Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

**exOBCstudent** · 04-16-2012, 09:05 AM

(04-14-2012 11:29 PM)TurningIntoDavid Wrote: exOBCstudent: Fantastic question! ...And I apologize in advance for a super-long post in reply haha

I've been wrestling with this off and on for about a year now, ever since I picked up "Love Wins" by Rob Bell in Barnes and Noble and read it. Bell is an inclusivist like C.S. Lewis seems to be, and he writes beautifully, with a TON of verses, and a lot of Greek and Hebrew and history.

C.S. Lewis's hero, George MacDonald, was a universalist (and a proponent of the Christus Victor theory of atonement rather than the Penal Substitutionary atonement theory. Frequently, when I have argued with Hellists that a loving God wouldn't send people to Hell for a literally unending period of time. MacDonald burns dozens of holes in that notion in his sermon "Justice." (And speaking of penal substitutionary atonement, Derek Flood has a fantastic critique on it over at TheRebelGod)

One of my favorite Christian Universalist websites is tentmaker.org for all their very well-researched content. Gary Amirault is a Universalist, and though his arguments haven't completely convinced me, I'm at least a hopeful Christian Universalist.

Your bullet points were quite nice, by the way.

Quote:If Hell was actually a created idea of religious powers it could've easily been added to the Bible during translation

Or, the idea of Hell as we fundies were raised on it may not be in the Bible at all, as Rob Bell and Gary Amirault argue.

Quote:It would be EXTREMELY convenient for religious powers to threaten non-members with

True. That.

Quote:God would essentially have created some of us for Satan's company for all eternity

There are a lot of fancy ways around that notion, but I haven't found any that really satisfy me.

Quote:God wouldn't be powerful engouh to ever redeem those who didn't "pray the prayer"

And practically no Christians deny God's omnipotence.

Quote:Why would God create us for eternal destruction? Wouldn't it be better to not exist rather than exist in torments?

That's a fantastic philosophical debate. Some have argued that no, it wouldn't. It's nice reasoning they use, but I have a hard time buying it.

Quote:Would God truly set us up for failure of the worst kind by creating a Hell for us and allowing some to ignorantly go there for eternity?

Hellists would say that God doesn't really set us up for failure; we are "without excuse" in the words of Romans 1. Quite frankly, this doesn't float.

Quote:If God's love is so great, why wouldn't He make a way to keep EVERYONE He created from destruction?

Not everyone is saying that God hasn't made a way to keep EVERYONE He created from destruction; in fact, many of the early church fathers said quite the opposite! Origen, one of the early church fathers, believed that all would be saved. So did Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, St. Jerome (the guy who translated your Bible into Latin), Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose (Bishop of Milan), and other leaders of the early church of the first 5 centuries. Even Augustine acknowledged that "There are very many in our day, who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments." (Quotes and names from Tentmaker)

If Christian Universalism isn't your style (though I think there are many good reasons to believe it is true), there are many who are inclusivists (with even stronger reasons than the Universalists), and some who, like the Anglican theologian John R.W. Stott, believe that the wicked will not suffer eternally, but will rather be destroyed at the end of time (also with good reason). As I see it, the fundamentalist view of "hell" is the one that is least supported by scripture and scripture's presentation of the character of God!

I read Francis Chan's book "Erasing Hell" where he went through all the verses he could find about hell and came to a terrifying conclusion: Hell is like the fundies say it is. The reasons you go there may be different, but it's the same, if not worse, than they say it is. It's horrible. And I almost lost all faith, because if the Bible teaches that God is like that, and the Bible is infallible (a fundy teaching I'm still trying to figure out where I fall on), then God is like that. And I don't think I can worship a god without grace enough for everyone. (Please, no "sufficiency versus effectuality" arguments. I've heard too many of them.)

Lastly. I wrote a paper on Hell for my Philosophy of Religion class. Got an A- on it. If you want it, PM me your email address and it's yours. I'd love to help out, and I'd also love to read any critiques anyone has of it.

Shalom.

Wow...just reading both of your replies so far have been incredible and encouraging insight! You've made some VERY good points and helped to resolve some internal arguments I've had going for years. I always knew that everything Christ has done for us was because of LOVE, not any other reason.

What I was taught my whole life in the IFB was usually the antithesis of love and centered on everything else. My mother has been studying this same subject for a while now and has raised lots of questioning in my mind which has had me pondering for a while now.

