"Hell doesn't last forever"..God is merciful

[StanJ]

Hi there Born_Again,
there’s very little doubt in my mind that God wants to save everyone, because the Bible tells me so:
“3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to know the truth fully.” (1 Tim. 2:3)

In the text you quoted Paul talks about the salvation of the Jews who did not accept Christ. If you read on, you’ll find that Paul does not think at all that they stumbled as to fall beyond recovery (Rom. 11:11-12). His ponderings on the matter of salvation end with verse 11:32: “For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.”
In this passage Paul also makes it very clear that it is not our choice whether we take God up on His offer or not. We can’t choose to have faith, like everything else our faith is given to us by God’s grace: “It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.” (Rom. 9:16). It is God who hardens people’s hearts (Rom. 11:7+8) and binds them over to disobedience.
So as much as I like the notion of free will, I don’t think our human free will can totally override God’s will. It’s not us who decide whether we’ll be saved or not, but Him.

Quite obviously God does not always get what he wants or desires. He wanted Adam and Eve to be the progenitors of a perfect race of people and that didn't happen did it. He's not willing that any should perish but that all should be saved but that doesn't happen now does it? Bottom line is man always gets in the way of God's will and man suffers accordingly.

 

[OzSpen]

Hi there Born_Again,

there’s very little doubt in my mind that God wants to save everyone, because the Bible tells me so:
“3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to know the truth fully.” (1 Tim. 2:3)

junobet,

Do you think that God will succeed in his wanting all people to be saved? Will all people who have ever lived, now live, and will ever live receive eternal salvation?

If God wants to save all, does that mean he will save all?

What do you say to those who maintain that God will not save all people (e.g. John 3:36 ESV)?

Oz

 

[junobet]

juno,

Jesus disagreed with your interpretation:

God's compassion and love demand His discipline for the disobedient.

Also, John 3:36 (ESV) agrees with Matt 7:13-14 (ESV) and not your universalism of 1 Tim 4:10. Universalism is regarded as a heresy. See 'How serious a heresy is universalism?' (Roger Olson)

Oz

Well Oz,
love and compassion don’t discipline disobedience in an intent to destroy but in an intent to cure and educate.
As for the narrow gate: anybody who is saintly enough to live up to the high moral standards Jesus set in His Sermon on the Mount and make it through the narrow gate, certainly is a better Christian than I am. Offhand I can recall at least three incidences today in which I certainly was not perfect as my heavenly father is perfect (Matthew 5:48). So like most, if not all of us, I’ll have to throw myself at the Lord’s mercy.
That I prayed and hoped for the soul of a non-Christian terrorist, who killed himself in a German prison today, was not among the many sins I committed today. It’s exactly what my living faith and the living word told me to do (Matthew 5:44). Roger Olson may deem my hope that hell is empty and that Christ is Victor a heresy, but it is not him I’ll have to stand before on Judgement Day, but God.

 

[junobet]

Its like this... Yes, God loves all of His creation. It pains Him that some would choose death over life. But.... If He were to save everyone then John 3:16 needs to be re-written. It say so that those who believe in Him...etc. It does not say everybody.

There’s no need to re-write John 3:16 if God were to save everyone. The Bible very much tells us that everybody will believe in Him and praise Him (Numbers 14:21; Isaiah 45:22-26; Rom14:11; Phil 2:6-11)
If God was definitely not to save everyone though, then there’d be quite a number of verses that need to be re-written:
For example:
„He must remain in heaven until the time of partial (not universal) restitution, which God announced long ago through the voice of his holy prophets.” ( Acts 3:21)
“Consequently, just as one offense resulted in condemnation for everyone, so one act of righteousness results in justification and life for some (not everyone).” (Romans 5:18-21)
“For God has locked all people in the prison of their own disobedience so that he may have mercy on some of them (not them all).” (Romans 11:23)

If God went through all of this (the entire bible) just so everyone was saved, then life was just a big game.

Why? I’d say if just a single soul got lost in spite of God’s explicit will that all be saved, God lost ‘the game’.

To think everyone will be saved is completely irrational. Its wonderful to hope everyone should be saved. We all should hope everyone should be saved. But the reality of the situation is that everyone will not. This theology is in complete and total contradiction to the bible. It simply doesn't hold. You cant believe in predestination and universalism at the same time. Oil and water....

How can one hope everybody is saved if one is absolutely certain that not everybody is saved?

