Hell

[Homer]

And what about the people who love hell so much they try, and succeed, in making life on this earth into hell for themselves and most often others?

[Paidion]

And what about the people who love hell so much they try, and succeed, in making life on this earth into hell for themselves and most often others?

Many of those very people have repented (had a change of heart and mind) and been regenerated, and are now disciples of Christ. Let me suggest Nicky Cruz and an example:

Shortly after Cruz's ascension to leader of the gang, David Wilkerson was preaching in the neighborhood when Cruz encountered him. The preacher told Cruz that Jesus loved him and would never stop loving him. A shocked Cruz responded by slapping Wilkerson and threatening to kill him. Wilkerson looked Cruz in the face and said that he could cut Wilkerson into a thousand pieces, but every piece would still say Jesus loves him. Wilkerson said that no one can kill love, and that God is love. That afternoon the preacher showed up at the Mau-Mau's headquarters to repeat his message, and was slapped again by Cruz. Wilkerson just smiled, and then prayed for Nicky.

Two weeks later, Wilkerson had an evangelistic meeting in the neighborhood. When Cruz heard about it, he decided to go and teach the preacher a "lesson" and, with some of the members of his gang, he headed for the boxing arena where the rally was being held, on a bus sent specially by Wilkerson. According to Cruz, when he arrived at the arena, he felt guilty about the things that he had done and started to pray. Wilkerson preached, then asked the Mau-Maus to take up a collection. Nicky sprang to his feet and led a group of the gang through the crowd insisting on people giving money. Going backstage, he saw an exit, but was struck by the fact that someone had actually trusted him. He gave the money to Wilkerson on stage. Later, Wilkerson gave an altar call, and many gang members responded. Wilkerson prayed with Cruz, and Cruz asked God to forgive him.

The following day Cruz and some of the gang members who converted went to the police and turned in all of their bricks, handguns and knives, shocking the police officers in the station. They said that if they had seen the group approaching, they probably would have shot them down. Cruz began to study the Bible and went to Bible College. He became a preacher and returned to his old neighborhood, where he preached and persuaded some of the Mau-Maus to accept Jesus, including the gang's new leader, Israel Narvaez. (From Wikpedia—Nicky Cruz.)

If such people can have a change of heart and mind in this life, who is to say they cannot do so in the next?

By the way, I attended an event where Nicky Cruz spoke. Hundreds of people went forward to commit their lives to Christ. Every spare room and hallway were filled with counsellors praying with those who had just submitted to Christ.

[jriccitelli]

I too listened to Nicky Cruz when he came to SanJo, while I attended Victory Outreach in San Jose. I visited Times Square Church in NY after meeting some members at a corner in South Bronx one night (I'm crazy), and I read Run baby run and David’s book, but this does not prove that everyone would turn to God given the chance. (Note Nicky and David both believed and taught of a ‘final’ Judgment and hell)
Can I be comfortable in thinking that people can say they believe in Jesus, and yet ‘not’ believe what God had said in His word?
God does not sound pleased or comfortable with this, as He has demanded that we believe His word ('all' of it), and He expresses his displeasure with the unbelieving with graphic detail.

If such people can have a change of heart and mind in this life, who is to say they cannot do so in the next?

