Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Attacking the character or motive of the person making the argument, instead of addressing the argument itself is called an Ad hominem and is fallacious.
Nor is offering false assurances that everyone will eventually be saved showing concern for the well-being of everyone. It trivializes the necessity of a personal faith response to the gospel message in order to receive eternal life and flat out rejects the Biblical teaching that not everyone will be saved
Jesus Himself stated that not everyone would enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 7:21). He further said that anyone whose name is not in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:15), which He refers to as the eternal fire in Matthew 25:41 where those who do not have eternal life will go into eternal punishment (Matthew 25:46). Jesus also said that in the lake of fire, Satan and the beast and the false prophet would be tormented forever and ever (Revelation 20:10).
OK, using this example not to say I believe it but just as a what if.... Say that the 1,000 year reign is the time frame for unbelievers in the Lake of Fire then the great white throne judgment and they have changed their ways in that time, believe, and enter eternity in heaven? 1,000 years in a lake of fire is still a good enough deterrent to use that as a benefit of coming to faith this side of death. No?
Reconciling all that is said in these discussions, is there not some kind of middle ground here... something that does align with a punishment for sin and a cleansing of sin but is not a one and done lost forever type of possibility intertwined in scripture somewhere outside doctrinal absolutes? Absolutes that are rather peculiar to American style evangelicalism?
Been to too many youth camps where the salvation was nothing more than fire insurance with no lasting fruit.
Attacking the character or motive of the person making the argument, instead of addressing the argument itself is called an Ad hominem and is fallacious.
The questioning of motive is a logical fallacy as it pertains to the validity of an argument, but it isn't completely irrelevant to the conversation here.
When the argument about traditional church teaching comes up, ("this goes against two thousand years of teaching and tradition") I think that it's a very valid point to bring up the motive of the early Catholic church as to why the doctrine was homogenized to agree with Augustine's teachings on ET and some of the techniques the church used to do so. They made quite a few martyrs in order to make sure everyone believed "correctly."
The motive is also important because it directly affects objectivity when making decisions regarding personal beliefs.
OK, using this example not to say I believe it but just as a what if.... Say that the 1,000 year reign is the time frame for unbelievers in the Lake of Fire then the great white throne judgment and they have changed their ways in that time, believe, and enter eternity in heaven? 1,000 years in a lake of fire is still a good enough deterrent to use that as a benefit of coming to faith this side of death. No?
Reconciling all that is said in these discussions, is there not some kind of middle ground here... something that does align with a punishment for sin and a cleansing of sin but is not a one and done lost forever type of possibility intertwined in scripture somewhere outside doctrinal absolutes? Absolutes that are rather peculiar to American style evangelicalism?
Been to too many youth camps where the salvation was nothing more than fire insurance with no lasting fruit.
However, your example has things a bit out of order. The great white throne judgment takes place at the end of the Millennial kingdom, at which time those whose names are not in the book of life are thrown into the lake of fire. So you can't restrict the length of duration in the lake of fire to the thousand year period of the Millennial kingdom. Matthew 25:46 states that those who go into the eternal fire (whether or not that fire refers to a literal fire, and I don't think it has to be a literal fire since fire refers to punishment), are there for a period of eternal (endless) duration. If Matthew 25:46 is to be taken prophetically, then it is stating a future reality in which those in the lake of fire do not change their minds because they are there 'forever.'
And even if they did or could change their minds, there's no suggestion in the Bible that it would matter. The Bible presents time on this earth as a probationary period if you will, in that once a person had died he faces judgment.
You mention punishment for sin. But since all sin was judged at the cross once and for all, sin simply is not the issue in who goes to 'hell' and who doesn't. The only issue is whether or not you have trusted in Jesus for eternal life. If you do then God imputes or credits the perfect righteousness of Jesus which qualifies you to enter into an eternal relationship with God. If you don't receive Jesus at Savior, God does not credit you with the perfect righteousness of Jesus and so at the great white throne judgment you have only your own relative and imperfect righteousness to stand on, and it won't be enough. Your sins will not be brought up at the great white throne judgment which is the judgment of unbelievers only and is a separate judgment from the judgment seat of Christ which is for believers only. Your works however, will be. And that goes to the matter of your relative righteousness. No matter how many good works you may have produced in this life, they will not be sufficient to save you.
The questioning of motive is a logical fallacy as it pertains to the validity of an argument, but it isn't completely irrelevant to the conversation here.
