AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

If you agree then we disagree with what the word "sovereign" means.

I am borrowing this from elsewhere but think its sums it up nicely.

God's sovereignty is His absolute, supreme, and independent right and power to govern all things according to His own wise and holy will, for His own glory.

---

I completely agree with that. In my opinion, it strengthens God's sovereignty if He allows us free will. And also show His love. Why would He create robots that He completely controlled?

---

But you see the problem with claiming we have free will right?

To claim we truly have free will is to claim there is some sort of "good" that exists outside of God.

---

Even in the non-Calvinistic view of free will, it still lands with God at the end of the day. Something makes a person choose God - nature, circumstances… - of which God is ultimately in control of. And He still chooses to create the people He knows won't choose Him.

I think this version of free will just makes people feel better. There is a very high view of man, making it about us, when really it is all about God, about His glory. And He will order things in whichever way brings Him the most.

---

Disagree completely on your last paragraph. Gospel means good news. To me it is a higher view of God that He loves us enough to give us free will to reject or choose Him. Complete sovereignty without tyranny. Love without oppression.

Question, do you believe God preordaining people He created to eternal torment is for His glory?

---

I can respect that. He still knows our fate before He creates us.

I think how 10 put things is reasonable. It's all for His glory, that's all I know for sure. I'll never fully understand how and why He does things the way He does.

---

And He desires all men to be saved.

---

He does…and yet, they aren't.

Of course, you think they will be; we've got nowhere to go from here.

---

Sure we do. If God is sovereign and desires all men to be saved, what thwarts God?

---

Think about how awful a God it is you've created though.

We deal with death, sin, pain, hurt, etc everyday.

Under what you've premised, that's a pretty cruel God because he obviously "desires" that we deal with that.

Because if he didn't desire that, what thwarts him?

---

Man, I do not think that and have no idea how you got that from what I posted. There is a huge difference between God desiring everyone be saved(which is Scripture) and God desires harm on us. That would make Gid a sinner in my mind. Just like double predestination does.
We live in a fallen world because of sin. Why God allows pain, I have no idea except for our own good and growth. But I certainly don't think He desires us to have pain.

---

I got there because you're constantly creating this strawman to justify why universalism is representative of the only "good" god.

You continually start with a premise that "god desires x" and so therefore it MUST happen. As you said...who could thwart God.

That reasoning is faulty, but I showed the logical end of it. If anything happens, even the bad stuff, clearly God "desires" it. What could be the other explanation? We can't say that God desires us not to sin, because every person born of a woman has sinned. So God clearly doesn't desire us to be sinless. Which of course then raises the question of why doesn't he just make us sinless? Life would be so much easier.

So the problem is your definition of "desire." You've constructed it to fit your desired outcome as opposed to what Scripture says.

---

Disagree. If there is free will, God can desire anything and man can do the opposite.

---

IF this is the case, this statement:

"Sure we do. If God is sovereign and desires all men to be saved, what thwarts God?" is either not true on your part.

Or maybe you're saying that God saves man, but man can thwart God. that's at least more palatable.

---

I asked it as a rhetorical question as I do not know. I just don't see how if Gid desires to save all men as Scripture says, and one claims that no all men are saved, then man has to be able to Trump God's desires. There is no other logical conclusion.
And if Gid desires all to be saved and all or not, then God's sovereignty, as defined by Calvinists, is limited.
I personally believe Gid can be sovereign and still give man free will.

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

If you agree then we disagree with what the word "sovereign" means.

I am borrowing this from elsewhere but think its sums it up nicely.

God's sovereignty is His absolute, supreme, and independent right and power to govern all things according to His own wise and holy will, for His own glory.

---

I completely agree with that. In my opinion, it strengthens God's sovereignty if He allows us free will. And also show His love. Why would He create robots that He completely controlled?

---

But you see the problem with claiming we have free will right?

To claim we truly have free will is to claim there is some sort of "good" that exists outside of God.

---

Even in the non-Calvinistic view of free will, it still lands with God at the end of the day. Something makes a person choose God - nature, circumstances… - of which God is ultimately in control of. And He still chooses to create the people He knows won't choose Him.

I think this version of free will just makes people feel better. There is a very high view of man, making it about us, when really it is all about God, about His glory. And He will order things in whichever way brings Him the most.

---

Disagree completely on your last paragraph. Gospel means good news. To me it is a higher view of God that He loves us enough to give us free will to reject or choose Him. Complete sovereignty without tyranny. Love without oppression.

Question, do you believe God preordaining people He created to eternal torment is for His glory?

---

I can respect that. He still knows our fate before He creates us.

I think how 10 put things is reasonable. It's all for His glory, that's all I know for sure. I'll never fully understand how and why He does things the way He does.

---

And He desires all men to be saved.

---

He does…and yet, they aren't.

Of course, you think they will be; we've got nowhere to go from here.

---

Sure we do. If God is sovereign and desires all men to be saved, what thwarts God?

---

Think about how awful a God it is you've created though.

We deal with death, sin, pain, hurt, etc everyday.

Under what you've premised, that's a pretty cruel God because he obviously "desires" that we deal with that.

Because if he didn't desire that, what thwarts him?

---

Man, I do not think that and have no idea how you got that from what I posted. There is a huge difference between God desiring everyone be saved(which is Scripture) and God desires harm on us. That would make Gid a sinner in my mind. Just like double predestination does.
We live in a fallen world because of sin. Why God allows pain, I have no idea except for our own good and growth. But I certainly don't think He desires us to have pain.

---

I got there because you're constantly creating this strawman to justify why universalism is representative of the only "good" god.

You continually start with a premise that "god desires x" and so therefore it MUST happen. As you said...who could thwart God.

That reasoning is faulty, but I showed the logical end of it. If anything happens, even the bad stuff, clearly God "desires" it. What could be the other explanation? We can't say that God desires us not to sin, because every person born of a woman has sinned. So God clearly doesn't desire us to be sinless. Which of course then raises the question of why doesn't he just make us sinless? Life would be so much easier.

So the problem is your definition of "desire." You've constructed it to fit your desired outcome as opposed to what Scripture says.

---

Disagree. If there is free will, God can desire anything and man can do the opposite.

---

IF this is the case, this statement:

"Sure we do. If God is sovereign and desires all men to be saved, what thwarts God?" is either not true on your part.

Or maybe you're saying that God saves man, but man can thwart God. that's at least more palatable.

---

I asked it as a rhetorical question as I do not know. I just don't see how if Gid desires to save all men as Scripture says, and one claims that no all men are saved, then man has to be able to Trump God's desires. There is no other logical conclusion.
And if Gid desires all to be saved and all or not, then God's sovereignty, as defined by Calvinists, is limited.
I personally believe Gid can be sovereign and still give man free will.

