GYM DEBATE: Universal Salvation

[Amazing Rando]

Gym Debate Notice:

This debate thread is opened to debate the following issue:

The Bible teaches that all human beings -- those that were, that are, and will be -- will eventually be saved through Jesus Christ.

Gabriel will be defending the affirmative and spl_cadet will be defending the negative. This debate will begin as soon as Gabriel makes his first post. The debate will last 5 rounds.

From this point on, the only posts allowed in this thread are to be made by the participants and Moderators. All others will be deleted.

Spectator commentary is welcomed here .

If you are up and unable to meet your deadline please contact a moderator ASAP.
Please do not edit your post after this notice is posted.
If you are not a participant please feel free to participate in the commentary thread noted in the first post of this debate.

[Gabriel]

Let me remind my opponent that we have agreed to a 2000 word limit for the first and final rounds, and a 1000 word limit for the second, third and fourth rounds. We have also agreed to a one week limit per response. Ok, here I go again.

“Love never fails….” - 1 Corinthians 13:8

The Logic of Love

I would like to begin by briefly considering what I gather to be some essential traits of Divine Love (AGAPE), as defined by the New Testament. The reason I have chosen to begin here is that, when the day is done, the most pivotal point of disagreement will be, I suspect, whether one can be saved after death. It is my perception that the answer to this question ultimately depends on the implications and the meaning of the Biblical declaration, “God is Love.” It is my contention that the scope of God’s Love, its purpose and its power, is such as to ensure that all free created beings will eventually share in God’s Grace. With that being said, I would like to offer a working definition of Love Divine.

Love, I propose, involves the will to bring about that which is in the best interest of the beloved; it is God's loving intention to bring those He loves into unity with Him. I further propose that such a union entails the supreme happiness of God's loved ones, and that this true bliss involves loving others as we love ourselves (John 15:10-12). It is, moreover, the inclusive nature of Love that any good or ill done unto the one who is loved is also a good or ill done unto the one who loves (Matt 25:34-45).

With these considerations in mind, it appears to follow that God cannot love one human being without loving everyone else, and that God cannot save one person without ultimately saving all persons, for it is evident that God could never do what is best for you or I without doing what is best for those that we love. Were eternal damnation --or any form of irreparable harm -- to befall any of our loved ones, our joy and our well-being would be forever undermined.

The Purpose of Godly Punishment

The Bible declares that God is Love (1 John 4:8) thus telling us something of God’s essence. Much the same, the phrases “God is Light” and “God is Spirit” describe certain fundamental attributes of Deity. And so in God there is no darkness; within God there is no opposition to Spirit; in God there is no absence of Love.

Now, as it is impossible for God to act in contradiction to His nature; as all God’s actions are expressive of His Holy character, so it is of logical necessity that all Divine actions are rooted in, and express, the nature of God in its entirety. Therefore, every punishment given by God will be an expression of the fundamental qualities of His nature.

It will never do to contend that God does not love all persons with perfect form of Love, just as it will never do to contend that God does not deal justly do all persons, for such contentions would undermine both the doctrine of Divine simplicity, which I doubt my opponent is prepared to do, and the very integrity of God, as revealed in scriptures such as 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 and Galatians 6:7. Consequently, the punishments that God administers upon any human being must be rooted in His love for that human being, and seeing that God’s love for a person would be opposed to any infliction of irreparable harm upon that person, it follows that God’s punishments are corrective and never entail eternal damnation.

Eternal (AIONIOS) Punishment

I would now like to turn to some controversial passages in which the Greek word AIONIOS is used to describe the post-mortem punishment and destruction which awaits unbelievers.

It is claimed by many that AIONIOS generally denotes unlimited duration, and that passages such as Matthew 25:46 and 2 Thessalonians 1:9 speak of unending punishment and everlasting destruction, respectively. Although I do not see any reasons why the more literal meaning of AIONIOS (pertaining to an age) cannot apply in these contexts, let me grant that AIONIOS does connote eternality in these instances. Even with this being granted, there remain several possible applications of AIONIOS which, although ascribing eternality to divine punishment, need not describe the duration of the punishment itself.

