dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

I think the primary issue is not the definition of the E or the C, but the T. That has been viewed different ways by different church fathers, and neither the Catholic or EO's have officially defined it as far as I can find.

---

I can't say I blame them. The manner in which one would be tormented is far out of the scope of what has been revealed to man.

---

I think Mal. 4 gives us a glimpse.

4:1 "For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. The day that is coming shall set them ablaze, says the Lord of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. 2 But for you who fear my name, the sun of righteousness shall rise with healing in its wings. You shall go out leaping like calves from the stall. 3 And you shall tread down the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet, on the day when I act, says the Lord of hosts.

4 "Remember the law of my servant Moses, the statutes and rules that I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel.

5 "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes. 6 And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction."

Given v5, this day is obviously the incarnation of Jesus. Beginning with Herod, his enemies burned with rage.

Matthew Henry on Mal. 4:1:
Now this was fulfilled, (1.) When Christ, in his doctrine, spoke terror and condemnation to the proud Pharisees and the other Jews that did wickedly, when he sent that fire on the earth which burnt up the chaff of the traditions of the elders and the corrupt glosses they had put upon the law of God. (2.) When Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, and the nation of the Jews, as a nation, quite blotted out from under heaven, and neither root nor branch left them. This seems to be principally intended here; our Saviour says that those should be the days of vengeance, when all the things that were written to that purport should be fulfilled, Luke 21:22. Then the unbelieving Jews were as stubble to the devouring fire of God's judgments, which gathered together to them as the eagles to the carcase. (3.) It is certainly applicable, and is to be applied, to the day of judgment, to the particular judgment at death (some of the Jewish doctors refer it the punishment that seizes on the souls of the wicked immediately after they go out of the body), but especially to the general judgment, at the end of time, when Christ shall be revealed in flaming fire, to execute judgment on the proud, and all that do wickedly. The whole world shall then burn as an oven, and all the children of this world, that set their hearts upon it and choose their portion in it, shall take their ruin with it, and the fire then kindled shall never be quenched.

---

Don't those both support annihilationism? I don't read eternal conscious punish,ent in any of that.

---

Correct. If you read carefully, we were discussing the "T" in ECT. I don't know where you see annihilationism.

But I'm glad you're back. In Matt. 18, does the man pay the debt or the master? Can you provide Biblical support for purgatory?

---

Ashes under the soles of their feet.
Utter destruction.
Burnt up the chaff
Were as stubble
Fire that kindled shall never be quenched (the fire shall not be quenched) to me implies destruction and not ECT.

Jesus stated until his debt should be paid. That to me means there is finite punishment until the debt is repaid.

We disagree. I don't read not think anyone is going to hell because of their beliefs on hell. The pastor in the op video specifically states that. I believe there are other primarily Reformed/Calvinist preachers/believers who state the same.

To my knowledge, Augustine not any of the church fathers condemned anyone to hell due to their theology of hell.

---

So you think Mal. 4 teaches annihilationism?

---

Yes. Where is eternal punishment in there?

---

Ok, so you do believe in annihilationism. Earlier you made it seem like you didn't.

---

I am open to annihilationism. But if you use exegesis and look at verses describing God's desire to save all, verses like Adam damned all and Christ redeemed all, good news to all men, God saves all men especially believers, etc. a case can be made for ultimate reconciliation.

If you look at Scripture, ECT hell has the least evidence to support it.

---

What's the point of annihilationism?

dermdoc said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Is there any Scripture that says if you don't believe in ECT hell you are going there?

---

This is silly and can't see how there is even a discussion on this specific point. If this preacher actually said that he is way out of bounds.

---

Have you watched the video? And I agree it is silly. Do you not believe this is being preached?

---

I watched it. I think it's a very poorly constructed sermon in some ways, overly theatrical, and probably reflects a self-centered desire for attention that this preacher has. People who use that overly dramatic tone of voice and delivery while giving a sermon always turn me off because they seem to be wanting to make it about themselves rather than the word of God.

However, he didn't say that people are going to hell
If they don't believe in hell. He said a lot of you (I think he means a lot of people) don't actually believe in hell, and they will be shocked because they will wake up in a place they don't believe in.

He didn't say the absence of a belief in hell will CAUSE anyone to go to hell. Although, I bet it correlates almost precisely with an absence of belief in the teachings of Jesus, which could cause one to go to hell.

---

I went back and listened carefully and agree. I implied what his belief was. I was wrong.

So you are saying if you don't believe in hell you probably have an absence of belief in the teachings of a Jesus? I disagree completely. So does S. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Clement, and others

---

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. To be clear, I don't know what hell is, and I don't particularly care. It could be what you call ETC hell, or it could be something else. I just think it has to be some kind of consequence for rejecting God's offer of salvation, probably in the form of total separation from God.

In short, for people who don't believe there will be any hell, with hell being some kind of consequence for rejecting God's offer of salvation, then yes, I believe that correlates pretty much perfectly with those people not believing the teachings of Jesus.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

I think the primary issue is not the definition of the E or the C, but the T. That has been viewed different ways by different church fathers, and neither the Catholic or EO's have officially defined it as far as I can find.

---

I can't say I blame them. The manner in which one would be tormented is far out of the scope of what has been revealed to man.

---

I think Mal. 4 gives us a glimpse.

4:1 "For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. The day that is coming shall set them ablaze, says the Lord of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. 2 But for you who fear my name, the sun of righteousness shall rise with healing in its wings. You shall go out leaping like calves from the stall. 3 And you shall tread down the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet, on the day when I act, says the Lord of hosts.

4 "Remember the law of my servant Moses, the statutes and rules that I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel.

5 "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes. 6 And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction."

Given v5, this day is obviously the incarnation of Jesus. Beginning with Herod, his enemies burned with rage.

Matthew Henry on Mal. 4:1:
Now this was fulfilled, (1.) When Christ, in his doctrine, spoke terror and condemnation to the proud Pharisees and the other Jews that did wickedly, when he sent that fire on the earth which burnt up the chaff of the traditions of the elders and the corrupt glosses they had put upon the law of God. (2.) When Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, and the nation of the Jews, as a nation, quite blotted out from under heaven, and neither root nor branch left them. This seems to be principally intended here; our Saviour says that those should be the days of vengeance, when all the things that were written to that purport should be fulfilled, Luke 21:22. Then the unbelieving Jews were as stubble to the devouring fire of God's judgments, which gathered together to them as the eagles to the carcase. (3.) It is certainly applicable, and is to be applied, to the day of judgment, to the particular judgment at death (some of the Jewish doctors refer it the punishment that seizes on the souls of the wicked immediately after they go out of the body), but especially to the general judgment, at the end of time, when Christ shall be revealed in flaming fire, to execute judgment on the proud, and all that do wickedly. The whole world shall then burn as an oven, and all the children of this world, that set their hearts upon it and choose their portion in it, shall take their ruin with it, and the fire then kindled shall never be quenched.

---

Don't those both support annihilationism? I don't read eternal conscious punish,ent in any of that.

---

Correct. If you read carefully, we were discussing the "T" in ECT. I don't know where you see annihilationism.

But I'm glad you're back. In Matt. 18, does the man pay the debt or the master? Can you provide Biblical support for purgatory?

---

Ashes under the soles of their feet.
Utter destruction.
Burnt up the chaff
Were as stubble
Fire that kindled shall never be quenched (the fire shall not be quenched) to me implies destruction and not ECT.

Jesus stated until his debt should be paid. That to me means there is finite punishment until the debt is repaid.

We disagree. I don't read not think anyone is going to hell because of their beliefs on hell. The pastor in the op video specifically states that. I believe there are other primarily Reformed/Calvinist preachers/believers who state the same.

To my knowledge, Augustine not any of the church fathers condemned anyone to hell due to their theology of hell.

---

So you think Mal. 4 teaches annihilationism?

---

Yes. Where is eternal punishment in there?

---

Ok, so you do believe in annihilationism. Earlier you made it seem like you didn't.

---

I am open to annihilationism. But if you use exegesis and look at verses describing God's desire to save all, verses like Adam damned all and Christ redeemed all, good news to all men, God saves all men especially believers, etc. a case can be made for ultimate reconciliation.

If you look at Scripture, ECT hell has the least evidence to support it.

---

What's the point of annihilationism?

---

I am just reading Scripture. What is the point of eternal conscious torment? What good comes out of it?

In all the hell parabkes and Scripture we have talked about, what criteria does Jesus use as deserving punishment? And what criteria to avoid it? How does Jesus says one becomes a sheep or a goat? What is the rich man in the Lazarus punished for? I bet he was in the synagogue all the time and followed the Law religiously.

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Is there any Scripture that says if you don't believe in ECT hell you are going there?

---

This is silly and can't see how there is even a discussion on this specific point. If this preacher actually said that he is way out of bounds.

---

Have you watched the video? And I agree it is silly. Do you not believe this is being preached?

---

I watched it. I think it's a very poorly constructed sermon in some ways, overly theatrical, and probably reflects a self-centered desire for attention that this preacher has. People who use that overly dramatic tone of voice and delivery while giving a sermon always turn me off because they seem to be wanting to make it about themselves rather than the word of God.

However, he didn't say that people are going to hell
If they don't believe in hell. He said a lot of you (I think he means a lot of people) don't actually believe in hell, and they will be shocked because they will wake up in a place they don't believe in.

He didn't say the absence of a belief in hell will CAUSE anyone to go to hell. Although, I bet it correlates almost precisely with an absence of belief in the teachings of Jesus, which could cause one to go to hell.

---

I went back and listened carefully and agree. I implied what his belief was. I was wrong.

So you are saying if you don't believe in hell you probably have an absence of belief in the teachings of a Jesus? I disagree completely. So does S. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Clement, and others

---

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. To be clear, I don't know what hell is, and I don't particularly care. It could be what you call ETC hell, or it could be something else. I just think it has to be some kind of consequence for rejecting God's offer of salvation, probably in the form of total separation from God.

In short, for people who don't believe there will be any hell, with hell being some kind of consequence for rejecting God's offer of salvation, then yes, I believe that correlates pretty much perfectly with those people not believing the teachings of Jesus.

---

So you believe that salvation is only about avoiding hell? What did Jesus actually teach that salvation was? Why did Jesus said He came? Did Jesus ever say He had come to save us from hell? And what if you do not get the chance to reject God's offer of salvation? Do those folks go to hell?

