|
|
biblically evaluating the views: When you evaluate views of hell, two essential foundations are understanding the Bible and the views, so... • instead of ASSUMING you already know what the Bible teaches, carefully STUDY the Bible to learn what it really does teach. {be like the noble Bereans who "examined the Scriptures"} • learn what each view does and doesn't propose, so you will never argue – in your own thinking, or in discussions with others – against an inaccurate “strawman distortion” of a view.
For many reasons I'm very confident that the Bible doesn't teach Eternal Misery. One reason is the very strong biblical evidence for...Conditional Immortalitythat is the result of two divine decisions: first (in Genesis) a penalty of death; and later (in Revelation) a gift of life, because God wants to convert sin-and-death into salvation-and-life.Sin and Death: After the first sin, God declares (in Genesis 3:22) that a sinner "must not... live forever." He actualizes this death penalty by removing access to His death-stopping "tree of life" so – without God's supernatural protection – Adam & Eve began a natural process of gradually dying. This is a severe penalty – because we lost immortality – but it's also an act of mercy because death prevents people from living forever in a state of sin, with eternal misery; this combination would be horrible,* and with loving mercy God can prevent it either with Annihilation (by eliminating sinners, so they're not living forever) or with Restoration (by eliminating sin-within-sinners, so they're not in a state of sin). {* more – asking “could a sinner live forever without misery?” and another reason for God's death penalty is because He wants to give us immortality on His terms, not ours} Salvation and Life: God eventually will stop death, to give continuing life, to actualize His conditional promise (in Revelation) that “IF saved, THEN immortal.” God can give Eternal Joy to every person after He causes either Final Annihilation or Universal Restoration,* because all persons who are still alive are saved, so all satisfy God's if-then condition. By contrast, Eternal Misery (EM) would occur only if God changes His declaration (that “a sinner MUST NOT live forever”) so it becomes “a sinner MUST live forever.” Notice that with Conditional Immortality (using the if-condition that if saved-and-sinless, then immortal) God will achieve two of His main goals – to eliminate sin and give life – because He will be giving only sinless Eternal Life; He will not give the sinful Eternal Life that would occur if He causes people to live forever in a state of sin, with Eternal Misery. / * due to this "or", Conditional Immortality is FA-or-UR. Giving Life: The three main views of Hell all propose that God will give joyful Eternal Life to people who were saved-in-Life, and people who were unsaved-in-Life will suffer in Hell. In two of the views, God will give life and also will eliminate sin: God CAN eliminate sin in Afterlife — by using Hell to either eliminate sinners (with Annihilation, so they're not living forever) or eliminate sin-in-sinners (with Restoration, so they're not in a state of sin) — and give joyful Eternal Life to everyone who remains alive, either to some people (if those who were unsaved-in-Life have been Annihilated in Hell) or to all people (if all unsaved-in-Life have been Restored in Hell). The Bible tells us that God WILL eliminate sin in Afterlife, by giving Eternal Life only with the Conditional Immortality (using the if-condition that IF saved-and-sinless, THEN immortal) that would occur with either Annihilation or Restoration. In this way, God will achieve both of His goals – by eliminating sin and giving life – because He will give only sinless Eternal Life; He will not give the sinful Eternal Life that would occur if He causes people to live forever in a state of sin, with Eternal Misery. a summary: death is God's merciful penalty for sinners, and conditional immortality (CI) is God's gracious gift for sinners. The Penalty for Sin is DeathThroughout the Bible, death is God's judicial penalty for sin. We see death (with FA or UR, i.e. with CI), not long-term suffering (as with EM), in God's most severe penalties (by removing His "tree of life" and then in The Flood, Sodom & Gomorrah, The Law,...) and His rescues (Abraham with Isaac, The Passover) and His OT sacrificial system (with deaths of animals) and His NT sacrificial system (with the death of Jesus) to pay our sin-penalty of death, and death-submitting crucifixion is paired with death-defeating resurrection.dependent immortality, THEREFORE conditional immortality: God did not create us with immortality that's an intrinsic part of what humans are. Instead, God created us for immortality that “IF saved” He will supernaturally provide with His death-preventing power, symbolized by His "tree of life." Here is the logical connection we find in Genesis 3: immortality is dependent, THEREFORE immortality is conditional, with God using His if-then Condition (if saved, then immortal) to decide who will be immortal, with His causing of immortality. To actualize His penalty of death, God doesn't actively kill us; He just removes our access to His protective "tree of life" and natural process gradually leads to our deaths. / a theologically-illogical argument: Being made "in the image of God" (Genesis 1:27) does not not make us immortal, for reasons that are similar to why "the image" does not make us omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent. / a summary: We have dependent immortality, not two terms: It's important to distinguish between dependent immortality and conditional immortality because they are different (although logically related by "THEREFORE") so we should not equate the two terms, treating them as if they have the same meaning. immortality will be dependent and conditional: If in Afterlife a person is immortal, this will be dependent immortality (not independent intrinsic immortality) so God must make decisions about His giving of immortality. He has told us (in Revelation) that for each person He will decide immortality based on His condition (IF saved, then immortal) so it will be a conditional immortality. God will decide, so He won't force an unsaved sinner – who doesn't satisfy His IF-then Condition – to live forever with Eternal Misery. / An illogical circular argument assumes unbiblical intrinsic immortality (not biblical conditional immortality) and then concludes that “all of us will live forever, either in Heaven or Hell, with Eternal Joy or Eternal Misery.” But in biblical reality, EM would occur only if God decides that unsaved sinners will live forever and if God causes this immortality-with-sin to happen. But God has told us, in the Bible, that this if-and-if will not happen. With EM, there would be... • unsatisfactory substitution for Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) because of two mis-matches between His Crucifixion Experience (finite suffering with death) and an Eternal Misery Experience (infinite suffering without death). / more: PSA is biblical (so is Christus Victor) and is compatible with FA or UR but not EM. • unsatisfactory connections between crucifixion-and-resurrection: The focus of biblical history is this pair of death-connected events in the life of Jesus, with His Crucifixion (when God lets death win, so He pays our sin-penalty) plus His Resurrection (when God defeats death, thus completing His process of becoming our savior). The logic of this death-connection is lost if the penalty is not death, but instead is the infinite suffering of Eternal Misery, which did not occur in The Crucifixion, and was not overcome in The Resurrection. But death did occur, and it was overcome. / In our thinking, Christians should combine the crucifixion-plus-resurrection of Christ, so in their connections we'll see PSA plus Christus Victor in the crucifixion (emphasized by PSA) plus resurrection (emphasized by CV) of our Savior. With this combination, our appreciative understanding becomes more profound. • unsatisfactory elimination of sin: God hates sin (because it disrespects Him and harms people) so He wants to eliminate sin; He will achieve this goal with FA (by eliminating sinners) or UR (by eliminating sin-within-sinners) but He would fail with EM that produces eternally lasting sin by causing sinners (and their sinning) to remain alive forever. This failure is a strong theological reason to reject EM. / God hates sin and loves people. EM is weak on sin (letting it exist forever) but is tough on people (tormenting them forever). FA and UR are tough on sin (by eliminating it) but are loving for people (with the blessed relief of FA, or the blessed salvation of UR). • unsatisfactory righteous justice: God wants to achieve justice, and justice is righteousness. FA or UR would produce righteous justice, with no sin. EM would cause the worst justice by forcing sinful unrighteousness (= injustice) to exist forever. These two unsatisfactory results show us that although God hates sin and loves people and wants justice, He would be weak on sin and tough on people and a causer-of-injustice if He causes eternal sin with EM, so this is logical evidence that He won't cause EM. • unsatisfactory character of God: There is a logical mis-match when we compare the biblically-revealed character of God (He is loving) and a causing of infinite suffering with Eternal Misery (this would not be love-in-action). This mis-matching can lead to unbelief when people use logic to conclude that “this EM-God – who is loving AND causes Eternal Misery – cannot logically exist, and therefore God doesn't exist.” But with CI (with FA or UR) each "unsatisfactory" would be satisfactory. And there is additional... Biblical Evidence against Eternal MiseryIn addition to the reasons above {•••••} — with Eternal Misery failing in many ways (where FA and UR succeed) because EM would violate Conditional Immortality and The Death Penalty and is theologically unsatisfactory for Penal Substitutionary Atonement & Crucifixion-plus-Resurrection & Eliminating Sin & Producing Righteous Justice & The Character of God — there are other biblical reasons to reject Eternal Misery, including... • the Bible & church history: The OT never mentions EM. In their NT sermons & letters, Christian leaders (Peter, John, Paul, James) never teach EM. All views (UR, FA, EM) were common in the early church, so their major statements of “what Christians believe” (Apostles' Creed & Nicene Creed) allow all 3 views. But EM became dominant later, due to non-biblical factors: philosophical influences, practical political utility (by causing fear), translation bias favoring EM, and the powerful inertia of tradition. • weak divine persuasion: For most people, God isn't “obvious” about His existence and activities. For a person who dies unsaved, but would have “said yes” with stronger persuasion by God, the worst result would be EM. God is loving, so His decision to use weak persuasion is a logical reason to think He won't cause EM. • weak biblical support: The main biblical support claimed for EM is a few “hell verses” that are isolated, are not connected with the whole-Bible themes we see for FA (killing of sinful people) and UR (restoring of sinful people). But when we closely examine these “EM verses” the apparent support for EM becomes much weaker. Why? One reason is translation bias for key “hell verses” that can mislead a reader – who trusts the translating, assumes it's accurate – into thinking a verse provides strong support for EM and against UR. This bias can hinder accurate understanding in our search for truth. For example,... in Matthew 25:46 most translations tell us that some people will have "eternal punishment" (in English) which (in Greek) is "... aionios kolasis" that can plausibly (based on scholarly study of Greek) be translated as “age-associated corrective pruning.” / If aionios means age-associated or occurring in a future age (which will happen with EM, FA, UR) it's answering the question of “when?” instead of “how long?” so a “parallels” argument – claiming that if the punishment is not-eternal, the life also is not-eternal – fails logically, and also fails ethically. / Also, even if a reader thinks aionios means eternal and thus everlasting, an everlasting punishment {it's a noun} could be caused by everlasting punishing {verb} with EM, or by the everlasting results {noun} of either FA (non-existence that lasts forever) or UR (correction that lasts forever, due to corrective pruning). {more about Matthew 25} Another reason is the sloppy interpretations by some readers. For example, when Jesus describes the unquenchable fire of Hell, this doesn't mean the fire will “burn people-fuel forever.” It just means that God's fire cannot be quenched – it cannot be stopped by those who are being affected by His divine fire – until His goal is achieved, until people have been consumed (if FA) by His fire, or (if UR) have been sin-purified by His fire. For these reasons and others, “hell verses” and the “hell teachings” of Jesus don't teach EM. You can read more (and much more) about why biblical support for EM is very weak.