Firstly, in the relevant texts, AIONIOS might be used in the sense of an eternity which transcends time; the word may refer to the Divine Realm which transcends the limitations of time, as opposed to the mundane world which is subject to change and decay. It cannot be disputed that AIONIOS has been used in this sense by such extra-biblical writers as Plato, Aristotle and Philo, and it seems to be used this way at least several times in the New Testament. See, for example, 2 Corinthians 4:18 (which contrasts the realm of flux and change with the Heavenly realm of incorruptibility), Jude 7 (where AIONIOS is clearly not used of the duration of the fire -- it has long been burnt out -- but is rather used to indicate that this was Fire from Heaven, not Earth), John 6:27 (where it is used of the Heavenly Bread which does not perish) and John 17:3 (where the emphasis is not on the duration of the Life, but on the quality thereof).

Secondly, AIONIOS might describe the punishment as everlasting only insofar as the source of the punishment, God, is everlasting. This is not, after all, an uncommon way of speaking. A selfish act, for instance, is not describing the action itself, but rather the person who acts in such a way. This application is evident in 2 Thessalonians 1:9, where we read that eternal destruction is that type of destruction which originates in God, the consuming Fire from above.

Thirdly, AIONIOS may be used of Divine punishment in order to indicate that the consequences of the punishment, and not the punitive process itself, lasts forever. Note that Scriptures speak of “eternal redemption”, “eternal salvation”, etc. Clearly, the process of being redeemed and being saved does not last forever. Rather, it is the result of the process which lasts forever. Why would this be any different with regards to “eternal punishment”?

Fourthly, AIONIOS might be figuratively employed-- in Matthew 25:46, for example -- to describe the unending duration of the place of the punishment rather than the punishment itself. The possibility of this reading is manifest in considering that believers already possess eternal life before “going into it.” Thus, the phrase “eternal life” may be used figuratively of the everlasting duration of the place wherein believers will enjoy Divine Life. Similarly, “eternal punishment” may be used figuratively of the everlasting duration of the place where unbelievers will be punished. We need not conclude that those sent to an everlasting place of punishment will never be delivered from it, just as we need not conclude that no one can escape the bottomless pit (Revelation 9:1-3).

Finally, AIONIOS may be used to describe the final and irreversible destruction of unbelievers, but in a way yet compatible with universal salvation. That is to say: if Scripture consistently uses the terms ‘believer’ and ‘unbeliever’ metonymically, then the eternal destruction of the unrighteous is none other than the annihilation of all that is sinful within humanity.

As noted before, AIONIOS is also used throughout the Bible in its more literal sense, “pertaining to an age.” This meaning may apply to verses such as Matthew 25:46 in a way which does not undermine the everlastingness of our Life in Christ; AIONIOS might simply describe eternal life insofar as it pertains to a certain period of time, namely the final age(s) when Christ establishes His reign on Earth. Such usage would no more undermine the eternality of our Life in Christ then the phrase “the God Abraham” undermines the fact that God is Lord over all. Needless to say, the doctrine of Eternal Life has a firm basis in the Bible apart from any usage of AIONIOS.

One last note: Any particular usage of AIONIOS may encompass several of the above examples of its semantic range. For instance, the Eternal Life spoken of by Jesus may be that kind of Life which has its source in God and which will be enjoyed by believers in the age(s) to come.


Some Supporting Passages

First, let us turn to Romans 5:12-20 where we read, by way of a typical Pauline parallelism, that every human being who has sinned and is doomed to death will be made alive through Christ. That the “all” who will be made alive in Christ must include all people who have been cursed through Adam is even more obvious considering verse 20, where we read that grace will abound more than sin. Seeing that all mankind dies by sin, it follows that all mankind will live by grace; for if all partake in the Adamic curse, but only some partake in Christic life, then verse 20 is rendered nonsense.