And if I truly believed that I would spend every waking moment warning people about hell. I would advocate putting it on loudspeakers 24/7. I would leave my family and job and spend all my energy, money, and time to warn people.

i don't believe that. But a lot of people say they do. And do nothing and live just like me.

And salvation is much better and abundant than just avoiding whatever your concept of hell is.

Quote:

---

And do nothing and live just like me.

---

I agree we have to look at ourselves and understand why it is we are not more urgent about spiritual matters, like you are saying. It should be a convicting exercise to say the least.

I think at the end of the day, this showcases our broken humanity that desperately needs Christ's blood and resurrection. We are utterly helpless.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

And do nothing and live just like me.

---

I agree we have to look at ourselves and understand why it is we are not more urgent about spiritual matters, like you are saying. It should be a convicting exercise to say the least.

I think at the end of the day, this showcases our broken humanity that desperately needs Christ's blood and resurrection. We are utterly helpless.

---

I personally think it is Christ in me giving me and every person who trusts in Christ discernment on what their God given destiny is. Scripture is pretty clear that we all have our role to live out, The centurion was not told to stop being a soldier.

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

I think the primary issue is not the definition of the E or the C, but the T. That has been viewed different ways by different church fathers, and neither the Catholic or EO's have officially defined it as far as I can find.

---

I can't say I blame them. The manner in which one would be tormented is far out of the scope of what has been revealed to man.

---

I think Mal. 4 gives us a glimpse.

4:1 "For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. The day that is coming shall set them ablaze, says the Lord of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. 2 But for you who fear my name, the sun of righteousness shall rise with healing in its wings. You shall go out leaping like calves from the stall. 3 And you shall tread down the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet, on the day when I act, says the Lord of hosts.

4 "Remember the law of my servant Moses, the statutes and rules that I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel.

5 "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes. 6 And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction."

Given v5, this day is obviously the incarnation of Jesus. Beginning with Herod, his enemies burned with rage.

Matthew Henry on Mal. 4:1:
Now this was fulfilled, (1.) When Christ, in his doctrine, spoke terror and condemnation to the proud Pharisees and the other Jews that did wickedly, when he sent that fire on the earth which burnt up the chaff of the traditions of the elders and the corrupt glosses they had put upon the law of God. (2.) When Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, and the nation of the Jews, as a nation, quite blotted out from under heaven, and neither root nor branch left them. This seems to be principally intended here; our Saviour says that those should be the days of vengeance, when all the things that were written to that purport should be fulfilled, Luke 21:22. Then the unbelieving Jews were as stubble to the devouring fire of God's judgments, which gathered together to them as the eagles to the carcase. (3.) It is certainly applicable, and is to be applied, to the day of judgment, to the particular judgment at death (some of the Jewish doctors refer it the punishment that seizes on the souls of the wicked immediately after they go out of the body), but especially to the general judgment, at the end of time, when Christ shall be revealed in flaming fire, to execute judgment on the proud, and all that do wickedly. The whole world shall then burn as an oven, and all the children of this world, that set their hearts upon it and choose their portion in it, shall take their ruin with it, and the fire then kindled shall never be quenched.

---

Don't those both support annihilationism? I don't read eternal conscious punish,ent in any of that.

---

Correct. If you read carefully, we were discussing the "T" in ECT. I don't know where you see annihilationism.

But I'm glad you're back. In Matt. 18, does the man pay the debt or the master? Can you provide Biblical support for purgatory?

---

Ashes under the soles of their feet.
Utter destruction.
Burnt up the chaff
Were as stubble
Fire that kindled shall never be quenched (the fire shall not be quenched) to me implies destruction and not ECT.

Jesus stated until his debt should be paid. That to me means there is finite punishment until the debt is repaid.

We disagree. I don't read not think anyone is going to hell because of their beliefs on hell. The pastor in the op video specifically states that. I believe there are other primarily Reformed/Calvinist preachers/believers who state the same.

To my knowledge, Augustine not any of the church fathers condemned anyone to hell due to their theology of hell.

---

So you think Mal. 4 teaches annihilationism?

---

Yes. Where is eternal punishment in there?

---

Ok, so you do believe in annihilationism. Earlier you made it seem like you didn't.

---

I am open to annihilationism. But if you use exegesis and look at verses describing God's desire to save all, verses like Adam damned all and Christ redeemed all, good news to all men, God saves all men especially believers, etc. a case can be made for ultimate reconciliation.

If you look at Scripture, ECT hell has the least evidence to support it.

---

What's the point of annihilationism?

---

I am just reading Scripture. What is the point of eternal conscious torment? What good comes out of it?

In all the hell parabkes and Scripture we have talked about, what criteria does Jesus use as deserving punishment? And what criteria to avoid it? How does Jesus says one becomes a sheep or a goat? What is the rich man in the Lazarus punished for? I bet he was in the synagogue all the time and followed the Law religiously.

---

The point of ECT is punishment for sins. Like Jesus on the cross.

I see no point of annihilationism.

dermdoc said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Is there any Scripture that says if you don't believe in ECT hell you are going there?

---

This is silly and can't see how there is even a discussion on this specific point. If this preacher actually said that he is way out of bounds.

---

Have you watched the video? And I agree it is silly. Do you not believe this is being preached?

---

I watched it. I think it's a very poorly constructed sermon in some ways, overly theatrical, and probably reflects a self-centered desire for attention that this preacher has. People who use that overly dramatic tone of voice and delivery while giving a sermon always turn me off because they seem to be wanting to make it about themselves rather than the word of God.

However, he didn't say that people are going to hell
If they don't believe in hell. He said a lot of you (I think he means a lot of people) don't actually believe in hell, and they will be shocked because they will wake up in a place they don't believe in.

He didn't say the absence of a belief in hell will CAUSE anyone to go to hell. Although, I bet it correlates almost precisely with an absence of belief in the teachings of Jesus, which could cause one to go to hell.

---

I went back and listened carefully and agree. I implied what his belief was. I was wrong.

So you are saying if you don't believe in hell you probably have an absence of belief in the teachings of a Jesus? I disagree completely. So does S. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Clement, and others

---

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. To be clear, I don't know what hell is, and I don't particularly care. It could be what you call ETC hell, or it could be something else. I just think it has to be some kind of consequence for rejecting God's offer of salvation, probably in the form of total separation from God.

In short, for people who don't believe there will be any hell, with hell being some kind of consequence for rejecting God's offer of salvation, then yes, I believe that correlates pretty much perfectly with those people not believing the teachings of Jesus.

---

So you believe that salvation is only about avoiding hell? And what if you do not get the chance to reject God's offer of salvation? Do those folks go to hell?

And if I truly believed that I would spend every waking moment warning people about hell. I would advocate putting it on loudspeakers 24/7. I would leave my family and job and spend all my energy, money, and time to warn people.

i don't believe that. But a lot of people say they do. And do nothing and live just like me.

---

I think there's a reading comprehension problem here. I didn't say anything remotely resembling your attempted paraphrase that salvation is only about avoiding hell. It appears you're just telling me I said something I didn't say, and then attacking the thing I didn't say instead of the thing I said. That's called a straw man. I was talking about correlation of [no belief in consequences for rejecting salvation] with [a rejection of the offer of salvation]. There is no doubt those would be near perfectly correlated.

I am not including in this discussion the category of people who truly never had the chance to reject or accept God's offer of salvation before they died. That's a completely different topic of conversation, and there was no reason to bring it up.

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Is there any Scripture that says if you don't believe in ECT hell you are going there?

---

This is silly and can't see how there is even a discussion on this specific point. If this preacher actually said that he is way out of bounds.

---

Have you watched the video? And I agree it is silly. Do you not believe this is being preached?

---

I watched it. I think it's a very poorly constructed sermon in some ways, overly theatrical, and probably reflects a self-centered desire for attention that this preacher has. People who use that overly dramatic tone of voice and delivery while giving a sermon always turn me off because they seem to be wanting to make it about themselves rather than the word of God.

However, he didn't say that people are going to hell
If they don't believe in hell. He said a lot of you (I think he means a lot of people) don't actually believe in hell, and they will be shocked because they will wake up in a place they don't believe in.

He didn't say the absence of a belief in hell will CAUSE anyone to go to hell. Although, I bet it correlates almost precisely with an absence of belief in the teachings of Jesus, which could cause one to go to hell.

---

I went back and listened carefully and agree. I implied what his belief was. I was wrong.

So you are saying if you don't believe in hell you probably have an absence of belief in the teachings of a Jesus? I disagree completely. So does S. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Clement, and others

---

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. To be clear, I don't know what hell is, and I don't particularly care. It could be what you call ETC hell, or it could be something else. I just think it has to be some kind of consequence for rejecting God's offer of salvation, probably in the form of total separation from God.

In short, for people who don't believe there will be any hell, with hell being some kind of consequence for rejecting God's offer of salvation, then yes, I believe that correlates pretty much perfectly with those people not believing the teachings of Jesus.

---

So you believe that salvation is only about avoiding hell? And what if you do not get the chance to reject God's offer of salvation? Do those folks go to hell?

And if I truly believed that I would spend every waking moment warning people about hell. I would advocate putting it on loudspeakers 24/7. I would leave my family and job and spend all my energy, money, and time to warn people.

i don't believe that. But a lot of people say they do. And do nothing and live just like me.

---

I think there's a reading comprehension problem here. I didn't say anything remotely resembling your attempted paraphrase that salvation is only about avoiding hell. It appears you're just telling me I said something I didn't say, and then attacking the thing I didn't say instead of the thing I said. That's called a straw man. I was talking about correlation of [no belief in consequences for rejecting salvation] with [a rejection of the offer of salvation]. There is no doubt those would be near perfectly correlated.

I am not including in this discussion the category of people who truly never had the chance to reject or accept God's offer of salvation before they died. That's a completely different topic of conversation, and there was no reason to bring it up.

---

I disagree as I believe it is very pertinent to this discussion. But it is fine if you disagree, And I was not trying to anger you. I personally believe salvation is ontological, not judicial which is the widely held view of the Western church. Especially the Reformed/Calvinist branch. Either of us could be wrong,

There are saints, famous theologians, pastors, etc. who believe in ultimate reconciliation. And were/are outspoken followers of Christ. And we are not saying there is not punishment. Scripture is very clear on that. The debate is whether it is eternal and retributive or temporary and correcting. Or is there simply annihilationism. I do not believe either of those beliefs means one does not believe in the need for Christ and putting their faith in Him. Somehow belief in hell has come to be somewhat of a requirement to "get" the Gospel. And it was never preached that way in the New Testament to my knowledge.

