—making life a good thing to him. God gives him himself, though he knows it not. But when God withdraws from a man as far as that can be without the man’s ceasing to be; when the man feels himself abandoned, hanging in a ceaseless vertigo of existence upon the verge of the gulf of his being, without support, without refuge, without aim, without end—for the soul has no weapons wherewith to destroy herself—with no inbreathing of joy, with nothing to make life good;—then will he listen in agony for the faintest sound of life from the closed door; then, if the moan of suffering humanity ever reaches the ear of the outcast of darkness, he will be ready to rush into the very heart of the Consuming Fire to know life once more, to change this terror of sick negation, of unspeakable death, for that region of painful hope. Imagination cannot mislead us into too much horror of being without God—that one living death.

[mickiel]

[
Good points mickiel, and even though some degree of human freedom may exist, I believe that God is wise enough to work in and around that freedom to bring all men to repentance.


For free will to be the key to mens salvation, Angels cannot have it, but it also insinuates that Angels are robots or mindless slaves. Since under the teaching of free will, only mankind has it. In my view, Angels are a perfect example of God creating beings of intelligence, morals, individual mind but perfect obedience. If a christian who believes in free will could only sit and hold a conversation with these "slaves" of God, they would discover a being of vast intelligence and individuality, along with Godly characther and decesion making ability. Not some stupid mindless atuomoton. There is no free will in heaven, there is Gods will, and obedience to, not some "free choice " to disobey him.

That is distortion i cannot accept as reality. Angels are perfect, as are the 24 elders, or any other being God made, and they ALL have minds, individuality and Godly brilliance. What makes mankind think one CANNOT have those without having free will, is perverted doctrinal understanding. Men think WITHOUT FREE WILL, we are ROBOTS. Well now if i am to be a robot programmed by God, what in the world of reason is wrong with that? Whats wrong with Angels? No, men just value what they PERCEIVE as INDEPENDANCE FROM GOD! Or what THEY perceive as an area of SELF GLORY. They think to themselves-- "well I made the CHOICE, SO I AM WORTHY! This so called "fall of the angels turned bad", has helped in the decption of mankind. The fall of Angels is an imperfection, a miscalculation of God, they believe.

I don't know you very well Seer, i hold no intrest in convincing you of anything. As for me, i will go futher in my search for truth. One thing i have learned, it will isolate you. People are stuck in their views. Angels are not chained down and in misery of some weird robot existance. They are in perfect peace and happiness with God, there is no other way to live with God, another reason i reject eternal hell belief, it just cannot exist with God in ANY reality forever. ALL Gods creations are free BECAUSE OF GOD. When the RULER IS RIGHTEOUS, EVERYONE REJOICES. God is not partial, and his DESIRES MUST COME TRUE, THEY CANNOT RETURN TO HIM VOID, or disturbed by the perceived free will of man.

[seer]

I do not know about the angel thing mickiel, didn't a bunch of them rebel and follow Satan?

My problem is - if some degree of free will does not exist, then why does God harm us for doing wrong?

[Stephen]

If we believe God has no choice but to be good, is it right for us to praise him?

[themuzicman]

FYI, Job 23:13 is only Job strugging to respond to his friends who are giving him bad advice. It is certainly not (until the very end, when God speaks with Job) a source for doctrine.

One thing you have to keep in mind is genre, and the nature of quoted material, which is what Job is.

John the apostle said, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us." (Mark 9:38)

Now, is that advice we should follow? Of course not.

Thus, your cite of Job 23:13 is not valid for the form of doctrine you are espousing.

Michael

[seer]

If we believe God has no choice but to be good, is it right for us to praise him?

Scripture says that it is impossible for God to lie - i.e. He can not. So should we praise Him for telling the truth? Of course.

[seer]

FYI, Job 23:13 is only Job strugging to respond to his friends who are giving him bad advice. It is certainly not (until the very end, when God speaks with Job) a source for doctrine.

So Job was mistake here? God does not do what He desires?

How about His pleasure? Does God do ALL He pleases Isa.46:10? Would it please God to save all men?

[themuzicman]

If this were God's purpose, He simply would not have put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden, and He wouldn't have given the command to Adam and Eve to refrain from eating of it.

The truth is that man, in order to have free will, must have a right and wrong to choose from, and when they choose wrong, there must be consequences consumate with making oneself an enemy of God. And this was the purpose of the tree and the consequence, and, post-fall, the law. If there were no consequence to disobeying the law, there would be no point to the law.

Throughout scripture, when salvation is spoken of, it is conditional, being most obvious in Romans 10:13, "Anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

So, to answer your question, "Doing His pleasure" would have to be in the context of God's nature as a just God, and He will do just that.

Let me ask you this: Why would God inflict suffering on His own people, if His pleasure was that they all see good in spite of their sin?

Michael

[seer]

The truth is that man, in order to have free will, must have a right and wrong to choose from, and when they choose wrong, there must be consequences consumate with making oneself an enemy of God. And this was the purpose of the tree and the consequence, and, post-fall, the law. If there were no consequence to disobeying the law, there would be no point to the law.

LOL, you really believe that Adam had a choice? But even if Adam had free will - no man has had it after him.


Throughout scripture, when salvation is spoken of, it is conditional, being most obvious in Romans 10:13, "Anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Of course every man will one day do this:

Philippians 2:10,11

"That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Why? Because: Ephesians 1:10

"That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one ALL THINGS in Christ, both which are IN HEAVEN, and which are ON EARTH; even in him."

[seer]

Let me ask you this: Why would God inflict suffering on His own people, if His pleasure was that they all see good in spite of their sin?

What?

BTW - so Job was wrong about God doing all that He desired?

[themuzicman]

1) God sent several armies to inflict judgement on the Children of Israel several times in the OT, including an extended exile away from the land of promise.

2) Yes. Obviously God would desire for ALL men to be saved, but we know from the rest of scripture that some are NOT saved. Jude speaks of those marked for condemnation, Revelation speaks of those whose name is not in the book of life. And, as I pointed out in Romans 10:13, only those who call on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Michael

[mickiel]

Today @ 02:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=199978#post199978)
seer:

I do not know about the angel thing mickiel, didn't a bunch of them rebel and follow Satan?


Your mind has adhered to deception, and it is confusing you. A true explination cannot free a mind from this, only the source of freedom can do that. satan didnot rebel "on his own", he was either created to do it, or influenced by God to do so. There is only one rational explination for great awsome power or influence being in existance -- GOD. Nothing like the power of satan evolves independantly on its own. In the plan of salvation, evil was preplanned. It was needed just as much as good. satan and his demons were created and chosen to be that evil pressence in the plan.






My problem is - if some degree of free will does not exist, then why does God harm us for doing wrong?



Romans 11:32. God harms us to heal us, unreasonable, but it is so. God has left mankind alone, and to himself. FREE WILL IS ONE OF THE GREATEST CAUSES OF MANS PROBLEM ON EARTH. The history of mankind is actually an indictment AGAINST free will. We will do what Jesus did in the end: we will run to God and beg "Father not our free will, but THY WILL BE DONE".

[mickiel]

[2) Yes. Obviously God would desire for ALL men to be saved, but we know from the rest of scripture that some are NOT saved. Jude speaks of those marked for condemnation, Revelation speaks of those whose name is not in the book of life. And, as I pointed out in Romans 10:13, only those who call on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Michael [/QUOTE]




Only GOD can mark anyone for condemnation, only he can mark them for eternal life. Concerning the book of life, there is more than one of them. If a name is not in one, it will be in the other. I have counted at least 3 books of life, the bible itself is one of them.

[seer]

1) God sent several armies to inflict judgement on the Children of Israel several times in the OT, including an extended exile away from the land of promise.

And?

2) Yes. Obviously God would desire for ALL men to be saved, but we know from the rest of scripture that some are NOT saved. Jude speaks of those marked for condemnation, Revelation speaks of those whose name is not in the book of life. And, as I pointed out in Romans 10:13, only those who call on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Again:

"That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."


"That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one ALL THINGS in Christ, both which are IN HEAVEN, and which are ON EARTH; even in him."