As a second proof-text, let us turn to a passage which is grammatically and thematically similar to the passage just considered. 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 deals with man’s vivification in, and subjection to, Jesus Christ. We read that the vivification of a sinful creature involves their surrender, which in turn entails the destruction of the carnal mind of enmity (compare Romans 8:6, 7; 1 Corinthians 15:26). Philippians 3:21 vindicates this reading, revealing to us that one’s quickening transformation in Christ involves one’s subjection to Him. Armed with this insight, it takes no stretch of the imagination to see that the final subjection of all things under God entails the restoration of all things wherein the Divine Life indwells all things (see 1 Corinthians 15:28).

Colossians 1:20, too, affirms that Christ will reconcile all things, just as assuredly as Christ is preeminent above all things. See also Romans 8:21, which speaks of the final restoration of the entire creation, and 1 Timothy 4:10, which assures us that God is the savior of all mankind, and not only those who believe in this life. Also, compare Philippians 2:9-11 with Romans 10:9, and one can validly deduce that all people will finally confess Christ unto Salvation.

Finally, I will leave my readers with one more simple syllogism.

-It is God’s intention to save all mankind (1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9)
-All of God’s intentions will be accomplished in the end (Isaiah 46:10,
Job 42:2)

~Therefore, God will save all mankind.





Thank you, Spl_Cadet, for accepting my challenge. I look forward to learning something new.

[spl_cadet]

All of them will rise with their own bodies, which they now wear, so as to receive according to their deserts, whether these be good or bad; for the latter perpetual punishment with the devil, for the former eternal glory with Christ.

Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.

My opponent bases his first argument for the universal salvation of all mankind on the fact that God is Love. In brief, his argument is:
1. God, by His nature, is pure love.
2. God loves every individual perfectly.
3. To love perfectly is incompatible with eternal punishment.
4. Therefore, since our salvation is due to His love for us, and we are all loved perfectly by God, everyone shall be saved.

Now, the salvation of the angels is completely impossible. For Christ won the redemption of mankind by becoming human. As the holy fathers put it in responding to the early Christological heresies, “What He did not assume, He did not heal.” Now, while it may be possible that Christ made a second Incarnation that is unmentioned in Scripture, it is useless to claim this in fact happened without the confirmation of divine revelation. Since such runs explicitly counter the faith that has been handed on from the apostles, it may also be condemned as heretical, rather than simply speculation. Therefore, there is no possibility of salvation for the fallen angels.

What is the applicability of the eternal damnation of the fallen angels however, since this is a debate on the salvation of humanity? Simple: It completely destroys the third premise of my opponent’s argument; that perfect love is incompatible with eternal punishment. For God loved the angels perfectly (it is this perfect love that is the reason for His creation of all persons, human or angelic, after all), yet the possibility of redemption is forever closed to them. Therefore, perfect love is indeed compatible with eternal punishment.

In his proclamation of universalism, my opponent also makes the inadvertent error of denying free will. For man must choose whether he is for or against God in this life, not in the next. But salvation is not simply “I’m free of sin, yippie, chocolate rivers of joy!” Rather, it is an intense union between God and man, which can be compared only to a marriage, in which man is made like God. Again, to quote the holy fathers: “God became man so that men might become gods.” This is not to say that we become of the same substance of God, nor is it meant to imply the Mormon doctrine of deification, which is far from the orthodox doctrine. But just as a marriage is not truly a marriage, but merely a legal fiction, without the full consent of both parties, so too must it be with this glorious union of the divine and the human. For union requires the desire of both parties, it cannot be forced. Should any refuse this union, then they shall not have it, and thus they shall not have salvation.

The next line of argumentation runs on the assumption that all divine punishment is corrective in nature. This is a simple fallacy easily destroyed by the fact that God, while pure Love and infinitely merciful, is also infinitely just. While it may on occasion be corrective in nature, He also punishes evil on account of its being evil, without a view towards correction. For, as we have noted, the punishment of the angels is eternal, and not limited in its duration.

My opponent also makes the following claim:

Consequently, the punishments that God administers upon any human being must be rooted in His love for that human being, and seeing that God’s love for a person would be opposed to any infliction of irreparable harm upon that person, it follows that God’s punishments are corrective and never entail eternal damnation.