I contend that there is more Scriptural support for annihilationism and ultimate reconciliation than ECT hell. I also contend there is more support for annihilationism and/or ultimate reconciliation due to fear of being ostracized or fear of losing control.

Churchfathers even talked about this. And it is mentioned in the link I provided earlier from the Anglicans. Even though they believed in ultimate reconciliation, they would continue to preach ECT hell as they were afraid it would cause their parishioners to win more. I think that is ridiculous. As is the accusation it somehow means we don't believe sin is as serious as ECT hell people do.

If we could all ultimately be reconciled to God and end up with God despite totally rejecting him and his sacrifice, there would be fundamentally no need for a belief in Jesus. There is no biblical support for the idea that if you reject Jesus, then things will suck for a while, but you'll still eventually go to heaven. It is my view that there is a zero percent chance ultimate reconciliation is a reality. The fact that some theologians have posited it throughout history doesn't make any difference; they're wrong.

Although I don't subscribe to it, annihilationism would seem to be much more likely since it would at least be consistent with the idea that God's sacrifice is saving us from death, and it more easily resolves what some people see as a problem of finite sins causing infinite punishment. I still think it contradicts the numerous statements about eternal punishment and "forever" torment in the Bible, but I can definitely understand the argument.

Aggrad08 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

The issue with any eternal hell is coming up with a logic that justifies it. What is gods purpose in eternal suffering, what is he trying to accomplish?

If you think of all the reasons we've come up with to rationally dole out punishment including the death penalty they all fall short of justifying any sort of eternal punishment

---

This again leads to the question: Can "punishment" not be self inflicted in the form of natural consequences? If I choose not to do any work, I will be "punished" by society by being a poor, homeless individual. It all depends on how you interpret "punishment" in the arena of eternal life, and that definition was never fully defined by the early church. I don't care what some random baptist pastor wants to say it means, but I can see why people raised in that tradition might.

---

There is no such thing as "natural consequences" here. The "nature" was chosen by god. And therefore requires a purpose. So I'll ask, what's the rational purpose?

---

The only nature God chose was the nature He gave Adam and Eve: to stay in communion with Him. Now we can choose to go against that nature, as they clearly did, and when we do so there are "natural" consequences. Unless we're really trying to parse terms between natural and supernatural, I think this gets the point across.

Now to what purpose? God loves His creation. He wants His creation to participate in His divine glory. Not all of his creation will choose to do that. Not that different than how a parent can love a wayward child as much as they can and the wayward child never returns. It's heartbreaking, but it happens. The only workaround for God making sure every single created human ends up in eternal bliss in His presence is to force people to desire presence with Him, overriding the free will He gave us.

---

Yeah none of that answers the question. None of that demonstrates a logical goal that is satisfied. Eternal torment is simply not the logical consequence here. Even if we say a heaven of mindlessly worshiping god with no free will would not be chosen that doesn't leave a hell as the alternative

---

I think we're speaking past each other. How do you define eternal torment? Is it something being done to the person (like a torture chamber), or something the person experiences as a result of their choices (like the person got drunk, drove, and killed their child and they beat themselves up for the rest of their life)?

---

In this particular instance there isn't a difference that helps you. All of the consequences you are listing are temporary. To have an eternal consequence of the same nature it is inextricably by god actively making it that way. So I ask again what's the purpose? And we aren't talking about a consequence merely experienced internally that is reliant on the persons own choices and beliefs and can be altered in a similar way at any time. Hell as "emotional regret", isn't what anyone is talking about. Will you be able to regret any misdeeds in heaven? Work it backwards. Tell me how you think hell works and we will easily be able to show a way in which god could have made it different.

---

Premise 1: God created humans to live eternally with Him
Premise 2: Some humans will choose not to live eternally with Him
Premise 3: Humans do not lose the eternal quality He created.
Conclusion: Humans will live eternally, but some % will live apart from Him. That existence is called Hell

"Punishment" or "torment" in this scenario can just mean loss of the good that they were supposed to receive had they chosen to receive it. I don't think people in Hell will necessarily believe they made a mistake or have "emotional regret". They will just keep rejecting the God they rejected here on earth, which is it's own, self-inflicted torment. Satan knows full well what he did, but he doesn't seem to have any regrets of any kind, despite his condition.

There are typically two rebuttals here:

Rebuttal 1: If I'm making an eternal choice in a temporal timeline, shouldn't the opportunity to accept or reject this gift be done with full and perfect knowledge? Shouldn't God give us more evidence?

My response: I have yet to meet an atheist who would submit to all the moral teachings of the Catholic or EO church if God was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I use those two because they are the most ancient and hold the highest bar when it comes to morals (especially the Catholic Church). So what good would God showing up do if you wouldn't be willing to listen any way? This leads to rebuttal 2...

Rebuttal 2: I didn't consent to being born, so why do I have to live for eternity?

My response: This is why some Christians prefer annihilationism. My personal belief that God is Father. He loves all His children, even if they refuse to love Him back. He's not gonna off you just because you hate Him, because killing people that hate you is not love. He would have the non-believer if they'd just relent, but they don't.

We can get into "what about people that never hear about Jesus", but the ancient Churches do not teach those who never hear are auto-banned from Heaven, so it doesn't really move the needle for any but modern evangelical/baptist types.

Edit for clarity

The Banned said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

The issue with any eternal hell is coming up with a logic that justifies it. What is gods purpose in eternal suffering, what is he trying to accomplish?

If you think of all the reasons we've come up with to rationally dole out punishment including the death penalty they all fall short of justifying any sort of eternal punishment

---

This again leads to the question: Can "punishment" not be self inflicted in the form of natural consequences? If I choose not to do any work, I will be "punished" by society by being a poor, homeless individual. It all depends on how you interpret "punishment" in the arena of eternal life, and that definition was never fully defined by the early church. I don't care what some random baptist pastor wants to say it means, but I can see why people raised in that tradition might.

---

There is no such thing as "natural consequences" here. The "nature" was chosen by god. And therefore requires a purpose. So I'll ask, what's the rational purpose?

---

The only nature God chose was the nature He gave Adam and Eve: to stay in communion with Him. Now we can choose to go against that nature, as they clearly did, and when we do so there are "natural" consequences. Unless we're really trying to parse terms between natural and supernatural, I think this gets the point across.

Now to what purpose? God loves His creation. He wants His creation to participate in His divine glory. Not all of his creation will choose to do that. Not that different than how a parent can love a wayward child as much as they can and the wayward child never returns. It's heartbreaking, but it happens. The only workaround for God making sure every single created human ends up in eternal bliss in His presence is to force people to desire presence with Him, overriding the free will He gave us.

---

Yeah none of that answers the question. None of that demonstrates a logical goal that is satisfied. Eternal torment is simply not the logical consequence here. Even if we say a heaven of mindlessly worshiping god with no free will would not be chosen that doesn't leave a hell as the alternative

---

I think we're speaking past each other. How do you define eternal torment? Is it something being done to the person (like a torture chamber), or something the person experiences as a result of their choices (like the person got drunk, drove, and killed their child and they beat themselves up for the rest of their life)?

---

In this particular instance there isn't a difference that helps you. All of the consequences you are listing are temporary. To have an eternal consequence of the same nature it is inextricably by god actively making it that way. So I ask again what's the purpose? And we aren't talking about a consequence merely experienced internally that is reliant on the persons own choices and beliefs and can be altered in a similar way at any time. Hell as "emotional regret", isn't what anyone is talking about. Will you be able to regret any misdeeds in heaven? Work it backwards. Tell me how you think hell works and we will easily be able to show a way in which god could have made it different.

---

My response: This is why some Christians prefer annihilationism. My personal belief that God is Father. He loves all His children, even if they refuse to love Him back. He's not gonna off you just because you hate Him, because killing people that hate you is not love. He would have the non-believer if they'd just relent, but they don't.

---

How do you fit his perfect justice into this?

The Banned said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

The issue with any eternal hell is coming up with a logic that justifies it. What is gods purpose in eternal suffering, what is he trying to accomplish?

If you think of all the reasons we've come up with to rationally dole out punishment including the death penalty they all fall short of justifying any sort of eternal punishment

---

This again leads to the question: Can "punishment" not be self inflicted in the form of natural consequences? If I choose not to do any work, I will be "punished" by society by being a poor, homeless individual. It all depends on how you interpret "punishment" in the arena of eternal life, and that definition was never fully defined by the early church. I don't care what some random baptist pastor wants to say it means, but I can see why people raised in that tradition might.

---

There is no such thing as "natural consequences" here. The "nature" was chosen by god. And therefore requires a purpose. So I'll ask, what's the rational purpose?

---

The only nature God chose was the nature He gave Adam and Eve: to stay in communion with Him. Now we can choose to go against that nature, as they clearly did, and when we do so there are "natural" consequences. Unless we're really trying to parse terms between natural and supernatural, I think this gets the point across.

Now to what purpose? God loves His creation. He wants His creation to participate in His divine glory. Not all of his creation will choose to do that. Not that different than how a parent can love a wayward child as much as they can and the wayward child never returns. It's heartbreaking, but it happens. The only workaround for God making sure every single created human ends up in eternal bliss in His presence is to force people to desire presence with Him, overriding the free will He gave us.

---

Yeah none of that answers the question. None of that demonstrates a logical goal that is satisfied. Eternal torment is simply not the logical consequence here. Even if we say a heaven of mindlessly worshiping god with no free will would not be chosen that doesn't leave a hell as the alternative

---

I think we're speaking past each other. How do you define eternal torment? Is it something being done to the person (like a torture chamber), or something the person experiences as a result of their choices (like the person got drunk, drove, and killed their child and they beat themselves up for the rest of their life)?

---

In this particular instance there isn't a difference that helps you. All of the consequences you are listing are temporary. To have an eternal consequence of the same nature it is inextricably by god actively making it that way. So I ask again what's the purpose? And we aren't talking about a consequence merely experienced internally that is reliant on the persons own choices and beliefs and can be altered in a similar way at any time. Hell as "emotional regret", isn't what anyone is talking about. Will you be able to regret any misdeeds in heaven? Work it backwards. Tell me how you think hell works and we will easily be able to show a way in which god could have made it different.

