Talbott's Presentation

[Paidion]

The possibility is never at 0%. The person is free to repent. He might choose to do so. But, he need not. That's the very definition of libertarian free will. And that's why, as far as my understanding can take me, libertarian free will cannot be reconciled to dogmatic universal reconciliation. It can, however, be reconciled to hopeful universal reconciliation and optimistic universal reconciliation.

I am in total agreement with the first five sentences. However, I have a much different conclusion. As I see it, your conclusion holds only in a finite time frame. But to resist the influence of God forever suggests one's will is infinitely powerful or even as powerful as that of God's.

Back to the carboard disks. The probability of each of them sticking to the bottom in 50%. But even if it were 1%, they would all eventually stick. Now if the probability were .000000000000000000000000001%, the operator might have to toss them for years. Nevertheless, they would all eventually stick, because they are being continually tossed. But go ahead and set the probability to anything less than this—as small as you like as long as it is greater than 0%, and the disks will all eventually stick, though it may take milleniums before they do so.

You have already stated that the probability for any individual is never 0%. So if the probability of repentence for each and every individual is something more than 0%, he must eventually repent, because he is being continually influenced by God to do so. The only way he could hold out forever is if the probability of his repenting is 0%, but if that were the case he would not have free will for it would not be possible for him to repent.

[Paidion]

In this life, a parent sometimes exerts a strong influence on his/her teenager. If the teenager persists in a certain activity, the parent grounds him/her. But this influence doesn't make the teenager cease the activity. In other words, parents' strong influence do not cause their teenager to behave as desired. But what if the parents have the power to ground their teenager for a day, two days, a week, a month, etc. With time, the teenager is more likely to concur with his/her parents' wishes. They are not caused to concur, of course. They simply want to avoid the grounding. Theoretically they could continue the activity of which the parents disapprove for an indefinite time. But the longer they are grounded regularly, the more likely the teens are to comply./quote]

And maybe they will just become more angry and stubborn. When my brother was just a boy of about 8 years old he threw all the potatoes out of the potato bin in the cellar. Dad told him to pick them up and he refused. Got a whipping (in those days when you were real bad, it meant the dreaded razor strap). Got whipped some more. Still refused. Whipped again, and again refused. Dad finally gave up; no amount of whipping persuaded an 8 year old. Some people get that way.

I can easily believe that your brother was stubborn enough to continue to refuse to pick up the potatoes in spite of your father's whippings. However, the whippings were administered for a finite length of time. Fifteen minutes?

In my post, I made the mistake of suggesting that the parental influence (and by analogy God's influence) was negative and not mentioning that a good parent's influence (and God's) is also positive. And the positive is much more likely to succeed.

...Do you not know that God‘s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? (Romans 2:4 RSV)

[mattrose]

As I see it, your conclusion holds only in a finite time frame. But to resist the influence of God forever suggests one's will is infinitely powerful or even as powerful as that of God's.

No, as I said before, it is God's will that people have libertarian free will... so using that libertarian free will against God certainly does not indicate someone is as powerful or more powerful than God.

Back to the carboard disks. The probability of each of them sticking to the bottom in 50%. But even if it were 1%, they would all eventually stick. Now if the probability were .000000000000000000000000001%, the operator might have to toss them for years. Nevertheless, they would all eventually stick, because they are being continually tossed. But go ahead and set the probability to anything less than this—as small as you like as long as it is greater than 0%, and the disks will all eventually stick, though it may take milleniums before they do so.

You have already stated that the probability for any individual is never 0%. So if the probability of repentence for each and every individual is something more than 0%, he must eventually repent, because he is being continually influenced by God to do so. The only way he could hold out forever is if the probability of his repenting is 0%, but if that were the case he would not have free will for it would not be possible for him to repent.

I think we've been through this already. I think the analogy is a category mistake. I could be wrong. I think, at this point, any reader of the thread is able to see the differences in our arguments and make a decision for themselves as to what argument is stronger. I've enjoyed the discussion!

[steve7150]

This paragraph raises all sorts of questions in my mind

1. On what grounds do you dogmatically state that Satan will not exist in the lake of fire?
2. Why should I follow your speculation that the sin nature will be destroyed?
3. What does that even mean? Will God rip it out? Is that God's way?
4. If you believe Satan will be annihilated, doesn't that mean "All" doesn't always mean "All"?
5. If "all" doesn't always mean "all," haven't you cut off the major argument of the universal reconciliation position?