But is this true? Love can never be forced upon someone. Though I may love a gal, and be the best possible guy for her, I cannot force her to accept my love. She is free to spurn my love and I must allow her to do so, even if it causers her tremendous pain. The chief pains of Hell are not the fires and other torments (though they do exist), but rather the separation of man from God. Only in God do we find true happiness, we have “a God-shaped hole” if you will. And God will not, indeed, cannot (for then it would not be love), force Himself into this void, despite the terrible agony that those with it feel. His love, though always there, must be accepted before it may fill that hole.

Regarding Aionios: I am not a Greek scholar, and so cannot comment with any authority on the use of Aionios.

First, let us turn to Romans 5:12-20 where we read, by way of a typical Pauline parallelism, that every human being who has sinned and is doomed to death will be made alive through Christ. That the “all” who will be made alive in Christ must include all people who have been cursed through Adam is even more obvious considering verse 20, where we read that grace will abound more than sin. Seeing that all mankind dies by sin, it follows that all mankind will live by grace; for if all partake in the Adamic curse, but only some partake in Christic life, then verse 20 is rendered nonsense.

Romans 5:17-19 Jerusalem Bible:
If it is certain that death reigned over everyone as the consequence of one man’s fall, it is even more certain that one man, Jesus Christ, will cause everyone to reign in life who receives the free gift that he does not deserve, of being made righteous. Again, as one man’s fall brought condemnation on everyone, so the good act of one man brings everyone life and makes them justified. As by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

St. Paul refers to eternal life being granted to “many”, not all in verse 19. While he does speak of everyone in verse 18, verse 17 makes it clear that “everyone” is everyone who has received the free gift.

Regarding the final restoration of all things, the universalist take is contradicted by the known fact that the fallen angels shall belong in Hell for all eternity.

Also, compare Philippians 2:9-11 with Romans 10:9, and one can validly deduce that all people will finally confess Christ unto Salvation.

But compare it also with James 2:19: You believe in the one God—that is creditable enough, but the demons have the same belief, and they tremble with fear.

The demons confess and kneel, but that does them no good, for it is impossible for them to attain salvation. Therefore, that all shall confess and kneel does not necessarily mean that all shall be saved.

Finally, I will leave my readers with one more simple syllogism.

-It is God’s intention to save all mankind (1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9)
-All of God’s intentions will be accomplished in the end (Isaiah 46:10,
Job 42:2)

~Therefore, God will save all mankind.

We must distinguish between God’s moral will and His sovereign will. For it is His will that no one shall sin, yet we continue to do so. Though He desires that all shall accept Him, this belongs to the moral will, and so may be thwarted.

Now, the prior proofs for universalism have been demonstrated to be false. Therefore, let us examine why there shall be many humans in Hell for all eternity.

In Revelations 14:11 we read of the punishment for those humans who worshipped the beast. “And the smoke of their torments, shall ascend up for ever and ever: neither have they rest day nor night, who have adored the beast and his image and whoever receiveth the character of his name.”

While “forever and ever” does use Aionios, “neither shall they rest day nor night” does not. Now, since there is never rest, there can never be a ceasing of the punishment.

Later in the same book, we read: “Then the devil, who misled them, will be thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur, where the beast and the false prophet are, and their torture will not stop, day or night, for ever and ever.” Revelation 20:10

Now who are the beast and the false prophet? They are human persons, whose torture will never stop.

Furthermore, at the judging of the world, to those who did not serve, the Lord shall say: “Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels.... And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.” Matthew 25:41

Those who are damned are cast into the everlasting fire along with the devil and the fallen angels. In contrast with the just, who have life everlasting, the damned receive punishment everlasting. Now to say that the same word (everlasting) holds two different meanings in this sentence is absurd, for if it is not punishment everlasting, then it is not life everlasting.

Though there are many other verses that support my case, I believe these to be sufficient.

To sum up my case:
1. Heaven is an intimate union with God.
2. This union is only possible by accepting God’s love and desiring Him.
3. Some human persons will reject this love and despise Him.
4. Therefore these persons shall spend eternity in Hell.