Biblical Evidence for Universal Restoration: Yes, biblical support for UR does exist, in four ways: • God clearly tells us that He will give Conditional Immortality and CI would happen with UR or FA, but not with EM. / After EM has been eliminated from serious consideration (due to CI and for other reasons), while I'm evaluating UR-versus-FA the more I learn, the more I'm recognizing that... • there is more evidence for UR because the Bible tells us in some places that God wants to save all people – so would He achieve His goals by saving only some persons but losing most? – and in some places (including these 17) that God will save all people. • there is less evidence against UR because UR agrees — when in the Bible we see things that are claimed to be anti-UR, like... suffering in hell; and few now traveling the narrow road to salvation, thus two kinds of people now (with one kind burned in fire later); and God hating sin so He ultimately produces justice with eternal punishment (that some scholars think should be translated as age-associated corrective pruning) — by explaining that “yes, this thing is happening now (or will happen later) with UR.” • the logical conclusion is “UR” when we combine theologies, because IF God wants to save everyone (claimed by Arminians) and IF God gets what God wants (claimed by Calvinists), THEN God will save everyone, therefore Universal Restoration. a summary of the logic: The Bible tells us that God wants to save all, and He can, so... He will. Here is another kind of “evidence against UR” that becomes non-evidence (or weak evidence) when it's logically examined. The Narrow Road and Pluralism: Jesus says we can be saved only by traveling the narrow road that leads through "the narrow gate" so pluralism (claiming “all roads lead to God”) is biblically false, but pluralism is not claimed by UR. The Narrow Road and Salvation: With literal translating,"few" are finding "the narrow gate" for salvation; the verb (finding) is present tense, so most people are not finding the narrow salvation-gate NOW during Life. But many can travel the narrow road LATER during Afterlife (as proposed by UR) if God will give salvation in afterlife. Jesus tells us that few are now finding the road, but He doesn't say that few will ever find it, either NOW (in Life) or LATER (in Afterlife). The Narrow Road and Damnation: Mainstream FA & EM do claim that only a "few" will ever be saved, because few are being saved in Life and none will be saved in Afterlife so most will remain unsaved, will be damned. / Did God intentionally “hide the truth” from His people, thus leading most Jews to be damned? If yes, we can wonder why Paul declares that “all Israel will be saved” and joyfully celebrates "the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!" because "from Him and through Him and for Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen." more: The ideas above – "more evidence for UR" and "less evidence against UR" – are explained more clearly in the Long Overview, so I recommend reading those sections. Divine Killing: The OT & NT report rare killings by God. This is compatible with FA, and also with UR because these killings caused only temporary death. Later, these people (and all others) will be resurrected into Afterlife; then God can save them (with UR) to produce permanent life, instead of re-killing them (with FA) to produce permanent death. Divine Fire: In the Bible (OT & NT), fire often symbolizes the divine presence-and-power of God. In the "lake of fire" (Revelation 20:11-15) the "second death" could cause a death of person (FA), or death of sin (UR) as in Romans 6, or a living death (EM); these would end the sinner's life or sinful nature or quality of life, with fire that kills or purifies or torments. God's divine fire could be a hurtful fire if He uses it to annihilate people or torment people, or a helpful fire (with beneficial love in action) if He uses it to purify people, to remove their sin.
seeing now and later: Are these connections certain, and do they prove UR? No. But they are plausible, and we can imagine looking back during Afterlife (when we're able to see clearly) and seeing how some verses – about “unsaved people being burned up” that seemed to support FA (with only a first-impression surface reading) – actually supported UR, when the verses are examined more carefully and are viewed in a wider biblical context, in a “big picture” perspective. Conditional Immortality (with a sin-penalty of death) will occur with either FA or UR,* so both views avoid the many theological problems of Eternal Misery. We see some similarities & differences between FA and UR, when asking three questions about death and salvation: • WHAT is the penalty for sin? (it's “permanent total death” in both views), • WHO will receive thi s penalty? (“some people” if FA, but “none” if UR), • WHEN can a person be saved? (“only in Life” if FA, but “in Life or Afterlife” if UR). God hates sin, and He will win His war against sin. But it seems that Satan will “win most battles” if God causes FA, because Satan wants to prevent sinners from being saved, and with FA most people will remain unsaved, instead they will die. Is this immense loss-of-persons what God wants? if God kills most people, will this achieve His goals for final victory? {a Wonderful Life Principle}If most soul-battles are lost with FA, we can only say that If most soul-battles are lost with FA – so only some (a few) will be saved – the joyful proclamations of Paul become much less joyful, because with FA we can proclaim only that "as in Adam all die, so also in Christ * logically, CI is FA-or-UR: The common-yet-incorrect definition of Conditional Immortality is “only FA”. This is logically incorrect, because CI would occur with either FA or UR (but not with EM) so CI is “FA-or-UR”. Let's examine the logic: The Initial State of Afterlife will include saved people and unsaved people. Later, an eternal Final State that is consistent with Conditional Immortality (CI) will include only saved people who satisfy The CI-Condition (the if-then condition that “if saved, then immortal”), who therefore will remain alive forever. This kind of Final State, including only saved people, is possible with Final Annihilation, because FA-Hell has killed all unsaved people, so only saved people remain alive, is possible with Universal Restoration, because UR-Hell has saved all unsaved people, so everyone is now saved people, is impossible with Eternal Misery; EM-Hell doesn't Annihilate or Restore, so EM's Final State includes unsaved people. Therefore, a logical definition of CI is “FA or UR” because both FA and UR would produce CI. visual representations: With all views (FA, UR, EM) the early-Afterlife is a mixture of people who are (saved + unsaved). But after each version of Hell (symbolized by "➞") the immortal Final State (with everlasting life for all who remain alive at that time) is different, with only EM causing not-CI due to the permanent presence of people who are unsaved and are immortal if God causes EM.if FA, (saved + unsaved) ➞ Final State (saved + unsaved), it's CI, if UR, (saved + unsaved) ➞ Final State (saved + unsaved), it's CI, if EM, (saved + unsaved) ➞ Final State (saved + unsaved), not-CI. Therefore, a logical definition of CI is “FA or UR” because both FA and UR would produce CI.much more: links for descriptions of immortality-timing (God will give temporary non-immortal bodies with either FA or UR) plus examining... • two ways to conclude “God will produce UR” (with a process-of-logic that either correctly assumes biblical dependent [and conditional] immortality so the evaluation is UR-versus-FA, or by incorrectly assuming unbiblical intrinsic [and unconditional] immortality so the evaluation is UR-versus-EM); and • other illogical reasons – like illogically claiming that universal means unconditional – for claiming “CI is only-FA”. Biblical Ambiguity about UR-versus-FA Due to the very strong evidence for Conditional Immortality (thus for UR-or-FA) and for other reasons, I'm very confident that EM won't happen. But I cannot confidently claim “it will be UR” or “it will be FA.” Why? We can ask two why-questions: “why is there no clear winner?” and “why has God allowed this ambiguity?” Why is there no clear winner? Because in the whole Bible and in specific verses, I see strong support for UR (but FA has strong counter-arguments) and also strong support for FA (but UR has strong counter-arguments). {but for biblical reasons I'm roughly 90% optimistic that God will produce UR} arguments and counter-arguments: When we examine each of the many passages claiming support for UR {or FA} and examine the arguments & counter-arguments, we see that each passage doesn't provide 100%-support for UR {or FA} but there isn't a decrease to 0%-support. (and different evaluators have different %-estimates) Also, whole-Bible themes can be claimed as support for UR, but also for FA. Therefore when all things are considered, the overall evidence seems ambiguous. iou – Currently a major limitation of my web-pages is their weakness in examining UR-vs-FA, regarding the pros & cons of each view. In the near future (maybe late-2023) I want to explain, with more detail than in the current summaries,* why I'm 90% persuaded about UR. Why is my confidence this high (i.e. why is it 90% instead of 0% or 50%) and why is it lower than 100%? This page describes some evidence for UR (much more than for FA – yes, it's biased) and there is a beginning for deeper UR-vs-FA examinations of strong UR-supporting passages from Paul and John — in Romans 5:18 and 11:32-36, and 14:11 combined with Philippians 2:11 and Colossians 1:20, plus John 1:29 & 12:47 and 1 John 2:2 & 4:14 — to illustrate the validity of arguments & counter-arguments, and my current conclusion that neither view can claim certainty. I'll do a little more soon, Nov 21-24, and then gradually (continuing into early 2023) I'll expand the carefully-thorough logical analysis by describing each view's main claims & arguments, along with counter-arguments and counter-counter-arguments, and so on. { Some biblical evidence for UR is summarized in three sets of sections, in my overviews: Short - Long - Longer. } now, appropriate humility: I think the biblical evidence about UR-vs-FA is ambiguous, but is clearly against EM, so I'm not a postmodern relativist who confidently claims “we cannot claim confidence about anything.” For views about hell, proof is impossible, but we can develop a rationally justifiable confidence about “a good way to bet,” with an appropriate humility that is not too little, not too much. later, clear understanding: Now "we see [imperfectly] as through a glass, dimly" so our knowledge is inaccurate, incomplete, uncertain. But eventually in Afterlife we will know-with-certainty the true view (that is true because it's happening in reality), whether it's UR or FA, or EM, or something else. Regarding biblical knowledge, I think God will help us understand the intended meaning of each Bible verse. Maybe... with Life-Review Videos we'll examine how we were thinking earlier, and we'll realize how verses that confused us – that didn't seem to support the true view – could have been interpreted in a way that would have led us toward the truth. This would be like arriving at the end of a well-designed mystery story, looking back and thinking “yes, it all fits together” when we recognize how the author provided clues that were intended to logically lead us (although not in obvious ways) toward finding truth. {can we begin this process now?} Why has God allowed this ambiguity? Maybe... it's to let us be uncertain about Afterlife, as one aspect of an overall uncertainty* that can help us develop skills in living by faith. Our uncertainties are educationally useful if they help us learn (from our life-experiences) and improve. If this is one of God's purposes for ambiguity, it would be similar to the method of a teacher who produces opportunities for inquiry learning by causing gaps in knowledge – in conceptual knowledge (so students don't understand) and/or procedural knowledge (so they don't know what to do, or how) – that stimulate mental action, so students are allowed to think-do-learn. {* why does “God being non-obvious” give us evidence against EM?} permanent benefits of temporary ambiguity: Eventually our temporary uncertainty will be gone, and we'll know the truth about (almost) everything. With our better understanding and “big picture” overview of time and events, we'll appreciate what God was trying to teach us (and how) during Life. I have faith that ultimately every person will look back on what happened to them (and to all other people) in Life & Afterlife, and each of us will say “it was fair, God was just, He was loving-and-good.” |
