The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Rejoicing Seeing People in ECT, Part 2

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#1

Hey all, I’ve decided to start a new thread due to the fact that I feel the other similarly titled thread had become clogged with unprofitable and unedifying posts that detracted from Alex’ s OP. Now that the dust has settled maybe tempers won’t flare so quickly and hopefully I can at least try to provide my take on a very controversial subject. Of course, the mod team may merge this thread with the other as they see fit.
First, I confess that I still have not read the thesis that kicked off the controversy to begin with, nor do I plan on reading it.
I perused just enough of the thesis, and based upon some responses to it, to feel that I have a decent grasp of the topic i.e. will the righteous rejoice in watching the wicked be eternally punished? And if so, how could that be “Heaven”, especially if some, if not most of our loved ones are the ones suffering? These are fair questions and I’ll try to provide my understanding, but I qualify that now by saying that I don’t purport to speak for all of Calvinism, nor am I currently aware of any dogmatic stance in our creeds, confessions or catechisms. Perhaps there is some dogmatic stance and I’m just ignorant of it.
Now, let me say this; the doctrine of election / reprobation is something that is completely obsessed over by neophyte Calvinists and nonCalvinists, not the mature or grounded Calvinists. Mature Calvinists find the Doctrines of Grace to be far, far greater and deeper than just election / reprobation, therefore we don’t spend much of our time beating a dead horse. Election / reprobation falls into the broader headings of YHWH’s omniscience, omnipotence, holiness, mercy, justice and most of all-His sovereignty. The potter has rights over the clayPERIOD! I know that there are UR alternatives to our understanding of the above but I’m not going to debate that here and now in this post.
The image of the elect gloating over the suffering of the damned, as though it were some type of Roman circus-gladitorial game, is I believe not a correct image. To the extent that the saved will be aware of the lost, it will be in the context of the true and living God, now fulfilling His role as the Righteous Judge. Whatever punishment and its duration (eternal) will be seen for exactly what it is (just)-and the wicked will be seen for exactly what they are. There will be no injustice whatsoever, for all of His judgments are righteous and true. I understand justice in this life-though not perfectly because the effects of sin still permeate my mind-as they do all other humans. With this understanding, I can have complete trust in my Maker.
TBH, I come from a very small family-never really knew my dad, who was an old-school junkie, no siblings and raised for the most part by mom and grandpa. My conversion to Christianity coincided with the increasing spectre of death on my grandpa, whom I loved and adored. My conversion to Calvinism-which I fought tooth and nail for most the reasons you all do-came shortly before my grandpa died. For all outward appearances, my grandpa was a vessel of wrath-a reprobate! I struggled with a hatred of God because of this, as well as other reasons. But deep down I knew that God was just and I wasn’t. Nowhere in Scripture is God portrayed as a monster or puppet-master, only a loving Father to some and a judge and executioner to others. In time I began to see how the LORD had blessed me with my grandpa and simultaneously kept me from of his sins, many of which had severely damaged the family for generations to come. I couldn’t admit to such things before, but in time I could. The Potter had molded one into vessel of wrath (my grandpa) and another into a vessel of mercy (myself)…behold, the kindness and severity of God! Jesus said that those who heard and did the will of God were His family, and that He came to bring division within families. I’ve experienced this first hand. I do not picture myself in heaven torturing or encouraging the torture of my grandpa by any means. For those who have lost loved ones, especially children who were not saved, I can only begin to imagine the pain and despair. I’m sorry for such losses. But such powerful emotions as grief and despair do not allow me to say such things as, “Well, if my wife / husband / child / friend isn’t in heaven, then it wouldn’t be heaven.” I have complete faith and trust that the LORD will wipe away all tears and the worship, presence of God and the fellowship of my brothers and sisters, along with a mind that has been cleansed from all sin and carnal reasoning will be of a greater joy than words here can express. I hope this helps.