---

The other logical conclusion is that that is not God's chief desire.

It's like saying I desire to eat that chocolate cake but I also desire to look great at the beach this summer; one is going to trump the other. Say you choose not to eat the cake, does that mean you never desired to eat it?

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

If you agree then we disagree with what the word "sovereign" means.

I am borrowing this from elsewhere but think its sums it up nicely.

God's sovereignty is His absolute, supreme, and independent right and power to govern all things according to His own wise and holy will, for His own glory.

---

I completely agree with that. In my opinion, it strengthens God's sovereignty if He allows us free will. And also show His love. Why would He create robots that He completely controlled?

---

But you see the problem with claiming we have free will right?

To claim we truly have free will is to claim there is some sort of "good" that exists outside of God.

---

Even in the non-Calvinistic view of free will, it still lands with God at the end of the day. Something makes a person choose God - nature, circumstances… - of which God is ultimately in control of. And He still chooses to create the people He knows won't choose Him.

I think this version of free will just makes people feel better. There is a very high view of man, making it about us, when really it is all about God, about His glory. And He will order things in whichever way brings Him the most.

---

Disagree completely on your last paragraph. Gospel means good news. To me it is a higher view of God that He loves us enough to give us free will to reject or choose Him. Complete sovereignty without tyranny. Love without oppression.

Question, do you believe God preordaining people He created to eternal torment is for His glory?

---

I can respect that. He still knows our fate before He creates us.

I think how 10 put things is reasonable. It's all for His glory, that's all I know for sure. I'll never fully understand how and why He does things the way He does.

---

And He desires all men to be saved.

---

He does…and yet, they aren't.

Of course, you think they will be; we've got nowhere to go from here.

---

Sure we do. If God is sovereign and desires all men to be saved, what thwarts God?

---

Think about how awful a God it is you've created though.

We deal with death, sin, pain, hurt, etc everyday.

Under what you've premised, that's a pretty cruel God because he obviously "desires" that we deal with that.

Because if he didn't desire that, what thwarts him?

---

Man, I do not think that and have no idea how you got that from what I posted. There is a huge difference between God desiring everyone be saved(which is Scripture) and God desires harm on us. That would make Gid a sinner in my mind. Just like double predestination does.
We live in a fallen world because of sin. Why God allows pain, I have no idea except for our own good and growth. But I certainly don't think He desires us to have pain.

---

I got there because you're constantly creating this strawman to justify why universalism is representative of the only "good" god.

You continually start with a premise that "god desires x" and so therefore it MUST happen. As you said...who could thwart God.

That reasoning is faulty, but I showed the logical end of it. If anything happens, even the bad stuff, clearly God "desires" it. What could be the other explanation? We can't say that God desires us not to sin, because every person born of a woman has sinned. So God clearly doesn't desire us to be sinless. Which of course then raises the question of why doesn't he just make us sinless? Life would be so much easier.

So the problem is your definition of "desire." You've constructed it to fit your desired outcome as opposed to what Scripture says.

---

Disagree. If there is free will, God can desire anything and man can do the opposite.

---

IF this is the case, this statement:

"Sure we do. If God is sovereign and desires all men to be saved, what thwarts God?" is either not true on your part.

Or maybe you're saying that God saves man, but man can thwart God. that's at least more palatable.

---

I asked it as a rhetorical question as I do not know. I just don't see how if Gid desires to save all men as Scripture says, and one claims that no all men are saved, then man has to be able to Trump God's desires. There is no other logical conclusion.
And if Gid desires all to be saved and all or not, then God's sovereignty, as defined by Calvinists, is limited.
I personally believe Gid can be sovereign and still give man free will.

---

The other logical conclusion is that that is not God's chief desire.

It's like saying I desire to eat that chocolate cake but I also desire to look great at the beach this summer; one is going to trump the other. Say you choose not to eat the cake, does that mean you never desired to eat it?

---

I am sorry but that does not make sense to me. It seems so clear what Scripture is saying. And this is God we are talking about. Not some human trying to decide whether to be fat or not.

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

If you agree then we disagree with what the word "sovereign" means.

I am borrowing this from elsewhere but think its sums it up nicely.

God's sovereignty is His absolute, supreme, and independent right and power to govern all things according to His own wise and holy will, for His own glory.

---

I completely agree with that. In my opinion, it strengthens God's sovereignty if He allows us free will. And also show His love. Why would He create robots that He completely controlled?

---

But you see the problem with claiming we have free will right?

To claim we truly have free will is to claim there is some sort of "good" that exists outside of God.

---

Even in the non-Calvinistic view of free will, it still lands with God at the end of the day. Something makes a person choose God - nature, circumstances… - of which God is ultimately in control of. And He still chooses to create the people He knows won't choose Him.

I think this version of free will just makes people feel better. There is a very high view of man, making it about us, when really it is all about God, about His glory. And He will order things in whichever way brings Him the most.

---

Disagree completely on your last paragraph. Gospel means good news. To me it is a higher view of God that He loves us enough to give us free will to reject or choose Him. Complete sovereignty without tyranny. Love without oppression.

Question, do you believe God preordaining people He created to eternal torment is for His glory?

---

I can respect that. He still knows our fate before He creates us.

I think how 10 put things is reasonable. It's all for His glory, that's all I know for sure. I'll never fully understand how and why He does things the way He does.

---

And He desires all men to be saved.

---

He does…and yet, they aren't.

Of course, you think they will be; we've got nowhere to go from here.

---

Sure we do. If God is sovereign and desires all men to be saved, what thwarts God?

---

Think about how awful a God it is you've created though.

We deal with death, sin, pain, hurt, etc everyday.

Under what you've premised, that's a pretty cruel God because he obviously "desires" that we deal with that.

Because if he didn't desire that, what thwarts him?

---

Man, I do not think that and have no idea how you got that from what I posted. There is a huge difference between God desiring everyone be saved(which is Scripture) and God desires harm on us. That would make Gid a sinner in my mind. Just like double predestination does.
We live in a fallen world because of sin. Why God allows pain, I have no idea except for our own good and growth. But I certainly don't think He desires us to have pain.

---

I got there because you're constantly creating this strawman to justify why universalism is representative of the only "good" god.

You continually start with a premise that "god desires x" and so therefore it MUST happen. As you said...who could thwart God.

That reasoning is faulty, but I showed the logical end of it. If anything happens, even the bad stuff, clearly God "desires" it. What could be the other explanation? We can't say that God desires us not to sin, because every person born of a woman has sinned. So God clearly doesn't desire us to be sinless. Which of course then raises the question of why doesn't he just make us sinless? Life would be so much easier.

So the problem is your definition of "desire." You've constructed it to fit your desired outcome as opposed to what Scripture says.

