BRXII Battle talk

[logos_x]

We have already addressed the majority of these Scriptures at some point in our 6 months of debating this subject. Again, context always determines meaning. And when you look at all of those verses in context none of them teaches Universalism. Not a one.
And you don't use Bible verses to TRUMP other Bible verses. You use the Bible to interpret the Bible and it does it well enough on its own.

I understand why you would show all of these verses to attempt to prove Universalism. It is a common ploy by false teachers, to pull a whole list of verses and claim they teach something in order to completely bewilder the person they are debating. I bet someone showed you a similar list when they were trying to win you over to Universalism. JW's and others are FAMOUS for doing this. We can show just about anything we want by selecting words or phrases from the Bible and pulling them out of context and putting them together in a list. I have illustrated this before how you can take a whole page of statements in the Bible and show that there is no God. Does the Bible actually teach that? NO!

Context, context, context.............

Kevin, would those verses not mean what they say if "eternal" torment was not believed by you. What is it about the context of those verses that makes eternal torment true?

There is no bewilderment being attempted. My point was that if the aions associated with punishment are not eternal...then there is nothing in the verses themselves...nor in the context these verses reside in, that would make anyone think that eternal torment is true.

I believe that this is why the majority of Greek speaking Christians in the early centuries of the Church believed that Jesus would be able to save all mankind, and that judgements were corrective chastisment rather than eternal torment.

If this was what you were trying to argue, what would you do...how would you go about it?

 

[logos_x]

I think I'll just ignore your posts until you answer my question directly.

As to the "why" I believe in universal salvation?

It is because I'm convinced it is the most biblical doctrine. Why I started thinking about the nature of Hell is because of the implications of the doctrine of eternal torment...quite simply, the Devil wins way too much...and I wondered why God was satisfied with that...so I began to pray about that and ask for answers.

Why is it so important why a person makes an investigation to find out the truth? What matters is that they do. I suppose there are a variety of reasons one would begin to question a doctrine...ANY doctrine, and find out what is true.

You could just as easily ask why one would begin believing in the Open View after years and years of being a Calvinist. And if it turns out it was because someone close to them died was the reason...would that make you think less of there position?

 

[Aimiel]

My argument is, if we "carnal humans" know torture is wrong, then how in the world is a God that is supposed to be good and loving be be less moral than carnal humans?

Your judgement of God is showing, again. He doesn't need your approval to do His Will. He is The One Who described eternal torment. You're the one who denies it is sound doctrine, on the basis of your judgement of who and what God is. That isn't the way that we're supposed to think about God. We are to not lean upon our own understanding, and we are to acknowledge Him, not what we wish to think about Him, because of a preconceived notion.

 

[logos_x]

Your judgement of God is showing, again. He doesn't need your approval to do His Will. He is The One Who described eternal torment. You're the one who denies it is sound doctrine, on the basis of your judgement of who and what God is. That isn't the way that we're supposed to think about God. We are to not lean upon our own understanding, and we are to acknowledge Him, not what we wish to think about Him, because of a preconceived notion.

Agreed.

Perhaps you would care to explain how it is that the idea of an eternal misery isn't a pre-concieved notion.

Kimberlyanne's point is that since we know in our hearts that torturing someone isn't a good thing, how do we think that God thinks it would be good?

Now...I'm sure that you would say that it isn't God that torments anyone...it is a consequence of their own condition of shortfalleness...and I would agree. But then....why should we think that God wouldn't be interested in saving someone from that condition for all eternity? In other words...why would He want Hell to be permanent and from which no one could be rescued?

I believe this is the flaw of human logic and our drawing conclusions based on a pre-concieved idea of a judgement that results in an inability to save someone forever...and it is a prodict of a doctrine that was declared "orthodox" by a literal handful of men deciding what is true and forcing that upon the Christian world. These men thought that God wanted an eternal Hell to begin with and not one that would affect conversion to Christ in the end. They projected this as though God making Hell permanent was acceptible to God and what He really wants...and "universalists" think that is very questionable reasoning that in reality scripture refutes in many places.

What can one do if those that determine what is "orthodox" thinking are wrong in their thinking?

The only thing I know to do is call for a reformation in the same fashion Martin Luther did. Point out the errors of the current system of belief and point out where it at odds with the Bible.

 

[Aimiel]

Perhaps you would care to explain how it is that the idea of an eternal misery isn't a pre-concieved notion.