Matt

In-depth Thesis on "Rejoicing seeing people suffer in ECT"
#2

No matter how nicely you try to put the concept, to claim that there will be rejoicing/apathy/distraction by joy in Heaven concerning the fate of the condemned is to say that compassion will be erased in Heaven. To make the claim that people will be happy in spite of the eternal torture of any souls is a completely self-centered anthropomorphism, imo, much more so than any anthropomorphism that Calvs/Arms use to decry UR. The ECT claim that we will be so very different in Heaven, yet somehow be so much less than the best we can imagine (i.e., no compassion) smacks of a psychology that is vengeful and exclusionary, but it seems to be ok for Calvs/Arms to project their psychology onto God, while they condemn UR proponents for doing the same.

I’ll add that I put more weight on the evidence I see with my own two eyes regarding the psychology of Calvinists than any theological discussion they may offer, and I’m surrounded by Calvinists here in Texas. They exemplify wonderfully the points Richard Beck made in his book Unclean, as they all have an exclusionary boundary somewhere, then try to justify that exclusion by illogical arguments from scripture. Compassion is great, so long as they can use it to maintain that exclusionary boundary and get a feeling of superiority. Change the way your Calvinist brethren treat people, then I might be willing to take your theological arguments seriously.

#3

There are a few problems I find with this. The major one is that if, while on Earth, God approves of our praying for our friends and relations, even commands it, I can’t see that this would cease in heaven.

Now if heaven is stuffed full of saved people who go on badgering God to do something about the lost, and they have infinite time both to appeal to God and to solve the problem themselves, I can’t see the lost staying lost.

#4

The bit about the kindness and severity of God . . . this is in the context of (first) explaining how all Israel will be saved (and in context Paul is clearly talking about National Israel, and even if this weren’t the case (which it is) it would make no sense to say that ‘all the saved will be saved’) and (second) of explaining that those now subject to the severity of God (Israel) suffer that severity to the end that they will then become objects of mercy themselves.

Likewise the Potter does have full authority over the clay. Paul was once a vessel of wrath (not an ‘apparent’ vessel of wrath, but a just plain 'ol vessel of wrath) and became a vessel of honor. We also were once vessels of wrath and have become vessels of honor by His mercy. And those who are currently vessels of wrath (in the context of the letter, religious Jews) will, all of them, be saved. Even if you want to say that ‘all doesn’t mean all,’ we still see a sizable number of vessels of wrath which must be converted to vessels of honor in order for this prophesy to even approach being true.

I do understand about holding things in tension, but in order for a thing (think of a spring in a watch) to be held in tension, there must be some confining space in which it can be kept in its tension – otherwise it springs out and loses its tension. God’s wrath is contained within His mercy. The mercy is served by the wrath, making the children of wrath into objects of mercy.

Oh yes! I think I know why Paul’s heart overflowed with praise and rejoicing here. God is amazing! God is GOOD. (And yes, good means the sort of goodness He commands of us through Jesus’ sermon on the mount.) God is exactly and precisely so much more than He commands His children to be. :smiley:

