Something I have Noticed

[steve]

God is soft
God is taken advantage of by ungrateful people
Justice is not accomplished
Unbelievers get away with a life of sin
Believers are not rewarded enough for the sacrifice of following Jesus

Now these specific words may not have been used but it is the impression i get.

I would be surprised if anyone got any other impression from Homer and JR's post on this subject.

Homer, you wrote:

Why would I attack them? Please define an attack. Do you mean personal attack, (thinly veiled in your question) which you practice, or attacking a position in a discussion?

I don't know why you would attack them, but then, I have never understood why you would attack people here. I asked the question (at the beginning of this thread) to discover whether if you were comparing apples with apples, or apples with oranges. You said they treat you better at the other forum, and I had to wonder whether you treat them better there, and whether that might explain an otherwise mysterious phenomenon. This does not mean that people here should be unkind to you, no matter how many times you misrepresent, mock or rudely ignore their statements, but there is at least provocation in one case, where there is not in the other.

Universalism provides an additional rationale for continuing in sin. Just as "once saved, always saved" can. And if that doctrine was advocated here I would oppose it.

I do not accept this characterization of the restorationist doctrine, as I have come to understand it. If I were to embrace it, I could not find anything in it that would encourage me to continue in sin. However, if you are correct about this, then (as I have earlier pointed out) the teaching that sinners may have the opportunity for a deathbed repentance (in the age since Pentecost**) does exactly the same thing. Yet, you do not oppose that doctrine.

When I mentioned this previously, you denied that the possibility of deathbed repentance has this same effect on unbelievers, but I have personally met sinners who told me that they were counting on a deathbed repentance. I have never met sinners who said they were counting on a post-mortem repentance. Have you?

My statement is demonstrably correct about the doctrine of deathbed repentance encouraging someone to continue in sin. Actual cases are known. I do not know whether your similar statement about universal reconciliation is true or not. If it is, though, you have not explained why you oppose the one doctrine and not the other. If you say that, though they both may have this effect on the unbeliever, yet you oppose the one and not the other because one of them is a true doctrine and the other a false doctrine, then:

a) you have thereby abandoned the argument of opposing it because of its danger of encouraging sinner to keep sinning; and

b) you are affirming one doctrine to be false "because scripture is silent" about it, while holding another (very similar) doctrine to be true, though scripture is also silent about it;

c) there would seem to be no reason for you to do this, except that you personally have probably always held to the one doctrine and have always opposed the other. However, this is not a good reason for applying such disparate standards in judging doctrines.

Being saved by faith, as you and I have been, will not be possible; their knowledge will be apodictic.

You have not demonstrated that this claim makes any sense.

You have previously said (as you do again here) that those who have seen Christ with their eyes will no longer be able to be saved by faith.

I and others have replied that the apostles (and more than 500 brethren) saw Christ after His resurrection, but still seemed capable of being saved by faith.

Your reply was that they were special.

However, your original assertion seemed to be that there is something essential to being "saved by faith" which, by definition, is rendered impossible in the case of one having seen Jesus (If this is not your argument, then your actual argument cannot be discerned in your post). If such is the case, by definition, then it is hard to see how there can be any exceptions. And if there could be, how do you know that those who saw Christ after His resurrection, and were nonetheless able to be saved "by faith" were that exceptional? Maybe they are typical of a much larger group. How can you rule this out? Maybe the possibility of being "saved by faith" does not hang on the question of whether none has seen Christ or not.

We should be focused on how we treat one another, which was the purpose of the OP.

It must be a blind spot for you, but you don't seem to realize that no one here more relentlessly, unkindly and unfairly, attacks others' viewpoints at this forum than do you and JR. Maybe some others do not see it this way, but I am pretty sure it would be widely agreed upon. It has certainly been my perception over a lengthy period of watching and participating in this discussion.

---------------

**As you surely must know, there are actually people who think that the salvation of the thief on the cross without water baptism would not be possible in the present dispensation, so this is not a red herring.

[thrombomodulin]

Homer,

Thank you for your reply.

Because to the mind of the sinner, he thinks he is thinking logically ... although he may not be, he acts accordingly.

Question #1: Since it remains possible that one can point out to a sinner, who is still alive, that his logic is potentially flawed, shall this particular point** be conceded to the univeralist?

I expect that a true change of heart, and hence true repentance, would not be suddenly attained by such man when he faces the Judgment. This man fails to escape hell, as he thought he would.

We can not say what a person will do when facing the risen Christ in His glory. John said he fell down as a dead man. Paul was turned completely around on the road to Damascus. The point I contend for is that it will be too late, as in the parable of the ten virgins.

