BRXII Battle talk

[Redfin]

By the way, my last thought above reminded me of a point that has probably been made along the way, but which deserves re-stating:

Persuasion is not a violation of free will.

The prospect of hell is currently a valid means of persuasion.

There is no reason that the experience of hell cannot be a further means of persuasion.

No free will violations involved.

 

[Balder]

Right, love the criminals. That works. Check the recidivism rates.

You mock the idea of loving criminals? Are you Christian?

 

[logos_x]

By the way, my last thought above reminded me of a point that has probably been made along the way, but which deserves re-stating:

Persuasion is not a violation of free will.

The prospect of hell is currently a valid means of persuasion.

There is no reason that the experience of hell cannot be a further means of persuasion.

No free will violations involved.

Absolutely true...and this is what makes an appeal to "free will" as justification for eternal torment ridiculous.

If you begin to formulate anything based on faulty data, where are you going to arrive at in your thinking?

The doctrine of eternal torment is arrived at through the use of faulty data. This is why I keep pointing at the faulty data and, in effect, saying that the entire construct is wrong because you have something wrong to begin with.

Arguing with believers in eternal torment is like arguing with evolutionists...who begin with a faulty idea and support it with faulty data and arrive at a plausibility structure that can only be faulty, and they get angry when you call them on it.

How do you resolve this situation...except by repeatedly pointing at the faulty data that sent them in the wrong direction, and inspire a different idea, so that they arrive at a different plausibilty structure than the one they currently hold, one that is not based on the faulty data they started out with?

I can't think of any other way of doing it, can you?

 

[logos_x]

There is no obligation on God's part to offer it for all time. A deadline is abundantly fair - in fact, that he offers it for any amount of time is fair.

People who don't like the thought of an eternal hell typically underestimate the tragedy of sin. It's not that bad ... they think. They also typically underestimate the value and deity of Jesus.

How is believing that Jesus can SAVE sinners...and save them ALL...underestimating the value and deity of Jesus?

He saves sinners. That includes me, and you...and I think pretty much everyone.
Believing He can save them all...and in fact WILL save them all...is not underestimating anything. In fact, the argument against Jesus saving all men has been that we have OVERESTIMATED the power of grace in it's (His) ability to save sinners.

Now...concerning "deadlines"...this is what the DOCTRINE of eternal torment says the deadline is: at physical death, no matter what the circumstances, no matter how old (although they will say that children get a free ticket in)...no mater how they die, what the life was like or where they were...whether whatever, they are without excuse and the DEFAULT condition is eternal torment from which Christ CANNOT save and in which there is absolutely NO HOPE!

That is what the DOCTRINE says. Grace ends...and the wrath and vengence is insatiable and endures forever with no opportunity whatsoever for any grace to be afforded.

Christ, in other words, can save sinners UNTIL they die...after which He can do nothing for anyone.

I think THAT is the ultimate underestimation.

 

[Nineveh]

I agree. Do you believe the saved will have free will in heaven?

Do we now? Or are we slaves to Christ? Who's will is going to be done in heaven? Men's freewill (...on earth) or our Father's... as it is in Heaven?

I agree, "might" is never a factor.

It's either leaving "age-during" open or closing the door on those who hate God. Universalism needs "might". Because all men have in the lake is their own freewill and they might never come to love God.

I agree.

How?

The only way is to negate the free will of men.

I disagree here. This is neither true of me nor of the others here as I understand them.

People who don't like the thought of God ultimately saving everyone underestimate the gravity and persuasive power of even a temporary hell.

Who likes the idea of eternal separation from God? Who?

The difference between us is that some of us preach the Gospel of Grace to warn others away from it because God tells us it bad and it's forever. While others of us make up excuses to ignore the ugly Truth of being separated from God in favor of a false gospel of comfort. This particular doctrine offers "age during" to want to turn to Christ. It offers false hope.

 

[logos_x]

How?

The only way is to negate the free will of men.

So...the only way to save anyone is to negate their freewill?

 

[Nineveh]

You mock the idea of loving criminals? Are you Christian?

Godly Love towards criminals isn't "meditation", it's Justice. You mock God.

Such is the gulf between us.

 

[Nineveh]

By the way, my last thought above reminded me of a point that has probably been made along the way, but which deserves re-stating:

Persuasion is not a violation of free will.

The prospect of hell is currently a valid means of persuasion.

There is no reason that the experience of hell cannot be a further means of persuasion.

No free will violations involved.

Absolutely true...and this is what makes an appeal to "free will" as justification for eternal torment ridiculous.

If you begin to formulate anything based on faulty data, where are you going to arrive at in your thinking?

