Does God love people in hell?

[steve]

Hi Tigerpaw,

You wrote:

I know that it isn't referring to the physical globe, but it is referring to our present life--us humans living now before judgment. Hell is beyond the "point of no return" so to speak,

Both of these sentences state premises that need to be separately defended. Is there a basis for interpreting the word "world" in the manner you suggest? Is there scripture describing hell as the point of no return? Perhaps there is, but both of these ideas are regarded as contested points. If evidence can be presented to back them up, your position would be much strengthened.

[jriccitelli]

This poster is brand new here and you challenge him on this? Why not support the CI position for once? If you are fair, balanced and undecided why not put the shoe on the other foot? Both these points are overwhelmingly common Christian beliefs, and your asking him to back them up??
What if he said ‘I believe Christ rose from the dead, or I believe the Bible is Gods word? Aren’t these contested beliefs also? Why not challenge him on that also when he mentions it?

"He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. 34 "Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the Kosmos"

[jriccitelli]

‘As a Bible student, I think it only responsible to interpret each passage according to its intent, gleaned from context’

As a bible student and a believer, it is important to ‘believe’ Gods Word. For one: Gods Word says over and over that the sinner will die, perish, be destroyed, drowned in the sea, thrown in the Lake of fire, be cutoff, blotted out, and forgotten about, do you believe this? I think it’s important to interpret God’s Intent 'from these’ scriptures, glean the meaning of these warnings, and know that every word of God is true, eternal, profitable for teaching.

‘I think it right to let the passage speak for itself, and not to add too many speculations about things that it does not state or imply’

The birthright had to do with the Fathers inheritance, Esau despised the birthright, he chased after other things, he could have had it but it didn’t mean enough to him. That is a lesson. Choose what is important; don’t despise Gods blessings and your inheritance. That is what I said I thought of the lesson. The passage seems to clearly be in the context of Gods promise to Abraham, his ‘future’ children of promise, Israel, the children of faith, the inheritance of Abraham. These have a lot of ties with the whole story of redemption, and are in fact foundational, and the event of Esau’s despising his birthright for a bowl of soup is easily seen as a lesson in not despising 'our own opportunity to birthright' as a son of Abraham.

‘I assume that passages which speak of temporal things are speaking about temporal things’

For one thing I would not assume that death is temporal, because it is only those who ‘believe’ that inherit eternal ‘life’. Aren’t you assuming that hell and the LOF are temporal, since temporal is never linked to the passages on hell or the LOF? Is there scripture describing hell as a point of return? I think it is an assumption to think that Gods Judgments are temporal.
I presume that Gods 'lessons' are eternal, the Scriptures explain God and define His character, His ways, His Law, His Holiness, His Oneness, His Righteous Judgments, and His tender mercies, all these lessons and things are Eternal. Sin must be atoned for, it is by faith, and there is a time limit, warnings and a last judgment clearly outlined throughout scripture from beginning to end. There is nothing in scripture that implies that all these truths are temporal.

[steve]

JR,

You wrote:

This poster is brand new here and you challenge him on this?

Hmmm. Are you saying that people who enter into discussion here should not be advised about how to strengthen their case? I was not aware that we had people here that we needed to coddle, and simply accept their arguments without challenge. I am not raising a gratuitous challenge to Tigerpaw. He is obviously interested in participating in the discussion. People who do this are usually trying to get their point across as effectively as possible. It is a favor done to such a person to notify him of which of his arguments need to be improved or abandoned.

If we wish to uphold our position at all costs (a glaring evidence of pride, not honesty), then we will object to being challenged. On the other hand, if we are interested in finding the truth, then we will rejoice to be challenged—just in case our present views are not well-founded and could stand improvement. The fact that you think such challenges to be unkind means that you yourself do not appreciate such reasonable cross-examination, raising serious questions in my mind as to whether you love truth, or have an uncorrectable opinion that you wish to defend at all costs. Your continual repetition (even in your most recent post) of the same shopworn and refuted arguments, as if you have never read the answers given previously, also raises this same question. I'm just being honest with you, Bro.

Why not support the CI position for once? If you are fair, balanced and undecided why not put the shoe on the other foot?

When was the CI view attacked at this forum? No sense in defending something that is not under attack. If someone brought up absurd arguments here against CI, I would gladly defend it against such things—if someone else did not get around to it ahead of me, which I am sure would happen.

If you read my book, you know that I gave a whole chapter to the defense of CI. There are ridiculous arguments raised against CI, and I answered them all. I did the same for all the views.

Both these points are overwhelmingly common Christian beliefs, and your asking him to back them up??