In addition, two individuals (the false prophet and the AntiChrist) and several classes of people are explicitly stated to suffer never-ending punishment in Hell. In light of this, it may be stated with certainty that universalism is false.

[Gabriel]

My opponent wrote:

Now, the salvation of the angels is completely impossible. For Christ won the redemption of mankind by becoming human. As the holy fathers put it in responding to the early Christological heresies, “What He did not assume, He did not heal.”

That Christ died for mankind does not preclude the salvation of non-human persons through other means, and their salvation is not made impossible by our ignorance of such means. This is but an appeal to ignorance on my opponent's part, and it falls far short of amounting to strong biblical support for his assertion that the salvation of fallen angels is impossible. Besides this, Colossians 1:20 and 1 Corinthians 15:28 are prima-face evidence that all enemies of God will ultimately be reconciled through christ.

In his proclamation of universalism, my opponent also makes the inadvertent error of denying free will. For man must choose whether he is for or against God in this life, not in the next.

Where is the logical support for the claim that the notion of freewill necessarily entail that humans can only freely repent in this life?

But just as a marriage is not truly a marriage, but merely a legal fiction, without the full consent of both parties, so too must it be with this glorious union of the divine and the human. For union requires the desire of both parties, it cannot be forced. Should any refuse this union, then they shall not have it, and thus they shall not have salvation.

I agree, and nothing in my opening argument is at odds with this.

The next line of argumentation runs on the assumption that all divine punishment is corrective in nature. This is a simple fallacy easily destroyed by the fact that God, while pure Love and infinitely merciful, is also infinitely just.

Yes, God is essentially Just and essentially Loving, but how does this destroy my contention that God's judgments are corrective? My opponent has failed to adress my argument that every action of God is necessarily rooted in and expressive of His attributes. Lest he deny the doctrine of Divine Simplicity, my opponent must agree that God's attributes always work together, one never undermining or overshadowing another.

So I ask my opponent, what logical warrant have you got to claim that God's Justice demands something that His Love does not?

Love can never be forced upon someone. Though I may love a gal, and be the best possible guy for her, I cannot force her to accept my love. She is free to spurn my love and I must allow her to do so, even if it causers her tremendous pain. The chief pains of Hell are not the fires and other torments (though they do exist), but rather the separation of man from God. Only in God do we find true happiness, we have “a God-shaped hole” if you will. And God will not, indeed, cannot (for then it would not be love), force Himself into this void, despite the terrible agony that those with it feel. His love, though always there, must be accepted before it may fill that hole.

I agree, and this raises an interesting question. Is my opponent saying that as long as God's love is there, there is a chance for one to repent?

Nonetheless, I fail to see why the fact that Love cannot be forced upon another is at odds with the notion that God always intends the best for all people. Nor do I see that my opponent countered my argument that an irreparable harm done unto any person is tantamount to irreparable harm done unto Him.

Regarding Romans 5...

St. Paul refers to eternal life being granted to “many”, not all in verse 19. While he does speak of everyone in verse 18, verse 17 makes it clear that “everyone” is everyone who has received the free gift.

The "many" mentioned in verse 19 is indisputably the "all" mentioned in verse 18, and the "all" in both clauses clearly refers to the same group of people, namely all who die in Adam.

I ask my opponent, who is the "all" that die in Adam? Is it not all sinners without exception?

Regarding the final restoration of all things, the universalist take is contradicted by the known fact that the fallen angels shall belong in Hell for all eternity.

Again, my opponent has merely assumed this to be the case without substantiating his claim. This will not do. I ask my opponent, what/who are the "all things" spoken of in Colossians 1:20?

I wrote:

Also, compare Philippians 2:9-11 with Romans 10:9, and one can validly deduce that all people will finally confess Christ unto Salvation.

Spl_cadet responded:

But compare it also with James 2:19: You believe in the one God—that is creditable enough, but the demons have the same belief, and they tremble with fear. The demons confess and kneel, but that does them no good, for it is impossible for them to attain salvation. Therefore, that all shall confess and kneel does not necessarily mean that all shall be saved.

