Why is UR harmful?

[steve]

Everything in your most recent post is speculation, just as the points in my previous post are. Such speculations are not worth much in determining doctrinal truth.

[jriccitelli]

There is no speculation necessitated in the saved by faith process. Neither do I find speculation within Conditionalism. All the speculations are necessitated by EU thinking. In order to make EU work they have to speculate that one can repent, believe and have faith in Hell. Although EU defends the speculation that this event happens. Where Theologians have probably produced a million theses and half as many books on this subject as it pertains to our salvation pre-death, I have not seen any attempt by EU proponents to think through this post-mortem saving/conversion process in light of a post-death, post-final judgment justification and process.

God’s Law is a legal contract, and justification is also in a legal context. And just the same God uses legal contexts of judgment to justify us by faith. Law and Justice is the realm where God elects and forgives those who will inherit eternal life, and those who won’t.

There would have to be a point where God hears the sinners confession and makes a decision based on this event. Unless eternal life is some default that switches on the minute we believe then I am wrong, otherwise this event would have to take place at some point. Scripture does support the idea that God makes a decision or a judgment based on our confession, plea, faith, and repentance. It is fine if you don’t think so, but there are plenty that would agree God makes a ‘judgment’ when we are saved.
It is only fair and right to let me present some scripture as evidence: often ‘justified by faith’ describes the judicial decision God makes, as it was with Abraham:
‘For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law” (Rom 3:28)
‘Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God” (Rom 5:1-2)
“… and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified” (Romans 8:30)
“Nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ … "But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners…” (Galatians 2:16-17)
“The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith” (3:8)… Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith” (3:24)…

in Bakers ‘Dictionary of Theology’ under Just and Justification (written here by James Packer):
‘The meaning of Justification… It is thus a forensic term, denoting a judicial act of administering the law – in this case by declaring a verdict of acquittal. Justification thus settles the legal status of the person justified. (See Duet. 25:1; Prov. 17:15; Rom. 8:33) In Isaiah 43:9, 26 “be justified’ means “get the verdict”… this justification, though individually located at the point of time at which a man believes (Rom. 4:2; 5:1), is a once-for-all divine act, the final judgment brought into the present. The justifying sentence once passed is irrevocable… here is another eschatological reality brought into the present: having in a real sense passed through the last judgment, the justified enter heaven on earth…’

I was not even touching on a Romans 14:10 / 2Cor. 5:10 Judgment of rewards: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad” this is normally understood to stand as the believers final judgment day. So does this happen for the EU convert in Hell, does he ever get a works/reward judgment day?

[steve]

At some point it must be acknowledged that nothing new is being said in this debate, and that someone simply likes to return and stir the pot some more.

[jriccitelli]

There are very few people whose activities at this forum have ever been curtailed by me, but there are some whose behavior has just been inexcusable. No one can deny that I have begged JR to participate in a genuine discussion over the past years, and he simply refuses to do so. I feel no obligation to keep it up… If he is banned, it will be for his dishonesty. He has made outrageous misrepresentations, and has been called on it frequently. He now has the opportunity to come forward with some support for his errors. Thus far, he has shown no interest in doing so' (Steve this thread, pg.8, Jan 10, 2014)

Didn’t you make the statement above? The ‘inexcusable behavior’ addressed above is not to ‘participate in a genuine discussion.

No one can deny that I have begged JR to participate in a genuine discussion over the past years, and he simply refuses to do so (ibid)

Refuse to do so? You have made all these demands to answer your questions and you are the one who does not address them. I just answered the six demands, and I am still answering the ‘seven misunderstandings’ from your post in the Hell thread.

I could not understand your answer to point number 2, so, until some intelligible response is given, I have to continue believing that you misunderstand universal reconciliation on this point as well. (Steve pg.9 of this thread)

On the Dec/22/13 post under ‘Hell’ from which you formulated your misunderstanding, my point in that post was that all the warnings, threats, and examples of death and destruction, are rendered meaningless, if as you say, they are speaking of ‘temporal’ death. I am asking EU to present ‘reason’ to how death becomes defined as temporal. Your response (pg.8 in the ‘Hell’ thread) was “Christians actually believe that there is a point in serving God throughout one's lifetime…”
I am not talking about believers/Christians. God is not threatening believers with death. If you were to put unbelievers in the context of what I was pointing out your response would look like this: “Unbelievers actually believe that there is a point in serving God throughout one's lifetime…” Do unbelievers believe that there is a point in serving God? Once you’re a believer you believe in serving God, which is what makes you a believer.

