tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post6909001869185266821..comments2024-03-17T02:31:41.623-05:00Comments on Euangelion: Love Wins 6Michael F. Birdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09713482855679578651noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-81338140854084401092012-05-10T04:30:00.648-05:002012-05-10T04:30:00.648-05:00With Microsoft outlook 2010 , you're in contro...With <a href="http://www.downloadoutlook2010online.com" rel="nofollow">Microsoft outlook 2010</a> , you're in control of getting things done and delivering amazing results according to your schedule. More communication tools in <a href="http://www.downloadoutlook2010online.com/outlook-2010-download-c-8.html" rel="nofollow">Download Outlook 2010</a> help you stay in touch and organized.outlook flyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13017300095963609650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-88369578213513682732011-05-03T12:30:51.151-05:002011-05-03T12:30:51.151-05:00If part of being made in the image of God entails ...If part of being made in the image of God entails our self going on forever, then our rebellion if not changed in this life would also continue in the next life. I don't see that rebellion being dealt with after this life because faith could not be exercised for we would see clearly God's rule.<br /> <br />If annihilation is true after death then our being made in God's image can't entail an eternalness to it. Then how are we any different than birds, the fish, and the animals because they to are born and die and are no more.<br /><br />As far as God limiting our freedom so as not to rebel, I suppose that could have been a possibility. I'm not so sure I understand the freedom aspect to our being.Bill B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17313292139762586141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-74075061238905468882011-05-02T22:11:47.998-05:002011-05-02T22:11:47.998-05:00Randy, why does "God is love" require th...Randy, why does "God is love" require that God loves those in hell? Has he really committed himself <em>in Scripture</em> to loving everyone post-final judgment or is this a theological conclusion?Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-64763952482575114542011-05-02T18:17:26.908-05:002011-05-02T18:17:26.908-05:00Another possibly helpful thought (critique away, b...Another possibly helpful thought (critique away, by all means): it struck me in pondering the Bell discussion, and having a linked conversation with an atheist friend, that it is not as though one stops being sinful—stops meriting punishment—simply because one is in hell. One's sinfulness, and indeed presumably one's rebellion against and hatred of God would not necessarily diminish in Hell (although unbelief must!). In other words, those who are condemned to hell continually condemn themselves further (a variation on Lewis' fanciful take in <em>The Great Divorce</em>: it is not so much that they have shut themselves in as that they continue to do the things that merit their being shut in).<br /><br />[I believe I may have recently seen this point elsewhere in the blogosphere recently, but cannot remember where or when. In any case it's nice to know I'm not alone.]Chris Krychohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04987231458069231389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-17723387711417058512011-05-02T17:04:48.731-05:002011-05-02T17:04:48.731-05:00How is rebellion against a being of infinite majes...How is rebellion against a being of infinite majesty a finite sin?<br /><br />Also, is not infinite rebellion (for the rebel who dies remains a rebel... let he that is filthy...) infinite sin?<br /><br />In our country (UK) some sins against others are considered so atrocious no freedom from prison is deemed possible for the perpetrator. We still seem to believe there are sins that cannot be humanly forgiven and which no punishment exhausts.<br /><br />I think our greater philosophical problem is conceiving eternity and what it means.John Thomsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03409722788388167914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-25385544324247279972011-05-02T12:09:10.664-05:002011-05-02T12:09:10.664-05:00Joel,
Thank you so much for this post! I too am ...Joel,<br /><br />Thank you so much for this post! I too am really struggling with the justness of an infinite punishment for finite sin and am tired of the trivial old answers pointing back to Anselm and his conception of justice. I feel as if amongst some of the great stuff Anselm says, his conception of justice being accorded depending on the status of the offended isn't one of them. <br /><br />At this point, if I'm honest, I think the notions of hell as eternal, conscious, and retributive for me are hard to grasp, if God is to be just and not punish anyone with unjust punishment (as Mike said in his recent post). It feels odd to even be saying that I'm questioning those traditional conceptions as an evangelical, but the deeper I dig into this issue the harder it is becoming to simply stand with tradition on Hell. <br /><br />What is hardest for me to fathom in relation to an eternal conscious torment version (ECT) of Hell is how God's justice is held in tension with God's love. We see both characteristics evidently in Scripture and in the book of 1 John, we see God's very essence being described as love. If God's essence is love, what is loving about Hell? What aspect of Hell is loving towards those who are suffering it as ECT? If, we follow the doctrine of God's simplicity, then every loving action must be just and every just action must be loving, but with the doctrine of Hell we come to a conundrum in brining these two together.<br /><br />And this is on either an Arminian or Reformed reading of the issue. God is allowing people to damn themselves to Hell on the former by giving them free choice over their eternal destination..is this ultimately loving? Is it not more love to impinge on human freedom to prevent them from suffering ECT? <br /><br />On the Reformed view, God's sovereignty is primary, meaning that only those who are regenerated will achieve salvation. It is easy to understand how it would be difficult to view a traditional double predestination version of Calvinism as holding love and justice together in a cogent manner. That's why other views of election in Reformed theology must move to a more primary place. <br /><br />The only way around salvation being based only on God's choice alone (in a still Reformed framework) is to follow Thomas Torrance and David Fergusson in believing that grace is mysteriously resistible (as was Adam's choice to sin in the first place) and along with an unlimited atonement, this places the impetus on humanity again. This is a hairs breadth from crossing over into Arminianism, but because it is not based on synergism at all it isn't. God is effective when salvation is achieved and when it isn't, the mystery of a human resisting God's salvific plan is posited as the inhibitor. Still, I find this difficult in holding together God's love and justice, because ultimately God is still allow his salvific purposes to be thwarted, meaning some WILL be in Hell, and we are back to the original problem of trying to understand how Hell is a loving action of God!<br /><br />I find this last framework to be the most compelling as of now and I am attempting to rest in the mystery of how a loving God can continue to be loving to those who have rejected him and are in Hell. It is hard to rest in mystery as prideful humanity, but at the same time I'm glad there are mysteries left for us to rest in. Otherwise God wouldn't be God and we would!Randyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00113582112118786248noreply@blogger.com