Yes, it is the grace He has given me. But it is also the grace He has. That grace is inexhaustible. So how could one possibly fall from it? Well, you might say, one could simply and willfully choose to put himself outside of it. The air we breathe is also unlimited, but one can choose to asphyxiate. But, why would one who has truly experienced that grace ever do that?

This is where I come down, immovable on this point. However, I respect if you do not agree. His grace is the same, no matter what we believe about it. To all who will come.

94chem said:

---

Yes, it is the grace He has given me. But it is also the grace He has. That grace is inexhaustible. So how could one possibly fall from it? Well, you might say, one could simply and willfully choose to put himself outside of it. The air we breathe is also unlimited, but one can choose to asphyxiate. But, why would one who has truly experienced that grace ever do that?

This is where I come down, immovable on this point. However, I respect if you do not agree. His grace is the same, no matter what we believe about it. To all who will come.

---

Amen. God's grace is available to all people He lovingly created.

Not to derail completely, but I wonder if what God wills is impossible for God to achieve?

barnag said:

---

John 6:44

Quote:

---

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."

---

This verse highlights that coming to Jesus isn't ultimately about human effort or willpower, but about the Father's drawing. It ties into God's sovereignty in salvation and Christ's promise of eternal life for those whom the Father brings to Him.

Salvation begins with God's sovereign choice and drawing, not man's decision.

The phrase "no one can come" underscores that people cannot come to Christ on their own, apart from God's initiating work.

I'm just glad it has NOTHING to do with me and my choosing and everything to do with God and Him interceding in my life.

---

Agree. And Scripture also states God desires all men to be saved. Can God's desires be thwarted by free will? That question has been argued for centuries and I believe we will never know until we are in the presence of the Lord. Oh Happy Day!

Amen brother!

I don't know about that. You have some part to play.

From Hebrews 11:6,
"And without faith it is impossible to please God. For anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him."

You must earnestly seek God. That's freewill.

PabloSerna said:

---

Not to derail completely, but I wonder if what God wills is impossible for God to achieve?

---

It's a slippery slope if we try to play this game.

Because we are then left saying that God:

1. Willed Adam and Eve to sin
2. Willed Judas to betray Jesus
3. And more generically, wills us to sin.
4. Etc.

If we start trying to attribute things to "God's will" we end up with a distorted view of our lives and God's role within it. You end up with an extreme version of Calvinism that removes any shred of free will from us.

So we should differentiate "will" from "desires" in this context.

God desires all to be saved. Jesus' death is for all. Salvation is for all. However, many will reject this free gift.

I John 5:13. I think it is good to know. But if you are persuaded that you cannot know, I hope you have peace in that doubt.

There are 3.2 billion people in the world who have never heard of Jesus, and the number is growing. About 72,000 of them pass away each day.

Everyone reading this thread is not one of those people. Everyone reading this thread can do something about it. I learned just yesterday of a new opportunity that has only emerged in the last 20 years or so.

Somebody please post that video of the Lutheran pastor exposing the problem here. Great video, and in the end, he conceded it's mystery (if memory serves)

Basically it was scriptural authority for

1. God desires all to be saved
2. God does not desire all to be saved
3. Hell

You can reconcile 2 of the 3, but not all 3

For example, Calvinism is 2&3 but kind of ignores 1

Others are 1 and 3 but ignore 2

Anybody remember that from a few months ago?

Captain Pablo said:

---

Somebody please post that video of the Lutheran pastor exposing the problem here. Great video, and in the end, he conceded it's mystery (if memory serves)

Basically it was scriptural authority for

1. God desires all to be saved
2. God does not desire all to be saved
3. Hell

You can reconcile 2 of the 3, but not all 3

For example, Calvinism is 2&3 but kind of ignores 1

Others are 1 and 3 but ignore 2

Anybody remember that from a few months ago?

---

1. God desires all men be saved
2. God does 100% of the saving, the the degree that our yes isn't really "our" yes (monergistic salvation)
3. Not all people are saved.


He reconciles it as a mystery because it clearly makes no sense. If #2 is true (God does 100% of the saving), and # 3 is true (He doesn't save everyone), then #1 clearly isn't true, which is what Calvin says. If #1 and #3 are true, then #2 (monergistic salvation) isn't true, which was the theological belief that Luther and Calvin were breaking from.

The Lutheran says that even those these 3 things can't logically go together, we believe it anyway. The much more reasonable answer is that one of more of the premises are wrong, but that would be admitting his theology is incorrect. He needs #2, or else Luther was wrong from the very beginning (which he was). He also needs #1 to keep God from becoming the Calvinistic monster that atheists suggest He is (which is correct). Interestingly, a offshoot of Calvinism known as universalism starting gaining traction 100-200 years ago that got rid of #3 and says no one is going to hell.

