Why is UR harmful?

[jriccitelli]

I was asked by JR what Moses and Noah would think if God forgave their detractors (Steve, pg 4)

Nothing in my post mentions forgiving anyone. This statement is false, and then you build on it in your post. I was not saying they are mad for doing good, I was pointing out the pointlessness of trying to do good, the pointlessness of the message, and the pointlessness of death.

There was no allusion to JR, Homer, or any other contemporary person in that entire discussion (Steve)

And neither in mine. But you ‘have’ used that synopsis and criticism of us often. In my touché diatribe I argued against the idea that proponents of ET or CI would rather see people be put to death. It was not a defense of either me, or Homer, but of the doctrine and content of Jonahs book. You might admit that ‘attitude towards the sinner’ was not the context or point of my original post, and you interpreted it that way.

Sinners who die are simply back to where they started? If you are referring to universalism, isn't it clear that those who accuse you of not understanding what universalism teaches are vindicated by such statements? (Steve, pg 4)

You aren’t getting it. The point was: what does death mean in the OT verses? And how can it be a bad thing, or matter in those contexts?

Once people have died, they are soon reduced to simple elements. Death is the true penalty announced to all people who have sinned. In order for your comment to be relevant to your point... (Steve pg1)

You said death is the penalty, but everyone dies even the wicked, so how could Moses or the Prophets make such a big deal out of death being the consequence for the wicked? Moses died too, was he wicked?

Sorry I can't answer every single question around here, but this is a very pivotable point.

[steve]

You might admit that ‘attitude towards the sinner’ was not the context or point of my original post, and you interpreted it that way.

I'll admit it, since you declare it to be so. You certainly would know more than I would about what you meant to say. The meaning of your statements is often unintelligible to me.

You said death is the penalty, but everyone dies even the wicked, so how could Moses or the Prophets make such a big deal out of death being the consequence for the wicked? Moses died to, was he wicked?

I did not know this was a controversial point. Of course death is the penalty for sin. Moses died, as we all do, because of sin. Our conversation has more to do with resurrection and its consequences.

[jriccitelli]

There is a big difference between dead and mostly dead...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LlQSMu5Mso

[steve]

Once again, your answer is unintelligible to me.

[dwilkins]

Our conversation has more to do with resurrection and its consequences.

Agreed. This was one of the most important parts of your debate with Preston in my opinion. I like most of what he does, but his understanding of resurrection is inadequate in my opinion. In the end, the definition you hold of resurrection will solve most of these issues.

Doug

[jriccitelli]

Once again, your answer is unintelligible to me (Steve)

Once again, you missed the point. It was a little levity on the subject that would have been very understandable if you had clicked on the You Tube clip URL provided, from The Princess Bride movie.

“I always thought a sense of humor about some things is the best way to look at matters from time to time” (TheEditor)

[TheEditor]

Love The Princess Bride.

Regards, Brenden.

[steve]

Once again, you missed the point. It was a little levity on the subject that would have been very understandable if you had clicked on the You Tube clip URL provided, from The Princess Bride movie.

Not so. I did click on the link, and was familiar with the clip from the movie. I still found you comment unintelligible in the context of anything being discussed here. Please explain.

[jriccitelli]

The point being: there is a big difference between dead and 'alive'. It was humor. Sorry I couldn't find an exact corollary. I thought it would present the difference between dead and alive, with humor, oh well.

I did not know this was a controversial point. Of course death is the penalty for sin. Moses died, as we all do, because of sin. Our conversation has more to do with resurrection and its consequences (Steve, above)

This 'point' originated on page 1 in my first post:

“The Bible is not only warning us of 'punishment' (UR) but of 'death' and being wiped out 'completely'.
(CI = destroying both the body and soul in Hell, or wherever, second death means just that: death)”

Death is not controversial to you because apparently you think death is not death, just a punishment. To this you responded:

Death is the true penalty announced to all people who have sinned. In order for your comment to be relevant to your point, however, you would have to deny that there is a judgment, and further consequences, beyond the grave—and to deny this, you would have to"redefine" the clearest scriptural statements about a general resurrection’ (Steve pg.1Dec 27)