---

Premise 1: God created humans to live eternally with Him
Premise 2: Some humans will choose not to live eternally with Him
Premise 3: Humans do not lose the eternal quality He created.
Conclusion: Some humans will live eternally, but they will live apart from Him. That existence is called Hell

"Punishment" or "torment" in this scenario can just mean loss of the good that they were supposed to receive had they chosen to receive it. I don't think people in Hell will necessarily believe they made a mistake or have "emotional regret". They will just keep rejecting the God they rejected here on earth, which is it's own, self-inflicted torment. Satan knows full well what he did, but he doesn't seem to have any regrets of any kind, despite his condition.

There are typically two rebuttals here:

Rebuttal 1: If I'm making an eternal choice in a temporal timeline, shouldn't the opportunity to accept or reject this gift be done with full and perfect knowledge? Shouldn't God give us more evidence?

My response: I have yet to meet an atheist who would submit to all the moral teachings of the Catholic or EO church if God was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I use those two because they are the most ancient and hold the highest bar when it comes to morals (especially the Catholic Church). So what good would God showing up do if you wouldn't be willing to listen any way? This leads to rebuttal 2...

Rebuttal 2: I didn't consent to being born, so why do I have to live for eternity?

My response: This is why some Christians prefer annihilationism. My personal belief that God is Father. He loves all His children, even if they refuse to love Him back. He's not gonna off you just because you hate Him, because killing people that hate you is not love. He would have the non-believer if they'd just relent, but they don't.

We can get into "what about people that never hear about Jesus", but the ancient Churches do not teach those who never here are auto-banned from Heaven, so it doesn't really move the needle for any but modern evangelical/baptist types.

---

Very rational and I can get on board with that. For me, it all comes down to whether God's desire to save all trumps man's free will.

Now let's do the supposed "age of consent" that I was taught in Baptist Sunday School. And is not Biblical. Just like the sinner's prayer and altar call.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

The issue with any eternal hell is coming up with a logic that justifies it. What is gods purpose in eternal suffering, what is he trying to accomplish?

If you think of all the reasons we've come up with to rationally dole out punishment including the death penalty they all fall short of justifying any sort of eternal punishment

---

This again leads to the question: Can "punishment" not be self inflicted in the form of natural consequences? If I choose not to do any work, I will be "punished" by society by being a poor, homeless individual. It all depends on how you interpret "punishment" in the arena of eternal life, and that definition was never fully defined by the early church. I don't care what some random baptist pastor wants to say it means, but I can see why people raised in that tradition might.

---

There is no such thing as "natural consequences" here. The "nature" was chosen by god. And therefore requires a purpose. So I'll ask, what's the rational purpose?

---

The only nature God chose was the nature He gave Adam and Eve: to stay in communion with Him. Now we can choose to go against that nature, as they clearly did, and when we do so there are "natural" consequences. Unless we're really trying to parse terms between natural and supernatural, I think this gets the point across.

Now to what purpose? God loves His creation. He wants His creation to participate in His divine glory. Not all of his creation will choose to do that. Not that different than how a parent can love a wayward child as much as they can and the wayward child never returns. It's heartbreaking, but it happens. The only workaround for God making sure every single created human ends up in eternal bliss in His presence is to force people to desire presence with Him, overriding the free will He gave us.

---

Yeah none of that answers the question. None of that demonstrates a logical goal that is satisfied. Eternal torment is simply not the logical consequence here. Even if we say a heaven of mindlessly worshiping god with no free will would not be chosen that doesn't leave a hell as the alternative

---

I think we're speaking past each other. How do you define eternal torment? Is it something being done to the person (like a torture chamber), or something the person experiences as a result of their choices (like the person got drunk, drove, and killed their child and they beat themselves up for the rest of their life)?

---

In this particular instance there isn't a difference that helps you. All of the consequences you are listing are temporary. To have an eternal consequence of the same nature it is inextricably by god actively making it that way. So I ask again what's the purpose? And we aren't talking about a consequence merely experienced internally that is reliant on the persons own choices and beliefs and can be altered in a similar way at any time. Hell as "emotional regret", isn't what anyone is talking about. Will you be able to regret any misdeeds in heaven? Work it backwards. Tell me how you think hell works and we will easily be able to show a way in which god could have made it different.

---

My response: This is why some Christians prefer annihilationism. My personal belief that God is Father. He loves all His children, even if they refuse to love Him back. He's not gonna off you just because you hate Him, because killing people that hate you is not love. He would have the non-believer if they'd just relent, but they don't.

---

How do you fit his perfect justice into this?

---

We define justice differently. I do not think it is just to create people pre ordained to ECT hell. Your theology does. And God can do whatever He wants. But to me your theology is not perfect justice. I do not believe in total depravity so there is that.

And it is okay. We are different.

That's not really the question.

Is it just to ultimately accept everyone into the kingdom despite their rejection? It certainly would be very merciful. But we know both mercy and justice are attributes of God in a perfect way we really cannot understand.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

That's not really the question.

Is it just to ultimately accept everyone into the kingdom despite their rejection? It certainly would be very merciful. But we know both mercy and justice are attributes of God in a perfect way we really cannot understand.

---

Not what I saying at all. God desires all men to be saved. God is sovereign. Do you disagree with that?

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

That's not really the question.

Is it just to ultimately accept everyone into the kingdom despite their rejection? It certainly would be very merciful. But we know both mercy and justice are attributes of God in a perfect way we really cannot understand.

---

Not what I saying at all. God desires all men to be saved. God is sovereign. Do you disagree with that?

---

Is that supposed to be evidence for ultimate reconciliation? Because it's not.

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

That's not really the question.

Is it just to ultimately accept everyone into the kingdom despite their rejection? It certainly would be very merciful. But we know both mercy and justice are attributes of God in a perfect way we really cannot understand.

---

Not what I saying at all. God desires all men to be saved. God is sovereign. Do you disagree with that?

---

Is that supposed to be evidence for ultimate reconciliation? Because it's not.

---

How so? Are you saying man's free will trumps God's desires?

And say I am wrong. Does that damn me to hell? I have had a ton of bad things done to me. I am 70 years old and have experienced a ton of evil. I had a close wealthy friend steal over a million dollars from me. I do not want anyone, even Hitler punished eternally. Did Jesus condemn his murderers?

Guess we are different.

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

That's not really the question.

Is it just to ultimately accept everyone into the kingdom despite their rejection? It certainly would be very merciful. But we know both mercy and justice are attributes of God in a perfect way we really cannot understand.

---

Not what I saying at all. God desires all men to be saved. God is sovereign. Do you disagree with that?

---

Is that supposed to be evidence for ultimate reconciliation? Because it's not.

---

How so? Are you saying man's free will trumps God's desires?

And say I am wrong. Does that damn me to hell? I have had a ton of bad things done to me. I am 70 years old and have experienced a ton of evil. I had a close wealthy friend steal over a million dollars from me. I do not want anyone, even Hitler punished eternally. Did Jesus condemn his murderers?

Guess we are different.

---

Ok, it seems like you just want to misconstrue posts and argue for the sake of arguing, so all of this is futile. But I'll answer you anyway.

What I said is the mere fact that God desires all men to be saved, combined with the mere fact that God is sovereign, does not lead to the conclusion that all men will be saved. If reality perfectly mirrored God's desires, there would be no sin and nobody would have ever died.

I don't know what you mean by "trump," but yes, man's free will does contravene God's desires, all day every day. That's the point of free will. God does not desire that anybody sin, but all of us sin nonetheless. God does not desire that people reject him, but many people reject him nonetheless. Unless you believe that God desires people to sin and reject him, then yes, of course man's free will contravenes God's desires. That does not mean that God cannot implement his plan/his will in spite of all the imperfect sinners contravening his desires. He is omnipotent, so he can and does.

No, if you are incorrect in believing all people will be saved, that does not damn you to hell. Being correct about what happens to non-believers after death is obviously not a prerequisite for salvation. The prerequisite for salvation is to believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and repent of your sins.

---

Not arguing at all. Just asking questions. Does man's free will trumps God's desire to save all men as Scripture says? Pretty yes or no question. And if you do not agree with me no big deal. I am wrong all the time,

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

The issue with any eternal hell is coming up with a logic that justifies it. What is gods purpose in eternal suffering, what is he trying to accomplish?

If you think of all the reasons we've come up with to rationally dole out punishment including the death penalty they all fall short of justifying any sort of eternal punishment

---

This again leads to the question: Can "punishment" not be self inflicted in the form of natural consequences? If I choose not to do any work, I will be "punished" by society by being a poor, homeless individual. It all depends on how you interpret "punishment" in the arena of eternal life, and that definition was never fully defined by the early church. I don't care what some random baptist pastor wants to say it means, but I can see why people raised in that tradition might.

---

There is no such thing as "natural consequences" here. The "nature" was chosen by god. And therefore requires a purpose. So I'll ask, what's the rational purpose?

---

The only nature God chose was the nature He gave Adam and Eve: to stay in communion with Him. Now we can choose to go against that nature, as they clearly did, and when we do so there are "natural" consequences. Unless we're really trying to parse terms between natural and supernatural, I think this gets the point across.

Now to what purpose? God loves His creation. He wants His creation to participate in His divine glory. Not all of his creation will choose to do that. Not that different than how a parent can love a wayward child as much as they can and the wayward child never returns. It's heartbreaking, but it happens. The only workaround for God making sure every single created human ends up in eternal bliss in His presence is to force people to desire presence with Him, overriding the free will He gave us.

---

Yeah none of that answers the question. None of that demonstrates a logical goal that is satisfied. Eternal torment is simply not the logical consequence here. Even if we say a heaven of mindlessly worshiping god with no free will would not be chosen that doesn't leave a hell as the alternative

---

I think we're speaking past each other. How do you define eternal torment? Is it something being done to the person (like a torture chamber), or something the person experiences as a result of their choices (like the person got drunk, drove, and killed their child and they beat themselves up for the rest of their life)?