The biblical answer that allows this contradiction to disappear is to realize that our yes to God is truly "our" yes, but as I said before, that means a foundational theological piece of the Protestant Reformation was incorrect. That's a hard pill to swallow, and most protestants don't know just how pivotal of a piece that played in the Reformation

ETA: But the Lutheran pastor would still concede people can fall away from the faith, so would not agree with OP

I'm with Augustine on this:

In the Confessions and The City of God, he acknowledged that while humans can perform good deeds, it is ultimately God who initiates, empowers, and completes those works through His grace. He affirmed that every good work is a result of God's grace working in us. He stated that God crowns His own gifts when He rewards human merit, emphasizing that any merit on our part is first and foremost a product of divine grace. This means Augustine thinks believers must exercise humility and gratitude because it's God. We must acknowledge that our ability to do good comes from God, not from ourselves.

But, Augustine also taught about the importance of human cooperation with grace. God is the initiator of all good, but humans are called to respond freely and actively. Our cooperation with grace becomes meaningful because it is endowed with dignity by God. When Augustine speaks of God crowning His own works, he underscores that the rewards believers receive are a continuation of God's generosity. The crowns of merit are manifestations of God's grace and love, rather than any independent accomplishment by humans.

So for Augustine God's grace not only precedes our good actions but also brings them to fruition, allowing us to participate in His divine life (which is what grace is).

I would add that God is love and wants everyone to be saved. He created us for relationship with the Trinity, which is love itself. The love that God desires must be freely chosen. God's sovereignty does not override our ability to choose to love him or not once his grace is in play. Yes, our ability to choose him is made possible by God's grace, but it's not determinative.

Perhaps another thing to add is that our instinctive concept of what it means to be free is not consistent with what it means to be free from the perspective of the Trinity. True freedom is the ability to choose what is consistent with our God-given nature without the limits imposed by sin and brokenness. Grace is what enables us to be in touch with authentic, God-given freedom so that when God's grace is in play, we are more free, not less free. God's grace doesn't overwhelm our freedom, it enables it,

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

He created us for relationship with the Trinity, which is love itself.

---

I don't disagree with this being a part of the reason I AM created man, but all of the reasons are rooted in as John Piper describes, "God does everything to communicate and display to his creatures his own glory."

Isaiah 43:6-7
I will say to the north, Give up,
and to the south, Do not withhold;
bring my sons from afar
and my daughters from the end of the earth,
everyone who is called by my name,
whom I created for my glory,
whom I formed and made."

I do think this is an important distinction. If the primary reason of creation is understood to be our fellowship with God, that may lead down some false roads, such as the idea that "Trinitarian Fullness" or God's self-sufficiency was not accomplished before creation. It all comes down to whether you have the mindset that the purpose of creation was God centered or man centered.

The Banned said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

Somebody please post that video of the Lutheran pastor exposing the problem here. Great video, and in the end, he conceded it's mystery (if memory serves)

Basically it was scriptural authority for

1. God desires all to be saved
2. God does not desire all to be saved
3. Hell

You can reconcile 2 of the 3, but not all 3

For example, Calvinism is 2&3 but kind of ignores 1

Others are 1 and 3 but ignore 2

Anybody remember that from a few months ago?

---

1. God desires all men be saved
2. God does 100% of the saving, the the degree that our yes isn't really "our" yes (monergistic salvation)
3. Not all people are saved.


He reconciles it as a mystery because it clearly makes no sense. If #2 is true (God does 100% of the saving), and # 3 is true (He doesn't save everyone), then #1 clearly isn't true, which is what Calvin says. If #1 and #3 are true, then #2 (monergistic salvation) isn't true, which was the theological belief that Luther and Calvin were breaking from.

The Lutheran says that even those these 3 things can't logically go together, we believe it anyway. The much more reasonable answer is that one of more of the premises are wrong, but that would be admitting his theology is incorrect. He needs #2, or else Luther was wrong from the very beginning (which he was). He also needs #1 to keep God from becoming the Calvinistic monster that atheists suggest He is (which is correct). Interestingly, a offshoot of Calvinism known as universalism starting gaining traction 100-200 years ago that got rid of #3 and says no one is going to hell.