But I know it is sometimes frustrating when someone answers a question with a series of other questions. So I will also respond to your basic point (that in Hell.. the next age so far as it concerns the wicked... the things that pull us toward sin in this present age will be removed).

As I understand it, the things that pull us toward sin in this age are threefold: 1) Satan 2) Our fallen nature 3) Our world... peer pressure, so to speak.

I could argue, I think, that Satan's attack will be even stronger in hell. That our fallen nature will be in its most mature (immature?) form. And that the peer pressure will be even greater (might we be surrounded by the worst of the worst?). In other words, there is at least a strong possibility that the 3 factors pulling us toward sin will be even stronger in hell. That is, perhaps, why God's method to pull us toward him is so drastic in that place!







The most compelling point with regards to what the purpose of the LOF is IMO that it is God's will that everyone be saved and come into a knowledge of the truth. In light of this fact why would God allow Satan to be effective at all in the next age? I think Satan served a purpose in this age as god of this age but in the next age there is no indication he has any power at all. In fact he is lumped together with the beast and the false prophet and it sounds like they are either destroyed or incapacitated.
If the LOF is for any purpose other then torment perhaps the answer is in the greek word for fire "pur" which i believe means to purify. What could be purified other then our sin nature? As for peer pressure it may be with Satan ineffective and Jesus plainly revealed as Lord my guess is that most people will want to be in the kingdom of God. This is conjecture on my part but i think all of us have good and bad in us and in an world that is not cursed and is not under Satan's influence and with Jesus overseeing, most people would run to Jesus. You may see this differently however.
RE the literalness of the word "all" it certainly is used as hyperbole sometimes like when Paul said the gospel had been preached in all the world, but it is also used literally as "in Adam all have died even so in Christ all will be made alive." Certainly the Adam part of the formula is literal and the Christ part remains to be seen.

[jriccitelli]

‘Proposition three is beginning to be easier to let go of when I think of the fact that most scriptures in its defense are either in the context of parable, hyperbole, or extreme symbolism’ (Rich pg.1)

That is far from true, and even the scriptures that are hyperbole or symbolic represent a reality, none of which can be let go.

Propositions one and two appear to be overwhelming themes of Paul and the Scriptures as a whole (Rich pg.1)

This statement is not true, if we want to think UR is a theme in scripture that is one thing, but the overwhelming theme is far from that. Think of each major biblical story from the beginning;
Adam sins, God pronounces death, and a curse… is this a theme meaning everyone will be saved?
Noah’s flood, the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth…
The Tower of Babel, they weren’t scattered because they were seeking God…
Sodom and Gomorrah… is this a theme meaning everyone will be saved?
Judgment on Egypt, the Passover, Pharaoh’s hardness an his army drowned in the sea…
The Law given with statutes of punishment and death for disobedience, not to mention the references to choice and it having been given as a test and a means of life or death…
They all die in the desert, is this a theme meaning everyone will be saved?
The carrying of the Ark, having it go before them, specific rules with death penalties all mandates precluding their entering into the Promised Land… is this theme meaning everyone will be saved?
The consistent theme to fear God, even to those who were not Israelites as in Josh.4:24… is this a theme meaning everyone will be saved?
The command to totally destroy their enemies, and the acts themselves, and the consequences they experienced for having ‘not’ completely destroying the enemies, death… is this a theme meaning everyone will be saved?
The Angel of the Lord (Jesus?) rebukes them for having not destroyed the cities completely (Judges 1:27-2:5)… is this a theme meaning everyone will be saved?
After destroying the cities, Israel now is commanded to fight and destroy thousands in battle including the Ammonites the Philistines and when Israel themselves begin to become corrupt, God allows them to be destroyed in battle, from Judges 8 on Israel continues to experience corruption and the consequences from God – death… is this a theme meaning everyone will be saved?

I could go on but I was thinking that Paidions 0000000.1 percent hypothesis leaves out the Law of thermodynamics, besides a million other variables…

And I would think Lake of Fire couldn’t be ‘more’ clear, if something is thrown into a bucket of fire it might crawl out, but a lake, I think the intention is that you cant get out… not to mention it is fire.

Satan only manufactures the lie, people decide to love the lie more than the truth, and if it weren’t Satan it would be something else. God is looking for those who love truth, love His righteousness, and fear Him, this seems to be a reoccurring theme in scripture.