---

Disagree. If there is free will, God can desire anything and man can do the opposite.

---

IF this is the case, this statement:

"Sure we do. If God is sovereign and desires all men to be saved, what thwarts God?" is either not true on your part.

Or maybe you're saying that God saves man, but man can thwart God. that's at least more palatable.

---

I asked it as a rhetorical question as I do not know. I just don't see how if Gid desires to save all men as Scripture says, and one claims that no all men are saved, then man has to be able to Trump God's desires. There is no other logical conclusion.
And if Gid desires all to be saved and all or not, then God's sovereignty, as defined by Calvinists, is limited.
I personally believe Gid can be sovereign and still give man free will.

---

The other logical conclusion is that that is not God's chief desire.

It's like saying I desire to eat that chocolate cake but I also desire to look great at the beach this summer; one is going to trump the other. Say you choose not to eat the cake, does that mean you never desired to eat it?

---

I am sorry but that does not make sense to me. It seems so clear what Scripture is saying. And this is God we are talking about. Not some human trying to decide whether to be fat or not.

---

What about comparing His "desire" statements to His "definitive" statements.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

If you agree then we disagree with what the word "sovereign" means.

I am borrowing this from elsewhere but think its sums it up nicely.

God's sovereignty is His absolute, supreme, and independent right and power to govern all things according to His own wise and holy will, for His own glory.

---

I completely agree with that. In my opinion, it strengthens God's sovereignty if He allows us free will. And also show His love. Why would He create robots that He completely controlled?

---

But you see the problem with claiming we have free will right?

To claim we truly have free will is to claim there is some sort of "good" that exists outside of God.

---

Even in the non-Calvinistic view of free will, it still lands with God at the end of the day. Something makes a person choose God - nature, circumstances… - of which God is ultimately in control of. And He still chooses to create the people He knows won't choose Him.

I think this version of free will just makes people feel better. There is a very high view of man, making it about us, when really it is all about God, about His glory. And He will order things in whichever way brings Him the most.

---

Disagree completely on your last paragraph. Gospel means good news. To me it is a higher view of God that He loves us enough to give us free will to reject or choose Him. Complete sovereignty without tyranny. Love without oppression.

Question, do you believe God preordaining people He created to eternal torment is for His glory?

---

I can respect that. He still knows our fate before He creates us.

I think how 10 put things is reasonable. It's all for His glory, that's all I know for sure. I'll never fully understand how and why He does things the way He does.

---

And He desires all men to be saved.

---

He does…and yet, they aren't.

Of course, you think they will be; we've got nowhere to go from here.

---

Sure we do. If God is sovereign and desires all men to be saved, what thwarts God?

---

Think about how awful a God it is you've created though.

We deal with death, sin, pain, hurt, etc everyday.

Under what you've premised, that's a pretty cruel God because he obviously "desires" that we deal with that.

Because if he didn't desire that, what thwarts him?

---

Man, I do not think that and have no idea how you got that from what I posted. There is a huge difference between God desiring everyone be saved(which is Scripture) and God desires harm on us. That would make Gid a sinner in my mind. Just like double predestination does.
We live in a fallen world because of sin. Why God allows pain, I have no idea except for our own good and growth. But I certainly don't think He desires us to have pain.

---

I got there because you're constantly creating this strawman to justify why universalism is representative of the only "good" god.

You continually start with a premise that "god desires x" and so therefore it MUST happen. As you said...who could thwart God.

That reasoning is faulty, but I showed the logical end of it. If anything happens, even the bad stuff, clearly God "desires" it. What could be the other explanation? We can't say that God desires us not to sin, because every person born of a woman has sinned. So God clearly doesn't desire us to be sinless. Which of course then raises the question of why doesn't he just make us sinless? Life would be so much easier.

So the problem is your definition of "desire." You've constructed it to fit your desired outcome as opposed to what Scripture says.

---

Disagree. If there is free will, God can desire anything and man can do the opposite.

---

IF this is the case, this statement:

"Sure we do. If God is sovereign and desires all men to be saved, what thwarts God?" is either not true on your part.

Or maybe you're saying that God saves man, but man can thwart God. that's at least more palatable.

---

I asked it as a rhetorical question as I do not know. I just don't see how if Gid desires to save all men as Scripture says, and one claims that no all men are saved, then man has to be able to Trump God's desires. There is no other logical conclusion.
And if Gid desires all to be saved and all or not, then God's sovereignty, as defined by Calvinists, is limited.
I personally believe Gid can be sovereign and still give man free will.

---

The other logical conclusion is that that is not God's chief desire.

It's like saying I desire to eat that chocolate cake but I also desire to look great at the beach this summer; one is going to trump the other. Say you choose not to eat the cake, does that mean you never desired to eat it?

---

I am sorry but that does not make sense to me. It seems so clear what Scripture is saying. And this is God we are talking about. Not some human trying to decide whether to be fat or not.

---

What about comparing His "desire" statements to His "definitive" statements.

---

Sure.
Romans 14 11 NASB
As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me. And every tongue shall give praise to God.
Luke 2 10
And the angel said to them, "Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for ALL the people.
John 1 29
The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and said "Behold the Lamb of God, that takes away the sin of the world".
John 12 32
And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw ALL people to myself.
Romans 5 18
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men,
Romans 11 32
For God has consigned all to disobedience, that He may have mercy on all.
1 Corinthians 15 22
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.
1 Timothy 2 3-6
This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.
1 Timothy 4 10
For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe
Titus 2 11
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people.

There are many more but I am tired of typing and I did not want to link a list as no one reads those.
Have a great Saturday with many blessings. Shalom.

Closing out my reading of Isaiah today and thought the last verse was fitting for this thread.

Isaiah 66:24 "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Closing out my reading of Isaiah today and thought the last verse was fitting for this thread.

Isaiah 66:24 "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

---

With all due respect, most scholars believe that is talking about dead bodies. The worms do not die which is hyperbole for what happens to the dead bodies. The fire is not quenched. Not the punishment. There is no mention of eternal torment. But whatever. Happy Independence Day!
One of the great things about being an American is we have freedom of speech. We will agree to disagree.

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Closing out my reading of Isaiah today and thought the last verse was fitting for this thread.

Isaiah 66:24 "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

---

With all due respect, most scholars believe that is talking about dead bodies. The worms do not die which is hyperbole for what happens to the dead bodies. The fire is not quenched. Not the punishment. There is no mention of eternal torment. But whatever. Happy Independence Day!
One of the great things about being an American is we have freedom of speech. We will agree to disagree.

---

Most scholars? Who? Every thing I've ever seen and read regarding this verse discusses how it refers to eternal torment.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Closing out my reading of Isaiah today and thought the last verse was fitting for this thread.