Each time I hear someone talk about Hell and eternity I just cringe at the things they describe as the love/justice of the God I serve. The closer I get to know Him, the more I realize that God is not judging me but we still judge each other in light of what we might think God thinks. Rolleyes

You've listed some books that I'm going to have to make time to browse in the future. Thanks for citing everything so I can check it out! I know the posts took some work and effort on your part so I really appreciate how well you organized it all.

dramaturge · 04-16-2012, 10:02 AM

(04-16-2012 09:03 AM)Presbygirl Wrote: Yikes! So many issues with what you've put forth.

But, since most of what you cite is emotionally based, how about this? I guess I can comfort my very good friend who is a Christian, whose urepentant husband molested her children,that even though he is a pedophile, he's going to heaven too!

But if you believe in the grace of God, then you would still believe that were he to trust in Christ's atonement, even though he is a pedophile, he'll go to heaven. Whether or not he had molested children would be irrelevant.

Donb123 · 04-16-2012, 10:06 AM

(04-16-2012 10:02 AM)dramaturge Wrote:
(04-16-2012 09:03 AM)Presbygirl Wrote: Yikes! So many issues with what you've put forth.

But, since most of what you cite is emotionally based, how about this? I guess I can comfort my very good friend who is a Christian, whose urepentant husband molested her children,that even though he is a pedophile, he's going to heaven too!

But if you believe in the grace of God, then you would still believe that were he to trust in Christ's atonement, even though he is a pedophile, he'll go to heaven. Whether or not he had molested children would be irrelevant.

But in her view the sin would still be paid for and justice would be served.

**Presbygirl** · (This post was last modified: 04-16-2012 11:59 AM by Presbygirl.)

(04-16-2012 10:02 AM)dramaturge Wrote:
(04-16-2012 09:03 AM)Presbygirl Wrote: Yikes! So many issues with what you've put forth.

But, since most of what you cite is emotionally based, how about this? I guess I can comfort my very good friend who is a Christian, whose urepentant husband molested her children,that even though he is a pedophile, he's going to heaven too!

But if you believe in the grace of God, then you would still believe that were he to trust in Christ's atonement, even though he is a pedophile, he'll go to heaven. Whether or not he had molested children would be irrelevant.

Of course, that's why I stated that he is unrepentant. But, true repentance is a whole other discussion. And for the record, he already claims to be a believer, and he cheated on her several times before she finally had to divorce him whilst molesting the children.

Point being, not everyone repents, and not everyone will be saved. And yes, there must be judgement or Christ's death is for naught. If everyone would eventually be saved, then Christ didn't need to die. Uncomfortable and unfathomable for some as it may be, accepting that our ways are not Gods ways is essential to us not setting ourselves up to think we know as much or better than God.
Edited to add: I have gifts but mercy is not my best one. I do know that should he truly repent and submit to Christ, He would be forgiven. And that is where I must trust that God, who is the King of Kings would render true justice. Becuase I know that I couldn't ever.

TurningIntoDavid · 04-16-2012, 10:28 AM

exOBCstudent: Thanks so much for the encouragement; I'm glad I was able to encourage you Smile

DonB123:

Quote:You presume that sin is temporal and not eternal- why? Why would the sinner separated from God in "hell" (whatever it may be) will not continue sinning against God and cursing him throughout eternity. I would assume that an omniscient God would know this when he proclaimed the sentence with finality.

Some of the universalists here talk about God's love being so all-pervasive that it could redeem people in the afterlife but it strikes me as a bit odd that these people are usually anti-Calvinistic as well. If a person has the choice to accept or reject Christ then why would they accept a Christ who was currently punishing them for their sin by placing them in whatever it is that hell is?

I presume that sin is temporal and not eternal because it takes place in time (and is thus temporal). I'm sure there's a longer argument here, but in this case I'm simply accepting what intuition tells me is correct. If you want, I can try to work out a longer argument for sin being temporal and not eternal.

I'm not anti-calvinistic; in fact, when I first began seriously thinking about my faith, I embraced the five points because they honestly made the most sense. At this point, however, I'm not sure Total Depravity is in scripture and reject Limited Atonement (for obvious reasons). I believe in Unconditional Election, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. Guess that makes me a 3-point calvinist. Having started out rather Arminian, I believed that

1. God wanted to save everyone,
2. He couldn't because they didn't believe,
3 Thus, Hell is occupied.

Calvinism's Irresistible Grace clause allowed me to reject (2), but it was a few years before I realized that if you take God's love in the Arminian sense and Irresistible Grace from Calvinism, the argument breaks down.