[steve7150]

And I would think Lake of Fire couldn’t be ‘more’ clear, if something is thrown into a bucket of fire it might crawl out, but a lake, I think the intention is that you cant get out… not to mention it is fire.

Satan only manufactures the lie, people decide to love the lie more than the truth, and if it weren’t Satan it would be something else. God is looking for those who love truth, love His righteousness, and fear Him, this seems to be a reoccurring theme in scripture.










Well although the LOF couldn't be more clear to you i see it differently. A lake is easy to get in and of and fire can destroy or purify or both. Now a sealed abyss
would be a lot different then a lake to get out of and that image could have been used.
If it were not Satan it would be something else? If that's true then why did God put Satan here if anything would do? I think most people do love the truth but they don't know what it is.Most people have a conscience and feel yucky after they lie IMHO.

[steve7150]

Judgment on Egypt, the Passover, Pharaoh’s hardness an his army drowned in the sea…
The Law given with statutes of punishment and death for disobedience, not to mention the references to choice and it having been given as a test and a means of life or death…
They all die in the desert, is this a theme meaning everyone will be saved?







As Columbo used to say, "just one more thing" which is this. It appears most of the evidence you present for annihilationism comes from the OT. If i just read the OT it would be obvious annhilationism is true as there is barely any references to an afterlife at all whether good or bad. People do get destroyed here and there but if not they just die and turn to dust. IMO the OT reveals or perhaps emphasizes part of God's character which is judgment. It is through Jesus we really see the love of God so putting these two aspects together we end up with justice and love. That gives us more possibilities then only annihilation.

[jriccitelli]

The Old Testament presents the evidence for Judgment – Choice – Blessings – or curse – Life – or Death – all the text describes vividly the reasons and consequences of the choice.

The Old Testament only thinly veil’s the post-mortem realities, just as Christ Jesus was there throughout all the OT, the whole time. Now it is all evident, Scripture was speaking to all of us, throughout all time and everyone will be held accountable.

The NT and the OT don’t change, the consequences are the same, the blessings are the same, the Judgments are the same, God does not change, and people don’t change, they continue in rebellion. That is a Major theme throughout scripture.

Someone said here that once they see Gods Love in all His Glory they will want to repent, where does it say that? And contrary it seems they refuse to repent often in scripture and in life), even up in Revelation during the Seals and Trumpets. The verse "every knee shall bend and confess" does not confirm these are the unsaved, or unrepentant (nor does it imply they are saved if were so)

Satan was a test, just as the tree of knowledge was a test. It could have been any kind of fruit, or it could have been a money tree, or a power, or fame, etc. It is a choice
Rich quoted Luke 19:10 and asked;

Quite a simple concept. Jesus came to seek and save the lost. All are lost because of sin, every human being. If most people end up separated from God forever, is Jesus incapable of succeeding in His most important mission? And if so, why does the Bible speak of the cross as a redemptive triumph and victory if it failed to succeed? (Rich pg.1)

It seems we are skipping the whole ‘if you repent, choice, by Faith, if they believe thing’. If they don’t believe, ‘they’ loose not God. God is Glorified and Just by the fact that he gave us freewill to decide.

If everyone saw God clearly, after death, it is difficult to see what would remain for the unbeliever to dislike (Steve pg.1)

That is assuming everyone loves righteousness, holiness, goodness, others, more than they loved them selves, their sins, and the things of the world. A lot do not seem to want love, or even show an interest in these things, let alone want to live righteously forever with God. Remember when we see God we will see not only His Love and Goodness, but also His Greatness and His HOLINESS which was more than some seemed to be able to handle. It seemed Jesus displayed enough of God for them to make a decision.

Pardon rush, or typos, thanks. God be with you (its your choice).

[RICHinCHRIST]

‘Proposition three is beginning to be easier to let go of when I think of the fact that most scriptures in its defense are either in the context of parable, hyperbole, or extreme symbolism’ (Rich pg.1)

That is far from true, and even the scriptures that are hyperbole or symbolic represent a reality, none of which can be let go.

I don't think what I said is far from true. Which verses can you find in support of proposition three that are not found in one of those categories?

These are the only verses I can think of that can defend proposition three (that some individuals will be separated from God forever):

Matthew 25:41, Matthew 25:46 - These verses are in the context of a parable. Parables by definition are not supposed to be taken literally. Even if these verses were to be taken literally (which we don't usually do with parables), the Greek words are debatable and do not rule out a universalist interpretation as far as I know.