For one, ‘who’ says they will? Who says there is a next life?
Not God, UR is saying this. It is not as much of cannot, but 'will' not. Scripture describes man as terribly unrepentant.
(Scripture does not say; 'they can repent in the next life')
Two, the next life is not life, scripture never says they are ‘alive’. They exist as the raised dead. A unsettling experience of not having a body and only a spirit, before God.
Three; Scripture describes man in extensive detail as stubborn, stiffnecked, hardened, and in love with their sin more than truth. People are depicted over and over rejecting clear miracles and Jesus standing right in front of them, even to crucify him. Revelation even tells us many still refuse to repent.
Four; God creates this whole world, then spends over 800 pages detailing the urgency to repent in this life on 'this' world, and then dies on a cross in 'this' world, I do not see any plans to repeat this scenario post-mortem. Scripture does not speak of a post-mortem repentance scenario.
(Jonah, 1Peter 3:19, 4:6 being as close as you get, vague, and still repentance is not confirmed)
5: God reminds man repeatedly that his life is but a vapor, like unto animals, grass and such.
6: Only God is ‘immortal’.
7: This life is a ‘test’.
8: Death is the ‘only’ thing promised to the unbelieving and unrepentant.
9: Scriptures emphasis is that Salvation is to be through ‘Faith and believing’.
10: Prior to Jesus, Eternal life is not promised to anyone, and strictly to the ‘believer’ from Jesus’ preaching onward.
11: Test, Faith and Belief are principles that are hard to imagine as being applicable to a post-mortem experience unless God continued to keep himself hidden. It just starts sounding like the multiple universes of pseudoscience, Hinduism and Mormonism not scripture.
12: There is a ‘final’ Judgment, a Great Day of Judgment. It is described as final.
13: The doors are shut, the wedding happens, there is a sense of finality to this scenario.
14: There is a clear depiction of people in the LOF, along with the Devil, and no indication of people walking out.
15: Fire speaks of final annihilation in contexts describing Judgment; it burns and consumes.
16: Scripture speaks of unforgivable sins, and mentions some whom for forgiveness is impossible.
17: God Himself ‘limited’ mans years on earth, ‘because’ men ‘continue’ in sin, therefore it makes no sense to extend this life all over for every single person to have more time.

I can believe God could reveal himself to everyone given time enough time, but that does not mean they ‘want’ to believe or ‘will’ to do so. Man is portrayed as stubborn, stiff-necked and a lover of rebellion. I do believe there is a group that has already been given enough time and will not believe, another group that may hear more and believe, and a group that already believes. UR is saying the first group cannot exist.

I am not going off what ‘I think’ God may be ‘hinting’ of, rather I am going off what God has clearly and repeatedly said, and believing seems to be what God wants a believer to do (rather than hypothesizing). You have verses that speak of destruction and finality, a LOF, people who won’t repent, numerous violent deaths to Gods enemies ‘by God Himself’, warnings of post-mortem punishment, warning to not put off your choice or decision, a clear direct command to Adam, and a clear direct judgment of sin as being 'death' for not 'believing' His Word. I would choose to believe the foregoing over what ‘I’ reason God ‘should’ do for ‘all’ men.

[jriccitelli]

OK i know your position on people who had a fair chance but what about my example? What do you think JR?

I agree it is plausible that those who really never had a good chance may get a chance to respond. I can tell people that after death there ‘could’ be a first chance to hear and ‘possibly’ a second chance to ‘respond’ to the Gospel, and repent. But note the group you noted isn't those who reject, or worse. Many times, more than below, I have stated that ‘second chance’ is possible though, yet with considerations;

This group of people I am sympathetic towards are those who would be defined as people who;
A. May have embraced the Gospel but never had the chance. And also;
B. Those who may have accepted given better opportunities, or more time to accept the Gospel.
After my father died I have understood the ‘hope’ that many have, the ‘hope’ that a person may find grace with God even if they never actually confessed their faith or belief in the atonement. I have always kept this hope under a cover, for I know the Bible does not ‘promote’ much hope for the sinner without an atonement made for their sin. And it has been given as a ‘command’ to accept and believe in His sacrifice, that Christ died so that all who would 'Believe' would have forgiveness of sins through 'Faith'. So my ‘hope’ for my Dad is based on two biblical truths, 1. God is Good, and 2. God can do whatever He wants. But these are aspects of Gods character, but not the sum total of His character. God must be Just in the judgment of sin, and True to His own Words of ‘warning’ and ‘commands to repent’ (Compassion when looking backward in time, Oct. 23, 2011)

So I do hope to see my fathers face again, it is my number one hope and desire of heaven (I do not know everyone else’s aspirations). My father would have to repent, believe and accept, I accept that he could still reject God, and I could live with that. The point is that there would be no point in having told my father ‘you may have a second opportunity to repent in heaven’ If I made a statement like that, and my father put ‘hope’ in it, then I would not be able to live with it, because it may not be true, and now I was at fault also for going beyond what scripture teaches, having their blood on my hands.
I am not opposed to ‘some’ getting a fair chance, but I am opposed to thinking that ‘all’ unbelievers have not had fair warning, and enough evidence for God to test their heart and make a decision. It seems to me that God thinks this was a Good plan, and the Gospel good enough news. (Quotes from the ‘UR evokes many emotions’ thread)

[Paidion]

...and I read Run baby run and David’s book, but this does not prove that everyone would turn to God given the chance.