By the sheer virtue of hell never having been described (mainly because it didn't concern men as yet) before Jesus described it. It is only His description, warnings and repeated warnings as well as re-iteration of that punishment as being eternal in Revelations that bring these things to light, and make for the sound doctrine that His Word gives of why we are to fear God, and come into His grace, rather than be resigned to our fate which is come upon all men.

Kimberlyanne's point is that since we know in our hearts that torturing someone isn't a good thing, how do we think that God thinks it would be good?

Which is exactly my point: how do you justify judging God like that, and re-defining His Word because you simply don't agree with His Decisions?

Now...I'm sure that you would say that it isn't God that torments anyone...it is a consequence of their own condition of shortfalleness...and I would agree.

I believe that God does exactly what is necessary and just, and if He says that hell exists, and those in it will be judged, found guilty and sentenced to eternal torment (which, by the way, He did) then that is His Business, and I'm not His judge. I find that everything that God thinks and does are fare beyond me, to say the least.

But then....why should we think that God wouldn't be interested in saving someone from that condition for all eternity?

I hardly think that sending His Son to die in our place demonstrates a lack of interest; I do, on the other hand, believe that trampling That Salvation under foot is dangerous (as The Word has explained many times) and is punished (again, as The Word explains). Those who deny that God has severe punishment in place for sin (death, judgement and eternal torment) simply don't know The Word of God and don't hold sound doctrine. The Word is clear, as is the consequences for ignoring or denying The Truths expressed in It. Jesus told us one thing to fear, and those who neglect that warning do so at their own peril.

In other words...why would He want Hell to be permanent and from which no one could be rescued?

He doesn't tell us, and speculating on such things to the point of changing what He has told us it the danger that those who deny His Judgement have fallen into. It is not something which He has decided to give us: how He thinks or why He does what He does.

I believe this is the flaw of human logic and our drawing conclusions based on a pre-concieved idea of a judgement that results in an inability to save someone forever...and it is a prodict of a doctrine that was declared "orthodox" by a literal handful of men deciding what is true and forcing that upon the Christian world.

I don't buy that. I believe that re-arranging His Word and leaving out portions of it is the flaw, as well as following human logic in place of what The Word of God actually says.

These men thought that God wanted an eternal Hell to begin with and not one that would affect conversion to Christ in the end.

If that were what Jesus meant to describe, He would have done so. Since He didn't, we have to go with what He did describe: eternal torment.

They projected this as though God making Hell permanent was acceptible to God and what He really wants... and "universalists" think that is very questionable reasoning that in reality scripture refutes in many places.

You're not understanding scripture when you conclude this, you're merely proof-texting, which is one of the most dangerous approaches to The Word of God that there is.

What can one do if those that determine what is "orthodox" thinking are wrong in their thinking?

There's a reason that it is called, "orthodoxy." Believing universalism isn't just un-orthodox it is heresy, plain and simple. It stems from an inability to understand The Word of God and hold fast to sound doctrine.

The only thing I know to do is call for a reformation in the same fashion Martin Luther did. Point out the errors of the current system of belief and point out where it at odds with the Bible.

You have yet to convince anyone, other than yourself, that I'm aware of, but good luck with that. I hope that you come to a knowledge of the truth, and recant your heresy.

 

[red77]

Red also said it at one point as well that he had a very close friend that he knew in youth group who passed away and this was what caused him to begin leaning to Universalism because he didn't want to think his friend had gone to hell.

Hello pastor!

Unfortunately I couldnt address this earlier but i had to pick up on what you say here, I'm presuming you just have things mixed up because I didnt actually say this at all, it wasnt a close friend from a 'youth group' passing away that caused me to lean towards universalism at all, it was the death of a 15 year old lad I'd known from school and the condemnatory attitude of the church towards his suicide that was a factor in my questioning the doctrine of hell....

 

[Lon]

Agreed.

Perhaps you would care to explain how it is that the idea of an eternal misery isn't a pre-concieved notion.

Kimberlyanne's point is that since we know in our hearts that torturing someone isn't a good thing, how do we think that God thinks it would be good?

Now...I'm sure that you would say that it isn't God that torments anyone...it is a consequence of their own condition of shortfalleness...and I would agree. But then....why should we think that God wouldn't be interested in saving someone from that condition for all eternity? In other words...why would He want Hell to be permanent and from which no one could be rescued?