Revelation 14:9-11, Revelation 20:13-15, Revelation 21:8 - These verses are in the context of an apocalyptic drama of extreme symbolism. There are many things in this book that we do not take literally, so I'm naturally skeptical of doing the same with these passages. Only the first set of verses (14:9-11) specifically state that there is no hope of salvation for those concerned. But if I remember correctly, JR, you do not hold to the traditional ECT view. If these verses are supposed to convey a "reality which cannot be let go", as you say, then why do you feel at liberty to not take literally where it says, "and these shall be tormented forever with no rest day or night"? If you do feel at liberty to reject that idea about hell, why must I accept that there's no postmortem hope for those in the lake of fire?

2 Thessalonians 1:9 - This is the only time the word for everlasting (aionios) is used in the context of postmortem judgment other than when Jesus used it in The parable of the sheep and goats. This is the only time Paul spoke of destruction (olethros) for those who do not obey God or the gospel of Jesus which seems to be referring to postmortem destruction. Paul very well might be using hyperbole here. Why, you ask?

Here Paul uses the same Greek word for destruction and it is in the context of someone's salvation. God destroyed the man's flesh (through Satan) in order to bring about the man's ultimate salvation. Why must we necessarily take 2 Thessalonians 1:9 in a different sense?

Another thing about this entire passage is that I've heard some pretty good arguments that this judgment and destruction is in reference to AD70 and God's judging of the Jewish system and age, which would have made a significant impact on the evil Jews in Thessalonica who were troubling the believers Paul was writing to (as in Acts 17). I don't think it's impossible that 2 Thessalonians 1-2 is using similar language that Jesus used in Matthew 24:27-31, 34. I'm in no way a convinced full preterist, but I'm open to the possibility in this context. I should say that I'm agnostic on the topic due to my lack of information. My last intense studies on the Olivet Discourse (which were at Steve's school) gave me more respect for full preterism, since it appears that when you look at the parallel account in Luke, it seems to give a strong case for full preterism. Steve, of course, did not teach full preterism, but I recall at the time thinking it had a strong case. Even since, I have read certain passages and can see how it could relate to full preterism. I in no way want to become dogmatic about it (like so many full preterists have), so I've somewhat put it on the backburner for now until I have more time to study the topic. But as of right now, I'm open to the possibility that 2 Thessalonians 1-2 are to be understood in that sense.

Propositions one and two appear to be overwhelming themes of Paul and the Scriptures as a whole (Rich pg.1)

This statement is not true, if we want to think UR is a theme in scripture that is one thing, but the overwhelming theme is far from that.

I think you have to re-read propositions one and two in the original post. Proposition one, in essence, states that God desires all to be saved because he is not a respecter of persons (and since that is true, He will do all He can to prepare those He loves for the purpose of reconciliation). Do you not think that is an overwhelming theme of the Bible? Ever since Genesis 12, God had all nations in mind, that all families of the earth would be blessed with salvation. The entire Old Testament is the anticipation of the fulfillment of that promise. The New Testament clearly teaches that God wills for all to be saved, and that it is one of His chiefest desires. Proposition one, it appears, is non-negotiable in my mind (unless you're a Calvinist of course!).

Proposition two is not as popular unless you lean toward UR. Proposition two, simply stated, is that God will successfully triumph in His redemptive plan by securing the salvation of all He sincerely wills to be saved. This puts the emphasis on God's will and His ability to get what He wants. The Scriptures teach that God is sovereign, and that His purposes will not fail. I think Job 42:2 is a clear indication of this:

No purpose can be withheld from God. If we believe God loves all people and desires for them to be saved, then we can deduce that He will do everything He can in His power so that His purpose of the salvation of all finally occurs. The only obstacle to this idea are two things:

1) Some Human beings, as free moral agents, will never choose to follow God of their own free will without being coerced. God will not coerce them, so He will grant them their wish to be separate from Him forever.

2) At some point, if point one is true, the sinner will disintegrate into non-existence, or will perpetually continue to reject God for all eternity.

