My Case for eternal Hell

[Todd]

Ambassador wrote:

I am not sure of exactly what we can say occured on the cross in this regard. I don´t think any of us would say that Jesus ACTUALLY became a sinner.

To which I must agree. How could it possibly be so when an animal sacrifice had to be without spot or blemish? As Peter wrote:

1 Peter 1:18-20 (King James Version)

18. Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

19. But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

20. Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

This is the whole point of Christ's attonement; if He were dying for his own sins, he could not be dying to achieve forgiveness of the world's sin. But according to the traditional view (ET or CI) His sacrifice has a very limited impact where only a few are reconciled. Satan must be declared the overall winner in the battle for the souls of mankind.

However, according to the view of Universal Reconciliation (UR), Christ gains the total victory over sin and death for all of His creation. This is great news indeed!

1 Cor 15:54-57
54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory." 55 "O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?" 56 The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Todd

[steve7150]

steve7150 wrote:
Jesus himself was in effect lost on the cross when he said "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" as he was actually spiritually separated from his Father unto death yet after death he was reconciled.

I am not sure of exactly what we can say occured on the cross in this regard. I don´t think any of us would say that Jesus ACTUALLY became a sinner. I can pay for my friend´s debt without ACTUALLY having, or ending up with bad credit as I do it. The fact that I not only have have good credit, but the fact that I am rich with a surplus in the area that my friend falls short, enables me help him. I can take his debt on myself, pay it and still be in good standing with the bank.



Amb,

Yes but he was separated from his Father because he said this explicitly, regardless of whether he became sin or was a sin sacrifice symbolically. After death he was reunified with his Father therefore a precedent has been established that it can be done.

[Ambassador791]

Before you read, realize that I do take into account that the "flames" of hell may not be flames at all. I realize that they may be symbolic. I will explain more at the end.

This is my conclusion of what I have read on this thread thus far. I feel like I have learned a lot.

But according to the traditional view (ET or CI) His sacrifice has a very limited impact where only a few are reconciled. Satan must be declared the overall winner in the battle for the souls of mankind.

First, if many are lost, it is only because God permitted it. Like a captain of a ship that does not expose those plotting against him, in hopes that they serve as a way to see how many of his crew are actually on his side. The captain may (in his sovereignty) be willing to loose almost all, to clean house had have a truly noble crew, if only of just a few.

I realize that the position I hold means salvation for a relative few in contrast to the number of those that will be lost. Jesus also realized it, but it did not make him squeamish.

Mat 7/13, 14: "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

Notice that he actually says that "few find life". The view I have been arguing against for many posts now is based on the assumption that all will eventually find life and that God’s character compels him to assure that all find it.

Again, scripture proves to be difficult to those who hold that view.

I know that someone could respond and say that my view does not square with God's grace and goodness.

But, I would say that the burden of proof rests on any that would presuppose that God is compelled to give grace to everyone. I could just as easily say that he is compelled to execute justice on those same people. The idea that God only really wants to give grace, is an assumption.

It seems to me that grace is given where it is not deserved. It is God himself that first realizes that in the position we are in, we deserve nothing at all. That is his idea. Just because a few receive grace (on God's terms) does not mean that we can assume that there is something in God that will make him only dispense grace to everyone in the end. Especially if they did not meet his conditions.

We would like to believe that God is like us in the way that we would like to dispense grace to all. But...we tend to judge favorably to our partners in crime. From inside humanity it is hard to see the gravity of the problem of a holy God not wanting to associate with the corrupt soul. He takes holiness much more seriously than we do. He requires rebirth. Payment for all sin in hell does not produce rebirth, the sinner is still a sinner no matter all his works (payment for sin) in the contrary. If this were not a problem, why the huge program of having man reborn before death?

Why am I not as quick as some to assume that God would extend grace to all?

Because I would! My judgment is unjust. As soon as I think I know what a righteous judgment is in relation to myself and the rest of mankind, I must pause and realize that my judgment is extremely tainted and unbalanced in favor of myself and partners in crime.

So is yours...

Leaving evil quarantined eternally IMO is not justice and is contrary to God's charactor. God tells us we are blessed if we are merciful yet He is eternally vengeful?

God tells us to show mercy in our forgiving but the scripture says that those that do not forgive will not be forgiven by God. We are blessed when we are merciful because we are just as guilty as those we might want to judge. So we are commanded no to pass judgment.

You seem to think that God’s character is to only do the things he commands us to do and that it would not be his character to act outside of that.

Really? That is what I used to think. Then, I questioned my own judgment, returned to the text and saw that God will Judge in ways that we are commanded not to. Like in Romans “I will repay, you show mercy”. You see how our judgment of his character is unbalanced?