The biblical answer that allows this contradiction to disappear is to realize that our yes to God is truly "our" yes, but as I said before, that means a foundational theological piece of the Protestant Reformation was incorrect. That's a hard pill to swallow, and most protestants don't know just how pivotal of a piece that played in the Reformation

ETA: But the Lutheran pastor would still concede people can fall away from the faith, so would not agree with OP

---

That's a uncharitable view of the video. It was Brian Wolfmueller and I posted the video. I went back and rewatched it because how you described it was certainly not what I recalled.

What he lays out is that three Scripturally supported ideas.

Universal Grace
Grace Alone
Doctrine of Hell

If we agree that these three concepts are all found in Scripture, then the question is how do we reconcile them. He points out that synergists and calvinists want to apply logic and reason to the question and end up excluding one of the categories. Calvinists exclude universal grace. Synergists exclude grace alone. Universalists exclude Doctrine of Hell.

He doesn't then claim it's a mystery per se, but says that you can't read Romans 9-11 and come to a clean answer.

He quotes Romans 9:20 (I'll include 19 as well

" 19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" "

And then ends with Romans 11:

33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
34 "For who has known the mind of the Lord,
or who has been his counselor?"
35 "Or who has given a gift to him
that he might be repaid?"
36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

His point is not that it's some mystery. It's if we are trying to understand the "why" or the "reason" that God has not revealed that to us.

We speak what God says. Most importantly that Jesus is God and our savior and that belief in Him is the way to the father.

I don't mean to be uncharitable, and I don't think I misreprested. Starting at the 3:00 minute, he says God "does all the work" multiple times. I think he makes it pretty clear that we play no role in our salvation. He makes this super clear around the 4:00 mark.




The issue is his definition of grace alone excludes synergism, but there is no evidence of that. I would suggest the vast majority of synergists would still believe in grace alone. Just not his version of it.

Are you in or out?

We lost a good one when Fr Beard passed.

He does present the evidence.

Synergism by definition introduces two entities that have to cooperate in some fashion. You can use the words "grace alone" but you certainly have to change the definition in a way that distorts the meaning.

So his argument becomes that synergism cannot reconcile the verses in scripture on grace alone with the modified synergistic definition.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

He created us for relationship with the Trinity, which is love itself.

---

I don't disagree with this being a part of the reason I AM created man, but all of the reasons are rooted in as John Piper describes, "God does everything to communicate and display to his creatures his own glory."

Isaiah 43:6-7
I will say to the north, Give up,
and to the south, Do not withhold;
bring my sons from afar
and my daughters from the end of the earth,
everyone who is called by my name,
whom I created for my glory,
whom I formed and made."

I do think this is an important distinction. If the primary reason of creation is understood to be our fellowship with God, that may lead down some false roads, such as the idea that "Trinitarian Fullness" or God's self-sufficiency was not accomplished before creation. It all comes down to whether you have the mindset that the purpose of creation was God centered or man centered.

---

Respectfully, I acknowledge the concern but it seems to belie a belief that God's transcendence might somehow be competitive with his creation, which is simply ontologically impossible.

God is "infinitely perfect and blessed in himself," existing beyond and independent from all creation. Creation (of which we are a really big part) does not limit or compete with God's transcendence; instead, it (we) manifests His glory and perfection. Saint Thomas Aquinas explains that God's creative act is not diminished by creation; rather, creation depends entirely on God's sustaining power (Summa Theologiae I, q. 45, a. 3). The beauty and order of creation reflect God's infinite perfection (CCC 341), drawing us upward to the Most Beautiful, our Creator (CCC 41). Thus, God's transcendence and creation are harmoniously related, not in competition but in divine order and purpose.

God's transcendence refers to His being wholly other and beyond the limitations and confines of time, space, and matter. He is not a being among other beings but is the very source of all existence. He is existence itself. This doesn't mean God is distant or detached from creation; rather, He is intimately involved with it while remaining distinct from it. The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms that "God is infinitely greater than all His works" and that He surpasses all understanding (CCC 300). Yet, in His transcendence, God is immanently present in creation, lovingly sustaining it at every moment.

God's transcendence and immanence are perfectly balanced in the mystery of the Incarnation, where Jesus Christ, the Son of God, took on human nature and lived among us. This union shows that God's transcendence is not in competition with creation but is fulfilled in His willingness to enter into it directly.

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

Somebody please post that video of the Lutheran pastor exposing the problem here. Great video, and in the end, he conceded it's mystery (if memory serves)

Basically it was scriptural authority for

1. God desires all to be saved
2. God does not desire all to be saved
3. Hell

You can reconcile 2 of the 3, but not all 3

For example, Calvinism is 2&3 but kind of ignores 1

Others are 1 and 3 but ignore 2

Anybody remember that from a few months ago?