When the argument about traditional church teaching comes up, ("this goes against two thousand years of teaching and tradition") I think that it's a very valid point to bring up the motive of the early Catholic church as to why the doctrine was homogenized to agree with Augustine's teachings on ET and some of the techniques the church used to do so. They made quite a few martyrs in order to make sure everyone believed "correctly."
The motive is also important because it directly affects objectivity when making decisions regarding personal beliefs.
I think control is a big issue on this one.
My interest is not what the church, or some denomination within the church teaches, but what the Bible itself has to say about the issue of eternal separation from God. If it teaches it then it teaches it. And it does teach it despite the claims of those who say that it doesn't.
And it's irresponsible to assume as Nateswift does that people who believe and proclaim what the Bible says about eternal punishment do so because they are ''depending on control of others for their satisfaction rather than that concern for the well-Boeing of everyone.'' How is telling people that as the Bible teaches, they must believe on Christ to have eternal life not being concerned for the well-being of others?
Perhaps hell isn't eternal but a place of purging that gives some (maybe all) a chance to come to the place of purification that they did not receive when they rejected the message of the cross of Christ.
This is what a lot of UR believing people think. Of course, there are a lot of variations of Universalism, but the doctrine frequently gets misrepresented. Usually, the people who are gossiping about me behind my back instead of talking directly to me are the ones who are misrepresenting what I said.
I believe in Hell, but I don't believe that the fire is literal. (Really, how could a literal fire burn a spirit that is without flesh?) I believe that it's a purging or cleansing. (This is a reflection of the Greek words that were translated as "fire" and "torment" in the KJV.)
I also believe that the judgment is a revelation of our own character, and we see things about ourselves that we were blind to when we were in the flesh.
Something that would be helpful to you on this would be to do a study of the 4 Greek and Hebrew words that were all translated generically as "Hell" in the English versions Bible.
My interest is not what the church, or some denomination within the church teaches, but what the Bible itself has to say about the issue of eternal separation from God. If it teaches it then it teaches it. And it does teach it despite the claims of those who say that it doesn't.
You may not be interested in what the church teaches, but it does come up in the conversation here, and it is a frequent argument used for or against certain doctrine.
And I wasn't specifically addressing what Nate said, I was addressing your statement on logical fallacies.
Just saying that I think sometimes motive is important and relevant.
This is what a lot of UR believing people think. Of course, there are a lot of variations of Universalism, but the doctrine frequently gets misrepresented. Usually, the people who are gossiping about me behind my back instead of talking directly to me are the ones who are misrepresenting what I said.
I believe in Hell, but I don't believe that the fire is literal. (Really, how could a literal fire burn a spirit that is without flesh?) I believe that it's a purging or cleansing. (This is a reflection of the Greek words that were translated as "fire" and "torment" in the KJV.)
I also believe that the judgment is a revelation of our own character, and we see things about ourselves that we were blind to when we were in the flesh.
Something that would be helpful to you on this would be to do a study of the 4 Greek and Hebrew words that were all translated generically as "Hell" in the English versions Bible.
What is making me see things differently is that fire is used everywhere else in scripture as positive agent. For purification. For glory. For perfection. for light. Why is the concept of fire all of a sudden devoid of all the positive aspects of it when the concept of what happens after this life is discussed? Why is it suddenly the picture of life outside hope and God and eternal condemnation?
However, your example has things a bit out of order. The great white throne judgment takes place at the end of the Millennial kingdom, at which time those whose names are not in the book of life are thrown into the lake of fire. So you can't restrict the length of duration in the lake of fire to the thousand year period of the Millennial kingdom. Matthew 25:46 states that those who go into the eternal fire (whether or not that fire refers to a literal fire, and I don't think it has to be a literal fire since fire refers to punishment), are there for a period of eternal (endless) duration. If Matthew 25:46 is to be taken prophetically, then it is stating a future reality in which those in the lake of fire do not change their minds because they are there 'forever.'
And even if they did or could change their minds, there's no suggestion in the Bible that it would matter. The Bible presents time on this earth as a probationary period if you will, in that once a person had died he faces judgment.