"AS in Adam ALL die, so in Christ ALL will be made alive."

"Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to ALL MEN, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience the MANY were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience the MANY WILL BE MADE RIGHTEOUS."

So yes Scripture does speak of Judgement, but it also speaks of the restoration of all men. We know that all men will confess Christ as Lord.

No one is saying that hell and judgement do not exist - just that God uses them for His loving purpose to bring all men to Christ.

Since you you believe that God does want all men to be saved - are you suggesting that He is not wise enough or powerful enough to bring it about?

[seer]

Romans 11:32. God harms us to heal us, unreasonable, but it is so. God has left mankind alone, and to himself. FREE WILL IS ONE OF THE GREATEST CAUSES OF MANS PROBLEM ON EARTH. The history of mankind is actually an indictment AGAINST free will. We will do what Jesus did in the end: we will run to God and beg "Father not our free will, but THY WILL BE DONE".

My question mickiel is: if determinism is true - why didn't He simply create us perfect to begin with?

[Jedidiah]

That God has the desire to save all men, and the power and wisdom to bring it about.


No one has denied either the desire of God, or His power. Yet we still can question your case for universalism.

You have failed to address the clear statement that some will be condemned for eternity. How do you reconcile
eternal condemnation and universalism.

beeman

[themuzicman]

Today @ 05:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=200156#post200156)
mickiel:
Romans 11:32. God harms us to heal us, unreasonable, but it is so. God has left mankind alone, and to himself. FREE WILL IS ONE OF THE GREATEST CAUSES OF MANS PROBLEM ON EARTH. The history of mankind is actually an indictment AGAINST free will. We will do what Jesus did in the end: we will run to God and beg "Father not our free will, but THY WILL BE DONE".

Ah, but does God DESIRE to harm us? No. He does what He would not desire to do, because it is good for us.

I do not desire to harm my kids, but I do so because it is best for them. I desire that they always do right, but they don't.

Michael

[themuzicman]

Today @ 02:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=200100#post200100)
seer:
LOL, you really believe that Adam had a choice? But even if Adam had free will - no man has had it after him.



Of course every man will one day do this:

Philippians 2:10,11

"That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Why? Because: Ephesians 1:10

"That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one ALL THINGS in Christ, both which are IN HEAVEN, and which are ON EARTH; even in him."

But they will not have called on him to be their savior.

Michael

[Stephen]

Scripture says that it is impossible for God to lie - i.e. He can not. So should we praise Him for telling the truth? Of course.

That is exactly my point. The argument for our free will being necessary for moral responsibility crumbles when you realize that the God we believe needs to give us a choice for good or evil, He Himself does not have a choice, yet He still has moral responsibility for His righteousness.

In a nutshell, if you believe that people must have a chance at good and reject it to be evil, or one must have a choice for evil in order to truly love God, then logically you would have to conclude God must not really love us, or that He is not really righteous.

The above idea that follows from the FreeWill for moral responsibility argument is, of course preposterous.

[seer]

You have failed to address the clear statement that some will be condemned for eternity. How do you reconcile
eternal condemnation and universalism.

First, I think there are clear texts that point to the salvation of all:




"That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."


"That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one ALL THINGS in Christ, both which are IN HEAVEN, and which are ON EARTH; even in him."

"AS in Adam ALL die, so in Christ ALL will be made alive."

"Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to ALL MEN, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience the MANY were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience the MANY WILL BE MADE RIGHTEOUS."

Second, does forever always mean forever?

Jonah 2:6,10


"I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me FOREVER; yet hast Thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God. And the LORD spoke unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land."

Was Jonah trapped FOREVER?

Isaiah 34:9,10

" And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever."

This is speaking of the destruction of Edom. Is the smoke from the burning land still rising? You can go look - it's in southern Israel and Jordan. But it says FOREVER!

It says that NO ONE will pass through FOREVER AND EVER - yet people pass through the land to this day.

See this is figurative language for punishment.

Perhaps you need to study the greek word that we translate forever:

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Aion_lim.html

[themuzicman]

Today @ 05:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=200164#post200164)
seer:

"That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."


Answered that.



"That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one ALL THINGS in Christ, both which are IN HEAVEN, and which are ON EARTH; even in him."

"AS in Adam ALL die, so in Christ ALL will be made alive."


You, again, miss the very context of your proof-texts. Here is the next verse:

[verse]But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming,[/quote]

Who are Christ's? Those who call upon His name. Those who are born again. Those who have accepted the free gift of grace offered to all.



"Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to ALL MEN, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience the MANY were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience the MANY WILL BE MADE RIGHTEOUS."


Well, you need to reconcile this with the remainder of scripture, because the very context of the verses you cite don't fit your interpretation.



So yes Scripture does speak of Judgement, but it also speaks of the restoration of all men. We know that all men will confess Christ as Lord.

No one is saying that hell and judgement do not exist - just that God uses them for His loving purpose to bring all men to Christ.

Since you you believe that God does want all men to be saved - are you suggesting that He is not wise enough or powerful enough to bring it about?

I'm saying that to do so, God would have to violate His own Word and His own nature. Something He choose to set up, and something He chooses not to do.

Michael

[seer]

"That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."


Answered that.

What do you mean? It says what it says. That all men will confess Christ as Lord.




That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one ALL THINGS in Christ, both which are IN HEAVEN, and which are ON EARTH; even in him."

"AS in Adam ALL die, so in Christ ALL will be made alive."
”



You, again, miss the very context of your proof-texts. Here is the next verse:

[verse]But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming.

Who are Christ's? Those who call upon His name. Those who are born again. Those who have accepted the free gift of grace offered to all.

First you did not deal with the Eph.1 quote - nothing in context limits it to believers.

Second - ALL die in Adam (all men) so why limit the second all in the text? Yes it speaks of believers, but it goes on:

1 Corinthians 15:25-28

For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he has put everything under his feet Now when it says that everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be ALL IN ALL.

Death is destroyed (oops I'am sorry you believe death is eternal) then after Christ subdues all things THEN God becomes ALL IN ALL.



"Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to ALL MEN, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience the MANY were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience the MANY WILL BE MADE RIGHTEOUS."
”



Well, you need to reconcile this with the remainder of scripture, because the very context of the verses you cite don't fit your interpretation.

Sorry it is you who need to twist this text. The very context of this proves my point. If you don't think so please explain - don't just assert.


I'm saying that to do so, God would have to violate His own Word and His own nature. Something He choose to set up, and something He chooses not to do.

If God could bring all men to Christ - how would that violate His nature?


Let me ask you something - can God violate His nature and treat any of His creatures unjustly? If not - why not?

[mickiel]

Yesterday @ 10:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=200165#post200165)
seer:



My question mickiel is: if determinism is true - why didn't He simply create us perfect to begin with?



I can give my own opinon for what its worth, probally nothing. God has already created perfect beings, you are asking why is he not doing it again. He is a creator, he is doing something different. And i wouldnot assume that his creating life is finished with mankind, he will continue creating life in the future. People think mankind is unique, well that is correct, but what creation of God is not? God has already created a combination of man and angel, angel and beast, why did he do that? Why give an angel six wings, is not two enough? Why create a being with more than one head? Why not create perfect men, who can prove God has not already created a pefect man? I think it unwise to limit God and i believe if God does something a certain way, it should be done no other way, but that takes trust in him to understand.

[mickiel]

Today @ 01:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=200245#post200245)
themuzicman:



Ah, but does God DESIRE to harm us? No. He does what He would not desire to do, because it is good for us.

I do not desire to harm my kids, but I do so because it is best for them. I desire that they always do right, but they don't.

Michael



And he does harm us, perhaps its to much for you to comprehend the fire the potter uses to mold the clay, a very intense heat. God is alpha, the beginning of pain, but he is also omega, the end of pain. The christian doctrine teachs that the pain will never end because THEY don't want it to end, christians DESIRE pain to continue forever. A very sick perverted desire in my view, thats why i don't like christians. They monger for hell, long for it to be true, will argue and fight for mans punishment. In my understanding that is ungodly. Then out of the same mouth, they try and preach righteousness.This has hurt the mentaliy of those truly desiring knowledge of God. I believe God is angry at this.