Put differently, the three premises are thus:
a. God wants to save everyone.
b. God can save everyone.
c. God won't save everyone.

Calvinists embrace b and c.
Arminians embrace a and c.
Christian Universalists embrace a and b.
Which to me makes the most sense. (Obviously).

Quote:If a person has the choice to accept or reject Christ then why would they accept a Christ who was currently punishing them for their sin by placing them in whatever it is that hell is?

That's a fantastic question, but it demonstrates an assumption that hell is a Penal sort of punishment - that is, that God's righteousness will somehow be satisfied by punishing men for all eternity. The greek work Kolassis that appears in Matthew 25 comes from a root word that means pruning. In this view, Hell is remedial, rather than punishing, in nature.

George MacDonald puts it this way in his sermon "Justice":

Quote:Suppose my watch has been taken from my pocket; I lay hold of the thief; he is dragged before the magistrate, proved guilty, and sentenced to a just imprisonment: must I walk home satisfied with the result? Have I had justice done me? The thief may have had justice done him--but where is my watch? That is gone, and I remain a man wronged. Who has done me the wrong? The thief. Who can set right the wrong? The thief, and only the thief; nobody but the man that did the wrong. God may be able to move the man to right the wrong, but God himself cannot right it without the man. Suppose my watch found and restored, is the account settled between me and the thief? I may forgive him, but is the wrong removed? By no means. But suppose the thief to bethink himself, to repent. He has, we shall say, put it out of his power to return the watch, but he comes to me and says he is sorry he stole it and begs me to accept for the present what little he is able to bring, as a beginning of atonement: how should I then regard the matter? Should I not feel that he had gone far to make atonement--done more to make up for the injury he had inflicted upon me, than the mere restoration of the watch, even by himself, could reach to? Would there not lie, in the thief's confession and submission and initial restoration, an appeal to the divinest in me--to the eternal brotherhood? Would it not indeed amount to a sufficing atonement as between man and man? If he offered to bear what I chose to lay upon him, should I feel it necessary, for the sake of justice, to inflict some certain suffering as demanded by righteousness? I should still have a claim upon him for my watch, but should I not be apt to forget it? He who commits the offence can make up for it--and he alone.

I think I am reading him right to say that MacDonald thought that it is a mistake to equate suffering with justice done.

Additionally, Karl Barth believed that all would freely choose Christ, which amounted to a sort of "soft universalism."

PresbyGirl

Quote:But, since most of what you cite is emotionally based, how about this? I guess I can comfort my very good friend who is a Christian, whose urepentant husband molested her children, that even though he is a pedophile, he's going to heaven too!

I love the way you're engaging with this. Smile

It is emotionally based, but it's also based in reason.

The problem with the question is that not only does it apply to universalism, it applies to practically all Christianity. All that most Christians believe God would require for your friends' molester / pedophile husband to enter heaven would be that he repent. If he did so, you could "comfort your friend by telling her that her molester / pedophile husband is going to heaven too!"

There's an understanding within Christianity that Salvation is more than just "going to heaven when you die." Salvation is wholistic. The Macdonald quote above may give a better notion of this. Christianity, I think most agree, is about forgiveness. Christ taught us to pray,

Quote:Forgive us our sins/debts/trespasses as we forgive those who sin/owe us debts/trespass against us.

If Christianity has no forgiveness, then I would say that Christianity is no different than any other religion. C.S. Lewis once walked into a room full of people trying to figure out what Christianity had that was unique. He replied, "It's grace." Your friend's husband is a sick man. But which of these two scenarios will be the most healing for your friend?

1: Your friend knows with certainty that her husband is going to hell for all eternity and refuses to forgive him and burns and holds that grudge forever.
2: Your friend's husband discovers grace and is saved by it. He repents and apologizes to her and the children and attempts to make amends. She forgives her husband.

This does not even imply universalism, and yet in story 2, her husband is going to heaven anyway. Christians believe that at the end of days, all things will be permanently and completely set right. Will that setting-things-right mean that her husband has to suffer in hell for a time until he comes to his senses and is healed and changed by God into a repentant sort of person? Perhaps! There is no injustice with God; we agree on this. I just believe that God is strong enough to save anybody and everybody, and I highly suspect that He will do so.