This, however, implies that God will have to inevitably give up on the sinner at some point. God must become fatigued of the sinner's rejection of Himself and decide to give up on giving the sinner any more chances for salvation. If God is a jealous God of love, one whose Love never fails (1 Corinthians 13:8), I find it difficult to think that God will give up on sinners at some point even though the possibility still remains that they may turn to Him in repentance. God is the sustainer of life, so even in hell, He is the one sustaining the sinner in the first place. If anyone is giving up in the wrestling match between the sinner and God, God must be the one to give up (if proposition two is false). This, I perceive, proves God a failure to extend His love, which is supposed to have no boundaries (Ephesians 3:18-19). This is not even taking into account that Jesus' blood has purchased the entire world (1 John 2:2). It would seem strange that God would give up on individuals for whom Christ died and secured through His death, and this would seem to point that Jesus loses most of what He paid for (and that the devil actually succeeded in making the cross of little effect!). However, we know that the cross is said to have completely defeated the devil, sin, and their "works" (1 John 3:8).

So, in conclusion, I don't think it's a stretch to say that The Father and Jesus will succeed in their mission, if they are sincerely determined to make it a reality. (Even if they must wait millions of years before sinners finally surrender to this loving Father who will not give up). God does whatever He pleases (Psalm 115:3), so if He is pleased to sustain sinners in hell until they surrender, would that be against the whole theme of Scripture and the revealed character of God?

Think of each major biblical story from the beginning;
Adam sins, God pronounces death, and a curse… is this a theme meaning everyone will be saved?
Noah’s flood, the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth…
The Tower of Babel, they weren’t scattered because they were seeking God…
Sodom and Gomorrah… is this a theme meaning everyone will be saved?
Judgment on Egypt, the Passover, Pharaoh’s hardness an his army drowned in the sea…
The Law given with statutes of punishment and death for disobedience, not to mention the references to choice and it having been given as a test and a means of life or death…
They all die in the desert, is this a theme meaning everyone will be saved?
The carrying of the Ark, having it go before them, specific rules with death penalties all mandates precluding their entering into the Promised Land… is this theme meaning everyone will be saved?
The consistent theme to fear God, even to those who were not Israelites as in Josh.4:24… is this a theme meaning everyone will be saved?
The command to totally destroy their enemies, and the acts themselves, and the consequences they experienced for having ‘not’ completely destroying the enemies, death… is this a theme meaning everyone will be saved?
The Angel of the Lord (Jesus?) rebukes them for having not destroyed the cities completely (Judges 1:27-2:5)… is this a theme meaning everyone will be saved?
After destroying the cities, Israel now is commanded to fight and destroy thousands in battle including the Ammonites the Philistines and when Israel themselves begin to become corrupt, God allows them to be destroyed in battle, from Judges 8 on Israel continues to experience corruption and the consequences from God – death… is this a theme meaning everyone will be saved?

You are applying typologies from the Old Testament to insinuate that not all will be saved. The Old Testament doesn't speak at all about the afterlife, and I'm not sure we can eliminate the possibility of the salvation of all just because God judged certain individuals in the Old Testament. It appears that you have difficulty understanding that the universal reconciliation position believes that God will be just and will punish sin in hell. You seem to think that if everyone gets saved, then somehow people get off without their just due. That is not implied by the Scriptures nor the evangelical universalist. Many of those people who died under the judgment of God in the Old Testament may have, for all we know, been those to whom Christ preached in hopes of delivering (1 Peter 4:5-6)! The question is whether God will get what He wants. If He wants all to be saved, is it crazy to think that He may have created a scenario in which inevitably, at some point, even in the context of free will, that all will eventually find themselves submitted to Christ the King who purchased them?

I could go on but I was thinking that Paidions 0000000.1 percent hypothesis leaves out the Law of thermodynamics, besides a million other variables…

You will have to elaborate on this, I'm not following you. I think Paidion's explanation makes logical sense in the context of free will. The only way it wouldn't work, as I mentioned before, is if God decides to give up on the sinner. But if He sincerely desires for the sinner to be redeemed (proposition one, which we all accept), what makes us think that He will give up?

And I would think Lake of Fire couldn’t be ‘more’ clear, if something is thrown into a bucket of fire it might crawl out, but a lake, I think the intention is that you cant get out… not to mention it is fire.

Our God is a consuming fire, so when we are in the presence of God (fire), we are not consumed (just like the bush at Sinai), but we are refined. Why must the imagery of fire necessitate destruction if we experience the same fire and are not destroyed? but, in fact, we actually are destroyed in a sense. Our old man, our sinful tendencies become destroyed as we submit to the fiery refining process of sanctification.

Satan only manufactures the lie, people decide to love the lie more than the truth, and if it weren’t Satan it would be something else. God is looking for those who love truth, love His righteousness, and fear Him, this seems to be a reoccurring theme in scripture.