---

1. God desires all men be saved
2. God does 100% of the saving, the the degree that our yes isn't really "our" yes (monergistic salvation)
3. Not all people are saved.


He reconciles it as a mystery because it clearly makes no sense. If #2 is true (God does 100% of the saving), and # 3 is true (He doesn't save everyone), then #1 clearly isn't true, which is what Calvin says. If #1 and #3 are true, then #2 (monergistic salvation) isn't true, which was the theological belief that Luther and Calvin were breaking from.

The Lutheran says that even those these 3 things can't logically go together, we believe it anyway. The much more reasonable answer is that one of more of the premises are wrong, but that would be admitting his theology is incorrect. He needs #2, or else Luther was wrong from the very beginning (which he was). He also needs #1 to keep God from becoming the Calvinistic monster that atheists suggest He is (which is correct). Interestingly, a offshoot of Calvinism known as universalism starting gaining traction 100-200 years ago that got rid of #3 and says no one is going to hell.

The biblical answer that allows this contradiction to disappear is to realize that our yes to God is truly "our" yes, but as I said before, that means a foundational theological piece of the Protestant Reformation was incorrect. That's a hard pill to swallow, and most protestants don't know just how pivotal of a piece that played in the Reformation

ETA: But the Lutheran pastor would still concede people can fall away from the faith, so would not agree with OP

---

That's a uncharitable view of the video. It was Brian Wolfmueller and I posted the video. I went back and rewatched it because how you described it was certainly not what I recalled.

What he lays out is that three Scripturally supported ideas.

Universal Grace
Grace Alone
Doctrine of Hell

If we agree that these three concepts are all found in Scripture, then the question is how do we reconcile them. He points out that synergists and calvinists want to apply logic and reason to the question and end up excluding one of the categories. Calvinists exclude universal grace. Synergists exclude grace alone. Universalists exclude Doctrine of Hell.

He doesn't then claim it's a mystery per se, but says that you can't read Romans 9-11 and come to a clean answer.

He quotes Romans 9:20 (I'll include 19 as well

" 19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" "

And then ends with Romans 11:

33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
34 "For who has known the mind of the Lord,
or who has been his counselor?"
35 "Or who has given a gift to him
that he might be repaid?"
36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

His point is not that it's some mystery. It's if we are trying to understand the "why" or the "reason" that God has not revealed that to us.

We speak what God says. Most importantly that Jesus is God and our savior and that belief in Him is the way to the father.

---

Hey I was working from memory

Close enough

Captain Pablo said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

Somebody please post that video of the Lutheran pastor exposing the problem here. Great video, and in the end, he conceded it's mystery (if memory serves)

Basically it was scriptural authority for

1. God desires all to be saved
2. God does not desire all to be saved
3. Hell

You can reconcile 2 of the 3, but not all 3

For example, Calvinism is 2&3 but kind of ignores 1

Others are 1 and 3 but ignore 2

Anybody remember that from a few months ago?

---

1. God desires all men be saved
2. God does 100% of the saving, the the degree that our yes isn't really "our" yes (monergistic salvation)
3. Not all people are saved.


He reconciles it as a mystery because it clearly makes no sense. If #2 is true (God does 100% of the saving), and # 3 is true (He doesn't save everyone), then #1 clearly isn't true, which is what Calvin says. If #1 and #3 are true, then #2 (monergistic salvation) isn't true, which was the theological belief that Luther and Calvin were breaking from.

The Lutheran says that even those these 3 things can't logically go together, we believe it anyway. The much more reasonable answer is that one of more of the premises are wrong, but that would be admitting his theology is incorrect. He needs #2, or else Luther was wrong from the very beginning (which he was). He also needs #1 to keep God from becoming the Calvinistic monster that atheists suggest He is (which is correct). Interestingly, a offshoot of Calvinism known as universalism starting gaining traction 100-200 years ago that got rid of #3 and says no one is going to hell.

The biblical answer that allows this contradiction to disappear is to realize that our yes to God is truly "our" yes, but as I said before, that means a foundational theological piece of the Protestant Reformation was incorrect. That's a hard pill to swallow, and most protestants don't know just how pivotal of a piece that played in the Reformation

ETA: But the Lutheran pastor would still concede people can fall away from the faith, so would not agree with OP

---

That's a uncharitable view of the video. It was Brian Wolfmueller and I posted the video. I went back and rewatched it because how you described it was certainly not what I recalled.

What he lays out is that three Scripturally supported ideas.

