Just ordered me a copy. Will keep you updated.
2 Likes
What qaz is universalism in your view?
So if we look at heaven as the Christian fundamentalist take, we have to say is there a 180 to that view, in other words HELL,
That in and of it self is a problem.
My view of final victory is that God has already through Jesus put forth the place where you are going to be reconciled to God.
There is no Hell, from my standpoint, and if that is true, Jesus came to do a different deed for you and Humanity. You should not be asking about going to āHeavenā but maybe how Christās death is going to be the beacon for humanity to seek greater thingsā¦ And then ask yourself āhow can I be part of itā?
Just finished chapter 2 where they critique eternal punishment. The authors conclude:
Therefore, the defender of any form of the classical version of DH must explain why it would be a demand of justice to bring it about that a criminal never stop committing his crime. We, at least, cannot conceive of any coherent conception of justice under which this would make any sense. ~~ page 27
But since perfect love and perfect justice protect then those who have hardened hearts would be restrained by the torment from committing evil. Godās love is expressed by protecting His children in the new creation from evil. Itās also expressed to those who have their hearts eternally separated from Godās mercy in hell by inflicting them with sufficient torment to prevent them from doing evil. God keeps in check the horrors those people could inflict on each other (because their hearts are separated from all mercy) by distracting them with a precisely determined amount and kind of pain or discomfort. Such pain and discomfort restrains them. God calibrates each personās torment to exactly the level necessary for restraint of their potential for expressing evil. Thus, we see Godās paradoxical love in hell. These are morally sufficient and justifiable reasons for hell. Therefore itās not unjust for hell to exist. Still reading the book. Getting ready for the next chapter.
Though I donāt see that the Bible says that āhellā is to protect anyone from horrors, I donāt find Reitan disagrees that love & justice would protect his new creation from evils. But he is asking why itād make sense that such protection and justice would require that sinners only be able to never stop committing the rebellion that separated them from God.
Bob,
If their hearts are separated from mercy it hardens. Therefore, they donāt want God. God is never obligated to be merciful to someone who doesnāt want to have anything to do with Him. I havenāt made my mind up on the Bible yet but I know it teaches that perfect love and perfect justice protect from evil. Therefore, God would be keeping in check the evil these people could inflict on each other and Himself and His children by distracting them with a precisely determined amount and kind of pain or discomfort. Such pain and discomfort restrains them. Thus, we would see Godās paradoxical love in hell.
We appear to see in reverse what āmercyā is needed for. I donāt see that āmercyā separates from those who are hardened or in rebellion. Indeed, I read that mercy is precisely relevant and for those who ARE hardened and donāt want God. I love the Bibleās view that the Gospel is about Godās rich mercy toward precisely all like me who are blind, deceived, and dead in trespasses and sin, i.e. those hopelessly hardened.
āProtectingā me by ensuring that I get no mercy and am distracted, and cut off from all hope of avoiding damnation seems a form of āprotectionā that no sane person could prefer.
God is free to choose. Heās never obligated to be merciful to someone who doesnāt want to have anything to do with Him. If they donāt want God they donāt have to have Him. I need to think this over. It seems universalism restricts and denies Godās freedom. Iām a hopeful at the moment.
I imagine it depends on Godās āfreedomā to do what? I find that the Bible says that all people are dead in sin and donāt truly, want āGod.ā Thus, His glory is that with sinners, God is free to be true to his mercy which endures forever. For it declares that Godās intrinsic nature āIS love,ā not that God sometimes loves the lost. Thus arguing that God has to able to NOT be merciful toward sinners who by nature donāt want Him, seems to restrict and deny Godās freedom to be faithful to his character.
1 Like
But Bob,
Godās love and justice are expressed to those in hell by tormenting them with the kind and amount of pain to restrain them from committing evil. Itās His severe mercy not His kindness mercy that takes out the heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh. Thus, all would be reconciled to God. In heaven and earth and under the earth. All would be submitted. Godās character of love and justice remains intact. For the Bible teaches that love and justice protect from evil.
Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but Godās kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness
God would indeed have mercy on all. In heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. We see Godās love and compassion in hell with the restraints He places on itās inhabitants keeping them from committing evil. All would be submitted to God.
LOL My upbringing thought hell was the hopeless pits. But redefining Jesusā severe warnings about being separated from God and His kingdom, by being thrown into Gehenna and the outer darkness with constant weeping as what epitomizes entering the confines of Godās mercy and grace is a new theory of Hell and damnation that might sell somewhere.
Though I myself see nothing in Paulās schema of redemptionās design to have āmercy on allā as meaning confine them to the horrors of the outer darkness.
