Is God's love truly for all? Andrew Hronich vs Jerry Walls • Hosted by Dr. Sean McDowell
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 ноя 2024
- Top apologist, Biola professor, and author Dr. Sean McDowell guest hosts Unbelievable on the topic, 'Does God truly love everyone?'. Most Christians would say yes. At the heart of Christianity is a declaration that God so loved the world that he gave his only Son to make salvation possible for every single person. But there are very strongly held views across the spectrum about what happens when we die? What about those who have never heard? Is there a chance to acknowledge and accept God postmortem and spend eternity with him? How do we affirm the idea of God’s love for all and the idea held dear by some that Christ died for the elect. Andrew Hronich endeavors to synthesize the many strands of orthodox doctrine into a single telos: ultimate reconciliation. He is a current master's student at Princeton Theological Seminary and an associate apologist, and the author of a new book "Once Loved Always Loved: The Logic of Apokatastasis". Opposite him and arguing for the logic of damnation is Prof. Jerry Walls, Professor of Philosophy and Scholar in Residence at Houston Christian University and author of some twenty books including “Hell: The Logic of Damnation”.
For Prof. Sean McDowell, Ph.D.
TWITTER: @sean_mcdowell
RUclips: / @seanmcdowell
www.seanmcdowell.org
For Andrew Hronich
/ amhronich
www.amazon.com...
For Prof. Jerry Walls
hc.edu/contact...
For more discussion between Christians and non-Christians visit www.premier.org...
• Subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast: pod.link/26714...
• More shows, free eBook & newsletter: premierunbelie...
• For live events: www.unbelievabl...
• For online learning: www.premierunb...
• Support us in the USA: www.premierinsi...
• Support us in the rest of the world: www.premierunb...
Thanks for tuning in to watch the show. We know you have many choices and we are glad you're here! Thanks so much to our friend Dr. Sean McDowell who guest-hosted this show. We would love to hear from you, let us know what you think of the show, and don't forget to subscribe above. If you also listen on a podcast platform - would you do us a favour? We want to be able to make more shows, so rate and review the podcast on whatever platform you're listening on, so we get to make more shows like this one. Thanks from Unbelievable.
Why do you have so many ignorant Americans on the show? These two seemed pretty ignorant on theology, which is hardly surprising, given places like Harvard were mentioned.
And do you people never read the Bible? God tells us that He does not love everyone.
Love how these men are so respectful of each other even though they disagree. Classy.
Infernalists find it absurd that Hitler might be eventually allowed into heaven. Universalist find it absurd that Anne Frank and 6 million Jews would be sent to hell with Hitler. As a universalist, knowing that both positions have unavoidable absurdities, I am far more at peace with a theology where Gods love is absurdly great versus a theology where Gods wrath is absurdly monstrous.
I converted from Islam to Christianity in my 20s, having been raised in a Muslim family. Honestly, I wouldn’t have much of an issue with someone like Hitler enduring eternal punishment in hell, but my main problem with mainstream Christianity is its stance that non-Christians are doomed to hell forever. This belief is rooted in the idea that everyone is born deserving hell due to original sin, and only belief in Jesus can change one's eternal destiny, not one’s deeds.
Furthermore, I find it hypocritical that Christianity preaches unconditional love as a way to attract people, yet the love it offers is extremely conditional, based on accepting specific beliefs, which seems unfair. It proclaims to bring good news, but the reality often feels like bad news-suggesting all your loved ones are doomed unless they convert. It claims that God is the epitome of love, yet this love apparently ends at death.
I have many loved ones whom I can't accept as destined for eternal damnation just because they hold different beliefs. I realize it's not within my power to change someone’s deep-seated religious beliefs-maybe if I could perform miracles and live like Jesus, I might be persuasive enough. Nevertheless, I'm grateful for this perspective, as it has opened my eyes to the flaws in mainstream Christianity, which I might have otherwise overlooked.
Well said sir.
Man is Andrew sharp. Glory to God for his eternal love, justice and mercy.
Just dropped off Jerry to fly back to Houston after he spoke on leadership. Grabbed lunch with him and doesn't do much time asking him questions about this very topic when he mentioned he was on this podcast Sean. Absolutely LOVED so that he shared. Such a good dude too.
People chanting Jerry Jerry. Where is the Dr. Jerry Walls podcast?
Thank you for this thoughtful debate and discussion. Both guests and Sean were truly Christian in their respective dialogue.
Thoughtful in a purely man centred way perhaps, but not Christian because it didn't address what the Bible says.
Sean was a brilliant facilitator. Would love him to host more unbelievable shows.
May God in His infinite wisdom guide all of us to know more and have a better understanding of His Truth. Thank you all at Premier.
But God does not exist, and this has been proven.
@@whittfamily1Proof of God's NON-existence? Give it.
@@justin10292000 Oh, I have many proofs that God does not exist. I will present one to you, but in return I expect you to reply to it.
Notice: After you read the argument below, please provide answers to these questions:
1. Do you understand the argument? If not, what specifically do you not understand?
2. Is there an error in the argument? If so, what is it?
3. Do you agree that the argument and its conclusion are correct? If not, why not?
The Three-Way Argument Against the Existence of God Based on the Holocaust: By Gary Whittenberger, Copyright 1-29-2023, 7-13-2023, 7-29-2023, 8-14-2023
1. Definition: God is 1) the hypothetical, unique, exclusive, supernatural, independent, spiritual, normally invisible person, conscious intelligent agent, or sentient entity. He is OMNI lasting (eternal), present, knowing, powerful, intelligent, rational, creative, and resilient (invincible). He is also OMNI loving, compassionate, and moral with respect to other persons. He fills the roles of cosmos designer and producer (creator), occasional interventionist in the world, and afterlife manager who decides the favorable or unfavorable disposition of human souls after they die. or 2) the greatest imaginable possible person (the “GIPPer”) who, if he existed, would possess all desirable traits to their highest degrees and no undesirable traits, and who would be worthy of our greatest respect, admiration, and worship.
The First Way
2. If God can and does exist, because of his nature he would have attempted to prevent the Holocaust and he would have succeeded. Consequently, the Holocaust would not have occurred.
3. But the Holocaust did occur.
4. Therefore, God cannot and does not exist.
The Second Way
5. If God can and does exist, and if the Holocaust did occur, then because of his nature God had at least one morally justified reason to allow the Holocaust.
6. The Holocaust did occur.
7. Thus, if God can and does exist, then he had at least one morally justified reason to allow the Holocaust.
8. There are specific morally justified reasons for some persons to allow the horrible harm of the Holocaust to occur, but God would not have any of them; none would be available to him.
A. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they did not know that the Holocaust was going to occur. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be all-knowing.
B. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they did not have the power to prevent it or immediately stop it. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be all-powerful.
C. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they knew that somebody else was in the process of preventing it and the other was likely to succeed. But this could not be a reason for God since he would know about the Holocaust ready to happen before anyone else would know since he would be all-knowing. Also, God would know that a successful prevention of the Holocaust by human beings was very unlikely. (Note that there were at least 15 attempts to assassinate Hitler and they were all unsuccessful.)
D. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they would have been killed in an attempt to prevent or stop it. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be invulnerable, all-powerful, and eternal.
E. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they would have been significantly injured in an attempt to prevent or stop it. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be invulnerable and all-powerful.
F. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they would have significantly suffered in an attempt to prevent or stop it. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be invulnerable and all-powerful.
G. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because allowing it would be necessary for them to prevent some greater harm than the Holocaust itself. But this could not be a reason for God since nothing at all would be necessary for him to allow in order to prevent some greater harm since he would be all-powerful. God would have dominion over all metaphysical and natural necessities, contingencies, and laws.
H. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because allowing it would be necessary for them to produce a benefit which outweighed the Holocaust. But this could not be a reason for God since nothing at all would be necessary for him to allow in order to produce some benefit that would outweigh the Holocaust since he would be all-powerful. God would have dominion over all metaphysical and natural necessities, contingencies, and laws.
I. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because it resulted in perfect punishments for all the victims for their past immoral behaviors. But the Holocaust did not have the features of perfect punishments for all victims. For example, it lacked advance rule declaration, administration by proper authority, individualized proportional severity, and the least severity effective for all victims. Since the Holocaust harms did not exhibit the features of perfect punishments for all victims, the harms could not have been punishments from God. Hitler thought that annihilation of the Jewish people would be a morally justified and deserved punishment. He was wrong, and God would never agree with him on this point.
J. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust if they pre-arranged for all potential victims to experience benefits after the Holocaust which were logically contingent on the harms (e.g. care, character development, criminal justice, and compensation), which outweighed any harms from the Holocaust, and which occurred in life on Earth. But after the Holocaust, a substantial proportion of the victims received no logically contingent benefits and for most of them who did, the benefits were outweighed by the harms. And so, God would have had no involvement with this.
K. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they acquired the advance informed consent of all potential victims to experience the harms of the Holocaust in exchange for assured consequent benefits. But there is no good evidence that such consent was acquired by anyone, even God, from any victim.
9. And so, God could not and did not have even one morally justified reason to allow the Holocaust.
10. Therefore, God cannot and does not exist.
The Third Way
11. Furthermore, if any tribunal is investigating or evaluating the occurrence of any horrible harm to a group of persons, then any person who has knowledge of any detail related to that occurrence should offer or present their testimony about what they know. Every person knowledgeable of the occurrence has a moral duty to come forward to the tribunal and testify to what they know, telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
12. The Nuremberg Trials constituted a tribunal investigating or evaluating the occurrence of the Holocaust.
13. And so, if God can exist and does exist, because he would be both omni-powerful and omni-moral, then at the Nuremberg Trials he would have testified as a witness, sworn to tell “the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me myself,” and this truth would have included any reasons for his allowing the Holocaust.