[Jedidiah]

What do you mean? It says what it says. That all men will confess Christ as Lord.

On the contrary it says that ultimately all men will admit that Christ is indeed Lord. This is not the same as submitting to Him willingly as Lord.


First you did not deal with the Eph.1 quote - nothing in context limits it to believers.

But only wishful thinking requires anything else. The free gift came to all men, but do all men submit to the Lord Jesus Christ? You are not bringing together all the force of scripture to determine the truth, but selecting portions which you can interpret to support your predetermined answer.

You seem to put more emphasis on speculations about the nature and character of God and what He might or might not do, than on what He reveals about His plans.

beeman

[seer]

On the contrary it says that ultimately all men will admit that Christ is indeed Lord. This is not the same as submitting to Him willingly as Lord.

How do you know that this is not a willing submission? At least as willing as any of ours actually were?


The free gift came to all men, but do all men submit to the Lord Jesus Christ? You are not bringing together all the force of scripture to determine the truth, but selecting portions which you can interpret to support your predetermined answer.

This is nonsense. I was a believer in eternal hell for a number of years - eventually I found the case to be quite weak.

But back to Romans 5:18,19 that you quoted:

"Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to ALL MEN, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience the MANY were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience the MANY WILL BE MADE RIGHTEOUS."

Were the MANY made sinners by Adam? Is the MANY the all men of verse 18 (or were only some made sinners by Adam)? And so the MANY (all men) will be made righteous. Case closed.



You seem to put more emphasis on speculations about the nature and character of God and what He might or might not do, than on what He reveals about His plans.

First I have quoted scripture after scripture,and here are 100 proof texts for my position:

http://www.tentmaker.org/Dew/Dew5/D5-ScripturalProofs.html

Try reading them with an open mind.


Now back to my question - would God treat any of creatures unjustly - if not - why not?

[mickiel]

[

Now back to my question - would God treat any of creatures unjustly - if not - why not? [/QUOTE]



God is just, but we cannot see the whole picture. We just see dimly through a looking glass. Many of us see God through the eyes of satan. We may view what we discern as unjust, but not see the meaning of the experience God placed on the human, nor the end result caused BY the event we consider to be unjust. Can a leapord change its spots-- no it cannot. Can God change his nature, there is nothing God cannot do, but there are things he WOULDNOT do. I must admit to a scripture that says God cannot lie, but if there is such a thing as something God cannot do, then thats the only thing i am aware of. I prefer to say God will not do. God will not be unjust. His will is only questionable in mankinds mind, nothing in heaven questions Gods characther, only man dares that ignorance.

But we are children, mere babys, we will say "why this and why that, because we do not know God." Will God lie, will he be unfair, will he listen to sinners, ect... Its no sin for us to be babys, but God is the highest. This means he is more mature, more intelligent, more wise, more common sense, than anything that exist, but he is these things WITH NO LIMIT. Read about the fruit of the Spirit in Galations, they are a short list of the characther of God, notice at the end of the list it says "against these things there is no law". What this means is there is no limit to God. No limit to his love, his power, his mercy. We think he has limits because we see it as impossible for something to be that far reached. It is not possible for pure goodness to be unjust, but it is possible for us to INTERPIT his doings as unjust.

[geebob]

Seer, I had a longer response that paid more attention to some of your texts but the computer I was working on crashed and the whole thing was lost. So I'm going to only touch on a few points. For starters, I want to mention that universalism is the view I am least opposed to that I disagree with. Philosophically speaking, existentially speaking, in my opinion, it is the only other viable option other than open theism combined with inclusivism (inclusivism is the view that God's salvific grace is available to those outside of the temporal/spacial boundaries of the preached historical Gospel). It is absurd that a righteous God would predestine any person created in his image, anyone with the traits that humans have that establish such value to the point that it is wrong to murder them, to a life of eternal torture. And similarly, even if God did not predestine this, I still think it is absurd that God should create a world with individual creatures for whom eternal torment has a certainty before they were even born. So I share the universalists distain for all forms of reprobation.

As a matter of fact the strongest arguement I have seen written against reprobation comes from a Philosopher named Thomas Talbott who also happens to be a universalist. I have reconstructed his main arguement found at the following link and that arguement is preceeded by four other arguements that aren't as strong but are still formidable.

http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=5188#post5188

as an aside, Thomas talbott is also by the way a free will theist and furthermore has worked on something called a power entailment principle which when combined with the definition of libertarian free will yeilds an open future. So he is probobly something of an open theist as well as a universalist.

Now I understand contra to most christians who would be surprised when this is demonstrated that a strong biblical case can be made for universalism. But it seems to me that many of the prooftexts can be given a more traditional interpretation, but more importantly, I am not confident that the passages that speak of an everlasting hell can be explained away with certainty.

I am well aware of the biblical use hyperbole when speaking of unlimited quantities, even quantities of time. Your Jonah example is a good one. but that doesn't mean you can apply them to the descriptions of hell. It may be reasonable, but that does not indicate that that is what we should get out of the text. What I find really problematic is what an everlasting hell is contrasted with? everlasting life. So is everlasting life also just a hyperbolic description of a really long amount of time that will eventually come to an end?

as for some of your texts, I'll briefly mention a few. Every knee shall bow and tongue confess. But perhaps this is just a refference to all the living. All things in heaven and on earth shall be gathered unto Christ. But hell is absent from this picture. God does all that he pleases. But perhaps when two things conflict, he will do what he is pleased with more. And it is the traditional free will theists claim that God wants our free cooperation.

[seer]

I am well aware of the biblical use hyperbole when speaking of unlimited quantities, even quantities of time. Your Jonah example is a good one. but that doesn't mean you can apply them to the descriptions of hell. It may be reasonable, but that does not indicate that that is what we should get out of the text. What I find really problematic is what an everlasting hell is contrasted with? everlasting life. So is everlasting life also just a hyperbolic description of a really long amount of time that will eventually come to an end?

Hey geebob, at least you do not reject these things out of hand. Tom Talbott is a cyber friend of mine. When I was layed up he sent me his book for free!

Many texts on "hell" are certainly hyperbolic. Revelation 14:11 is an exapmle where John borrowd that language from Isaiah 34:10 - which clearly is not literal as I showed in another post.



as for some of your texts, I'll briefly mention a few. Every knee shall bow and tongue confess. But perhaps this is just a refference to all the living. All things in heaven and on earth shall be gathered unto Christ. But hell is absent from this picture. God does all that he pleases. But perhaps when two things conflict, he will do what he is pleased with more. And it is the traditional free will theists claim that God wants our free cooperation.

Most scholars believe that every tongue confessing refers to all men - but it is a forced confession. Tom Talbott also makes a good case in his book for free will universalism - as you know.

[seer]

What I find really problematic is what an everlasting hell is contrasted with? everlasting life. So is everlasting life also just a hyperbolic description of a really long amount of time that will eventually come to an end?

No, for instance look at the eternal fire that destroyed Sodom (Jude 7). Is Sodom still burning? Or is it eternal because of it's "source." In other words it is not speaking of duration but is speaking to it's source - God.

And let's look at Matthew 25:46 (which I believe is a parable)

"And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Now the word here for punishment is kolasis, which comes from the root kolazo

Strongs:

1) to lop or prune, as trees and wings

2) to curb, check, restrain

3) to chastise, correct, punishment

4) to cause to be punished

To prune is the classic greek sense - to correct. You prune trees to make them better.

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/asw/Chapter11.html

Also, if aionios only means "age lasting" as Young and others translate it, it does not necessarily follow that just because we have life into that age that our life ends after that age. Believers after all are clothed with immortality.

BTW - You can find some of Tom's book on line here:

http://tomtalbott.freeyellow.com/index.html

[Jedidiah]

How do you know that this is not a willing submission? At least as willing as any of ours actually were?

Certainly I do not know this absolutely. It is, however, consistent with an interpretation that takes into account not only your 'proof' texts, but potential 'proof' texts in opposition. Since there are pretty clearly statements that can be interpreted in both directions, it seems prudent to attempt to find an understanding that accepts all of scripture.