I believe this is the flaw of human logic and our drawing conclusions based on a pre-concieved idea of a judgement that results in an inability to save someone forever...and it is a prodict of a doctrine that was declared "orthodox" by a literal handful of men deciding what is true and forcing that upon the Christian world. These men thought that God wanted an eternal Hell to begin with and not one that would affect conversion to Christ in the end. They projected this as though God making Hell permanent was acceptible to God and what He really wants...and "universalists" think that is very questionable reasoning that in reality scripture refutes in many places.

What can one do if those that determine what is "orthodox" thinking are wrong in their thinking?

The only thing I know to do is call for a reformation in the same fashion Martin Luther did. Point out the errors of the current system of belief and point out where it at odds with the Bible.

First of all, Martin Luther nailed his thesis about Catholic errant tradition like 'indulgences' that were nowhere near scriptural. To put yourself in those shoes is fallacious here, we are discussing what God's Word actuallly says.

Consider the parable of the rich man. The fact that the rich man is in torment is undeniable. "But it is just a parable." Wrong. It is a description that Jesus does not back away from whether we appreciate it or not. If it is just a parable, why torment? He brings up the subject. He describes the torment. In this parable, if there was anything wrong with the idea of 'torment' from God's perspective it is not shown here and it wouldn't make sense if it weren't true. A parable that describes unending torment would be worthless if we do not understand this. To hypothetically allow torment where there is none would have made the discourse vain. We cannot read this parable any other way than to recognize that unending torment is not only an allowable consideration, but one we must take seriously. "How can God allow torment?" The better question is, how do I understand a scenario where torment is a key component and Jesus expounds it, because that is the only question left to be answered. We may be squeemish on considering this proposition, but we are dishonest with ourselves if we try to answer the first question. It has already been answered. Unending torment is a key component in this discourse.

 

[Nineveh]

As to the "why" I believe in universal salvation?

It is because I'm convinced it is the most biblical doctrine. Why I started thinking about the nature of Hell is because of the implications of the doctrine of eternal torment...quite simply, the Devil wins way too much...and I wondered why God was satisfied with that...so I began to pray about that and ask for answers.

Why is it so important why a person makes an investigation to find out the truth? What matters is that they do. I suppose there are a variety of reasons one would begin to question a doctrine...ANY doctrine, and find out what is true.

You could just as easily ask why one would begin believing in the Open View after years and years of being a Calvinist. And if it turns out it was because someone close to them died was the reason...would that make you think less of there position?

Is that a "yes" or a "no"?

 

[red77]

First of all, Martin Luther nailed his thesis about Catholic errant tradition like 'indulgences' that were nowhere near scriptural. To put yourself in those shoes is fallacious here, we are discussing what God's Word actuallly says.

Consider the parable of the rich man. The fact that the rich man is in torment is undeniable. "But it is just a parable." Wrong. It is a description that Jesus does not back away from whether we appreciate it or not. If it is just a parable, why torment? He brings up the subject. He describes the torment. In this parable, if there was anything wrong with the idea of 'torment' from God's perspective it is not shown here and it wouldn't make sense if it weren't true. A parable that describes unending torment would be worthless if we do not understand this. To hypothetically allow torment where there is none would have made the discourse vain. We cannot read this parable any other way than to recognize that unending torment is not only an allowable consideration, but one we must take seriously. "How can God allow torment?" The better question is, how do I understand a scenario where torment is a key component and Jesus expounds it, because that is the only question left to be answered. We may be squeemish on considering this proposition, but we are dishonest with ourselves if we try to answer the first question. It has already been answered. Unending torment is a key component in this discourse.

Lonster, I'll ask you the same as I've asked others here, if this isnt 'just a parable' then please explain how a man who is being tormented in fire would be capable of speech - and if he could incredulously manage the feat - WHY would he ask for a drop of water for his tongue??! And not plead for the mercy of the whole fire to be extinguished? Is there no metaphor for Israel in this story?
Bluntly - read literally the story falls apart, the only real answer I've had to this is from Aimiel who seems to think that God gives temporary respite from the torment to enable the rich man to speak, the problem with that is that its pure speculation.....

 

[CabinetMaker]

Lonster, I'll ask you the same as I've asked others here, if this isnt 'just a parable' then please explain how a man who is being tormented in fire would be capable of speech - and if he could incredulously manage the feat - WHY would he ask for a drop of water for his tongue??! And not plead for the mercy of the whole fire to be extinguished? Is there no metaphor for Israel in this story?

