Infants, Soteriology, and Hell

[mdh]

HI Mike,

You wrote:

I do not believe you are being fair. I do not think most who would hold to "Arminianistic Universalism" would consider that God's severity came in the form of thousands of years of water-boarding. Is it not true that you currently view eternal punishment and conditional immortality as possible? In your view, if eternal punishment is true, would that be God "water-boarding" forever? I am sure that is not what you believe.

In response to what I had written:

In #4 God severely and relentlessly torments them until they repent; it is absurd to say they exercise their free-will while being "water-boarded" endlessly for thousands of years.

You are correct, that is not what I believe. I was speaking metaphorically of what Rich alluded to (His severity) and what one prominent universalist on this site makes clear - that the "correction" will amount to a severe burning in hell experience, as he has said, of thousands of years.

If EP is true, I believe it will most likely be in the form of an eternal separation from God, and any influence of God. A real "outer darkness", and a "hell" indeed.

If it is not a violation of free-will to have people reap what they sow in this life and some repent, why is it a violation of free-will for this to continue into the age to come?

Because of the unrelenting aspect of the torture. How can this possibly be considered a free-will response? It may be a response but it is absurd to say it is free. Even the courts can see this. Any confession resulting from weeks of torture would be thrown out.

I know Steve has said, and as I recall you agree, that the teaching of hell is an impediment to belief. I say universalism is, and Origen agreed, as have many "no-hellers" who came to see hell as a useful tool. Thus they seem to preach the "fires of hell" more than anyone.

From the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:

Origen (186-253), taught that all the wicked would be restored after they had undergone severe punishment and had received instruction from angels and then from those of higher grade (De principiis, I. vi. 1-3). He also raised the question whether after this world there perhaps would be another or others in which this instruction would be given (De principiis, II. iii. 1), and interpreted Paul’s teaching respecting the subjection of all things to God as implying the salvation of the “lost” (De principiis, III. v. 7). These beliefs and speculations he based on Bible statements (especially on Ps. cx. 1; I Cor. xv. 25 sqq.), but declared that the doctrine would be dangerous to disseminate (Contra Celsum, vi. 26).

God bless you!

Homer,

I repeat, I do not think you are being fair. You say that your use of thousands of years of water-boarding is your way of metaphorically responding to Rich-in-Christ's describing God's being severe. Is that what you think is a fair way to characterize (a) what Rich was referring to, or (b) what most "arministisc universalists" believe.
Is that the care you would want people to take when representing your views?

And how do you know that the "torture" that is to be inflicted on the unbeliever is unrelenting? I am guessing you are just basing that on interpretations of scripture that line up with you. Anyone who does not see it your way is just using "philosophical" arguments, or wishful thinking (right?). I sense that you give your own reasoning power too much credit.

All I am asking of you, Mr. Homer, is to be more honorable in your characterizations. I have tried to be careful when representing things that you believe. I would like you to do the same when representing things that others (including myself) believe.

My own view is that God, in allowing a person to suffers severe consequences for his/her actions, would know just when to be harsh, and just when to back off. He would know the effect the punishment would have, and would know whether or not a "repentance" was real. After all, He is God!

I suspect that God has known what He was doing all along. He did not switch to plan B when Adam and Eve sinned. And the end He intended is going to be the end that happens. Actually, that's not quite true. I do not think there will be an end. I think God is going to keep on creating, and revealing Himself, and we are going to keep learning and developing and it will be glorious. And it will never end.

But that is just a hunch of mine. But perhaps you will be the one that turns out to be right.

Blessings back at you!
Mike

[Homer]

Hi Mike,

You wrote:

I repeat, I do not think you are being fair. You say that your use of thousands of years of water-boarding is your way of metaphorically responding to Rich-in-Christ's describing God's being severe. Is that what you think is a fair way to characterize (a) what Rich was referring to, or (b) what most "arministisc universalists" believe.

My mistake! I confused Rich with steve7150 who is also posting on this thread. In the past steve7150, as I understand him, has stated a belief that the lost are cast into a literal lake of fire from which they will eventually be released. Another dogmatic universalist who posts at this site has in the past said the "correction" (euphemism) in a literal hell may last thousands of years and has likened it to melting gold to refine it. Seems more severe than water-boarding to me. However you take it it is a forced conversion; that is the point.

I might add that it is difficult to keep up with speculations which change.

