My Case for eternal Hell

[RICHinCHRIST]

That strikes me as another reasonable interpretation that could replace or be added to one of the other two that seem very reasonable to me.

It's very possible. I also think Homer's interpretation is possible. But in light of the many other texts where Paul seems to make statements with nothing but a universalistic thrust, I think the universalist interpretation may be superior.

[jriccitelli]

Throughout the scriptures a theme is made to the fact that ‘There is no other Savior but God’
Shouldn’t this theme be prominent in New Testament scripture also?
Shouldn’t this theme be prominent in Paul’s writing, and thinking?
Especially since Paul is consumed with scripture (Torah) and its being the foundation for the Gospel.
I understand this in the biblical context as;
There is no other Savior of all men.

The saved ‘in’ all, or the sum of ‘all’ has been already discussed from Genesis thru Colossians, and everywhere between, the saved are believers, there is nothing new, special, or post-mortem going on here.

I thought we were supposed to interpret the questionable text by the definitive text.
Your interpretation is admittedly without context, isn’t it wiser to understand this verse in light of what has been explained already by primary texts? (Or what verse and teaching are you supporting this verse with, other than this open door use definition of the word ‘all’)

[steve7150]

I thought we were supposed to interpret the questionable text by the definitive text.
Your interpretation is admittedly without context, isn’t it wiser to understand this verse in light of what has been explained already by primary texts? (Or what verse and teaching are you supporting this verse with, other than this open door use definition of the word ‘all’)

User avatar
jriccitelli






It's not just one text there are numerous texts that sound similar,

As in Adam all die even so in Christ shall all be made alive (same all)

and God will be all in all (hard to add the word "potential" here)

restoration of all things, and many more



So when the reader sees texts like this you can take it at face value or you can reconcile these verses with what you think the theme of the whole bible is and that's why we have different points of view. All points of view i have heard have a certain amount of validity and i acknowledge annihilation has validity and seems just under certain circumstances, but then i ask myself what God's will is and what is it he wants and will he get what he wants?

God's power is unlimited so what is it that would prevent him from getting what he wants? Mans freewill? Paul had freewill and when he saw the risen Christ it took him how long to change his mind?

[Homer]

but then i ask myself what God's will is and what is it he wants and will he get what he wants?

God's power is unlimited so what is it that would prevent him from getting what he wants? Mans freewill? Paul had freewill and when he saw the risen Christ it took him how long to change his mind?

But the scriptures plainly inform us He wants all men saved now and yet all are not saved, so, no, God does not always get what He wants.

[RICHinCHRIST]

Throughout the scriptures a theme is made to the fact that ‘There is no other Savior but God’
Shouldn’t this theme be prominent in New Testament scripture also?
Shouldn’t this theme be prominent in Paul’s writing, and thinking?
Especially since Paul is consumed with scripture (Torah) and its being the foundation for the Gospel.
I understand this in the biblical context as;
There is no other Savior of all men.

You say there is no other Savior of all men, which is true. But you would have to say that the true God whom we worship does not save all people, but only saves some people. Why would Paul say God is the Savior of all, if he really believed that most will not be saved? It would be futile to call God the savior of the world or of all people, if indeed all people or the world are not saved eventually. It should instead say, God is the Savior of only those who believe, God saves only those in Christ, or God saves the elect. I'm sorry if you are unwilling to recognize that the universalist just understands the terminology according to what it actually says, and not trying to bend it. It appears to me that the universalist has a better interpretation according to what the Scriptures actually say.

I thought we were supposed to interpret the questionable text by the definitive text.
Your interpretation is admittedly without context, isn’t it wiser to understand this verse in light of what has been explained already by primary texts? (Or what verse and teaching are you supporting this verse with, other than this open door use definition of the word ‘all’)

I have explained why the context is irrelevant. What primary texts are you referring to? The five or so that say that some will be lost forever? Those can be interpreted in different ways. The weight of scriptural evidence is much heavier on the universalist side. I'm not going to stay up all night to go through all the texts which have influenced me in that direction through my own study. But the following article may give you some insight into the fact that there are multitudes of texts which support universal reconciliation, and that it's not hard to see its reality in the Bible, if one is not predisposed to rejecting it on the basis of four or five verses.

http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/unive ... -bible.htm

[RICHinCHRIST]

but then i ask myself what God's will is and what is it he wants and will he get what he wants?

