According to Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary
From the online Catholic Encyclopedia. Even the Catholics believe grace is a gift:
Michael, thanks for amplifying. It’s widely accepted, and I agree, that agape can involve severity (though this needn’t mean a contradictory paradox concerning love’s pursuit of the best for us, insofar as the severity is seeking the true saving welfare of the loved one).
But you suggested earlier that Edwards thought hell protects us from irreparable harm, and now from harming one another in hell. And as one for whom he carries no authority, that just sounds made up to me. The usual consensus is that ‘hell’ means being thrown into a position that IS precisely irreparable, and I’m not seeing how you’ve offered any Biblical challenge to that interpretation, OR addressed how Edward’s idea of hell is consistent with the texts I cited on genuine love’s commitment to seeking the best for the one loved (as Jesus put it, to “seek the lost Until they are found”).
Indeed, I think a more Biblical picture is that hell and God’s judgment do NOT focus on protecting us from God’s wrath, but more involve a Severity wherein his protection is removed, and we face the severe torment of reaping what we’ve sowed. For the N.T. emphasis is that we cannot become a new creation until we face our sin, experience the destruction of our old man, and recognize the need to put to death the deeds of the flesh.
The torment would be the kind that restrains those in hell from harming each other. So, I would agree. It’s not made up but taken from the Bible that says God is kind and severe and that God is love and that love protects. Not only would those in hell be protected from harm but so would God’s children in the New Creation.
I guess the purification can take place when God separates the sheep from the goats. Christ says depart from me. The pruning takes place so the body can grow better.
I never said it’s a protection from God’s wrath but a protection from evil. Love always protects from evil.
This passage clearly states that not all those in the lake of fire wash their robes. Augustine held that God saves some out of the lake of fire. This would be purgatory. The great wedding banquet says many are called but few are chosen. Not everyone is saved through the fire. Not everyone is grafted back in. In the new heaven and earth Christ is “all in all” All flesh will worship Christ there. Those that are in heaven and earth and those from under the earth (purgatory). All flesh:
As we can see, those in the Lake of fire aren’t included in “all mankind” or the new heavens and earth. You have to be grafted in. The Bible is silent on who will be grafted back in. But according to Revelation it’s only those who wash their robes. This clearly isn’t everybody.
AS these passages state, some are saved out of the lake of fire in the age to come but not all.
Actually, simply stating the conditions for salvation does not at all declare how many will ultimately confess Jesus as Lord at all, much less ‘clearly’ limit it. Indeed the most literal didactic texts with the greatest grammatical clarity don’t limit God’s power and love the way that you do.
18 “Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.” (Romans 5)
Clearly, the same ‘many’ who were made sinners in Adam (in parallel with vs. 18’s “all people”) “WILL (future tense) be made righteous” through Christ.
22 “For as in Adam all die (true of all sinners), so in Christ ALL will be made alive. 23 But each in turn…” 1 Corinthians 15
19 “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.” (Colossians 1) Here, as in many texts, Paul again clearly declares that all those “created” by God (see vs. 16) are to be reconciled into God’s peace by the blood of Christ.
You can assert that apocalyptic judgment texts more clearly limits these plain promises of what God’s love and power can and will do. But my perception is that this position selects to camp on the less clear texts in order to limit and deny the plain promises of the extent of the victory God’s power and love is assuring. And as I’ve said, your position defines agape in contradiction to the clear definitions of a steadfast love that perseveres in “seeking the lost UNTIL they are found.”
God seeks after His lost sheep. The sheep are not the goats. The “whole world” and “all mankind” doesn’t include those who have been cut off and separated in the lake of fire. You have to be grafted in to be part of the “whole world” or “all mankind”. It’s a union.
Notice that God makes all things new. Heavens and earth is a merism that means “everything” including the "whole world’.
Those in the lake of fire aren’t included in “all mankind” or the “whole world”. They have been cut off from “all humanity” and are not in union with the “All things” made new. You have to be grafted in to be a part of “all things” or the “whole world”
I’ve heard many attempts to get around the ‘all’ language in the NT, especially in Paul, and have not heard one that does not tangle up in its own presuppositions. Paul is very straightforward in his ‘all’ language - though calling him ‘straightforward’ in general would be stretching it. 
A way to settle it would be with a metaphysical argument. Here’s the airtight logic of Edwards:
What Edwards argument shows and what he scriptures teach is that there is a sense in which all sins are equal in that they all separate our hearts from God’s mercy.
In one sense, all sins are equal. “The wages of sin is death …”, refers to all sin, in thought, word, or deed. They all separate our hearts from God’s mercy.Of course, there’s another sense in which some sins are worse than others. So, with the eternal separation comes different degrees of torment in hell just as there are different rewards in eternal life. Some in hell need more restraint than others. The eternal separation of the heart from God’s mercy causes it to harden. Therefore the longer in hell the more hatred people develop for God and the more corrupt they become. You don’t get better without God’s mercy you get worse. People in hell don’t want God as they refuse Him because of hardened hearts. The pruning is for the body of Christ. The bad is cut off so that the body can grow better. The correction takes place as the sheep are separated from the goats. The goats depart from Christ and their hearts grow harder and harder as they become more wicked.
I still think it is prudent to try to understand Paul’s logic, more than Edwards or any other theologian for that matter.
Eloquence can uplift, or it can least astray, or inflame, and Edwards is eloquent to be sure - but he is not inspired in the same manner or same extent as St. Paul.
And Paul is clear in his usage of ‘all’ in Romans 5 and I Cor 15. That closes the case for me, and gives me cause to hold firm in the faith.