|
my views: I'm extremely confident (almost 100%) in rejecting EM, think either FA or UR could happen, am hopeful-and-optimistic about UR, am hoping it will happen, have biblical reasons to be optimistic (roughly 90% confident) that it will happen. hoping for the best: Everyone should hope for the best possible ending with God healing all persons & all relationships to produce the greatest good (Eternal Joy) for the greatest number (for everyone). |
|
If God will produce UR, we can ask “when, what, how, and why?” when? salvation in Afterlife: if God will save people during Afterlife, Universal Restoration becomes plausible because some of the main arguments against UR become much weaker. {will salvation-in-Afterlife happen? the Bible doesn't clearly say Yes or No} { if it's “No” are we justified in claiming "Great is Thy Faithfulness" because “God's compassions don't fail” ? } what? damnation in Afterlife: Jesus tells us (and we observe) that only a few people are now traveling the narrow road leading to salvation, during Life. Proponents of non-UR (of FA or EM) claim that in Afterlife no people become saved (this would make UR impossible) so most people remain damned. what and when? justification + sanctification = salvation: The “package deal” of salvation is justification (when God instantly forgives our sins) plus sanctification (when God gradually helps us become sinless). God's gracious un-earned gift* of salvation will be similar whether a person's justification-and-sanctification begins in Life or Afterlife. {* if God saves a person in UR-Hell, their suffering won't “earn their salvation” – instead it was earned for us by Jesus with His voluntary substitutionary death to achieve reconciling atonement.} what and how? salvation with education-and-correction: if God produces UR, probably... He will use UR-Hell to educate unsaved people (so they believe-and-repent, are justified by God, have their sins forgiven) and correct them (so they become right, are sanctified by God, have their sins eliminated). This education-and-correction (to produce justification-and-sanctification) will occur in purgatorial UR-Hell (pUR-Hell) where God purges sins with purifying divine fire (in Greek, fire is pur) in His "lake of fire" to purify them (by removing the sinful character that prevents them from fully loving people & God), to sanctify them, to restore them so they will be the person that God always wanted them to be. how? sanctification process for saved-in-Life versus unsaved-in-Life: God helps a saved-in-Life person become more sanctified – but only partially sanctified – during Life. When in Afterlife they become totally sanctified, will this happen instantly or gradually, and will they be a passive spectator or active participant? Compared with their process, what will be the similarities & differences for an unsaved-in-Life person if God justifies-and-sanctifies them during Afterlife? The Bible tells us that Afterlife will be better for saved-in-Life people, but... how? in what ways will it be better? producing the best (most righteous) justice what and why? eliminating sin to produce righteous justice: God hates sin – because it disrespects God, and it harms persons & relationships – so He wants to eliminate sin, to produce sinlessly-righteous persons. God can achieve this goal with FA's Annihilation (to eliminate sinners) or with UR's Restoration (to eliminate sin-in-sinners), but not with Eternal Misery because EM would force sinners (and their sinning) to remain forever. what and how? eliminating sin with the power of God: What? God will eliminate sin, to produce righteous justice. How? UR claims that although SIN is very evil and is powerful, GOD is very good and is more powerful. God wants to eliminate sin, so the final result is that sin will be defeated by GOD. {God will win the war against sin, but will He lose most battles?} what and why? producing the best justice: God wants justice, so – because justice is righteousness – He wants to make things right (the way they should be) by eliminating sin, to produce righteous justice that is the best possible justice. what and why? producing the best ending: God loves people, and He can do love in action (that benefits the people He is loving) by producing a Final State with Eternal Joy for everyone, without sin, in His Afterlife Heaven-Kingdom. God could achieve this goal with either FA or UR, but with FA there would be fewer people because most people have been killed, and how could their absence not decrease joyfulness? UR would produce the greatest good (Eternal Joy) for the greatest number (for everyone) by making all people & all relationships become right, without sin, and this total righteousness (total righteous justice) would be the best possible ending for God's grand story. {God hates sin and loves people and wants justice – but EM is weak on sin and tough on people and causes injustice} what? we are victims and offenders: Every person sometimes is a victim (hurt by sinful offenses of others) and sometimes is an offender (who sinfully hurts others). These hurtings produce needs: as victims, we need to forgive people; as offenders, we need to be forgiven by people & by God. These forgivings – done by us (as victims) for others, and by others (as victims) for us – are necessary for producing reconciliations, restoring relationships. {the importance of forgiving is strongly emphasized by Jesus} what? restoring victims and offenders: The many interpersonal hurtings (done to a person as victim, done by them as offender) are not the way things should be, are not right, are injustices. God wants to eliminate injustices, to heal hurtings (in the past) and prevent injustices (in the future) by correcting sinful people, to restore people and relationships, to make things right and produce justice. God wants to restore offenders when they apologize (for hurtings they caused in the past) and repent (so they are changed, and won't hurt others in the future); and also to restore victims, when they observe the apologizing & repenting, and experience the deep satisfaction of forgiving their offenders, which is much better than the temporary shallow satisfaction of only seeing offenders punished. God wants to produce mutual understandings-empathies-compassions, so everyone will forgive everyone, so all will be emotionally healed, to produce a Total Reconciling of all people with each other and with God, helping all people to fully love each other and fully love God. {a reminder: When God "restores offenders" he is restoring each of us, and when He "restores victims" he is restoring each of us, because "every person sometimes is a victim and sometimes is an offender."} what? correction is necessary: Every person is sinful. Each of us needs to be corrected, radically transformed by God, purified so we become not-sinful. A common misunderstanding is that UR claims God will be a “gentle bunny” by just letting evil people enter Heaven “as they were in Life.” No. Instead, UR proposes that every unsaved person must be sin-purified so they are not hindered (as they were in Life) by sinful feelings & thoughts-and-actions, so they are able to be fruitful members of God's Heaven-Kingdom. { Hitler in Heaven? } what and how? eliminating sin with the power of God: What? God will eliminate sin, to produce righteous justice. How? UR claims that although SIN is very evil and is powerful, GOD is very good and is more powerful. God wants to defeat sin, so He will defeat sin. how? a Wonderful Life Principle: If God causes FA {or EM}, and most people are not in His Kingdom — so although God has won the war against sin, He has lost most battles for people — will “everyone forgiving everyone” be possible, to help heal all persons and all relationships? Maybe not, because (as explained in my favorite movie, It's a Wonderful Life) "Each man's life touches so many other lives. When he isn't around, he leaves an awful hole." If any person "isn't around" — because God has killed them with FA {or is exiling them with EM} — they won't be part of a universal repenting & mutual forgiving. With FA {or EM} most people will be gone, and their absence will “leave awful holes” by preventing the reconciliations that would occur when these unsaved people forgive (as victims) and (as offenders) are forgiven. A related question is more difficult to understand, when we ask... how – with an Eternal Joy Question: During their Life a saved person will love some unsaved persons. If in God's Heaven-Kingdom these unsaved persons are missing, will their absence diminish the Eternal Joyfulness of a saved person who loved them but will never see them again, who knows their loved ones have been killed with FA, or {with EM} will be miserable forever, enduring continual torment? Yes, God has promised to "wipe away every tear from their eyes" with "no more... sadness, crying, or pain," but how will He do this? Defenders of non-UR can speculate that maybe... God will cause a saved person to change their attitude so they won't love any unsaved persons, but... is this loss of love how “loving our neighbors” will be “improved” by total sanctification? Or maybe... God could delete memories so they won't remember unsaved persons, won't “miss them” and won't be thinking about their death {or misery}, but... wouldn't a loss of memories decrease the “whole-person quality” of a saved person in Afterlife, and decrease the value of their Life? If there is no satisfactory explanation-of-how, is this an indication that God won't cause FA {or EM}? By contrast, with UR we can continue loving (in Afterlife) every person we were loving (in Life).
more: Some sections – mostly with my speculations about “what might happen in UR-Hell” – have been removed from here, and moved into an appendix for the Short Overview.