Isaiah 66:24 "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

---

With all due respect, most scholars believe that is talking about dead bodies. The worms do not die which is hyperbole for what happens to the dead bodies. The fire is not quenched. Not the punishment. There is no mention of eternal torment. But whatever. Happy Independence Day!
One of the great things about being an American is we have freedom of speech. We will agree to disagree.

---

Most scholars? Who? Every thing I've ever seen and read regarding this verse discusses how it refers to eternal torment.

---

Google is your friend. Now I grant you the vast majority of Reformed/Calvinist theologians agree with you. But Reformed/Calvinist comprises less than 10% of Christians.



Here is one from a noted Anglican theologian..
And the Eastern Orthodox view

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Closing out my reading of Isaiah today and thought the last verse was fitting for this thread.

Isaiah 66:24 "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

---

With all due respect, most scholars believe that is talking about dead bodies. The worms do not die which is hyperbole for what happens to the dead bodies. The fire is not quenched. Not the punishment. There is no mention of eternal torment. But whatever. Happy Independence Day!
One of the great things about being an American is we have freedom of speech. We will agree to disagree.

---

Most scholars? Who? Every thing I've ever seen and read regarding this verse discusses how it refers to eternal torment.

---

And I should have said quite a few and not most theologians. My apologies.

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Closing out my reading of Isaiah today and thought the last verse was fitting for this thread.

Isaiah 66:24 "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

---

With all due respect, most scholars believe that is talking about dead bodies. The worms do not die which is hyperbole for what happens to the dead bodies. The fire is not quenched. Not the punishment. There is no mention of eternal torment. But whatever. Happy Independence Day!
One of the great things about being an American is we have freedom of speech. We will agree to disagree.

---

Most scholars? Who? Every thing I've ever seen and read regarding this verse discusses how it refers to eternal torment.

---

Google is your friend. Now I grant you the vast majority of Reformed/Calvinist theologians agree with you. But Reformed/Calvinist comprises less than 10% of Christians.



Here is one from a noted Anglican theologian..
And the Eastern Orthodox view

---

What you shared described an eternal state - eternal judgement and the consequence of sin. I'm sure our orthodox and Catholic friends can chime in.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Closing out my reading of Isaiah today and thought the last verse was fitting for this thread.

Isaiah 66:24 "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

---

With all due respect, most scholars believe that is talking about dead bodies. The worms do not die which is hyperbole for what happens to the dead bodies. The fire is not quenched. Not the punishment. There is no mention of eternal torment. But whatever. Happy Independence Day!
One of the great things about being an American is we have freedom of speech. We will agree to disagree.

---

Most scholars? Who? Every thing I've ever seen and read regarding this verse discusses how it refers to eternal torment.

---

Google is your friend. Now I grant you the vast majority of Reformed/Calvinist theologians agree with you. But Reformed/Calvinist comprises less than 10% of Christians.



Here is one from a noted Anglican theologian..
And the Eastern Orthodox view

---

What you shared described an eternal state - eternal judgement and the consequence of sin. I'm sure our orthodox and Catholic friends can chime in.

---

Fair enough. But torture is not involved. Very different from Reformed/Calvinist theology in my opinion.
I have asked you before what your view of hell is. I will ask again but if you don't want to say that is fine.

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Closing out my reading of Isaiah today and thought the last verse was fitting for this thread.

Isaiah 66:24 "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

---

With all due respect, most scholars believe that is talking about dead bodies. The worms do not die which is hyperbole for what happens to the dead bodies. The fire is not quenched. Not the punishment. There is no mention of eternal torment. But whatever. Happy Independence Day!
One of the great things about being an American is we have freedom of speech. We will agree to disagree.

---

Most scholars? Who? Every thing I've ever seen and read regarding this verse discusses how it refers to eternal torment.

---

Google is your friend. Now I grant you the vast majority of Reformed/Calvinist theologians agree with you. But Reformed/Calvinist comprises less than 10% of Christians.



Here is one from a noted Anglican theologian..
And the Eastern Orthodox view

---

What you shared described an eternal state - eternal judgement and the consequence of sin. I'm sure our orthodox and Catholic friends can chime in.

---

Fair enough. But torture is not involved. Very different from Reformed/Calvinist theology in my opinion.
I have asked you before what your view of hell is. I will ask again but if you don't want to say that is fine.

---

I didn't say anything about torture in my post. What actually happens in hell is a different discussion than I believe was at the heart of this post, which was the idea of eternal vs temporary.

I think it's basically the opposite of heaven. An eternal state where one exists in torment.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Closing out my reading of Isaiah today and thought the last verse was fitting for this thread.

Isaiah 66:24 "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

---

With all due respect, most scholars believe that is talking about dead bodies. The worms do not die which is hyperbole for what happens to the dead bodies. The fire is not quenched. Not the punishment. There is no mention of eternal torment. But whatever. Happy Independence Day!
One of the great things about being an American is we have freedom of speech. We will agree to disagree.

---

Most scholars? Who? Every thing I've ever seen and read regarding this verse discusses how it refers to eternal torment.

---

Google is your friend. Now I grant you the vast majority of Reformed/Calvinist theologians agree with you. But Reformed/Calvinist comprises less than 10% of Christians.



Here is one from a noted Anglican theologian..
And the Eastern Orthodox view

---

What you shared described an eternal state - eternal judgement and the consequence of sin. I'm sure our orthodox and Catholic friends can chime in.

---

Fair enough. But torture is not involved. Very different from Reformed/Calvinist theology in my opinion.
I have asked you before what your view of hell is. I will ask again but if you don't want to say that is fine.

---

I didn't say anything about torture in my post. What actually happens in hell is a different discussion than I believe was at the heart of this post, which was the idea of eternal vs temporary.

I think it's basically the opposite of heaven. An eternal state where one exists in torment.

---

Oh I know I am very much in the minority over the duration of hell.
Do you believe the torment is due to their separation from God? Or that there is active torture?

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Closing out my reading of Isaiah today and thought the last verse was fitting for this thread.

Isaiah 66:24 "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

---

With all due respect, most scholars believe that is talking about dead bodies. The worms do not die which is hyperbole for what happens to the dead bodies. The fire is not quenched. Not the punishment. There is no mention of eternal torment. But whatever. Happy Independence Day!
One of the great things about being an American is we have freedom of speech. We will agree to disagree.

---

Most scholars? Who? Every thing I've ever seen and read regarding this verse discusses how it refers to eternal torment.

---

Google is your friend. Now I grant you the vast majority of Reformed/Calvinist theologians agree with you. But Reformed/Calvinist comprises less than 10% of Christians.



