Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"It is in Him, and through the shedding of His blood, that we have our deliverance--the forgiveness of our offences--so abundant was God's grace, the grace which He, the possessor of all wisdom and understanding, lavished upon us, when He made known to us the secret of His will. And this is in harmony with God's merciful purpose for the government of the world when the times are ripe for it--the purpose which He has cherished in His own mind of restoring the whole creation to find its one Head in Christ; yes, things in Heaven and things on earth, to find their one Head in Him.
"It is in Him, and through the shedding of His blood, that we have our deliverance--the forgiveness of our offences--so abundant was God's grace, the grace which He, the possessor of all wisdom and understanding, lavished upon us, when He made known to us the secret of His will. And this is in harmony with God's merciful purpose for the government of the world when the times are ripe for it--the purpose which He has cherished in His own mind of restoring the whole creation to find its one Head in Christ; yes, things in Heaven and things on earth, to find their one Head in Him.
"It is in Him, and through the shedding of His blood, that we have our deliverance--the forgiveness of our offences--so abundant was God's grace, the grace which He, the possessor of all wisdom and understanding, lavished upon us, when He made known to us the secret of His will. And this is in harmony with God's merciful purpose for the government of the world when the times are ripe for it--the purpose which He has cherished in His own mind of restoring the whole creation to find its one Head in Christ; yes, things in Heaven and things on earth, to find their one Head in Him.
If Universalism is true, my believing that it is not true will not result in any consequences in the eternal sense. After I am refined I will be existing in glory and the former things will be forgotten.
If Universalism be untrue, then banking on it being true, if you don't receive Jesus as your Lord and Saviour as a result, will result in your being cast into everlasting torments.
Better not to take any chances, and to count it to be true; even if it is only a small probability in your view that it might be true.
Because in that probability, you would do well to avoid the consequences that are threatened by God against those who will never receive His forgiveness;
by receiving the only provision for forgiveness, the appropriation of His shed blood on the Cross of Calvary.
Go look up Pascal's wager if you haven't seen it before. What you have proposed is a variation of Pascal's wager... and it is a very flawed argument.
It goes like this:
1. If you think God exists, you must believe so as to avoid eternal condemnation
2. If you think God doesn't exist, what's the harm in believing in case you are wrong
However this is inherently flawed. First it assumes one can simply "choose" to believe.
But the real issue is it assumes there are only 2 outcomes, and it engages in "what-if-ism". What if God exists... you better believe just in case?
Well there could be other outcomes.
3. What if God rewards those who are true to their heart, and eternally condemns those who engage a false belief?
4. What if God rewards those who try to do good in this life, and eternally condemns those who prejudge others to eternal condemnation?
There could be a 1000 other "what-if" outcomes etc. according to this wager.
So the idea that its better to believe "just in case" (ie. Pascal's wager) is poor at best. It is always better to try to determine what the actual truth really is. It cannot be both true that God loves His creation and will restore all of His creation; and at the same time He will condemn most of His creation to eternal hellfire. This is your problem jbf. Please pray and consider on this theme further.
Go look up Pascal's wager if you haven't seen it before. What you have proposed is a variation of Pascal's wager... and it is a very flawed argument.
It goes like this:
1. If you think God exists, you must believe so as to avoid eternal condemnation
2. If you think God doesn't exist, what's the harm in believing in case you are wrong
However this is inherently flawed. First it assumes one can simply "choose" to believe.
But the real issue is it assumes there are only 2 outcomes, and it engages in "what-if-ism". What if God exists... you better believe just in case?
Well there could be other outcomes.
3. What if God rewards those who are true to their heart, and eternally condemns those who engage a false belief?
4. What if God rewards those who try to do good in this life, and eternally condemns those who prejudge others to eternal condemnation?
There could be a 1000 other "what-if" outcomes etc. according to this wager.
So the idea that its better to believe "just in case" (ie. Pascal's wager) is poor at best. It is always better to try to determine what the actual truth really is. It cannot be both true that God loves His creation and will restore all of His creation, and at the same time He will condemn most of His creation to eternal hellfire. This is your problem jbf. Please pray and consider on this theme further.