Are they? I know the second point is commonly held. I had never encountered the first point as a definition of Kosmos. I would think such an unusual definition would require defense before being granted the status of validity.

If you think that a view's being "commonly held" exempts it from challenges at this forum, I am not sure if you have been paying attention. Maybe you think you are somewhere else?

What if he said ‘I believe Christ rose from the dead, or I believe the Bible is Gods word? Aren’t these contested beliefs also? Why not challenge him on that also when he mentions it?

You think this to be parallel? I challenge a couple of points in defense of which no scripture can be produced, and you think this is the same thing as challenging a point that is affirmed everywhere in direct scriptural statements? Is this your idea of sound rhetoric, or are you just being worn down mentally by the long interaction?

"He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. 34 "Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the Kosmos"

My impression is that you intended to make a point about the meaning of Kosmos with this citation—but I am missing your point. What are you suggesting here?

[jriccitelli]

It is a favor done to such a person to notify him of which of his arguments need to be improved or abandoned...

I have been doing you this favor all along.

If we wish to uphold our position at all costs (a glaring evidence of pride, not honesty), then we will object to being challenged...

Would it be fair to presume that you have no pride? Or what do you mean by this, is it someone other than me?

On the other hand, if we are interested in finding the truth, then we will rejoice to be challenged...

Your kidding, I am afraid of a challenge? Or are you saying I'm not interested in truth, or are you speaking hypothetically?

just in case our present views are not well-founded and could stand improvement...

I think Gods Word is well founded, and so are His views.

The fact that you think such challenges to be unkind means that you yourself do not appreciate such reasonable cross-examination, raising serious questions in my mind as to whether you love truth...

Serious questions as to whether I love the truth. I do not appreciate such reasonable cross-examination, really? (I suppose this was addressed to me). I did not say it was unkind, rude, or anything, I was reminded of the point of we said before: you always put down the CI and defend the UR arguments. You strengthened our case again. By challenging the posters statement with “Is there scripture describing hell as the point of no return?” this is a direct challenge to the Conditionalists belief, and you know it. Who attacks the CI view on this forum? You do.

Your continual repetition (even in your most recent post) of the same shopworn and refuted arguments…

Funny I could perceive your old shopworn responses to Tiger, after baiting him, you would give him the same old arguments, like in your book, hell is a place outside Jerusalem, it already happened, go ahead present you argument, why is hell 'not' the point of no return?

… as if you have never read the answers given previously, also raises this same question...

It took me 6 months to get you to respond to my point about ‘death’, you glazed over it, and then you instead resort to this same retort; you try and belittle me and dodge my point; My point ‘that death’ is not temporal, it is a judgment, and ‘it is not removed by dying’. I have dozens of other points to make concerning URs arguments, but it took over a year to get you to acknowledge the one point because of the ad hominem, and I have never even gotten to the others because the character and personal attacks are tiring (even this I have gone over before) it is certainly not the bible discussion or challenge that is tiring.

I'm just being honest with you, Bro.

Bro? You needn’t address me like an old biker, those days are over, brother would be fine.

[TheEditor]

I wanted to post a pic of a hissing cat, but couldn't figure out how to do it. Things getting hot in here.

"World" is how the Greek "kosmos" is translated in all of its occurrences in the Greek Scriptures with the exception of 1 Peter 3:3, where it is rendered “adornment.”

The King James Version used “world” to render not only kosmos but also three other Greek words in some of its renderings of them (ge; aion; oikoumene) and five different Hebrew words (chedhel; erets; ohlam; cheledh; tevel). This could cause confusion and newer translations have been a bit more clear by using different terms.

Erets, the Hebrew word and the Greek 'ge' which English words geology and geography come from mean ground, earth, land, etc. though a few times are used as a figure of speach. Aion and ohlam (Hebrew) refer to time periods. Aion can also mean "order" or "system".

The basic meaning of the Greek kosmos is arrangement or order. Since beauty can be tied in with "arrangement" 1 Peter 3:3 uses "kosmos" which is rendered "adornment" in most translations, therefore the English word "cosmetic."

Examples:

The world as alienated from God. (2Pe 2:5; 3:6)
The "things of the world" (Gal. 4:1-3)
All mankind (John 1:29; Rom. 3:19; 5:12, 13)

For what it's worth.

Regards, Brenden.

[jriccitelli]

Thanks Brenden, its nice to just argue the bible itself. I agree the term comes from what the Greeks saw as the adornment of the stars above the earth, and which came to include all that was below them also. Which reminds me of a verse Steve asked about:

My impression is that you intended to make a point about the meaning of Kosmos with this citation—but I am missing your point. What are you suggesting here?