Attacking a STRAWMAN and ignoring my question. I didn't remotely suggest that these books "prove that everyone would turn to God given the chance."

I asked the following question:

If such people [as Nicky Cruz] can have a change of heart and mind in this life, who is to say that [such people] cannot do so in the next?

[jriccitelli]

Nicky’s conversion does not mean 'everyone' would repent, Paidion, UR’s position is that 'everyone' will repent eventually, given enough time. I do not see where you are imagining a straw man. Your example is suggesting that if 'every' person (or gang member) was given a chance in hell or post-mortem somewhere to repent they 'all' would (since we are talking about UR, aren’t we?).

You asked ‘who’, and I told you who.
I guess you are missing the what I have already said many times previously in these debates: I believe there could be a second chance to repent post-mortem (I have noted this numerous times) but this is not where UR stops, they demand ‘every’ single person will repent. I posed a whole paragraph in response to your question, what about the 16 points I made?

... the next ‘life’ is not life; scripture never says they are ‘alive’.

[Homer]

If such people [as Nicky Cruz] can have a change of heart and mind in this life, who is to say that [such people] cannot do so in the next?

Since the universalist is attacking the orthodox position, the burden of proof should rest on them, as Steve once contended. So where do we find that they will be able or allowed to, other than speculation?

[steve]

Since the universalist is attacking the orthodox position...

This is open to question. There was no "orthodox position" on hell before the fifth century. One might as well say that the person who does not believe in prayers to Mary is attacking the "orthodox position."

It would seem strange for the Christian Church to declare one view as "orthodox" upon a topic about which the scriptures are so ambiguous. Homer, you yourself reject (or at least are willing to consider rejecting) the "traditional" (or "orthodox") view of hell in favor of annihilationism. Is this a case of the pot decrying the blackness of the kettle?

It would seem to me that the doctrines of the universal love of God for His creatures, and the doctrine of God's sovereign and limitless power to save, would better qualify as "orthodox" doctrines—if we were to allow scripture to decide what we will call orthodox.

[Paidion]

Nicky’s conversion does not mean 'everyone' would repent, Paidion, UR’s position is that 'everyone' will repent eventually, given enough time. I do not see where you are imagining a straw man.

You have just attacked Mr. Strawman again, JR! Maybe you need a course in comprehension. Once again, I asked this question:

If such people [as Nicky Cruz] can have a change of heart and mind in this life, who is to say that [such people] cannot do so in the next?

You presume that by asking such a question, I am implying that everyone will repent eventually. Although I believe that everyone will, this is NOT the subject of the question. I am NOT literally trying to find out who is to say that such people cannot repent in the next life. There are plenty who say it—mostly infernalists.

Let me reword it:

If such people [as Nicky Cruz] can have a change of heart and mind in this life, then surely such people could have a change of heart and mind in the next. So what reason is to assume that death is a cut-off point after which repentance is either impossible or ineffective for such people?

You yourself affirm that repentance in the after-life is possible:

I agree it is plausible that those who really never had a good chance may get a chance to respond. I can tell people that after death there ‘could’ be a first chance to hear and ‘possibly’ a second chance to ‘respond’ to the Gospel, and repent.

So I don't see why you are arguing about my question. It's not about universalism. It's about post-mortem repentance for some people who might be considered as hopeless, and you state that this is possible—or are you saying it's possible for only "good" people who never had the opportunity?

All I'm saying is that people such as Nicky Cruz whom some feel are hopelessly lost for eternity because of their wicked and rebellious lives, are actually salvable, since some of them repent even in this life. So why not in the next life? If a car had run over Nicky and killed him before he repented, would he have a chance to repent in the next? Or would he have been one of those whom you consider as continuing rebels and therefore hopelessly lost for eternity?

[mattrose]

Personally, I am not aware of any good reason for rejecting the idea of a post-mortem opportunity for all of the wicked. I am also not convinced by any insistence that all such wicked people would take advantage of said opportunity. Obviously I hope the opportunity is present and I hope all would respond to such grace. I think God hopes the same thing.