Here is one from a noted Anglican theologian..
And the Eastern Orthodox view

---

What you shared described an eternal state - eternal judgement and the consequence of sin. I'm sure our orthodox and Catholic friends can chime in.

---

Fair enough. But torture is not involved. Very different from Reformed/Calvinist theology in my opinion.
I have asked you before what your view of hell is. I will ask again but if you don't want to say that is fine.

---

I didn't say anything about torture in my post. What actually happens in hell is a different discussion than I believe was at the heart of this post, which was the idea of eternal vs temporary.

I think it's basically the opposite of heaven. An eternal state where one exists in torment.

---

Oh I know I am very much in the minority over the duration of hell.
Do you believe the torment is due to their separation from God? Or that there is active torture?

---

Not separation from God as God is omnipresent. Very much in the presence of His wrath.

Not a cruel and wicked being getting joy out of torturing His creation like a little cackling boy as he holds a magnifying glass over a slug on a sunny day, but it will be torment (torture, agony) to experience His justified (and eternal) wrath.

It seems reasonable to think of it as the opposite of heaven. Which, again, would be utter torment.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Closing out my reading of Isaiah today and thought the last verse was fitting for this thread.

Isaiah 66:24 "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

---

With all due respect, most scholars believe that is talking about dead bodies. The worms do not die which is hyperbole for what happens to the dead bodies. The fire is not quenched. Not the punishment. There is no mention of eternal torment. But whatever. Happy Independence Day!
One of the great things about being an American is we have freedom of speech. We will agree to disagree.

---

Most scholars? Who? Every thing I've ever seen and read regarding this verse discusses how it refers to eternal torment.

---

Google is your friend. Now I grant you the vast majority of Reformed/Calvinist theologians agree with you. But Reformed/Calvinist comprises less than 10% of Christians.



Here is one from a noted Anglican theologian..
And the Eastern Orthodox view

---

What you shared described an eternal state - eternal judgement and the consequence of sin. I'm sure our orthodox and Catholic friends can chime in.

---

Fair enough. But torture is not involved. Very different from Reformed/Calvinist theology in my opinion.
I have asked you before what your view of hell is. I will ask again but if you don't want to say that is fine.

---

I didn't say anything about torture in my post. What actually happens in hell is a different discussion than I believe was at the heart of this post, which was the idea of eternal vs temporary.

I think it's basically the opposite of heaven. An eternal state where one exists in torment.

---

Oh I know I am very much in the minority over the duration of hell.
Do you believe the torment is due to their separation from God? Or that there is active torture?

---

Not separation from God as God is omnipresent. Very much in the presence of His wrath.

Not a cruel and wicked being getting joy out of torturing His creation like a little cackling boy as he holds a magnifying glass over a slug on a sunny day, but it will be torment (torture, agony) to experience His justified (and eternal) wrath.

It seems reasonable to think of it as the opposite of heaven. Which, again, would be utter torment.

---

So God is doing the punishment?

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Closing out my reading of Isaiah today and thought the last verse was fitting for this thread.

Isaiah 66:24 "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

---

With all due respect, most scholars believe that is talking about dead bodies. The worms do not die which is hyperbole for what happens to the dead bodies. The fire is not quenched. Not the punishment. There is no mention of eternal torment. But whatever. Happy Independence Day!
One of the great things about being an American is we have freedom of speech. We will agree to disagree.

---

Most scholars? Who? Every thing I've ever seen and read regarding this verse discusses how it refers to eternal torment.

---

Google is your friend. Now I grant you the vast majority of Reformed/Calvinist theologians agree with you. But Reformed/Calvinist comprises less than 10% of Christians.



Here is one from a noted Anglican theologian..
And the Eastern Orthodox view

---

What you shared described an eternal state - eternal judgement and the consequence of sin. I'm sure our orthodox and Catholic friends can chime in.

---

Fair enough. But torture is not involved. Very different from Reformed/Calvinist theology in my opinion.
I have asked you before what your view of hell is. I will ask again but if you don't want to say that is fine.

---

I didn't say anything about torture in my post. What actually happens in hell is a different discussion than I believe was at the heart of this post, which was the idea of eternal vs temporary.

I think it's basically the opposite of heaven. An eternal state where one exists in torment.

---

Oh I know I am very much in the minority over the duration of hell.
Do you believe the torment is due to their separation from God? Or that there is active torture?

---

Not separation from God as God is omnipresent. Very much in the presence of His wrath.

Not a cruel and wicked being getting joy out of torturing His creation like a little cackling boy as he holds a magnifying glass over a slug on a sunny day, but it will be torment (torture, agony) to experience His justified (and eternal) wrath.

It seems reasonable to think of it as the opposite of heaven. Which, again, would be utter torment.

---

So God is doing the punishment?

---

Jesus judges and the punishment is eternal damnation.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Closing out my reading of Isaiah today and thought the last verse was fitting for this thread.

Isaiah 66:24 "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

---

With all due respect, most scholars believe that is talking about dead bodies. The worms do not die which is hyperbole for what happens to the dead bodies. The fire is not quenched. Not the punishment. There is no mention of eternal torment. But whatever. Happy Independence Day!
One of the great things about being an American is we have freedom of speech. We will agree to disagree.

---

Most scholars? Who? Every thing I've ever seen and read regarding this verse discusses how it refers to eternal torment.

---

Google is your friend. Now I grant you the vast majority of Reformed/Calvinist theologians agree with you. But Reformed/Calvinist comprises less than 10% of Christians.



Here is one from a noted Anglican theologian..
And the Eastern Orthodox view

---

What you shared described an eternal state - eternal judgement and the consequence of sin. I'm sure our orthodox and Catholic friends can chime in.

---

Fair enough. But torture is not involved. Very different from Reformed/Calvinist theology in my opinion.
I have asked you before what your view of hell is. I will ask again but if you don't want to say that is fine.

---

I didn't say anything about torture in my post. What actually happens in hell is a different discussion than I believe was at the heart of this post, which was the idea of eternal vs temporary.

I think it's basically the opposite of heaven. An eternal state where one exists in torment.

---

Oh I know I am very much in the minority over the duration of hell.
Do you believe the torment is due to their separation from God? Or that there is active torture?

---

Not separation from God as God is omnipresent. Very much in the presence of His wrath.

Not a cruel and wicked being getting joy out of torturing His creation like a little cackling boy as he holds a magnifying glass over a slug on a sunny day, but it will be torment (torture, agony) to experience His justified (and eternal) wrath.

It seems reasonable to think of it as the opposite of heaven. Which, again, would be utter torment.

---

So God is doing the punishment?

---

Jesus judges and the punishment is eternal damnation.

---

So what does eternal damnation mean? And who deserves that?
And ai know as a good Calvinist you are going to say all of us.