And how do you know that the "torture" that is to be inflicted on the unbeliever is unrelenting? I am guessing you are just basing that on interpretations of scripture that line up with you. Anyone who does not see it your way is just using "philosophical" arguments, or wishful thinking (right?).

No, I would describe them as speculation. I base my comments on the arguments which universalists present. But there is difficulty in this; When EP and CI is rejected there is nothing in scripture to go on as to what hell is like thus no two universalists seem to me to hold the same view. Some say there is no hell and at the other end hell is described as more horrible (though temporal) than most traditional theologians teach.

Your comment is an example of this, a new one to me.

My own view is that God, in allowing a person to suffers severe consequences for his/her actions, would know just when to be harsh, and just when to back off. He would know the effect the punishment would have, and would know whether or not a "repentance" was real. After all, He is God!

How would anyone respond to this? Does it mean God does not actively punish but merely allows the natural consequence of sin? Hasn't worked too well with Hugh Hefner. Does it mean only in this life or the age to come?

God bless, Homer

[steve7150]

My mistake! I confused Rich with steve7150 who is also posting on this thread. In the past steve7150, as I understand him, has stated a belief that the lost are cast into a literal lake of fire from which they will eventually be released




Homer,
I do not know if the lake of fire is literal although i think unlikely. Also the lake of fire may be God himself as he is a consuming fire. Additionally i think even if part of Rev is sequential after all unbelievers are cast into the lake of fire, it clearly gives an opportunity
of salvation after death (Rev 22.17). I think the default position of Revelation after judgment should be a sequential reading because the ending is climatic of the age with New Jerusalem coming down.
Lastly i don't think God will need to force anyone to receive Christ once the devil has no power to blind minds. Then we will really see free will at work.

[mdh]

... But there is difficulty in this; When EP and CI is rejected there is nothing in scripture to go on as to what hell is like thus no two universalists seem to me to hold the same view. Some say there is no hell and at the other end hell is described as more horrible (though temporal) than most traditional theologians teach.

Homer, there is just as much speculation among the EP and CI views regarding what hell is like as there is among the UR camp. I have been around long enough to know that. All 3 views use both speculation and scripture to inform their view. This includes you, who just a couple of posts back told me what you thought hell was like.

Both UR and CI believe that hell is not an eternal sentence. EP believe it is.

I really think you have a problem, Homer. You have complained (in the past) that UR-ers do not use scripture, but rely on philosophical arguments. YOU use philosophical arguments (consider your argument above about whether or not someone would like to have a robot for a spouse). You complain about UR-ers doing nothing but speculation, but you use speculation yourself (note your comment about what you believe hell is like). You have complained that UR-ers just use wishful thinking. This is just plain not true, and who are you to judge another man's motives.

I can tell you that I (though not claiming to be UR) am just looking for a narrative that makes sense. And yours doesn't (to me). Just because those who hope for God to get His wish that all will be saved have a narrative that doesn't make sense to you (and your reading of scripture) doesn't mean it is wishful thinking, or a dangerous view.

(Someday I am going to have to talk to you about that notion that UR is a dangerous view. Unless you are an open theist, that just doesn't make sense. But that is an argument for another day)

My own view is that God, in allowing a person to suffers severe consequences for his/her actions, would know just when to be harsh, and just when to back off. He would know the effect the punishment would have, and would know whether or not a "repentance" was real. After all, He is God!

How would anyone respond to this? Does it mean God does not actively punish but merely allows the natural consequence of sin? Hasn't worked too well with Hugh Hefner. Does it mean only in this life or the age to come?

Where in what I said above do you get that I do not believe God actively punishes? I merely said that I believed God would know when to be severe and when to back off.

And you really have a fixation on Hugh Hefner. I do not know how many times you have used that as an example.

What makes Hugh Hefner any different than you and I? If you had been born into his circumstances, would you still be a follower of Christ?
What is it that separates you or I from Hugh Hefner or Adolf Hitler or any other evil person? Is it something in us? Is it environmental, genetic, coincidental? It seems to me we should just be grateful for the chance we had to know and love Christ in this life, and leave the judging of others (like the 2 I mentioned) to God. We do not know what is in their heart, we do not know what caused them to turn to evil, we do not even know what we would be like if we had been in their circumstances. And we do not know what it would take for God to bring about a real change in their lives.

There is so much I would like to say, but I grow weary.

Blessings, Homer.