how? universal salvation and free will: Universal Restoration proposes that in Afterlife unsaved people can be saved IF they repent (with belief), and all will repent, so God will save all. But if people have free will, how can we be certain that "ALL will repent"? Here are four possible responses: • maybe God has told us (in the Bible) that He will save all people. We can simply accept this WHAT, without knowing HOW God will do it. • maybe God will over-rule free will, so for every person it's God's choice (not the person's choice) that determines their salvation, and He always decides “yes” so every person will be saved, during Life or Afterlife. • maybe UR will happen with free-choice decisions of “yes” by every person. But HOW can God save all people, if during Afterlife any unsaved person can freely decide to stubbornly continue not-repenting? God has the ability to save each person because He knows all and can do all. He knows how to be strongly persuasive during Afterlife (even if He chose to avoid strong persuasion during Life) by providing stronger evidence and giving each person a freed will (by saving them from the slavery to sin that made them spiritually insane during Life) so a person is able to make a wise decision about repenting, and they wisely decide “yes” at some point. God has unlimited knowledge (of a particular person) and skill (in using His knowledge); He knows how to provide personally-customized experiences that will persuade this person so they freely choose to repent. The inevitable result – that this person WILL be saved – is analogous to a chess match between a master and novice; the chess master WILL win, due to having superior knowledge-and-skill, even though the novice is freely choosing their own moves, is not being controlled by the master player. {giving free will to unwise people and then taking it from wise people?} {if a person believes Eternal Misery, is their “free-choice conversion” analogous to the “free-choice giving” in a gunpoint robbery?} • or maybe God will save some additional people, but not all, to produce semi-Universal Restoration (semi-UR). {we see semi-UR in The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis, but this could become total-UR with stronger persuading & freeing-of-wills; more about Lewis and UR} |
|
my relationships — with God and with people (unbelievers & believers) my relationship with God When I think – with appropriate humility (not too little, not too much) – about the basic justice of Hell and the character of God, if I try to imagine the horror of EM – with God causing infinite suffering – it's difficult for me to imagine being able to fully love God (with my whole mind & heart),* but... when I imagine the mercy of FA, it's easier for me to fully love God, and... when I imagine the grace of UR, it's easiest for me to fully love God, and to proudly praise God because of “what He will do FOR unbelievers in UR-Hell” by producing righteous justice for victims & offenders by sin-purifying every person so everyone can forgive everyone, righteously restoring all persons & all relationships, to produce The Best Possible Ending with The Best Possible Justice. * These are just my thoughts-and-feelings about EM. I think other Christians can believe EM and fully love God. my relationships with unbelievers: It's more difficult to eagerly share The Gospel when I must argue against the common assumption that The Good News is a strange mixture that includes Good News (of God loving all people now, and giving Eternal Joy) plus Bad News (of God hating many people later, and giving them Eternal Misery). By contrast, thinking “God will produce Universal Restoration” leads to better us-and-us feelings instead of feeling us-and-them or even us-versus-them. {a distinction: it's “us and us” as fellow persons who share most experiences of living, but not as fellow Christians who can join together in worshiping God.} God's relationships with unbelievers: Christians are theists, so we should recognize (in all of our thinking) that God is constantly interacting with everyone, including unbelievers, to affect their Life and Afterlife. When we're aware that God is interacting with un-believers – who might be pre-believers (if FA or EM), and certainly are pre-believers (if UR) – this should improve our own interactions & relationships with them. our relationships with unbelievers: Here, "our" means God-and-us. God is working in the life of every unbeliever. You and I can work in the lives of some unbelievers. Our human-level work will be better if we cooperate with what God is doing in the life of an unbeliever, so our actions will blend smoothly with His actions, will support what He is doing. UR can help us improve this cooperation, as described by Robin Parry: if you think death is a point of no return, the pressure is really on you; but UR removes some of the time-pressure to “convert this person before they die,” so you can take time to be sensitively aware, trying to discern what God is doing in their life, what the Holy Spirit is doing with their thinking-and-feeling, so you can guide them at their own speed and help them move toward God, become closer with Him. my relationships with believersin the narrow area of life involving views of hell.How do I feel? I'm disappointed by Christians who (in the past) made Eternal Misery “the traditional belief” – despite its biblical weakness – and now (in the present) continue supporting this choice by exerting pressures to conform, to avoid challenging the common assuming of EM. And I'm sad because when fellow Christians say “God will cause Eternal Misery for most people” I think they are saying untrue-and-harmful things about the character of God and this can make it more difficult for people to trust God and love Him, thus hindering our evangelism and discipleship. I feel disappointed and sad about what they're doing, and this is frustrating. How do they feel? So far my sharing-of-ideas with fellow Christians has been limited, but has gone well. Their responses have been gracious and loving. But for various reasons, I'm still being cautious, moving slowly. {the experiences of other EM-challengers} two traditions: One didn't happen, another did. We can imagine a history with very few people now believing EM. In this cultural context – that assumes “God will not cause Eternal Misery” – it would be difficult to claim “our loving Father will cause Eternal Misery.” Unfortunately, in the current reality it's reversed because our cultural tradition is to believe EM, and this often produces pressure to affirm a “traditional” doctrine of EM. influence by tradition: Sometimes our thoughts-and-actions are influenced by the powerful inertia of tradition, by the psychology-and-sociology of conformity. How? All people (including Christians) want to avoid conflicts that are internal (personal) and external (interpersonal). We want to avoid the personal internal conflict that occurs when we hear a claim that “you have wrong beliefs” or “your church has been wrong in its beliefs,” because these challenges produce unpleasant feelings (cognitive dissonance) in our minds & hearts. And we want to avoid the interpersonal external conflict that would occur if we resist pressures to conform, to avoid challenging the general assuming-of-EM that is an elephant in the room. {more about internal & external conflicts and reasons for caution} respectful discussions: Christians should resist external pressures, study the Bible (to learn what it teaches) and study the views (to know what each proposes), and respectfully discuss what we find. When we're discussing, useful principles are "in essentials unity, in non-essentials diversity, in all things charity." Leaders of the early church asked “is a doctrine-of-hell essential?” and decided “no” so they didn't include hell in their major doctrinal statements, the Apostles' Creed & Nicene Creed. defending EM and criticizing EM: Christians should agree that Bible-believing Christians can – with appropriate humility (not too little, not too much) – either defend EM-doctrine or criticize EM-doctrine. One reason is the logic of “IF and thus BECAUSE” plus... our IF-split: When we're trying to imagine the character of God IF He will cause EM, some devout Bible-believing Christians think “YES, this IF will happen,” but others think “NO, this IF won't happen.” After a person has decided YES or NO, they now are thinking that either “BECAUSE God will cause EM, ” or “BECAUSE God won't cause EM, ” and each fills the blank in a way that will honor God. Here is the logical thinking for each God-loving Christian:
Our understanding of this logic (IF and thus BECAUSE, ) makes it easier for us to respect the God-honoring intentions of claims made by defenders of EM, and by critics of EM. by defenders of EM: I respect fellow Christians who believe EM (because they think “the Bible teaches it, so I believe it”) and defend EM (by trying to explain how causing EM will be good, with their "trying" motivated by thinking “I trust God, so I have faith that BECAUSE God will do this, He must have justifiable reasons for doing it, and I will try to imagine what His reasons might be”). So even though I think that when they say “God will cause Eternal Misery” they are saying untrue-and-harmful things about Him, I think they are trying to honor God, thus are worthy of respect. by critics of EM: Like defenders of EM, I also want to defend the honor of God. I do this by showing why God won't cause EM, by describing many Bible-based reasons including the mismatch between God's character (He is good) and a causing-of-EM (that would be a bad action). Here is my logic: I'm extremely confident that EM is an incorrect theory, that God won't cause EM. Therefore when I say “causing EM would be a bad action” I'm not criticizing God (the actual God-of-reality, who won't cause EM), instead I'm criticizing only a mistaken theory about God, invented by fallible humans, an imaginary speculation existing only in the minds of some people, an idea.
Evangelism – Good News plus Bad News ? With each view of Hell, what is The Whole News? ••• with all three views, we proclaim The Good News that God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your Life. • Eternal Misery (EM) adds the Bad News that God hates you and has a horrible plan for your Afterlife, IF you die unsaved. But even for people who are saved, belief in EM can produce grief due to thinking-and-feeling empathy for the Infinite Misery of most people, including many people we love. {is this combination of Good+Bad really Good News?} • Universal Restoration (UR) adds more Good News by explaining how God will produce the best possible ending by transforming all persons & all relationships so we have no sin, so everyone can fully love other people and fully love God, so every person can be fully alive with Eternal Joy. In this way, God will produce righteousness that is justice and each of us will say “God was wise and good in everything He did.” This is Good News! • Final Annihilation (FA) is Good News (for saved people) but Sad News (for unsaved people who will be killed, and for everyone who loves them). FA isn't The Bad News of EM, but isn't The Good News of UR, it's just The Sad News, with lives "lost... like tears in rain. [more]" enthusiasm for evangelism: Are we less enthusiastic in proclaiming The Gospel if we – and usually the people we're talking with – think God will cause Eternal Misery, so instead of Good News it's Mixed News with Good News + Bad News? praising God for Hell: Yes, we can enthusiastically praise God because of the loving actions He would do FOR people in UR-Hell (but not the un-loving actions He would do TO people in FA-Hell or EM-Hell) and our praising-for-UR can help us fully love God with our whole heart & whole mind, as commanded by Jesus. hoping for Universal Restoration: All people (especially Christians who are commanded by Jesus to fully “love our neighbors”) should hope – with all of our hearts & minds, our feeling & thinking – that God will produce the best possible ending with UR. / If a person thinks the Bible teaches EM, they can humbly hope their conclusion (or maybe it's an un-Berean assumption?) is wrong. the purpose of salvation: Are we mainly saved from our slavery to sin? Or is the main benefit that God saves us from God because – if He doesn't save us – He will eternally torment us, causing Eternal Misery? {God hates sin and loves people} total whole-person motives: When a person is deciding whether to “say YES” and live by faith, their total motivation combines many motivations, including... • wanting better intrinsic Life-Process by getting more true joy (by more fully loving God & people) because they believe that God deserves to be loved-and-served, and that God can help them overcome their own self-centered sinfulness so they can more effectively love-and-serve other people; fear-motives versus love-motives: Although both motives are biblically justifiable, it's often "versus" because love-motives (usually highest with UR) often decrease when fear-motives (certainly highest with EM) increase. motives for living as a dedicated disciple: Christians who are dedicated disciples – joyfully following Jesus, wanting to fully love