Another example the difference between how we see ourselves and how God does:

Your description makes it sound like non-christians are all evil. There is a very small minority that we might consider evil who seem to delight in harming others.

The bible says that God's wrath is for all those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. God's OWN testimony is that all who oppose him are evil...don't just take my word for it, consult the over all counsel of the bible. God’s character is not like ours, Jesus said I have not come to judge, but that was when he was on earth. Later we see him with a sickle, prepared to judge all.

My conclusion on this thread has been that you are great guys, and are probably better Christians than I am, but...you assume that you know God's Character when you say that Jesus is a certain way: mainly loving. However; this is where your judgment will be unbalanced. He is not the friend of sinners, he is not the father of Satan’s children, he has promised to be against unrighteousness. Not for. I quoted Luke 12, 9 in my last post to show what the roll is of his presence is in Rev 14 with the angles :

"anyone who denies me here on earth will be denied before God’s angels"

This is not God correcting his child. The father never rejects his children.

The judgment from God is not “X” punishment and then God will reconcile. The punishment IS the denial of the person under Judgment. Out-right rejection is the punishment. If he is reconciled in the end...was he rejected? If you really want to take these words at face value, you cannot come to the conclusion that rejection is really delayed reconciliation. You guys would not treat the text this way on other biblical topic.

Another example of why I don’t believe that the philosophy I’ve read on this thread is based on a clear knowledge of God's character:

Many sinners are pagans who worship things instead of God therefore these folks are at least not worshipping themselves and possibly when they know the true diety they might change.

"Many sinners are pagans who worship things instead of God therefore these folks are at least not worshipping themselves "

“At least”???

Is that supposed to be any better to God? In the bible, God hates all idolatry. Either way, it is set up in place of God, when they had the true God at arms reach.

“…and possibly when they know the true diety they might change”

Do not believe that man was looking for God but God was far from him that day. Man had the chance to know him but choose not to. Do not underestimate the wickedness of man just because he looks innocent. Paul says in Acts 17 that God is not far from any man and that He determined the times and places for man to live so that he may reach out for God and find him. God set up the nations so that they would be close enough to him so that they might know him. All is set up so that man may know God.

Stop having a pity party for a mankind that has outright rejected and rebelled against the God that made sure all would know himself if they had only wished to do so. All these eternal opportunities that we want to give to the sinner ignore the biblical fact that the people that do not know Him, never really wanted Him anyway.

Don't forget, I do take into account that the "flames" of hell may not be flames at all. I realize that they may be symbolic. There are passages that speak of the sinner shut out (Luke 13) and the servant that does not invest his master’s money is left out in darkness. Both places have weeping and gnashing of teeth.This backs my interpretation of 2 thess 1/9. I believe they are shut out from Gods presence: the door being closed and the owner being on one side, them on the other. This proves this enough. This hell may not even have actual torture. Being without all that is good is torture enough. John says that if you have the Son you have life. So if you are with the Son for eternity, you have eternal life. Death is the absence of the Son. People living today experience this and the second death will be the continuation of this death without any good life that is only found in the Son.

Those who choose against the son are not forced to have him, they are rejected into a world void of him, on the other side of the door. Like Mat 25 says, they are there for the same amount of time the just are with Jesus. If hell is just this, annihilation may actually be more unjust in God's eyes. And, as I started this thread out saying, those who appear to want to be let in, may only be trying because they realize that they want the goodness of God, but not God himself (please do not forget that they have not been reborn). After all, we all have heard of people wanting to sit at the master's table, not for the master, but for what is on the table. Yes when all God's goodness is withdrawn, these peoples' world will be flipped upside down, but just because they grasp for that goodness does not mean that they want the God attached to it.

What I have just laid out, I believe has more scripture (no ambiguous verses) in its favor then trying to appeal to a view of God's Character that is most likely unbalanced and informed by a favorable view of a rebellious mankind.

[Todd]

But according to the traditional view (ET or CI) His sacrifice has a very limited impact where only a few are reconciled. Satan must be declared the overall winner in the battle for the souls of mankind.

I realize that the position I hold means salvation for a relative few in contrast to the number of those that will be lost. Jesus also realized it, but it did not make him squeamish.

Mat 7/13, 14: "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

Notice that he actually says that "few find life". The view I have been arguing against for many posts now is based on the assumption that all will eventually find life and that God’s character compels him to assure that all find it.

Again, scripture proves to be difficult to those who hold that view.

Ambassador791,

You're are taking the position that "few find life" means "few are resurrected in Christ unto immortality." These are two different things. It is my opinion that "life," as it is used here (and many other scriptures), is NOT referring to anything post-resurrection. Let me explain...