Universal Grace
Grace Alone
Doctrine of Hell

If we agree that these three concepts are all found in Scripture, then the question is how do we reconcile them. He points out that synergists and calvinists want to apply logic and reason to the question and end up excluding one of the categories. Calvinists exclude universal grace. Synergists exclude grace alone. Universalists exclude Doctrine of Hell.

He doesn't then claim it's a mystery per se, but says that you can't read Romans 9-11 and come to a clean answer.

He quotes Romans 9:20 (I'll include 19 as well

" 19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" "

And then ends with Romans 11:

33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
34 "For who has known the mind of the Lord,
or who has been his counselor?"
35 "Or who has given a gift to him
that he might be repaid?"
36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

His point is not that it's some mystery. It's if we are trying to understand the "why" or the "reason" that God has not revealed that to us.

We speak what God says. Most importantly that Jesus is God and our savior and that belief in Him is the way to the father.

---

Hey I was working from memory

Close enough

---

No worries! You wee close except for point 2!

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

Somebody please post that video of the Lutheran pastor exposing the problem here. Great video, and in the end, he conceded it's mystery (if memory serves)

Basically it was scriptural authority for

1. God desires all to be saved
2. God does not desire all to be saved
3. Hell

You can reconcile 2 of the 3, but not all 3

For example, Calvinism is 2&3 but kind of ignores 1

Others are 1 and 3 but ignore 2

Anybody remember that from a few months ago?

---

1. God desires all men be saved
2. God does 100% of the saving, the the degree that our yes isn't really "our" yes (monergistic salvation)
3. Not all people are saved.


He reconciles it as a mystery because it clearly makes no sense. If #2 is true (God does 100% of the saving), and # 3 is true (He doesn't save everyone), then #1 clearly isn't true, which is what Calvin says. If #1 and #3 are true, then #2 (monergistic salvation) isn't true, which was the theological belief that Luther and Calvin were breaking from.

The Lutheran says that even those these 3 things can't logically go together, we believe it anyway. The much more reasonable answer is that one of more of the premises are wrong, but that would be admitting his theology is incorrect. He needs #2, or else Luther was wrong from the very beginning (which he was). He also needs #1 to keep God from becoming the Calvinistic monster that atheists suggest He is (which is correct). Interestingly, a offshoot of Calvinism known as universalism starting gaining traction 100-200 years ago that got rid of #3 and says no one is going to hell.

The biblical answer that allows this contradiction to disappear is to realize that our yes to God is truly "our" yes, but as I said before, that means a foundational theological piece of the Protestant Reformation was incorrect. That's a hard pill to swallow, and most protestants don't know just how pivotal of a piece that played in the Reformation

ETA: But the Lutheran pastor would still concede people can fall away from the faith, so would not agree with OP

---

That's a uncharitable view of the video. It was Brian Wolfmueller and I posted the video. I went back and rewatched it because how you described it was certainly not what I recalled.

What he lays out is that three Scripturally supported ideas.

Universal Grace
Grace Alone
Doctrine of Hell

If we agree that these three concepts are all found in Scripture, then the question is how do we reconcile them. He points out that synergists and calvinists want to apply logic and reason to the question and end up excluding one of the categories. Calvinists exclude universal grace. Synergists exclude grace alone. Universalists exclude Doctrine of Hell.

He doesn't then claim it's a mystery per se, but says that you can't read Romans 9-11 and come to a clean answer.

He quotes Romans 9:20 (I'll include 19 as well

" 19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" "

And then ends with Romans 11:

33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
34 "For who has known the mind of the Lord,
or who has been his counselor?"
35 "Or who has given a gift to him
that he might be repaid?"
36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

His point is not that it's some mystery. It's if we are trying to understand the "why" or the "reason" that God has not revealed that to us.

We speak what God says. Most importantly that Jesus is God and our savior and that belief in Him is the way to the father.

---

Christian universalists do not exclude a doctrine of hell. What they say, with Scriptural support, is that there is punishment, or hell, but it is corrective and not punitive. And that it is not everlasting. There is a real misunderstanding of what Christian universalists believe. The only difference between orthodox theology and Christian Universalism is the belief that a person can accept Christ after death.
Happy to link Scripture and sources if you are interested.

Last week the gospel verses were Luke 16

19 "There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side.[f] The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.' 25 But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.' 27 And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house 28 for I have five brothersso that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' 29 But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' 30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"

Hell will not be a pleasant place nor is it temporary or simply corrective. What you argue for is de facto purgatory which also is not scriptural.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Last week the gospel verses were Luke 16

19 "There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side.[f] The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.' 25 But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.' 27 And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house 28 for I have five brothersso that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' 29 But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' 30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"

Hell will not be a pleasant place nor is it temporary or simply corrective. What you argue for is de facto purgatory which also is not scriptural.