Love, Cindy

#5

Well, at least we are in full agreement that the Potter has sovereign rights over the clay to work as He sees fit :slight_smile:
I continue to dispute that Paul has himself in mind when he speaks of vessels of wrath and mercy. The text supports this in no way. He does not use himself as an example i.e. Saul / Paul. He clearly states, “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are His offspring.” Only the children of promise are counted as offspring as it relates to entry into the Kingdom, inheritance and being co-heirs with Christ. The contrast moves from Ishmael / Isaac to Jacob / Esau. The Spirit then moves the apostle to anticipate an outcry of injustice, which he promptly and rightly denies. He now moves forward in the quoting of redemptive history by contrasting Moses / Pharaoh. “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” So then He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills. Again, Paul never refers to himself in these striking contrasts.
Again, the apostle anticipates the carnal complaint, “Why does He still find fault?” His rebuke is decisive-“Who are you, o mortal creature, to answer back to God?” We already agree that the Potter has rights to form the clay as He sees fit.
He then explains that the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction reveal His patience and forebearance with them while also contrasting to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory.
Again, in no way does the text support the idea that Paul is referring to Saul. If the Spirit meant that every single human being that ever has, does and will exist is a vessel of wrath turned into a vessel of mercy, then there would be no outcries of ‘injustice’.
Paul goes on to quote the prophet by saying, “Though there are numerous Israelites, only a remnant will be saved.” Remember, not all of Abraham / Israel is elect. Paul has already clearly established that. Paul continues that the Gospel must be preached and received by faith, that there is a remnant chosen by grace with the rest being hardened with only the elect obtaining.
As for “all of Israel being saved”…this has been interpreted in different ways. I lean strongly-though not “Thus sayeth the LORD, I bet my salvation on it” strongly, that this refers to a time yet to come when His Spirit will quicken national Israel when the times of the Gentiles are complete. As of this post, that time is not now. The word of God has not failed. He will save all that He has predestined to save and that does not include ALL. Calvinists rejoice with love, awe, fear and trembling over the doxology that Paul cites-UR’s have no monopoly on that whatsoever.
If anyone feels so led, please explain why vessels of wrath who are to become vessels of mercy claim injustice on God’s part and petulantly question why they were made as they are and He still finds fault.

Matt

#6

I’m glad you feel I’ve put my argument nicely, but I don’t recall mentioning apathy or distraction :slight_smile:
By deferring to the sovereignty of God in cleansing my mind so that I might see with great clarity His justice in punishing the impenitent, I fail to see how this qualifies as self-centered, anthropomorhism. I’d say it qualifies as theocentric :wink:
If you’re placing more weight on the evidence you see with your own eyes rather than theological discussion, I see where your problem lies. Might I recommend some salve to anoint your eyes?
I wish I was in Texas surrounded by Calvinists! That sounds like a little slice o’ Heaven here on Earth! Isn’t the LORD ironic in His providence? I’m in California, the Whore of Babylon ain’t got nothin’ on us :cry: Wanna switch? “Californian by birth, Texan by the grace of God!” God bless Texas! Keep Austin weird!
As far as changing my fellow elect Calvinist brethren, if you’ll send me their names, emails and or phone numbers, I’d gladly contact them and admonish them in the love of the LORD as needed. I’d also like at least one or two more witnesses from you to corroborate your testimony :wink:

Matt

#7

Two reasons why many of us do not subscribe to Calvinism – Calvinism, no matter how many ways they spin it does have God as a puppet-master who rightfully makes the lump of clay do horrible evils, and a god who shows favoritism when scripture says he doesn’t.

Often I’ve argued that Calvinists should not see Universalism as a threat but as a logical step towards Calvinism. That is, it’s proper for people to reject Calvinism because at the surface God looks a lot like Quetzalcoatl or Zeus – mischievous and violent gods. So for people to reject such presentations of God is logical and reasonable.

Now if there is some deep and profound philosophy to life that we should reject a God who…
a) Forces others to do evil then blames them for it rather than blaming himself.
b) Shows favoritism. Loves the righteous and hates the wicked.
c) Loves his own self more than others and would never EVER, for his own reputation, lay down his life for someone else…

…then yea, we don’t have that capacity to embrace such a God. Then again, neither do we embrace a presentation of Allah that commands us to strap bombs on our chest, blowing our enemies to bits, and claims to be loving and compassionate. Both it seem, are clearly deceptions.