People in agony can still talk. Burn patients can communicate with the medical team tending them. He asked for only a drop of water because the rich man knew that there was no way out. He knew there was no getting out.

Bluntly - read literally the story falls apart, the only real answer I've had to this is from Aimiel who seems to think that God gives temporary respite from the torment to enable the rich man to speak, the problem with that is that its pure speculation.....

Bluntly, the story is not offered as a parable. It only falls apart when taken literally if the reader rejects Jesus words in Mathew 25 and the book of Revelations. It only falls apart for those who reject portions of Gods word.

 

[PKevman]

First of all, Martin Luther nailed his thesis about Catholic errant tradition like 'indulgences' that were nowhere near scriptural. To put yourself in those shoes is fallacious here, we are discussing what God's Word actuallly says.

Consider the parable of the rich man. The fact that the rich man is in torment is undeniable. "But it is just a parable." Wrong. It is a description that Jesus does not back away from whether we appreciate it or not. If it is just a parable, why torment? He brings up the subject. He describes the torment. In this parable, if there was anything wrong with the idea of 'torment' from God's perspective it is not shown here and it wouldn't make sense if it weren't true. A parable that describes unending torment would be worthless if we do not understand this. To hypothetically allow torment where there is none would have made the discourse vain. We cannot read this parable any other way than to recognize that unending torment is not only an allowable consideration, but one we must take seriously. "How can God allow torment?" The better question is, how do I understand a scenario where torment is a key component and Jesus expounds it, because that is the only question left to be answered. We may be squeemish on considering this proposition, but we are dishonest with ourselves if we try to answer the first question. It has already been answered. Unending torment is a key component in this discourse.

Lonster I agree with most of what you say here, I would only like to add that I strongly do not believe the story of the rich man and Lazarus is a parable. I have many reasons why I believe this and don't have the time to go into all of them now. (I have at other times), but one of the main ones is that in no parable told by Jesus are there personal names mentioned. Universalists even will say on their own websites "This is the ONLY parable where Jesus uses names", too bad they cannot simply accept that it is not in fact a parable but a real event. Usually groups that want to deny the significance of torment seek to deny that this is a real event.

Universalists have made up a strange interpretation to this story that makes little sense in reality and in light of the Bible, but rather is just a desparate attempt to change what the text actually means.

 

[PKevman]

Lonster, I'll ask you the same as I've asked others here, if this isnt 'just a parable' then please explain how a man who is being tormented in fire would be capable of speech - and if he could incredulously manage the feat - WHY would he ask for a drop of water for his tongue??! And not plead for the mercy of the whole fire to be extinguished? Is there no metaphor for Israel in this story?
Bluntly - read literally the story falls apart, the only real answer I've had to this is from Aimiel who seems to think that God gives temporary respite from the torment to enable the rich man to speak, the problem with that is that its pure speculation.....

You have had this question answered before several times you just didn't agree with the answer. Here is the answer: People on fire can still scream can they not?

Red77 please answer yes or no as to whether or not people on fire can scream.

Your second objection as to why he would ask for a drop of water on his tongue to ease the torment is very simple as well. If you are being tormented in flames for a period of time, even a drop of water for one moment would be a relief. You assume that the man has not been crying out and asking to be let out before he asks this question as well. We are not given a comprehensive view as to everything the man has said while screaming in torment.

We are told by the Lord what we need to know.

Red77 Please acknowledge here before these witnesses that you have received an answer to this question. Thank you. (Whether you agree or not is another story, but you cannot say you haven't received an answer-ALTHOUGH you have received answers in the past and still state that you didn't)

 

[logos_x]

People on fire can still scream can they not?

Wow....

 

[logos_x]

First of all, Martin Luther nailed his thesis about Catholic errant tradition like 'indulgences' that were nowhere near scriptural. To put yourself in those shoes is fallacious here, we are discussing what God's Word actuallly says.