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Closing out my reading of Isaiah today and thought the last verse was fitting for this thread.

Isaiah 66:24 "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

---

With all due respect, most scholars believe that is talking about dead bodies. The worms do not die which is hyperbole for what happens to the dead bodies. The fire is not quenched. Not the punishment. There is no mention of eternal torment. But whatever. Happy Independence Day!
One of the great things about being an American is we have freedom of speech. We will agree to disagree.

---

Most scholars? Who? Every thing I've ever seen and read regarding this verse discusses how it refers to eternal torment.

---

Google is your friend. Now I grant you the vast majority of Reformed/Calvinist theologians agree with you. But Reformed/Calvinist comprises less than 10% of Christians.



Here is one from a noted Anglican theologian..
And the Eastern Orthodox view

---

What you shared described an eternal state - eternal judgement and the consequence of sin. I'm sure our orthodox and Catholic friends can chime in.

---

Fair enough. But torture is not involved. Very different from Reformed/Calvinist theology in my opinion.
I have asked you before what your view of hell is. I will ask again but if you don't want to say that is fine.

---

I didn't say anything about torture in my post. What actually happens in hell is a different discussion than I believe was at the heart of this post, which was the idea of eternal vs temporary.

I think it's basically the opposite of heaven. An eternal state where one exists in torment.

---

Oh I know I am very much in the minority over the duration of hell.
Do you believe the torment is due to their separation from God? Or that there is active torture?

---

Not separation from God as God is omnipresent. Very much in the presence of His wrath.

Not a cruel and wicked being getting joy out of torturing His creation like a little cackling boy as he holds a magnifying glass over a slug on a sunny day, but it will be torment (torture, agony) to experience His justified (and eternal) wrath.

It seems reasonable to think of it as the opposite of heaven. Which, again, would be utter torment.

---

So God is doing the punishment?

---

Jesus judges and the punishment is eternal damnation.

---

So what does eternal damnation mean? And who deserves that?
And ai know as a good Calvinist you are going to say all of us.

---

What it means specifically, I'm not sure. Lots of thoughts on hell.

And you're right, but it's not just Calvinists who think we all deserve it. That's why Jesus came (I know you disagree but this is part of the gospel).

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

1 Thessalonians 1:10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Closing out my reading of Isaiah today and thought the last verse was fitting for this thread.

Isaiah 66:24 "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

---

With all due respect, most scholars believe that is talking about dead bodies. The worms do not die which is hyperbole for what happens to the dead bodies. The fire is not quenched. Not the punishment. There is no mention of eternal torment. But whatever. Happy Independence Day!
One of the great things about being an American is we have freedom of speech. We will agree to disagree.

---

Most scholars? Who? Every thing I've ever seen and read regarding this verse discusses how it refers to eternal torment.

---

Google is your friend. Now I grant you the vast majority of Reformed/Calvinist theologians agree with you. But Reformed/Calvinist comprises less than 10% of Christians.



Here is one from a noted Anglican theologian..
And the Eastern Orthodox view

---

What you shared described an eternal state - eternal judgement and the consequence of sin. I'm sure our orthodox and Catholic friends can chime in.

---

Fair enough. But torture is not involved. Very different from Reformed/Calvinist theology in my opinion.
I have asked you before what your view of hell is. I will ask again but if you don't want to say that is fine.

---

I didn't say anything about torture in my post. What actually happens in hell is a different discussion than I believe was at the heart of this post, which was the idea of eternal vs temporary.

I think it's basically the opposite of heaven. An eternal state where one exists in torment.

---

Oh I know I am very much in the minority over the duration of hell.
Do you believe the torment is due to their separation from God? Or that there is active torture?

---

Not separation from God as God is omnipresent. Very much in the presence of His wrath.

Not a cruel and wicked being getting joy out of torturing His creation like a little cackling boy as he holds a magnifying glass over a slug on a sunny day, but it will be torment (torture, agony) to experience His justified (and eternal) wrath.

It seems reasonable to think of it as the opposite of heaven. Which, again, would be utter torment.

---

So God is doing the punishment?

---

Jesus judges and the punishment is eternal damnation.

---

So what does eternal damnation mean? And who deserves that?
And ai know as a good Calvinist you are going to say all of us.

---

What it means specifically, I'm not sure. Lots of thoughts on hell.

And you're right, but it's not just Calvinists who think we all deserve it. That's why Jesus came (I know you disagree but this is part of the gospel).

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

1 Thessalonians 1:10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

---

So the wrath of God means ECT hell? That is a lot of eisegesis.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Closing out my reading of Isaiah today and thought the last verse was fitting for this thread.

Isaiah 66:24 "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

---

With all due respect, most scholars believe that is talking about dead bodies. The worms do not die which is hyperbole for what happens to the dead bodies. The fire is not quenched. Not the punishment. There is no mention of eternal torment. But whatever. Happy Independence Day!
One of the great things about being an American is we have freedom of speech. We will agree to disagree.

---

Most scholars? Who? Every thing I've ever seen and read regarding this verse discusses how it refers to eternal torment.

---

Google is your friend. Now I grant you the vast majority of Reformed/Calvinist theologians agree with you. But Reformed/Calvinist comprises less than 10% of Christians.



Here is one from a noted Anglican theologian..
And the Eastern Orthodox view

---

What you shared described an eternal state - eternal judgement and the consequence of sin. I'm sure our orthodox and Catholic friends can chime in.

---

Fair enough. But torture is not involved. Very different from Reformed/Calvinist theology in my opinion.
I have asked you before what your view of hell is. I will ask again but if you don't want to say that is fine.

---

I didn't say anything about torture in my post. What actually happens in hell is a different discussion than I believe was at the heart of this post, which was the idea of eternal vs temporary.

I think it's basically the opposite of heaven. An eternal state where one exists in torment.

---

Oh I know I am very much in the minority over the duration of hell.
Do you believe the torment is due to their separation from God? Or that there is active torture?

---

Not separation from God as God is omnipresent. Very much in the presence of His wrath.

Not a cruel and wicked being getting joy out of torturing His creation like a little cackling boy as he holds a magnifying glass over a slug on a sunny day, but it will be torment (torture, agony) to experience His justified (and eternal) wrath.

It seems reasonable to think of it as the opposite of heaven. Which, again, would be utter torment.

---

So God is doing the punishment?

---

Jesus judges and the punishment is eternal damnation.

---

So what does eternal damnation mean? And who deserves that?
And ai know as a good Calvinist you are going to say all of us.

---

What it means specifically, I'm not sure. Lots of thoughts on hell.

And you're right, but it's not just Calvinists who think we all deserve it. That's why Jesus came (I know you disagree but this is part of the gospel).

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

1 Thessalonians 1:10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

---

And Jesus came to save us from ECT hell is nowhere in Scripture.