This has no bearing on whether God desires to save all, or whether He intends to succeed in that mission.

[jriccitelli]

(Again for the record; I have stated that I accept the possibility of post-mortem repentance, although it would be very very foolish to put ones ‘own’ hope in it (Matt 25:1-12). And it would be especially ignorant if you have heard of God, judgment, hell, considered the cross, or even a notion of Gods word)

Hello Rich, thank you for at least being clear, and for remembering that I am not an ET. I do know and approve that UR acknowledges that there are degrees of punishment in the afterlife, but this is not the problem;

UR thinks people get refined in Hell (or whatever you want to call it).
UR thinks people will want to repent, accept God, believe, etc., in Hell (even the Lake of fire)
UR thinks people then are brought out of hell, or the LOF, and put into His Kingdom.

CI believes the Judgment is made, and God is capable of making a decision that is final.
CI believes people are punished in Hell (some), and possibly prior to being thrown in to the LOF, which is final.
CI believes Hell is irreversible, and the LOF means immediate, or soon annihilation.

I know UR will disagree, but I will state some basic Propositions as to why UR is wrong;
The first misunderstanding is thinking that; refining and burning are the same thing, they are not.
2. Thinking that ‘punishment’ will change ‘everyones’ ‘mind’ and ‘convert’ them. Since when?
3. Supposing Jesus, or someone, is in Hell or the LOF persuading them. Or waiting for them to cry uncle.
4. Nothing is stated, or implies about getting out of Gehenna or the lake of fire. The whole idea of a burning garbage dump, and a lake of fire couldn’t be any clearer.
5. God knows what He is doing when He Judges. He can perceive if they are going to repent, prior to Judgment, in fact that seems to be why they are sentenced – because they refused to repent - and remember it is not just repent, it is believe and trust God.
6. Scripture indicates his Judgments ‘are’ final, and that He ‘can’ make a decision, with which no one can argue. UR is saying He cannot make a final decision but must wait until man makes up his mind?
7. Scripture speaks of urgency, finality, and soon. God speaks of a time coming when it will be ‘done’.
8. Despite hundreds of chapters and verses warnings of punishment with an emphasis on death, finality, destruction, and forever, UR brushes them all away by saying the chapters ‘only’ refer to pre-mortem judgments. But we were all going to die anyways! The innocent usually suffer more than the evil in this life, so there is another Judgment also.
9. This world provided a way for God to test man, that is with other created things, other people, and with the offer of the cross. It seems rather explicit that these are the choices and this is the time. Why does God hurry up the judgment on earth when this was the testing ground in the first place? Why curse man with death in the first place, if all he needs is punishment? Why destroy the whole world if they only needed to see His Glory to believe and repent? He could have just shown Himself first. He could let them live longer, but instead God cuts their life from 6-900 years down to 120 if we make it. God is the one who cursed the earth and shortens our life. Longer life just seems to give man more of a reason to put God off till later, or never if he can.
10. UR doesn’t seem to address the common references to man as an animal, a vapor, as dust, we are reminded of these things for ‘some’ reason, why? Man was never promised or meant he had to have eternal life, to make God happy, or for any other reason. We were given – life – are we going complain because we experienced a life? If God didn’t mention salvation, no one would say He must provide it.
11. UR supposes a definition of Gods Love to mean; God cannot destroy those who He created. Yet we are surrounded by things dying and returning to dust, why? Eternal life was not part of the being created deal, it is conditional, and if only one person converts God still wins.
12. UR supposes a definition of Gods Will to mean; God will wait until every single human repents. Yet scripture clearly shows God making decisions, and quickly destroying people.
13. Gods desire for all men to repent does not mean they will. Scripture gives at least a hundred or more illustrations where man refuses to repent, and God destroying them. Why? The biblical theme is that they loved their sins more than God. God knew this before creating them;
14. God didn’t put Himself in some dilemma where He ‘has’ to save them all.
15. Scriptures speak of man as extremely stubborn and in love with sin. It seems from scripture that many do not want correction; Correction is grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: and he that hateth reproof shall die (KJV Pro.15:10) People still refuse to be converted.
16. Preterists may be missing the point that God repeats His judgments and destroys in much the same way over and over “so that you may know that it is the Lord”, and all these are descriptive of Gods post-mortem Judgment and destruction of the soul.
17. I would much rather look at scripture, lets see Exodus 15…