14. But God did not testify at the Nuremberg Trials.
15. Once again, therefore, God cannot and does not exist.
@@whittfamily1This entire argument is based on the idea that The Holocaust was objectively evil. But there ARE no OBJECTIVELY evil acts on logically-applied atheism, just opinions and social contracts. Tell me: if the Nazis had won WWII and wiped out every last individual who disagreed with them, would The Holocaust still be evil? If so, by what objective standard do you arrive at this conclusion? On atheism, humans are just soulless animals, with no OBJECTIVE meaning, purpose or worth, and atheists like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot certainly took that belief to its logical extreme! Stop borrowing from the Christian (or at least theistic) worldview and stay consistent within YOUR worldview.
It’s strange that there is a debate asking if Gods love is really for all.
Sean, since you said you’d love to continue this conversation, could you please consider doing so, maybe on your own channel? It would be great to hear you expand on your current thoughts and questions and to carry this conversation further than the time limits here allowed.
I was blown away by Hronich's arguments. I felt that he won this debate hands down. Also what I thought was interesting is the Jerry Walls gives Hronichs book "Once loved always loved" a very good review on the back of his book and says Hronich makes a good case Biblically for Universalism.
I don't think you can really call it a debate Jerry seemed closer to Universalism than the traditional view of heaven and hell.
What arguments? All he has is feelings, he doesn't address the nature of Man or sin. Nor does he address God's statement that He chooses as He pleases, not that we choose. For someone who claims to have been a Calvinist he has no understanding of these things.
Within an account of 'freedom' we need to truly reckon with rationality and goodness...David Bentley Hart's point is vital here: that no-one would reject their final personal good unless irrational or damaged. In which case, their rejection of God would be based in lack of knowledge or sanity. These could and should be reparable and then none should be finally rejected based on a handicap. Either God is good and resolves these or God isn't fully good and let's people be lost when with the right restoration of rationality and insight they would have turned course.
God does not exist, and this has been proven.
@whittfamily1 So let's see your proof of God's NON-existence!
@@justin10292000 I thought that I already presented to you. Well, here it is again.
Notice: After you read the argument below, please provide answers to these questions:
1. Do you understand the argument? If not, what specifically do you not understand?
2. Is there an error in the argument? If so, what is it?
3. Do you agree that the argument and its conclusion are correct? If not, why not?
The Three-Way Argument Against the Existence of God Based on the Holocaust: By Gary Whittenberger, Copyright 1-29-2023, 7-13-2023, 7-29-2023, 8-14-2023
1. Definition: God is 1) the hypothetical, unique, exclusive, supernatural, independent, spiritual, normally invisible person, conscious intelligent agent, or sentient entity. He is OMNI lasting (eternal), present, knowing, powerful, intelligent, rational, creative, and resilient (invincible). He is also OMNI loving, compassionate, and moral with respect to other persons. He fills the roles of cosmos designer and producer (creator), occasional interventionist in the world, and afterlife manager who decides the favorable or unfavorable disposition of human souls after they die. or 2) the greatest imaginable possible person (the “GIPPer”) who, if he existed, would possess all desirable traits to their highest degrees and no undesirable traits, and who would be worthy of our greatest respect, admiration, and worship.
The First Way
2. If God can and does exist, because of his nature he would have attempted to prevent the Holocaust and he would have succeeded. Consequently, the Holocaust would not have occurred.
3. But the Holocaust did occur.
4. Therefore, God cannot and does not exist.
The Second Way
5. If God can and does exist, and if the Holocaust did occur, then because of his nature God had at least one morally justified reason to allow the Holocaust.
6. The Holocaust did occur.
7. Thus, if God can and does exist, then he had at least one morally justified reason to allow the Holocaust.
8. There are specific morally justified reasons for some persons to allow the horrible harm of the Holocaust to occur, but God would not have any of them; none would be available to him.
A. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they did not know that the Holocaust was going to occur. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be all-knowing.
B. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they did not have the power to prevent it or immediately stop it. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be all-powerful.
C. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they knew that somebody else was in the process of preventing it and the other was likely to succeed. But this could not be a reason for God since he would know about the Holocaust ready to happen before anyone else would know since he would be all-knowing. Also, God would know that a successful prevention of the Holocaust by human beings was very unlikely. (Note that there were at least 15 attempts to assassinate Hitler and they were all unsuccessful.)
D. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they would have been killed in an attempt to prevent or stop it. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be invulnerable, all-powerful, and eternal.
E. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they would have been significantly injured in an attempt to prevent or stop it. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be invulnerable and all-powerful.
F. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they would have significantly suffered in an attempt to prevent or stop it. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be invulnerable and all-powerful.
G. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because allowing it would be necessary for them to prevent some greater harm than the Holocaust itself. But this could not be a reason for God since nothing at all would be necessary for him to allow in order to prevent some greater harm since he would be all-powerful. God would have dominion over all metaphysical and natural necessities, contingencies, and laws.
H. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because allowing it would be necessary for them to produce a benefit which outweighed the Holocaust. But this could not be a reason for God since nothing at all would be necessary for him to allow in order to produce some benefit that would outweigh the Holocaust since he would be all-powerful. God would have dominion over all metaphysical and natural necessities, contingencies, and laws.
I. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because it resulted in perfect punishments for all the victims for their past immoral behaviors. But the Holocaust did not have the features of perfect punishments for all victims. For example, it lacked advance rule declaration, administration by proper authority, individualized proportional severity, and the least severity effective for all victims. Since the Holocaust harms did not exhibit the features of perfect punishments for all victims, the harms could not have been punishments from God. Hitler thought that annihilation of the Jewish people would be a morally justified and deserved punishment. He was wrong, and God would never agree with him on this point.
J. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust if they pre-arranged for all potential victims to experience benefits after the Holocaust which were logically contingent on the harms (e.g. care, character development, criminal justice, and compensation), which outweighed any harms from the Holocaust, and which occurred in life on Earth. But after the Holocaust, a substantial proportion of the victims received no logically contingent benefits and for most of them who did, the benefits were outweighed by the harms. And so, God would have had no involvement with this.
K. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they acquired the advance informed consent of all potential victims to experience the harms of the Holocaust in exchange for assured consequent benefits. But there is no good evidence that such consent was acquired by anyone, even God, from any victim.
9. And so, God could not and did not have even one morally justified reason to allow the Holocaust.
10. Therefore, God cannot and does not exist.
The Third Way
11. Furthermore, if any tribunal is investigating or evaluating the occurrence of any horrible harm to a group of persons, then any person who has knowledge of any detail related to that occurrence should offer or present their testimony about what they know. Every person knowledgeable of the occurrence has a moral duty to come forward to the tribunal and testify to what they know, telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
12. The Nuremberg Trials constituted a tribunal investigating or evaluating the occurrence of the Holocaust.
13. And so, if God can exist and does exist, because he would be both omni-powerful and omni-moral, then at the Nuremberg Trials he would have testified as a witness, sworn to tell “the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me myself,” and this truth would have included any reasons for his allowing the Holocaust.
14. But God did not testify at the Nuremberg Trials.
15. Once again, therefore, God cannot and does not exist.
Thomas Talbott wrote much on this in Inescapable Love of God
@@auggiebendoggy If you were all-powerful and you allowed the Holocaust, what is it about that which would be LOVING?
How could any saved person enjoy heaven when they know they have loved ones being tortured in hell?
A more full revelation of the circumstances may relieve our issues with that topic. It may also be the case that we don’t necessarily have the same memories as we did before death and resurrection. The fact is, we don’t really know what will happen, but we ought to still believe what the Bible teaches.
Also “being tortured” is language that is probably not entirely correct. Unless people “torture” themselves.
@@brando3342 If we don't have the same thinking in heaven as we did in life, then we'd be different people and not ourselves.
And not really knowing what happens doesn't mean we should shrug and keep believing.
We should only believe or accept what can be tested and proven evidence.
Don't just have faith. What if you chose the wrong religion or the wrong god?
@@DaddyOfTheSugarVariety If you don’t believe in God or the afterlife, why do you even care what happens? According to you, it isn’t going to happen anyway.
@brando3342 I care because relious cult followers lead people to suicide, murder, judgments and laws based on their religious beliefs. People disown their children if they aren't brainwashed into their parents' beliefs.
Religions/cults see women as property or second class citizens forced to marry, but have no say in what they do with their bodies. To choose to birth children or abort(especially after being raped).
They couldn’t. 😇
I'm an all out Christian universalist but I love Jerry. For real.
Christianity is mostly false. God does not exist, and this has been proven.
@@whittfamily1Your mantra is tiring. Show us all this "proof" of God's NON-existence.
@@justin10292000 This is the fourth time I've presented it to you.