You mention punishment for sin. But since all sin was judged at the cross once and for all, sin simply is not the issue in who goes to 'hell' and who doesn't. The only issue is whether or not you have trusted in Jesus for eternal life. If you do then God imputes or credits the perfect righteousness of Jesus which qualifies you to enter into an eternal relationship with God. If you don't receive Jesus at Savior, God does not credit you with the perfect righteousness of Jesus and so at the great white throne judgment you have only your own relative and imperfect righteousness to stand on, and it won't be enough. Your sins will not be brought up at the great white throne judgment which is the judgment of unbelievers only and is a separate judgment from the judgment seat of Christ which is for believers only. Your works however, will be. And that goes to the matter of your relative righteousness. No matter how many good works you may have produced in this life, they will not be sufficient to save you.
Oh my order is in no way scholarly or even a great study in eschatology. There was such a great over emphasis on the endtimes and biblical timelines and Hal Lindsay in my college years, I have (for better or worse) put the subject on the shelf for a couple of decades.
Why the millenial reign and then a judgment? If those that die prior to the reign are already receiving their just rewards, then why have a judgment session then? What is its purpose in a time line specifically? Is it for those of us that reign with him alone? What are these people doing that don't get the reward during that time? In the lake of fire, then brought out for the great judgment then thrown back in? What is the purpose in that?
And if the sacrifice of the cross is the punishment for sin once and for all, then what is it that separates the sheep from the goats as it were? Belief and lack of belief? Was the righteousness that was purchased for the goats not imputed because of unbelief? Is this what has kept it from being imputed? Is there not some room in scripture (are you willing to at least have an open mind if there were) for some form of mercy to souls after they die? Is the hardened atheist that has denounced Christ all his life and has heard the gospel many times on an even keel with the person in parts of the world where the gospel has not reached?
Not simply putting a shallow God must play fair according to my sense of fairness on the situation.... but the more I understand his grace and goodness and unbelievable love for me.... is this once and only chance in this short life and then no other chance really the heart of the same God?
Jesus Himself ...further said that anyone whose name is not in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:15).
Actually, no. It was John of Patmos writing Revelation who said that.
And I [John] saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.Then I [John] saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea."
Oh my order is in no way scholarly or even a great study in eschatology. There was such a great over emphasis on the endtimes and biblical timelines and Hal Lindsay in my college years, I have (for better or worse) put the subject on the shelf for a couple of decades.
Why the millenial reign and then a judgment? If those that die prior to the reign are already receiving their just rewards, then why have a judgment session then? What is its purpose in a time line specifically? Is it for those of us that reign with him alone? What are these people doing that don't get the reward during that time? In the lake of fire, then brought out for the great judgment then thrown back in? What is the purpose in that?
Because God operates according to the plan He has laid out. Everything in its own time. There will be a judgment of the nations when Jesus returns to separate the believers (sheep) from the goats (unbelievers) because the Millennial kingdom will not begin with any unbelievers in it. They must first be removed from the earth. But the great white throne judgment is the final judgment of unbelievers. As the Millennial reign of Christ continues people will be born who will not believe in Christ. They must be removed from the earth before the new heavens and new earth are established.
Quote:
And if the sacrifice of the cross is the punishment for sin once and for all, then what is it that separates the sheep from the goats as it were? Belief and lack of belief?
Exactly. During the future Tribulation unbelievers will be characterized by their lack of compassion for the Jews. They are not condemned because of their lack of compassion, but because they have not believed on Christ.
Quote:
Was the righteousness that was purchased for the goats not imputed because of unbelief? Is this what has kept it from being imputed?
Correct. As Paul teaches in Romans chapters 3-5 the righteousness of Christ is imputed to those who believe in Him. Those who don't believe will not be imputed with Christ's righteousness.
Quote:
Is there not some room in scripture (are you willing to at least have an open mind if there were) for some form of mercy to souls after they die? Is the hardened atheist that has denounced Christ all his life and has heard the gospel many times on an even keel with the person in parts of the world where the gospel has not reached?
I have seen no such scripture suggesting that anyone will be saved after death. If it turns out however that there may be such cases, that still doesn't imply Universalism since the Bible states that not everyone will enter the kingdom of heaven.
Quote:
Not simply putting a shallow God must play fair according to my sense of fairness on the situation.... but the more I understand his grace and goodness and unbelievable love for me.... is this once and only chance in this short life and then no other chance really the heart of the same God?
The Bible strongly suggests that such is the case. But, if not, we'll eventually find out. But again, even if so, that does not teach Universalism since eternal separation from God is clearly taught in the Bible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