---

In this particular instance there isn't a difference that helps you. All of the consequences you are listing are temporary. To have an eternal consequence of the same nature it is inextricably by god actively making it that way. So I ask again what's the purpose? And we aren't talking about a consequence merely experienced internally that is reliant on the persons own choices and beliefs and can be altered in a similar way at any time. Hell as "emotional regret", isn't what anyone is talking about. Will you be able to regret any misdeeds in heaven? Work it backwards. Tell me how you think hell works and we will easily be able to show a way in which god could have made it different.

---

My response: This is why some Christians prefer annihilationism. My personal belief that God is Father. He loves all His children, even if they refuse to love Him back. He's not gonna off you just because you hate Him, because killing people that hate you is not love. He would have the non-believer if they'd just relent, but they don't.

---

How do you fit his perfect justice into this?

---

If a person commits a crime, it still requires a just judge to level the sentence. The person earned their sentence, but without the just judge nothing happens. Case in point: the terrible judges letting repeat violent offenders (who have definitely earned jail time) go to continue in their crimes.

As humans, a father who is also a judge would rightfully recuse themselves from judging their own child's trial, but God is above that flaw.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

That's not really the question.

Is it just to ultimately accept everyone into the kingdom despite their rejection? It certainly would be very merciful. But we know both mercy and justice are attributes of God in a perfect way we really cannot understand.

---

If you believe in TULIP no one can reject anything. It is all pre determined. Unconditional election, irresistible grace. It is all on God.

What you are saying is not Calvinistic. And I love it.

dermdoc said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

That's not really the question.

Is it just to ultimately accept everyone into the kingdom despite their rejection? It certainly would be very merciful. But we know both mercy and justice are attributes of God in a perfect way we really cannot understand.

---

Not what I saying at all. God desires all men to be saved. God is sovereign. Do you disagree with that?

---

Is that supposed to be evidence for ultimate reconciliation? Because it's not.

---

How so? Are you saying man's free will trumps God's desires?

And say I am wrong. Does that damn me to hell? I have had a ton of bad things done to me. I am 70 years old and have experienced a ton of evil. I had a close wealthy friend steal over a million dollars from me. I do not want anyone, even Hitler punished eternally. Did Jesus condemn his murderers?

Guess we are different.

---

Ok, it seems like you just want to misconstrue posts and argue for the sake of arguing, so all of this is futile. But I'll answer you anyway.

What I said is the mere fact that God desires all men to be saved, combined with the mere fact that God is sovereign, does not lead to the conclusion that all men will be saved. If reality perfectly mirrored God's desires, there would be no sin and nobody would have ever died.

I don't know what you mean by "trump," but yes, man's free will does contravene God's desires, all day every day. That's the point of free will. God does not desire that anybody sin, but all of us sin nonetheless. God does not desire that people reject him, but many people reject him nonetheless. Unless you believe that God desires people to sin and reject him, then yes, of course man's free will contravenes God's desires. That does not mean that God cannot implement his plan/his will in spite of all the imperfect sinners contravening his desires. He is omnipotent, so he can and does.

No, if you are incorrect in believing all people will be saved, that does not damn you to hell. Being correct about what happens to non-believers after death is obviously not a prerequisite for salvation. The prerequisite for salvation is to believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and repent of your sins.

---

Not arguing at all. Just asking questions. Does man's free will trumps God's desire to save all men as Scripture says? Pretty yes or no question. And if you do not agree with me no big deal. I am wrong all the time,

---

I already answered your question. Man's free will contravenes God's desire. If you want to say it trumps God's desire, that's fine.

dermdoc said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

That's not really the question.

Is it just to ultimately accept everyone into the kingdom despite their rejection? It certainly would be very merciful. But we know both mercy and justice are attributes of God in a perfect way we really cannot understand.

---

Not what I saying at all. God desires all men to be saved. God is sovereign. Do you disagree with that?

---

Is that supposed to be evidence for ultimate reconciliation? Because it's not.

---

How so? Are you saying man's free will trumps God's desires?

And say I am wrong. Does that damn me to hell? I have had a ton of bad things done to me. I am 70 years old and have experienced a ton of evil. I had a close wealthy friend steal over a million dollars from me. I do not want anyone, even Hitler punished eternally. Did Jesus condemn his murderers?

Guess we are different.

---

Ok, it seems like you just want to misconstrue posts and argue for the sake of arguing, so all of this is futile. But I'll answer you anyway.

What I said is the mere fact that God desires all men to be saved, combined with the mere fact that God is sovereign, does not lead to the conclusion that all men will be saved. If reality perfectly mirrored God's desires, there would be no sin and nobody would have ever died.

I don't know what you mean by "trump," but yes, man's free will does contravene God's desires, all day every day. That's the point of free will. God does not desire that anybody sin, but all of us sin nonetheless. God does not desire that people reject him, but many people reject him nonetheless. Unless you believe that God desires people to sin and reject him, then yes, of course man's free will contravenes God's desires. That does not mean that God cannot implement his plan/his will in spite of all the imperfect sinners contravening his desires. He is omnipotent, so he can and does.

No, if you are incorrect in believing all people will be saved, that does not damn you to hell. Being correct about what happens to non-believers after death is obviously not a prerequisite for salvation. The prerequisite for salvation is to believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and repent of your sins.

---

Not arguing at all. Just asking questions. Does man's free will trumps God's desire to save all men as Scripture says? Pretty yes or no question. And if you do not agree with me no big deal. I am wrong all the time,

---

I'm not sure the question makes sense, because it redefines desire to include compulsion without forthrightly saying so. You're treating desire as something that overrides free will, and while I understand the want to reconcile this verse with the rest of the Bible, you've invalidated any concept of chaff or a narrow gate and a host of other parables. What is the point of judgment at all if this desire overrides such things? How can any man sin against this desire? And yet it exists, and Christ teaches the gate is narrow, so this one verse cannot be the lens through which you view the entirety of scripture (same flaw as the 'Jesus is the perfect representation of God' premise which disregards God's character in the OT).

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

That's not really the question.

Is it just to ultimately accept everyone into the kingdom despite their rejection? It certainly would be very merciful. But we know both mercy and justice are attributes of God in a perfect way we really cannot understand.

---

Not what I saying at all. God desires all men to be saved. God is sovereign. Do you disagree with that?

---

Is that supposed to be evidence for ultimate reconciliation? Because it's not.

---

How so? Are you saying man's free will trumps God's desires?

And say I am wrong. Does that damn me to hell? I have had a ton of bad things done to me. I am 70 years old and have experienced a ton of evil. I had a close wealthy friend steal over a million dollars from me. I do not want anyone, even Hitler punished eternally. Did Jesus condemn his murderers?

Guess we are different.

---

Ok, it seems like you just want to misconstrue posts and argue for the sake of arguing, so all of this is futile. But I'll answer you anyway.

What I said is the mere fact that God desires all men to be saved, combined with the mere fact that God is sovereign, does not lead to the conclusion that all men will be saved. If reality perfectly mirrored God's desires, there would be no sin and nobody would have ever died.

I don't know what you mean by "trump," but yes, man's free will does contravene God's desires, all day every day. That's the point of free will. God does not desire that anybody sin, but all of us sin nonetheless. God does not desire that people reject him, but many people reject him nonetheless. Unless you believe that God desires people to sin and reject him, then yes, of course man's free will contravenes God's desires. That does not mean that God cannot implement his plan/his will in spite of all the imperfect sinners contravening his desires. He is omnipotent, so he can and does.

No, if you are incorrect in believing all people will be saved, that does not damn you to hell. Being correct about what happens to non-believers after death is obviously not a prerequisite for salvation. The prerequisite for salvation is to believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and repent of your sins.

---

Not arguing at all. Just asking questions. Does man's free will trumps God's desire to save all men as Scripture says? Pretty yes or no question. And if you do not agree with me no big deal. I am wrong all the time,

---

I'm not sure the question makes sense, because it redefines desire to include compulsion without forthrightly saying so. You're treating desire as something that overrides free will, and while I understand the want to reconcile this verse with the rest of the Bible, you've invalidated any concept of chaff or a narrow gate and a host of other parables. What is the point of judgment at all if this desire overrides such things? How can any man sin against this desire? And yet it exists, and Christ teaches the gate is narrow, so this one verse cannot be the lens through which you view the entirety of scripture (same flaw as the 'Jesus is the perfect representation of God' premise which disregards God's character in the OT).

---

A couple of things. If you are a Calvinist there is no free will as concerns salvation so your points are moot. If not, and you believe in free will as concerns salvation, then a person chooses whether they will accept Christ or not. If you believe all men will not be saved, then obviously free will trumps God's desires that all be saved.
Chaff indicates annihilationism to me. The narrow gate passage talks about destruction and life (exact words) and nothing about our post mortem state. The word eternal is not used in any fashion.
If I am using God desires all men to be saved, then I would counter that infernalists have a pre conceived bias towards ECT hell and read words into Scripture that are not there.
We all have biases and pre conceived notions when we read Scripture. I am not the only one.
Granted my view is in the minority and I could be wrong.
Curious as to whether anyone read the link I supplied. Or looked up the Hreek meaning of kolasis and timoria.
And I may be biased but I honestly try to read every link posted on here. And look up any references to folks like CS Lewis, etc. I want to learn.

dermdoc said:

---

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

That's not really the question.

Is it just to ultimately accept everyone into the kingdom despite their rejection? It certainly would be very merciful. But we know both mercy and justice are attributes of God in a perfect way we really cannot understand.

---

Not what I saying at all. God desires all men to be saved. God is sovereign. Do you disagree with that?

---

Is that supposed to be evidence for ultimate reconciliation? Because it's not.

---

How so? Are you saying man's free will trumps God's desires?

And say I am wrong. Does that damn me to hell? I have had a ton of bad things done to me. I am 70 years old and have experienced a ton of evil. I had a close wealthy friend steal over a million dollars from me. I do not want anyone, even Hitler punished eternally. Did Jesus condemn his murderers?

Guess we are different.

---

Ok, it seems like you just want to misconstrue posts and argue for the sake of arguing, so all of this is futile. But I'll answer you anyway.

What I said is the mere fact that God desires all men to be saved, combined with the mere fact that God is sovereign, does not lead to the conclusion that all men will be saved. If reality perfectly mirrored God's desires, there would be no sin and nobody would have ever died.