I would certainly be happy to believe that there is no eternal hell. I can not simply reject it unless I see a clear case supporting such a belief. Your case picks certain 'proof' texts and ignores (or tries to explain away) scripture that disagrees with that position. It does not convince me. I would like to see that "Positive Case" you first wrote about. A case that clearly makes the position consistent with all scripture, not pushing some verses and repressing others.


This is nonsense. I was a believer in eternal hell for a number of years - eventually I found the case to be quite weak.

Sorry this is not convincing.



Were the MANY made sinners by Adam? Is the MANY the all men of verse 18 (or were only some made sinners by Adam)? And so the MANY (all men) will be made righteous. Case closed.

No the case is not closed. I accept that this is a possible understanding, but still you do not deal effectively with "conflicting" verses. All scripture must be considered fully.


Now back to my question - would God treat any of creatures unjustly - if not - why not?

I believe not. It is contrary to His nature. What significance do you see in this?

beeman

[seer]

Were the MANY made sinners by Adam? Is the MANY the all men of verse 18 (or were only some made sinners by Adam)? And so the MANY (all men) will be made righteous. Case closed. ”



No the case is not closed. I accept that this is a possible understanding, but still you do not deal effectively with "conflicting" verses. All scripture must be considered fully.

I of course consider all scripture. Now there are about 100 texts that I believe clearly point to the salvation of all.

http://www.tentmaker.org/Dew/Dew5/D5-ScripturalProofs.html


Now lets say our Romans 5:18,19 leads us to lean towards Universalism (which I think it clearly does). And let's say that we have another text that leads us towards eternal hell.

One of these texts will have to be modified to fit the other - so how do you decide which passage to modify?


“ Now back to my question - would God treat any of creatures unjustly - if not - why not? ”

I believe not. It is contrary to His nature. What significance do you see in this?

So God would not act unjustly towards any of His creatures - then you would agree that He would also not act unlovingly towards any of His creatures - since He IS love, He would not act contrary to His loving nature - agreed?

[themuzicman]

08-31-2003 @ 09:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=200264#post200264)
seer:
Sorry it is you who need to twist this text. The very context of this proves my point. If you don't think so please explain - don't just assert.


Several verses have been cited to you which indicate the need for men to accept grace through faith to receive salvation and eternal life. Romans 10:9-13 comes to mind, where those who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. That is clearly a conditional which does not have universal fulfillment.

Thus, you have a contextual quandry in that your interpretation of your proof texts do not fit with the remainder of scripture.

This is what you must explain.



Let me ask you something - can God violate His nature and treat any of His creatures unjustly? If not - why not?

Of course not. Because God is perfect, He cannot act against His nature.

Which is precisely why there will be some who are not given eternal life.

Michael

[seer]

Several verses have been cited to you which indicate the need for men to accept grace through faith to receive salvation and eternal life. Romans 10:9-13 comes to mind, where those who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. That is clearly a conditional which does not have universal fulfillment.

First I have already shown that every man will confess Christ as Lord.


Thus, you have a contextual quandry in that your interpretation of your proof texts do not fit with the remainder of scripture.

Answered here.


Now lets say our Romans 5:18,19 leads us to lean towards Universalism (which I think it clearly does). And let's say that we have another text that leads us towards eternal hell.

One of these texts will have to be modified to fit the other - so how do you decide which passage to modify?


Let me ask you something - can God violate His nature and treat any of His creatures unjustly? If not - why not? ”

Of course not. Because God is perfect, He cannot act against His nature.

Good, then you agree that God can not treat any of His creatures in an unloving manner...

[mickiel]

You can no more convince theses people of universal salvation , than you can convince yourself of it. Once God has enlightened someone, they are set in that enlightenment. Once he has blinded them, they are set in that mode. It is impossible for a man to spiritually lead another to a higher level of spiritual understanding, only Gods involvement can do that. I do not insult those here by claiming myself to be enlightened, i speak freely of my weaknesses and lack. What i see in you Seer is a man caught between two opinons. You cannot walk both ways, eventually it will tear you apart. You must walk where you are led, God does not lead a man in two directions.

[seer]

What i see in you Seer is a man caught between two opinons. You cannot walk both ways, eventually it will tear you apart. You must walk where you are led, God does not lead a man in two directions.

Actually mickiel, that is not ture. I do not have to settle this issue in this life. There are a lot of spiritual truths that remain beyond our grasp - we see through a glass darkly.

[mickiel]

Today @ 11:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=201701#post201701)
seer:



Actually mickiel, that is not ture. I do not have to settle this issue in this life. There are a lot of spiritual truths that remain beyond our grasp - we see through a glass darkly.



Each man must choose his own path, until he runs into God. Perhaps your correct, your calling may be after death, that may be why you favor spending time with hell mongers.

[themuzicman]

Yesterday @ 09:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=201504#post201504)
seer:
First I have already shown that every man will confess Christ as Lord.


However, confession is not the requiremet. Calling on Him as Savior is the requirement. Being saved by grace through faith is the requirement. Every knee will bow, not in faith, but in knowledge. Thus, the requirement will not have been filled.

See John 3:16, note the "whosoever". It's conditional.


Good, then you agree that God can not treat any of His creatures in an unloving manner...

Within God's definition of love, yes. Within yours, probably not.

Remember, too, that God is eternally just, and while He takes no pleasure in it, He will judge those who are still in their sin, and they will not have eternal life, but eternal death.

Michael

[seer]

However, confession is not the requiremet. Calling on Him as Savior is the requirement. Being saved by grace through faith is the requirement. Every knee will bow, not in faith, but in knowledge. Thus, the requirement will not have been filled.

Yes they CONFESS Christ as Lord. How do you know this is not faith?



Remember, too, that God is eternally just, and while He takes no pleasure in it, He will judge those who are still in their sin, and they will not have eternal life, but eternal death.

So God will treat some of His creatures in an unloving way?

[geebob]

So God will treat some of His creatures in an unloving way?

The answer to this would be that God did treat them in a loving way. They rejected the love of God. So their's nothing left for them who reject his love.

[themuzicman]

Today @ 06:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=202161#post202161)
seer:
Yes they CONFESS Christ as Lord. How do you know this is not faith?


Faith is the evidence of THINGS HOPED FOR, the evidence of THINGS NOT SEEN (Heb 11:1). Once you see that Jesus is God, it's not faith anymore. It's knowledge. We aren't saved through knowledge. We're saved through faith.



So God will treat some of His creatures in an unloving way?

No. God loves us enough to give us an opportunity to choose Him, but God also has a just side that requires that we pay for our sins, and that we must accept the grace offered to us in faith, by calling on the name of the Lord for salvation.

Thus, there is the balance between God's nature as loving and God's nature as eternally just.

Michael

[seer]

Once you see that Jesus is God, it's not faith anymore. It's knowledge. We aren't saved through knowledge. We're saved through faith.

So Paul and the Apostles did not have faith?


No. God loves us enough to give us an opportunity to choose Him, but God also has a just side that requires that we pay for our sins, and that we must accept the grace offered to us in faith, by calling on the name of the Lord for salvation.

Are God's love and justice pulling Him in different directions? Or does His love serve His just purposes and visa versa?

[Jedidiah]

seer,


Now lets say our Romans 5:18,19 leads us to lean towards Universalism (which I think it clearly does). And let's say that we have another text that leads us towards eternal hell.

One of these texts will have to be modified to fit the other - so how do you decide which passage to modify?

You do not modify either revelation. Instead you must find the truth that is expressed in both. It will probably not be either view exactly.




So God would not act unjustly towards any of His creatures - then you would agree that He would also not act unlovingly towards any of His creatures - since He IS love, He would not act contrary to His loving nature - agreed?

It is very difficult for us to know exactly what behavior on the part of an omnicient God is loving and what is not. I did agree that He, being limited by His own nature and His will, would not be unjust. That does not necessarily mean that He will not do anything that you (or I) might not be able to recognize as loving.

beeman

[Jedidiah]

musicman,



Faith is the evidence of THINGS HOPED FOR, the evidence of THINGS NOT SEEN (Heb 11:1). Once you see that Jesus is God, it's not faith anymore. It's knowledge. We aren't saved through knowledge. We're saved through faith.