The doctrine of eternal torment is arrived at through the use of faulty data. This is why I keep pointing at the faulty data and, in effect, saying that the entire construct is wrong because you have something wrong to begin with.

Arguing with believers in eternal torment is like arguing with evolutionists...who begin with a faulty idea and support it with faulty data and arrive at a plausibility structure that can only be faulty, and they get angry when you call them on it.

How do you resolve this situation...except by repeatedly pointing at the faulty data that sent them in the wrong direction, and inspire a different idea, so that they arrive at a different plausibilty structure than the one they currently hold, one that is not based on the faulty data they started out with?

I can't think of any other way of doing it, can you?

So...the only way to save anyone is to negate their freewill?

Can we say, "no"?

 

[logos_x]

Can we say, "no"?

Alright, then would it be true that the only way the people cannot be saved is by by removing the ability to be saved by the exercise of free will?

 

[PKevman]

I believe you know very well what you were doing. You are not one of those 100 people who have never read this thread.

This is so silly. Seriously. My point was if you asked 100 people if MAKING someone do something is the same as FORCING them to do something all 100 would say yes. Whether they have read this thread or not is utterly IRRELEVANT!

You were the one who asked: "Please cite the Scripture verse that says God MAKES you willing."

That is exactly right! Because no such Scripture exists!

Then changed it to "Why do you think the conversion of Paul is a proof that God forces people to accept Him?"

Did you forget WHY I asked that question? Because of your own answer to the question I asked.

The conversation again (and a stark reminder why I am fed up with the discussion tactics of MOST Universalists:

Dale, you said:

Salvation is a work of God. He makes you willing. You need to give a bit more credit the Holy Spirit who guides us into His Truth.

To which I said:

Please cite the Scripture verse that says God MAKES you willing.

I was asking the question in response to SOMETHING YOU said. Not some average joe who hadn't ever read this thread!

To which YOU ANSWERED:

Read about the conversion of Saul/Paul.

Which is why I said:

I've read it plenty of times. Why do you think the conversion of Paul is a proof that God forces people to accept Him? God had a specific plan and purpose for Paul. And yet Paul could have rejected at any time God's plan for his life! In any case, you still have not provided the Scripture that says that God MAKES people willing to accept Him and love Him. You cannot MAKE someone love you. Love is a choice and is freely given, or it is NOT love.

You see this is all part of what is called dialogue, something that you are obviously NOT here to do! Not only do you pull Scriptures out of context, but you quote people out of context from something that they say. It should not take pages and pages of endless meaningless debate to get simple dialogue accomplished! The only reason it does is because Universalism is emotional and not rationally based! So to get you discuss and think about these things rationally is virtually impossible it seems to me!

If you really don't know the difference between God making someone willing, and God forcing someone to be saved, then try asking sincere questions rather than manipulative ones.

There is no difference between God MAKING and God FORCING. No difference.

I didn't have a question about Paul.

You just lied. You said:

Please cite the Scripture verse that says "Paul could have rejected at any time God's plan for his life."

AND you repeated this request again in post #3291!

So I answer and you say you never had a question about Paul. Consistent Universalist behavior!

I never said his choice was taken away.

Okey dokey then, but your answer as to my question of please cite a verse that states that God MAKES you willing was to cite the apostle Paul.

Dale: If God MADE paul willing, did Paul have a choice to be willing or not?

It's a simple question, how about answering it instead of trying to determine what the answer will do to your position. And please keep in mind that you stated you never said Paul's choice was taken away.

Yeah, a Pharisee. The group Jesus was referring to when He said "You are of your father the devil..."

Sure they were deceived, just as Universalists are!

You mean like, the devil?

Sure, he could be an example of a wicked and false god. But yet YOUR theology states we will be fellowshiping with Satan for all eternity, so are you sure you want to use him as an example?

But he wasn't. He was serving... the devil.

But he thought he was serving God, and his zeal was great. And God used that zeal to do great things with Paul once Paul got saved!

 

[Aimiel]

There is no obligation on God's part to offer it for all time. A deadline is abundantly fair - in fact, that he offers it for any amount of time is fair.

People who don't like the thought of an eternal hell typically underestimate the tragedy of sin. It's not that bad ... they think. They also typically underestimate the value and deity of Jesus.

Amen. :thumb:

 

[Nineveh]

Alright, then would it be true that the only way the people cannot be saved is by by removing the ability to be saved by the exercise of free will?

I'm really not sure what you mean by that question, sorry.

I'll take a stab at it though...