No, 'you' would have to "redefine" the clearest scriptural statements about a general 'resurrection’. The dead 'stand' at the Judgment, and the 'dead' see further consequences, one of which is the second death.
‘And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened’ (Rev. 20:12)
The word resurrection basically means stood up, the dead are stood up. It never says the unjust have ‘life’. Being raised to ‘life’ has conditions and they are included in most every verse alluding to being raised to ‘life’. The promise is to those who ‘believe’ and to those who are ‘in’ Christ. He is the life and this seems to be the only kind of life that counts as life post-mortem. And only Christ seems to possess it. Once you are dead you are dead, unless you are in Christ. The Bible and Jesus clearly speaks even of those ‘living' as 'dead'.
Do you see the difference? If life is ‘always’ conditional in the bible, why would we think everyone is just raised to life regardless of all the emphasis on conditions

[jriccitelli]

1. Why is it not dangerous to say (as you do) that God may give some people a second chance after death, but it is dangerous to say (as UR does) that God may give all men such an opportunity? (Why is UR Harmful? 12/27/13 11:41 AM)

JR = God ‘may’ give ‘some’ people a second chance after death.
UR = God ‘will’ give ‘all’ men such an opportunity.
There is another group though in JR, those who 'have' heard. And if you have heard you need to be warned this is your chance, and no second chance may ever be offered.
‘It is dangerous to say (as UR does) that God may give ‘all’ men such an opportunity’
If scripture ‘does’ indeed teach that some ‘cannot’ renew their repentance, and that some ‘cannot’ bring themselves to repent, and that the doors do truly become locked, etc. then these people do not have a second chance anywhere, maybe not even in this age either. There is a large group pointed out and identified in many different ways and with many descriptions, these seem to have been tried by God, tested by God and warned by God, and they still refused. And I say ‘seem to’ only because I am open to dialog, but it does seem very ‘clear’ that they were tested, they ‘still’ refused, and God killed them.
That was their chance and they refused to change. It was their choice. God is full of compassion and will forgive all your sins using His own blood, but you must repent and accept, and it seems urgent because you may grow too hardened ay some point. The Bible uses real people, in real situations to demonstrate this message over and over.

‘It is not dangerous to say (as you do) that God may give some people a second chance after death’
This opportunity is for those who have ‘not’ heard: i.e. Romans 10:14, 15:21, Isaiah 52:15, still granting this is speculation based more on sense than on scripture. Because God uses sense, it makes sense that God may offer opportunity, yet at the same time nothing says because humans are born they ‘must’ be granted eternal life. Eternal life seems to be an extended benefit that God grants on a ‘condition’ of repentance and faith. If people just live and die, as many believe, then that too seems biblical since there are quite a few verses that put man in the same category as animals, grass, vapor and dust. Man cannot ‘expect’ eternal life just for being born.
I personally do not know if God may grant every human opportunity. I think our works and our heart will judge us all. If our heart has accepted the Gospel, then our works are covered by his blood.

Do you see the difference between the two groups?
One group has had a fair opportunity and has been tried and weighed. The other group may not have had a fair opportunity, and God will Judge them accordingly. This life is a test, God said so.

Why is it dangerous? Because someone we know may headed towards the first group. Scripture has people refusing God all day, it is pointed out that many grow harder and may not be able to want to ever reverse their direction and disdain for goodness and holiness.

Their deeds will not allow them to return to their God. For a spirit of harlotry is within them, and they do not know the LORD. (Hosea 5:4)
They spend their days in prosperity, and suddenly they go down to Sheol. 14 “They say to God, ‘Depart from us! We do not even desire the knowledge of Your ways. 15 ‘Who is the Almighty, that we should serve Him, and what would we gain if we entreat Him?’ (Job 21:13-15)
Men must be warned, because the bible warns them that: they may allow themselves to become worse than they already are. And become so hardened and hateful towards goodness that they actually ‘become’ that way permanently. Our core being may actually become ruined. God has allowed us to ‘become’ as we want, the choice is ours.
Doesn't it seem that some people become harder and harder to convince the 'longer' you reason with them?