Well, I showed you the scripture and reject it. So, I thought we would look at Reality
Sure.
Michael,
If your assertion is correct that Paul’s cited promises that God will make righteous & reconcile ALL “men” (anthropoi), qualified as all of them who are in Adam, and as all those he created (even as all those on the earth, above the earth, and under it!), is actually Paul’s way of referring only to a select group God had grafted in, then your argument is coherent. But I perceive you have then made language meaningless, because it implies there is then No way Paul’s language could convincingly delineate that he actually means by “all people” to be referring to all people.
You’re welcome to embrace a philosophy that what has sounded to historic Christendom as God’s plain desire to save all is not what even God’s power & love will accomplish. But I find your way of handling Scripture’s language lets you turn any affirmation into whatever view you choose.
Grace be with you,
Bob
I’ve been reading my book that defends purgatory and see that the author goes along with many church Fathers including Augustine that purgatory and hell are both under the earth in the Lake of Fire. Hell is just a different state of being than purgatory. The Catholic liturgy holds out the hope for the salvation of all for they pray for all the dead because they never claim any person actually dies in a mortal sin and don’t know who enters the state of being called hell. The church never proclaims anyone to be in the state of being that is hell. Based on this and the scriptures above we must reasonably hope that all will be saved. The “whole world” and “all mankind” is restricted to the new heavens and earth where “all things” are made new. The lake of fire isn’t included in this. To be included in “all people” or the “whole world” one has to be grafted into the body of Christ and become part of “all humanity”. The Bible does teach that God does this for some but is silent on the rest of those in the Lake of fire. The route I now take is that of the Catholic theologian Von Balthasar. We can reasonably hope and pray that all will be saved.
The title of this thread is, “Does God allow irreparable harm?” I haven’t read Tom’s comments yet, but i wonder if this question is related: “Is God a monster if ETC is true?”
Following is part of a discussion i’ve been having recently with a EO lady at CF. Now i’m off to read what Tom said ;
Anastasia,
You say God doesn’t want to torment them, yet He forces them into His presence which torments them. As if One Who is Omnipotent had no other options. Such as in this world where He doesn’t force them into such torments, so there is no reason why He would have to do so in the afterlife. None that you have yet provided, at least.
A Being who Is Love simply doesn’t cause, or allow, such sufferings, unless there is a positive purpose & goal in mind, in this case the salvation of all who He would choose to subject to such torments. Yet you claim it cannot be known if such sufferings would be corrective & salvific. If they are not, the only logical alternative is that they are hideously monstrous. And if endless, then infinitely worse than the sadists of all history combined.
So no matter how you try to flower up the dead corpse of unceasing miseries with roses & petals, a rotting carcass is still a rotting carcass, whether it’s the Calvinist brand of an eternity of sufferings, or any other.
We can do better than merely hope, since the apostle states “many” will be saved. Furthermore it’s so many that it’s used in the same sentence, and in parallel, with the number of humanity who fell through Adam:
Rom 5:18 Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for all mankind for condemnation, thus also it is through one just act for all mankind for life’s justifying."
Rom 5:19 For even as, through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One, the many shall be constituted just."
Whether one wants to believe their church dogma, or the Word of God, is up to them. Evidently EO scholar David Bentley Hart has chosen the latter.
There is only one refuge for those that claim that God will allow/decree that ECT is fitting - and that refuge is Sovereignty. But in order for that to ‘work’ as a justification of ECT, we would have to accept behaviors from God that we would find appalling in a human being.
This debate can lead to a very uncomfortable set of conclusions, among which is: when one side says ‘god’, is it the ‘same’ god as the other side is talking about? We’ve talked about this on the Forum previously.
Excellent point!
Does the euthyphro dilemna present a problem for those who try to justify endless torments based on sovereignty?
If someone can direct me to such discussions, i’d appreciate it.
BTW, the article by Tom Talbott is excellent. I’ll need to read it again so it can soak in.
“This does not mean, of course, that a loving God, whose goal is the reconciliation of the world, would prevent every suicide, every murder, or every atrocity in human history, however horrendous such evils may seem to us; it follows only that he would prevent every harm that not even omnipotence could repair at some future time, and neither suicide nor murder is necessarily an instance of that kind of harm. For God can resurrect the victims of murder and suicide just as easily as he can the victims of old age. So even if a loving God could sometimes permit murder, he could never permit one person to annihilate the soul of another or to destroy the very possibility of future happiness in another; and even if he could sometimes permit suicide, he could never permit his loved ones to destroy the very possibility of future happiness in themselves either. Just as loving parents are prepared to restrict the freedom of the children they love, so a loving God would restrict the freedom of the children he loves, at least in cases of truly irreparable harm. The only difference is that God deals with a much larger picture and a much longer time frame than that with which human parents are immediately concerned.”
How is that a problem?
edit
Harm- that is a good question 
The Talbott article has some very interesting remarks re election & Romans 8.
Similarly in another piece he tackles predestination:
evangelicaluniversalist.com/ … nation.pdf
Likewise Alex has an excellent article on the elect here:
Which gives an overview of the topic through the entire Scriptures.
“Does the euthyphro dilemma present a problem for those who try to justify endless torments based on sovereignty?”
The question of the Good and it’s relation to ‘the gods’ (Plato) indirectly speaks to the ECT problem we face. As we wrestle with that problem we are, for lack of a more respectful term, putting God ‘in the dock’ - we are posing an ethical question to God by asking what is more important - sovereignty or ‘the good’? Is one subordinate to the other? And why? That gets us to Euthyphro.