When we repent and accept Christ, we exchange our will for His. That's how it's going to be in Heaven ("...as it is in Heaven"). If we do not repent, we live by our own will. If someone doesn't want to follow God's will, they never have to. I know it's hard to believe some really just don't want to be with God, but it's true. Some will always feel they know better. And if they so will to follow their own way, God will let them, even "age-during".

 

[Balder]

Godly Love towards criminals isn't "meditation", it's Justice. You mock God.

Such is the gulf between us.

Your responses to me strike me as nonsensical. I didn't say anything about meditation. I just said that the Buddhist perspective is to regard criminality as an expression of delusion, and the Buddhist recommendation is to have compassion on those who are deluded. Which does NOT mean that people who commit crimes should not be punished. I'm just talking about an overall perspective that we may take, and it seems to me that those who vehemently defend eternal torment (and refer to others as "trash") have a perspective which is notably short on compassion and mercy.

 

[Nineveh]

I didn't say anything about meditation.

Sure you have. That's what you offered in place of justice not too long ago. Have you forgotten?

 

[logos_x]

But he thought he was serving God, and his zeal was great. And God used that zeal to do great things with Paul once Paul got saved!

This is true.
Are you fully understanding what you are saying, though?

Saul...who became the Apostle Paul...had no intention of becoming a Christian.
He still got saved.

Did God "make" him get saved? Or did He personally persuade Him to be saved?

Pauls choice became clear once Christ personally made him realize who He really was, and who Paul was in reality persecuting. Paul then had the things he needed to be saved and not continue in the way he was going.

Without that, Saul would never have become the Apostle Paul.
Christ, personally, made a Christian out of Saul. I don't think He "forced Him to become one...it was not necessary to "override" Paul's will...just to "make" him want to be a Christian.

 

[logos_x]

I'm really not sure what you mean by that question, sorry.

I'll take a stab at it though...

When we repent and accept Christ, we exchange our will for His. That's how it's going to be in Heaven ("...as it is in Heaven"). If we do not repent, we live by our own will. If someone doesn't want to follow God's will, they never have to. I know it's hard to believe some really just don't want to be with God, but it's true. Some will always feel they know better. And if they so will to follow their own way, God will let them, even "age-during".

Ok...let me rephrase:

If you have the possibility of salvation removed..what removes it?
What about death negates the ability to choose to be saved?
Is it because God no longer allows it? Is it because they cannot choose? Is it because there is something about death that sets ones will in stone forever?

Why would it be in God's best interest, or the best interest of the sinner...to make it so it is impossible to be saved at some point in the future?

 

[Aimiel]

Pauls choice became clear once Christ personally made him realize who He really was, and who Paul was in reality persecuting. Paul then had the things he needed to be saved and not continue in the way he was going.

Without that, Saul would never have become the Apostle Paul.
Christ, personally, made a Christian out of Saul. I don't think He "forced Him to become one...it was not necessary to "override" Paul's will...just to "make" him want to be a Christian.

I believe this is the same method that He uses upon everyone, though. Saul was able to see his own sinful condition, own up to it and repent. Those who don't ever see that condition (by choice) reject God.

 

[Redfin]

Do we now?

Yes we do have free will now. Becoming a Christian does not make us sub-human, it makes us fully human.

Or are we slaves to Christ?

The two are not mutually exclusive. We've been persuaded to be Christ's slaves, which the Scripture says is true "freedom."

Who's will is going to be done in heaven? Men's freewill (...on earth) or our Father's... as it is in Heaven?

Both. When we freely submit our will to God now, as we will freely do then, there is no conflict.

Universalism needs "might". Because all men have in the lake is their own freewill and they might never come to love God.

You underestimate God's ability to persuade. There is no "might." In the end, all will be persuaded.

The only way is to negate the free will of men.

Persuasion does not negate free will.

Who likes the idea of eternal separation from God? Who?

No one, ultimately (which just happens to be the point).

Who doesn't like the idea of God being competent and successful to achieve His best and highest will for all of His creation?

 

[logos_x]

I believe this is the same method that He uses upon everyone, though. Saul was able to see his own sinful condition, own up to it and repent. Those who don't ever see that condition (by choice) reject God.

I believe so, too, Amiel.

There might be differing ways we try to express this experience..I suppose...some more accurate that others.

And..what of those who never have such an experience in this life?

Or...if one has a similar experience, and don't see that condition...whether by "choice" or because of something they veiw as other interests or concerns...does that mean they must live forever with that decision without any hope of having any more opportunities?

 

[Redfin]

I believe this is the same method that He uses upon everyone, though.

Absolutely!

Saul was able to see his own sinful condition, own up to it and repent. Those who don't ever see that condition (by choice) reject God.

Who, in hell, will not have seen that condition?