Someone who is overcome in sin is described as "dead"; conversely, one who repents and places his faith in Christ, passes from death unto life. This "life" speaks of our condition in this life, not the after-life. Consider the prodigal son. When he was lost in riotous living he was "dead." When he repented and returned to his father he found life.

Luke 15:24
for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' And they began to be merry.

This same thing is true for any of us who repent and turn to God in faith; we pass from death unto life. Again, this refers to our relationship with God in this life.

I would agree that "few find life" as I have explained it here, but that does not negate what God does in the end when He restores all things (Acts 3:21). In the resurrection, all are made alive in Christ.

1 Cor 15:22
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

Todd

[steve7150]

You seem to think that God’s character is to only do the things he commands us to do and that it would not be his character to act outside of that.

Really? That is what I used to think. Then, I questioned my own judgment, returned to the text and saw that God will Judge in ways that we are commanded not to. Like in Romans “I will repay, you show mercy”. You see how our judgment of his character is unbalanced?



Amb,

Let's remember that God has many attributes but He is called "Love" by John. Also doing the things he commands us to do is so that we get conformed into the image of Christ who is the exact image of his Father.
Of course wrath and justice are attributes of God as well as mercy and fathfulness but for wrath to also have mercy together then wrath must be a means to an end , a merciful end, a purposeful end , not just pure vengence or pure punishment.

[Ambassador791]

You're are taking the position that "few find life" means "few are resurrected in Christ unto immortality." These are two different things. It is my opinion that "life," as it is used here (and many other scriptures), is NOT referring to anything post-resurrection.

I think that this is a very hard to actually prove from the scripture. You say that judgement and this reward of life all happend here on earth. I see clearly in the scripture that these things are to take place later:

Mat 13/ 24Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. 27"The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'28" 'An enemy did this,' he replied. "The servants asked him,[url]'Do you want us to go and pull them up? 29" [url]'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' "
notice: "until" and "at that time"

The servant wanted to pull up (judge) the weeds right then to be burned. The master answers "not now, later". The "burning" happens later.

If this does not say that the judgment is not now but later...what meaning would be left here?

Let's remember that God has many attributes but He is called "Love" by John.

He is also called the God of war. To many non-christians this proves that he is not love. I would not say that. But like you said, there needs to be some kind of balance.

Looking at the father in the prodigal son parable only tells us how the father responds to the repentant before death. The son is'nt even at the fathers door and the father runs out.

But in Luke 13 we read "Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside the house pleading, sir open the door for us”….”there will be weeping there and gnashing of teeth.”

Steve asks in his lecture on the 3 views on hell if there is anything about the father that would cause him to act differently towards sinners one the other side of death. Is there some line drawn after which crossed it is too late?

Well, just looking at the way in which the prodigal son is treated and the way these people are treated proves that something about the father does change. After death He does not run out the door,but he closes it.
These people are left outside in horrible conditions:"weeping and gnashing of teeth” buit they are left out. There is no mercy in doing that.But I would not expect there to be.

Of course wrath and justice are attributes of God as well as mercy and fathfulness but for wrath to also have mercy together then wrath must be a means to an end , a merciful end, a purposeful end , not just pure vengence or pure punishment.

The word says that if we reject Jesus he will reject us. The nature of the punishment from God is rejection. Is rejection a very mercyful thing to do? Would any father ever reject his children? No! But, theses are not his children, they are the children of satan as John tells us.

The kind of mercy that comes from a father to his children will not be present for the lost. If it were, would they ever be rejected?

[steve7150]

Looking at the father in the prodigal son parable only tells us how the father responds to the repentant before death. The son is'nt even at the fathers door and the father runs out.





Actually i never have figured out where the prodical son repented, all i see is that he was starving and realized he would be better off as his father's servant and he therefore determined to say that he sinned. It sounds more like a mathematical calculation then repentence.
Anyway it's true Christ rejects the ungodly and they end up in the lake of fire, the difference between us is that you believe Christ torments unbelievers forever and i believe the lake of fire is for the execution of Christ's justice tempered with mercy with the ultimate goal of redemption.
If you read the verses after unbelievers are in the lake of fire it sounds to me there will be opportunities to emerge from it culminating in verse Rev 22.17 which is an invitation from the Spirit and the Bride to "whosoever" may drink from the water of life. Since there already is a "Bride" the invitation must be to those in the lake of fire , if this portion is read sequentially which i think is the natural way to read it.

[Ambassador791]

the difference between us is that you believe Christ torments unbelievers forever

Actually, look at a quote from myself eariler on this page:

Don't forget, I do take into account that the "flames" of hell may not be flames at all. I realize that they may be symbolic. There are passages that speak of the sinner shut out (Luke 13) and the servant that does not invest his master’s money is left out in darkness. Both places have weeping and gnashing of teeth.This backs my interpretation of 2 thess 1/9. I believe they are shut out from Gods presence: the door being closed and the owner being on one side, them on the other. This proves this enough. This hell may not even have actual torture.