There is no relevance in citing this verse, as it uses a different word altogether than EXOMOLOGEO (confess) as is used in the Philippians and Romans verses. The word used in these verses is consistently used throughout the LXX and the NT to connote willing repentance. My argument stands unaddressed.

I wrote:

It is God’s intention to save all mankind (1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9)
-All of God’s intentions will be accomplished in the end (Isaiah 46:10,
Job 42:2)

~Therefore, God will save all mankind.

To this my opponent replied:

We must distinguish between God’s moral will and His sovereign will. For it is His will that no one shall sin, yet we continue to do so. Though He desires that all shall accept Him, this belongs to the moral will, and so may be thwarted.

What is this to say but that God's sovereign will is nonebut those intentions of His that were not thwarted? What criteria is my opponent observing in distinguishing between these two wills of God? Why isn't 1 Timothy 2:4 speaking to God's sovereign will? At this point, my opponent seems to be arbitrarily imposing his view upon the text without substantiating it with contextul and logical reasons. True, God desires that we refrain from sin, but does this mean that His sovereign will does not take into account the shortcomings of mankind?

What is more is that the context of the verse seems to militate against my opponent's contention, as we read that God's will to save all mankind will be achieved through Christ who is the ransom for all mankind.

In Revelations 14:11 we read of the punishment for those humans who worshipped the beast. “And the smoke of their torments, shall ascend up for ever and ever: neither have they rest day nor night, who have adored the beast and his image and whoever receiveth the character of his name.”

While “forever and ever” does use Aionios, “neither shall they rest day nor night” does not. Now, since there is never rest, there can never be a ceasing of the punishment.

The text does not say that they shall never rest again. What it says is that the time period in which they are punished (ages of the ages) is one marked by unrest. As for the phrase, "ages of the ages," we have no more reason to assume that this is an idiomatic expression of infinite ages stacked upon each other than we have reason to assume that the the phrase, "king of kings" refers to an infinite number of kings, or that "holies of holies" refers to an infinite number of holy places, or that "song of songs" refers to an infinite number of songs.

Furthermore, at the judging of the world, to those who did not serve, the Lord shall say: “Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels.... And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.” Matthew 25:41

Those who are damned are cast into the everlasting fire along with the devil and the fallen angels. In contrast with the just, who have life everlasting, the damned receive punishment everlasting. Now to say that the same word (everlasting) holds two different meanings in this sentence is absurd, for if it is not punishment everlasting, then it is not life everlasting.

I do not, infact, hold that AIONIOS has two different meanings in this text, although it is certainly possible that it has two different applications (see my opening statement). The real issue is whether or not AIONIOS is used here to refer to the respective durations of both the life and the punishment. Why, for instance, can it not be used of the everlasting consequences of the punishment rather than the punitive process itself? Or why can't it be used to contrast a life that has its causal origin in God with a punishment that has its causal orgin in God? Or why can't is simply be used of a specific time period in which the life and punishment are experienced without carrying any implications as to the durative length of them both?

As I read the context of Matthew 25:46, I find good reason to think that the life lasts longer than the punishment. For consider, the text states that the punishment is the result of a failure to love Jesus' loved ones, and hence a failure to love Jesus Himself. As I argued in my opening, this implies that Divine Love is inclusive; any good or ill that befalls Jesus' loved ones is a good or ill that befalls Him. And if God is essentially Loving, then it follows that God would love everyone and always act out of love for everyone. Divine punishment, then, lasts only as long as it takes for the punished to come to their senses, as God does all things for the ultimate good of all people.

[spl_cadet]

That Christ died for mankind does not preclude the salvation of non-human persons through other means, and their salvation is not made impossible by our ignorance of such means. This is but an appeal to ignorance on my opponent's part, and it falls far short of amounting to strong biblical support for his assertion that the salvation of fallen angels is impossible.

1. Christ’s sacrifice is salvific only for mankind.
2. With Christ we have the fullness of Revelation.
3. There is nothing in Revelation that says that the fallen angels shall be saved.
4. Therefore we may conclude with certainty that the fallen angels are damned.