Consider the parable of the rich man. The fact that the rich man is in torment is undeniable. "But it is just a parable." Wrong. It is a description that Jesus does not back away from whether we appreciate it or not. If it is just a parable, why torment? He brings up the subject. He describes the torment. In this parable, if there was anything wrong with the idea of 'torment' from God's perspective it is not shown here and it wouldn't make sense if it weren't true. A parable that describes unending torment would be worthless if we do not understand this. To hypothetically allow torment where there is none would have made the discourse vain. We cannot read this parable any other way than to recognize that unending torment is not only an allowable consideration, but one we must take seriously. "How can God allow torment?" The better question is, how do I understand a scenario where torment is a key component and Jesus expounds it, because that is the only question left to be answered. We may be squeemish on considering this proposition, but we are dishonest with ourselves if we try to answer the first question. It has already been answered. Unending torment is a key component in this discourse.

First of all..I think parables are very valuable. Jesus used parables to teach a great deal. I never characterized it as "just a parable"...that is your doing.

Secondly..I don't hold to the position that "God does not allow torment"...But I believe that if He does allow torment, it has purpose and it isn't to just have torment continue forever with no benifit to the one being in torment.

Now..I agree that "how do I understand a scenario where torment is a key component and Jesus expounds it" is the key question...and the issue here is that the doctrine of eternal torment doesn't have any answers that is in line with what God is after in mankind at all. The reason...according to THAT doctrine...is that the torment is it's own reason. It just torments and continues without end and serves none of God's purposes forever.

Now..in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus is not dealing with questions concerning a "final" judgement at all. He is talking about how we treat our fellow man...and in particular those less fortunate than we might be...and that after we die that counts for much more than anything else. There is a whole lot of irony in the story that is easy to recognize if you aren't too busy trying to prove an eternal misery is what God is after in most of mankind.

Notice....the rich man is in torment precicely because he allowed Lazarus' torment to continue without any intervention on his part. Will God end up acting like the rich man did?

 

[red77]

You have had this question answered before several times you just didn't agree with the answer. Here is the answer: People on fire can still scream can they not?

Red77 please answer yes or no as to whether or not people on fire can scream.

Your second objection as to why he would ask for a drop of water on his tongue to ease the torment is very simple as well. If you are being tormented in flames for a period of time, even a drop of water for one moment would be a relief. You assume that the man has not been crying out and asking to be let out before he asks this question as well. We are not given a comprehensive view as to everything the man has said while screaming in torment.

We are told by the Lord what we need to know.

Red77 Please acknowledge here before these witnesses that you have received an answer to this question. Thank you. (Whether you agree or not is another story, but you cannot say you haven't received an answer-ALTHOUGH you have received answers in the past and still state that you didn't)

Gee.....I dunno how to start in replying to this, I guess it would have to begin with a rare moment of agreement in that anyone who is literally on fire would be screaming - obviously!!!!!!!!!!

Secondly - your assumption that someone who is being 'burned alive' so to speak would somehow benefit from a drop of water for their tongue is quite frankly ludicrous, "one drop of water" would do squat to someone whose whole body is on fire, if there was any chance of being cogniscant through such agony then asking for one drop of water for a tongue - especially through such eloquent speech as the rich man is supposedly capable of using literally - is ridiculous........Have you ever burnt yourself pastor? Have you ever imagoned what it would be like to not be able to remove the ignited appendage from the source of the pain such as a finger on a hot stove? And you seriously expect your argument to 'hold water' (no pun intended) Please................

i havent said that I havent received answers to this pastor - both here and on other forums as well, what I've said is that the answers either defy basic logic or use supposition such as yurs and Aimiels......

 

[red77]

People in agony can still talk. Burn patients can communicate with the medical team tending them. He asked for only a drop of water because the rich man knew that there was no way out. He knew there was no getting out.

Burn patients are not still on fire CM......they will be suffering immensley granted and i would certainly not make light of that for one second, and if you somehow knew (although this is supposition) that there was no escape and that presumably there would be no respite then why bother asking (or screaming) for anything at all? Did the rich man not also know that he wouldnt recieve any mercy anyway?

Bluntly, the story is not offered as a parable. It only falls apart when taken literally if the reader rejects Jesus words in Mathew 25 and the book of Revelations. It only falls apart for those who reject portions of Gods word.

Bluntly - I'm still yet to recieve a remotely realistic and logical answer for this not being a parable.......

 

[Lon]

Lonster, I'll ask you the same as I've asked others here, if this isnt 'just a parable' then please explain how a man who is being tormented in fire would be capable of speech - and if he could incredulously manage the feat - WHY would he ask for a drop of water for his tongue??! And not plead for the mercy of the whole fire to be extinguished? Is there no metaphor for Israel in this story?
Bluntly - read literally the story falls apart, the only real answer I've had to this is from Aimiel who seems to think that God gives temporary respite from the torment to enable the rich man to speak, the problem with that is that its pure speculation.....