The scriptures that have convinced me of my position could be symbolic for differnt things: some just say he is locked up, some talk about darkness, so are there flames there? Dosnt sound like it. Rev 14 talks about the sinner expirencing day and night in the lake of fire. Thats enough to tell me that sequential events happen (time?) and not just one moment or a quick end. I think that a strong case can be made that the sinner will not be able to access the goodness of God on the other side of a "door" (even though God is everywhere). Imagine a world where all the goodness of God is gone. This would be torture. Remember that my view is that the los man really does not want God (he had chances to know God on Earth) he just wants good things. His torture of Godlessness may be what he wants more than God.

i believe the lake of fire is for the execution of Christ's justice tempered with mercy with the ultimate goal of redemption.

Redemption happens on account of forgiveness through the cross.The sinner that is rejected by God will "pay every last penny". If he pays all...that equals no forgiveness (total payment of debt means not debt removal) from the cross, no redemption.I don't know what will be left for Christ to forgive in this view. This problem is not hard to see. If main stream Christianity never sees it your way, this is clearly why. As I said in my last post, Jesus has actually rejected the people that are sent to the lake of fire. Like the name of Steves program: Narrow is the path to life, and FEW who find it.

If you have everyone finding life on a broad path, you might want to rethink that veiw before you teach it. Remember Paul says the sinner is without God in the world, without hope. A wide path ending in life for all is very hopeful, sounds like a trick because it takes the urgency out of the Gospel.In what way would this be any different than purgitory for all?The difference here is not that the sinner pays for just part of his sins to get into heaven, he pays for all (Mat 5/26)...with out Jesus. If you take the Cross out of Christianity...what's left?

If you read the verses after unbelievers are in the lake of fire it sounds to me there will be opportunities to emerge from it culminating in verse Rev 22.17 which is an invitation from the Spirit and the Bride to "whosoever" may drink from the water of life. Since there already is a "Bride" the invitation must be to those in the lake of fire , if this portion is read sequentially which i think is the natural way to read it.

Hard to say who this is talking about. If the sinner makes it there to drink, It was not on Jesus' Sacrifice because he would have "paid every last penny" on his own before his punishment ended, again, where is the cross here?

[steve7150]

steve7150 wrote:
If you read the verses after unbelievers are in the lake of fire it sounds to me there will be opportunities to emerge from it culminating in verse Rev 22.17 which is an invitation from the Spirit and the Bride to "whosoever" may drink from the water of life. Since there already is a "Bride" the invitation must be to those in the lake of fire , if this portion is read sequentially which i think is the natural way to read it.

Hard to say who this is talking about. If the sinner makes it there to drink, It was not on Jesus' Sacrifice because he would have "paid every last penny" on his own before his punishment ended, again, where is the cross here?Ambassador791




Why is it hard to say who this verse is talking about? You have the Spirit and the Bride (believers/saved) after the marriage to the Lamb , after his second coming speaking to the others who are not a part of the bride. Christ's sacrifice is outside of time , it's eternal since it was determined before the foundation of the world therefore being outside of time , i don't think there is a deadline connected to an event within time such as physical death. What is physical death to God?
As far as every penny being paid , actually any person can have every penny paid, by the blood of Jesus which is outside of time. You can claim that this section of Revelation is not sequential and simply covers the period of time within a persons lifetime but to me if you read this area of Revelation which is after judgment day , the natural reading suggests it is sequential. Among other things there is a lake of fire existing that contains unbelievers at this point and that happens after Christ's second coming.

[Ambassador791]

As far as every penny being paid , actually any person can have every penny paid, by the blood of Jesus which is outside of time.

The problem is that Jesus himself testifies to the fact that he will not pay: Mat 5/26I tell you the truth, YOU will not get out until YOU]have paid the last penny.

He says that the sinner will pay all on his own.He also says to be reconciled BEFORE you are judged. The product of not being reconciled before the judgement is played out in you paying every last penny. Thus, you paying all is the definition of no reconciliation. Jesus died to to reconcIle us. This is not the only place where Jesus says that the sinner will pay every last penny.

Why is it hard to say who this verse is talking about?

If it is easy to say who is invited to drink this water of life, then answer me this: who is Jesus talking about when he says that narrow is the path to life and few who find it? Are you going to tell me that every last person is invited to drink the water of life? If all do not find life, like Jesus says, then it is hard to know exactly who this passage in Rev is talking about. Some might say that there people are those living (that are not Christians) when Jesus returns.