---

This parable is in Hades. Not ECT hell. And since the word "hell" is a made up name from Norse mythology that I believe did not appear until the KJV, I am not sure the exact word that describes the place of corrective discipline occurs.
The Western view of "hell" comes almost entirely from Dante and Milton.
Really should read the 2 volume set by Ramelli on this. Very well done with heavy Scriptural references. And for a lighter read, David Bentley Hart's "That all shall be saved" is excellent and covers in detail the Scripture you referenced.

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Last week the gospel verses were Luke 16

19 "There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side.[f] The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.' 25 But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.' 27 And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house 28 for I have five brothersso that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' 29 But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' 30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"

Hell will not be a pleasant place nor is it temporary or simply corrective. What you argue for is de facto purgatory which also is not scriptural.

---

This parable is in Hades. Not ECT hell. And since the word "hell" is a made up name from Norse mythology that I believe did not appear until the KJV, I am not sure the exact word that describes the place of corrective discipline occurs.
The Western view of "hell" comes almost entirely from Dante and Milton.
Really should read the 2 volume set by Ramelli on this. Very well done with heavy Scriptural references. And for a lighter read, David Bentley Hart's "That all shall be saved" is excellent and covers in detail the Scripture you referenced.

---

Didn't Origen get the boot at the 5th ecumenical council for espousing this same idea back in the 3rd century?

Daniel 12:2: "everlasting contempt"
Matt 25:41,46: "eternal fire" and "eternal punishment"
2 Thess 1:9: "punishment of eternal destruction"
Jude 7: "punishment of eternal fire"
Rev 14:11: "forever and ever"
Rev 20:10, 14-15: "tormented day and night forever and ever"

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Last week the gospel verses were Luke 16

19 "There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side.[f] The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.' 25 But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.' 27 And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house 28 for I have five brothersso that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' 29 But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' 30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"

Hell will not be a pleasant place nor is it temporary or simply corrective. What you argue for is de facto purgatory which also is not scriptural.

---

This parable is in Hades. Not ECT hell. And since the word "hell" is a made up name from Norse mythology that I believe did not appear until the KJV, I am not sure the exact word that describes the place of corrective discipline occurs.
The Western view of "hell" comes almost entirely from Dante and Milton.
Really should read the 2 volume set by Ramelli on this. Very well done with heavy Scriptural references. And for a lighter read, David Bentley Hart's "That all shall be saved" is excellent and covers in detail the Scripture you referenced.

---

Didn't Origen get the boot at the 5th ecumenical council for espousing this same idea back in the 3rd century?

---

Justinian actually did that pretty much on his own as the Pope did not show I believe. Read up on Justinian. Not a nice guy at all.
And Origen was actually called a "heretic" for believing souls existed before birth and were implanted.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Daniel 12:2: "everlasting contempt"
Matt 25:41,46: "eternal fire" and "eternal punishment"
2 Thess 1:9: "punishment of eternal destruction"
Jude 7: "punishment of eternal fire"
Rev 14:11: "forever and ever"
Rev 20:10, 14-15: "tormented day and night forever and ever"

---

I am not going to waste my time discussing the actual correct Greek translation of those verses as we have been through this numerous times. I strongly suggest reading the sources I mentioned if you are truly interested in learning with an open mind.

Have a great day!.

And actually the best discussion on this is on a website bereanpatriot.com. This one is chockful of Scripture, goes through the Greek, and the reader make their own decision. They have a great discussion of Penal substitutionary atonement also.

I doubt if either us will change each other's mind.

dermdoc said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Last week the gospel verses were Luke 16

19 "There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side.[f] The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.' 25 But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.' 27 And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house 28 for I have five brothersso that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' 29 But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' 30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"

Hell will not be a pleasant place nor is it temporary or simply corrective. What you argue for is de facto purgatory which also is not scriptural.

---

This parable is in Hades. Not ECT hell. And since the word "hell" is a made up name from Norse mythology that I believe did not appear until the KJV, I am not sure the exact word that describes the place of corrective discipline occurs.
The Western view of "hell" comes almost entirely from Dante and Milton.
Really should read the 2 volume set by Ramelli on this. Very well done with heavy Scriptural references. And for a lighter read, David Bentley Hart's "That all shall be saved" is excellent and covers in detail the Scripture you referenced.

---

Didn't Origen get the boot at the 5th ecumenical council for espousing this same idea back in the 3rd century?

