Does God love people in hell?

[Homer]

If God loved these people and would have welcomed their repentance before death, but does not love and wish their repentance after they have died, then is it something in God that has changed at the death of the sinner, or is it something in the sinner that changes at death? Surely, it cannot be a change in God, since God would then be undergoing character change thousands of times a day, as individual sinners succumbed.

If it is something in the sinner that causes God to stop loving him when he dies, then what has transpired in the sinner to create this divine antipathy between the moment before and the moment after death? What, that is, other than death itself?

If it is death itself that changes a sinner from an object of God's love to an object of God's hatred (or even God's apathy), then there must be some grievous fault imputed the sinner for having died. The sinner's succumbing to death, then, must be a very great sin! Greater, in fact, than the sum total of all the sinner's lifetime sins, since those sins were not able to extinguish God's love for the sinner. The involuntary act of dying, then, is treated as an offense greater than all voluntary sins of a lifetime, in that it, alone, can extinguish the love of God for the sinner.

The above would seem to be inescapable logic, if God does not love those in hell.

All this assumes that God has not fixed a time beyond which repentance will not be acceptable and turns the urgent message and warnings, repeatedly given by our Lord and His Apostles, on their head: repent now before it is too late. The universalist message, "its never too late", contradicts all these warnings and makes them meaningless. "Never mind, foolish virgins, you will get in to the party, just a bit of a detour". "You will be OK Esau, there will be another inheritance for you". "Never mind, rich man, your brothers will be taken care of in the end, and so will you, why I can see your repentance already".

[steve]

All this assumes that God has not fixed a time beyond which repentance will not be acceptable and turns the urgent message and warnings, repeatedly given by our Lord and His Apostles, on their head: repent now before it is too late.

The warnings are appropriate...but "too late" for what? I don't know which passages you have in mind that use the phrase "before it is too late," but when we find them, we should see whether they indicate what the danger was that was so immanent, requiring immediate repentance.

The universalist message, "its never too late", contradicts all these warnings and makes them meaningless. "Never mind, foolish virgins, you will get in to the party, just a bit of a detour". "You will be OK Esau, there will be another inheritance for you". "Never mind, rich man, your brothers will be taken care of in the end, and so will you, why I can see your repentance already".

Your challenges raise the following questions:

Do all or most universalists insist that the foolish virgins get to eventually join the same party as the wise virgins enjoy?

Does Isaac deny that there is also a generous inheritance for Esau, different from Jacob's (neither was promised anything post-mortem anyway)?

Are you saying universalists deny that the rich man's brothers would end up in hades like himself? What are you getting at here?

Do you know what universalists teach? You often say you do, but then you argue against them with points irrelevant to their beliefs, raising questions about your grasp of their assertions.

[Jepne]

“Plus, as a conditionalist, I believe that all who go to hell eventually cease to exist, so there will no one to love except those in heaven.”
Very tidy, Mr. Tigerpaw!

Dizerner: ''Do you really think anyone thinks it is a sin to die? ''
To hear some talk, it is a sin to be sick...just take it a step further.

Matt Rose: “...that doesn't mean that God doesn't love those outside of Christ in many important ways! How would it even be possible for a God who IS LOVE to relate to people without love?”
Absolutely.

Steve, you wrapped it all up so well. How excellent! Thank you.

[Homer]

Hi Steve,

Does Jacob deny that there is also a generous inheritance for Esau, different from Jacob's (neither was promised anything post-mortem anyway)?

I think the writer of Hebrews is quite clear about "too late" regarding Jacob and Esau, and how it applies to those who would read what he wrote. Jacob would not change his Mind and neither will God. If that is not the point the writer is making I can not imagine what it might be:

Hebrews 12:14-17

14. Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord. 15. See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many be defiled; 16. that there be no immoral or godless person like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal. 17. For you know that even afterwards, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears.

[Paidion]

...for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears.

How do you understand this, Homer? That Esau was unable to repent?

To repent is to have a change of heart and mind. I think in this case it means that Esau could not get his father to change his mind, and give him the blessing, for he had already given it to Jacob. So instead, Isaac had to give a lesser blessing to Esau.

[Jepne]

''.... even afterwards, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears.''

This seems to say that God put Jacob up to lying because Esau had traded his birthright - that doesn't sound like God.

God promises to be near those who are contrite of heart. Perhaps Esau's tears were not the tears of contrition.

Gen 27:36 Esau said, “Is he not rightly named Jacob? For he has cheated me these two times. He took away my birthright, and behold, now he has taken away my blessing.”

But Esau is not truthful because he in fact traded his birthright, though it was Jacob's idea.

How can we know what will happen in the resurrection?

[steve]

Jacob would not change his Mind and neither will God. If that is not the point the writer is making I can not imagine what it might be...

Yes, it was "too late" for Esau to get the patriarchal blessing, and fornicators are squandering their opportunity to gain such blessings as await faithful saints in this life and the next. There is a parallel there. However, Esau's forfeited blessings are not said to have had any eternal ramifications beyond this life, so I am not sure why this would be a lesson about the afterlife. We never read of Isaac ceasing to love Esau, so how does this become an argument against God loving those who miss their opportunities to serve Him in this life?

