In listening to the recording of this show it seems that a popular argument against Universalism emerges. Daniel Strange raises the argument that those who are in hell will not want to come out of hell. He then illustrates that there are people in the world whom we know this is true; though they are miserable and need help, you offer and they decline. If I am correct he uses C.S. Lewis’ analogy of people on a bus who see heaven and want nothing to do with it. Sin in this sense is self perpetual.
evangelicaluniversalist.com/ … 4-3617.mp3
(time code 35:14-36:17 from original track) This clip has been cut down to shorten download time.
[size=85]all rights © reserved by premier media group[/size]
On one hand people in hell don’t and would not want to be in heaven
on the other hand people in hell are tortured and would rather be in hell than in heaven.
There seems to be a few problems that follow.
Evangelism seems pointless here. If indeed my neighbor is going to hell and he woud rather be there then be in the presence of God, then perhaps it’s the right decision for him.
Everone gets heaven in the sense hell is what they want.
Raising the obvious illogic that people who are bound to a world of torture prefer being bound to a world of well being.
It seems this is a poor way of using biblical passages which over and over seem to paint a picture of an awful consignment.
lake of fire
weeping and gnashing of teeth
cut to pieces
just to name a few
How can this position be biblically defended?