---

Justinian actually did that pretty much on his own as the Pope did not show I believe. Read up on Justinian. Not a nice guy at all.
And Origen was actually called a "heretic" for believing souls existed before birth and were implanted.

---

The pope had no issue with the denunciation of Origen's teachings. He didn't show because of a disagreement/misunderstanding on the "three chapters" that were also a target of the Council. It took two years for Vigilius to find harmony between 2nd Constantinople and Chalcedon on that particular issue, but denouncing Origen didn't appear to give him any pause.

dermdoc said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Last week the gospel verses were Luke 16

19 "There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side.[f] The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.' 25 But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.' 27 And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house 28 for I have five brothersso that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' 29 But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' 30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"

Hell will not be a pleasant place nor is it temporary or simply corrective. What you argue for is de facto purgatory which also is not scriptural.

---

This parable is in Hades. Not ECT hell. And since the word "hell" is a made up name from Norse mythology that I believe did not appear until the KJV, I am not sure the exact word that describes the place of corrective discipline occurs.
The Western view of "hell" comes almost entirely from Dante and Milton.
Really should read the 2 volume set by Ramelli on this. Very well done with heavy Scriptural references. And for a lighter read, David Bentley Hart's "That all shall be saved" is excellent and covers in detail the Scripture you referenced.

---

Didn't Origen get the boot at the 5th ecumenical council for espousing this same idea back in the 3rd century?

---

Justinian actually did that pretty much on his own as the Pope did not show I believe. Read up on Justinian. Not a nice guy at all.
And Origen was actually called a "heretic" for believing souls existed before birth and were implanted.

---

My understanding on the ideas of Origen that were condemned by the Second Council of Constantinople aka the 5th Ecumenical Council (my emphasis):

1. Pre-existence of Souls: Origen speculated that human souls existed prior to their earthly lives, a view that was rejected by Second Constantinople as inconsistent with orthodox Christian teaching."; and

2. Universal Restoration (Apokatastasis): Origen proposed that all creatures, including the devil, would eventually be restored to God's grace, implying a sort of eventual universal salvation. This idea contradicted the Church's understanding of eternal consequences based on free will and individual response to God's grace, and so was condemned by Second Constantinople.

Second Constantinople was and is recognized as an ecumenical council and accepted by the Catholic Church. I don't think we can say that the condemnation of universalism is somehow not a magisterial or universally accepted position of the undivided church. The entire, undivided Catholic Church condemned it in the 6th century.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Last week the gospel verses were Luke 16

19 "There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side.[f] The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.' 25 But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.' 27 And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house 28 for I have five brothersso that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' 29 But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' 30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"

Hell will not be a pleasant place nor is it temporary or simply corrective. What you argue for is de facto purgatory which also is not scriptural.

---

This parable is in Hades. Not ECT hell. And since the word "hell" is a made up name from Norse mythology that I believe did not appear until the KJV, I am not sure the exact word that describes the place of corrective discipline occurs.
The Western view of "hell" comes almost entirely from Dante and Milton.
Really should read the 2 volume set by Ramelli on this. Very well done with heavy Scriptural references. And for a lighter read, David Bentley Hart's "That all shall be saved" is excellent and covers in detail the Scripture you referenced.

---

Didn't Origen get the boot at the 5th ecumenical council for espousing this same idea back in the 3rd century?

---

Justinian actually did that pretty much on his own as the Pope did not show I believe. Read up on Justinian. Not a nice guy at all.
And Origen was actually called a "heretic" for believing souls existed before birth and were implanted.

---

My understanding on the ideas of Origen that were condemned by the Second Council of Constantinople aka the 5th Ecumenical Council (my emphasis):

1. Pre-existence of Souls: Origen speculated that human souls existed prior to their earthly lives, a view that was rejected by Second Constantinople as inconsistent with orthodox Christian teaching."; and

2. Universal Restoration (Apokatastasis): Origen proposed that all creatures, including the devil, would eventually be restored to God's grace, implying a sort of eventual universal salvation. This idea contradicted the Church's understanding of eternal consequences based on free will and individual response to God's grace, and so was condemned by Second Constantinople.

Second Constantinople was and is recognized as an ecumenical council and accepted by the Catholic Church. I don't think we can say that the condemnation of universalism is somehow not a magisterial or universally accepted position of the undivided church. The entire, undivided Catholic Church condemned it in the 6th century.