[Homer]

Hi Mike,

Perhaps you are tired. You asked:

Where in what I said above do you get that I do not believe God actively punishes? I merely said that I believed God would know when to be severe and when to back off.

But this is what you wrote:

My own view is that God, in allowing a person to suffers severe consequences for his/her actions, would know just when to be harsh, and just when to back off.

When you say "allowing" doesn't this imply that God is not active in the punishing and is only permitting it? That is what I noticed and understood you to be saying.

And you really have a fixation on Hugh Hefner. I do not know how many times you have used that as an example.

Nope. Hefner is merely a handy icon as is Hitler. They represent something.

What makes Hugh Hefner any different than you and I?

Faith in Christ

If you had been born into his circumstances, would you still be a follower of Christ?

If I wasn't I would have no excuse. Hefner says he was born into a conservative Methodist family.

What is it that separates you or I from Hugh Hefner or Adolf Hitler or any other evil person? Is it something in us? Is it environmental, genetic, coincidental?

I think only God can answer that.

It seems to me we should just be grateful for the chance we had to know and love Christ in this life, and leave the judging of others (like the 2 I mentioned) to God. We do not know what is in their heart, we do not know what caused them to turn to evil, we do not even know what we would be like if we had been in their circumstances.

Whoa! In what sense do you see anything I have written as judging Hefner in a final sense? I would in no way presume to make that judgement. That is the Lord's prerogative and His alone. But you just called him evil, with which I agree. Jesus said we are to "judge with righteous judgement" and "by their fruits you will know them". Some peoples' fruits are not too difficult to discern. I think we know what is in Hefner's heart.

Hitler and Hefner are rather obvious and thus useful icons. Sort of like Balaam.

And we do not know what it would take for God to bring about a real change in their lives.

Agreed. But the gospel, "the power unto salvation", apparently was not enough in their case.

Homer, there is just as much speculation among the EP and CI views regarding what hell is like as there is among the UR camp.

I do not believe this for a minute. I do not have time at the moment, but there are a number of scriptures that can be cited for both EP and CI describing the fate of the lost. Granted, they may be figurative in nature, such as chaff being burned up or being cast into a lake of fire, but I can not think of one scripture that describes a universalist scenario; how they will be justified, when or how their supposed corection will end, etc.

I can tell you that I (though not claiming to be UR) am just looking for a narrative that makes sense.

There are many facts about God in the scriptures that will not make sense from a humanistic point of view. "His ways are not our ways". As mentioned, why all the suffering for Adam's sin? Why kill all the women and children in Joshua's conquest? Why didn't God just forgive us without Jesus suffering and death? And why does He demand we get baptized anyway? Dunking in the Jordan didn't make sense to Namaan. There are some things that we will never understand in this life, such as why my late sister, a saint from her youth if there ever was one, suffered repeatedly, even unspeakably, from her youth until her death. And I never heard her complain even once.

Enough for now. God bless and have a good rest.

[mdh]

Homer,

Hi Mike,

Perhaps you are tired. You asked:

Where in what I said above do you get that I do not believe God actively punishes? I merely said that I believed God would know when to be severe and when to back off.

But this is what you wrote:

My own view is that God, in allowing a person to suffers severe consequences for his/her actions, would know just when to be harsh, and just when to back off.

When you say "allowing" doesn't this imply that God is not active in the punishing and is only permitting it? That is what I noticed and understood you to be saying.

Does not the bolded and underlined portion of what you quoted of me indicate activity on God's part?

And regarding Hugh Hefner, my point was that you continually bring him up as if it is clear that God has not allowed him to reap in this life consequences. But you do not know what regrets he has. You do not know if he feels trapped, lonely, misjudged, regret. You are not able to see that from the outside.

AND, you do not know whether you would have made any different choices given his circumstances. Nor do I.

Regarding what "hell is like". I have heard MANY different speculative views on what it will be like from those who hold to EP. Do you really disagree? I am very surprised!

By for now,
Mike

[GordonWayneWatts]

Ouch! I've read this entire thread and do not see the right answer! So, I will try and wade in to this controversial topic...

I know... quite a bizarre topic heading. Let's try to think about how these three concepts are related.

No, it's difficult, but not bizarre -- It would only be bizarre if someone was unwilling to look at the evidence in favour of my controversial (but Biblical) approach...

If you saw my previous thread about infants who die prematurely, you might be able to see where I'm going with this.

I'm new here, so I don't know, but I'll find out, I guess...