You did not understand my point then you mischaracterized me, which I had to correct, which you didn’t understand. I do not believe that unbelievers ‘only’ convert to “escape from the horrors of hell”. Yet scripture points out that all humans must be either taught or acknowledge ‘eternal’ death is the wage of sin, rebellion and unbelief, this is the Law of sin and death. I declare that all the passages of this sort are speaking of 'eternal' death (such is the belief of Conditionalism).
These verses either describe the fate of sinners, or they do not. EU cannot say they accept death in these passages as death eternal and remain EUists.
Therefore the meanings in hundreds of passages are changed, and thus irrelevant to their meaning.

[steve7150]

All the speculations are necessitated by EU thinking. In order to make EU work they have to speculate that one can repent, believe and have faith in Hell. Although EU defends the speculation that this event happens.










It's more then speculation JR. There are dozens of statements that say either all will be saved or all things will be reconciled to God therefore since this does happen in this age the logical deduction is that it will happen postmortem. Since there is clearly no prohibition against this the logical conclusion is UR. Now perhaps "all" is hyperbole and it may mean a great majority, but it could mean everyone.

[jriccitelli]

7150, Besides the major Theological dictionary references I have on the subject of ‘all’, all my reference and study tool books, including basic guides on Hermeneutics caution that ‘all’ almost never means all unless the writer goes out of his way to elaborate that it does (i.e. Romans 3:23, yet ‘still’ all does not include Jesus and angels). Unless all includes every single atom in the Universe, ‘all’ will always have a qualification and a condition. I wanted you to know I am not avoiding the point, as I think this was in another thread, and since I am trying to finish the previous points, to which I was warned not to stray from, I would be curious to ask you what you say to people having faith and believing post-mortem? (Do they receive further revelation? Are they preached to? (I.e. 1 Pet.3) Do they have bibles, or scripture explained to them? What does this scenario look like to you?)

I don’t think you believe that once a persons prison sentence is finished, they are thus cured and rehabilitated, do you? In order for this person to be justified (or made just/right) he must believe. When the person finally does confess his repentance, believes, and has faith, God then justifies him. This doesn’t ‘have’ to mean it is a second judgment, but wouldn’t you have to agree this decision takes place after the person’s initial judgment? And wouldn’t most EU/UR proponents agree that the initial judgment would be the same as the great Judgment that all humans go through? (what I perceive is the final Judgment i.e. Rev.20)

[jriccitelli]

Let's start with seven, drawn just from the past few days' posts. These same mistakes are found in both of your posts going back to the origins of this controversy at the forum… (Steve, pg.8 Hell thread 12/23)

Steve says this is one my misunderstanding of Christian Universalism:

“3. On the universalist view, there is no reason to worry about whether or not one dies prepared to meet God” (ibid)

Nothing in any of my posts ever said or suggests what you said above. I never said “there is no reason to worry about whether or not one dies prepared to meet God” (in UR thinking). Sure UR warns of Judgment and punishment, but UR does not allow the passages from the Bible describing destruction and blotting out etc. to be taken seriously as describing the sinners ultimate fate. Giving a person a ‘reason’ to put off repentance is far from saying there is ‘no’ reason to worry. This is putting words in my mouth, as I never said this. I went into detail a number of times describing this in numerous threads, and my main argument has been that UR does not allow the passages and chapters from the Old Testament (and NT) to be taken to 'seriously describe' the final fate of the sinner, even to the final death and destruction of the sinner (And likewise, UR says that these punishments and Judgments are remedial, restorative, survivable, and not final). As I will point out again under the Hell thread, just because Traditionalists say that Conditionalism reduces the gruesome punishment ET suggests, this is not the same as restorative punishment, and not the same as dismissing so many hundreds of passages as not applicable.

But, since Steve originally posted 'the seven misunderstandings' on the ‘Hell’ thread pg.8 Dec 23, it would probably make more sense for me to answer them there.