I don't know what you mean by "trump," but yes, man's free will does contravene God's desires, all day every day. That's the point of free will. God does not desire that anybody sin, but all of us sin nonetheless. God does not desire that people reject him, but many people reject him nonetheless. Unless you believe that God desires people to sin and reject him, then yes, of course man's free will contravenes God's desires. That does not mean that God cannot implement his plan/his will in spite of all the imperfect sinners contravening his desires. He is omnipotent, so he can and does.

No, if you are incorrect in believing all people will be saved, that does not damn you to hell. Being correct about what happens to non-believers after death is obviously not a prerequisite for salvation. The prerequisite for salvation is to believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and repent of your sins.

---

Not arguing at all. Just asking questions. Does man's free will trumps God's desire to save all men as Scripture says? Pretty yes or no question. And if you do not agree with me no big deal. I am wrong all the time,

---

I'm not sure the question makes sense, because it redefines desire to include compulsion without forthrightly saying so. You're treating desire as something that overrides free will, and while I understand the want to reconcile this verse with the rest of the Bible, you've invalidated any concept of chaff or a narrow gate and a host of other parables. What is the point of judgment at all if this desire overrides such things? How can any man sin against this desire? And yet it exists, and Christ teaches the gate is narrow, so this one verse cannot be the lens through which you view the entirety of scripture (same flaw as the 'Jesus is the perfect representation of God' premise which disregards God's character in the OT).

---

If you are a Calvinist there is no free will as concerns salvation

---

Just a little nit, but the idea is that there is a divine initiative as it relates to our regeneration unto salvation. In our initial/natural state, we have no ability to please, accept, or come to God. We must have a new heart in order to desire God. This idea is really all over the Bible and the fact it is dismissed wholly by most Christians is crazy to me.

See Ezekiel 11:19-20, 36:26-27, Acts 16:14

dermdoc said:

---

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

That's not really the question.

Is it just to ultimately accept everyone into the kingdom despite their rejection? It certainly would be very merciful. But we know both mercy and justice are attributes of God in a perfect way we really cannot understand.

---

Not what I saying at all. God desires all men to be saved. God is sovereign. Do you disagree with that?

---

Is that supposed to be evidence for ultimate reconciliation? Because it's not.

---

How so? Are you saying man's free will trumps God's desires?

And say I am wrong. Does that damn me to hell? I have had a ton of bad things done to me. I am 70 years old and have experienced a ton of evil. I had a close wealthy friend steal over a million dollars from me. I do not want anyone, even Hitler punished eternally. Did Jesus condemn his murderers?

Guess we are different.

---

Ok, it seems like you just want to misconstrue posts and argue for the sake of arguing, so all of this is futile. But I'll answer you anyway.

What I said is the mere fact that God desires all men to be saved, combined with the mere fact that God is sovereign, does not lead to the conclusion that all men will be saved. If reality perfectly mirrored God's desires, there would be no sin and nobody would have ever died.

I don't know what you mean by "trump," but yes, man's free will does contravene God's desires, all day every day. That's the point of free will. God does not desire that anybody sin, but all of us sin nonetheless. God does not desire that people reject him, but many people reject him nonetheless. Unless you believe that God desires people to sin and reject him, then yes, of course man's free will contravenes God's desires. That does not mean that God cannot implement his plan/his will in spite of all the imperfect sinners contravening his desires. He is omnipotent, so he can and does.

No, if you are incorrect in believing all people will be saved, that does not damn you to hell. Being correct about what happens to non-believers after death is obviously not a prerequisite for salvation. The prerequisite for salvation is to believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and repent of your sins.

---

Not arguing at all. Just asking questions. Does man's free will trumps God's desire to save all men as Scripture says? Pretty yes or no question. And if you do not agree with me no big deal. I am wrong all the time,

---

I'm not sure the question makes sense, because it redefines desire to include compulsion without forthrightly saying so. You're treating desire as something that overrides free will, and while I understand the want to reconcile this verse with the rest of the Bible, you've invalidated any concept of chaff or a narrow gate and a host of other parables. What is the point of judgment at all if this desire overrides such things? How can any man sin against this desire? And yet it exists, and Christ teaches the gate is narrow, so this one verse cannot be the lens through which you view the entirety of scripture (same flaw as the 'Jesus is the perfect representation of God' premise which disregards God's character in the OT).

---

A couple of things. If you are a Calvinist there is no free will as concerns salvation so your points are moot. If not, and you believe in free will as concerns salvation, then a person chooses whether they will accept Christ or not. If you believe all men will not be saved, then obviously free will trumps God's desires that all be saved.
Chaff indicates annihilationism to me. The narrow gate passage talks about destruction and life (exact words) and nothing about our post mortem state. The word eternal is not used in any fashion.
If I am using God desires all men to be saved, then I would counter that infernalists have a pre conceived bias towards ECT hell and read words into Scripture that are not there.
We all have biases and pre conceived notions when we read Scripture. I am not the only one.
Granted my view is in the minority and I could be wrong.
Curious as to whether anyone read the link I supplied. Or looked up the Hreek meaning of kolasis and timoria.
And I may be biased but I honestly try to read every link posted on here. And look up any references to folks like CS Lewis, etc. I want to learn.

---

I'm Anglican. One Bible, two testaments, etc. I don't think a proper view of scripture elevates parts over each other or in contradiction to the whole. I feel no need to reconcile Calvinism or Arminianism with scripture; neither is preached in it. Likewise I don't have to figure out how 'desire' means 'compels' so that all parables are consistent with a bespoke understanding of the Bible, or whichever concept of hell I believe in.

When you say you want to learn, I'd recommend leaving behind exegesis as your primary tool. It will forever anchor you in higher textual criticism and steal you away from the church fathers and those who walked with Christ. You may even draw bad conclusions. What comes to mind is the famous passage where the word form of love utilized with Jesus and Peter (agape and phileo) is a theological principle (ignoring the interchangeability from other parts of the book).

I read plenty of Lewis. He's not infallible either. I saw your link about the CoE's history. I don't know that there's a stock answer from the church because we're not Romish and don't publish and reinterpret such things over time.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

That's not really the question.

Is it just to ultimately accept everyone into the kingdom despite their rejection? It certainly would be very merciful. But we know both mercy and justice are attributes of God in a perfect way we really cannot understand.

---

Not what I saying at all. God desires all men to be saved. God is sovereign. Do you disagree with that?

---

Is that supposed to be evidence for ultimate reconciliation? Because it's not.

---

How so? Are you saying man's free will trumps God's desires?

And say I am wrong. Does that damn me to hell? I have had a ton of bad things done to me. I am 70 years old and have experienced a ton of evil. I had a close wealthy friend steal over a million dollars from me. I do not want anyone, even Hitler punished eternally. Did Jesus condemn his murderers?

Guess we are different.

---

Ok, it seems like you just want to misconstrue posts and argue for the sake of arguing, so all of this is futile. But I'll answer you anyway.

What I said is the mere fact that God desires all men to be saved, combined with the mere fact that God is sovereign, does not lead to the conclusion that all men will be saved. If reality perfectly mirrored God's desires, there would be no sin and nobody would have ever died.

I don't know what you mean by "trump," but yes, man's free will does contravene God's desires, all day every day. That's the point of free will. God does not desire that anybody sin, but all of us sin nonetheless. God does not desire that people reject him, but many people reject him nonetheless. Unless you believe that God desires people to sin and reject him, then yes, of course man's free will contravenes God's desires. That does not mean that God cannot implement his plan/his will in spite of all the imperfect sinners contravening his desires. He is omnipotent, so he can and does.

No, if you are incorrect in believing all people will be saved, that does not damn you to hell. Being correct about what happens to non-believers after death is obviously not a prerequisite for salvation. The prerequisite for salvation is to believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and repent of your sins.

---

Not arguing at all. Just asking questions. Does man's free will trumps God's desire to save all men as Scripture says? Pretty yes or no question. And if you do not agree with me no big deal. I am wrong all the time,

---

I'm not sure the question makes sense, because it redefines desire to include compulsion without forthrightly saying so. You're treating desire as something that overrides free will, and while I understand the want to reconcile this verse with the rest of the Bible, you've invalidated any concept of chaff or a narrow gate and a host of other parables. What is the point of judgment at all if this desire overrides such things? How can any man sin against this desire? And yet it exists, and Christ teaches the gate is narrow, so this one verse cannot be the lens through which you view the entirety of scripture (same flaw as the 'Jesus is the perfect representation of God' premise which disregards God's character in the OT).

---

If you are a Calvinist there is no free will as concerns salvation

---

Just a little nit, but the idea is that there is a divine initiative as it relates to our regeneration unto salvation. In our initial/natural state, we have no ability to please, accept, or come to God. We must have a new heart in order to desire God. This idea is really all over the Bible and the fact it is dismissed wholly by most Christians is crazy to me.

See Ezekiel 11:19-20, 36:26-27, Acts 16:14

---

Jesus knew only one leper would come back, but asked where the rest were anyways, to make for good reading 2000 years later.

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

That's not really the question.

Is it just to ultimately accept everyone into the kingdom despite their rejection? It certainly would be very merciful. But we know both mercy and justice are attributes of God in a perfect way we really cannot understand.

---

Not what I saying at all. God desires all men to be saved. God is sovereign. Do you disagree with that?

---

Is that supposed to be evidence for ultimate reconciliation? Because it's not.

---

How so? Are you saying man's free will trumps God's desires?

And say I am wrong. Does that damn me to hell? I have had a ton of bad things done to me. I am 70 years old and have experienced a ton of evil. I had a close wealthy friend steal over a million dollars from me. I do not want anyone, even Hitler punished eternally. Did Jesus condemn his murderers?

Guess we are different.

---

Ok, it seems like you just want to misconstrue posts and argue for the sake of arguing, so all of this is futile. But I'll answer you anyway.

What I said is the mere fact that God desires all men to be saved, combined with the mere fact that God is sovereign, does not lead to the conclusion that all men will be saved. If reality perfectly mirrored God's desires, there would be no sin and nobody would have ever died.

I don't know what you mean by "trump," but yes, man's free will does contravene God's desires, all day every day. That's the point of free will. God does not desire that anybody sin, but all of us sin nonetheless. God does not desire that people reject him, but many people reject him nonetheless. Unless you believe that God desires people to sin and reject him, then yes, of course man's free will contravenes God's desires. That does not mean that God cannot implement his plan/his will in spite of all the imperfect sinners contravening his desires. He is omnipotent, so he can and does.