[jriccitelli]

… so I am not sure why this would be a lesson about the afterlife. (Steve, above)

Why couldn’t it be? The writer of Hebrews seems to think it means something;
“By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau, even regarding things to come" (Heb.11:20, “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen…” verse 11:1. It seems the NT writers used and thought quite alot of what was written previously to speak of things and the world to come. That is what most teaching is, learning from the past)

It may also be a lesson defining God’s love. Esau hated Jacob, maybe God knew his heart before he was born? God said He did not love Esau and Jacob he loved. It must mean ‘something’, just as the repentance text must allude to something (!?). There is a lot going on in the Chapter, but what does it teach Steve?

[jriccitelli]

Is there any scriptural evidence that God stopped loving unregenerate people just because they died? (Paidion)

I would think God putting people to death would be evidence in itself. And then you have God throwing people into a lake of fire. A biblical definition of ‘love’ needs to be put into the context of scripture. ‘Love’ has its limits when it comes to freewill and complex beings. You have to allow that God hates sin, God does not sin, yet man does sin, and man loves to sin, so there is a more complex issue here than just ‘God must love man’ so much so that God ‘must’ live with man forever, despite mans freewill.
You believe all death is remedial, well eternal death sounds very remedial, if you hate sin.
Would you believe the scripture evidence, if Moses wrote it?

He will love the people in heaven.... but heaven is not the world (in a physical sense) either’ (Paidion)

God is creating a New Heaven and Earth on which we will dwell. And although I believe the final Judgment may in this present world, maybe even on earth, the dead and sinners are not on the New Earth. So Tiger is correct.

‘… but that doesn't mean that God doesn't love those outside of Christ in many important ways! (Matt)

In many ways yes, but not in 'every' way:
Take a scroll and write on it all the words which I have spoken to you concerning Israel and concerning Judah, and concerning all the nations, from the day I first spoke to you, from the days of Josiah, even to this day. 3 "Perhaps the house of Judah will hear all the calamity which I plan to bring on them, in order that every man will turn from his evil way; then I will forgive their iniquity and their sin” (Jeremiah 36)
It seems in 'many ways' man is evil, that is our problem not Gods. Perhaps man will turn from his evil ways, after hearing about the coming judgment. It doesn’t seem many ‘want’ to repent (I know you agree they may not 'want' to repent). The scroll and all the words warn us, this is a test, a test has a purpose and a time limit. I believe God knows what He is doing, this all happened for a reason and the reason is ‘Choose’

‘… is it something in God that has changed at the death of the sinner, or is it something in the sinner that changes at death? (Steve)

Death does imply that God has put a limit on life for sinners. After all, it was God who imposed the death sentence. What are you saying about death, and God fixing a length to our life? Are you saying its love that they die? If that is the case then you may agree with Conditionalists. Love allows them to die, and justice allows God to pay sin its reward. They will not change and God will not change. Obviously God can love and punish, and God will punish sin, but God has said the sinner will die. Our death does not change Gods command, His Judgments, or His Ways. And death may not change 'our' will either. We are saying love does not mean eternal patience, scripture does not speak of Gods patience as forever.

Why force ‘love’ to mean God must wait for every every sinner to change, so they may want to live for eternity with Him and others in Holiness and love, scripture does indicate many do not 'want' to, no matter how long God waits. Why can you not argue the same for our position if so many hold it true,the bible makes a good case for this, and you argue for your own neutrality?

This is your personal definition of Ezek.33:11, you know the bible teaches both if you so choose. The bible does state over and over the wicked will be destroyed, and the righteous will live. 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, as all this should be swept away, and removed by the UR ‘idea’ that God will not allow any sinner to be put to a final death, ever.

“… none of his righteous deeds will be remembered; but in that same iniquity of his which he has committed he will die” It seems the Universalist is saying ‘The way of the Lord is not right.’ And God is saying: “O house of Israel, I will judge each of you according to his ways.” God always makes a contrast, love and justice are found together, there is a time of separation and decision, a condition, and a warning of a judgment to come. We believe God can make a decision, God is quite capable of knowing who is who, and God seems to do so regularly, yet you always defend the Universalist position. You don’t have to agree, but as a teacher you know there is ample reason and assurance the scroll could be just as it reads; ‘Therefore, I will deliver My flock, and they will no longer be a prey; and I will judge between one sheep and another” (Ezekiel 34:22) As it says in Ezekiel;

Say to them, ‘As I live!’ declares the Lord GOD, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?’ 12“And you, son of man, say to your fellow citizens, ‘The righteousness of a righteous man will not deliver him in the day of his transgression, and as for the wickedness of the wicked, he will not stumble because of it in the day when he turns from his wickedness; whereas a righteous man will not be able to live by his righteousness on the day when he commits sin.’ 13 “When I say to the righteous he will surely live, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered; but in that same iniquity of his which he has committed he will die.

God says repent so you will live, then if they don’t they will die. I believe God does not change, man may go back and forth but it seems God knows the heart, and like those who object in verse 33:20 God knows it is their attitude towards Gods justice that seems not to change either. Maybe they are like the fat sheep in verse 34:20, they still prefer themselves, and I think God is capable of making an enlightened decision. That explains how God can Judge, and make a final Judgment.
God is Love, God is Just, God is Holy, God is Light, God is Truth, and God is a Consuming Fire.

[steve]

It must mean ‘something’, just as the repentance text must allude to something (!?). There is a lot going on in the Chapter, but what does it teach Steve?

Did you think that I was saying a passage means nothing? Really?

The statement about Esau is a warning against fornication and other lapses into carnal behavior. Something is lost in every lapse—namely, the opportunity to have used that same moment to glorify God. Such losses are often (as in Esau's case) occasions of great regrets, in retrospect, and yet they are irreversible. I don't see any discussion of the afterlife in the context.