#8

It’s good to see you posting again, Gene!
First, let me state that my OP was to show how I believe it is possible for the saved in Heaven in the presence of the Lord to view the impenitent, haters of God without the saved having our joy diminished. I feel that I put forth a reasonable account. I’m not naive enough to think that suddenly UR’s are going to jump ship, though. Although I am a Calvinist, I believe that my view would be suitable for Arminians and Roman Catholics as well. Frankly, I’m unaware of the Scriptures saying too much about the mindset of the Redeemed in the hereafter other than tears will be wiped away and a joy unspeakable will be known-“No eye has seen nor ear has heard what the LORD has prepared for those who love Him” type of thing. Now it goes without saying that you’d believe this too, it’s just a matter of everyone being in Heaven, right? But as far as the little bit that is revealed in Holy Writ, I’d look to Revelation 6:10, where the saints who have been martyred cry out, “How long before You will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” They are then temporarily comforted and told to rest for the time was not then. To me, this explicitly states that they ARE NOT petitioning YHWH for mercy on the wicked. Later, after the great whore has been judged and thrown down, a great multitude in Heaven proclaims, “Hallelujah!..His judgments are righteous and true…Hallelujah! The smoke goes up from her forever and ever.” Then the Marriage Supper, the Great White Throne Judgment in which those whose names are not found in the Book of Life are thrown into the lake of fire, along with the devil and such. Then the New Heaven / Earth. Jesus states that He is coming with just recompense to repay everyone for what they’d done.
Now, I know that Revelation can be a sketchy book to try to determine precise doctrine, but based on the above we do have at least a couple of verses indicating somewhat explicitly the view that the saved will be aware of the damned suffering and will not be petitioning for their forgiveness. I know that UR’s will make the case that the saved will evangelise those in the lake of fire, offering to slake their thirst with the river of life and the formerly wicked kings of the earth will repent and bring their glory into the New Jerusalem. However, at the absolute best this argument is implicit, not explicit. The text supports the traditional view more than the UR view. Aside from any implicit views inserted into the text, do you know of any verses that state the redeemed will be actively petitioning YHWH to show mercy on the damned in the life to come?
As a side note, I’d be more than happy to debate with you the Doctrines of Grace vs. UR. Johnny and I tried such a debate, but given that he holds such a low view of Scripture it proved to be fruitless. I believe that you hold a higher view of God’s word and are reasonably informed about Calvinism-what do ya say?

Matt

#9

Jaxx, Good to talk to you too.

I wasn’t implying you were expecting Universalists to jump ship. I’m simply stating that from reason, Calvinists ought to understand why people are Universalists - it’s a rejection of their philosphy and undersanding of “love”.

I have little contention with what you wrote in your last response. I too believe those in Heaven will rejoice in God’s judgement but not because we’re full of hatred of those who did not make it, but because we rejoice in God’s loving kindness and mercy which are never ceasing. So I trust full well that God still has their hearts in interest and is pressing forward to dealing with their wickedness.

As for the scriptures you reference, yes I agree, Rev is far to symbolic for me to take literally. While the saints are looking for vengeance, it does not say that they are not looking for their salvation. You read into it what is not there. I too pray that God deals with the wicked, just as I would pray God deal with Nazis for throwing families into ovens. My only exception is to include hatred into my prayer. I see nothing in the text that states their praying for their eternal destruction with no hope of reconciliation. Often I’ve argued, Romans 9 RULES OUT (PERIOD!) the saints rights to ask God not to show mercy because IT IS GOD’S RIGHT TO HAVE MERCY ON WHOM HE PLEASES AND WHEN HE PLEASES. In other words, Calvinism can only say “we believe” God won’t have mercy on those in hell, but it’s always open to him since he reserves the right to do it - it’s possible. Most Calvinists argue that if he did he would be a liar and thus I would say “SHAME ON YOU! You believe you have perfect interpretation”. Calvinists should say - all God does is good and his saving people post-mortem is his right and therefore my interpretations are suspect if he does so.

The imagery you set forth that paints images of ECT/ANN (which ever you subscribe to) do not spell out ECT for me. I believe we need to see all the paintings of scripture in order to understand Rev. But so many Christians are literalists and see it as a book that spells out things literally. I simply don’t subscribe to that.

As for a debate, I doubt I’m qualified Matt. I hardly have the time, which is why I’ve not been on the board as much lately. Lunch and dinner sounds better :slight_smile: YOUR TREAT! KIDDING. Hope we can meet up soon.

Blessings bro.