"Evidence of things hope for . . ." Please read again the featured article, "Fallacious Faith" on the home page. It speaks to this misconception about faith. Faith is not blind, it is based upon evidence.

beeman

[seer]

Today @ 01:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=202221#post202221)
geebob:



The answer to this would be that God did treat them in a loving way. They rejected the love of God. So their's nothing left for them who reject his love.

Really? So God stops loving them? And treats them in an unloving manner?

[seer]

Now lets say our Romans 5:18,19 leads us to lean towards Universalism (which I think it clearly does). And let's say that we have another text that leads us towards eternal hell.

One of these texts will have to be modified to fit the other - so how do you decide which passage to modify? ”



You do not modify either revelation. Instead you must find the truth that is expressed in both. It will probably not be either view exactly.

Well CS Lewis was pretty sure that Paul taught universalism - his way around it was to deny inerrancy. For years the church as been beating these universal texts into an eternal hell theology - why not though do it the other way around?

I mean there are really a lot more texts for the universal side, than the eternal torment side:

http://www.tentmaker.org/Dew/Dew5/D5-ScripturalProofs.html



It is very difficult for us to know exactly what behavior on the part of an omnicient God is loving and what is not. I did agree that He, being limited by His own nature and His will, would not be unjust. That does not necessarily mean that He will not do anything that you (or I) might not be able to recognize as loving.

We know the definition of love - 1 Cor.13. That is God's definition. Now how is tormenting human beings, His very own offspring, for eternity, equal love? In any sense of the word?

[themuzicman]

Yesterday @ 08:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=202232#post202232)
seer:
So Paul and the Apostles did not have faith?


Sure they did. They didn't really know who Jesus was until after He was resurrected. But they believed in Him before that.

Paul, too, needed faith to accept what had happened, and who God said He was. I don't see that Pauls' encounter was enough to constitute the kind of knowledge that we will have when every knee bows.



Are God's love and justice pulling Him in different directions? Or does His love serve His just purposes and visa versa?

God's love and his justice put God in a position of providing a particular solution. Love requires that He make salvation available to all men. Justice requires that men accept the atonement through which they are saved, and do so through faith.

They are not in conflict, but act in concert to provide the present solution of salvation.

Michael

[themuzicman]

Today @ 06:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=202521#post202521)
seer:


I mean there are really a lot more texts for the universal side, than the eternal torment side:


However, if we have an inerrant word, those texts cannot be in conflict, and must be resolved. Thus, when you take them all in context, you find that God desires for all men to be saved, and God makes provision for all who come to Him to be saved, but that not all are saved.



We know the definition of love - 1 Cor.13. That is God's definition. Now how is tormenting human beings, His very own offspring, for eternity, equal love? In any sense of the word?

However, people make themselves enemies with God, by engaging in sin. Paul makes it clear that the wages of sin is death. There is a judgement required by God for sin. That judgement is eternal death. The way out of it is to have your sins atoned for by grace through faith.

Thus, every man had an opportunity, but sinned, and every man had a chance at salvation, but only those who accept it are saved.

This is the only balance you can find in scripture.

Michael

[seer]

However, if we have an inerrant word, those texts cannot be in conflict, and must be resolved. Thus, when you take them all in context, you find that God desires for all men to be saved, and God makes provision for all who come to Him to be saved, but that not all are saved.

But that is exactly what I am saying - that the texts lead us to consider that all will be saved. That every man will be justified Rom.5:18,19 and that all men will confess Christ as Lord Phil.2:10,11. That God will reconcile ALL THINGS Eph.1:10, Col.1:20,etc...

And that the texts that seem to teach otherwise are misunderstood.

[Jedidiah]

seer,


Well CS Lewis was pretty sure that Paul taught universalism - his way around it was to deny inerrancy. For years the church as been beating these universal texts into an eternal hell theology - why not though do it the other way around?

You are still "beating these . . . texts" one way or the other. If you choose to deny inerrancy there is no problem, but you ignored my suggestion that the true understanding might not be either side, but something that looks different from different perspectives.



We know the definition of love - 1 Cor.13. That is God's definition. Now how is tormenting human beings, His very own offspring, for eternity, equal love? In any sense of the word?


Where in scripture do you read that God torments human beings in hell? My interpretation of Romans suggests that as man rebels finally God releases them. Ultimately He will release them from all restrictions and give them over to their own desire. He will do this conclusively. The torment is that of getting what they fought for and realizing that the warnings God gave them through all history were true. Getting free from God is not good.

beeman

[seer]

You are still "beating these . . . texts" one way or the other. If you choose to deny inerrancy there is no problem, but you ignored my suggestion that the true understanding might not be either side, but something that looks different from different perspectives.

Ok, we have three choices

1. Men will suffer eternal torment.

2. All men will eventually be saved.

3. Final annihilation of unbelievers.

Is there another choice? Or which one do you choose?


Ultimately He will release them from all restrictions and give them over to their own desire. He will do this conclusively. The torment is that of getting what they fought for and realizing that the warnings God gave them through all history were true. Getting free from God is not good.

Scripture says that ONLY God has immorality - so God must keep them alive to suffer - why not just put them out of their misery? Wouldn't that be the loving thing to do?

[themuzicman]

Yesterday @ 08:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=203238#post203238)
seer:

Scripture says that ONLY God has immorality - so God must keep them alive to suffer - why not just put them out of their misery? Wouldn't that be the loving thing to do?

I assume you mean "immortality". :doh:

And I challenge you to back this up. If you mean that God can't die, that true. However, death for men is just the separation of body from spirit. The spirit goes on forever.

That's how God made us. Thus, if people are eternally separated from God, that was by their own choice. God does not violate free will.

Michael

[seer]

And I challenge you to back this up. If you mean that God can't die, that true. However, death for men is just the separation of body from spirit. The spirit goes on forever.

Where does scripture say that men are created immortal?


That's how God made us. Thus, if people are eternally separated from God, that was by their own choice. God does not violate free will.

What are you talking about? God violates free will all through scripture.

[Jedidiah]

seer,


. . . . why not just put them out of their misery? Wouldn't that be the loving thing to do?

I choose not to judge what God can do and still be loving. God judges us, we do not judge Him.

beeman

[themuzicman]

09-05-2003 @ 05:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=204086#post204086)
seer:
Where does scripture say that men are created immortal?


What does the term "eternal life" mean to you?



What are you talking about? God violates free will all through scripture.

Really? Where?

Michael

[Mitbulls]

I just recently began reading this topic, so please correct me if I have missed something, but I couldn't help but interject some things.

For the sake of simplicity, I will not use many direct quotations for now. If you have any question what I am referring to by a specific point, just ask and I will elaborate.

Seer, your basic argument seems to be the following:
1. God is a loving God
2. God loves men, and thus desires all men to be saved
3. God has the power to do anything he desires
4. God will save all men

If I've made a mistake here, let me know and I will revise.

At first glance, all of these seem to line up very clearly. I doubt if you will find any Christians who will dispute the first three points. However, the point comes in the thransition from #3 to #4. This stance, rather than taking in the full scope of God's attributes, limits him to a single attribute and expects him to always act in that way. It is like saying this:

1. Tom loves his Sally
2. Tom never wants Sally to be unhappy
3. Tom will never purposefully do anything that makes Sally unhappy

While #1 and #2 may be true, #3 does not necessarily follow. There are other factors that enter in. If Sally is continually unfaithful to Tom, he will eventually "let her go." Even though the break-up will make Sally very sad, and Tom does not want Sally to be sad, he also knows that no good relationship can be formed in the midst of unfaithfulness.

God works the same way. Isaiah 6:8 refers to God as "Holy, Holy, Holy." In Revelation 4:8 (in the Majority Text) the four living creatures repeat the word Holy 9 times. It's often noted in Hebrew literature, repetition of a word is meant to intensify it. Nowhere does the Bible say that God is "Love, Love, Love." This attribute is not intensified nearly as much as God's glory and holiness. So, for you to assume that God will always act in love and ignore His other attributes is not congruent with the bible.