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Closing out my reading of Isaiah today and thought the last verse was fitting for this thread.

Isaiah 66:24 "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

---

With all due respect, most scholars believe that is talking about dead bodies. The worms do not die which is hyperbole for what happens to the dead bodies. The fire is not quenched. Not the punishment. There is no mention of eternal torment. But whatever. Happy Independence Day!
One of the great things about being an American is we have freedom of speech. We will agree to disagree.

---

Most scholars? Who? Every thing I've ever seen and read regarding this verse discusses how it refers to eternal torment.

---

Google is your friend. Now I grant you the vast majority of Reformed/Calvinist theologians agree with you. But Reformed/Calvinist comprises less than 10% of Christians.



Here is one from a noted Anglican theologian..
And the Eastern Orthodox view

---

What you shared described an eternal state - eternal judgement and the consequence of sin. I'm sure our orthodox and Catholic friends can chime in.

---

Fair enough. But torture is not involved. Very different from Reformed/Calvinist theology in my opinion.
I have asked you before what your view of hell is. I will ask again but if you don't want to say that is fine.

---

I didn't say anything about torture in my post. What actually happens in hell is a different discussion than I believe was at the heart of this post, which was the idea of eternal vs temporary.

I think it's basically the opposite of heaven. An eternal state where one exists in torment.

---

Oh I know I am very much in the minority over the duration of hell.
Do you believe the torment is due to their separation from God? Or that there is active torture?

---

Not separation from God as God is omnipresent. Very much in the presence of His wrath.

Not a cruel and wicked being getting joy out of torturing His creation like a little cackling boy as he holds a magnifying glass over a slug on a sunny day, but it will be torment (torture, agony) to experience His justified (and eternal) wrath.

It seems reasonable to think of it as the opposite of heaven. Which, again, would be utter torment.

---

So God is doing the punishment?

---

Jesus judges and the punishment is eternal damnation.

---

So what does eternal damnation mean? And who deserves that?
And ai know as a good Calvinist you are going to say all of us.

---

What it means specifically, I'm not sure. Lots of thoughts on hell.

And you're right, but it's not just Calvinists who think we all deserve it. That's why Jesus came (I know you disagree but this is part of the gospel).

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

1 Thessalonians 1:10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

---

And Jesus came to save us from ECT hell is nowhere in Scripture.

---

Well the wrath of God won't be in Heaven so…

(Meant for this to be a response to your other comment)

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

If you agree then we disagree with what the word "sovereign" means.

I am borrowing this from elsewhere but think its sums it up nicely.

God's sovereignty is His absolute, supreme, and independent right and power to govern all things according to His own wise and holy will, for His own glory.

---

I completely agree with that. In my opinion, it strengthens God's sovereignty if He allows us free will. And also show His love. Why would He create robots that He completely controlled?

---

But you see the problem with claiming we have free will right?

To claim we truly have free will is to claim there is some sort of "good" that exists outside of God.

---

Even in the non-Calvinistic view of free will, it still lands with God at the end of the day. Something makes a person choose God - nature, circumstances… - of which God is ultimately in control of. And He still chooses to create the people He knows won't choose Him.

I think this version of free will just makes people feel better. There is a very high view of man, making it about us, when really it is all about God, about His glory. And He will order things in whichever way brings Him the most.

---

Disagree completely on your last paragraph. Gospel means good news. To me it is a higher view of God that He loves us enough to give us free will to reject or choose Him. Complete sovereignty without tyranny. Love without oppression.

Question, do you believe God preordaining people He created to eternal torment is for His glory?

---

I can respect that. He still knows our fate before He creates us.

I think how 10 put things is reasonable. It's all for His glory, that's all I know for sure. I'll never fully understand how and why He does things the way He does.

---

And He desires all men to be saved.

---

He does…and yet, they aren't.

Of course, you think they will be; we've got nowhere to go from here.

---

Sure we do. If God is sovereign and desires all men to be saved, what thwarts God?

---

Think about how awful a God it is you've created though.

We deal with death, sin, pain, hurt, etc everyday.

Under what you've premised, that's a pretty cruel God because he obviously "desires" that we deal with that.

Because if he didn't desire that, what thwarts him?

---

Man, I do not think that and have no idea how you got that from what I posted. There is a huge difference between God desiring everyone be saved(which is Scripture) and God desires harm on us. That would make Gid a sinner in my mind. Just like double predestination does.
We live in a fallen world because of sin. Why God allows pain, I have no idea except for our own good and growth. But I certainly don't think He desires us to have pain.

---

I got there because you're constantly creating this strawman to justify why universalism is representative of the only "good" god.

You continually start with a premise that "god desires x" and so therefore it MUST happen. As you said...who could thwart God.

That reasoning is faulty, but I showed the logical end of it. If anything happens, even the bad stuff, clearly God "desires" it. What could be the other explanation? We can't say that God desires us not to sin, because every person born of a woman has sinned. So God clearly doesn't desire us to be sinless. Which of course then raises the question of why doesn't he just make us sinless? Life would be so much easier.

So the problem is your definition of "desire." You've constructed it to fit your desired outcome as opposed to what Scripture says.

---

Disagree. If there is free will, God can desire anything and man can do the opposite.

---

IF this is the case, this statement:

"Sure we do. If God is sovereign and desires all men to be saved, what thwarts God?" is either not true on your part.

Or maybe you're saying that God saves man, but man can thwart God. that's at least more palatable.

---

I asked it as a rhetorical question as I do not know. I just don't see how if Gid desires to save all men as Scripture says, and one claims that no all men are saved, then man has to be able to Trump God's desires. There is no other logical conclusion.
And if Gid desires all to be saved and all or not, then God's sovereignty, as defined by Calvinists, is limited.
I personally believe Gid can be sovereign and still give man free will.

---

The other logical conclusion is that that is not God's chief desire.

It's like saying I desire to eat that chocolate cake but I also desire to look great at the beach this summer; one is going to trump the other. Say you choose not to eat the cake, does that mean you never desired to eat it?

---

I am sorry but that does not make sense to me. It seems so clear what Scripture is saying. And this is God we are talking about. Not some human trying to decide whether to be fat or not.

---

What about comparing His "desire" statements to His "definitive" statements.

---

Sure.
Romans 14 11 NASB
As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me. And every tongue shall give praise to God.
Luke 2 10
And the angel said to them, "Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for ALL the people.
John 1 29
The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and said "Behold the Lamb of God, that takes away the sin of the world".
John 12 32
And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw ALL people to myself.
Romans 5 18
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men,
Romans 11 32
For God has consigned all to disobedience, that He may have mercy on all.
1 Corinthians 15 22
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.
1 Timothy 2 3-6
This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.
1 Timothy 4 10
For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe
Titus 2 11
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people.