I get my theory of hell from the Bibleās teaching that love and justice protect from evil. Also, Godās mercy takes on the form of a severe mercy. To read more about Godās love and compassion in hell I recommend āBeyond The Cosmos: The Extra dimensionality of Godā by Astrophysicist Hugh Ross:
Beyond the Cosmos brings the reality of God more fully before our minds and helps us love him with our whole being. We cannot love or believe a blank, but many parts of God s revelation of himself and his world remain little more than a blank until qualified and gifted teachers lead us to a greater clarity. Hugh Ross does that, giving the most difficult ideas in Christian teachings gripping new relevance to the realities of time and eternity. --Dallas Willard, professor of philosophy, University of Southern California
HOW CAN IT BE?
How can my choices be totally free if God is in control of all things at all times and knows the end from the beginning?
How can God hear my prayers while listening to billions of others around the world at the exact same time moment?
How can God be all-powerful and all-loving yet allow so much suffering and evil?
These complex paradoxes hold far-reaching implications that have troubled people for centuries. Drawing on biblical teaching and scientific evidence that supports it, Hugh Ross invites us to know and experience God in a way we may never have considered before. As a result, our love and appreciation for God will be dramatically deepened, and the way we relate to him and to others both believers and nonbelievers will be changed forever, for good.
Do you have any Bible texts where the purpose of Gehenna and being thrown into the outer darkness is defined as providing love and protection to itsā inhabitants or to others?
No but if you will understand that God did what he did as a purpose, in other words, Gehenna in and of it self was what Jesus was talking about when the word āhellā comes up as a translation, it could possibly make more senseā¦ God was speaking to the Jews there and then. Bob, not everything has to be hinged on a Biblical verse. Our understanding has to be looked at from the view of the present person.
I donāt say āGehennaā is restraint but that the ātormentā in the ālake of fireā is restraint. Hereās something discussing this
TORMENT
The Greek word baĀ·saĀ·niŹ¹zo (and related terms) occurs over 20 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures. It basically meant ātest by the proving stone [ baŹ¹saĀ·nos ]ā and, by extension, āexamine or question by applying torture.ā Lexicographers point out that in the Christian Greek Scriptures it is used with the sense of āvexing with grievous pains; being harassed, distressed.āāāMt 8:29; Lu 8:28; Re 12:2.
The Bible used baĀ·saĀ·niŹ¹zo in a number of instances. For example, a manservant afflicted with paralysis was āterribly tormentedā ( NW ) or āracked with painā ( NE ) by it. (Mt 8:6; compare 4:24.) Also, Lot āused to torment his soulā ( Ro ) or āwas vexedā ( Mo, RS ) by the lawless deeds of the people of Sodom. (2Pe 2:8) The word is even used in regard to the difficult progress of a boat.āāMt 14:24; Mr 6:48.
The Greek noun baĀ·saĀ·niĀ·stesŹ¹ occurring at Matthew 18:34 is rendered ājailersā in some translations ( AT, Fn, NW; compare Mt 18:30) and ātormentorsā or ātorturersā in others. ( AS, KJ, JB ) Torture was sometimes used in prisons to obtain information (compare Ac 22:24, 29, which shows that this was done, although baĀ·saĀ·niŹ¹zo is not used here), so baĀ·saĀ·niĀ·stesŹ¹ came to be applied to jailers. Regarding its use at Matthew 18:34, The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia observed: āProbably the imprisonment itself was regarded as ātormentā (as it doubtless was), and the ātormentorsā need mean nothing more than jailers.ā (Edited by J. Orr, 1960, Vol. V, p. 2999) Thus, the mentioning in Revelation 20:10 of ones who will be ātormented day and night forever and everā evidently indicates that they will be in a condition of restraint. That a condition of restraint can be spoken of as ātormentā is indicated by the parallel accounts at Matthew 8:29 and Luke 8:31.āāSee LAKE OF FIRE.
Some commentators have pointed to Biblical instances of the word ātormentā to support the teaching of eternal suffering in fire. However, as just indicated, there is Scriptural reason to believe that Revelation 20:10 does not have that sense. In fact, verse 14 shows that āthe lake of fireā in which the torment occurs, actually means āthe second death.ā And though Jesus spoke of a certain rich man as āexisting in tormentsā (Lu 16:23, 28), as the article LAZARUS (No. 2) shows, Jesus was not describing the literal experience of a real person but, rather, was setting forth an illustration. Revelation provides a number of other instances where ātormentā clearly has an illustrative or symbolic sense, as is evident from context.āāRe 9:5; 11:10; 18:7, 10.