I have to quote Derek Flood again; his Christus Victor paper SO much applies to this scenario:

Quote:When we are allowed to be honest, we all know that we have needs and dark places in our lives. Jesus was never about degrading people, but about restoring them to worth. There is no need for guilt trips or false humility here, just the freedom that love gives us to be real and honest. On the cross God in Christ took on our sin. That means he at once bore the weight of the harm that we have done, and also bore the pain of the victims. This was not, as Satisfaction-Doctrine would say, God punishing the human Jesus, but the incarnate Jesus revealing the compassionate heart of God to us.

On the cross we see that God suffers with those who suffer, and always has. God carries the pain of every victim of rape, incest, torture and starvation... On the cross God took on both the villain and the victim, both rapist and the raped, so that we would know, whatever our condition, that he knows it intimately. There is no need to hide or pretend. We can come as we are. Honestly, unafraid, unmasked.

Hell for the wicked person in your example won't heal the victim and it won't save the wicked. Only Christ on the cross can do anything for either.

dramaturge · 04-16-2012, 10:49 AM

(04-16-2012 10:12 AM)Presbygirl Wrote:
(04-16-2012 10:02 AM)dramaturge Wrote: But if you believe in the grace of God, then you would still believe that were he to trust in Christ's atonement, even though he is a pedophile, he'll go to heaven. Whether or not he had molested children would be irrelevant.

Of course, that why I stated that he is unrepentant. But, true repentance is a whole other discussion. And for the record, he already claims to be a believer, and he cheated on her several times before she finally had to divorce him whilst molesting the children.

Point being, not everyone repents, and not everyone will be saved. And yes, there must be judgement or Christ's death is for naught. If everyone would eventually be saved, then Christ didn't need to die. Uncomfortable and unfathomable for some as it may be, accepting that our ways are not Gods ways is essential to us not setting ourselves up to think we know as much or better than God.
Edited to add: I have gifts but mercy is not my best one. I do know that should he truly repent and submit to Christ, He would be forgiven. And that is where I must trust that God, who is the King of Kings would render true justice. Becuase I know that I couldn't ever.

What if Christ's death is indeed the basis for even a universal salvation whether we understand the means or not? Justice would still be served whether we grasp why or how. I think it's just as reasonable to propose that Christ's death accomplished justice for all in a way that God understands and applies as it is to propose that Christ's death only accomplishes applied justice for an individual who accepts it.

p.s. I'm not trying to be belligerent, mostly just using some Socratic method to understand your position and to better understand mine. :-)

Donb123 · 04-16-2012, 11:33 AM

(04-16-2012 10:28 AM)TurningIntoDavid Wrote: DonB123:

Quote:You presume that sin is temporal and not eternal- why? Why would the sinner separated from God in "hell" (whatever it may be) will not continue sinning against God and cursing him throughout eternity. I would assume that an omniscient God would know this when he proclaimed the sentence with finality.

Some of the universalists here talk about God's love being so all-pervasive that it could redeem people in the afterlife but it strikes me as a bit odd that these people are usually anti-Calvinistic as well. If a person has the choice to accept or reject Christ then why would they accept a Christ who was currently punishing them for their sin by placing them in whatever it is that hell is?

I presume that sin is temporal and not eternal because it takes place in time (and is thus temporal). I'm sure there's a longer

I'm assuming that time is eternal as well and that in space in time the person separated from God continues to reject God.

Quote:If a person has the choice to accept or reject Christ then why would they accept a Christ who was currently punishing them for their sin by placing them in whatever it is that hell is?

Quote:That's a fantastic question, but it demonstrates an assumption that hell is a Penal sort of punishment - that is, that God's righteousness will somehow be satisfied by punishing men for all eternity. The greek work Kolassis that appears in Matthew 25 comes from a root word that means pruning. In this view, Hell is
remedial, rather than punishing, in nature.

Really I'm not assuming that at all. I think there's merit to all of the various atonement views and merit to the various views of hell. Never the less, I believe that the one thing we can be certain is that hell is being apart from Love(God) for all eternity. This is hellish enough without needing demons with pitchforks and worms eating your eyes. So when I say "punish" I mean simply "cast away from God's presence." It may not even be direct punishment but rather the net effect of the absence of God's presence is punishment indirectly. I think in our Christian theology we've made too much of the "punishment" aspect of "hell" and failed to focus on hell being it's own punishment by being apart from all that is good at the continued perpetual desire of the one who is there because this person chooses to proudly refuse to submit to the lordship of God like a petulant child.