#10

I agree, he most likely does not have himself immediately in mind as being one of the vessels of wrath currently.

However, “vessels of X” in scripture are demonstrably intended to pour out X upon something or someone. In that context, some people are made to pour out wrath and others are made to pour out mercy. The most relevant example being the bowls brimming with and pouring out God’s {thumos} (though not the same term here) in Rev 15-16.

Paul as Saul was certainly among those who had been made to pour out wrath, once upon a time. This does not seem disputable to me.

Moreover, Paul certainly includes himself as a former child of wrath (same term as in Rom 9) by nature, in Eph 2:3. Considering the extremity of his description of such children (into hyperbole?), I do not see any feasible way these cannot be the same class as the vessels of wrath in Rom 9.

The two classes of vessel are not watertight (so to speak); God saves people from one class into the other class, and makes use of both in His purposes.

However, Paul also just as clearly states, only a couple of verses previously, that those same Israel by flesh who are not yet spiritual Israel, who are still stumbling over the stumbling stone, still have the promises! (Rom 9:3-5) This is his immediate consolation for his unceasing grief over his kinsmen according to the flesh who are not spiritual Israel (as indeed none of us are to begin with, thanks to sin).

And that is his context for going on to talk about how the children of the promise, not the children of the flesh, are the inheritors. If only the children of the flesh could be inheritors, the scope of salvation would be limited to the descendants of Abraham by the flesh, and then restricted further to descendants of Isaac and descendants of Jacob by the flesh. But since it is rather the children of the promise who are inheritors, then (because of the scope of the promise to Abraham) anyone can be inheritors–including those descendants of the flesh who are currently stumbling over the stumbling stone, for they are the first of people to be included in the promises of God.

This is why Isaac could be inspired to bless Esau (and thus Esau’s descendants Edom) in Jacob, and why God can promise that Esau’s descendants will serve Jacob’s. Salvation for Esau and his descendants was never predicated on the right of flesh (or Esau would have been included in God’s inheritance through Isaac per 9:7 – but most of us would not, probably including yourself!), but on the right of God’s promise. Just as God promised Abraham that Sarah would have a son, God promised that Abraham’s descendants would number more than the stars of heaven regardless of the line of descent through which the agent of that promise (God Himself Incarnate) explicitly came, which is why God could promise to protect Ishmael and could promise to bless Esau.

The contrast is the line of descent by flesh, not the calling and promises of God, in which Paul explicitly includes those stumblers who are not the righteous remnant, and which are irrevocable.

Which he can do because the others, despite serving a more dishonorable place in salvation history (as he himself once served, by the way, although I admit he doesn’t mention that here), are still included in God’s mercy. They may have been assigned to pour out wrath (and we all have been imprisoned by God for our stubbornness), but shall receive the mercy poured out by others.

Otherwise Paul would not have been able to use the term {makrothumia} explicitly about them at 9:22, which everywhere else in scripture when referring to God indisputably indicates God’s intention to save the objects of His “longsuffering”. To deny that it means God intends for the vessels of wrath to be saved, at the very least undercuts any assurance of God’s {makrothumia} in regard to ourselves, if indeed we think God has any for us at all.

(Is that not in fact an argument used by Calvinists against Arminians?–to suggest that God’s {makrothumia} in regard to some people will fail, is the same as despising God’s {makrothumia} generally, thus having no faith in God’s {makrothumia} in regard to our own salvation, per Paul’s own stringent warning at the beginning of Rom 2.)

The verses cited by Paul are not about contrasting Moses to Pharaoh, but about promising that God will raise up even Pharaoh to be a witness to the nations despite Pharaoh’s own willful obstinacy (which he persisted in, between times when God was hardening his heart); and about God emphasizing His mercy and compassion in His self-existent revelation (to which His promise not to let the guilty go free is subordinate).

