Why is UR harmful?

[backwoodsman]

We don’t simply witness, but teach the bible, and make disciples. You cannot leave out the urgency to repent now, because men grow hard.

What does this have to do with UR? The urgency to repent is the same, no matter what view of hell one takes.

[Homer]

Differences of opinion provide opportunities for grace.

Hopefully grace will be extended from both side of this discussion.

Steve wrote:

When their hostile misrepresentations of restorationism, or of the scriptures that they think apply to it, have been abundantly answered and corrected, no effort is made to either acknowledge (with apology) their errors and false accusations, or else to come back with evidence that the original claims were, in fact, valid. Instead the same debunked points continue to reappear in later posts as if they had never been answered.

And wrote of me:

Instead of either recanting or defending his errors

But what one thinks is a clear refutation of error may be no more than another opinion.

Recently Steve claimed a principle of "silence is consent". I responded with scriptures that I believe clearly invalidate this supposed principle that applies beyond the case it was pronounced for. And additionally I showed that is not a broad legal principle accepted in the courts today. Many other scriptures could have been adduced. Steve has neither recanted nor defended his claim. He may use this supposed principle again. But this is okay if he believes he has not been refuted.

We are accused of raising the same points again "that have been refuted". I feel the same way about universalist arguments that have been restated over and over again, only , in my mind, to be debunked as nothing more than speculation.

The same consideration of grace should by extended by both sides.

[steve]

JR wrote:

It plainly says: some refused to repent, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, no repentance was found even though they sought so with tears, the foolish virgins, the doors were locked, the son of perdition, the unpardonable sin, etc. To deny or reinterpret these warnings is not the duty of a believer.

Apparently, you think that current or popular understandings of verses should never be challenged (a strange stance for an annihilationist, who, by definition, reinterprets many verses that are understood differently by traditionalists).

It is always the duty of the believer to “reinterpret” any scriptures that are currently being “misinterpreted.” Whether this is the case with any given text is what must be decided by careful examination. The verses to which you have alluded above, for example, are not all speaking about the same people or the same circumstances, and, if you think they are, you are misinterpreting some of them. This does, indeed, place upon the believer the duty to reinterpret them, in order to disabuse ourselves or others of wrong conclusions.

What difference would it mean to Abraham, Moses, Noah, If everyone is on an equal playing field again post-mortem, and all the promises and warnings meant nothing, the judgment came upon everyone righteous and wicked, for even Moses and Noah died. This makes no-sense.

My guess is that these men loved God, and had reason to pity those who did not know Him. I dare say that they might even have wished that all men would come to know God as they knew Him. If so, then they would probably be delighted (as we would) to find God had brought all men into such a relationship with Himself. Who wouldn’t?

[steve]

Recently Steve claimed a principle of "silence is consent". I responded with scriptures that I believe clearly invalidate this supposed principle that applies beyond the case it was pronounced for. And additionally I showed that is not a broad legal principle accepted in the courts today. Many other scriptures could have been adduced. Steve has neither recanted nor defended his claim. He may use this supposed principle again. But this is okay if he believes he has not been refuted.

I did not make all the claims about this principle that you assumed. For example, I did not say that all modern courts accept it (as if this would prove one thing or another). Nor did I say that the principle applies to every imaginable scriptural case. My original "silence gives consent" comment was as follows:

Silence may be construed as affirming or disconfirming. In law, silence is deemed consent. If we ask the scriptures, "Is there any hope of salvation beyond the grave?" we might as easily construe the silence as consent as otherwise.

Notice, I said (twice) that silence can be taken either way—not that it invariably conforms to that principle. In my second sentence, I should have inserted the word "often," but in the context of my statement, it would have changed nothing of my plain meaning.

I have no need to recant or defend points I never made. The point that I did make was that the silence of scripture on the question of post-mortem repentance does not argue for a negative, and that, as a matter of fact, there is a recognized principle and precedent in scripture that silence can be regarded as consent. I did not say that this principle proves anything in this case except that you are wrong in your frequent insistence that silence somehow strengthens a negative case.

I found it interesting that you took this passing, minor point of my post, and capitalized upon its limitations, rather than addressing any of the points I was making. Maybe you could make at least a minimal effort to respond to the major points made in that post, rather than to distract from them by diverting to a technicality.

[TK]

JR wrote:

You cannot leave out the urgency to repent now, because men grow hard. Isn’t that why it is harder to witness to adults, and easy to witness to children?
If they believe it is ‘never’ too late for 'anyone' to repent, they are ignoring and not wrestling with, at least, the verses that warn of the ‘urgency’ to do so ‘now’.