Why should God not have predestined everybody to be saved? And how is it rational and not self-contradictory to believe that God - who is Good and who is Love - created the vast majority of mankind just to predestine them to eternal punishment and suffering?

As for which belief is in complete and total contradiction to the Bible: You may have noticed that throughout this thread I kept quoting the Bible in support of my beliefs. Yet most of these quotes have been utterly ignored. The problem seems to be that all of us, myself included, tend to read the Bible through the lenses of the people who have taught us how to read and interpret it. Each church and tradition highlights some verses whilst hardly ever paying attention to others. It’s rather hard to throw off these goggles and read the Bible from an utterly independent perspective, but we do good to at least try to keep an open mind. Otherwise we run the danger of being informed by human tradition rather than the living Word of God.

 

[junobet]

Quite obviously God does not always get what he wants or desires. He wanted Adam and Eve to be the progenitors of a perfect race of people and that didn't happen did it. He's not willing that any should perish but that all should be saved but that doesn't happen now does it? Bottom line is man always gets in the way of God's will and man suffers accordingly.

So God is not all-mighty and Job was wrong when he said “I know that You can do all things, And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.“ (Job 42:2) ?

 

[OzSpen]

Well Oz,
love and compassion don’t discipline disobedience in an intent to destroy but in an intent to cure and educate.
As for the narrow gate: anybody who is saintly enough to live up to the high moral standards Jesus set in His Sermon on the Mount and make it through the narrow gate, certainly is a better Christian than I am. Offhand I can recall at least three incidences today in which I certainly was not perfect as my heavenly father is perfect (Matthew 5:48). So like most, if not all of us, I’ll have to throw myself at the Lord’s mercy.
That I prayed and hoped for the soul of a non-Christian terrorist, who killed himself in a German prison today, was not among the many sins I committed today. It’s exactly what my living faith and the living word told me to do (Matthew 5:44). Roger Olson may deem my hope that hell is empty and that Christ is Victor a heresy, but it is not him I’ll have to stand before on Judgement Day, but God.

junobet,

Your theology on 'destroy' is not consistent with the rest of biblical revelation. Revelation 14:10-11 (ESV) tells us what that eternal destruction is about - torment forever and ever (for aeons of aeons) 'with no rest, day or night'. God's standard of consequences is sure different from ours and his are eternal.

Are you suggesting you have to be perfect to get in the narrow gate? What is your theology of getting through the 'narrow gate'. How can we do it?

You speak of 'my hope that hell is empty'. Do you support a theology of universalism that hell will be empty and all will be saved?

Oz

 

[kerwin]

Again you read scripture without understanding or proper exegesis. In Corinthians 12:2, Paul talks about the third heaven in the sense that he did not know where he was or even if he was in the third heaven which was traditionally known in the Jewish faith as a place where God lived, we just know it is heaven today. Paul is talking about himself here not about somebody else.
He clearly says in this verse, "I do not know". All you really do is look for other rabbit trails to pursue and don't really stick to the issue. Seems to me once you get cornered you start off in another direction, and clearly indicate a resistance and refusal to be properly instructed.

Please reread it as the only thing Paul stated he did not know is whether the male in question was in body or out of body as the time he ascended to the third heaven. He did state it was a paradise.

This is the use of the historical principle of exegeses to understand the unwritten context of a passage.

 

[kerwin]

Side note... Remember, we are challenging theology, not the person directly. Make sure we are not insulting each other.

Thank you!

 

[StanJ]

Please reread it as the only thing Paul stated he did not know is whether the male in question was in body or out of body as the time he ascended to the third heaven. He did state it was a paradise.
This is the use of the historical principle of exegeses to understand the unwritten context of a passage.

Did you know needs to learn how to read and comprehend. Paul is talking about himself and if you can't see that then you won't see anything. He couldn't tell if he was in the body or out of his body, in otherwords, it was a dream or vision, just like Revelation was to John. The context of this passage is quite evident verse, for those who know how to read the Bible.

 

[Born_Again]

2 Corinthians 12:2

2I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of it I do not know, but God knows.…

Okay, then lets try to find the instance mentioned 14 years ago. Site that scripture and that will eliminate this part of the debate.

 

[StanJ]

2 Corinthians 12:2
2[/size]I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of it I do not know, but God knows.…[/size]
Okay, then lets try to find the instance mentioned 14 years ago. Site that scripture and that will eliminate this part of the debate.

https://www.workingpreacher.org/preaching.aspx?commentary_id=341

 

[Born_Again]

https://www.workingpreacher.org/preaching.aspx?commentary_id=341

Okay, Stan wins. Unless the author and his sources can be disproved with fact and not opinion.