It was because of that verse about Pharaoh, that rabbis subsequently couldn’t believe he had actually been killed off permanently while fording the Reed Sea, and so suggested various theories about God raising him from the dead afterward to serve as His evangelist. One such theory was that he was raised on the Sinai side of the Sea, humbly followed Israel up the eastern side of the Jordan in anonymity, became disgusted with their infidelity so continued north, where by God’s gracious calling and power he eventually became king of Ninevah — thus explaining why the king of that city was so quickly willing to lead them to repentance at the ridiculously minimal and hostile preaching of Jonah! The moral of that version of the story being this, that it is not up to the man who wills (Pharaoh) nor the man who runs (Jonah) but God Who has mercy.

Whether Paul had that particular rabbinic theory in mind I can’t prove, but the context indicates he wasn’t trotting out Pharaoh as an example of someone being hopelessly punished, although certainly as someone chosen to be a vessel for pouring out wrath.

And in the prophets whom Paul was citing by those sayings (could have been one or more of four examples), the sayings are rebuking those who don’t believe God is going to save someone after all!

At least we agree his rebuke is decisive. :wink:

(Paul does not say “on the contrary” or anything like that in Greek. He cites scriptures where God found fault with Israel and punished them for their sins but promised to restore them afterward. The potter remakes the clay when spoiled on the wheel; and unlike a human potter God can restore His pottery by miracle even after He has so thoroughly shattered it on the floor that not a piece can even hold water.)

That term {makrothumia} should have been a very large clue, that God has saving intention toward the vessels of wrath, not only the vessels of mercy.

Or since the outcries of ‘injustice’ are aimed against hopeless punishment for those who could not help being designed by God that way, the Spirit answers that when it comes to determination God is also determined to save them after all. (While alluding to examples where God is complaining about sinners whom He was not hardening.)

Actually, Paul explicitly said back at the beginning of the chapter that all Israel is elected by the promise of God, even those who are not yet spiritually Israel, which was the beginning of his consolation over their stumbling.

But you skipped over Paul more immediately going on to quote the prophet by saying, “I shall be calling the ones who are not My people ‘My people’, and she who is not beloved ‘beloved’, and it shall be in the place where it was declared to them, ‘You are not My people’, there ‘they shall be called “sons of the living God”’.”

Paul says that about the Gentiles not only the Israelites, but the prophet Hosea was saying that about rebel Israel – and not about the righteous remnant!

If Paul believed he was talking about a non-elect whom God had no intention to save, he would not go on to say about them (10:1) that “the delight of my heart and my petition to God for their sake is into salvation.” He’s certainly talking about those who are ignorant of the righteousness of God (among other things), not about the righteous remnant (paralleled to the 7000 remnant in the days of Elijah) who in following Christ are not stumbling over the stumbling stone.

On the contrary, while it is certainly true that Paul insists the Gospel must be preached and received by faith (including to those who are currently stumbling), Paul insists that those who have been hardened and who have stumbled, have not stumbled so as to fall: “MAY IT NEVER BE!”

Seeing as how Paul keeps rejoicing that even those who have stumbled have not stumbled so as to fall, because they also have the promises and the promises of God are unregretted, I recommend interpreting it to mean that all of Israel will be saved. :slight_smile: Not an all that does not include those who have stumbled. Just as you yourself were once stubborn toward God but shown mercy thanks to their stubbornness, so they who are stubborn to your mercy (which as a vessel of mercy you’re supposed to be pouring out on them!) shall also be shown mercy. For God locks up “the all” together into stubbornness, that He should be merciful to “the all”.

True, but we do have a monopoly on connecting the “the all” of that doxology with the “the all” of God’s salvation a few verses earlier, “seeing that out of Him and through Him and into Him is the all”. To Him be the glory into the eons! Amen! :slight_smile:

Calvinists and Arminians agree of course about the creational “the all” in that verse. Calvs don’t agree with us (and the Arms) that Paul means the same scope of “the all” (all sinners) back in verse 32 as paralleled by the scope of creation in verse 36; and Arms don’t agree with us (and the Calvs) that Paul means God will surely save “the all” back in verse 32 paralleled by the surety that He creates everything in verse 36.

