A simple argument:

(1) If someone is either lost forever or destroyed, then God's Goodness or Patience has failed.
(2) Under annihilationism people are destroyed and under eternal punishment people are lost forever.
(3) If either annihilationism is true or eternal punishment is true then God's Goodness or patience has failed. (1,2)
(4) God's goodness and patience do not fail.
(5) Therefore annihilationism and eternal punishment are false. (3,4,contrapos.)

This argument is inspired by this verse from Paul:
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails." (1 Cor 13:4-8)

And from John:
"God is Love" (1 John 4:16)

So, If God is Love, and Love is patient and Love always hopes and Love keeps no record of wrongs - then where, exactly, could either annihilationism or eternal punishment fit in?

Peace,
JD

Originally posted by infide

So, If God is Love, and Love is patient and Love always hopes and Love keeps no record of wrongs - then where, exactly, could either annihilationism or eternal punishment fit in?

Peace,
JD

Both fit into a somewhat constrained and narrow view of God while avoiding the center. The Gospel isn't so much believed, as tolerated for many on another agenda and presentation of God.

Here's the irony: as they plumb the 'depths' - God's love for humanity becomes all the more constrained or non-existent. "God is Love' has become a great joke for the wise. 'Everyone will be salted with fire.' Some of us know God's love is in that fire. The Orthodox have always known it.

Originally posted by RanRan

Both fit into a somewhat constrained and narrow view of God while avoiding the center. The Gospel isn't so much believed, as tolerated for many on another agenda and presentation of God.

Here's the irony: as they plumb the 'depths' - God's love for humanity becomes all the more constrained or non-existent. "God is Love' has become a great joke for the wise. 'Everyone will be salted with fire.' Some of us know God's love is in that fire. The Orthodox have always known it.

"35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful." (Luke 6:35-36, NRSV)

If Jesus' argument is that the reason we ought to love even our enemies is that God is ungrateful and merciful to the wicked, then it is not possible to have a consistent view of God under the eternal punishment or annihilationist views.

peace,
jd

Originally posted by infide

"35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful." (Luke 6:35-36, NRSV)

If Jesus' argument is that the reason we ought to love even our enemies is that God is ungrateful and merciful to the wicked, then it is not possible to have a consistent view of God under the eternal punishment or annihilationist views.

peace,
jd

I have given up trying to make sense out of the bible - esp the NT - God is the God of the complicated theology student and has written so much gobbildygook that the average person can never make sense out of it.
Happy is the man who never questions anything but just accepts what he is told by his leaders - of course that must then include all religions lol.
What a mess.
Best to leave on'e dam brain behind.

Originally posted by infide

"35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful." (Luke 6:35-36, NRSV)

If Jesus' argument is that the reason we ought to love even our enemies is that God is ungrateful and merciful [sic?] to the wicked, then it is not possible to have a consistent view of God under the eternal punishment or annihilationist views.

peace,
jd

Bingo. The self-righteous have their claims - either the law or faith or a combination of the two - what's the difference when God has placed everyone under disobedience? They will not lump themselves in with their enemies who Christ redeemed as them.

Originally posted by infide

A simple argument:

(1) If someone is either lost forever or destroyed, then God's Goodness or Patience has failed.
(2) Under annihilationism people are destroyed and under eternal punishment people are lost forever.
(3) If either annihilationism is true or eternal punishment is true then God's Goodness or patience has failed. (1,2)
(4) God's goodness and patience do not fail.
(5) Therefore annihilationism and eternal punishment are false. (3,4,contrapos.)

This argument is inspired by this verse from Paul:
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails." (1 Cor 13:4-8)

And from John:
"God is Love" (1 John 4:16)

So, If God is Love, and Love is patient and Love always hopes and Love keeps no record of wrongs - then where, exactly, could either annihilationism or eternal punishment fit in?

Peace,
JD

That seems to be why the Calvinists say that God only intended to save the elect. We must harmonize the verses you note above with all those verses that speak of judgment and distinguish between eternal life and eternal death.

Thus your argument should begin;
(1) If any of the Elect is either lost forever or destroyed, then God's Goodness or Patience has failed.

Originally posted by infide

A simple argument:

Too simple. There needs to be more in here.

(1) If someone is either lost forever or destroyed, then God's Goodness or Patience has failed.

Along this same vein, since God is good and He created everything, and evil exists, then His goodness failed. His "goodness" is not lacking other attributes. We can't slice God intl little bitty sections and then force a contradiction in there.