Being so completely and perfect, it is impossible for God to admit sin into his presence (thus the death of Christ). However, for those who do not accept the gift of Christ's death, there is ongoing, continuous infedelity: something God can not allow in his presence.

So God created an alternate place for these people, which is referred to by several names in the scripture. I would be interested to hear what your interpretation of what hell would be like is. My understanding is that it will be something far worse than just burning in a fiery lake. I think it will be so immeasurably worse that it could not be put in terms that we can even understand (hence the imagery). I believe that hell will, in fact, be 100%, complete separation from God. That is something we do not face in this lifetime, and would be immeasurably worse than even the hottest volcano fire. For those who insist their entire lives that they do not need God, and that they do not want God, eventually (just as in the example of Tom and Sally above) God will give them their wish.

Even beyond all of this, there are some philosophical errors with your statement. I believe this one was already stated, but I'll repeat it for the sake of argument: If God was already planning on saving all men, why are we still here? In fact, why were we born on Earth in the first place? Should he not have just created us in Heaven where we could live beside Him forever? Also your argument about God being loving and not allowing suffering to happen to his children seems to break down in the face of the suffering that happens here on Earth every day to Christians and non-Christians alike.

I would also like to comment on your statements about Paul's teachings and Romans 5:18-19. I do not see these verses as supporting your stance. While Paul does say that "the free gift came to all men" (NKJV), that does not indicate that all men will be saved, simply that the gift is AVAILABLE to all men. You must also take all of this in context with the book (Romans 2), and, more importantly, the rest of the Bible (namely all of the book of Revelation, much of Jesus' teaching, etc.)

For another example, ponder this: Do you think God, being all-loving, loves Satan? He created him to be more beautiful and greater than all the angels in heaven, and allows him to live still today. If God loves Satan, does that mean that Satan will be in heaven with us in the end?

[seer]

Being so completely and perfect, it is impossible for God to admit sin into his presence (thus the death of Christ). However, for those who do not accept the gift of Christ's death, there is ongoing, continuous infedelity: something God can not allow in his presence.

True, but the question remains, is God powerful and wise enough to cause all men to accept the gift of Christ's work?


I would also like to comment on your statements about Paul's teachings and Romans 5:18-19. I do not see these verses as supporting your stance. While Paul does say that "the free gift came to all men" (NKJV), that does not indicate that all men will be saved, simply that the gift is AVAILABLE to all men. You must also take all of this in context with the book (Romans 2), and, more importantly, the rest of the Bible (namely all of the book of Revelation, much of Jesus' teaching, etc.)

I believe there are many more scriptures implying the salvation of all than for eternal hell.

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/ScripturalProofs.html

So, I believe that Romans 5:19 is clear "just as the many were made sinners, so the many will be made righteous."


If God was already planning on saving all men, why are we still here? In fact, why were we born on Earth in the first place? Should he not have just created us in Heaven where we could live beside Him forever? Also your argument about God being loving and not allowing suffering to happen to his children seems to break down in the face of the suffering that happens here on Earth every day to Christians and non-Christians alike.

Could God have prevented Adam from falling and throwing the rest of us in this mess? Why didn't He?


For another example, ponder this: Do you think God, being all-loving, loves Satan? He created him to be more beautiful and greater than all the angels in heaven, and allows him to live still today. If God loves Satan, does that mean that Satan will be in heaven with us in the end?

1. I do not believe that Satan is a fallen angel.

2. Why didn't God destroy him centuries ago? Perhaps he is doing God's will - doing exactly what God created him to do?

[themuzicman]

Today @ 08:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=207155#post207155)
seer:
True, but the question remains, is God powerful and wise enough to cause all men to accept the gift of Christ's work?


The bible doesn't say. The bible does say that it will not happen.



I believe there are many more scriptures implying the salvation of all than for eternal hell.

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/ScripturalProofs.html


However, it's not a matter of counting scriptures, but reconciling them all into one truth.



So, I believe that Romans 5:19 is clear "just as the many were made sinners, so the many will be made righteous."


But you have yet to reconcile that with the rest of scripture. You can't proof text your way to a systematic theology.



Could God have prevented Adam from falling and throwing the rest of us in this mess? Why didn't He?


If God created Adam without a free will, then He could have prevented it. However, God decided to create us with free will, thus making the option of rejecting God real. Adam created the mess, God fixed it for those who will choose salvation.



1. I do not believe that Satan is a fallen angel.


Satan is described as an angel, and described as being thrown down from heaven. Not sure how much clearer it gets than that.



2. Why didn't God destroy him centuries ago? Perhaps he is doing God's will - doing exactly what God created him to do?

Yeah, God's perfect will includes sin and death and suffering and lying and all that. Right. Sure. Try reading the bible and reconciling that view.

Jesus talks extensively about the devil. Maybe you should start there.

Michael

[mickiel]

Who let the devil enter the garden? Who created the tree with the knowledge of evil? Why does the tree contain both fruits of good and evil? How can God be omnipotent and evil create itself out of nowhere? How is it that christians like yourself can be blind, totally ignorant of truth, but yet think you lead the world to Christ, and believe within yourselves that you are Gods annointed? The world is not led to Christ, christians have no real power to save others, you are living an illusion. Your view of scripture is an illusion. The truth in your face cannot be seen. I announce to you and others that God will not abort his creation. The power of these words will NEVER leave your mind. As you read, as others read, i now incert the seed of truth as a witness only, Jesus is the salvation of all men, all sin is forgiven.


But why should God forgive all sin, after all, shouldnot he only forgive the humans who obey and believe?Why ignore the righteous effort of humans who seek to qualify for eternity? You do not know the righteous heart of God, you only know your selfrighteous heart. In your heart, you condemn mankind. So far from the righteousness of God, you go about the world and preach a Jesus who does not exist. I bring a railing accusation against you and your kind. You are not the seed of Christ, who is salvation of all men, you are self seeded and the cause of sorrow.

[seer]

Could God have prevented Adam from falling and throwing the rest of us in this mess? Why didn't He?
”



If God created Adam without a free will, then He could have prevented it. However, God decided to create us with free will, thus making the option of rejecting God real. Adam created the mess, God fixed it for those who will choose salvation.

I can quote texts that show God stopping men from sinning. So obviously God can and does prevent men from doing evil - so why not Adam?


So, I believe that Romans 5:19 is clear "just as the many were made sinners, so the many will be made righteous."


But you have yet to reconcile that with the rest of scripture. You can't proof text your way to a systematic theology.

So Paul was wrong? The many who were made sinners, will not also be made righteous?


Satan is described as an angel, and described as being thrown down from heaven. Not sure how much clearer it gets than that.

Where does scripture say that Satan was an angel?

[themuzicman]

Today @ 06:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=207452#post207452)
seer:
I can quote texts that show God stopping men from sinning. So obviously God can and does prevent men from doing evil - so why not Adam?

Good question. You'll have to ask God. My thought is that God knew He had to let Adam sink or swim, or He'd be constantly overriding free will to prevent sin, and eventually, we'd all be robots. God doesn't want robots.



So Paul was wrong? The many who were made sinners, will not also be made righteous?


Paul is not making the point that all men WILL be saved, but that all men MIGHT be saved. Remember that Adam's specific sin didn't condemn the entire world, but his sin let sin into the world, and we all corrupt ourselves because we know good and evil. Each of us still chooses to sin and, thus, condemn ourselves to death.

After all, it doesn't say that Adam sinned and everyone else fell short of the glory of God. It says that "ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Romans 2 and 3 are all about sin and how each of us is responsible for our own sin and our own condemnation.

Thus, Paul's point in chapter 5 isn't that Adam's sin is what condemns us, but that Adam's sin allowed sin to enter the world and created the potential for us to sin through the knowledge of good and evil (the law), and in the same way, Christ's death made the way for salvation for everyone possible, but, just as we chose sin, we must also choose salvation.

You see, this is the problem with proof texting: you tend to miss the bigger context of the chapter and book that surrounds it.



Where does scripture say that Satan was an angel?