In addition, it is Scriptures states: “For it was not the angels that he took to himself; he took to himself descent from Abraham. It was essential that he should in this way become completely like his brothers so that he could be a compassionate and trustworthy high priest of God’s religion, able to atone for human sins.” Hebrews 2:16-17

Now, if He has not taken the angels unto Himself, and thus does not make them His brothers for whom He could make atonement for their sins, they cannot be saved. Therefore, Scripture clearly states that the fallen angels can be saved.

Besides this, Colossians 1:20 and 1 Corinthians 15:28 are prima-face evidence that all enemies of God will ultimately be reconciled through Christ.

How, pray tell, do you make the jump from “Everything shall be subjected to Him” to “All persons shall enter Heaven”?

As for Colossians, it says that: “ all things are to be reconciled through him and for him.” This does not support universalism, but simply states that everything that is reconciled is through Jesus. Notably, it does not say “everything under the Earth” shall, which is Hell.

Where is the logical support for the claim that the notion of freewill necessarily entail that humans can only freely repent in this life?

I was actually condemning the notion that everyone will repent. But, as for that humans can only repent in this life: “Since men only die once, and after that comes judgement, so Christ, too, offers himself only once to take the faults of many on himself, and when he appears a second time, it will not be to deal with sin but to reward with salvation those who are waiting for him.” Hebrews 9:27-28

Now, if we were able to repent after the judgment, then there would be need of a second judgment (to judge them on the basis of their repentance). However, there is no mention of a second judgment in Scripture, but rather only the one judgment, in which a man is judged based on his life. See also Romans 2:7-10 and Revelation 20:12

Yes, God is essentially Just and essentially Loving, but how does this destroy my contention that God's judgments are corrective?

For two reasons:
1. The already noted fact that God opens up an eternal can of whoopass on the fallen angels.
2. Justice, while it may be corrective, is not necessarily so, and often simply punishes the evil. To use an analogy, capital punishment and life imprisonment without parole do not have correction as their intent (indeed, capital punishment precludes correction), they are still perfectly just methods of punishment.

We might also note that, while others may be turned from their ways, the use of the Smite Button™ on Sodom, Gomorrah, Onan, all but Noah and his family, etc. was not exactly a corrective punishment.

So I ask my opponent, what logical warrant have you got to claim that God's Justice demands something that His Love does not?

The fact that love and justice are two different things for starters.

I agree, and this raises an interesting question. Is my opponent saying that as long as God's love is there, there is a chance for one to repent?

Nope. Simply noting that it must be a voluntary acceptance.

Nonetheless, I fail to see why the fact that Love cannot be forced upon another is at odds with the notion that God always intends the best for all people.

It isn’t at odds with the idea that God always intends the best. It’s at odds with the idea that such actually happens (though technically the mere existence of sin proves that such does not occur, since sin is always against what is best for us).

Nor do I see that my opponent countered my argument that an irreparable harm done unto any person is tantamount to irreparable harm done unto Him.

That’s only possible if you are a pantheist, and hold that we are part of the Divine. What we do, and what is done to us, does not affect Him at all (for He is pure act, and is not acted upon).

The "many" mentioned in verse 19 is indisputably the "all" mentioned in verse 18, and the "all" in both clauses clearly refers to the same group of people, namely all who die in Adam.

I disagree. The second all refers to those who receive the gift of eternal life. 18 and 19 are simply saying the same thing as verse 17.

I ask my opponent, who is the "all" that die in Adam? Is it not all sinners without exception?

Answered by the above.

Again, my opponent has merely assumed this to be the case without substantiating his claim. This will not do. I ask my opponent, what/who are the "all things" spoken of in Colossians 1:20?

Already answered.

There is no relevance in citing this verse, as it uses a different word altogether than EXOMOLOGEO (confess) as is used in the Philippians and Romans verses. The word used in these verses is consistently used throughout the LXX and the NT to connote willing repentance. My argument stands unaddressed.