Notice: After you read the argument below, please provide answers to these questions:
1. Do you understand the argument? If not, what specifically do you not understand?
2. Is there an error in the argument? If so, what is it?
3. Do you agree that the argument and its conclusion are correct? If not, why not?
The Three-Way Argument Against the Existence of God Based on the Holocaust: By Gary Whittenberger, Copyright 1-29-2023, 7-13-2023, 7-29-2023, 8-14-2023
1. Definition: God is 1) the hypothetical, unique, exclusive, supernatural, independent, spiritual, normally invisible person, conscious intelligent agent, or sentient entity. He is OMNI lasting (eternal), present, knowing, powerful, intelligent, rational, creative, and resilient (invincible). He is also OMNI loving, compassionate, and moral with respect to other persons. He fills the roles of cosmos designer and producer (creator), occasional interventionist in the world, and afterlife manager who decides the favorable or unfavorable disposition of human souls after they die. or 2) the greatest imaginable possible person (the “GIPPer”) who, if he existed, would possess all desirable traits to their highest degrees and no undesirable traits, and who would be worthy of our greatest respect, admiration, and worship.
The First Way
2. If God can and does exist, because of his nature he would have attempted to prevent the Holocaust and he would have succeeded. Consequently, the Holocaust would not have occurred.
3. But the Holocaust did occur.
4. Therefore, God cannot and does not exist.
The Second Way
5. If God can and does exist, and if the Holocaust did occur, then because of his nature God had at least one morally justified reason to allow the Holocaust.
6. The Holocaust did occur.
7. Thus, if God can and does exist, then he had at least one morally justified reason to allow the Holocaust.
8. There are specific morally justified reasons for some persons to allow the horrible harm of the Holocaust to occur, but God would not have any of them; none would be available to him.
A. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they did not know that the Holocaust was going to occur. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be all-knowing.
B. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they did not have the power to prevent it or immediately stop it. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be all-powerful.
C. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they knew that somebody else was in the process of preventing it and the other was likely to succeed. But this could not be a reason for God since he would know about the Holocaust ready to happen before anyone else would know since he would be all-knowing. Also, God would know that a successful prevention of the Holocaust by human beings was very unlikely. (Note that there were at least 15 attempts to assassinate Hitler and they were all unsuccessful.)
D. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they would have been killed in an attempt to prevent or stop it. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be invulnerable, all-powerful, and eternal.
E. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they would have been significantly injured in an attempt to prevent or stop it. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be invulnerable and all-powerful.
F. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they would have significantly suffered in an attempt to prevent or stop it. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be invulnerable and all-powerful.
G. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because allowing it would be necessary for them to prevent some greater harm than the Holocaust itself. But this could not be a reason for God since nothing at all would be necessary for him to allow in order to prevent some greater harm since he would be all-powerful. God would have dominion over all metaphysical and natural necessities, contingencies, and laws.
H. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because allowing it would be necessary for them to produce a benefit which outweighed the Holocaust. But this could not be a reason for God since nothing at all would be necessary for him to allow in order to produce some benefit that would outweigh the Holocaust since he would be all-powerful. God would have dominion over all metaphysical and natural necessities, contingencies, and laws.
I. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because it resulted in perfect punishments for all the victims for their past immoral behaviors. But the Holocaust did not have the features of perfect punishments for all victims. For example, it lacked advance rule declaration, administration by proper authority, individualized proportional severity, and the least severity effective for all victims. Since the Holocaust harms did not exhibit the features of perfect punishments for all victims, the harms could not have been punishments from God. Hitler thought that annihilation of the Jewish people would be a morally justified and deserved punishment. He was wrong, and God would never agree with him on this point.
J. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust if they pre-arranged for all potential victims to experience benefits after the Holocaust which were logically contingent on the harms (e.g. care, character development, criminal justice, and compensation), which outweighed any harms from the Holocaust, and which occurred in life on Earth. But after the Holocaust, a substantial proportion of the victims received no logically contingent benefits and for most of them who did, the benefits were outweighed by the harms. And so, God would have had no involvement with this.
K. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they acquired the advance informed consent of all potential victims to experience the harms of the Holocaust in exchange for assured consequent benefits. But there is no good evidence that such consent was acquired by anyone, even God, from any victim.
9. And so, God could not and did not have even one morally justified reason to allow the Holocaust.
10. Therefore, God cannot and does not exist.
The Third Way
11. Furthermore, if any tribunal is investigating or evaluating the occurrence of any horrible harm to a group of persons, then any person who has knowledge of any detail related to that occurrence should offer or present their testimony about what they know. Every person knowledgeable of the occurrence has a moral duty to come forward to the tribunal and testify to what they know, telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
12. The Nuremberg Trials constituted a tribunal investigating or evaluating the occurrence of the Holocaust.
13. And so, if God can exist and does exist, because he would be both omni-powerful and omni-moral, then at the Nuremberg Trials he would have testified as a witness, sworn to tell “the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me myself,” and this truth would have included any reasons for his allowing the Holocaust.
14. But God did not testify at the Nuremberg Trials.
15. Once again, therefore, God cannot and does not exist.
Me too. I’ve read two of his books “Does God Love Everyone?” And “Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory”. While I really really am proud of his work refuting the unChristlike work of Calvinism, I lean toward universal reconciliation for all of creation, along the lines of Brian Zahnd, Robin Parry, and Brad Jersak. I don’t believe that “hellfire” is the work of demons and the Accuser, I believe whatever harrowing experience we must go through to be reconciled is restorative and corrective in nature. I believe that what we risk by not serving Christ with our lives in this life is missing out on His work, and reflecting His love into the world. When we see the truth of reality and who God is, and we realize what we have to offer was a life of self servitude, bitterness, etc. then we will weep over the life that’s we cannot relive, and weep that we cannot offer Christ our lives as a gift.
@@saulgoo2334
SG1: Me too. I’ve read two of his books “Does God Love Everyone?” And “Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory”. While I really really am proud of his work refuting the unChristlike work of Calvinism, I lean toward universal reconciliation for all of creation, along the lines of Brian Zahnd, Robin Parry, and Brad Jersak. I don’t believe that “hellfire” is the work of demons and the Accuser, I believe whatever harrowing experience we must go through to be reconciled is restorative and corrective in nature.
GW1: Christians believe hell is real, when it is not. I guess you are not a Christian. So far, so good. But God does not exist, and this has been proven.
SG1: I believe that what we risk by not serving Christ with our lives in this life is missing out on His work, and reflecting His love into the world.
GW1: We should not “serve” Christ. There are much better models for morality than Jesus. Even Abrham Lincoln was better.
SG1: When we see the truth of reality and who God is,...
GW1: But Saul, God does not exist! This has been prove by me and several other persons.
SG1: and we realize what we have to offer was a life of self servitude, bitterness, etc. then we will weep over the life that’s we cannot relive, and weep that we cannot offer Christ our lives as a gift.
GW1: We weep because God does not exist! Life would be so much better if he did.
Anyone else feel Jerry teetering on the edge of being a Universalist?
I don't agree with Christ Date on much but I do agree with him that the traditional view of hell (which in my view was created by the Roman government as a way of controlling people post Constantine's conversion and was later augmented by the doctrine of purgatory) will fall away in the next 100 years or so and the debate will between Annihilation and Universal reconciliation. The traditional view has to more holes than Swiss cheese.
I hope so, let's pray for him!
@@safebelayer when or where?
It's been over a month since I listened to this while working
@@safebelayer where and when in the video didJerry admit believing Christian Universalism? Or somewhere else?
Jerry recently debated that with Andrew Hronich though more open minded than most likely subscribers to ECT.
Annihilationism vs. CU/UR will likely become a more common debate of the future as Chris Date has already stated.
I heard Andrew mention that this appearance on Unbelievable was coming up on a recent podcast. Glad that this day is here! Look forward to the conversation!
Jerry Walls' case is saying even the most stubborn or spoiled child would prefer "forever" a North Korean prison or dungeon over Disney World etc.
Though I have some disagreements with Walls however I at least respect him, unlike McClymond.
I'd just like to know why people insist on what folks would "prefer" as if it's their choice in the matter. Most of the judgement passages don't indicate that people will be rejecting God, but rather that He will be rejecting them. For example, Matthew 7:22-23, Matthew 25:11-12, Luke 13:24-27, etc.
@@bluejay9235 the pride of so-called "free" will I suppose
@@bluejay9235The fact that God rejects people from heaven can be explained by the fact that they rejected God first on earth.
Why should the universalist assume that's ruled out?
Likewise
@@oitpyc2965That's debatable, I mean surely in Matthew 7:22-23 and Luke 13:24-27, it doesn't sound like these folks rejected God on earth, quite the opposite actually. Furthermore, if the doctrine of unconditional election is true (John 6:44), then that also removes any choice in the matter on the part of people. I understand that neither Andrew or Jerry believe in that doctrine, so they don't see that as an issue, but it would be interesting to see either of them debate a Calvinist.
Dude how did I not know about this? Favorite channel across the pond and favorite host on RUclips together?!
If we are made in the image and likeness of God, and we are made for truth, goodness and beauty, I cannot see why anyone would hold out against God (truth, goodness and beauty) forever. Jerry Walls seems to be working with a libertarian model of freedom, which has nothing to do with scripture or the church fathers. We are not free when we have chosen, only when we have chosen well.
Great conversation! What Andrew shared concerning Luke 16 should exclude the passage from any support for the traditional notion of hell.
Hell does not exist, if God does not exist. God does not exist, and this has been proven.
@@whittfamily1Your disbelief is a belief you hold. Why spend your rapidly dwindling pre-Eternity moments railing against something you don't believe in?
@@justin10292000 Justin, I don't just believe that God does not exist, I KNOW that he does not exist. This has been proven. Nobody exists for eternity, not even you. My remaining days living are not "rapidly dwindling." It is my duty to spread the truth for as long as I live, and the truth is that God does not exist.