Question #2: If the answer to Question #1 is "no", then I think you have to contend for more than it just being too late. Would you not have to contend for the idea that all men would respond as Paul had upon seeing the risen Christ?

Peter

**I'm not, in this post, addressing other facets of the debate. Rather, I'm just focusing on the statement "So explain to me what their risk consists of?" to which I replied on this thread, top of page #12, Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:12 pm.

[Homer]

Hi Peter,

You asked two questions, both are "above". Which did you mean?

Thanks, Homer

[thrombomodulin]

Homer,

I added labels to the questions in the above post, hopefully I'm communicating more clearly now. If you agree with a "yes" answer to "question #1", there is no need to answer "question #2" because you would agree the sinner is wrong to assume there is not a risk. There is a risk. It can be explained to him why his logic is wrong.

Peter

[Homer]

Hi Peter,

Question #1: Since it remains possible that one can point out to a sinner, who is still alive, that his logic is potentially flawed, shall this particular point** be conceded to the univeralist?

Certainly all sorts of arguments can be pointed out to the sinner, but would they be in a clear and logical manner? The universalist may explain that the sinner will be corrected (remember it is claimed all punishment is solely for the purpose of reforming the sinner) and the sinner may think "but if this is true I will change my mind about God immediately".

Most people are not very educated about this matter, particularly the "unchurched" who usually have some idea about heaven and hell post death and the idea that their good outweighs their bad so they are okey. Most people believe what they want to believe, and universalism has an undeniable appeal to the flesh, IMO. "A Man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still".

Question #2: If the answer to Question #1 is "no", then I think you have to contend for more than it just being too late. Would you not have to contend for the idea that all men would respond as Paul had upon seeing the risen Christ?

I think Paul still retained his free will and could have stubbornly refused to repent, although it was unlikely he would do so. But all discussion about people repenting in hell is speculative. Will they be in some sub-human form and be incapable of repentance? Will hearts be further hardened? Will they repent immediately en masse? All scenarios are simply "made-up".

I do think the story of the ten virgins clearly informs us that it will be too late. If the parable is not eschatological then its meaning escapes me.

[steve7150]

The universalist may explain that the sinner will be corrected (remember it is claimed all punishment is solely for the purpose of reforming the sinner)










This topic has been going on for years already and unfortunately there are still inaccurate descriptions made. While Paidion has said this, there is no uniform belief in the UR camp that punishment is only for correction. It certainly can be for the sake of justice.
As to the 10 Virgins parable i think it is offset by "The lost Sheep" and "The Lost Coin." Perhaps to much is being read into these parables?

[Homer]

Hi steve7150,

I do not mean to slight you - you are always a gentleman. Sometimes, as they say "the squeaky wheel gets the grease", and I have limited ability to reply.

This topic has been going on for years already and unfortunately there are still inaccurate descriptions made. While Paidion has said this, there is no uniform belief in the UR camp that punishment is only for correction.

Given that there is "no uniform belief" and universalism is a speculative system, if it can be called a "system", how can an accurate argument (which we are continually charged with), be made against its beliefs?

[steve7150]

Given that there is "no uniform belief" and universalism is a speculative system, if it can be called a "system", how can an accurate argument (which we are continually charged with), be made against its beliefs?








Homer,
CI is not uniform either. Some believe in instant annihilation, others in a period of hell then annihilation. So CI and UR both are unclear about the nature and content of hell in their systems. You seem to not have any problem making an accurate argument against it for several years now, or am i wrong?
Even in the ET view of hell there is disagreement over whether unbelievers are in fire forever or outer darkness, correct?

[steve]

Homer,

Given that there is "no uniform belief" and universalism is a speculative system, if it can be called a "system", how can an accurate argument (which we are continually charged with), be made against its beliefs?

I actually provided an answer to this querry back on page 3 of this thread, in a post entitled SOMETHING SOME HAVE NOT NOTICED. If you read it, you have kept particularly mum about it. If you did read it, however, you would have found the following:

The task of the opponents of universalism is thus two-fold:

1) To demonstrate that God does not purpose to save all, and thus is a God whose character is very different from that of Jesus; and/or

2) To find actual statements in scripture that undeniably declare that God's purpose will be thwarted eternally.

Perhaps this cannot be done. I have not been able to do so. It may be in the nature of the case that no information given to us is capable of being pressed against it. This does not mean that it is a true doctrine. It may merely be one incapable of disproof.

If that is the case, then it would seem that the attitude recommended here by most—namely, that it should not be impugned unless it can be shown to be false—is more responsible than the hostile attitude that you have taken against it.