I believe that people looking for universalism are simply fighting against the way the doctrine of hell was taught them, and rightly so, yet creating an answer for a problem that does not exist. I don't believe that God saying "You may not be in my presence because of your sin" and that being hellish, undermines the love of God in any fashion because the person in that scenario chooses to remain there because the alternative would be submission and acceptance rather than pride and defiance.

The medieval caricatures of hell have brandished as weapons against the wavering faithful have caused us these problems, imho.

Donb123 · 04-16-2012, 11:37 AM

(04-16-2012 10:49 AM)dramaturge Wrote: What if Christ's death is indeed the basis for even a universal salvation whether we understand the means or not? Justice would still be served whether we grasp why or how. I think it's just as reasonable to propose that Christ's death accomplished justice for all in a way that God understands and applies as it is to propose that Christ's death only accomplishes applied justice for an individual who accepts it.

That seems like it would be irresistible grace without limited atonement. So instead of changing the heart of a rebellious sinner into one that accepts grace it's applying mercy to everyone even if they don't want it and forcibly changing them into something that can live with God for eternity. Or the alternative would be perhaps raging sinners and homicidal maniacs roaming the new heaven and new earth- which doesn't really sound like paradise at all Smile

**Presbygirl** · 04-16-2012, 12:12 PM

(04-16-2012 10:28 AM)TurningIntoDavid Wrote: exOBCstudent: Thanks so much for the encouragement; I'm glad I was able to encourage you

DonB123:

Quote:You presume that sin is temporal and not eternal- why? Why would the sinner separated from God in "hell" (whatever it may be) will not continue sinning against God and cursing him throughout eternity. I would assume that an omniscient God would know this when he proclaimed the sentence with finality.

Some of the universalists here talk about God's love being so all-pervasive that it could redeem people in the afterlife but it strikes me as a bit odd that these people are usually anti-Calvinistic as well. If a person has the choice to accept or reject Christ then why would they accept a Christ who was currently punishing them for their sin by placing them in whatever it is that hell is?

I presume that sin is temporal and not eternal because it takes place in time (and is thus temporal). I'm sure there's a longer argument here, but in this case I'm simply accepting what intuition tells me is correct. If you want, I can try to work out a longer argument for sin being temporal and not eternal.

I'm not anti-calvinistic; in fact, when I first began seriously thinking about my faith, I embraced the five points because they honestly made the most sense. At this point, however, I'm not sure Total Depravity is in scripture and reject Limited Atonement (for obvious reasons). I believe in Unconditional Election, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. Guess that makes me a 3-point calvinist. Having started out rather Arminian, I believed that

1. God wanted to save everyone,
2. He couldn't because they didn't believe,
3 Thus, Hell is occupied.

Calvinism's Irresistible Grace clause allowed me to reject (2), but it was a few years before I realized that if you take God's love in the Arminian sense and Irresistible Grace from Calvinism, the argument breaks down.

Put differently, the three premises are thus:
a. God wants to save everyone.
b. God can save everyone.
c. God won't save everyone.

Calvinists embrace b and c.
Arminians embrace a and c.
Christian Universalists embrace a and b.
Which to me makes the most sense. (Obviously).

Quote:If a person has the choice to accept or reject Christ then why would they accept a Christ who was currently punishing them for their sin by placing them in whatever it is that hell is?

That's a fantastic question, but it demonstrates an assumption that hell is a Penal sort of punishment - that is, that God's righteousness will somehow be satisfied by punishing men for all eternity. The greek work Kolassis that appears in Matthew 25 comes from a root word that means pruning. In this view, Hell is remedial, rather than punishing, in nature.

George MacDonald puts it this way in his sermon "Justice":

Quote:Suppose my watch has been taken from my pocket; I lay hold of the thief; he is dragged before the magistrate, proved guilty, and sentenced to a just imprisonment: must I walk home satisfied with the result? Have I had justice done me? The thief may have had justice done him--but where is my watch? That is gone, and I remain a man wronged. Who has done me the wrong? The thief. Who can set right the wrong? The thief, and only the thief; nobody but the man that did the wrong. God may be able to move the man to right the wrong, but God himself cannot right it without the man. Suppose my watch found and restored, is the account settled between me and the thief? I may forgive him, but is the wrong removed? By no means. But suppose the thief to bethink himself, to repent. He has, we shall say, put it out of his power to return the watch, but he comes to me and says he is sorry he stole it and begs me to accept for the present what little he is able to bring, as a beginning of atonement: how should I then regard the matter? Should I not feel that he had gone far to make atonement--done more to make up for the injury he had inflicted upon me, than the mere restoration of the watch, even by himself, could reach to? Would there not lie, in the thief's confession and submission and initial restoration, an appeal to the divinest in me--to the eternal brotherhood? Would it not indeed amount to a sufficing atonement as between man and man? If he offered to bear what I chose to lay upon him, should I feel it necessary, for the sake of justice, to inflict some certain suffering as demanded by righteousness? I should still have a claim upon him for my watch, but should I not be apt to forget it? He who commits the offence can make up for it--and he alone.