@@whittfamily1Yes yes, you keep saying the same statement on these message boards over and over. But you merely make assertions without proof. Show us the "proof" of God's NON-existence!
@@justin10292000 I already did, but here it is again.
Notice: After you read the argument below, please provide answers to these questions:
1. Do you understand the argument? If not, what specifically do you not understand?
2. Is there an error in the argument? If so, what is it?
3. Do you agree that the argument and its conclusion are correct? If not, why not?
The Three-Way Argument Against the Existence of God Based on the Holocaust: By Gary Whittenberger, Copyright 1-29-2023, 7-13-2023, 7-29-2023, 8-14-2023
1. Definition: God is 1) the hypothetical, unique, exclusive, supernatural, independent, spiritual, normally invisible person, conscious intelligent agent, or sentient entity. He is OMNI lasting (eternal), present, knowing, powerful, intelligent, rational, creative, and resilient (invincible). He is also OMNI loving, compassionate, and moral with respect to other persons. He fills the roles of cosmos designer and producer (creator), occasional interventionist in the world, and afterlife manager who decides the favorable or unfavorable disposition of human souls after they die. or 2) the greatest imaginable possible person (the “GIPPer”) who, if he existed, would possess all desirable traits to their highest degrees and no undesirable traits, and who would be worthy of our greatest respect, admiration, and worship.
The First Way
2. If God can and does exist, because of his nature he would have attempted to prevent the Holocaust and he would have succeeded. Consequently, the Holocaust would not have occurred.
3. But the Holocaust did occur.
4. Therefore, God cannot and does not exist.
The Second Way
5. If God can and does exist, and if the Holocaust did occur, then because of his nature God had at least one morally justified reason to allow the Holocaust.
6. The Holocaust did occur.
7. Thus, if God can and does exist, then he had at least one morally justified reason to allow the Holocaust.
8. There are specific morally justified reasons for some persons to allow the horrible harm of the Holocaust to occur, but God would not have any of them; none would be available to him.
A. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they did not know that the Holocaust was going to occur. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be all-knowing.
B. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they did not have the power to prevent it or immediately stop it. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be all-powerful.
C. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they knew that somebody else was in the process of preventing it and the other was likely to succeed. But this could not be a reason for God since he would know about the Holocaust ready to happen before anyone else would know since he would be all-knowing. Also, God would know that a successful prevention of the Holocaust by human beings was very unlikely. (Note that there were at least 15 attempts to assassinate Hitler and they were all unsuccessful.)
D. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they would have been killed in an attempt to prevent or stop it. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be invulnerable, all-powerful, and eternal.
E. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they would have been significantly injured in an attempt to prevent or stop it. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be invulnerable and all-powerful.
F. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they would have significantly suffered in an attempt to prevent or stop it. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be invulnerable and all-powerful.
G. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because allowing it would be necessary for them to prevent some greater harm than the Holocaust itself. But this could not be a reason for God since nothing at all would be necessary for him to allow in order to prevent some greater harm since he would be all-powerful. God would have dominion over all metaphysical and natural necessities, contingencies, and laws.
H. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because allowing it would be necessary for them to produce a benefit which outweighed the Holocaust. But this could not be a reason for God since nothing at all would be necessary for him to allow in order to produce some benefit that would outweigh the Holocaust since he would be all-powerful. God would have dominion over all metaphysical and natural necessities, contingencies, and laws.
I. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because it resulted in perfect punishments for all the victims for their past immoral behaviors. But the Holocaust did not have the features of perfect punishments for all victims. For example, it lacked advance rule declaration, administration by proper authority, individualized proportional severity, and the least severity effective for all victims. Since the Holocaust harms did not exhibit the features of perfect punishments for all victims, the harms could not have been punishments from God. Hitler thought that annihilation of the Jewish people would be a morally justified and deserved punishment. He was wrong, and God would never agree with him on this point.
J. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust if they pre-arranged for all potential victims to experience benefits after the Holocaust which were logically contingent on the harms (e.g. care, character development, criminal justice, and compensation), which outweighed any harms from the Holocaust, and which occurred in life on Earth. But after the Holocaust, a substantial proportion of the victims received no logically contingent benefits and for most of them who did, the benefits were outweighed by the harms. And so, God would have had no involvement with this.
K. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they acquired the advance informed consent of all potential victims to experience the harms of the Holocaust in exchange for assured consequent benefits. But there is no good evidence that such consent was acquired by anyone, even God, from any victim.
9. And so, God could not and did not have even one morally justified reason to allow the Holocaust.
10. Therefore, God cannot and does not exist.
The Third Way
11. Furthermore, if any tribunal is investigating or evaluating the occurrence of any horrible harm to a group of persons, then any person who has knowledge of any detail related to that occurrence should offer or present their testimony about what they know. Every person knowledgeable of the occurrence has a moral duty to come forward to the tribunal and testify to what they know, telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
12. The Nuremberg Trials constituted a tribunal investigating or evaluating the occurrence of the Holocaust.
13. And so, if God can exist and does exist, because he would be both omni-powerful and omni-moral, then at the Nuremberg Trials he would have testified as a witness, sworn to tell “the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me myself,” and this truth would have included any reasons for his allowing the Holocaust.
14. But God did not testify at the Nuremberg Trials.
15. Once again, therefore, God cannot and does not exist.
As a Universalist who believes that the Loving Father of Jesus is the creative loving consciousness of Greek thought rather than the vindictive Yahweh of the early Israelites , I believe that all will eventually be reconciled to the Christlike relationship with His Heavenly Father.
I think some evidence for why people would not necessarily continue to sin for eternity in hell is the presence of nihilism here on earth. When I was going through a rough time in life where I didn’t know God, I fell into nihilism. I saw no point to life and no reason to continue to live how I was living. I think something similar would happen in hell. Sinners who may continue to reject Christ in hell would eventually come to realize the pointlessness of their sin. It would be like a “nihilism of sin”. When you realize the folly of sin that is the beginning of seeing the love of God.
Nihilism in humans is very rare, probably less than 1%. But God does not exist, and this has been proven.
@whittfamily1 So spell out your "proof" for God's NON-existence! Still waiting........
@@justin10292000 I already did, but here it is again.
Notice: After you read the argument below, please provide answers to these questions:
1. Do you understand the argument? If not, what specifically do you not understand?
2. Is there an error in the argument? If so, what is it?
3. Do you agree that the argument and its conclusion are correct? If not, why not?
The Three-Way Argument Against the Existence of God Based on the Holocaust: By Gary Whittenberger, Copyright 1-29-2023, 7-13-2023, 7-29-2023, 8-14-2023
1. Definition: God is 1) the hypothetical, unique, exclusive, supernatural, independent, spiritual, normally invisible person, conscious intelligent agent, or sentient entity. He is OMNI lasting (eternal), present, knowing, powerful, intelligent, rational, creative, and resilient (invincible). He is also OMNI loving, compassionate, and moral with respect to other persons. He fills the roles of cosmos designer and producer (creator), occasional interventionist in the world, and afterlife manager who decides the favorable or unfavorable disposition of human souls after they die. or 2) the greatest imaginable possible person (the “GIPPer”) who, if he existed, would possess all desirable traits to their highest degrees and no undesirable traits, and who would be worthy of our greatest respect, admiration, and worship.
The First Way
2. If God can and does exist, because of his nature he would have attempted to prevent the Holocaust and he would have succeeded. Consequently, the Holocaust would not have occurred.
3. But the Holocaust did occur.
4. Therefore, God cannot and does not exist.
The Second Way
5. If God can and does exist, and if the Holocaust did occur, then because of his nature God had at least one morally justified reason to allow the Holocaust.
6. The Holocaust did occur.
7. Thus, if God can and does exist, then he had at least one morally justified reason to allow the Holocaust.
8. There are specific morally justified reasons for some persons to allow the horrible harm of the Holocaust to occur, but God would not have any of them; none would be available to him.
A. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they did not know that the Holocaust was going to occur. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be all-knowing.
B. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they did not have the power to prevent it or immediately stop it. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be all-powerful.
C. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they knew that somebody else was in the process of preventing it and the other was likely to succeed. But this could not be a reason for God since he would know about the Holocaust ready to happen before anyone else would know since he would be all-knowing. Also, God would know that a successful prevention of the Holocaust by human beings was very unlikely. (Note that there were at least 15 attempts to assassinate Hitler and they were all unsuccessful.)
D. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they would have been killed in an attempt to prevent or stop it. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be invulnerable, all-powerful, and eternal.
E. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they would have been significantly injured in an attempt to prevent or stop it. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be invulnerable and all-powerful.
F. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they would have significantly suffered in an attempt to prevent or stop it. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be invulnerable and all-powerful.
G. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because allowing it would be necessary for them to prevent some greater harm than the Holocaust itself. But this could not be a reason for God since nothing at all would be necessary for him to allow in order to prevent some greater harm since he would be all-powerful. God would have dominion over all metaphysical and natural necessities, contingencies, and laws.
H. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because allowing it would be necessary for them to produce a benefit which outweighed the Holocaust. But this could not be a reason for God since nothing at all would be necessary for him to allow in order to produce some benefit that would outweigh the Holocaust since he would be all-powerful. God would have dominion over all metaphysical and natural necessities, contingencies, and laws.
I. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because it resulted in perfect punishments for all the victims for their past immoral behaviors. But the Holocaust did not have the features of perfect punishments for all victims. For example, it lacked advance rule declaration, administration by proper authority, individualized proportional severity, and the least severity effective for all victims. Since the Holocaust harms did not exhibit the features of perfect punishments for all victims, the harms could not have been punishments from God. Hitler thought that annihilation of the Jewish people would be a morally justified and deserved punishment. He was wrong, and God would never agree with him on this point.
J. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust if they pre-arranged for all potential victims to experience benefits after the Holocaust which were logically contingent on the harms (e.g. care, character development, criminal justice, and compensation), which outweighed any harms from the Holocaust, and which occurred in life on Earth. But after the Holocaust, a substantial proportion of the victims received no logically contingent benefits and for most of them who did, the benefits were outweighed by the harms. And so, God would have had no involvement with this.
K. Other persons might justly allow the Holocaust because they acquired the advance informed consent of all potential victims to experience the harms of the Holocaust in exchange for assured consequent benefits. But there is no good evidence that such consent was acquired by anyone, even God, from any victim.
9. And so, God could not and did not have even one morally justified reason to allow the Holocaust.
10. Therefore, God cannot and does not exist.
The Third Way
11. Furthermore, if any tribunal is investigating or evaluating the occurrence of any horrible harm to a group of persons, then any person who has knowledge of any detail related to that occurrence should offer or present their testimony about what they know. Every person knowledgeable of the occurrence has a moral duty to come forward to the tribunal and testify to what they know, telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
12. The Nuremberg Trials constituted a tribunal investigating or evaluating the occurrence of the Holocaust.
13. And so, if God can exist and does exist, because he would be both omni-powerful and omni-moral, then at the Nuremberg Trials he would have testified as a witness, sworn to tell “the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me myself,” and this truth would have included any reasons for his allowing the Holocaust.
14. But God did not testify at the Nuremberg Trials.
15. Once again, therefore, God cannot and does not exist.
Great job yall
This wasn’t really a debate, he basically conceded every point the universalist made to the level to which I question whether this guy is really a universalist but he says he still holds a more traditional view with some form of ECT.
The only rational form of Christianity is one in which God both Can and Will Save All. Change my mind.
Premise 1: God won’t save those who don’t want to be saved.
Premise 2: In hell, there will be many who will never want to be saved.
Conclusion: Hell will never be empty
Universalism is absolutely the highest view of god 🫡 a god of hell is by definition inferior
@@aosidhwhy would a puppet master God be superior to the God who permits free will thus creating the necessary conditions for love? Free creatures who freely reject their Creator and pursue their own selfish & foolish purpose will endure the consequences of their choice even though an obviously far superior option was made freely available to them.
@@Galmozzi99 it is my belief that a supreme god would be able to convince anyone to repent, no matter how stubborn they are. Do you think Jesus isn't good enough to save everyone?
@@aosidh that runs face first into the problem of being logically impossible. Rational thought requires the free will to make choices between accepting or rejecting premises. That by necessity allows for irrational thought. Forcing creatures into only accepting the rational outcome would negate their free will.
I was under the assumption that this parable was talking to people that understood the times and that it was talking about the difference between the Old testament and the New testament
How can we say God doesn’t violate free will, but then say He will force them to confess Jesus is Lord? That argument is self-defeating....
One of the many square circles of eternal infernalist conclusions.
Because the they will see Him for who He is. It’s not a choice at that point. That is why He doesn’t just show up right now. If God showed up everyone would bow down whether they wanted to or not. There is no choice at that point it will be about pure fear.
Here on earth is the way that God could sort out who really chooses Him. Because when He shows up everyone will choose Him from fear not love.
The issue is God does violate free will absuletely. As all things work according to the counsel of his will. Look at Paul on the road to Damascus, or Jesus being crucified before the foundation of the world. It says everything is predestined.
Sean says that there needs to be evidence for post-mortem repentance from scripture and I'm not sure why. Why would the default position be that there are no chances after death?
If that was explicitly stated in the Bible it would be counter productive bc readers would be tempted to live in sin now knowing they can always repent and accept Jesus later. It’s good we feel a sense of urgency to either accept or reject Jesus.
Equally there needs to be Scripture evidence to believe there is no post-mortem repentance. Otherwise one can be agnostic on it - or lastly believe the majority-/institutional-opinion in the belief that they carry weight. (Nb Jesus told His disciples to beware false teaching in their religious leaders/ institution, Matt 16:6).
@@jonnyw82do you think the blessings of God in the authentic Gospel, with Holy Spirit life, is not sufficiently wonderful experientially to be its own reward? Or that God’s discipline of wayward believers is not strong enough to bring them back into trust and rest?
@@wallabea9750It’s a bit of a false dichotomy, life is far more complicated than those two neat and clean scenarios.
Repentance is not a condition for everlasting life. Believe that Jesus is the Christ, and you will be born of God. Faith is the only condition. So why would repentance be the condition for people who are in hell after death?
I appreciate how much Andrew slayed in this debate. Eternal torment is such a weak position to hold now in theology; simply given the nature and fruits of God considered alone, least of all concerning these other arguments.
1. God is love.
2. There is one mediator between man and God the man Christ Jesus.
3. No one comes to the Father but through me.
4. He that believes in the Father and the Son has everlasting life.
5. I am the way the truth and the life no one comes to the Father but by me.
Any questions?
Great set of texts. Christians that affirm universalism or eternal damnation agree (usually) with these.
If there ever was an example of a mismatched debate, then surely this must be it.
You would think a god that wants a relationship with all his creations, there would be no room for interpreting his word, because an all knowing god would know exactly how to convince all his creations of his existence without any doubts.
Well said, brother!! You nailed it. That is why I am a Trinitarian Restorationist. Except "god" doesn't exist. God does :)
@@justin10292000 Why do you believe your"God" exists?
@@DaddyOfTheSugarVarietyHe is GOD, not "my" God. Don't strawman.
@@justin10292000 No strawman intended, but there are thousands of gods people believe in. Why is yours "the one"? I'm looking for testable, demonstrable evidence.
Love how two humans come to differing opinions about a collection of writings written by many different humans with differing opinions.
As a former obstetric nurse, I don’t believe in evil babies. We learn to be loving or evil depending on the values of our parents or culture. I know that reincarnation was accepted theology for the first five hundred years. I was raised Christian and love the character and teachings of Jesus but perhaps I would fit better in the Baha’i faith.
Also the LORD was angry with me for your sakes, saying, Thou also shalt not go in thither. But Joshua the son of Nun, which standeth before thee, he shall go in thither: encourage him: for he shall cause Israel to inherit it. MOREOVER your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
*DEU1*
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall NOT bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
*EZK18*
Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. BUT Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.
*MAT19 >*
Some still have questions on, "what about those who have never heard the gospel?" (Those who never received 'the seed' which is the word of the gospel)
For that, see Mat25:24-26
Be blessed
When it comes to the results of our choices, if we are on a timeline with only one possible ultimate outcome, then, regardless of how that outcomes comes about, we simply aren't free. At least not in the sense of what is meaningful to the issue at hand.
Freedom isn't just about individual choices. There can be free choices for someone in prison and yet still an ultimate restriction as to the scope and impact of those choices.
To me, at least at a philosophical level, it all comes down to the value and meaning of relational freedom.
There may be no free will. For the best arguments against it, read Robert Sapolsky's new book "Determined" and Sam Harris' old book "Free Will."
In other words hell and heaven exist in the purest state of being and that is of the Spirit.
Where you choose to reside does not affect the Eternal nature of God's creation. Thus Hell is a Merciful means of correction. It's unpleasant to say the least and forces one inevitably to face the painful truth and causes one to accept the truth. When one does, true love hath been established in the newfound spiritual eternity.
All will inevitably arrive at the truth!
All things will be reconciled….. Colossians1: 20and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through the blood of His cross.❤
Jerry: "I would like Andrew's view to be true, and I think his story is the best ending of the story."
So by his own admission, Jerry can imagine a better ending than what God actually achieves. Pretty sad.
This is the difference between a logically possible world vs a world that can be actualized.
Andrew, please slow down!
To say that Christ’s sacrificial death, which is the highest expression of divine love to man, applies equally to all without exception and then observe that a multitude of mankind has and is entering a Christless eternity certainly does not magnify God’s love or His wisdom. Will God love those who are in hell equally with the redeemed who are with Christ in eternity?
Long, Gary. Definite Atonement (pp. 10-11). Kindle Edition.
I reach out to the religious people, read my comments and try ti relate and try ro see where I'm coming from.
Why did the original guy back out?
Can't remember his name, but from what i recall he's an animated Calvinist...
The wrath of God is on all people who do not accept His Son.
Show evidence for the Son and I will accept Him.
For his anger lasts only a moment, but his favor lasts a lifetime; weeping may stay for the night, but rejoicing comes in the morning. psalms 30:5
Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good.
His love endures forever.
2 Give thanks to the God of gods.
His love endures forever.
3 Give thanks to the Lord of lords:
His love endures forever.
psalms 136:1-3
But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
romans 5:8
For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,[b] neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
romans 8:38-39
God has wrath but not endless wrath, God is love and nothing separates us from his love, including death, and if God's love is so great that he died for sinners (his enemies) and death doesn't separate us from that love, then its possible all will be saved eventually.
Your point?
For aionion kolasin
According to quantum physics, our thoughts shape our destiny. When the day of separation comes, those unrepentant souls, who chose to continually pervert God's truth and goodness to the opposite direction, will construct hell for themselves.
God is ultimately merciful and just, doesn't need vindication from us.