I agree with Backwoodsman that UR (or not) has nothing to do with "urgency."

I think the following statements are enough t0 reach unbelievers (maybe with some added explanations)

1) Jesus is the Supreme Ruler of the the Universe, known and unknown.
2) He commands all persons to repent and submit to His rule and dominion NOW, not tomorrow {this is the urgency}.
3) Failure to do so is willful rebellion and will have dire consequences.

Ideally, #3 should never have to enter into the equation. If #s 1 and 2 do not convince a person of their need to repent and submit to Christ NOW, why would #3? Peter never mentioned hell in his Acts 2 sermon. His hearer's repentance was not based on "what's in it for me"(i get to avoid hell) but rather "what's in it for Him?" (my submission to His Lordship).

I question the repentance of any person where you need to get to #3 because if you get to #3 self-interest enters the picture and muddies the waters. Granted, I have greatly simplified #1 & 2 but if these are sufficiently and appropriately explained, and a person is not convinced to repent now, then there is a big problem.

TK

[TheEditor]

If so, then they would probably be delighted (as we would) to find God had brought all men into such a relationship with Himself. Who wouldn’t?

Maybe Jonah?

Regards, Brenden.

[steve]

Touché!

[jriccitelli]

Touché, touché to what? You think Jonah should have stayed home? You are suggesting Jonah's own feelings about the situation negate the urgency and implications of the message. I don’t know why Jonah didn’t have a bigger heart for people, but God sure as hell wanted him to preach the message that Judgment was coming and the people didn’t seem to misunderstand at all: “God may turn and relent and withdraw His burning anger so that we will not perish” They also didn’t have much time: forty days, they took this as urgent.
Steve is saying to them, the warnings are of temporal death; you will surely live after you die to have more opportunities to repent. Yet arguably they may ‘not’ get a second chance.

This is exegesis? How can you touché this if you examine the details from Jonah?
They repented, thank goodness, and thanks to the fear and urgency that their king/leader expressed, but if they refused they may never have had a second chance. ‘Nothing’ implies they may get a second opportunity after this one chance. I think this principle is well expressed here as it is repeatedly throughout scripture. There is no indication that any of the three party’s repented because (by what you are suggesting) they see the love of God, they all repent because they feared Gods wrath, and death itself, and appeal to His mercy to save them.

We earnestly pray, O LORD, do not let us perish on account of this man’s life and do not put innocent blood on us … then the men feared the LORD greatly, and they offered a sacrifice to the LORD and made vows (1:14-16) “Who knows, God may turn and relent and withdraw His burning anger so that we will not perish.” 10 When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity, which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it (3:9-10)
Jonah fears for his life also, then repents, then appeals to Gods mercy, if Jonah also did not repent he may still be dead.

It is not up to you to decide what God feels the ‘motivation’ should be to get one to sincerely repent. If God felt He had to display fire and lightning on the mountain, open holes in the ground, bring fire down from heaven, send an Angel of death, speak of Gehenna and Sodom, that is Gods decision and choice to use such examples. And our choice also. If you want to say we are wrong and needn’t use such examples, you may be the one not teaching the whole truth, and are willfully choosing to dismiss the warnings that God has made.

[jriccitelli]

1) Jesus is the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, known and unknown.
2) He commands all persons to repent and submit to His rule and dominion NOW, not tomorrow {this is the urgency}.
3) Failure to do so is willful rebellion and will have dire consequences.

So you agree with me, great. But you do know UR teaches everyone will have a chance to repent, our point is that the Bible says some will not get a chance to repent if they refuse. Do you see the difference?

Peter never mentioned hell in his Acts 2 sermon.

I posted a detailed synopsis to this mistaken assumption once before in another thread, without a response from Steve (to my knowledge). You are making the same mistake Steve does. Gehenna is not the point, ‘Judgment’ and death the consequence. Peter says in verse 23 "you nailed Him to a cross and put Him to death…" and in verse 37 it says "they were cut to the heart and asked what shall we do?" Peter said repent. Peter repeats the same message in 3 and in 3:11 Peter reminds them they "put to death the Prince of Life", Peter says they acted in ignorance but now they need to repent. Note that Peter refers to the ancient Prophet numerous times to back up his message, something Steve doesn’t feel is appropriate. Why did they want to arrest Peter, because of his message of love? No they knew it was an indictment on them all, and they were guilty.
So much for now, but I have to get going. Happy New Year

[steve]

Touché, touché to what? You think Jonah should have stayed home? You are suggesting Jonah's own feelings about the situation negate the urgency and implications of the message.

What in the world...???