God's power is unlimited so what is it that would prevent him from getting what he wants? Mans freewill? Paul had freewill and when he saw the risen Christ it took him how long to change his mind?

But the scriptures plainly inform us He wants all men saved now and yet all are not saved, so, no, God does not always get what He wants.

Homer, your point is irrelevant. At one time, I was not saved. My life was not pleasing to God, and He wasn't getting what He wanted. But at that time in my life, it did not affect the reality that God's will was to eventually reconcile me. He eventually got what He wanted. There is no reason why I must assume that God will not be patient with others after death just as He was patient with me in my life. If God really wants someone to be saved, could He not sustain them in hell until they repent? Why must He give up? If Jesus isn't satisfied losing one sheep, why should God be satisfied in losing one sinner? If He has the desire to save all people (which He does), and the power to save all people (which He does), if He has provided the means by which to save all people (which He has), could He not have created a scenario in which it happens? And why is this something to be argued against? Isn't this the victory that Christ deserves? Does it not bring Him the most glory? And is it not the most effective means by which to defeat sin and evil? Rather than obliterating it out of existence, isn't it a more beautiful scenario if God would not only destroy it, but would undo it through redeeming all His enemies?

His anger doesn't last forever, but His mercy does. God, in my judgment, is infinitely more patient and merciful than we as humans. Would not a Father wait patiently for his child to change his ways, even if He had to wait til the end of His life? But with God, will He ever run out of patience? Not if He desires to save. If He desires to save all, then He will wait for all too.

[Homer]

The universalist wants to have their cake and eat it too, but they are as determinist as the Calvinist. Free-will of man, in the image of God, is a big problem. God can not be happy unless every single person, no matter how depraved, turns to Him in love, exercising their free-will while being tortured.

So God is beholden to us for His happiness! We have the power to make or break God's happiness! What a system. I kinda think God does not need either me or thee to be happy:


Acts 17:25, New King James Version (NKJV)

25. Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.

[steve7150]

The universalist wants to have their cake and eat it too, but they are as determinist as the Calvinist. Free-will of man, in the image of God, is a big problem. God can not be happey unless every single person, no matter how depraved, turns to Him in love, exercising their free-will while being tortured.

So God is beholden to us for His happiness! We have the power to make or break God's happiness! What a system. I kinda think God does not need either me or thee to be happy:





Homer you are adding on various conclusions not in scripture like "God's Happiness", "determinist", "God can not be happy unless."

As you know all scripture mentions is what God wants, why he wants it is not explained. We don't know if it's for his happiness or out of his love or out of justice or maybe because he made man weak spiritually (IMHO)and this depraved condition you reference may not be entirely a free will choice on man's part. Maybe man is more deceived by Satan then we can know and in a different environment man may act much less depraved, maybe much more charitable.
You think it's possible?

[Singalphile]

RiC wrote:
But with God, will He ever run out of patience?

That is perhaps answered in part in 2 Peter 3 where the early Christians were told that Christ was not returning because "the Lord ... is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." The context there makes it pretty clear what he's saying, I think.

Something I've learned from work: I love and completely trust many of my friends at work, but there are times when I'll disagree 100% with one of them and vice versa about a particular work idea or decision. I find those situations comforting because it's nice to know first-hand that smart, honest, and sincere people sometimes just don't see things the same way.

[RICHinCHRIST]

RiC wrote:
But with God, will He ever run out of patience?

That is perhaps answered in part in 2 Peter 3 where the early Christians were told that Christ was not returning because "the Lord ... is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." The context there makes it pretty clear what he's saying, I think.

So are you implying that God will run out of patience at some point? I do not necessarily see that in this passage. It may be true that God will one day destroy the literal heavens and earth (if the full preterists aren't right), and that would seem to imply that God's patience will run out in allowing the present earth to continue in rebellion, at least for the generation living at that time. But this has no bearing about God's patience for sinners in the afterlife. It appears that Peter elsewhere believed that there was hope for redemption beyond the grave.