No, if you are incorrect in believing all people will be saved, that does not damn you to hell. Being correct about what happens to non-believers after death is obviously not a prerequisite for salvation. The prerequisite for salvation is to believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and repent of your sins.

---

Not arguing at all. Just asking questions. Does man's free will trumps God's desire to save all men as Scripture says? Pretty yes or no question. And if you do not agree with me no big deal. I am wrong all the time,

---

I'm not sure the question makes sense, because it redefines desire to include compulsion without forthrightly saying so. You're treating desire as something that overrides free will, and while I understand the want to reconcile this verse with the rest of the Bible, you've invalidated any concept of chaff or a narrow gate and a host of other parables. What is the point of judgment at all if this desire overrides such things? How can any man sin against this desire? And yet it exists, and Christ teaches the gate is narrow, so this one verse cannot be the lens through which you view the entirety of scripture (same flaw as the 'Jesus is the perfect representation of God' premise which disregards God's character in the OT).

---

A couple of things. If you are a Calvinist there is no free will as concerns salvation so your points are moot. If not, and you believe in free will as concerns salvation, then a person chooses whether they will accept Christ or not. If you believe all men will not be saved, then obviously free will trumps God's desires that all be saved.
Chaff indicates annihilationism to me. The narrow gate passage talks about destruction and life (exact words) and nothing about our post mortem state. The word eternal is not used in any fashion.
If I am using God desires all men to be saved, then I would counter that infernalists have a pre conceived bias towards ECT hell and read words into Scripture that are not there.
We all have biases and pre conceived notions when we read Scripture. I am not the only one.
Granted my view is in the minority and I could be wrong.
Curious as to whether anyone read the link I supplied. Or looked up the Hreek meaning of kolasis and timoria.
And I may be biased but I honestly try to read every link posted on here. And look up any references to folks like CS Lewis, etc. I want to learn.

---

I'm Anglican. One Bible, two testaments, etc. I don't think a proper view of scripture elevates parts over each other or in contradiction to the whole. I feel no need to reconcile Calvinism or Arminianism with scripture; neither is preached in it. Likewise I don't have to figure out how 'desire' means 'compels' so that all parables are consistent with a bespoke understanding of the Bible, or whichever concept of hell I believe in.

When you say you want to learn, I'd recommend leaving behind exegesis as your primary tool. It will forever anchor you in higher textual criticism and steal you away from the church fathers and those who walked with Christ. You may even draw bad conclusions. What comes to mind is the famous passage where the word form of love utilized with Jesus and Peter (agape and phileo) is a theological principle (ignoring the interchangeability from other parts of the book).

I read plenty of Lewis. He's not infallible either. I saw your link about the CoE's history. I don't know that there's a stock answer from the church because we're not Romish and don't publish and reinterpret such things over time.

---

Did you read the link?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

That's not really the question.

Is it just to ultimately accept everyone into the kingdom despite their rejection? It certainly would be very merciful. But we know both mercy and justice are attributes of God in a perfect way we really cannot understand.

---

Not what I saying at all. God desires all men to be saved. God is sovereign. Do you disagree with that?

---

Is that supposed to be evidence for ultimate reconciliation? Because it's not.

---

How so? Are you saying man's free will trumps God's desires?

And say I am wrong. Does that damn me to hell? I have had a ton of bad things done to me. I am 70 years old and have experienced a ton of evil. I had a close wealthy friend steal over a million dollars from me. I do not want anyone, even Hitler punished eternally. Did Jesus condemn his murderers?

Guess we are different.

---

Ok, it seems like you just want to misconstrue posts and argue for the sake of arguing, so all of this is futile. But I'll answer you anyway.

What I said is the mere fact that God desires all men to be saved, combined with the mere fact that God is sovereign, does not lead to the conclusion that all men will be saved. If reality perfectly mirrored God's desires, there would be no sin and nobody would have ever died.

I don't know what you mean by "trump," but yes, man's free will does contravene God's desires, all day every day. That's the point of free will. God does not desire that anybody sin, but all of us sin nonetheless. God does not desire that people reject him, but many people reject him nonetheless. Unless you believe that God desires people to sin and reject him, then yes, of course man's free will contravenes God's desires. That does not mean that God cannot implement his plan/his will in spite of all the imperfect sinners contravening his desires. He is omnipotent, so he can and does.

No, if you are incorrect in believing all people will be saved, that does not damn you to hell. Being correct about what happens to non-believers after death is obviously not a prerequisite for salvation. The prerequisite for salvation is to believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and repent of your sins.

---

Not arguing at all. Just asking questions. Does man's free will trumps God's desire to save all men as Scripture says? Pretty yes or no question. And if you do not agree with me no big deal. I am wrong all the time,

---

I'm not sure the question makes sense, because it redefines desire to include compulsion without forthrightly saying so. You're treating desire as something that overrides free will, and while I understand the want to reconcile this verse with the rest of the Bible, you've invalidated any concept of chaff or a narrow gate and a host of other parables. What is the point of judgment at all if this desire overrides such things? How can any man sin against this desire? And yet it exists, and Christ teaches the gate is narrow, so this one verse cannot be the lens through which you view the entirety of scripture (same flaw as the 'Jesus is the perfect representation of God' premise which disregards God's character in the OT).

---

If you are a Calvinist there is no free will as concerns salvation

---

Just a little nit, but the idea is that there is a divine initiative as it relates to our regeneration unto salvation. In our initial/natural state, we have no ability to please, accept, or come to God. We must have a new heart in order to desire God. This idea is really all over the Bible and the fact it is dismissed wholly by most Christians is crazy to me.

See Ezekiel 11:19-20, 36:26-27, Acts 16:14

---

So God creates people knowing He will not save them? And they are born damned?

When I read the Bible I see a lot of all men verses.

Does that include the Canaanites that the Israelites destroyed - men, women, and children?

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

That's not really the question.

Is it just to ultimately accept everyone into the kingdom despite their rejection? It certainly would be very merciful. But we know both mercy and justice are attributes of God in a perfect way we really cannot understand.

---

Not what I saying at all. God desires all men to be saved. God is sovereign. Do you disagree with that?

---

Is that supposed to be evidence for ultimate reconciliation? Because it's not.

---

How so? Are you saying man's free will trumps God's desires?

And say I am wrong. Does that damn me to hell? I have had a ton of bad things done to me. I am 70 years old and have experienced a ton of evil. I had a close wealthy friend steal over a million dollars from me. I do not want anyone, even Hitler punished eternally. Did Jesus condemn his murderers?

Guess we are different.

---

Ok, it seems like you just want to misconstrue posts and argue for the sake of arguing, so all of this is futile. But I'll answer you anyway.

What I said is the mere fact that God desires all men to be saved, combined with the mere fact that God is sovereign, does not lead to the conclusion that all men will be saved. If reality perfectly mirrored God's desires, there would be no sin and nobody would have ever died.

I don't know what you mean by "trump," but yes, man's free will does contravene God's desires, all day every day. That's the point of free will. God does not desire that anybody sin, but all of us sin nonetheless. God does not desire that people reject him, but many people reject him nonetheless. Unless you believe that God desires people to sin and reject him, then yes, of course man's free will contravenes God's desires. That does not mean that God cannot implement his plan/his will in spite of all the imperfect sinners contravening his desires. He is omnipotent, so he can and does.

No, if you are incorrect in believing all people will be saved, that does not damn you to hell. Being correct about what happens to non-believers after death is obviously not a prerequisite for salvation. The prerequisite for salvation is to believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and repent of your sins.

---

Not arguing at all. Just asking questions. Does man's free will trumps God's desire to save all men as Scripture says? Pretty yes or no question. And if you do not agree with me no big deal. I am wrong all the time,

---

I'm not sure the question makes sense, because it redefines desire to include compulsion without forthrightly saying so. You're treating desire as something that overrides free will, and while I understand the want to reconcile this verse with the rest of the Bible, you've invalidated any concept of chaff or a narrow gate and a host of other parables. What is the point of judgment at all if this desire overrides such things? How can any man sin against this desire? And yet it exists, and Christ teaches the gate is narrow, so this one verse cannot be the lens through which you view the entirety of scripture (same flaw as the 'Jesus is the perfect representation of God' premise which disregards God's character in the OT).

---

If you are a Calvinist there is no free will as concerns salvation

---

Just a little nit, but the idea is that there is a divine initiative as it relates to our regeneration unto salvation. In our initial/natural state, we have no ability to please, accept, or come to God. We must have a new heart in order to desire God. This idea is really all over the Bible and the fact it is dismissed wholly by most Christians is crazy to me.

See Ezekiel 11:19-20, 36:26-27, Acts 16:14

---

So God creates people knowing He will not save them? And they are born damned?

When I read the Bible I see a lot of all men verses.

---

No, God created the universe, and humanity at the beginning, knowing that some people would freely choose not to be saved. God has full knowledge of who will and will not choose to be saved, but he does not compel anyone to make a choice either way. He is not picking and choosing. Each person makes his own free choice.

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

That's not really the question.

Is it just to ultimately accept everyone into the kingdom despite their rejection? It certainly would be very merciful. But we know both mercy and justice are attributes of God in a perfect way we really cannot understand.

---

Not what I saying at all. God desires all men to be saved. God is sovereign. Do you disagree with that?

---

Is that supposed to be evidence for ultimate reconciliation? Because it's not.

---

How so? Are you saying man's free will trumps God's desires?

And say I am wrong. Does that damn me to hell? I have had a ton of bad things done to me. I am 70 years old and have experienced a ton of evil. I had a close wealthy friend steal over a million dollars from me. I do not want anyone, even Hitler punished eternally. Did Jesus condemn his murderers?

Guess we are different.

---

Ok, it seems like you just want to misconstrue posts and argue for the sake of arguing, so all of this is futile. But I'll answer you anyway.

What I said is the mere fact that God desires all men to be saved, combined with the mere fact that God is sovereign, does not lead to the conclusion that all men will be saved. If reality perfectly mirrored God's desires, there would be no sin and nobody would have ever died.

I don't know what you mean by "trump," but yes, man's free will does contravene God's desires, all day every day. That's the point of free will. God does not desire that anybody sin, but all of us sin nonetheless. God does not desire that people reject him, but many people reject him nonetheless. Unless you believe that God desires people to sin and reject him, then yes, of course man's free will contravenes God's desires. That does not mean that God cannot implement his plan/his will in spite of all the imperfect sinners contravening his desires. He is omnipotent, so he can and does.