---

And that is why I am not a Catholic. Catholics also believe in "hopeful universal reconciliation" according to my readings. And except for some strains of Catholicism, "turn or burn" theology is not mentioned.
And after discussing this for years on here, I doubt very seriously anybody has actually studied the links I have provided (For the record, I read just about everything linked in here and articles from the Reformed, Catholic, Orthodox, etc.)
I do not come to this view lightly or without a ton of research. I just refuse to blindly accept anything. It is the doc in me.
Oh well, I am wasting my time again. Have a great day.
Shalom.

dermdoc said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Last week the gospel verses were Luke 16

19 "There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side.[f] The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.' 25 But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.' 27 And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house 28 for I have five brothersso that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' 29 But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' 30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"

Hell will not be a pleasant place nor is it temporary or simply corrective. What you argue for is de facto purgatory which also is not scriptural.

---

This parable is in Hades. Not ECT hell. And since the word "hell" is a made up name from Norse mythology that I believe did not appear until the KJV, I am not sure the exact word that describes the place of corrective discipline occurs.
The Western view of "hell" comes almost entirely from Dante and Milton.
Really should read the 2 volume set by Ramelli on this. Very well done with heavy Scriptural references. And for a lighter read, David Bentley Hart's "That all shall be saved" is excellent and covers in detail the Scripture you referenced.

---

Didn't Origen get the boot at the 5th ecumenical council for espousing this same idea back in the 3rd century?

---

Justinian actually did that pretty much on his own as the Pope did not show I believe. Read up on Justinian. Not a nice guy at all.
And Origen was actually called a "heretic" for believing souls existed before birth and were implanted.

---

My understanding on the ideas of Origen that were condemned by the Second Council of Constantinople aka the 5th Ecumenical Council (my emphasis):

1. Pre-existence of Souls: Origen speculated that human souls existed prior to their earthly lives, a view that was rejected by Second Constantinople as inconsistent with orthodox Christian teaching."; and

2. Universal Restoration (Apokatastasis): Origen proposed that all creatures, including the devil, would eventually be restored to God's grace, implying a sort of eventual universal salvation. This idea contradicted the Church's understanding of eternal consequences based on free will and individual response to God's grace, and so was condemned by Second Constantinople.

Second Constantinople was and is recognized as an ecumenical council and accepted by the Catholic Church. I don't think we can say that the condemnation of universalism is somehow not a magisterial or universally accepted position of the undivided church. The entire, undivided Catholic Church condemned it in the 6th century.

---

And that is why I am not a Catholic. Catholics also believe in "hopeful universal reconciliation" according to my readings. And except for some strains of Catholicism, "turn or burn" theology is not mentioned.
And after discussing this for years on here, I doubt very seriously anybody has actually studied the links I have provided (For the record, I read just about everything linked in here and articles from the Reformed, Catholic, Orthodox, etc.)
I do not come to this view lightly or without a ton of research. I just refuse to blindly accept anything. It is the doc in me.
Oh well, I am wasting my time again. Have a great day.
Shalom.

---

Doc, my apologies if my message was too harsh. Not my intention. I genuinely am not trying to convince you of anything. I respect your views and how you approach all of this. Frankly, I wish I was more like you in how I approached discussions around here.

My purpose for sharing what I shared is just to point out that the church rejected universalism 500 years before the great schism with the east. I didn't participate in the previous discussions where you set forth your views on this topic.

I was pointing out that this was not something that happened for political reasons or was the result of corruption. The same authority that allows us to rely on the canon of the Bible is the same authority that condemned universalism, as well as Arianism, Pelagianism, Nestorianism, Monothelitism and Monophysitism. If one can decide to reject the universal condemnation of universalism on what basis does one accept the condemnation of these other heresies? More fundamentally, how can we know if anything is a heresy?

You are correct that theologians like Rahner and von Balthasar have argued that we can hope that hell is empty, but that seems to me to be a very different thing from believing it certainly is and will be. If they took the same view as Origen they too would be condemned for that view.

Peace.

No apology necessary. You were not harsh. I think some posters might be surprised if they read any of my links. Christian Universalism is not a "all paths lead to God" deal. There is hell and punishment. It is just not eternal and is corrective in nature. Just like a loving Father would do.
This is the day the Lord hath made, let us rejoice and be glad in it.

dermdoc said:

---

No apology necessary. You were not harsh. I think some posters might be surprised if they read any of my links. Christian Universalism is not a "all paths lead to God" deal. There is hell and punishment. It is just not eternal and is corrective in nature. Just like a loving Father would do.
This is the day the Lord hath made, let us rejoice and be glad in it.

---

Thanks for clarifying that.

How does the story of Lazarus and the rich man who died factor into this perspective? Abraham seems to be saying if you're on the wrong side of the chasm that you are stuck.