Jesus said that he saw Satan fall from heaven like lightning. Not many creatures in heaven that would be cast down. Only God and angels live there.

Paul says that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Not sure what else Satan could be if not a fallen angel.

Michael

[themuzicman]

Today @ 05:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=207395#post207395)
mickiel:

Who let the devil enter the garden?


"Let?" Satan is a creature with a will just like any other angel. Satan chooses to do what he wishes.



Who created the tree with the knowledge of evil?


God.



Why does the tree contain both fruits of good and evil?


It doesn't.



How can God be omnipotent and evil create itself out of nowhere?


Evil is the perversion and absense of good. It does not have its own existance, and was not created.



How is it that christians like yourself can be blind, totally ignorant of truth, but yet think you lead the world to Christ, and believe within yourselves that you are Gods annointed?


Odd coming from someone who is out in left field by himself.



The world is not led to Christ, christians have no real power to save others, you are living an illusion. Your view of scripture is an illusion. The truth in your face cannot be seen. I announce to you and others that God will not abort his creation. The power of these words will NEVER leave your mind. As you read, as others read, i now incert the seed of truth as a witness only, Jesus is the salvation of all men, all sin is forgiven.

Oh, great oracle of left field, we thank you for informing us that we should throw away our bibles and follow only you. Are you God, or just his lone voice in the world? :no:



But why should God forgive all sin, after all, should not he only forgive the humans who obey and believe?


That depends on whether you believe what the bible says.



Why ignore the righteous effort of humans who seek to qualify for eternity?


Now you're even misrepresenting what the bible says.



You do not know the righteous heart of God, you only know your selfrighteous heart. In your heart, you condemn mankind. So far from the righteousness of God, you go about the world and preach a Jesus who does not exist. I bring a railing accusation against you and your kind. You are not the seed of Christ, who is salvation of all men, you are self seeded and the cause of sorrow.

Thank you, O great oracle of left field... :bow:

We now return you do your regular bible.....

Michael

[mickiel]

an example will be laid in your life. Mark well these words. What you understand, is your guide. Though you have the comfort of many who agree with you, i do not. Let your next few days of sleep confirm this to you.

[Solly]

Mickiel, please explain your words, because at the moment you appear to be making threats against another poster.

[mickiel]

Today @ 01:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=207534#post207534)
Solly:

Mickiel, please explain your words, because at the moment you appear to be making threats against another poster.


I make no useless words. My words have serious meaning. I no longer seek to tolerate insults, which of me you seem to ignore. You seek to protect your own. So i inculde you in these sleeplessness. Never to worry, i myself have been sleep. I know how it is, and will be. Now you will know.

[Solly]

Thank you mickiel, as incoherent as ever.

Btw, if we are talking insults, remember this: "I bring a railing accusation against you and your kind. You are not the seed of Christ." if you want people to take you seriously, then stop acting like a self appointed pope. Funny how those who claim God is so-o-o just, so-o-o loving, are just as intolerant against those who say different, and just as quick to damn. If God is going to save all, then we are of his seed, no matter how deluded. Can't you even see that inconsistancy in your argument?

[Sher]

Mickiel, I'm issuing a warning here because you do appear to be coming across in a threatening manner. I would appreciate if you would back off ... and consider your word choice more carefully. Thank you

[mickiel]

Today @ 02:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=207577#post207577)
Sher:





I resend my threat. My anger at times is stronger than me. Al though i am curious as to the results of your warnings. If i didnot resend, what of your warnings is pertinent?What does it change?You offer no defense of the threats of disrespect levied against me. You are no different than those you protect.

[yxboom]

mick, if you have a problem with the warning take it up in the Locker Room otherwise show courtesy to the moderator without having to say I am sorry but point a finger anyway.

[mickiel]

Yesterday @ 04:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=207663#post207663)
yxboom:

mick, if you have a problem with the warning take it up in the Locker Room otherwise show courtesy to the moderator without having to say I am sorry but point a finger anyway.


I am often at odds with my behavior, i think it best i leave.

[Swordman]

Seer commented:


I guess that He does not have the wisdom to see His desires done?

Desire is a word that does not necessarily demand a fulfillment. Any one of us can desire something, but not ever seek its fulfillment for ourselves for whatever reason. You are therefore not acknowledging the full range of that word's lattitude in order to assume that a desire on God's part automatically means that He seeks an ultimate fulfillment. You have not established anywhere from God's word that every desire He has is met with an ultimate fulfillment. You demonstrated yourself, perhaps unknowingly, the death blow to your case when you quoted the verse that spoke of God's desire that ALL mankind come to know Him. Know Him how? Obviously to the extent that they accept and embrace His lordhsip in their lives. Anything in addition to this is an argument from silence.


Also, I do not see a strong positive case for free will in scripture - it pretty much suggests that we are slaves to sin, not understanding spiritual things.

You are confusing the issue at hand here. First you speak of free will of one's acceptance of Christ as Lord of their life, then you meander off into slavery to sin. What do you think the "new brith" represents? When we are "born again," we are no longer slaves to sin, but to Christ. Those are the two "free will" choices we all are faced with. Do not get tripped up over cliche' type words that people use. You have to look deeper into the meaning of the words they use. When we are in Christ, sin becomes the exception rather than remaining the rule. That is why it was declared, "But IF we sin, we have an advocate, who is with the Father." The word "IF" conveys that sin is therefore the exception rather than the rule in a believer's life.


But tell me, why would anybody in his right mind choose everlasting pain over everlasting bliss? Why would a man choose against his own best interest?

The issue in the minds of unbelievers is not a matter of choosing pain to bliss. They are choosing to either accept or reject Christ, regardless of the cost. He is the issue to them, not pain or bliss. They are choosing to live their lives apart from Christ. To them, pain or bliss are not valid choices in relation to their way of thinking.

There is no right answer to the wrong question. What you should have asked is why unbelievers reject Christ? Pain or bliss are not legitimate concerns to many of them in this life here on this world. Perhaps if many of them knew the harsh reality of that seperation from God, maybe they would have a different viewpoint. Perhaps many of them know full well the consequences of their choice and willfully choose to perish. Why that would be such an outlandish thought to you simply speaks of your not knowing their mindset.

Why do people jump off buildings. Well, it certainly is not for the thrill of enjoying that split second of pain before unconsciousness and death takes hold. They are focusing on the immediate pain they are experiencing in their hearts and minds, not the pain they are about to suffer. There is no real revelation in any of this. Ask valid questions and then perhaps you will receive answers that are more in keeping with your dilemma.

Dr. Don Dean

[Swordman]

Seer said:


God saves through belief in Christ. Does hell/judgement have to be eternal to be feared?

This question was asked at the expense of ignoring many clear statements in the Bible. The other individual asked a valid question. However, I will rephrase his question in relation to your question: Why would God have given His only begotten Son to suffer and die for us ONLY to DELIVER us (not save) from a temporary state of suffering? If all mankind were going to be ultimately "saved" anyway, then Jesus' words are rendered meaingless when He said that all who believe upon Him will be "saved". If that suffering were only temporary, then you would think that Jesus would have made that clear by saying, "He who believes upon me will ESCAPE the coming terror of those who reject me." If hell were temporary, then there would be nothing to be SAVED from, only to be spared having to suffer.

To be "saved" from something means to be snatched from the hand of something with eternal consequence. Otherwise, it would simply be a matter of "sparing" those who believe from the pain, not saving them. Saving means that there is a potiential for total loss, not temporary loss. Words mean things.

Dr. Don Dean

[Swordman]

I do not know about the angel thing mickiel, didn't a bunch of them rebel and follow Satan?

If you are talking about Isaiah 14, then you are talking about a chapter that was not at all addressed to or about Satan, contrary to popular belief. This idea that Satan was once Lucifer is unfounded because that proverb in Isaiah 14 was spoken in reference to the king of Babylon, not Satan. Also, the word "Lucifer" in the King James is Latin from Jerome's Latin Vulgate, not Hebrew in origin.


My problem is - if some degree of free will does not exist, then why does God harm us for doing wrong?