JBF thinks it is necessary to believe God is a bloodthirsty savage who needed to brutally scourge and crucify an innocent human being (His Son or Himself) to appease His savage wrath and vengeance toward us in order to be able to forgive us for "whatever!" In JBF's mind, believing Jesus saved us is NOT enough if you do not believe in the barbaric interpretations of our ignorant primitive ancestors.
Don't take getting refined so lightly. Mental anguish or remorse is much worse than physical pain. Plus, outside of the body, there is no time so it can seem like forever. Let me ask you jbf, if you were in a boat rescuing people drowning from a sinking ship, would you make them say - 'please throw me a life preserver' before you tossed one to them or would you just toss it to them whether they asked or not? Why would God do such a thing then?
Can anyone with a life-preserver save someone from drowning who will not take hold of the life preserver?
Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman
Go look up Pascal's wager if you haven't seen it before. What you have proposed is a variation of Pascal's wager... and it is a very flawed argument.
It goes like this:
1. If you think God exists, you must believe so as to avoid eternal condemnation
2. If you think God doesn't exist, what's the harm in believing in case you are wrong
However this is inherently flawed. First it assumes one can simply "choose" to believe.
But the real issue is it assumes there are only 2 outcomes, and it engages in "what-if-ism". What if God exists... you better believe just in case?
Well there could be other outcomes.
3. What if God rewards those who are true to their heart, and eternally condemns those who engage a false belief?
4. What if God rewards those who try to do good in this life, and eternally condemns those who prejudge others to eternal condemnation?
There could be a 1000 other "what-if" outcomes etc. according to this wager.
So the idea that its better to believe "just in case" (ie. Pascal's wager) is poor at best. It is always better to try to determine what the actual truth really is. It cannot be both true that God loves His creation and will restore all of His creation; and at the same time He will condemn most of His creation to eternal hellfire. This is your problem jbf. Please pray and consider on this theme further.
Pascal's wager is not a flawed logical proposition in the slightest.
It is true that a person cannot just will themselves into believing what is necessary to believe in order to have everlasting life.
What a person can do is consider the stakes and do whatever it takes to cultivate a faith in Jesus and what He did for them on the Cross.
A person can expose themselves to the word of the Lord and thus cultivate faith in Jesus (Romans 10:17).
Therefore, we can, by our own decision, take part in doing what it takes to be able to believe; and if we make a decision otherwise, we will also be held accountable for it.
Our Father's plan is to consummate every atom of the universe back into union with Himself. That plan is centered in the Lord of glory, the Last Adam, who triumphs as the Lamb/Lion.
Last edited by Rose2Luv; 05-11-2022 at 08:13 AM..
Reason: double post
Can anyone with a life-preserver save someone from drowning who will not take hold of the life preserver?
Pascal's wager is not a flawed logical proposition in the slightest.
It is true that a person cannot just will themselves into believing what is necessary to believe in order to have everlasting life.
What a person can do is consider the stakes and do whatever it takes to cultivate a faith in Jesus and what He did for them on the Cross.
Of course Pascal's wager is flawed. You didn't read what I wrote.
Let me make it even simpler. It is flawed because it presupposes there are only 2 outcomes, and that is all that matters:
1. God exists and will eternally punish unbelievers
2. God doesn't exist
Therefore it's better to believe, but only if there are exactly these two outcomes. The flaw is IGNORING the multitude of other possibilities. Example, since it is a 'wager' or 'bet' on the best outcome, we must consider other possibilities:
3. God exists but despises liars, therefore eternally punishes people who lie about their belief due to the above mentioned 'wager'. Remember, all liars will have their part in the lake of fire.
4. Perhaps some other deity/religion is the correct one - should we make a 'bet' on those religions just in case?
etc.
No - the best answer is always to determine the truth as best as possible and trust that God is not a ruthless tyrant. We should not be taking 'bets' just-in-case. In fact what you propose turns many people away from God/Christ as most people realize the injustice of a proposed endless punishment. So this is doing more harm than good.
Good punishment is always remedial in nature and for correction, why do you presume God would not want to correct people? After all scripture tells us God will reconcile all things - but you don't believe this.
God's plan is to reconcile all things to Himself through Christ (see Col 1 for example).
Isaiah 26:9 For when your judgements are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness.
So we see the purpose of God's judgement - it is for correction so the people will learn righteousness. Not so people will suffer some fabled eternal torture.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good stuff Rose2Luv. Romans 8 does such a good job of explaining God's plan for us.