No, if you are incorrect in believing all people will be saved, that does not damn you to hell. Being correct about what happens to non-believers after death is obviously not a prerequisite for salvation. The prerequisite for salvation is to believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and repent of your sins.

---

Not arguing at all. Just asking questions. Does man's free will trumps God's desire to save all men as Scripture says? Pretty yes or no question. And if you do not agree with me no big deal. I am wrong all the time,

---

I'm not sure the question makes sense, because it redefines desire to include compulsion without forthrightly saying so. You're treating desire as something that overrides free will, and while I understand the want to reconcile this verse with the rest of the Bible, you've invalidated any concept of chaff or a narrow gate and a host of other parables. What is the point of judgment at all if this desire overrides such things? How can any man sin against this desire? And yet it exists, and Christ teaches the gate is narrow, so this one verse cannot be the lens through which you view the entirety of scripture (same flaw as the 'Jesus is the perfect representation of God' premise which disregards God's character in the OT).

---

If you are a Calvinist there is no free will as concerns salvation

---

Just a little nit, but the idea is that there is a divine initiative as it relates to our regeneration unto salvation. In our initial/natural state, we have no ability to please, accept, or come to God. We must have a new heart in order to desire God. This idea is really all over the Bible and the fact it is dismissed wholly by most Christians is crazy to me.

See Ezekiel 11:19-20, 36:26-27, Acts 16:14

---

So God creates people knowing He will not save them? And they are born damned?

When I read the Bible I see a lot of all men verses.

---

No, God created the universe, and humanity at the beginning, knowing that some people would freely choose not to be saved. God has full knowledge of who will and will not choose to be saved, but he does not compel anyone to make a choice either way. He is not picking and choosing. Each person makes his own free choice.

---

Is that how you explain the Apostle Paul's conversion?

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

That's not really the question.

Is it just to ultimately accept everyone into the kingdom despite their rejection? It certainly would be very merciful. But we know both mercy and justice are attributes of God in a perfect way we really cannot understand.

---

Not what I saying at all. God desires all men to be saved. God is sovereign. Do you disagree with that?

---

Is that supposed to be evidence for ultimate reconciliation? Because it's not.

---

How so? Are you saying man's free will trumps God's desires?

And say I am wrong. Does that damn me to hell? I have had a ton of bad things done to me. I am 70 years old and have experienced a ton of evil. I had a close wealthy friend steal over a million dollars from me. I do not want anyone, even Hitler punished eternally. Did Jesus condemn his murderers?

Guess we are different.

---

Ok, it seems like you just want to misconstrue posts and argue for the sake of arguing, so all of this is futile. But I'll answer you anyway.

What I said is the mere fact that God desires all men to be saved, combined with the mere fact that God is sovereign, does not lead to the conclusion that all men will be saved. If reality perfectly mirrored God's desires, there would be no sin and nobody would have ever died.

I don't know what you mean by "trump," but yes, man's free will does contravene God's desires, all day every day. That's the point of free will. God does not desire that anybody sin, but all of us sin nonetheless. God does not desire that people reject him, but many people reject him nonetheless. Unless you believe that God desires people to sin and reject him, then yes, of course man's free will contravenes God's desires. That does not mean that God cannot implement his plan/his will in spite of all the imperfect sinners contravening his desires. He is omnipotent, so he can and does.

No, if you are incorrect in believing all people will be saved, that does not damn you to hell. Being correct about what happens to non-believers after death is obviously not a prerequisite for salvation. The prerequisite for salvation is to believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and repent of your sins.

---

Not arguing at all. Just asking questions. Does man's free will trumps God's desire to save all men as Scripture says? Pretty yes or no question. And if you do not agree with me no big deal. I am wrong all the time,

---

I'm not sure the question makes sense, because it redefines desire to include compulsion without forthrightly saying so. You're treating desire as something that overrides free will, and while I understand the want to reconcile this verse with the rest of the Bible, you've invalidated any concept of chaff or a narrow gate and a host of other parables. What is the point of judgment at all if this desire overrides such things? How can any man sin against this desire? And yet it exists, and Christ teaches the gate is narrow, so this one verse cannot be the lens through which you view the entirety of scripture (same flaw as the 'Jesus is the perfect representation of God' premise which disregards God's character in the OT).

---

If you are a Calvinist there is no free will as concerns salvation

---

Just a little nit, but the idea is that there is a divine initiative as it relates to our regeneration unto salvation. In our initial/natural state, we have no ability to please, accept, or come to God. We must have a new heart in order to desire God. This idea is really all over the Bible and the fact it is dismissed wholly by most Christians is crazy to me.

See Ezekiel 11:19-20, 36:26-27, Acts 16:14

---

So God creates people knowing He will not save them? And they are born damned?

When I read the Bible I see a lot of all men verses.

---

No, God created the universe, and humanity at the beginning, knowing that some people would freely choose not to be saved. God has full knowledge of who will and will not choose to be saved, but he does not compel anyone to make a choice either way. He is not picking and choosing. Each person makes his own free choice.

---

And I am okay with that. I was addressing Calvinism which says God pre ordains people He created to ECT hell.

The Banned said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

The issue with any eternal hell is coming up with a logic that justifies it. What is gods purpose in eternal suffering, what is he trying to accomplish?

If you think of all the reasons we've come up with to rationally dole out punishment including the death penalty they all fall short of justifying any sort of eternal punishment

---

This again leads to the question: Can "punishment" not be self inflicted in the form of natural consequences? If I choose not to do any work, I will be "punished" by society by being a poor, homeless individual. It all depends on how you interpret "punishment" in the arena of eternal life, and that definition was never fully defined by the early church. I don't care what some random baptist pastor wants to say it means, but I can see why people raised in that tradition might.

---

There is no such thing as "natural consequences" here. The "nature" was chosen by god. And therefore requires a purpose. So I'll ask, what's the rational purpose?

---

The only nature God chose was the nature He gave Adam and Eve: to stay in communion with Him. Now we can choose to go against that nature, as they clearly did, and when we do so there are "natural" consequences. Unless we're really trying to parse terms between natural and supernatural, I think this gets the point across.

Now to what purpose? God loves His creation. He wants His creation to participate in His divine glory. Not all of his creation will choose to do that. Not that different than how a parent can love a wayward child as much as they can and the wayward child never returns. It's heartbreaking, but it happens. The only workaround for God making sure every single created human ends up in eternal bliss in His presence is to force people to desire presence with Him, overriding the free will He gave us.

---

Yeah none of that answers the question. None of that demonstrates a logical goal that is satisfied. Eternal torment is simply not the logical consequence here. Even if we say a heaven of mindlessly worshiping god with no free will would not be chosen that doesn't leave a hell as the alternative

---

I think we're speaking past each other. How do you define eternal torment? Is it something being done to the person (like a torture chamber), or something the person experiences as a result of their choices (like the person got drunk, drove, and killed their child and they beat themselves up for the rest of their life)?

---

In this particular instance there isn't a difference that helps you. All of the consequences you are listing are temporary. To have an eternal consequence of the same nature it is inextricably by god actively making it that way. So I ask again what's the purpose? And we aren't talking about a consequence merely experienced internally that is reliant on the persons own choices and beliefs and can be altered in a similar way at any time. Hell as "emotional regret", isn't what anyone is talking about. Will you be able to regret any misdeeds in heaven? Work it backwards. Tell me how you think hell works and we will easily be able to show a way in which god could have made it different.

---

Premise 1: God created humans to live eternally with Him
Premise 2: Some humans will choose not to live eternally with Him
Premise 3: Humans do not lose the eternal quality He created.
Conclusion: Humans will live eternally, but some % will live apart from Him. That existence is called Hell

"Punishment" or "torment" in this scenario can just mean loss of the good that they were supposed to receive had they chosen to receive it. I don't think people in Hell will necessarily believe they made a mistake or have "emotional regret". They will just keep rejecting the God they rejected here on earth, which is it's own, self-inflicted torment. Satan knows full well what he did, but he doesn't seem to have any regrets of any kind, despite his condition.

There are typically two rebuttals here:

Rebuttal 1: If I'm making an eternal choice in a temporal timeline, shouldn't the opportunity to accept or reject this gift be done with full and perfect knowledge? Shouldn't God give us more evidence?

My response: I have yet to meet an atheist who would submit to all the moral teachings of the Catholic or EO church if God was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I use those two because they are the most ancient and hold the highest bar when it comes to morals (especially the Catholic Church). So what good would God showing up do if you wouldn't be willing to listen any way? This leads to rebuttal 2...

Rebuttal 2: I didn't consent to being born, so why do I have to live for eternity?

My response: This is why some Christians prefer annihilationism. My personal belief that God is Father. He loves all His children, even if they refuse to love Him back. He's not gonna off you just because you hate Him, because killing people that hate you is not love. He would have the non-believer if they'd just relent, but they don't.

We can get into "what about people that never hear about Jesus", but the ancient Churches do not teach those who never hear are auto-banned from Heaven, so it doesn't really move the needle for any but modern evangelical/baptist types.

Edit for clarity

---

This all fall apart upon even modest rational scrutiny. First and foremost. Missing out on a reward is not torment. Period. We are *******izing by the word beyond recognition if we make it merely mean this. And if it does the rest of your argument can be shown to fall apart. Because a lack of reward simple does not rationally require suffering. And if hell doesn't have suffering or regret that's fine, but you basically abandoned the premise and there really isn't anything in scripture you can lean on here. In fact hell itself is almost totally absent in scripture. Paul never mentions it. It doesn't exist in the OT. You might find Sheol mistranslated as hell in some versions.

Your first rebuttal is a weird attempt at denying the obvious. It is boldly irrational to think people's behavior wouldn't be affected by knowing with certainty god exists and what he wants. Period end of story. I know mine would be.

The issue with eternity fails in multiple ways. Not only is eternity not chosen, but god leave no room for people to choose him later. With no reason provided and none you can offer.

Is your god so incapable of gaining a relationship with a person he's incapable of achieving that with an eternity to work with?

And offing you is only preferable if hell is a real torture. You've already backed off that premise so completely as one could say in your version there is no such thing as hell. Just somewhere else besides heaven. Because once hell really is eternal torture, god becomes a monster and there is simply no way around it.