There are many more but I am tired of typing and I did not want to link a list as no one reads those.
Have a great Saturday with many blessings. Shalom.

---

All these Scriptures supporting Christian Universalism and no rebuttals or even comments? So these Scriptures do not count and are to be ignored?

"And if anyone's name was not found written in the Book of Life, he was thrown in the lake of fire" Rev 20:15

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, and some men slackness; but is long-suffering to you-ward, not wishing that any should perish, but all should come to repentance" 2 Peter 3:9

This verse is the concluding statement of the Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:11-15), where all the dead who have not yet been judged stand before God.

The context

Before verse 15, Book of Revelation describes:

• God seated on a great white throne (v. 11).
• The dead standing before Him (v. 12).
• Books being opened that contain the record of people's deeds.
• Another book being opened the Book of Life.
• Every person being judged according to God's perfect justice.
• Death and Hades themselves being thrown into the lake of fire (v. 14), showing that death has been defeated forever.

Verse 15 gives the final outcome for those whose names are not in the Book of Life.

What is the Book of Life?

The Book of Life is a biblical picture of those who belong to God and have received eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ.
Jesus referred to it when He told His disciples:
"Rejoice that your names are written in heaven." (Gospel of Luke 10:20)
The apostle Paul also mentions fellow believers "whose names are in the Book of Life" (Epistle to the Philippians 4:3).

Ultimately, a person's standing before God is not determined by having accumulated enough good works, but by whether they belong to Christ. Good works are evidence of faith, but salvation itself is God's gift, received through faith (see Epistle to the Ephesians 2:810).

What is the lake of fire?

The lake of fire represents God's final, eternal judgment. Earlier in Revelation it is described as the final destination of Satan, the beast, and the false prophet. By chapter 20, it also becomes the final destination of all who reject God.
This judgment is:

• Final.
• Just.
• Irreversible.

It is called "the second death" (Revelation 20:14), referring to eternal separation from God.

Why are people judged by their works if salvation is by faith?

Verses 12-13 say people are judged according to their deeds. This does not mean that salvation is earned by works.

The Bible consistently teaches:

• We are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
• Our works reveal the reality of our hearts and demonstrate whether our faith is genuine.

The books of deeds provide the evidence of God's perfectly just judgment, while the Book of Life identifies those who have been given eternal life through Christ.

What does this mean for believers?

For Christians, Revelation 20:15 is both a warning and a comfort.

• It is a warning because it reminds us that every person will one day stand before God.
• It is a comfort because those who trust in Jesus have the assurance of eternal life. As First Epistle of John 5:13 says:

"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life."

The central message

Revelation 20:15 emphasizes that our greatest need is reconciliation with God through Jesus Christ. On the final day, the decisive question is not whether we were more moral than others, but whether we belong to Christ. Those whose names are written in the Book of Life receive eternal life with God, while those who reject Him face the final judgment described in this verse.

This verse fits well with the promise of First Epistle of John 5:13: believers can have confidence that their names are written in God's Book of Life because their confidence rests in Jesus Christ and His finished work, not in their own merit.

May I ask your opinion on the Scriptures I posted?

Were you just taking verses that said "all" and "earth" and "world" and ascribing those to support universal salvation?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Were you just taking verses that said "all" and "earth" and "world" and ascribing those to support universal salvation?

---

Well, to me those words mean exactly what they have always meant. And no words need to be added. The Scriptures stand on their own. You can agree with them or not.
I am curious if you did not have a pre conceived theology how you would read and interpret those verses.

And I know I will not change your mind but you always say I don't provide Scripture. So I did. Shalom.

I only bring this example up since I read it last week in my reading plan...

Joshua 4:20-24
And those twelve stones, which they took out of the Jordan, Joshua set up at Gilgal. And he said to the people of Israel, "When your children ask their fathers in times to come, 'What do these stones mean?' then you shall let your children know, 'Israel passed over this Jordan on dry ground.' For the Lord your God dried up the waters of the Jordan for you until you passed over, as the Lord your God did to the Red Sea, which he dried up for us until we passed over, so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the hand of the Lord is mighty, that you may fear the Lord your God forever.

Is your take that literally every person on earth will have the ability to know through this stone memorial (in a very precise location) that Lord did this miraculous work?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I only bring this example up since I read it last week in my reading plan...

Joshua 4:20-24
And those twelve stones, which they took out of the Jordan, Joshua set up at Gilgal. And he said to the people of Israel, "When your children ask their fathers in times to come, 'What do these stones mean?' then you shall let your children know, 'Israel passed over this Jordan on dry ground.' For the Lord your God dried up the waters of the Jordan for you until you passed over, as the Lord your God did to the Red Sea, which he dried up for us until we passed over, so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the hand of the Lord is mighty, that you may fear the Lord your God forever.

Is your take that literally every person on earth will have the ability to know through this stone memorial (in a very precise location) that Lord did this miraculous work?

---

That is what the words say, so yes.In my feeble mind, you have to have a pre conceived bias to read the Scriptures I posted and not think the words mean what they say.

Luke 2:1
In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.

And likewise you would have to believe the census being taken is for the all the world versus Judea?

(BTW I am only asking questions to better understand your perspective, not trying to be argumentative)

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Luke 2:1
In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.

And likewise you would have to believe the census being taken is for the all the world versus Judea?

---

I think that means all the Roman world. Not just Judea. At that time in history, the Roman world would have been considered the whole world.
FWIW here is what AI says

10andBOUNCE said:

---

(BTW I am only asking questions to better understand your perspective, not trying to be argumentative)

---

Neither am I. You have asked me two times how I interpret the words. May I ask how you interpret the Scriptures I posted? I would like to know your perspective also. And I am truly curious and not trying to be argumentative.

As far as 1 Timothy 2 which you reference most often, chapter 2 begins with Paul urging "supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions..."

I do not take this to mean that they were being urged to pray for every single person on the planet, but instead for every single kind/category of person.

This would be where the "all types of people" clarification is being made later in verse 4.

The "all" in this second chapter must mean the same audience.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

As far as 1 Timothy 2 which you reference most often, chapter 2 begins with Paul urging "supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions..."

I do not take this to mean that they were being urged to pray for every single person on the planet, but instead for every single kind/category of person.

This would be where the "all types of people" clarification is being made later in verse 4.

The "all" in this second chapter must mean the same audience.

---

But it doesn't say "all types of people".If you weren't reading this through a Reformed/Calvinist lens annd were completely unbiased, how would you interpret 1 Timothy 2?Any comment on the other verses I listed?

And edited to add that this is what I believe you are doing in your interpretation of 1 Timothy 2. Apologize if I am wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis