Something I have Noticed

[thrombomodulin]

Homer,

You said:

It has been acknowledged by some of UR persuasion that post-mortem repentance might happen immediately at the judgment or immediately after. So explain to me what their risk consists of. Thanks

Is it not the risk that there could be a failure of the person to sincerely repent? Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you are suggesting that a human being might think to himself that he can live this life selfishly (e.g. the often cited Hugh Hefner) and defer any costs to following Christ beyond this life. The scenario is that such a man makes a plan, while he is still alive, to "repent" on judgement day. Such a person, it seems to me, would clearly be of the opinion that he values pleasing himself more than pleasing God. So he acts for himself alone whenever he can get away with it. His preference for choosing sin rather than righteous behavior wouldn't necessarily be any different on judgement day. I presume that when the Judgement comes, upon reflection, he would quite probably still hold the opinion that the sins he formerly committed had indeed been "worth it", although now under the coercion he is willing to refrain from sin in the future. If his values never change, then is not such a repentance insincere? Hence, although he planned to avoid Hell, he may well find that he has failed to accomplish his intentions, if indeed his unchanged values are definitive in terms of what counts for attaining forgiveness of sins. Would this suffice as an answer to the objection you raised?

[Homer]

Peter,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. The universalist insists that all will repent post-mortem and be saved. This the scriptures say nothing about. As theologian D. A. Carson commented, he can not find even a hint of genuine repentance, post mortem, in the scriptures. We have the story of Lazarus and the rich man, who appears to have repented in the same sense as Judas whose repentance, in the Greek, is of a kind that is more of a regret that he got caught, or for how things turned out.

Realizing the danger, some universalists in the past held their beliefs as an esoteric doctrine. What I was alluding to was how the unregenerate, by nature ruled by "self", would think regarding hearing of universalism. It is entirely logical, in his mind, to think he can continue on his merry path, and if there is a God, he will have limitless opportunity to escape hell post-mortem. As I have mentioned, we have a close relative who is an atheist, or at least an agnostic. We have tried to talk to him but it hasn't gone well at all.
His heart is hard. I hope for repentance before it is too late and I would not dare mention that his opportunity to repent will be there for him forever. It would be nice for universalism to be true, but we have to remain faithful to the scriptures. I see Jesus giving many threats and warnings to repent without Him giving any hope beyond this life for repentance.

I presume that when the Judgement comes, upon reflection, he would quite probably still hold the opinion that the sins he formerly committed had indeed been "worth it", although now under the coercion he is willing to refrain from sin in the future. If his values never change, then is not such a repentance insincere? Hence, although he planned to avoid Hell, he may well find that he has failed to accomplish his intentions, if indeed his unchanged values are definitive in terms of what counts for attaining forgiveness of sins. Would this suffice as an answer to the objection you raised?

Yes, you are correct. But the universalist says all will repent while, ironically, under the most severe coercion. This is Calvinism writ large. Makes no sense to me, nor is it biblical.

[thrombomodulin]

Homer,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. You've raised several points against universalism that have been discussed at length elsewhere on the forum. I really want to focus just on the one specific objection you had raised, and towards which my previous reply was directed.

It is entirely logical, in his mind, to think he can continue on his merry path, and if there is a God, he will have limitless opportunity to escape hell post-mortem.

The intent of my reply was to demonstrate that such a notion would not be logical, but rather illogical. As I see it, a universalist would be correct in replying that such a man who continues on his merry path has hardened his heart. I expect that a true change of heart, and hence true repentance, would not be suddenly attained by such man when he faces the Judgement. This man fails to escape hell, as he thought he would. In these circumstances, such logic would have turned out to only have been error. Would such a reply by a Universalist suffice to answer this specific criticism? Why or why not?

Thanks,
Peter

[steve]

Homer wrote:

As I have mentioned, we have a close relative who is an atheist, or at least an agnostic. We have tried to talk to him but it hasn't gone well at all.

My guess is that you have not been presenting universalism to him, and have presented the "scarier" view of hell that you think will be more effective. How's that working out? My contention is that no view of hell was ever presented to sinners in scripture, and no view of hell is likely to convert the selfish man into a truly God-loving man (though universalism seems more likely to do so than most, since it alone really presents the unconditional love and His determination to save all sinners). The goodness of God leads you to repentance. We love Him because He first loved us.

As theologian D. A. Carson commented, he can not find even a hint of genuine repentance, post mortem, in the scriptures.

This is so disingenuous. Does he also mention that the Bible tells us almost exactly zero information about the post-mortem experience of sinners? You have yourself said that, "Where the Bible is silent, we ought to be silent." Why then do you insist on the impossibility of post-mortem repentance, upon which the Bible appears to be silent?

Unlike you, I have remained as noncommittal on the matter as are the scriptures. I say, we can't rule it out, because the Bible does not rule it out. We simply can't pronounce upon the subject. The Bible is silent—so should we be. However, you do not shrink from dogmatically pronouncing upon the subject. You say, "The Bible is silent, so I, Homer, will speak: There is no post-mortem repentance." Why not maintain the position consistent with the silence of the scriptures?