God & people, thus bringing glory to God – are motivated... by believing that God exists and is good (is worthy of worship and service); by love & fear & other motives; and in other ways. You will be looking forward to God asking “what did you do with the life I gave you, with your abilities-and-opportunities?” and hearing Him say "Well done, good and faithful servant! ... Come and share your master’s happiness!" You will want to be a productive partner in The Kingdom of God now in Life (by submitting to His authority as Your King, putting Him “on the throne of your Life”) and later in Afterlife in God's Heaven-Kingdom. / All of these motives are affected by believing a hell-view (EM or FA, or UR), and so is the discipleship of an individual and a community. I think love motives (usually easier with UR?) will be most effective in producing fully-lived discipleship. practical effects for living: When we share The Good News, is it useful (for evangelism) and beneficial (for people) to “cause maximum fear” with the threat of Eternal Misery? Maybe not. But many Christians think maintaining motivation by fear-of-EM is extremely useful because without EM a non-Christian may think “I can believe later” (with UR) or (with FA) “death wouldn't be so bad,” at least when it's compared with the terror of EM. They think we should motivate with carrots & sticks – with visions of heaven (to get) and hell (to avoid) – and that doing this effectively requires the terrifying “infinitely big stick” of EM. But there is a tradeoff. Although EM increases fear-motives to convert, it often decreases belief (in God) and love-motives (to trust-and-love God, to “say yes” and live for God). The overall result of these conflicing factors is complex – because each view (UR, FA, EM) has positive effects and negative effects on feeling-and-thinking & responding – and the overall effects vary from one person to another. I think rational people should respond by “saying yes to God” now (asap), but there is a wide variation in how people actually do respond. practical effects for parents: A central concern of loving parents is the welfare of their children. Parents worry that without a fear of EM-Hell, a child they love will “run wild” and make bad decisions, will harm themself & others. Or that others will “run wild” in ways that harm their children. Yes, this is possible, is a reason for concern by a loving mother or father. I understand their worries, have empathy, cannot guarantee the safety of their children. Unfortunately, the possibility of damage is part of “the package deal” caused by sin, is one of its many harmful effects on individuals and societies. Sigh. Regarding all of these concerns – for non-Christian & children (above) and Christians (below) – I understand, have empathy, can offer no guarantees; I can only repeat the fact that “each view (UR, FA, EM) has effects that are positive & negative on our thinking-and-responding,” plus my conclusion that the long-term overall effects will be better if we reject the horror of unbiblical EM and embrace the mercy of biblical FA or the beauty of biblical UR. practical effects for evangelism: Above I examine possible effects on non-Christians if their fear of EM-Hell is reduced or eliminated. But this also affects Christians. A common concern is that we will be less eager (and less active) in sharing The Good News if we aren't motivated by our own fear that non-Christians will endure Eternal Misery if we don't persuade them to “say YES to God” before they die. But we shouldn't assume that EM is most effective for persuasion. Probably it isn't, because although EM increases fear-motives to convert, it often decreases belief (in God) and love-motives (to trust-and-love God, to “say yes”). And more important, I think EM is least likely to be true, to happen in Afterlife. shifting from fear-motive to love-motives: If we shift our evangelistic emphasis from fear-based motives (especially the “fire escape” of not getting EM)* to love-based motives, we'll need to develop more-persuasive explanations for why a non-Christian should say YES and live by faith – so they can live better – as a Christian disciple, a dedicated follower of Jesus. {* but I think teaching some fear-of-Hell is justifiable and beneficial, and with these warnings plus praising God for Hell a belief in UR could bring a return to “hellfire and brimstone” preaching!} belief in EM versus belief in God: This often is "versus" because when a person logically evaluates four claims of EM – that God exists and is all-powerful and is all-good (all affirmed by UR, FA, EM) and will cause Eternal Misery (denied by UR, FA) – they may find it difficult to accept all four claims. Most people think “God is good” and “God will cause Eternal Misery” don't fit together, because they think-and-feel (using the moral conscience given to them by God) that a good God would not cause the infinite misery of Eternal Misery. Therefore they can logically conclude that “this God – who is good and causes EM – does not exist.” evangelistic responsibilities: Christians should try to accurately describe what the Bible teaches, including the character & actions (past, present, future) of God. We should try to avoid the two errors of giving false hope or causing false fear. Our two error-avoiding goals are... • to not give false hope by claiming “UR will happen” IF in Afterlife-reality FA or EM will happen; • and to not cause false fear by claiming “EM will happen” IF in Afterlife-reality FA or UR will happen. Each goal is important, but... the two goals are in conflict, because trying to avoid one may cause the other; and we can only "try to avoid the two errors" because due to biblical ambiguity we cannot know (with certainty) which IF is true, so we cannot know that we're avoiding either error. {a claim that “FA will happen” could cause either false hope or false fear} avoiding the worst false fear: Should we tell people that “God probably (almost certainly) won't cause Infinite Misery”? I think “yes” for two reasons — because rejecting EM will help us persuade people that God is good (so He can be trusted & loved), and EM seems extremely unlikely so it's likely to be a false fear — and we should be... challenging the cultural elephant: An elephant in the room is the cultural assumption that Christians claim – because it's taught in the Bible – “God will cause Eternal Misery.” This general assuming-of-EM will continue if Christians don't challenge it, if we say nothing. Unfortunately, it's an obstacle (logical & emotional) that prevents many people from believing The Good News really is good. Instead, when people think The Gospel includes EM this can seem like Bad News because each of us intuitively knows, with common sense, that IF God will cause Eternal Misery, this would be a very bad action. A belief that “God will cause Infinite Misery” can strongly influence the ways people think-and-feel about God. It's an elephant in their mind, an ugly mental elephant, leading them to ask “should I respect this EM-Causing God? can I trust Him? do I want to love Him?” showing empathy for the mental elephant: Instead of ignoring this elephant in the mind, we can tell people that we have empathy for their thinking and feeling. We understand the rational reasons for their fear-and-disgust, because we agree with their gut-level intuition (using the moral conscience given to them by God) that a divine causing of Eternal Misery would not be a lovingly good action. Showing empathy for people is a reason for action – to say “let's do something about this elephant” – although we also have reasons for caution. reasons for “saying YES to God” now: Imagine that you're an unbeliever who doesn't feel threatened by Eternal Misery, doesn't fear it. What are your reasons to “say YES” now during Life? You can have the intrinsic motives of wanting better life-process: if you say YES and live by faith, God will help you live better by supplying what you need (love, joy, wisdom, strength, courage,...) in your daily living;* but your main benefit is having a closer relationship with God, so you can more fully experience the loving of God. You also have extrinsic motives by wanting better afterlife-results: you want to gain positives (of Heaven) and avoid negatives (of Hell, whether it's EM, FA, or UR). Therefore, if you're a rational person who believes that God exists and is loving, you should respond by “saying YES to God” now (asap) because your Life will be better now, and later your Afterlife will be better, so at all times (during Life & Afterlife) your living will be better. {* of course, Christians should show everyone how God "will help you live better" by actually living better, by loving better.} |
later: The Love Story of PSA
God's penalty of merciful death How can a penalty be merciful? {or... why can we ask “if God does FA and annihilates unsaved sinners, would this be merciful?” and answer both “yes” and “no” ? } We say “yes” because FA is merciful compared with EM, but “no” because FA is less merciful than UR. {iow, divine love in action is best with UR, less-loving with FA, worst with EM.} / history: God wisely responded to sin by removing His supernatural life-sustaining "tree of life" so natural process would lead to natural death. This was a severe penalty – because humans lost God-sustained immortality – that also is merciful because it prevents sinful people from living forever, in sinful Eternal Misery. {and... God gives immortality in the way He wants} God can prevent sinful EM by causing either FA or UR. sin-penalties are intrinsic and judicial: Because of sin, humans have (as described in Genesis 3) two kinds of severe penalties: INTRINSIC penalties are consequences of sin, causing spiritual loss (a decreased quality-of-relationship with God) and interpersonal injuries (with damaged relationships) and physical suffering (with life becoming more difficult & less pleasant), plus God's JUDICIAL penalty of Death. First, Life ends with Death. Second, in Afterlife most people (all who die unsaved) get more penalties: • If God actualizes His Death penalty with FA, unsaved people lose their opportunity for Eternal Life with Joy. • But even with UR's rescue-from-Death,* before this all people suffer all INTRINSIC consequences of sin during Life, and we die at the end of Life, after fearing Death, followed by grieving among the still-living. Then in Afterlife unsaved people will go through beneficial-yet-unpleasant purifying experiences in UR-Hell, so even though UR ultimately produces the best possible ending there have been penalties for everyone. {* with UR, all persons are rescued from Death, some by God's salvation-in-Life, others by God's salvation-in-AfterLife.} • With EM the JUDICIAL penalty of Death will never be enforced, so unsaved people never die; instead they will live forever, suffering the INTRINSIC consequences-of-sin, but with no hope for a merciful death that would end their misery. CI will produce the best justice: Conditional Immortality (CI) produces the best justice (= righteousness) because CI eliminates sin, to produce righteousness and thus justice. But EM is not-CI, so EM preserves sin by causing unrighteous sinners (and their sinning) to exist forever; EM causes sinful un-righteousness that is in-justice. With CI all intrinsic consequences of sin – spiritual loss, relational injury, physical suffering – eventually are eliminated, because with CI (with FA or UR, but not EM) only fully-sanctified sinless people are given immortality so they can remain alive with sinless Eternal Joy, loving each other and loving God. |
|