I think I am reading him right to say that MacDonald thought that it is a mistake to equate suffering with justice done.

Additionally, Karl Barth believed that all would freely choose Christ, which amounted to a sort of "soft universalism."

PresbyGirl

Quote:But, since most of what you cite is emotionally based, how about this? I guess I can comfort my very good friend who is a Christian, whose urepentant husband molested her children, that even though he is a pedophile, he's going to heaven too!

I love the way you're engaging with this. It is emotionally based, but it's also based in reason.

The problem with the question is that not only does it apply to universalism, it applies to practically all Christianity. All that most Christians believe God would require for your friends' molester / pedophile husband to enter heaven would be that he repent. If he did so, you could "comfort your friend by telling her that her molester / pedophile husband is going to heaven too!"

There's an understanding within Christianity that Salvation is more than just "going to heaven when you die." Salvation is wholistic. The Macdonald quote above may give a better notion of this. Christianity, I think most agree, is about forgiveness. Christ taught us to pray,

Quote:Forgive us our sins/debts/trespasses as we forgive those who sin/owe us debts/trespass against us.

If Christianity has no forgiveness, then I would say that Christianity is no different than any other religion. C.S. Lewis once walked into a room full of people trying to figure out what Christianity had that was unique. He replied, "It's grace." Your friend's husband is a sick man. But which of these two scenarios will be the most healing for your friend?

1: Your friend knows with certainty that her husband is going to hell for all eternity and refuses to forgive him and burns and holds that grudge forever.
2: Your friend's husband discovers grace and is saved by it. He repents and apologizes to her and the children and attempts to make amends. She forgives her husband.

This does not even imply universalism, and yet in story 2, her husband is going to heaven anyway. Christians believe that at the end of days, all things will be permanently and completely set right. Will that setting-things-right mean that her husband has to suffer in hell for a time until he comes to his senses and is healed and changed by God into a repentant sort of person? Perhaps! There is no injustice with God; we agree on this. I just believe that God is strong enough to save anybody and everybody, and I highly suspect that He will do so.

I have to quote Derek Flood again; his Christus Victor paper SO much applies to this scenario:

Quote:When we are allowed to be honest, we all know that we have needs and dark places in our lives. Jesus was never about degrading people, but about restoring them to worth. There is no need for guilt trips or false humility here, just the freedom that love gives us to be real and honest. On the cross God in Christ took on our sin. That means he at once bore the weight of the harm that we have done, and also bore the pain of the victims. This was not, as Satisfaction-Doctrine would say, God punishing the human Jesus, but the incarnate Jesus revealing the compassionate heart of God to us.

On the cross we see that God suffers with those who suffer, and always has. God carries the pain of every victim of rape, incest, torture and starvation... On the cross God took on both the villain and the victim, both rapist and the raped, so that we would know, whatever our condition, that he knows it intimately. There is no need to hide or pretend. We can come as we are. Honestly, unafraid, unmasked.

Hell for the wicked person in your example won't heal the victim and it won't save the wicked. Only Christ on the cross can do anything for either.

My friend, FORGAVE her husband 4 or more infidelities. He "repented", was under church discipline. They had a public RECONCILIATION/vow renewal ceremony with many friends and family as witnesses. Within 6 months he left again, and she discovered he had been molesting the children.

So, she gave it everything she had. She gave it more than I EVER would have. She lived Jesus to him. He is unrepentant. Now what?

**exOBCstudent** · 04-16-2012, 12:17 PM

(04-16-2012 12:12 PM)Presbygirl Wrote: My friend, FORGAVE her husband 4 or more infidelities. He "repented", was under church discipline. They had a public RECONCILIATION/vow renewal ceremony with many friends and family as witnesses. Within 6 months he left again, and she discovered he had been molesting the children.

So, she gave it everything she had. She gave it more than I EVER would have. She lived Jesus to him. He is unrepentant. Now what?

Keep a loaded shotgun in her bedroom. If he stops by for another go at it she can arrange a meeting with his Maker.