Ever since I read Rob Bell's book, "Love Wins"... I have frequently thought about a chapter he entitled, "Does God Get What He Wants?" I think this is one of the strongest arguments for the UR position. If God really desires all people to be saved, then is He incapable of making that happen (even if it's after death)? I'm not too sure of the answer, but I think these three categories (Infants who die prematurely, the study of salvation, and hell) have an interesting cohesion when you analyze how they affect each other. My thoughts made me begin to question my own views a little bit.

Infants who Die

1) Calvinism - God chooses who will be saved and who will be lost. Babies or children who die are either elected to be saved, or elected to burn in hell forever, dependent on God's sovereign choice.

False: While it's only through God's will to give us grace (Romans 9:16), nonetheless, Free Will is not abrogated for either humans (you and me) nor the angels (who WERE in Heaven -- and one-third fell) -- so, no: Denial of Free Will is incorrect. Moving on...

2) Non-Calvinism - Babies and children who die are innocent of God's wrath and go to be with the Lord forever.

False: This violated John 3:16, Hebrews 11:6, and John 14:6 -- only by faith, something of which the children are incapable. While I would not disagree that the children are in heaven for the time being, their "eternal" fate is not sealed. Hebrews 11:6 states: "Without faith it it IMPOSSIBLE to please God," and so these babies are NOT capable of pleasing God -- but God will give them a chance because he is not partial or unfair. Continuing...


Soteriology

1) Calvinism - God does not desire all people to be saved so He chose only a select few to inherit salvation. All non-elect people are incapable of coming to Christ to be saved, and God has no desire in drawing them even though He could.

2) Non-Calvinism - God loves all people and desires all to be saved. All people have the opportunity and capability to receive salvation through Christ by faith, if they choose.

CORRECT --so far (even though you did not get the correct answer -- yet, but you will - in time) Free Will is God's plan. Continuing...

Hell

1) Eternal Torment - Those who do not follow Christ in this temporal life are subject to an eternity of conscious torment. Their souls are immortal and there is no way they can escape or cease to suffer this horrendous future unless they repent and follow Christ before they die.

God is impartial, and would not deny the infants Free Will -a thing he did not deny either angels or humans. So, they could not be eligible for hell -not yet anyhow. Continuing...

2) Conditional Immortality - Those who do not follow Christ in this temporal life aren't innately immortal, so they cease to exist or suffer after they have received justice. Whether their annihilation is instant or after a varying temporal punishment is debatable.

This sounds like Soul Sleep -- this does not address 'eternal' fate, so I shall not answer it -at least for the time. Continuing...

3) Universal Reconciliation - Those who do not follow Christ in this temporal life suffer a temporary sentence in hell which is meant to purify them and lead them to repentance. They have the hope of one day being fully reconciled to the Lord and saved by grace, even though they didn't repent before death.

God is impartial, and Satan has eternal torment: Revelation 14:11 "And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever:..." - Continuing...

How Does All This Tie Together?

First of all, we can see that Calvinism cannot jive with Universalism. God does not desire to save all people in one system, where He does in the other. Non-Calvinists could hold any view of hell and not contradict themselves, perhaps.

This is my question: In classical Arminianism, if God really desires all to be saved, and infants are saved, why does God allow people to live past the age of accountability if He foreknows that they will rebel against Him?

ANSWER: Because he gives EVERYONE the same Free Will -and to deny you and me Free Will when he will give it to the infants when they reunite with their parents in the Millennium would be unfair to us. Observe:

Since we have children that live in the Millennium ("6The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb...and a little child shall lead them. 8And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den." ISAIAH 11:6b,8, KJV) -and die -at a very old age (“And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred Will be thought accursed.” ISAIAH 65:20b, NASB) in the 1,000 Millennium Reign –and people, obviously with FREE WILL, who EVEN STILL are rebelling! (“And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them.” Revelation 20:9, NASB) -doesn't it make more sense that the Bible is referring to **these** children?

In other words, where *will* these children in the Millennium come from? And, what Scriptural prohibition is there to having the infants reappear then and be given Free Will? This would not be a 2nd chance, since they never got a first chance.

So, I spilled the answer early, but anyhow, let's see what else you say, and I'll try to answer it.

This is especially pertinent if Eternal Torment or Conditional Immortality is true. However, if Universalism is true, it would make sense why God would allow people to live in rebellion against Him even though He foreknows it.