We should have appropriate humility – not too little, not too much – when we're thinking about the character of God and His divine justice, starting with our thinking about... basic justice: With each view of Hell, comparing Before Life to The Final Result of Afterlife the change for Saved People is from nothing to Eternal Joy (this is wonderful); for Unsaved People, with Universal Restoration it's from nothing to Eternal Joy (this is wonderful); with Final Annihilation it's from nothing to nothing (a neutral “from dust to dust” seems fair, but isn't wonderful); or it's from nothing to Eternal Misery (this is horrible and seems extremely unfair, because these people never asked to be born, but will experience infinite misery because God forced them to have Life-and-Afterlife). {a colorful table showing the change with each view} questions about existence: If you could choose before birth, would you decide to be born if you knew that God will cause UR? if FA? if EM? questions about justice: When all things are considered (re: our abilities & situations, experiences & results), is Life fair? No. How could God make Life-plus-Afterlife more fair? and make it better? and make it best, by making it right (the way it should be) to achieve justice? righteousness is justice: How should it be? In Greek the word for righteousness – when things (people, situations, relationships,...) are right, are what they should be, how God wants them to be – also means justice. producing righteous justice: Would the Final State of Afterlife be most righteous (with most justice) if God causes EM, FA, or UR? With EM, God would force sinners to live forever; their unrighteous sinning would continue forever, so God would cause permanent un-righteousness that is un-justice. But with FA or UR, there will be no sinners (and no sinning); all persons & all relationships will be righteous, without sin, and God will produce permanent righteous justice. / UR would produce the greatest good (Eternal Joy) for the greatest number (for everyone) so it would be The Best Ending. the character of God: The Bible teaches us that God is GREAT (is POWERFUL and GOOD, JUST-and-LOVING). God wants justice and God is loving, so... how will God use Hell as part of His plan to produce the best justice-with-love? Genuine love is love-in-action that produces good results for the people we are loving: God's loving actions would do good for all people with UR-Hell, but He wouldn't do good for people in FA-Hell or (especially) EM-Hell. If loving actions are beneficial actions, God's actions would be most loving (and most just) with UR, and least loving with EM. {does God love His enemies?} {tri-unity: WWFD=WWSD=WWHD = WWGD} divine persuasion: Why isn't God more “obvious” about His existence & activities? Maybe... one reason is to challenge believers, to teach us valuable lessons about living by faith. But... how does weak persuasion affect a person who dies unsaved, but might have “said yes” with stronger persuasion by God, with more evidence? There are huge differences (with EM, FA, UR) in Final Results if during a person's Life “insufficient evidence → saying no to God” instead of “sufficient evidence → saying yes to God” so... Would we expect God to provide stronger evidence-during-Life if He will cause EM, or FA, or UR? Why is “being non-obvious” one reason (among many) to conclude that God won't cause EM? (and will cause UR) imagining infinite misery: Take a few minutes (or a few hours, days, weeks,...) trying to vividly imagine an experience of eternal misery, with torment that never.......... ends. {think about the length of time and quality of life} mercy killing: if God annihilates an unsaved person, would this be merciful? “yes” if FA prevents EM with its Eternal Misery, but “no” if FA prevents UR with its Eternal Joy. {does God “throw away” people in a Cosmic Triage with people-and-memories lost... like tears in rain? [more]} purposes for universal resurrection: All people, both saved & unsaved, will be resurrected with bodies. Why will God resurrect people who were unsaved-in-Life? With UR the purpose is to eventually restore all people & all relationships to make resurrection a “win” for everyone, including saved people who love unsaved people. But it's difficult to see a purpose if God will cause FA, if people are re-born and then re-die. And with EM, resurrection would be extremely un-beneficial for unsaved people; why would God force them to live again so they can be miserable forever? fairness in Life-plus-Afterlife: Earlier I asked "when all things are considered... is Life fair?" and answered "no" due to the wide variations in our abilities-situations-experiences-results, so Life isn't “fair” when we compare ourselves with others. And it isn't “the best possible Life” for any individual. But maybe our combinations of Life-plus-Afterlife could be more fair (and better) IF, in Afterlife, ? . How could God fill the blank to make it more fair, and better? to make it best? does God want to do this? will He do it? choosing to be born: Would you choose to be born, if you knew that God will cause UR? if FA? if EM? Based on “risk versus reward” analysis, I think each choice is obvious. {my choices} {when a child is born, should we celebrate or mourn? if UR? if FA or EM with most people damned?} free will and freed will: Our hearts-and-minds are strongly influenced by sin, so is our will truly free? UR claims that God will give everyone a freed will during Afterlife, so everyone can freely choose to be saved. personal merit → salvation or damnation: Does a saved person earn their salvation with their good heart (wanting to love God) and (by making The Good Decision) a wise mind? Does an unsaved person earn their damnation because they have an evil heart and unwise mind? {logically, both answers must be the same, either “yes,yes” or “no,no”} If your two answers for “earning salvation by personal merit” are “yes-yes” should a Christian be proud of their merit-based salvation, because their good heart & wise mind led to their Wise Decision?* If “no-no” an unsaved person isn't responsible for their damnation (because it wasn't due to their deficiencies in goodness or wisdom) but they still receive the results, and we ask “would this be fair?” {* Calvinistic theologies claim that Our Decision is actually God's Decision, so there is no reason for pride. But if God decides “Ann will be saved” and “Sue won't be saved”, would this be fair? } { The long overview has much more about salvation by merit. } Questions about “personal merit” and “fair” are especially important when we consider... the justice of binary results: Can you imagine a way to achieve totally-fair justice if there will be only two possible Final Results – either Eternal Joy or Eternal Misery – for people who are saved or unsaved when they die, after Life-experiences with extreme differences in a wide variety of ways. I wonder “what will God do?” with a person who... dies young? is a moron? Imagine that salvation will depend on a Life-Score – due to beliefs and/or actions that each vary along a range – and 70.0 is the binary “dividing line” between salvation and damnation. If two people with Life-Scores of 70.1 and 69.9 are saved (to Eternal Joy) and damned (to Eternal Misery) so a tiny difference in temporary quality-of-Life leads to a huge difference in permanent quality-of-Afterlife, do you think this would be fair? If you think “no” maybe God agrees, and maybe this is one reason for Him to avoid binary judging-and-rewarding.the generosity of God: How would you feel if – as implied in parables about part-day workers & a prodigal son – God will be extremely generous? If a very evil sinner (who viciously harmed many people) repents on his deathbed, will God forgive him? But if he doesn't repent in Life, will God let him repent in Afterlife? If in Afterlife this man is educated-and-corrected so he is saved and is transformed from an evil person into a good person, will you praise God for His generosity? Of course, we should say “yes” because we love our neighbors so we want each of them to be saved, so we hope for Universal Restoration. But... Jesus told these parables because people are complex, with reasons for “mixed feelings” that can decrease our hoping for UR, and decrease our optimism that UR will happen. But despite these reasons, all of us can try to genuinely-and-totally hope (with all of our hearts & minds, our feeling & thinking) that eventually God will produce... The Best Possible Ending with Universal Restoration in God's Heaven-Kingdom — so all persons (and all of their relationships) are fully restored, are totally righteous (to achieve total justice) without sin, so each person is able to fully love other people & fully love God, and everything is the way God wants it to be — with the greatest good (Eternal Joy) for the greatest number (for everyone). Every person will look back on all that happened, and will say “I thank God for creating me; everything done by God (for me & for others, in Life and Afterlife) was good, and I'm joyfully thankful for everything.” |
note: This is an “appendix” for the Short Overview, with sections — about the truth-and-beauty of PSA, plus my speculations about UR-Hell — that originally were in the main body of the Short Overview.Two Aspects of God's Love: This page looks at one way God loves us, either with His gracious forgiving (if He restores people in UR-Hell) or His mercy (if He annihilates people in FA-Hell, so they won't suffer forever in sinful misery); God loves people, and He won't cause Eternal Misery, so you can fully trust Him and fully love Him and “say YES to God” in your mind & heart (in your thinking & feeling) during your everyday living-by-faith. / PSA is another aspect of God's love. IF God produces The Best Possible Ending with Universal Restoration, this would be a very loving action, so we can praise Him for The Love Story of Universal Restoration,... IF. But God already has done PSA, so we don't have to wonder "IF". And we can praise Him for The Love Story of Penal Substitutionary Atonement because PSA is very loving; it's God's method of reconciling us with Him, and that result is very good. In my thinking-and-feeling, more liking of PSA leads to more loving of God. But some proponents of UR are opponents of PSA; they seem to think that if people like PSA less, they will love God more. I strongly disagree with these critics, and this is my main motivation for writing this section, to explain why I disagree, why instead we should be praising God for PSA. {more about my motivations} believing the biblical evidence: Most evangelical Christians think Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) is a central part of God's plan to convert sin-and-death into salvation-and-life. I agree. Why? Because a logical evaluation of biblical evidence (in OT & NT) strongly supports a basic PSA claiming only that Christ was our Substitute and He paid our Penalty (for sins) to achieve Atonement and reconcile us with God. But a basic PSA that is biblical PSA (because the sin-penalty is death) can be distorted by adding unbiblical details; this occurs when PSA is influenced by belief in Eternal Misery (with an unbiblical sin-penalty of infinite suffering). I think every Christian should be willing to say “I strongly support basic biblical PSA” even if they question some added details. {and I strongly support Christus Victor, which is compatible with PSA, isn't competitive} trusting the wisdom of God: I have faith that God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) was wise in deciding why-and-how to use PSA. We should simply trust God, believing that He has done what is best, and will continue doing what is best. We should humbly appreciate... The Love Story of PSA: Our understanding of PSA – as part of God's plan for salvation, showing us that sin is very bad, and God is very good – helps us know-and-feel (in our minds-and-hearts) how much God loves us; liking PSA will help us love God. {unfortunately, harsh critics of PSA seem to think disliking PSA will lead to loving God, but I disagree.} The Best Ending and PSA: God's use of retributive actions in the past – with a death penalty in Genesis 3, leading to the death of Jesus (for PSA, with self-sacrificial retribution by God on Himself with Jesus enthusiastically saying “yes, this is what I want to do for the people I love”) – is compatible with His use of restorative actions, in the present-and-future for Christians (if EM, FA, UR) and (if UR) in the future for all others. The Worst Ending and PSA: Two mis-matchings between His Crucifixion Experience (finite suffering with death) and Eternal Misery Experience (infinite suffering without death) show us that His Crucifixion would not have satisfactory matching for Substitutionary Penalty-Paying with EM, so PSA provides logical evidence against EM and thus for UR-or-FA. more: The longer PSA-Summary ends with links for a little more – about "The Worst Ending" (with EM) versus PSA & (emphasizing PSA plus Christus Victor) Crucifixion plus Resurrection – and a lot more about what PSA is (and isn't), why it's biblical, why most criticisms are unjustified, why I'm motivated to defend basic biblical PSA, and more. |
|
If God will produce UR, we can ask “when, what, how, and why?” when? salvation in Afterlife: if God will save people during Afterlife, Universal Restoration becomes plausible because some of the main arguments against UR become much weaker. {will salvation-in-Afterlife happen? the Bible doesn't clearly say Yes or No} { if it's “No” are we justified in claiming "Great is Thy Faithfulness" because “God's compassions don't fail” ? } what? damnation in Afterlife: Jesus tells us (and we observe) that only a few people are now traveling the narrow road leading to salvation, during Life. Proponents of non-UR (of FA or EM) claim that in Afterlife no people become saved (this would make UR impossible) so most people remain damned.
a strategy for reading: This set of sections – about Universal Restoration (when, what, how, why) – is long and complex, with many deep ideas. So you can quickly develop a “big picture” understanding, I recommend first reading the shorter Mini-Overview below – but whenever you want, click links (including the title-links) and read parts of this Short Overview – and then read this Short Overview (and click links when you want) and finally its Long Overview. This method will help you develop a deeper understanding of the whole plus the details, by using a “successive approximations” reading strategy. / update: After writing this set-of-sections about details of UR, in the main body of the Short Overview I condensed it by omitting some sections (mainly my speculations about UR-Hell) and including only the more-essential sections; I copied some of these from the Short Overview, some from the Mini-Overview, and some combine the two.