But do any of us have free will is a current question. In the womb drugs or alcohol can affect the brain of the baby. You may be born into a family of neglect and abuse. What sort of neurobiological pathways is this child going to have? Do you think more likely to have personality disorders? More likely to distrust and have problems with anger? More likely to make poor choices? More likely to sin and reject God? I hope after death there is 'restoration of all things' to include healing and sanity. Attachments to sin burnt away. This image bearer of God given a proper chance to repent and believe and follow Jesus as Lord.
@@MarthaEllen88 Do you think our consciousness comes from the chemical reactions of the brain? I doubt so. When God created human in His own image, what do you think it means, since God is invisible? I believe free will is a gift from God, and the Holy Spirit will come to everyone to guide them to God at some point, only those who chooses to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit will end up in the hell constructed by themselves.
@@MarthaEllen88 The gifts from the Holy Spirit are knowledge, wisdom, understanding, might, counsel and fear of God. Don’t you think with the help of the Holy Spirit, all God’s image bears, if they are willing, will be able to be back to the right way, to choose love and forgiveness, and to have joy and peace in the Lord no matter what situation they are in?
Hell is real and necessary, due to God's Holiness, Wrath and Justice, but God's LOVE will make sure that Hell, death and sin do not get even a part of the FINAL word.
It’s far more reasonable to say hell cannot exist due to Gods love and justice
@@jonnyw82 well stated. I have no idea why I misinterpreted the original comment at first. My apologies. Amen 🙏
53:55 I thought God would never impose His freewill on our freewill 😂
The Gospel is not the same thing as you find in contemporary Evangelicalism, which, as David B Hart says, has only a tangential connection with the Christian faith. N T Wright has an awful tendency to talk a lot of nonsense: as though universalism is in tension with what we see in the newspapers! St Gregory of Nyssa never taught that the wicked will not be punished; he just said that it will not be forever. Infinite punishment for finite sin is simply unjust.
I wonder how Jerry and others who believe postmortem sinning, interpret Romans 7:1 ?
There is one step between Jerry and universalism.
I gather with a group of my close friends once a month and we engage philosophically on matter topics. They are all universalists (hence the reason why I’m here watching this video) but I remain as the stubborn traditionalist.
One of my arguments to the friends (they have PHDs, I, only, a measly masters degree in Phil), is the following:
The logical conclusion of atheism is metaphysical meaninglessness. There is no objective purpose or meaning, and, upon death and time, all things will cease to exist. For this reason, reality is considered to be subjectively meaningful, but, objectively and in totality, everything is meaningless.
Now, likewise. If all are saved regardless of their beliefs, decisions, or commitments to Christ on earth, then, in totality and objectively, our choices on earth are meaningless if all people are saved in the end. In light of eternity, our tiny, minute lives mean nothing and our choices mean nothing if the good man is equally saved as the bad man, the believer from the unbeliever.
So, in a universalist worldview, the purpose of the Bible is not to encourage or teach one how to obtain eternal salvation (faith in Christ and his sacrifice), but, given that Christ sacrifice has saved all people equally regardless of belief, the purpose of the bible is to live a better, more fulfilled, or proper life here on earth. But, given the scope and scale of eternity, our life choices dont really matter because all are saved anyways.
Now, counter to this has been purgatory. My friends think that, based on near death experiences, God works with sinners post death to them the depths of their evil. the more evil the person when they die, the longer and more gruelling the process will be. Hitler could take a long time, but the old granny, or the good muslim, might be short.
The problems i have with this is, 1. if the salvation and repentance process takes place post death, what is the purpose of Christs sacrifice now or repentance now, other than as a moral example.
2. I dont really see or know of any biblical evidence for it at all.
Anyways, I still think the traditionalist view is more biblical, and makes more sense of meaning ontologically.
Why would one soul reject God and another soul accepts God?
Corruption and imperfect knowledge. Hell is being forcibly stripped of corruption and given complete knowledge of how disgusting your sin is. Sin is illogical. So once we come to terms with truth and are stripped of the corruption that prevents that happening, assuming you've also "paid the last penny" you owe, you will confess Christ is Lord and be saved. The gates are open to all those who are thirsty as it is written by the prophet John in revelation. And who is outside the kingdom? Those in the lake of fire. This fire is said to burn like sulfur/brimstone. Both being synonymous with each other, sulfur was only used for good. Purifying metals and as medicine as well. It's all quite clear once you take the internalist goggles off in my opinion.
I missed something about: why evangelism if universal salvation?
Bertrand Russell should have known better because he was the son-in-law to Hannah wittall Smith, a universalist
Ar 27 min, A non believer doesn't have the so-called freedom of free will due to being in bondage to sin, flesh etc. So Walls is arguing people save themselves as the Calvinists are at least partially right about Irresistible Grace.
*At* 27...
And again at minute 59, someone 's will in the flesh aka ego / sin is Not free, it's a will in bondage as Jesus came to save the lost and set the captives free. Who is born lost or is captive?
I would find it amusing to watch a debate between David Bentley Hart and Jerry Walls. I say 'amusing' because Walls would be utterly demolished by D B Hart (arguably one of the world's leading thinkers right now). Walls came to faith not because of the beauty of divine love but fear of hell. Hardly a worthy motivation. It is nothing other than egotism masked. There are all kinds of presuppositions in Walls' infernalism. If God created a world in which some, indeed many, would damn themselves forever then God is evidently not good.
Re Hebrews 11. To me it reads a lot Iike just a way of saying 'in the same way this life is a one time thing..Christs sacrifice was/is a one time thing.'
Now i dont doubt that this was meant to dogmatically cover every kind of unusual scenario, since it was a parallel analogy and not the main point of the passage. But still, the incidental assumption being made has to have at least some truth to it otherwise it reduces the truth of what is being said about Christ.
Comming next: did Loki really betrayed Thor?
This was a frustrating debate. Jerry lost this debate because he couldn't justify any of his stance sufficiently. He could have used John 3:18 for example that says that whoever does not believe in Jesus is condemned already. His main problem is that he believes hell is eternal and it is not. Hell exists until Christ comes again. Then it will be destroyed - Revelations 20:14-15. At that point every knee will be able to bow and every tongue confess that Christ is Lord, because there will be no one to reject Him. Revelation also says "Whoever is not written in the book of life" - this suggests that there is a list of who is saved and who is not.
There is an arguement for post-mortem repentance for those who never had the chance to repent. 1 Peter 3 talks about Jesus preaching to those who died in the days of Noah, if you read Genesis it clearly shows that apart from Noah and his family no one was warned of the impending flood - as much as popular retellings of the story like to insist that Noah pleaded with everyone and they all mocked him, the bible doesn't actually say that. All it says is that Noah did everything the Lord commanded. So I can agree that God gave them a chance to repent before the resurrection took place. But for those who reject the Gospel for there death, there is no biblical evidence of post-mortal repentence.
I agree that the non-universalist (what I would call a more traditional view) was misrepresented. Jerry agreed with almost everything Andrew said, and did not bring up the passages that oppose the idea of universal repentance/salvation. For clarification, do you believe that those in hell will be annihilated?
@@maylilia yes, I do. I believe that's what is being referred to when it says "that is the second death".
@@notthatkindofanglican How interesting! I've grown up in circles where ECT (eternal conscious torment) was seen as the only legitimate view, but I am starting to see the logic behind annihilationism! It definitely seems more gracious than ECT, but that is coming from someone with a finite and limited mind that cannot fully understand the nature of our God and his grace.
1 Peter 3:18-19 & 4:6
Is this on Sean's channel???
Reincarnation is absolutely true. There is a resurrection of both the just and the unjust (Acts 24:15). Revelation 20 talks of the second death. “Hell” is a state of mind on earth. Jesus said in Luke 12:49, “I came to bring fire to the earth.”
Jerry found peace in regard to eternal conscious torment after reading CS Lewis fictional writing??
This is the truth from your Lord.
Hell is a spiritual state created for sinners and shall for eternity remain seperate with those whom never repent. They may remain and "burn" for as long as needed but that state will forever be an option.
Choice to follow God takes one from one eternity unto another, all within eternity.
I admit I have antipathy towards Christian’s that believe in hell bc if you really did believe that you are morally obligated to sell all possessions and focus every waking hour to saving the lost. If you aren’t doing this you either hate your neighbor or you don’t really believe in hell.
Though very interesting this dialogue doesn't really tackle the issue of does God love all people, because the non universalist is clearly Arminian and cites C S Lewis's Great Divorce as his model of hell. So really he also is a (not very) hopeful Universalist since he believes God never gives up on the lost, and that conversion in the next life is possible.
This is nothing like classical Reformed theology, and once you reject the (in my view mistaken) libertarian view of free will, it becomes very difficult to believe God loves if he does not save. So really this debate should include a classic Reformed thinker.
Usually they will distinguish different degrees of love, and will accept some benevolence towards the unsaved but also that the full expression of God's love is only for the Elect.
If God didn’t want man to be able to choose He wouldn’t have put the tree in the garden. God obviously didn’t want people that couldn’t choose to go without Him.
And if what he is saying is true then basically there was no tree in the garden because it doesn’t matter what you choose.
Also the angels were made perfect and 1/3 of them chose to leave God. He didn’t stop them or force them by means to stay.
Some other reasons (besides 1 Peter 3:18-20, 4:6) to believe in post-mortem opportunities for salvation:
UNTIL -- "I tell you the truth, you will not get out *until* you have paid the last penny." (Matt. 5:26).