(2) Under annihilationism people are destroyed and under eternal punishment people are lost forever.

As justice meets free will. There must be a balance between mercy and justice, for God is both merciful AND just.

(3) If either annihilationism is true or eternal punishment is true then God's Goodness or patience has failed. (1,2)

No, it shows a misunderstanding of what it means when we say "God is good". The fact that the devil and the demons rebelled and will be destroyed in the Lake of Fire would violate this view of God being good. So either this view of God being good and patient is wrong, or even the devil will escape the lake of fire. That violates scripture directly.

(4) God's goodness and patience do not fail.

Nor do His justice, holiness, and righteousness. These attributes COMBINED (for we can not separate God into slices we like) form the picture of God in the Bible. He mercifully saves those who believe in Him and justly punishes those that do not.

(5) Therefore annihilationism and eternal punishment are false. (3,4,contrapos.)

Do you believe the devil will be eventually released from the lake of fire? Why would God's goodness and patience not extend even to the accuser of the bretheren?

This argument is inspired by this verse from Paul:
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails." (1 Cor 13:4-8)

And from John:
"God is Love" (1 John 4:16)

So, If God is Love, and Love is patient and Love always hopes and Love keeps no record of wrongs - then where, exactly, could either annihilationism or eternal punishment fit in?

Because love does not delight in evil. It separates evil, and those who choose to remain in evil can not be in His presence. Because He IS good, evil has no place with Him.

Originally posted by infide

A simple argument:

(1) If someone is either lost forever or destroyed, then God's Goodness or Patience has failed.
(2) Under annihilationism people are destroyed and under eternal punishment people are lost forever.
(3) If either annihilationism is true or eternal punishment is true then God's Goodness or patience has failed. (1,2)
(4) God's goodness and patience do not fail.
(5) Therefore annihilationism and eternal punishment are false. (3,4,contrapos.)

A question: Should not our conclusions regarding final destinies be based on more than deductive thinking? I would say logical deduction should play a role in our theology, but solid conclusions cannot be arrived at without a cumulative case for our various doctrinal stances.

Originally posted by Bill the Cat

Too simple. There needs to be more in here.

Probably, it was a rough argument intended to foster discussion. it worked?

Originally posted by Bill the Cat

Along this same vein, since God is good and He created everything, and evil exists, then His goodness failed. His "goodness" is not lacking other attributes. We can't slice God intl little bitty sections and then force a contradiction in there.

Ok, first of all, I am not talking tiny pieces, I am asking whether or not God has the attribute is unfailingly Good or is unfailingly merciful and the attribute unfailingly patient.

I suggest that all views except the Universalist one ultimately imply that God does not have such attributes - and in terms of eternity, such theologies suggest, God really isnt all that merciful or patient after all.

Originally posted by Bill the Cat

As justice meets free will. There must be a balance between mercy and justice, for God is both merciful AND just.

But neither can a retributive view of justice on God's part, if God in fact is just in that sense (i think not), negate the fact that God is merciful or patient. Because it is one thing to examine a single attribute of God and wonder about it, but it is quite another to set up a war between God's attributes. God being just cannot mean God is not merciful in some sense, otherwise you are suggesting God is not merciful.

Originally posted by Bill the Cat

No, it shows a misunderstanding of what it means when we say "God is good". The fact that the devil and the demons rebelled and will be destroyed in the Lake of Fire would violate this view of God being good. So either this view of God being good and patient is wrong, or even the devil will escape the lake of fire. That violates scripture directly.

I think it does not. God is free to have mercy on whomever God chooses to show mercy towards - this is the true message behind Romans 9.

Originally posted by Bill the Cat

Nor do His justice, holiness, and righteousness. These attributes COMBINED (for we can not separate God into slices we like) form the picture of God in the Bible. He mercifully saves those who believe in Him and justly punishes those that do not.

That all well and good, but the idea that combining attributes can negate an attribute (even for a moment) is purely problematic - especially if we want to say something like God is a necessary being. If God ever fails to hold an attribute that is essential to the divine nature, then this being so referred just is not divine.

Originally posted by Bill the Cat

Do you believe the devil will be eventually released from the lake of fire? Why would God's goodness and patience not extend even to the accuser of the bretheren?

Yes, but not dogmatically so - but that is quite beside the point. I think it is suggested in the verse on the reconciliation of all things in Colossians 1.

Originally posted by Bill the Cat

Because love does not delight in evil. It separates evil, and those who choose to remain in evil can not be in His presence. Because He IS good, evil has no place with Him.

