A Fundamentalist View of Hell

[Presbygirl]

(04-16-2012 12:17 PM)exOBCstudent Wrote:  

(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.

Seems unfair. According to universalism, that means that Mr. Pedophile gets to be with Jesus before she and her children do. That seems like a bum deal.

[exOBCstudent]

(04-16-2012 12:32 PM)Presbygirl Wrote:  

(04-16-2012 12:17 PM)exOBCstudent Wrote:  Keep a loaded shotgun in her bedroom. If he stops by for another go at it she can arrange a meeting with his Maker.

Seems unfair. According to universalism, that means that Mr. Pedophile gets to be with Jesus before she and her children do. That seems like a bum deal.

Well at least for now the kids don't get any more abuse from him. Either way they will all spend eternity somewhere and quite possibly together if that's the case. Can we really hold grudges for eternity? I don't think we'll be able to remember that long. Sometimes I wonder if we'll even remember much about our lives here once we get "there"....that's a topic for another thread though.

[Presbygirl]

(04-16-2012 10:49 AM)dramaturge Wrote:  

(04-16-2012 10:12 AM)Presbygirl Wrote:  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. :-)

So, you assume, that everyone wants heaven? See this is where the rubber meets the road. We are all rebels against God. Chuck total depravity out the window and any combination of redemption is possible. If Love Wins, why not now, instead of later. Why aren't we all loving others now and doing good till Christ comes? I've seen enough examples here on earth, to show that people don't choose to love even their own offspring. Now tell me, how does that work?

P.S. You're fabulous. I get good discussion!

[Presbygirl]

(04-16-2012 12:38 PM)exOBCstudent Wrote:  

(04-16-2012 12:32 PM)Presbygirl Wrote:  Seems unfair. According to universalism, that means that Mr. Pedophile gets to be with Jesus before she and her children do. That seems like a bum deal.

Well at least for now the kids don't get any more abuse from him. Either way they will all spend eternity somewhere and quite possibly together if that's the case. Can we really hold grudges for eternity? I don't think we'll be able to remember that long. Sometimes I wonder if we'll even remember much about our lives here once we get "there"....that's a topic for another thread though.

Its not about holding grudges. And your explanation leads to a line of thinking that suffering here doesn't matter?
She has removed them from him and is trying to hold off on any visitation. And guess what? Our court system is fighting her every step of the way. He has money, and the courts are trying to gain "therapeutic visitation" for him and the kids are terrified. She is trying to get justice for her kids and she is losing ground.

Put yourself there, in her shoes, EXOBC and tell me that your heart would not yearn for punishment, retribution, and justice.
And my friend is far better than me, she prays for her ex to be converted. According to universalism, it's not necessary. He's going to heaven even if he doesn't want to!

[exOBCstudent]

(04-16-2012 01:05 PM)Presbygirl Wrote:  

(04-16-2012 12:38 PM)exOBCstudent Wrote:  Well at least for now the kids don't get any more abuse from him. Either way they will all spend eternity somewhere and quite possibly together if that's the case. Can we really hold grudges for eternity? I don't think we'll be able to remember that long. Sometimes I wonder if we'll even remember much about our lives here once we get "there"....that's a topic for another thread though.

Its not about holding grudges. And your explanation leads to a line of thinking that suffering here doesn't matter?
She has removed them from him and is trying to hold off on any visitation. And guess what? Our court system is fighting her every step of the way. He has money, and the courts are trying to gain "therapeutic visitation" for him and the kids are terrified. She is trying to get justice for her kids and she is losing ground.

Put yourself there, in her shoes, EXOBC and tell me that your heart would not yearn for punishment, retribution, and justice.
And my friend is far better than me, she prays for her ex to be converted. According to universalism, it's not necessary. He's going to heaven even if he doesn't want to!

I hope I'm not coming off as unsensitive here but I DID tell you what I'd do if I was in her situation. Remember the shotgun?

I don't think that our sins are eternal. In other words I'm not at all diminishing the hurt, suffering, or damage done in this case and in fact my approach would permanently keep that creep from EVER molesting his kids again. I think that what I'm currently understanding about "universalism" is that indeed the offender (and all/any of them for that matter) will be able to enter an eternal heaven. At what point I don't know as this idea is new to me also. Perhaps those who have introduced those ideas might better be able to explain what they think about that circumstance.

I think I'd be just like you in the regard that I wouldn't EVER allow this perv access to my family or kids again...unless perhaps his genitals were removed.