They wouldn’t (and by the terms of his question he means someone in his audience), unless someone else had taught them differently than St. Paul does, which he is now correcting. :slight_smile:

Too bad his correction didn’t stand. It might have saved a lot of trouble and heartache later.

#11

Meanwhile, getting back to the main post… :wink:

I have no intention of challenging you (Matt) on your way of getting over grieving for your beloved grandfather; people who love those whom they expect God had no intention to ever save from their sins and lead to becoming righteous, but rather to leave them in final unrighteousness forever (and in fact were created by God to never be anything other than unrighteous), have to get past that one way or another, and I don’t begrudge them the effort.

It’s the doctrine I oppose – people have to make do with what they have, and if all they have is that doctrine then I have no blame for them doing the best they can with it. If you can believe you will be happy or at least content with final unrighteousness (so long as you are not the one who is finally unrighteous), let it be so.

But those of us who are not prepared to be content with unrighteousness into eternity, are (by tautology) not prepared to be content with final ongoing unrighteousness. (Or with unrepented final unrighteousness if the doer of unrighteousness is annihilated instead.) We do not expect God, the Righteous One, Who by being Righteousness is the fundamental ground of all reality, to be content with final unrighteousness either: not in other people any more than in us.

If we are wrong, we are wrong for believing too much in the ultimate righteousness of God, that He will not be content with final unrighteousness either: as He is not and will not be content, neither should we.

But if we are wrong and God is content with (and even the ultimate author) of final unrighteousness after all, then we shall just have to make do the best we can. Perhaps we can learn to be content with final unrighteousness, too. To us that seems a step backward right now, but we can try to learn to be content with less, and even to rejoice in the final unrighteousness of God someday.

That is how we see any claim that God can and will be content with final unrighteousness; much moreso that God intentionally creates and imposes final unrighteousness. Right now, that is abhorrent to us.

But by the theo-logic of the case, that is what any doctrine of hopeless punishment (whether ECT or anni), and especially any Calv doctrine of hopeless punishment, involves.

And that is why we respond so strongly against the notion of rejoicing seeing people in ECT. It is not only that we are (at the moment) more merciful than God must be, but also that we see rejoicing over hopelessly ongoing injustice is itself evil. Not rejoicing over the punishment of injustice, but if the punishment is hopeless the injustice must be hopelessly ongoing, too; and rejoicing over that must also at least in part involve rejoicing over hopelessly ongoing injustice. Someone can only avoid that by a mental jump over-around the implications.

But that doesn’t get rid of the implications. It only involves being blind to the implications, or blinding one’s self perhaps.

We see the implications, and do not think it can be right to be blinded to the implications again (as those of us were who once believed in hopeless punishment, which is most of us, myself included).

Anyway, that is why our rejection of this notion runs so hotly.

#12

Thanks, Jason – I’ve been very busy with my husband, going to doctors & etc., so I appreciate your doing that. :smiley: (Besides you did it better than I would have anyway :wink: )

#13

Gene, I understand being short of time-that’s actually why I suggested that you and I debate one on one-so I’m not spread so thin here on the forum cutting heads off of the hydra. It’s hard being the lone voice of truth crying in the wilderness when I have to keep Jason, Cindy, Paidon, Sobornost and Sherman in check :sunglasses:
BTW, I feel that you’re qualified to debate with me-that’s another reason why I asked you. YHWH willing, we will get together soon, hopefully in April. Saturdays will probably work best for me. I’ll PM you my # and we’ll firm up the details. And I’ll be happy to treat this time :wink:

Matt

#14

Hi Jason, I just wanted to acknowledge your posts for the time being and let you know that I’ve read them. I’ll try to respond to at least one-probably the second post-this weekend. For now I remain unconvinced, but I’m always willing to admit that you make me think and cause me to dig deep :wink:

Matt

#15

That’s fine; the first post was replying to a topical branch-off anyway.

Also, it’s a version of part of the reply I’m working on from another thread of yours anyway. :sunglasses: So that discussion would be better had over there.