This seems to suggest that what God is like is that God is threatened by evil, and must therefore seperate evil from God's self. Jesus specifically demonstrated that God is not like this - God enters into fallen humanity and transforms it through His Mercy and Love.

Peace,
jd

Originally posted by infide

A simple argument:

(1) If someone is either lost forever or destroyed, then God's Goodness or Patience has failed.
(2) Under annihilationism people are destroyed and under eternal punishment people are lost forever.
(3) If either annihilationism is true or eternal punishment is true then God's Goodness or patience has failed. (1,2)
(4) God's goodness and patience do not fail.
(5) Therefore annihilationism and eternal punishment are false. (3,4,contrapos.)

This argument is inspired by this verse from Paul:
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails." (1 Cor 13:4-8)

And from John:
"God is Love" (1 John 4:16)

So, If God is Love, and Love is patient and Love always hopes and Love keeps no record of wrongs - then where, exactly, could either annihilationism or eternal punishment fit in?

Peace,
JD

Way to deny that God created men with wills that signify actual 'not God' identities. Show me where all men are raised to put on immortality and I will seriously consider your implied position. I can show where men are raised back to a mortal state (Lazarus for one). I can also show that some will not be given a share in the tree of life, Rev. 22:19. So...if you can show how a man can be eternally sustained in 'life' without immortality and without a share in the tree of life then I will seriously consider what you are implying.

About 'love'. Is it a loving thing that God would continue to subject the innocent to the schemes of the guilty for all eternity? This is a present phenomenon that will never be carried over into the new heaven and earth (the home of righteousness). My view at present....

Peace...

Originally posted by spitndirt

Show me where all men are raised to put on immortality and I will seriously consider your implied position.

'For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.' 1cor15 Everyone is resurrected.

Is it a loving thing that God would continue to subject the innocent to the schemes of the guilty for all eternity?

'For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous' 1pet3
God subjects the guilty to HIS scheme!
There is no one innocent, except Christ.

Originally posted by rhutchin

That seems to be why the Calvinists say that God only intended to save the elect. We must harmonize the verses you note above with all those verses that speak of judgment and distinguish between eternal life and eternal death.

And this is precisely why I am not a Calvinist. The idea that God would arbitrarily save some to satisfy the good-guy part of God and arbitrarily condemn others to satisfy some abstract "justice" seems to me to be neither merciful nor just.

And let me remind you, there is nothing just about an eternal divine punishment! The punishment ought fit the crime, and the idea that a finite crime could be worthy of an infinite punishment is irrational.

peace,
jd

If God saves everyone even if they reject him and enjoy doing evil, then God is not Just. In fact he would be condoning evil.

He is also ineffective and serves no purpose whatsoever. He could have just set up the system to put people in "heaven" when they die and just left the universe alone . Same result.

A universalist God is a nongod.

Originally posted by spitndirt

Way to deny that God created men with wills that signify actual 'not God' identities. Show me where all men are raised to put on immortality and I will seriously consider your implied position.

Actually, my view on this is rather nuanced, and still in the works. All are raised, but not all are reconciled at that time. Rather, I believe there is a progression to the reconciliation of the entire created order. Some have to go through the fire of divine grace first. Some are already reconciled. But Colossians 1:20 assures us that the reconciliation will not be short of all things created.

Originally posted by spitndirt

I can show where men are raised back to a mortal state (Lazarus for one). I can also show that some will not be given a share in the tree of life, Rev. 22:19. So...if you can show how a man can be eternally sustained in 'life' without immortality and without a share in the tree of life then I will seriously consider what you are implying.

All are resurrected. All are reconciled. But not at the same time.

Originally posted by spitndirt

About 'love'. Is it a loving thing that God would continue to subject the innocent to the schemes of the guilty for all eternity? This is a present phenomenon that will never be carried over into the new heaven and earth (the home of righteousness). My view at present....

Peace...

No its not loving for God to do that, which is why there is any sort of divine judgement at all. Because some take longer than others to come to terms with the reality of God and His ways. But all get it... eventually.

peace,
jd

Originally posted by infide

No its not loving for God to do that, which is why there is any sort of divine judgement at all. Because some take longer than others to come to terms with the reality of God and His ways. But all get it... eventually.

peace,
jd

When? After they die? Because some people go to their graves cursing God.

The bible says that there is no chance after death, btw.


also why does the bible spend so much effort talking about judgment if there will not be any? If everyone is saved then Judgment is useless and warning us about it in the bible is a waste of pages.