Now, back to the Short Overview: what and when? justification + sanctification = salvation: The “package deal” of salvation is justification (when God instantly forgives our sins) followed by sanctification (when God gradually helps us become sinless). God's gift of salvation will be similar whether a person's justification & sanctification begin in Life or Afterlife. / If God saves a person in UR-Hell, they will suffer while they're being educated-and-corrected so they become justified-and-sanctified, become saved, but their suffering won't “earn their salvation” because (whether it begins in Life or Afterlife) salvation is a gracious gift from God, earned for us by Jesus with His voluntary penalty-paying substitutionary death to achieve reconciling atonement. what and when? once saved, always saved? Maybe, and Yes. Christians debate OSAS because it's "maybe" from our POV (with knowledge that is incomplete & unreliable), but is "yes" from God's POV (with knowledge that is complete & reliable). what and how? salvation with education-and-correction: if God will produce UR, probably... He will use UR-Hell to educate unsaved people (so they believe-and-repent, are justified by God, have their sins forgiven) and correct them (so they become right, are sanctified by God, have their sins eliminated). This process of education-and-correction (to produce justification-and-sanctification) will occur in purgatorial UR-Hell (pUR-Hell) where God purges the sins of unsaved people with purifying divine fire (in Greek, fire is pur - and in the Bible, fire often symbolizes the presence-and-power of God) in His "lake of fire" where His "fire" is actively purifying a person (by removing the sinful character that prevents them from fully loving other people & fully loving God), is working to sanctify them, to restore them so they will be the person that God always wanted them to be. how? sanctification process for saved-in-Life versus unsaved-in-Life: God helps a saved-in-Life person become more sanctified – but only partially sanctified – during Life. When in Afterlife they become totally sanctified, will this happen instantly or gradually, and will they be a passive spectator or active participant? Compared with their process, what will be the similarities & differences for an unsaved-in-Life person who, if God will produce UR, is saved (is justified-and-sanctified) during Afterlife? The Bible tells us that Afterlife will be better for saved-in-Life people, but... how? in what ways will it be better? producing the best (most righteous) justice what and why? eliminating sin to produce righteous justice: God hates sin – because it disrespects God, and it harms persons & relationships – so He wants to eliminate sin, to produce sinlessly-righteous persons. God can achieve this goal with FA's Annihilation (to eliminate sinners) or with UR's Restoration (to eliminate sin-in-sinners), but not with Eternal Misery because EM would force sinners-and-sinning to remain forever. what and how? eliminating sin with the power of God: What? God will eliminate sin, to produce righteous justice. How? UR claims that although SIN is very evil and is powerful, GOD is very good and is more powerful. God wants to eliminate sin, so the final result is that sin will be defeated by GOD. {God will win the war against sin, but will He lose most battles?} what and why? producing the best justice: God wants justice, so – because justice is righteousness – He wants to make things right (the way they should be) by eliminating sin, to produce righteous justice. what and why? producing the best ending: God loves people, and He can do love in action (that benefits the people He is loving) by producing a Final State with Eternal Joy for everyone, without sin, in His Afterlife Heaven-Kingdom. God could achieve this goal with either FA or UR, but with FA there would be fewer people because most people have been killed, and how could their absence not decrease joyfulness? UR would produce the greatest good (Eternal Joy) for the greatest number (for everyone) by making all people & all relationships become right, without sin, and this total righteousness – total righteous justice (the best possible justice) – would be the best possible ending for God's grand story. {God hates sin and loves people and wants justice – but EM is weak on sin and tough on people and causes injustice} what? we are victims and offenders: Every person sometimes is a victim (hurt by sinful offenses of others) and sometimes is an offender (who sinfully hurts others). These hurtings produce needs: as victims, we need to forgive people; as offenders, we need to be forgiven by people & by God. These forgivings – done by us for others, and by others for us – are necessary for producing reconciliations, restoring relationships. The importance of forgiving is strongly emphasized by Jesus. what? restoring victims and offenders: The many interpersonal hurtings (done to a person as victim, done by them as offender) are not the way things should be, are not right, are injustices. God doesn't want hurtings and injustices to remain, so He will heal hurtings (in the past) and will prevent injustices (in the future) by correcting sinful people. Why? To produce justice. Some Christians think God will get justice by retribution. I think God will produce justice by restoration. In UR-Hell, some retributive punishment will occur (with a person “reaping in Afterlife what they sowed in Life”) but this will be incidental, not essential, because the main purpose of God's education-and-correction is to produce restorative justice with restorations: there will be a restoring of offenders when they have apologized (for the hurtings they caused in the past) and have repented (so they won't hurt others in the future); and also a restoring of victims, when they observe the apologizing & repenting, and experience the deep satisfaction of forgiving their offenders, which will be much better than a temporary shallow satisfaction of only seeing offenders punished. what? correction is necessary: Every person is sinful. Each of us needs to be corrected, radically transformed by God, purified so we become not-sinful. A common misunderstanding about UR is that God will be a “gentle bunny” by just letting evil people enter Heaven “as they were in Life.” No. Instead UR proposes that each person must be sin-purified so they are not hindered (as they were in Life) by sinful feelings & thoughts-and-actions, so they are able to be fruitful members of God's Kingdom. what and how? eliminating sin with the power of God: What? God will eliminate sin, to produce righteous justice. How? UR claims that although SIN is very evil and is powerful, GOD is very good and is more powerful. God wants to eliminate sin, so the final result is that sin will be defeated by GOD. {God will win the war against sin, but will He lose most battles?} / If God will use pUR-Hell to defeat sin within people who weren't saved during Life, probably His process will be education-and-correction {how} to produce justification-and-sanctification that is salvation {what}. how? using videos to re-experience Life: The Bible doesn't tell us much about Afterlife, but Jesus does say"everything that is covered up will be revealed," and maybe... this re-experiencing of Life will happen with Life-Review Videos that (if they're used) will reveal the history of our feeling-and-thinking about people (ourselves & others) and about God, showing us how our actions affected ourselves & others, and what God was feeling-thinking-doing about our actions. {the "maybe..." and "if" acknowledge that my thoughts about a “how-process” are just biblically-informed speculations; but defenders of other views also speculate. By contrast, I feel more confident about biblical “what-goals” for producing righteous justice.} what and how? the importance of Life: Your life is God's gift for you. The way you live is your gift to God. If you live well (as defined by God) you'll be filled with joy when He asks “what did you do with the life I gave you, with your abilities-and-opportunities?” and says "Well done, good and faithful servant! ... Come and share your master’s happiness!" If the main purpose of your Life is learning how to improve your loving of God and people, probably He wants you to continue learning in Afterlife, maybe... by using Life-Review Videos. {especially during early stages of Afterlife} how? by experiencing with super-abilities: IF life-review videos will be used, probably... they will be done well (producing a Super-Reality that is much better than our current Virtual Reality) and God will give each person super-abilities — like more empathy & compassion & self-responsibility (leading to sorrowful repentance), plus improved senses (of seeing, hearing,...) and processing power and more — to make their re-experiencing of events more intense. These abilities would magnify their feelings-and-thoughts of joy (for good things that happened to them, plus the good joy-causing things they did) and sorrow (for bad things that happened to them, plus the bad sorrow-causing things they did and good joy-causing things they could have done but didn't do), with all responses helping to produce beneficial transformations (personal & interpersonal) so God can correct-and-heal all persons & all relationships. how? by learning more with divine help: During the process-of-Afterlife, including videos (if...), God will guide-and-empower each person, to help them learn more from their experiences, to correct-and-heal them, and help them want to cooperate in the process of being radically purified by God. what and how? forgiving promoted by mutual viewings: Many times in Life, every person is a victim and/or offender, so we need to forgive and be forgiven. Maybe... God will help these needs be satisfied with Mutual Viewings (MV's) to promote forgivings. How? With “mutually shared experiences” using MV's, videos of some Life-situations will be simultaneously viewed by the main people involved in the situation as a victim and/or offender, or in other ways. During an MV all people will be experiencing what did happen (in Life) and also what is happening (in Afterlife), from their own perspective and from the perspectives of others. Every person will experience the thoughts-and-feelings of every other person, in the past & present. Each person will know the suffering-in-Life of their victims, and the suffering-in-Afterlife of their offenders who hurt them during Life, but now are feeling painful sorrow in their thinking & feeling, so they genuinely apologize (saying “I'm sorry”) and repent (deciding “I won't do it again”). All of this will produce mutual empathies and mutual compassions, helping everyone forgive everyone, so all will be emotionally healed, to produce a Total Reconciling of all people with each other and with God, helping all people to fully love each other and fully love God. how? with God's super-powers: If... God uses Life-Review Videos, producing this Super-Reality would require (using analogy with human technologies) an immense amount of memory and processing power. It also would require a control of time-and-space that is far beyond our ability to understand, plus a knowledge of each person's privately silent thinking-and-feeling. This might be possible because God is omniscient & omnipotent so He knows all & can do all. how? with human super-abilities: A person who is experiencing videos, and learning from them, would also need lots of memory and processing power; these would be some of the super-abilities given by God. what and how? mutual viewings for saved-and-unsaved: I think "Life is important" and "the main purpose of your Life is learning how to improve your loving of God & people" and "God wants you to continue learning in Afterlife" in ways that may include Life-Review Videos being viewed by "people who were unsaved-in-Life and... were saved-in-Life." {then I make comments after asking "if God will cause FA, and if saved people will watch videos, will their Mutual Viewings include unsaved people, during the time period before the unsaved are annihilated?"