I remember a conversation with you in McMinnville some years ago where you scoffed at the idea that anyone could resist confession of Jesus as Lord when confronted with the resurrected Christ.
I am not sure what my exact words were, but I have always believed that Saul, on the road to Damascus, had the option of rebelling. I might have said, "I don't see how anyone who saw Christ risen could continue in disbelief" (or something similar), but you are still missing my point. I don't believe that anyone can be bullied into loving God. Until someone loves God, their heart is not changed, nor suited to be with Him. Seeing Christ risen might or might not have that effect on someone. Hearts do not always change easily. It is not a given that seeing Jesus will immediately turn sinners' hearts toward Him and inspire selfless love and surrender to Him.
We both agree the death bed confession is valid, even for Ted Bundy (hey, I avoided using Hugh Hefner, but he was so handy ). And the fear of imminent death can cause a change of heart.
It can, but doesn't always.
Please show (you or any other universalist) from either logic or the scriptures, how, if universalism is true, that a "resurrection confession" would not be as acceptable as a death bed one. Your statement above appears to acknowledge that one occasion (deathbed) is a counterpart of the other (resurrection). I am asking hypothetically. I do not deny that some may choose to be separated from God forever.
I am not quite getting your point here. Are you asking why, if a resurrection repentance is acceptable to God, we would ever urge people to repent prior to that (i.e., on their death-bed)?
First, I don't know anything about postmortem repentance. I don't even know if it exists. I can't say much about it. As a rule, though, I would argue that repentance is always preferable earlier, rather than later. The longer one hardens his heart against repentance, the more difficult true repentance will be.
Second, the real reason for any repentance is so that God will get more of what He deserves out of us during our short lifetime. The more delayed the repentance, the more God is ripped off of our service.
What you need to do to make your point is to show examples where God's judgements resulted in the restoration of every individual of those judged. All the people who were judged are then restored. That would be universalism.
In quoting Hosea, I was not arguing specifically for universalism, but for a general drift in God's revelation of His own heart. After all, most of the defenses either of annihilation or of eternal torment depend, primarily, on verses (like Hosea 9:15) which speak of temporal judgment and rejection. My point is that, as much as can be proved for other views from such passages can also be proved against them by the same passages—since the destruction and punishment described is generally followed by God's promise to forgive and restore (like Hosea 14:4).
I didn't find, in your response, an answer to my question, which I will rephrase so as not to be hard to understand:
You think it a bad thing for God to accept the repentance of one who has died, because (apparently) that person would seem to have "gotten away with" his whole life of sinning, and been admitted to heaven nonetheless. I asked why this same objection could not be raised against the concept of a deathbed repentance. Wouldn't that equally be a case of one having "gotten away with" his whole life of sinning, and been admitted to heaven nonetheless? If one of these scenarios seems objectionable to you, why not the other? And why would you, in the one case, but not in the other, deprive God of a soul that He has forever desired to save? I am trying to find some consistency in your objections.
I would still like to see all those powerful scriptural passages that support the traditional view of hell. I already know how many are available for the
conditionalist view, and that you are open to that one as well as to the
traditionalist. This is good, so far as it goes.
However, you more strenuously object to the
restorationist than to the
traditionalist vision of retribution—meaning you are at least
more open to God being like the God of the Pharisees' teaching than you are to Him being like the God of Jesus' teaching. I suppose you feel compelled, by a strong scriptural case, at least to entertain what seems to me an egregious slander against God. After all, if the
traditionalist view is
not true (a possibility you are willing to entertain), then it must be acknowledged that it is indeed an
outrageous slander against God's character. Anyone even open to such a monstrous idea must have wonderful scriptural evidences!
Therefore, having shared with you the many verses used by
universalists, I would like to see the total list of verses which you think give the traditional view any actual credibility.
). And the fear of imminent death can cause a change of heart. Please show (you or any other universalist) from either logic or the scriptures, how, if universalism is true, that a "resurrection confession" would not be as acceptable as a death bed one. Your statement above appears to acknowledge that one occasion (deathbed) is a counterpart of the other (resurrection). I am asking hypothetically. I do not deny that some may choose to be separated from God forever.