THE FORGIVABLE SINS -- "Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not ... either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt. 12:31-32). The wording strongly suggests that all sins except one, including blasphemies against Christ, will be forgiven in the next age if they're not forgiven in this age. (For Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, compare Matt. 12:32 with Eph. 2:7.)
BAPTISMS FOR THE DEAD -- In 1 Cor. 15:29, Paul addresses -- and does not condemn (per se) -- the Corinthians' practice of being baptized for the dead. But this practice would have been absurd if one's eternal fate is sealed at death. Also, prayers for the dead were almost universal in the early church.
WHO IS THIRSTY? -- "The Spirit and the Bride say, 'Come'. And let the one who hears say, 'Come'. And let the one who is *thirsty* come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price." (Rev. 22:17) The setting of Rev. 22:17 is the Rev. 21-22 new heaven and new earth, since the "water of life" is also mentioned in Rev. 21:6 & 22:1, and it's the Rev. 21-22 "Bride" who is speaking -- not the "church" or the "lampstands." But who are the thirsty ones? Who else is there? The thirsty ones must be those in the Lake of Fire, located outside the city gates (Rev. 22:14-15), which never close (Rev. 21:25).
SODOM RESTORED -- "I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them ... And your sisters, Sodom with her daughters and Samaria with her daughters, will return to what they were before; and you and your daughters will return to what you were before" (Ezek. 16:53,55). In verses 47-55, the pronouns "their" and "they" identify the restored individuals as being those who were destroyed in Gen. 19 because of their abominations (Ezek. 16:50) and for other reasons (Ezek. 16:49). They will first need to be punished and purified in God's symbolic and refining Lake of Fire.
DRY BONES LIVE -- "Then he said to me, `Son of man, these bones are the *whole* house of Israel. Behold they say, "Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost; we are clean cut off."' Therefore prophesy, and say to them, `Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will open your graves, O my people... And you shall know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves, O my people. And I will put my spirit within you, and you shall live'" (Ezek. 37:11-14a).
BLINDINGS -- God has either directly caused, or permitted, various groups of people to be blinded to the truth (e.g. Mark 4:10-12, Rom. 11:25, 2 Cor. 4:3-4). This would seem to require an unblinded opportunity in the afterlife.
DEAFENING SILENCE -- The first 2/3 of the Bible is completely silent about Hell, and the last 1/3 uses the ambiguous-at-best Greek word _aion_ and its derivatives to describe Hell's duration. This makes no sense if (a) God is love and (b) endless torment is true. There would have been clear and dire warnings on almost every page. For instance, why did Noah infinitely understate the penalty when he warned his neighbors only of a worldwide flood and not of eternal conscious torment?
EVENTUAL UNIVERSAL SALVATION EXPLICITLY TAUGHT -- See John 12:32, 17:2, combination of (John 3:35, 6:37), Rom. 5:18-19, 8:19-21, 11:32,36, 14:11 , *1 Cor. 15:22,28* , Eph. 1:10, Phil. 2:10-11, 3:21, Col. 1:20, 1 Tim. 2:3-6, 4:10, Titus 2:11, 1 John 2:2, 4:14, Rev. 5:13, 15:4, 21:5,24-25, 22:2, combination of (Rev. 22:1,14-15,17a,17c), Psalm 22:27,29, 65:2-3, 145:10a, Isa. 25:6-8, 45:22-25, 57:16, Lam. 3:22,31, Ezek. 16:53,55, Mal. 3:2-3. These verses, and many others like them, imply second chances.
I think surely(?!) the crucible/laver/sieve of correction and purification is life as we presently know it (this all important contrast) which will continue during the second stage of the Lord’s long second advent, the judgment, for all who rise not yet a kingdom of priests..
The 3 mentions of lake of fire are at huge fiery events. I think the ‘elect’ are called early so they can serve during the Lord’s long second advent. Called reigning because, surely(?) to do His works is to reign..
Hell is clearly debunked by safe morals.
Universalism is defended mainly by philosophy.
Ie, God is “most glorified” if all are saved.
This is pure philosophical speculation.
Universalism is defended by plenty of scripture too. For instance,
"As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive ... God [will] be all in all." (1 Corinthians 15:22,28)
"As one trespass [Adam's] led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness [Jesus'] leads to justification and life for all men." (Romans 5:18)
"God has committed all to disobedience that he might have mercy on all ... From him and through him and to him are all things." (Romans 11:32,36)
"...every knee shall bow to me [God], and every tongue shall confess to God." (Romans 14:11)
" ... at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:10-11)
"And I [Jesus], when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." (John 12:32)
"And every creature which is in heaven and on earth and under the earth I heard saying, 'Blessing and honor and glory and power be to Him who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb forever.'" (Revelation 5:13)
"O you who hear prayer, to you shall all flesh come. When iniquities prevail against me, you atone for our transgressions." (Psalm 65:2-3)
"All you have made will praise you, O Lord." (Psalm 145:10a)
"I will not contend forever, nor will I always be angry; for 'the spirit would grow faint before me, and the breath of life that I made'." (Isaiah 57:16)
"The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases; his mercies never come to an end. ... " (Lamentations 3:22)
Also see John 17:2, Romans 5:19-20, 8:19-21, Ephesians 1:10, Philippians 3:21, Colossians 1:20, 1 Timothy 2:3-6, 4:10, Titus 2:11, 1 Peter 4:6, 1 John 2:2, 4:14, Revelation 15:4, 21:5,24-25, 22:2, combination of (Revelation 22:1,14-15,17a,17c), Psalm 22:27,29, Isaiah 25:6-8, 45:22-25, Lamentations 3:31, Ezekiel 16:53,55, Malachi 3:2-3, The Total Victory of Christ videos.
You cannot choose 'hell' (if by 'hell' we mean eternal damnation) for its impossible to will an evil qua evil; we only will evil under the aspect of the good. Sin (hamartia) means "to miss the mark". We aim at the good but we miss. When a man cheats on his wife he sacrifices a greater good to a lesser good. The other woman is evidently not 'evil' in and of herself, nor is sex in and of itself 'wrong', in fact the woman and the sex were both created by good, and therefore good. The evil is the breaking of ones vows, ones promise of fidelity, the hurt and anguish that this might cause, and so on. So, when a man cheats on his wife he is aiming at a good: the beauty and desirability of the other woman but he aims wrong because he has to sacrifice a greater good to a lesser good than could lead to pain and suffering needlessly. Evil always involves ignorance. "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do".
I enjoyed both speakers, but it almost seems like Sean did not know much about Dr. Wall's views and how similar they are already to Christian Universalism. I really love Dr. Walls and his work has really helped me.
However, defenses of the traditional view like this have helped lead me to abandon it in favor of annihilationism. Simply, there are not many apologists who will defend the traditional- traditional view, which is basically eternal torture. From NT Wright to William Lane Craig to Dr. Jerry Walls, modern defenders of the traditional view make significant philosophical adaptations to avoid the massive problems that arise from the traditional view of infinite torture, affirmed by Augustine to Edwards to Wesley.
However, these philosophical adaptations to the traditional view are unnecessary. The annihilationist view (conditional immortality) resolves the cognitive dissonance of infinite torture and is WELL-GROUNDED in Biblical exegesis.
I find the exegetical grounds for the traditional view to be surprisingly weak. The grounds for Universalism to be theologically speculative.
In contrast, I have been blown away by the Biblical case for annihilationism. Even the author of Erasing Hell - a defense of the traditional view in response to the universalism of Rob Bell - has become an annihilationist in recent years!
Check out Rethinking Hell for more resources!
I understand what you are saying, but Trinitarian Restorationism is much more optimistic and loving than Annihilationism, in my view. I have heard the arguments for Annihilationism, and they are strong, but I find Trinitarian Restorationism to be yet stronger, more loving and the best possible scenario. Each soul is infinitely precious to God, and sin, death and Hell will NOT have even PART of the final word.
Hmm. It looks like Jerry is moving closer to universal reconciliation, but still wants to hold to the possibility that humans can reject God for eternity.
A strange "debate" indeed. Jerry seemed uninterested from start to finish. He conceded to (agreed with) Andrew on nearly every point.
Where was the emotion, Jerry?
I've watched him rip into Calvinism with the full force of a hellfire and damnation preacher.
What happened here? I just don't get it.
If Jesus was a Universalist why didn't he answer the right way? If He was a Christian Universalist why didn't he answer correctly? "Of course all will be saved it just might take a little longer for some."
23 Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them,
24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.
25 When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are:
26 Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets.
27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.
28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.
Philippians 2:10-11. It states that every tongue will confess. It doesn’t say that every tongue will worship. I don’t see how these verses support universalism? The context of the passage doesn’t seem to support universalism. Am I missing something
They'd tell you that that word in the Greek ἐξομολογέω means "to praise." That's what they'd tell you, but do your own homework which would include looking at the other usages or that word (eg Mat3:6), looking at a parallel in Romans 14:11-12, and looking at Isaiah 45:23, the original verse from whence Paul derives the language.
As for me, I don't put much stock in Pauline doctrine anyway. Which makes me a bigger heretic to some than if I were a universalist. But that's a different story.
@@AnHebrewChild The Hebrew word used was haba which means to swear an oath or as translated, swear allegiance. When the enemy has sworn allegiance, the king does not say "great now off with his head" nor does he say "great now torture him forever". That would be barbaric even from a king of this world.