But it does not necessarily mean so, and though it may be used to connote willing repentance, it is absurd to say that the acclamation and acknowledgment of Christ as Lord is done so as a willing repentance (do they willingly repent of Christ being Lord?). Were it to be used in conjunction with an acknowledgment of personal sin, then you would have a point.

What is this to say but that God's sovereign will is nonebut those intentions of His that were not thwarted? What criteria is my opponent observing in distinguishing between these two wills of God? Why isn't 1 Timothy 2:4 speaking to God's sovereign will? At this point, my opponent seems to be arbitrarily imposing his view upon the text without substantiating it with contextul and logical reasons. True, God desires that we refrain from sin, but does this mean that His sovereign will does not take into account the shortcomings of mankind?

I thought the distinction was self-evident. His sovereign will belongs to all that which is subject only to His will. Where the free will of creatures exists, there cannot be His sovereign will, but rather His moral.

What is more is that the context of the verse seems to militate against my opponent's contention, as we read that God's will to save all mankind will be achieved through Christ who is the ransom for all mankind.

The context only militates if I were to propose that there was a mean of salvation other than Christ.

The text does not say that they shall never rest again. What it says is that the time period in which they are punished (ages of the ages) is one marked by unrest.

The context of “neither shall they have rest, day or night,” demands that it be understood as being eternal in nature.

As for the phrase, "ages of the ages," we have no more reason to assume that this is an idiomatic expression of infinite ages stacked upon each other than we have reason to assume that the the phrase, "king of kings" refers to an infinite number of kings, or that "holies of holies" refers to an infinite number of holy places, or that "song of songs" refers to an infinite number of songs.

But that’s a strawman. No one says that king of kings or holy of holies or that song of songs refers to an infinite number of them, nor is eternity an infinite number of ages stacked upon each other.

Why, for instance, can it not be used of the everlasting consequences of the punishment rather than the punitive process itself? Or why can't it be used to contrast a life that has its causal origin in God with a punishment that has its causal orgin in God? Or why can't is simply be used of a specific time period in which the life and punishment are experienced without carrying any implications as to the durative length of them both?

Because that isn’t how it was used.

As I read the context of Matthew 25:46, I find good reason to think that the life lasts longer than the punishment. For consider, the text states that the punishment is the result of a failure to love Jesus' loved ones, and hence a failure to love Jesus Himself. As I argued in my opening, this implies that Divine Love is inclusive; any good or ill that befalls Jesus' loved ones is a good or ill that befalls Him.

Or, rather, it’s similar to St. James warning about faith without works.


I end with a few questions for my opponent:
1. In what way would it have been better for Judas not to have been born (Matthew 26:24) if he is to attain eternal glory in Heaven?
2. St. Paul writes: “You know perfectly well that people who do wrong will not inherit the kingdom of God: people of immoral lives, idolaters, adulterers, catamites, sodomites, thieves, usurers, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers will never inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Now, since we are judged based on our lives, how can these people inherit the kingdom of God in contradiction to this verse?
3. How are those who are in Hell to be reborn, so that they might enter salvation?
4. In the parable of the 10 bridesmaids, the foolish ones come back to the wedding hall and seek to enter the banquet (which is Heaven). “’Lord, Lord,’ they said, ‘open the door for us.’ But he replied ‘I tell you solemnly, I do not know you’.” Matthew 25:11-12. Those seeking to enter into Heaven after the arrival of the Lord are barred, for He does not know them. How then are those in Hell to enter into Heaven?

I apologize, but my next response is going to be late, by how long I do not know. I have midterms this week, which means a good deal of studying and writing papers.

[Gabriel]

Dear spl_cadet and moderators,

My response will also be late, as I will not have internet acces for about one week. I therefore request an extension to two weeks.

[Amazing Rando]

Gym Debate Notice:

That's fine. In the future, could you PM such requests to me? It'll avoid cluttering up the debate thread. Thanks!

If you are up and unable to meet your deadline please contact a moderator ASAP.
Please do not edit your post after this notice is posted.
If you are not a participant please feel free to participate in the commentary thread noted in the first post of this debate.

[Kelp]

Moderated By: Kelp

This debate has been abandoned. Thread closed.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.