One could as easily say, "The Bible does not give the slightest evidence that, after Pentecost, God will accept deathbed repentance." However, you would probably not insist on a negative conclusion from this silence, and I doubt that you would come out vociferously attacking the view that people can be saved on their deathbeds. What is the difference? Both the doctrine of post-mortem repentance and the doctrine of deathbed repentance carry equal risk of encouraging certain sinners to fatally postpone repentance.

JR even adds the possibility that some post-mortem repentance may be possible, but not for all. Talk about failing to maintain silence where scripture is silent! Since no one can know which people will and which will not be granted post-mortem opportunity, I suppose it retains the proper "scare" value—sort of like playing Russian Roulette. The bullet may or may not be in your chamber.

Are you unaware that this argument "The Bible says nothing about post-mortem repentance," has been brought up by you a dozen times, and answered every time? Why not either introduce arguments that advance the discussion, or else rest your case?

[steve7150]

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. The universalist insists that all will repent post-mortem and be saved. This the scriptures say nothing about. As theologian D. A. Carson commented, he can not find even a hint of genuine repentance, post mortem, in the scriptures.








As you know Homer despite the fact you endlessly repeat there is no evidence for postmortem salvation there are in fact dozens of verses that state or suggest or allude that "all" will be saved. So the deduction that since this doesn't happen in man's brief lifetime therefore the only other option left is postmortem salvation, does not take a great imagination.
The only actual point you reveal by not acknowledging any evidence for UR is simply the great disdain you have against this view.

[Homer]

Are you under the impression that the Unitarian type of universalism represents the same doctrine being discussed here?

No, just a rather natural progression, as history shows.

I hoped for an honest answer to an honest question. I remain disappointed. I said that I cannot imagine any other motivation for such resentment, other than jealousy. This is a true remark, on my part. If you have no such resentment, then it cannot apply to you. If the resentment that seems to have characterized some of your arguments is what it appears to be, then my question specifically invited you to provide another explanation of it. You have very plainly objected to the possibility of someone repenting and being forgiven upon their first sight of Jesus after death. Yet you rejoiced that Ted Bundy repented just before death. I don't see consistency here. Forgive me if I am missing something obvious.

I resent preaching of false doctrine. What is it about that, that you are unable to grasp? Your imagination is severely limited in this case, but pretty lively regarding speculative theories. Over and over again you attribute evil motives to those who disagree with you. Why?

My guess is that you have not been presenting universalism to him, and have presented the "scarier" view of hell that you think will be more effective. How's that working out?

Wrong again. Why would I warn an atheist about judgment and hell? He needs to believe God exists first, and that is where I focused. But resurrection and eternal judgment are the basics of the faith (Hebrews 6:1).

My contention is that no view of hell was ever presented to sinners in scripture,

What? Jesus never warned sinners, who believed there is a God, about judgment and hell? So you think none of His threats referred to hell, and that the Pharisees, for example, were not sinners?

and no view of hell is likely to convert the selfish man into a truly God-loving man (though universalism seems more likely to do so than most,

You should have been there to give Jesus And the apostles some instructions. In their ignorance, or incompetence, they completely neglected this teaching of yours.

since it alone really presents the unconditional love and His determination to save all sinners).

See previous answer.

As theologian D. A. Carson commented, he can not find even a hint of genuine repentance, post mortem, in the scriptures.

This is so disingenuous. Does he also mention that the Bible tells us almost exactly zero information about the post-mortem experience of sinners? You have yourself said that, "Where the Bible is silent, we ought to be silent."

So why do you advocate the idea?

Why then do you insist on the impossibility of post-mortem repentance, upon which the Bible appears to be silent?

I have no doubt many will repent as Judas did. And many will likely repent genuinely and be told, as were the five foolish virgins, "I do not know you".

Unlike you, I have remained as noncommittal on the matter as are the scriptures. I say, we can't rule it out, because the Bible does not rule it out. We simply can't pronounce upon the subject.

So why do you argue vociferously for it and attack any who question it?

The Bible is silent—so should we be.

We will see if you follow your own advice.

Both the doctrine of post-mortem repentance and the doctrine of deathbed repentance carry equal risk of encouraging certain sinners to fatally postpone repentance.

Not correct. Post-mortem repentance, as preached by the universalist, guarantees an unlimited opportunity to repent post-mortem. Counting on a deathbed opportunity is foolish. Death can come at any instance. And the Spirit may no longer contend with a man; his opportunity may be long gone while he still lives.

[steve]

Homer wrote:

I resent preaching of false doctrine.

So do I, if it is harmful, dishonest and deliberately deceptive. If it is none of these things, then I don't resent it, but merely disagree with it. The problem here is that you have not demonstrated that the doctrine you so clearly resent is false.

Why would I warn an atheist about judgment and hell? He needs to believe God exists first, and that is where I focused.

Are you prepared to say that the doctrine of hell that he believes to be taught by Christianity is anything other than the traditional one? Why isn't it working? It should be very scary.

I wrote:

My contention is that no view of hell was ever presented to sinners in scripture,

Which you denied:

What? Jesus never warned sinners, who believed there is a God, about judgment and hell? So you think none of His threats referred to hell, and that the Pharisees, for example, were not sinners?

Maybe you should look up things before being so bold. Do you know of any exception to my statement? Even if Gehenna is hell (which I dispute), Jesus never spoke on record about it to anyone except His disciples, and the Pharisees. There is no record of His mentioning hell in an evangelistic setting. In speaking to the Pharisees, He made one reference to Gehenna, but gave no indication of what view of hell (eternal torment, annihilation or restoration) He believed in. Why mock my statement, when it is demonstrably correct?

You should have been there to give Jesus And the apostles some instructions. In their ignorance, or incompetence, they completely neglected this teaching of yours.

What, exactly, is this "teaching of [mine]" to which you refer? As near as I can tell, Jesus (and His apostles) taught every view that I affirm. Can you point out an exception? In fact, God's universal love for sinners (a doctrine that I strongly affirm, and you dispute) is taken directly from the teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.

So why do you advocate the idea?

What idea am I advocating, to which you object? On the matter of post-mortem repentance, I advocate none. On that very matter, I wrote:

Unlike you, I have remained as noncommittal on the matter as are the scriptures. I say, we can't rule it out, because the Bible does not rule it out. We simply can't pronounce upon the subject.

To which you replied:

So why do you argue vociferously for it and attack any who question it?

Homer, I have never introduced the idea of post-mortem repentance into a discussion where it was not already the topic under consideration (and under attack). You will not find my advocacy of the doctrine, though I am eager to point out what is not said in scripture about it. You claim that the Bible speaks against the doctrine, and I am ready to hear any valid exegesis that can demonstrate this. I become weary of argumentation that leans on everything except biblical exegesis. You insist that the doctrine of post-mortem repentance is denied in scripture and is a false doctrine. I point out (as vociferously as seems necessary) that this claim is arbitrary and requires dependence upon nothing but emotion and eisegesis in the treating of relevant texts.

My position has been the same from the beginning. When a potentially sound, God-honoring doctrine is attacked by irrational arguments, nonsensical accusations, and abuse of scriptural testimony, I am ready to point these things out. If someone were to attack your views with similar ploys, I would speak out against those flawed arguments as well. I don't find one person here attacking annihilationism, so I have not had occasion to defend it against nonsensical criticism. However, you will find that I do precisely that in chapter 10 of my book.

[Homer]

Hi peter,

You wrote:

The intent of my reply was to demonstrate that such a notion would not be logical, but rather illogical. As I see it, a universalist would be correct in replying that such a man who continues on his merry path has hardened his heart.

Agreed, the man has a hard heart. But in his ignorance he can think that he will repent if turns out that he is wrong about there being a God. Universalism insists that all will repent.

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.

In these circumstances, such logic would have turned out to only have been error. Would such a reply by a Universalist suffice to answer this specific criticism? Why or why not?

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

Homer

[Homer]

Steve,

2. I asked you whether the people at the woodworking forum, who behave so much more kindly than we do, are subjected to your attacks, and do not reply. You did not answer, and only complained that this sounded like a wisecrack. Will you answer now? (Something I Have Noticed 12/25/13 10:28 AM)

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?

6. You and JR both seem to pretend that only your view allows incentives to seek God in this life. You have often been corrected on this point. I asked, Why do you keep doing this? This is a question for which I wished an answer. Please address it. (Something I Have Noticed 12/30/13 1:36 PM)

I do not believe I have ever made that argument. Living a good live is a benefit in and of itself. 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.

8-9. With reference to your objection that the sincerity of people’s repentance upon seeing Jesus would not be guaranteed, I wrote: “Are you suggesting that, if their repentance is not sincere, God will be fooled by it?

No, God is not fooled by anything.

And if their repentance is sincere, do you begrudge them the same salvation that you received in precisely the same manner?”

No, I do not begrudge them anything. Another of your plethora of false assumptions.

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

“Are you going to continue to raise this red herring repeatedly in the future?” (Hell 12/24/13 12:20 AM)

Your questions and personal attacks show you to be a master of the red herring. We should be focused on how we treat one another, which was the purpose of the OP. And you accuse JR and I of diverting threads!

[steve7150]

I do not believe I have ever made that argument. Living a good live is a benefit in and of itself. 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.




Since Homer rarely answers my posts this is for anyone interested.

One of the blind spots i see over and over is that folks who have disdain for UR continually disregard the following,

Almost all CU folks believe hell is real (Todd withstanding)and although we have no idea how long an unbeliever may be in hell , we know that whatever God's justice demands , it will be accomplished. Homer & JR and others i have seen repeatedly frame UR as if ,

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. It is true that UR does not provide specific answers to certain questions like,
Why would an ungrateful sinner repent if he did not during his lifetime.
Will he be coerced?
Will he simply accept Jesus as a ticket out of hell?
There must be people who will never accept Christ because they hate God!
Will God simply wear down these ungrateful people over as long as it takes?



Lot's of specifics are unclear within UR but can we leave that up to God?