[Presbygirl]

Yes, I hear you friend! And so, what would the shotgun be for? Justice perhaps? Definitely retribution.

[exOBCstudent]

(04-16-2012 02:09 PM)Presbygirl Wrote:  Yes, I hear you friend! And so, what would the shotgun be for? Justice perhaps? Definitely retribution.

It would be for defense...of my family and home.

If he wants to stop by for a visit then he'd better be holding a riot shield when I answer the door.

[Bob M]

(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'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.

I agree. The Bible is clear that not everyone is saved. There is eternal destruction for some. I do not rejoice in it, but I see it clearly in the Bible.

[TurningIntoDavid]

Man! So much good stuff happened in this conversation while I was gone!

exOBCstudent: I'm partial to Brethren / pacifist theology, but not completely committed. Maybe it's the part of me that hasn't yet been changed, but I really love the shotgun under the bed idea. =)

DonB123

Quote: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.

I really do have a problem with hell as it was taught me... but I think the problem still exists, even within inclusivism. I read The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis and thought it was pretty good. Way more redemptive than the doctrine of hell I'd been taught. My problem, though, is the once-in-hell-always-in-hell assumption I'm crediting you with making, (which you may in fact not be making). I just can't see how God in His love ends up winning over evil when He has to keep some of his creatures whom He loves far from Him because they hate him for all eternity.

(04-16-2012 10:12 AM)Presbygirl Wrote:  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.

There are some interesting assumptions in that statement:
1. Jesus' death was required in order for God to forgive us. (I don't think scripture teaches this anywhere. If I'm wrong, please correct me.) I am not denying that Christ died for sins; I am questioning the assumption that without His death no one could ultimately be forgiven.
2. The righteous requirement of God's justice would be fulfilled if He punished the innocent (Jesus). That action is one that Proverbs 17:26 says isn't good.
3. If God could save everyone, then Jesus didn't have to die. Even if one keeps penal substitutionary atonement theory, God saving everyone through Jesus' death makes His sacrifice more necessary, not unnecessary.
4. Either the only or the most important reason for Christ's death on the cross was Penal Substitution, which (as I understand it) is as follows:

Because of our sins,
we deserve to go to hell forever, but
under condition that we believe in Jesus,
then His death was for us
in the sense that
if we owe a fine to a government
and someone else pays it for us
and we accept their payment as valid
then their payment was for us.

Penal Substitution has some serious problems.

1. If you do any reading at all on the Christus Victor theory of the atonement, you'll find that many Christians throughout history (post-Anselm) have flat-out rejected Penal Substitution, and many Christians pre-Anselm never even considered that as a reason for Christ's death at all!

2. It assumes that God wants a human sacrifice, something that He expressly forbade.

3. Joined with the theology of Hell, it assumes that we somehow mystically "owe" something to God, and Jesus pays it off for us, and yet we don't get it paid off unless we go to God and accept it, which strikes me as incredibly weird. If you owe a court $25 for bail and I show up at court and say, "Hey, I'd like to pay PresbyGirl's bail," it doesn't matter whether you accept it or not. Your bail is paid off, and the court isn't going to hold you. You can even reject the payment of your bail, but the payment isn't to you and isn't yours to reject, it's to the court, and they already accepted it.

4. It assumes finite sins to be deserving of eternal hell.

[TurningIntoDavid]

Also: Isn't repenting a work? And didn't Paul say in Ephesians 2:8 and 9 that "by grace are you saved through faith and this not of yourselves, it is a gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast"? I don't mean to be too pedantic, but I've seen the ways people have tried to stretch repentance into not being something we do, and they just don't "work." (Pun unintended until preview)

Simply, either
(a) God saves us because of what we do or fail to do, or
(b) God does not save us because of what we do or fail to do.

Further, either
© Repenting is something we do, or
(d) Repenting is not something we do.

Most Christians accept (b) and reject (a), and the apostle Paul seems to do both rather firmly. The truth of © and falsehood of (d) seem obvious to me. It seems to me, then, that you think that if your friend's husband died today then he would go to hell for all eternity because he has failed to repent, yet at the same time hold (b) in your other hand, believing that God does not save you because of what you do or fail to do. (I'm assuming that you accept (b); perhaps I should not be so presumptuous).

Doing good things doesn't matter, and God saves me in spite of my sins, but sends you to hell forever for yours.