@@lbjay8914 *Saba
@@lbjay8914 *Saba
@@AnHebrewChild Shaba* lol
Instead of arguing over the"scriptures" see where hell came from.Robert M,Price on hell,
False dichotomy?
If the only options on the table are universalism and eternal conscious torment.
There is a third understanding: conditional immortality. Eternal life is only for believers.
There is no verse in the Bible that says man’s soul is immortal. None. This idea came into the early church via Greek philosophy.
Resurrection of the dead is real. The terror of judgement and hell are real. And the final destruction of the wicked is also real.
It’s hard to find scriptural support for universalism - having studied this question intensively for several years.
It's funny how people cling to their unfounded, unverifiable beliefs and scoff at critical thinking.
Great description of the blind faith of atheism!
@justin10292000 Atheism definition: Being unconvinced of a god or gods.
How is atheism about blind faith?
@DaddyOfTheSugarVariety Christians don't believe in or worship"god" or "gods" or "a god" or "one of many gods." To assert otherwise us to strawman Christian beliefs and to commit the Category Error Fallacy.
@@DaddyOfTheSugarVarietyatheists put blind faith in the belief that a non-programmed-by-a-Mind, unguided-by-a-Mind accident--the brain (mind) according to the atheistic worldview--can be "trusted" to give them "truth." I don't have enough blind faith to be an atheist!
@@DaddyOfTheSugarVarietyatheists put blind faith in the belief that a non-programmed-by-a-Mind, unguided-by-a-Mind accident can be "trusted" to give them "truth."
Jerry thinks god isn't good enough 🤷♀️
Yep. Still year 0.
Or 400 to 500 AD...
@@jhq9064yep. We can strongly increase to 700 AD TO 1995 AD 😮
Read Heavens on Earth by Michael Shermer.Afterlife anywhere is absurd
Does God love everyone? The question is moot. God does not exist, and this has been proven. However, if God did exist, he would love everyone, but he wouldn't like everyone. He would like people who complied with or at least tried hard to comply with Correct Universal Ethics for Persons (CUE-P).
47:15 I'm certainly no expert. And I have a lot of respect for Jerry Walls. But I cannot imagine someone 'in' Hell being given the opportunity to get out to spend eternity in heaven.. and still refusing it in favor of eternal suffering and gnashing of teeth, or even certain destruction, etc. I don't think this is logical considering the story Jesus told in Luke 16 of the Rich Man and Lazarus who were divided between those safely in Abraham's bosom awaiting Christ and those across the unpassable divide who were in Hell and in continual torment. The implication is this is not a parable or fiction... but a true story as Jesus declared, 'There was a rich man" and "a beggar named Lazarus" It's not prefaced as an illustration with "the kingdom of heaven is like...." It seems to me to be consistent with reality.
The idea reminds me of Pharaoh and the plague of frogs. Moses says I will pray and God will remove these frogs. When do you want me to pray?... and Pharaoh said... "tomorrow"🤣🤣🤣🤦🏻♂️
After more than an hour I have to say that I learned nothing useful at all from this discussion. It has left me dumber than I was before.
Both arguments stem from the opposite edges of the belief that eternity is an endless amount of time. Time is a physical property of this universe, which can be measured, experienced and calculated. Eternity is a property of the spiritual realm, and is the absence of time. For those who die in their sin, their judgement is eternal ie. without time constraint. When I die and enter eternity I will be judged at the same judgement as my mother, father, great grandchildren and great grandparents. We will all get there at the same instant. There won't be any time to change your mind about your choices because there won't be any time.
'Eternity is the absence of time' honestly doesn't really make any coherent sense. Even in heaven we will still be temporal beings - meaning we will still be acting out 'in time'. How do you expect to move your resurrected body, talk to loved ones, worship Jesus without any temporal nature ?
In heaven it's likely that time will work differently, but the absence of time in heaven doesn't compute
Revelation 20: 13-15 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.
Many world's theories to justify theology? Good grief. Universalism starts from the assumption that God loves everyone, a position that just cannot be squared with God's portrayal in the Bible. Some examples of God's "love": (i) The book of Job makes it clear that human suffering is an arbitrary choice by an omnipotent God. You want answers? God's answer is "Who are you to question me?" God gives virtually no f****s about your suffering and is insulted if you even ask. (ii) Paul is very clear that God makes many people for the sole purpose of suffering and being damned (the clay pots that Paul says God simply chooses to "dishonor"). (iii) God rejected Cain's sacrifices because, in short, Cain lacked faith. But Paul makes it clear that faith is a gift to some and not others. So, God rejected Cain's sacrifices simply because God chose to rejct Cain's sacrifices. The Judeo-Christian God is a Calvinist. He doesn't love most of us and created most of us to be damned. If the Christian God is real, I want no part.
Yeah NOW on earth no one can say Jesus is Lord accept by the Holy Spirit. Where do you see people in hell being convicted by the Holy Spirit.
The biggest issue is the Bible is incredibly clear you have to make a choice and make it today. The Bible doesn’t talk about you don’t really have to make a choice now you can do it whenever this is from the world.
I think this guy is just over correcting from when he was a Calvinist.
Universalism is definitely not taught in scripture, but it’s fun to talk about anyway.
Many of your fellow believers, including myself, most definitely DO believe Scripture teaches Trinitarian Restorationism! Hell is real, horrific (worse than we can imagine), and necessary due to God's Justice, Holiness and Wrath on sin, but Hell, Death and Sin will NOT have the final word!
@@justin10292000 Well, you would be wrong about that. Sorry.
@@brando3342No, you are wrong. Hell, Sin and Death are not more powerful than God.
@@justin10292000 Nobody says they are 🤷♂️
There are a number of books that show the Scriptural warrants for universalism.
If Universalism is true, then why is the existence of this World necessary ? God could have created a World from the get-go where everyone was united with God ( which is a Feasible World ). This World with its fall into sin was not needed.
God's ways and thoughts are not our ways and thoughts
You never discuss the “hell” passages! That’s the main thing to determine either position.
If all will given an opportunity to repent after they die, then why preach the gospel?
Because Jesus commands us to in the Great Commission; because we love others as we have been loved and want what's best for them-- Eternal Life beginning in THIS life; because Hell is horrific and worse than anything we can imagine in this life (I experienced more than a small taste of the Outer Darkness in 2022) and we don't want even our worst enemy to go there for any length of time.
Well, universalists do believe in hell, and that it is horrible and painful. But the more you align your being with God here on earth, but the more you work with God at your spiritual healing, the less ‘time’ and painful realignment will be required post mortem. Besides, have you not met Jesus? Is he not the best part of your life here and now bringing you wonder and strength and joy? Why would you not want to tell others about this?
I'd rather go straight to Heaven personally regardless if Hades and or the L of F is 3 minutes, 3 days, 3 thousand years or 3 billion generations etc.
❤ The love others as yourself thing.
Ummm…Jesus. To know Jesus in this life and forever is the point. It’s Him. We preach for others to know him because we “can’t help but talk about what we have seen or heard.” Oh and…love
Jerry, it sounds to me like you are undecided and therefore don’t have a conclusive answer. Don’t you teach at HCU? Is your view supported by them?
Yet another "I was a Calvinist" who has no concept of Calvinism!
This pair seem to be semi-pelagian, thinking that the sinner can just change their mind. T Bible tells us we are dead in our sins, enslaved & unable to please God. We don't have free will, we're slaves & we hate God!
And why this constant stream of Americans, don't you know any British Christians?
Robin Parry.
The answer is no. God loves the elect and hates the reprobate.
Where is that in scripture?
Wrong, God loves all people, he takes no pleasure in the choices of those who deny him.
@@spencersnead8160Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
@@YingGuoRenThat is hyperbole. Jesus uses it in the New Testament, as well (e.g, Luke 14:26).
@@justin10292000 No, it's quite clear - God loves some and hates others. He loves the elect and hates the reprobate. This hippy bullshit about how God loves everyone isn't Christianity, it's just secular liberalism with Christian aesthetics tacked on.
Hronich states that “it was actually in the bowels of the Jerry Falwell library that it came around to this view.” So, the Holy Spirit didn’t teach him his univeralism and neither did Scripture-it was determined by READING BOOKS written by human beings. This is EXACTLY what the Lord warned us against!
2 Timothy 4:3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions
Romans 8:9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.
Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and THERE ARE FEW WHO FIND IT.”
How many times did Israel experience "destruction"?
Then read luke 2 10. John 1:29, 4:42, 12:32 Romans 5:18, 11:32-36. 1 corinthians 15:20-28. Ephesians 1:7-13. Colossians 1:16-20. 1 Timothy 2:3-6, 4:10-11. 1 John 2:2, 4:14. Revelation 21:4-5
@@jhq9064 Yes, God wants all to be saved and everyone will be judged by their actions and state of heart. However, how do you ignore these passages:
Matthew 23:33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?
Revelation 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
I know someone who came to accept Jesus at a Van Halen concert. What difference does that make? God wants all saved, and He says He will do all that He wants. Jesus prayed and told us to pray “thy will be done”, and God wills the salvation of all, the Bible says if we ask anything according to His will we will have it, and Jesus prayed for this as well, God wills all to be saved and we all pray “thy will be done.” We WILL have it! Also 1 Tim 2 says we should pray for the salvation of all because God wants all saved. Why would we be told to pray for something God cannot do? Is anything too hard for God?
Are you saying God can’t use books to reach us? Do you not read Christian books and does the Holy Spirit never speak to you through them?
@@sonyastockklausner62 as long as they agree with the poster's doctrinal views it seems