 

[kerwin]

Did you know needs to learn how to read and comprehend. Paul is talking about himself and if you can't see that then you won't see anything. He couldn't tell if he was in the body or out of his body, in otherwords, it was a dream or vision, just like Revelation was to John. The context of this passage is quite evident verse, for those who know how to read the Bible.

You conclusion that the man being spoken of is Paul does not follow from what is written as he speaks in the third person.

What is your argument to support that conclusion?

 

[kerwin]

https://www.workingpreacher.org/preaching.aspx?commentary_id=341

I see, this links to the argument you have chosen to place your faith in.

 

[kerwin]

https://www.workingpreacher.org/preaching.aspx?commentary_id=341

A large flaw in his reasoning is 2 Corinthians 12:5 where Paul makes it abundantly clear that the man he speaks of is not him.

2 Corinthians 12:5 American Standard Version (ASV)

5 On behalf of such a one will I glory: but on mine own behalf I will not glory, save in my weaknesses.

 

[StanJ]

You conclusion that the man being spoken of is Paul does not follow from what is written as he speaks in the third person.
What is your argument to support that conclusion?

It's called knowing how to read and understand the English language.

 

[StanJ]

A large flaw in his reasoning is 2 Corinthians 12:5 where Paul makes it abundantly clear that the man he speaks of is not him.

2 Corinthians 12:5 American Standard Version (ASV)

5 On behalf of such a one will I glory: but on mine own behalf I will not glory, save in my weaknesses.

Just another example of how you do not comprehend what you read.

 

[StanJ]

I see, this links to the argument you have chosen to place your faith in.

I've never read this link before in my life... it just depicts what I believe. There's no need for me to put it in writing when it already is in writing.

 

[kerwin]

Just another example of how you do not comprehend what you read.

Your lack of an argument to support your own conclusions reveal you are poor communicator or you know you know really do not have a point and act just like to troll.

Even if you are a poor communicator, I do not believe you are as ignorant as you are trying to pretend so either you are troll getting off on pretending you lack knowledge or you are in denial. Even though you sound like the former I prefer to think you are the later and I and unable to deal with denial as it is something the one that suffers it has to deal with. If you are a troll then in time become evident to all.

To continue the topic, either Paul lied when he stated he would not boast about himself or the man he speaks of is not him.

You really need to learn to think things through for yourself and depend on the teachings of others unless you can verify they are true.

Admitting that part of us is in rebellion against God is a hard thing to face but in the end it is worth it.

 

[StanJ]

Your lack of an argument to support your own conclusions reveal you are poor communicator or you know you know really do not have a point and act just like to troll.

Anybody who is fluent in English and grammar knows that Paul is talking about himself so obviously you are not fluent in English or grammar and there's no use arguing with you about something you refuse to admit.

Even if you are a poor communicator, I do not believe you are as ignorant as you are trying to pretend so either you are troll getting off on pretending you lack knowledge or you are in denial. Even though you sound like the former I prefer to think you are the later and I and unable to deal with denial as it is something the one that suffers it has to deal with. If you are a troll then in time become evident to all.

I'm an excellent Communicator when the person I'm communicating with has the power of comprehension. If that same person doesn't then all they will do is deflect and deny what they're being told which is exactly what you're doing. When you start demonstrating that you understand the English language and answer the questions your asked directly and succinctly, then maybe you'll learn something?

To continue the topic, either Paul lied when he stated he would not boast about himself or the man he speaks of is not him.

If you would have read the link I posted you would understand how Paul was writing and in what fashion, but as you refuse to read it and/or you were unable to comprehend it, then there's nothing else that can be said until you learn.

You really need to learn to think things through for yourself and depend on the teachings of others unless you can verify they are true.

It is a total waste of my time to write things to you that you will refuse to accept, therefore it's a lot better use of my time to just post a link that says the same thing that I believe. In actuality they're not for you they're for other people who will read this thread and see the facts that you apparently are incapable of . The fact that you deny every piece of information you're given tells everyone here that you only believe in that little voice in your head. That's sadly is why you don't understand what's being told you.

Admitting that part of us is in rebellion against God is a hard thing to face but in the end it is worth it.

No one so far that I've seen on this thread has a problem admitting to their faults except for you. You are unteachable but you can used to convey the truth to others who are hungry to hear it or willing to at least.