} what and how? maturing after sanctification: Will saved people use Life-Review Videos? Maybe. At the end of Life, a saved person (a Christian) is only partially sanctified. In Afterlife they will become totally sanctified, but how? Will this happen instantly or gradually, will they be passive or active, and will they suffer? The Bible doesn't answer these questions with certainty, and the mainstream “answers” differ in major traditions, in Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant. Catholics propose a Purgatory where some Christians will gradually become totally sanctified. But among Protestants a popular claim is that God will cause all Christians to be resurrected with “glorification” that includes total sanctification (instantly, passively) and immortality. Even if this happens and we already are totally sanctified, God still could want us to watch Videos if these will help us learn more from our experiences (in Life & Afterlife) and continue growing in maturity, emotionally and spiritually. what? suffering in Hell: Jesus says "there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" in Hell, and He warns us to avoid sinning because it's better for us now in Life, and later in Afterlife. what? sowing and reaping: The more a person sinned in Life, the more they will suffer in Afterlife, when Jesus "will judge [and "repay"] all people according to their deeds" because "whatever a person sows, this he will also reap." These judicial actions – when Jesus will "judge" and "repay all people" for their "deeds" – will be retributive actions. what and how? retributive-and-restorative: Some Christians claim that justice-in-Hell must be either retributive or restorative, not both. But divine hell-justice could be only retributive (with EM or FA) or (with UR) both retributive-and-restorative. Instead of claiming either-or we should remain open to the possibility that God will use both-and to achieve His goals for divine justice. We should avoid two extremes; we should not naively deny the biblical reality of “sowing and reaping” retribution, and we should not rigidly insist that retribution must mean non-restoration. Instead, divine actions can be retributive and also restorative, if the actions produce restoration. why? two meanings of retribution – with and without vengeance: Many definitions of retribution are fairly neutral (regarding vengeance), describing it as "a justly deserved penalty" or "punishment administered in return for a wrong committed" or "theology - punishment or reward distributed in a future life based on performance in this one." But some definitions emphasize vengeance: retribution is "punishment inflicted in the spirit of... personal vengeance" or "the act of taking revenge (harming someone in retaliation for something harmful that they have done) especially in the next life," so its synonyms include "vengeance, retaliation" and also neutral "repayment, payment." The two meanings (neutral or vengeful) are very different, and both are very common. This causes confusion. In the context of retributive justice, I think the biblical character of God and divine justice are more compatible with a “neutral” meaning, not a “revenge” meaning. how? different amounts of suffering: The Bible describes different sufferings that depend on sinning, persuading, and gifting. If more sinning in Life, more suffering in Afterlife, with sowing-and-reaping. If God is more persuasive in Life, there is more responsibility for “saying yes” in Life. And if God gives more to a person (with better abilities & opportunities), He will expect more from them when asking “what did you do with the Life I gave you?” / We can understand how God could produce different sufferings with UR-Hell or with EM-Hell (with endless Infinite Misery that is moderately painful or extremely painful), but not with FA-Hell (where all unsaved people die, and their experiences die with them, lost... like tears in rain.). / In pUR-Hell, probably... a major source of suffering will be a person's painfully-sorrowful repentance, with an intrinsic “sowing and reaping” cause-effect relationship between suffering caused (in Life) and suffering received (in Afterlife). This personally-customized proportionality seems fair; if a person does more sinning-in-Life that causes more suffering-in-Life for others, then more suffering-in-Afterlife will be received by the person. These differences – along with differences in other kinds of suffering – will produce different amounts of overall suffering. how? sources of suffering: In purgatorial UR-Hell, there might be many sources of painful suffering. It's "might" because we don't know what will happen; we can only speculate. Certainly... the strange new world of UR-Hell would lead to powerful thoughts & emotions. Maybe... for awhile God will allow (or cause) incorrect thinking about the final outcome – so a person is expecting a bad result (with FA or EM) instead of a good result (with UR) – to cause anxiety that will be psychologically painful. And maybe there will be unpleasant physical sensations. The entire experience might be spectacularly extra-ordinary, amazingly alarming, very real. / Maybe... a major source of suffering will be painfully-sorrowful repenting, perhaps stimulated by re-experiencing with Life-Review Videos, made more intense with vivid SuperReality and super-abilities. A person would be forced – by the undeniable reality of knowing the harmful effects of what they did in Life – to recognize that their bad actions (or failure to do good actions) caused other people to have painful suffering in Life. Their painful repenting might be combined with other kinds of Holy Spirit surgery (to remove sin) and other kinds of suffering that are difficult for us to imagine. how and what? journeys leading to the arrival: An unsaved person – no matter how much painful suffering happened in their Life and Afterlife – eventually will say “my journeys were good (despite the pain) because they helped me learn and led me to The Arrival (in God's Heaven-Kingdom, fully restored, having Eternal Joy) and “I thank God for everything He did.” what and how? the ends {what} justify the means {how}: Although we should not always conclude that “the means are justified by the ends” for human actions, this claim always is justified for the actions of God. If God will use a UR-Hell {how} where people suffer, we can be certain that His divine means (with some suffering) will be justified by His divine ends {what} of achieving righteous justice. God may have already decided to produce temporary suffering (in UR-Hell) so He can produce a greater permanent good with UR that will be the best possible ending because every person is having Eternal Joy, will be thinking “everything done by God was good, and I'm joyfully thankful.” what and how? only pain that is necessary: If God wants to restore unsaved people in Afterlife, why would He choose a process — a purgatorial UR-Hell that causes pain while it educates-and-corrects people (to justify-and-sanctify them, to save them) so they can have Eternal Joy — instead of a process that doesn't cause pain?” I think that during a process of UR-Hell {how}, God will not cause any more suffering than is needed to be most effective in producing the results He wants {what}. God will not cause pain, just to cause pain. Instead the pain will be a “side effect” of the process. why? the purpose of pain: In pUR-Hell the pain has no "purpose" if it's a necessary by-product of the process that God will use to achieve His goals – to sanctify all persons & heal all relationships – because God's purpose will be to sanctify & heal, not to cause pain. {an important non-purpose: a person cannot earn their salvation by their suffering, in Life or Afterlife} how? suffering by saved people? Will saved-in-Life people (Christians) suffer in Afterlife? This depends on the way God will totally-sanctify Christians, and views about this differ in Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant. Catholics say Yes (for some), and most Protestants say No (for all). Among the reasons for “no” are because maybe...* God will instantly sanctify all Christians when we are resurrected, so we won't need any painful “spiritual surgery” that God will use if He sanctifies unsaved people in pUR-Hell. An absence of pain might be described as "the one who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death," but how will "not be hurt" happen? • IF Christians won't be sanctified instantly (and passively), God could use a sanctification process that includes spiritual surgery (to remove sin) but this won't "hurt" us. Or maybe "will not be hurt" means “not damaged” rather than “feeling no pain.” • IF Christians will be sanctified instantly, so no more sanctification is needed, maybe... we won't have any special experiences (like watching Videos) to help us learn from Life; or we will watch videos (alone and/or with others) so we can learn more and become more mature, and if we sorrowfully repent for our sins-during-Life, God will protect us (with spiritual comforting,...) so we won't be "hurt" by our sorrows; and there are other possibilities. {* it's "maybe" due to "reasons for no" plus reasons to wonder} how? a Wonderful Life Principle: If God will cause FA or EM, and if the Total Restoration (of saved people) includes “everyone forgiving everyone” to help heal all relationships, is this possible if most people are not in the final Heaven-Kingdom? Probably not. Why? Because as explained in my favorite movie, It's a Wonderful Life, "Each man's life touches so many other lives. When he isn't around, he leaves an awful hole." If any person "isn't around" – because God has killed them (with FA) or is exiling them (with EM) – they won't experience mutual empathies & compassions (e.g. during Mutual Viewings) and they won't be part of a universal repenting & mutual forgiving. In all relationships involving them, their absence will "leave an awful hole" in the re-experiencings (of saved people who remain) and will eliminate the deep reconciliations that would occur when this unsaved person forgives (as a victim) and (as an offender) is forgiven. Thus, without UR (i.e. with FA or UR) it might be impossible to Totally Restore any saved person (because they need to forgive and be forgiven) or Totally Reconcile all relationships in a wide-ranging interactive web. / I say "might" because, of course, God could produce Restoring & Reconciling in other ways. A related problem is more difficult to understand, and much more troubling to consider, when we ask... how – with an Eternal Joy Question: During their Life a saved person will love some unsaved persons. If in God's Heaven-Kingdom these unsaved persons are missing (due to FA or EM), will their absence diminish the Eternal Joyfulness of the saved person who loved them? This is a tough question for FA-with-death and (especially) for EM-with-torment. I don't think any answers are satisfactory. Yes, God could cause a saved person to change their attitude so they won't love any previously-loved unsaved persons, but... is this loss of love how “loving our neighbors” will be “improved” by total sanctification? Or God could delete memories so they won't remember previously-loved unsaved persons, won't “miss them” and won't be thinking about their death or misery, but... wouldn't a loss of memories decrease the “whole-person quality” of a saved person in Afterlife, and decrease the value of their Life? {will God produce Eternal Joy by causing a loss of love or by swiss-cheesing our memories?} Or a defender of damnation (with FA or EM) can just say “God has promised the WHAT of producing joy – 'He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there will be no more death, sadness, crying, or pain' – and even if we don't know HOW God will stop mourning (stop sadness & crying) for missing persons, we know that He can do this and will do it.” But if there is no satisfactory explanation-of-how, is this an indication that God won't cause FA or EM? By contrast, it's easy to understand how God could produce the best possible Eternal Joyfulness with Universal Restoration, because we'll be able to continue loving (in Afterlife) everyone we were loving (in Life).
how? universal salvation and free will: Universal Restoration proposes that in Afterlife unsaved people can be saved IF they repent (with belief), and all will repent, so God will save all. But if people have free will, how can we be certain that "ALL will repent"? Here are four possible responses: • maybe God has told us (in the Bible) that He will save all people. We can simply accept this WHAT, without knowing HOW God will do it. • maybe God will over-rule free will, so for every person it's God's choice (not the person's choice) that determines their salvation, and He always decides “yes” so every person will be saved, during Life or Afterlife. • maybe UR will happen with free-choice decisions of “yes” by every person. But HOW can God save all people, if during Afterlife any unsaved person can freely decide to stubbornly continue not-repenting? God has the ability to save each person because He knows all and can do all. He knows how to be strongly persuasive during Afterlife (even if He chose to avoid strong persuasion during Life) by providing stronger evidence and giving each person a freed will that is freed from its slavery to sin so a person is able to make a wise decision about repenting, and they wisely decide “yes” at some point. God has unlimited knowledge (of a particular person) and skill (in using His knowledge); He knows how to provide personally-customized experiences that will persuade this person so they freely choose to repent. The inevitable result – that this person WILL be saved – is analogous to a chess match between a master and novice; the chess master WILL win, due to having superior knowledge-and-skill, even though the novice is freely choosing their own moves, is not being controlled by the master player. {if God won't save people in Afterlife, instead will He give free will to unwise people during Life, but take free will from wise people during Afterlife?} {if a person believes Eternal Misery, is their “free-choice conversion” analogous to the “free-choice giving” in a gunpoint robbery?} • or maybe God will save some additional people, but not all, to produce semi-Universal Restoration (semi-UR). {we see this in The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis; more about Lewis and UR} |
the purpose of salvation: Are we mainly being saved from our slavery to sin? Or is the main benefit that God saves us from God because – if He doesn't save us – He will eternally torment us, causing Eternal Misery? Of course, defenders of EM say “both” but when a person is terrified by the threat of EM, they often will be mainly motivated by their fear of EM-Hell (of God harming them), not by their desire to be freed from sin, or by their love for God. {