ANSWER: Because he doesn't deny us Free Will, something He apparently feels is needed to make His case that He's fair.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is my dilemma with the classical Arminianism view (which I currently hold):

a) God desires all to be saved
b) God foreknows who will reject Him
c) Those who will reject Him can be saved if they die before the age of accountability

Reality: Many die rejecting Christ

Conclusion: God has seemingly not cared strongly enough about saving those people, even though He could have done it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If this is the case, how can it be said that God desires all to be saved? Calvinism is actually more logically consistent than this.

If God foreknows all things, and desires all to be saved, He should kill all children He foreknows will reject Him. If He does not take this opportunity to save them, then it seems He doesn't love them enough to spare them from the coming judgment. This is especially disheartening if eternal torment is true. In other words, Arminianism is guilty of the same portrayal of God's character as Calvinism (though not as repugnantly). If God really wants all people saved, which I believe He does, why would He not take advantage of the means by which He could accomplish His will?

It seems there are only a few logically consistent conclusions one can make:

1) Logically Consistent Calvinism - God doesn't desire all to be saved, so He eternally tortures those who have no choice but to reject Him. He also tortures babies who never got to reject Him yet. God only wills that the elect not perish. Forget about everybody else cause God doesn't care about them anyway!

2) Open Theism - God does not yet know the future decisions of people, so even though He wants all saved, He does not know who will be saved or who will not (so He is not obliged to intervene in killing people before the age of accountability).

3) Arminianistic Instant Annihilationism - Even though God desires all to be saved (and foreknows those who will reject Him), He allows people to live on in rejection of Him because He knows their punishment will be swift and nearly painless. He gave them a chance, but they missed their opportunity.

4) Arminianistic Universalism - God does foreknow all things, yet He is already planning on saving all people eventually, whether by His goodness in this life or His severity in the next. Therefore, His foreknowledge of those who reject Him does not thwart His desire to save all people.

Those are my thoughts. I should mention that I am speculating and just thinking out loud.

OK, those are my thoughts -- no one thought of the Millennium -- thinking only spirit bodies --or super glorified would be there. But apparently missing scriptures about people living to be a hundred & dying (in human bodies!) and the rebellion in Revelation at the end of the 1,000 years (thus proof of Free Will). LOL. Moral of the story: Search the Scriptures -- if you eliminate all the unscriptural answers, what remains (MILLENNIUM) ever how "weird" is the correct Scriptural answer.

And, yes, it's odd, but who in Isaiah's time thought Christ would come 2 (or 3 --or 4) times?

1) Christ The CREATOR - John 1

2) Christ the sacrifice (on the cross)

3) Christ the redeemer (He who raptures us)

4) Christ the KING (coming back with his raptured saints).

So, if Isaiah could be kept in the dark looking the the glass darkly, who are we to think we know it all. I submit my answer is the correct one.

Therefore, any woman who has a crippled child and want to "send him to heaven" so she will increase his "eternal" odds -- should STOP: This is not so - you can't twist God's arm and make the Maker accept the baby: God will give all a fair chance, and mercy-killings of this sort will not make a difference, and thus should not be done. (She might reason the child could grow up & reject Christ and that this would be "good," but the child will have a fair chance either way, and God is pro-life in the sense He would not set the system up to tempt the woman so.)

As an Ambassador for The Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20), our Saviour (John 3:16) and ONLY perfect role model & example (John 13:15, 1st Peter 2:21),

I Am,

Sincerely,

Gordon Wayne Watts
Lakeland (between Tampa & Orlando), Florida, U.S.A.

[Paidion]

Mike, you wrote parenthetically:

(Someday I am going to have to talk to you about that notion that UR is a dangerous view. Unless you are an open theist, that just doesn't make sense. But that is an argument for another day)

I'm not going to cut into this exchange between you and Homer, but I wonder why you think being an open theist precludes belief in UR. Indeed, I am an open theist and believer in libertarian free will who also believes in the universal reconciliation of all sentient beings to God. For me there is no conflict whatever between these views.

[Singalphile]

Hi GordonWayneWatts,

That's an interesting idea. Thank you for sharing. You posit that these very young ones will be resurrected and live physically in a millennium with as much free-will as we now have. Do you think they will they have the same sort of sinful or fallen nature that we now have? Will they grow up and get pregnant and have babies of their own? Will any of those babies die in the womb or in infancy?

(Myself, I favor amillennialism, and I really don't know what happens, if anything, to a baby/fetus that dies.)