I was referring back to your post on page 1 concerning Ezekiel 33, and my answer on pg.2 where I wrote: “You claim to be neutral, but you deny the opinions of those who see the separation of sheep and goat, wheat and tare, those on the right and those on the left, and you argue we have no reason to accept this as true”. Then you wrote; Is there scripture describing hell as the point of no return? So I thought of and posted the verse;
"He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. 34 "Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the Kosmos"
The verse relates to my point about Ezekiel 33, at the same time the verse is also evidence to back up Tigers statement (although I am sure he can answer for himself). It suggests a judgment, a division / it is decidedly final, as no indication could be gleaned from this that the goats inherit this at some later time / it is decidedly the great judgment spoken of from the beginning, and no-other judgment is spoken of post this one / it certainly suggests a point of no return / it does suggest the kingdom we will inherit promised long ago / and I noticed the word kosmos included in the verse, just to tie it all together.
‘Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable’ (1Cor. 15:50) The promise and inheritance then was 'not' attained by Abraham or Jacob, it must then be post-mortem. Is not the inheritance of promise, the promise to Abraham and his seed, the promise to Jacob, to Israel, synonymous with the promise of eternal life, the Kingdom of God and the future?

[steve]

I must say, JR, I can't make sense of anything in your last post to me. I think this forum would be greatly enhanced by the absence of our interactions. Therefore, I can either ban you, or just stop responding to you. I will attempt the latter first. Proverbs 20:3

[Homer]

Hi Steve,

You wrote:

On the other hand, if we are interested in finding the truth, then we will rejoice to be challenged—just in case our present views are not well-founded and could stand improvement.

This is certainly a commendable attitude, one we should all have. Perhaps I might be of some help in your rejoicing (and you in mine)!

As a Bible student, I think it only responsible to interpret each passage according to its intent, gleaned from context. I think it right to let the passage speak for itself, and not to add too many speculations about things that it does not state or imply. I assume that passages which speak of temporal things are speaking about temporal things. Passages that speak of eternal things, likewise, are speaking about eternal things. I can think of no hermeneutical policy more commendable than this, in seeking to understand scripture.

I have long believed that many historical facts related to us in the scriptures are types of spiritual things. Paul indicated as much:

Galatians 4:21-31 (NASB)

21. Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law? 22. For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. 23. But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. 24. This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. 25. Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26. But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. 27. For it is written,

“Rejoice, barren woman who does not bear;
Break forth and shout, you who are not in labor;
For more numerous are the children of the desolate
Than of the one who has a husband.”

28. And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29. But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. 30. But what does the Scripture say?

“Cast out the bondwoman and her son,
For the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.”

31. So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.

I understand v. 30 (underlined) to be a warning about (not unlike Esau) missing out on an eternal inheritance. And I find it interesting that in God's sovereign control, he caused a real historical situation to be an allegorical lesson applicable to us.

And also Paul wrote:

1 Corinthians 10:1-12 (NASB)
1. For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; 2. and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3. and all ate the same spiritual food; 4. and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. 5. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness.

6. Now these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not crave evil things as they also craved. 7. Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and stood up to play.” 8. Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day. 9. Nor let us try the Lord, as some of them [c]did, and were destroyed by the serpents. 10. Nor grumble, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer. 11. Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. 12. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.


Again we have a historical (temporal) event presented as a warning with eternal consequences in mind. And this is the point I contend for in Hebrews 12. I am not saying that Esau's eternal destiny is in mind there, but the irrevocable consequence of his action. He threw away something he could never get back. Likewise without holiness, "no one will see the Lord". Something can be irrevocably lost. If this is true, there must be at some point a line that is crossed, beyond which there is no opportunity to be saved. UR turns the warning on its head; UR teaches that everyone will see the Lord. If so, why the warning?

Hebrews is not only about apostasy in the sense of rejecting Christ and turning back to Judaism, but also exhortations about "discerning good and evil", "love and good deeds", "continuous willful sin", and being immoral.

This is my point in this thread. God does not change when a man dies. If He loves a man in that man's lifetime, He also loves him after death.

So if God hated the wicked during this life, would it be reasonable to believe that would not change post-mortem?

Psalm 5:4-5 (NASB)

4. For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness;
No evil dwells with You.
5. The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes;
You hate all who do iniquity.

Psalm 11:5 (NASB)

The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked,
And the one who loves violence His soul hates.

Hosea 9:15 (NASB)

15. All their evil is at Gilgal;
Indeed, I came to hate them there!
Because of the wickedness of their deeds
I will drive them out of My house!
I will love them no more;
All their princes are rebels.


Are there any scriptures you know of that affirm that God loves the wicked post-mortem (those condemned to hell)?

[dizerner]

[user account removed]