There are definitely questions that we have a hard time answering. Fire in both metaphor and reality has properties we understand: consuming, eliminating, destroying, purifying...

Before we can tackle that, we have to consider a few things. First, as Pastor Kevin pointed out, Is it a Parable? As logos pointed out, it isn't 'just' a parable (I think you misunderstood my emphasis, I was setting up one or another's argument in speculation. Apologies if that wasn't clear to all).

Second, what truth was Jesus trying to convey? Because this particular discussion is so different we have to ask a bunch of questions. First, if all Jesus' analogies and parables reflected real life. Did he ever move from a position of real-life examples? The answer is no. Every example he ever gave us, followed with a real-life viability. We have to interpret this similarly whether it is a parable or not. There are other scriptures that point to torment such as "Gnashing teeth" and a lake of fire in Revelation that will burn forever.
Your questions are good. Could he talk to Abraham? Would water cool his tongue? Great questions and they lead us back to the fire. Was it literal or metaphor? If we say it is literal, we would have to believe that the water asked for is also literal. If it is figurative, the water is figurative. Either way, there is torment, and there is a request for a respite.
Without any other components to our story, we understand that there is torment whether the flames are literal or figurative, and we understand that the rich man is asking for respite whether the water is literal or figurative. Hopefully Pastor Kevin will find time to address this story in particular soon enough, but for our discussion, the water is not problematic for our understanding, regardless if it is literal or figurative. "How could he talk?" is answered either way. As to why he didn't ask for a permanent respite?

Luk 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things. But now he is comforted and you are tormented.

It seems that Abraham answers this question.

 

[logos_x]

Luk 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things. But now he is comforted and you are tormented.

Well...there is the rub, isn't it?

Is THIS the actual standard of the judgement of the lake of fire?
Did the rich man...which was the high priest...recieve ALL the good he was ever going to recieve forever?

Seems to me..this "answer" doesn't fit at all with Kevin's (and other's) arguments. Jesus was raising issues with the Pharisaic belief system...in particular, their ideas about who was in and who was out. But He goes even further...He is saying that their idea of doing the right thing was scewed, because it allows for them to treat the "lost" as if they were of no consequence. And it was because of this that they, themselves, were "lost".

What concerns me is that it seems that, in trying to prove an eternal Hell, people miss the whole point of the story...which was a continuation of the other parables Jesus taught earlier in Luke 15 and 16.

The parable of the lost sheep.
The parable of the lost coin.
The parable of the prodigal son.
The parable of the dishonest steward.

The last parable was the continuation of the same theme...which was the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.

Now...the introduction to these chapters says it very plainly:

Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them. And he spake this parable unto them, saying,
(Luk 15:1-3 KJVR)

He then opens a salvo of 5 parables...each of them a critical treatment of the high priest and the Pharisees and scribes, and at the same time an explanation of what He was doing in recieving sinners and eating with them.

It was their religious thinking that made them behave in ways contrary to the Lord's ministry...and this was what Jesus was pointing out with these 5 parables.

 

[Nineveh]

...And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’...

 

[Ecumenicist]

John tells us to test the spirits to see if they are from God. How? By comparing what the spirit says to the Word. The fruits, once again dave, are not a spiritual test, they are the natural out pouring of the Spirit in one's life.

It never ceases to amaze me how you turn even the fruits of the Spirit into legalism.

Why should the lake of fire be any of those things? It was prepared for the devil and his followers. God doesn't promise peace to His enemies.

Wow... dave, not only do you put yourself in position to blame God and then "forgive" Him, think He sins, and ignore His Law for your own, now His putting people who do not want to be with Him "outside" is "bad fruit" as well. Do you know what happened to the last entity that thought to overthrow God?

Jesus said "Know a tree by the fruit it bears." Sounds like good advice to me. I
wouldn't call Jesus' words "legalism."

What your saying here is that God has a double standard, which I disagree with. If
these good fruits flow from people who experience the Holy Spirit, surely they flow from
from the Holy Spirit Himself.

I continue to pray that you have the occasion to experience the Fruits of the Spirit
first hand one day. When you do, your whole attitude and outlook will change.

God Bless,

Dave