Correction and rebuke do not remove nor nullify free will. Again, you are quite crafty at choosing key words in your statements and questions. God does not "harm" us, although He may choose some rather uncomfortable methods of getting our attention. The harm in this world is the result of sin, not an agry God with a bull whip in His hand, waiting for someone to get out of line.

Many unbelievers live long and prosperous lives. Again, you are having to ignore simple facts like this in order to uphold your contention against free will. Many unbelievers do not come to any suffering in their lives. We are told that the Lord corrects those He loves. He is sovereign. Many universalists seem to have a problem with His sovereignty.

Dr. Don Dean

[geebob]

Greeting Dr. Dean.

I don't believe in universalism, but I'm just playing devils advocate here.


Desire is a word that does not necessarily demand a fulfillment.

seer quoted Isaiah to the contrary... that God does all that he desires.


Why would God have given His only begotten Son to suffer and die for us ONLY to DELIVER us (not save) from a temporary state of suffering? If all mankind were going to be ultimately "saved" anyway, then Jesus' words are rendered meaingless when He said that all who believe upon Him will be "saved". If that suffering were only temporary, then you would think that Jesus would have made that clear by saying, "He who believes upon me will ESCAPE the coming terror of those who reject me."

I don't see any compulsion from logic here. It could be the case that Jesus death will result in the salvation of all and that in all possible worlds where there are sinners and the son of God is not sacrificed, eternal damnation is to follow.

So as Barth says, Jesus is God's yes to mankind.


To be "saved" from something means to be snatched from the hand of something with eternal consequence.

given that the new testament was written using basic everyday greek, I find this dubious.

I have seen it argued that there are clear usages of the term "salvation" that go beyond simple escape of eternal damnation.

I don't know how consistent the greek is but we can find plenty of instances with the english. Acts 27:20 for example.

also, (and probably more close to the significant greek) acts 11 Describes peters visit to cornelius' house as one in which a message by which he would be saved was given. But prior to that, cornelius was a man loved by God who's gifts to the poor and prayers served as a memorial to God. Many theologians agree that Cornelius was saved from damnation even before he "spoke the words by which he would be saved". Calvin surprisingly makes this assertion.

[koinonia1011]

So you folks who don't believe in the salvation of ALL, must believe that the Adam had more power than Jesus? Since ALL fell because of Adam, why do you not believe that ALL are saved because of Jesus? Is there something you don't understand about the word ALL? Have you ever noticed that the word ALL is everywhere in the letters?

Understanding covenant really helps in this. Because our God is a covernant maker with humanity. You can read about what a covenant is here: http://www.digitex.net/koinonia/bible/introduc.htm

and then see how Jesus fulfilled the New Covenant here: http://www.digitex.net/koinonia/bible/jesus.htm

Looking at the what Jesus accomplished through the understanding of covenant is absolutely life changing and liberating.

God is NOT willing (determined resolve) that ANY should perish. . .

Why would God create a world and people only have have a handful with Him in eternity. That makes the devil more powerful that God. That makes your so called free-will more powerful that God.

Hey, wait a minute. . . Isn't God, God. . . or is the devil God. . . or is your so called free-will God?

Yes, we are free to CHOOSE, but did you ever stop to think that God - who is God - guides our every circumstances to guide our choices to HIM? Who knows what happens to someone on their death bed? God can stop time for that person.

Did you know that hell is fire and that fire is purifying? Aren't we baptised with the Holy Ghost AND FIRE? Hmmmmmm. . . .

Did you know that the word forever, etc are mistranslated and actually mean an 'undetermined amount of time'? Hmmmm. . .

Did you know that God IS eternity, which has nothing to do with time? Eternity is a state of being. When we are IN Christ that means we have eternity residing within us.

It saddens me that most Christians believe whatever they are told without ever considering whether or not it is true. Hopefully that is not the case with the readers here.

[koinonia1011]

Why would God inflict suffering on His people?

Before Adam fell in the garden, there were two trees: the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of God and Evil. All Adam (the man and the woman) knew was God. They didn’t separate God from any part of their lives or from the world around them. They saw God in everything.

However, the fall changed all that. Once Adam had eaten of the forbidden fruit, he began to separate good from evil. Instead of seeing God in everything, he separated what was good (calling it God) from what was evil (calling it the devil). What we desperately need to understand, though, is that God is in control of the devil - He uses him to bring about His purposes - for God alone has ALL power and authority in heaven and earth. Notice, also, that before the fall, both the man and woman were called Adam. Literally, the man in Hebrew was called Ish and the woman Isha, one like me but different - his counterpart. After the fall, though, Adam named his wife Eve, "the mother of his children." Here is the first illustration of a sense of separation between the first two humans.

From then on humanity has continued to live with a sense of separation from God and each other. In the accounts of the Gospel, Peter is horrified that the Lord Jesus would suffer death on the Roman crucifix because he saw that as evil - he couldn’t see God in it. And Jesus rebuked Peter for that. Are we any different? Don’t we look at the world and all that is going on, separating good from evil? Don’t we say that the battle is good versus evil? And isn’t this way of thinking a result of the fall?

Beloved, we are delivered from the effects of the fall in the New Covenant, through Jesus’ blood and His body that died and rose again. Jesus’ blood forgives our sins. But we must also know that we were IN Him when He died and rose again. That means our ‘old man’ - that sin nature bent on sinning - died with Jesus. Then our ‘old man’ was replaced with a ‘new man’ - a new creation bent on righteousness. We no longer have the nature to sin, but the nature of God which is holy, blameless, and righteous. That’s who we are. The Holy Spirit joins our ‘new man’ and we are ONE in Him. Just as Jesus said, "My father and I are one," so you can say, "Jesus and I are one" (I Cor. 6:17). This is what happened in your spirit when you surrendered your life to Jesus.

Our minds, however, are continually being renewed. We still have old patterns of thought which are lies - lies separating good from evil, giving us a sense of separation from God. We look at our personal circumstances and the world around us and separate God into all that we consider good and the devil into all that we consider evil. So we go around and around, believing lies that the serpent spun to Adam thousands of years ago.

The truth, though, lies within our individual spirits where we are joined to God by the Holy Spirit. And that truth is that we are ONE in God and that God is in everything. (He is not in everything as a pantheist suggests, so that we go around hugging trees, but He does, indeed, hold everything together.) Back in Genesis chapter 50, Joseph saw God in his captivity; he saw that it was God who brought him to Egypt to be a deliverer for his people during the famine. God was working all things together (Rom. 8:28) for His purposes because He works ALL things according to the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:11). ALL things, not just what we call good, but ALL things.

Will we continue to think as Peter did when he proclaimed that Jesus should never die on a Roman crucifix? Will we continue to separate good from evil and be horrified by the current events surrounding us? Will we continue to look at the troubles in our lives as evil instead of instruments in the hands of our loving Father to bring revelation to us, so that we will actually live out the abundant Life already given to us (James 1:1-16; 2 Peter 1:3)?

Most of Christianity avoid teachings on suffering, but it is those very difficulties that God uses to show us that the answer is not always a way out, and that the answer is Himself, our ‘All Sufficiency.’ Troubles are like the dung out of which comes the compost. During the chemical process of changing dung to compost, however, the dung becomes hot and stinky. If you tried to plant seed in it then, the seed would burn up. So you wait (trust) until it converts to compost, that rich soil out of which we plant our gardens. We look around us and see a world of suffering - terrorist activities, war, abused children, divorce, perversion, violence, drugs - and we shake our heads, "How can this be?" As heartbreaking as all of this ‘dung’ is, our perspective must come up higher, to look at this life from a ‘heavenly’ view. God sees the end from the beginning and uses all of these difficulties to draw mankind to Himself.

When we truly see everything that happens as God, then we ‘rest’ in Him, knowing that He is in control. A more understandable translation of "Be still and know that I am God" would be "Relax, I’ve got it ALL under control" (Ps. 46:10). God wants you to know that, and when you do, you will do as Corrie Ten Boom so aptly exhorted, "Nestle, don’t wrestle."

[Note: When troubles arise, our responsibility is to go to the Father and find out what He says about it, and follow His guidance from there. There is no formula to use for every situation. God deals with each circumstance individually. This is true discernment.]