#16

Jason,
your point for point response was excellent. Though I hold a somewhat esoteric view of the Pharaoh, I appreciate what you were saying.

I also agree regarding Paul’s point in Romans 9, it’s not to harden unto eternal damnation. Rather it seems Paul sees it as a means of mercy. This seems quite obvious (once we’re shown it - as Talbott pointed out in his exchange with Piper) that the same group hardened in 9 (those who rejected the messiah) did so that mercy might come to the gentiles (the whole world) which in turn causes envy - that they (those hardened) too might receive mercy - That he might have mercy on them all. Piper tried to dodge that bullet, by trying to argue that Paul suddenly switched to Corporate Israel; very weak. At least to me it seems quite clear, those softened aren’t part of the hardened group. Even if Israel (corporate) was hardened (reprobated), does that mean Israel is going into eternal rejection? Hardly. It’s no wonder why Piper hit the eject button at the end - he saw the freight train coming full speed. Piper would have to suddenly explain that Paul’s use of hardened doesn’t means reprobated in some verses but not in others just as those hardened means eternal damnation in some and not in others.

#17

HI Matt

I’m not posting on matters of doctine or history - but just to say that the hydra was a seven headed monster. Well at least you’ve only got a five headed one to contend with here now in your role as the Calvinist Hercules. But though I think it’s a fair game description for us blokes as having monster heads – we’re not a pretty sight, and we can take it :laughing: :laughing: – it seems a tad ungentlemanly and purblind to speak thus of our Cindy :open_mouth: :wink: !

#18

Aw Dick . . . always the gentleman. :wink: :laughing:

#19

Note that the other thread I was talking about, which Jaxxen started for presenting evidence in favor of two separate categories of people, those whom God has no intention of saving from their sins, and those whom God intends to save from their sins, has at last been updated with my replies to Matt’s scriptural references, from which I excerpted portions for replying to his remarks about Romans 9 above in this thread. {inhale!} {g}

#20

… Aaand at the risk of the appearance of pedantry :blush: combined with the veering dangerously wide of the topic, like an extra dragon-head, I pop in to point out that :mrgreen: Ahem! The Hydra was actually a female monster which was born (or rather hatched?) with between nine and one hundred heads (depending on your original mythographer). Her compadre, a giant crab that lived in Lake Lerna together with her—a little big annoyance who pinched off one of Herakles’ [Hercules’] toes :astonished: —was male, however. He was dashed to death with Herakles’ club and then made into the zodiacal sign Karkinon (Cancer, the “Crab”). [Hopefully that won’t be me after this attempt at scholarship…]

Hmmm… Maybe the constellation angle can bring it [ehh… somewhat… very broadly] back to topic :exclamation: The Hydra was placed in the sky as a star-group bearing the same name, and in Western astronomy is still reckoned as the biggest constellation in the sky. It corresponds to the Mesopotamian star-cluster Bašmu, named for a six-mouthed, seven-tongued dragon vanquished by the “god” Nergal (and which also appears to have been female). A related beast from the same region, called Mušmaḫḫū, which was male, seven-headed, and slain by the “god” Ninğirsu, a.k.a. Ninurta, is definitely further inspiration for the later battle between Herakles and the Hydra. With their leonine relative Ušumgallu, there is way too much of a resemblance between these gigantic horned serpents and a currently more famous dragon (from Biblical eschatology) to overlook [what I think is] the fact that the Hebrew prophets (such as John of Patmos as well as Daniel and especially Isaiah) consciously referenced quite a bit of Canaanite and Mesopotamian (and in John’s case also Greco-Roman) mythology in their oracular poetry.

In Revelation 12 the mean old seducer of the whole world, who sweeps one third of the stars out of the sky with a flick of his tail before being defeated by the celestial champion “Who-is-Like-God,” should’ve borne remarkably striking similarities to the aforementioned stories in the minds of John’s original audience.

:arrow_right: End of tangent