"Where is the free will in Love Me Or Burn Forever?"

[Not Worthy]

I wanted to put this as a reply in another thread in Controversial issues but that thread is locked. To me this isn't really a controversial issue.

I saw that comment under someone's YouTube video a few weeks ago and decided I would give the person a reply. This is what I said:

"If you understand what "you shall surely (most definitely) die" in Genesis 2:17 means you will understand what "God is not willing that any of us should perish" in 2 Peter 3:9 means; and if you understand what "for all have sinned" in Romans 3:23 and "Christ died for our sins" in 1 Corinthians 15:3 means, then finally you will understand what "did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world" and "He who believes on Him is not condemned" in John 3:17-18 means.

Then you will understand that the burning thing is a personal choice people make for themselves because we are not robots forced to receive rescue from everlasting death EVEN when it's freely given."

The everlasting death is both spiritual (separation from the Spirit of God, who is Life, John 6:63; John 3:6-8) and physical. Jesus used gehenna as a symbol of this state every time He spoke of it (example Matt 5:29; Matt 10:28). If Jesus spoke of this state implying that it is a real state, then it's a real state. John saw death and hades delivering all the souls in them in Rev 20:13-15. Anyone who was not found in the Lamb's book of Life (John 6:63; John 3:6-8) was cast into the Lake of Fire.

[Athanasius]

I think this sort of answer misses that the question is also asking why 'burn forever' is the alternative to 'love me (or else)'. Why can't God create a nice cosy place for all the people who don't want to be in relationship with Him, and if He's capable of doing such but refuses, doesn't that make Him vindictive, capricious, etc. etc.?

So it's not just a question of the choice we have, but of the decisions God makes.

[Slug1]

I think this sort of answer misses that the question is also asking why 'burn forever' is the alternative to 'love me (or else)'. Why can't God create a nice cosy place for all the people who don't want to be in relationship with Him, and if He's capable of doing such but refuses, doesn't that make Him vindictive, capricious, etc. etc.?

So it's not just a question of the choice we have, but of the decisions God makes.

For some, even for Christians, it can be difficult to understand the fullness of God's righteousness. Then compound His righteousness with His "sovereignty." So, when God has to "kill" His own Son so mankind can also be righteous due to Jesus' shed blood... there really should be zero consideration for what makes our "feeling" feel good about whether or not God's final punishment for the unrighteous is just, or not.

[Not Worthy]

I think this sort of answer misses that the question is also asking why 'burn forever' is the alternative to 'love me (or else)'. Why can't God create a nice cosy place for all the people who don't want to be in relationship with Him, and if He's capable of doing such but refuses, doesn't that make Him vindictive, capricious, etc. etc.?

So it's not just a question of the choice we have, but of the decisions God makes.

There's only so much that someone can put in a post under a YouTube video before you lose the concentration of the reader. But as for the question itself, I thought that the Bible telling us of (eternal) Life in Christ through faith in Christ and His Life-giving Spirit and His redemption bought by His sacrifice for sins as the only way to eternal Life explains the opposite. There is only (eternal) Life and (eternal) death set before us.

So what you said is like saying God is able to create a nice cozy place called everlasting destruction for those who refuse Life. God never created it any more than he created death. He created Adam to live forever and warned as much as "commanded" Adam that if he eats of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, he will surely die.  There's only (eternal) Life and (eternal) death. The latter is not cozy. The question asked in the YouTube comment itself is based on faulty thinking.

[Athanasius]

There's only so much that someone can put in a post under a YouTube video before you lose the concentration of the reader. But as for the question itself, I thought that the Bible telling us of (eternal) Life in Christ through faith in Christ and His Life-giving Spirit and His redemption bought by His sacrifice for sins as the only way to eternal Life explains the opposite. There is only (eternal) Life and (eternal) death set before us.

So what you said is like saying God is able to create a nice cozy place called everlasting destruction for those who refuse Life. God never created it any more than he created death. He created Adam to live forever and warned as much as "commanded" Adam that if he eats of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, he will surely die.  There's only (eternal) Life and (eternal) death. The latter is not cozy. The question asked in the YouTube comment itself is based on faulty thinking.

The heart of the objection is to suggest that God is able to create a cosy place for those who don't want to be in relationship with Him, but is unwilling, and in suggesting that God is unwilling the objection casts doubt on the idea that God is love/loving.

So, how does one reconcile the idea that God is love with the teaching that those who reject God go on to everlasting death, punishment, etc., if God could create some other place for these people to go? Or, why is God unwilling?

I have answers for myself that I consider compelling, but I take it to the above you would reply that this is just the way things are? I'm not sure how satisfactory that would be to someone who's calling into question God's character. The same for Slug1's reply above. I don't think the issue is people's lack of understanding or comprehension, but the perceived tension between how God is presented and the reality of hell, annihilation, or what have you.

[Not Worthy]

The heart of the objection is to suggest that God is able to create a cosy place for those who don't want to be in relationship with Him, but is unwilling, and in suggesting that God is unwilling the objection casts doubt on the idea that God is love/loving.

So, how does one reconcile the idea that God is love with the teaching that those who reject God go on to everlasting death, punishment, etc., if God could create some other place for these people to go? Or, why is God unwilling?

I have answers for myself that I consider compelling, but I take it to the above you would reply that this is just the way things are? I'm not sure how satisfactory that would be to someone who's calling into question God's character. The same for Slug1's reply above. I don't think the issue is people's lack of understanding or comprehension, but the perceived tension between how God is presented and the reality of hell, annihilation, or what have you.

Yeah I understand what you are saying but the way to point someone in the right direction is to at least attempt to help him to see it the Biblical way, ie God's way. We could invent noval or imaginative ways of answering but personally I'd rather just try to help the person see it from the Biblical perspective.

But that wasn't my point in my post. My point had more to do with the fact that everlasting destruction or death is a Biblical concept, and Jesus would not have spoken about it a number of times in such a way as to imply it's a reality if it is not a reality. There is only (eternal) Life. Outside of Life there is only (eternal) death, and only in Christ is there Life. This is the Biblical message from the day God told Adam about it. It's Satan who was the first to say, "You will NOT surely die."

[Athanasius]

Yes, the objection accepts this for the sake of argument and then presents its questions in light of.

[theMadJW]

Jehovah - yes; that is his inescapable NAME- NEVER stated that to Adam, Eve, or to ANYONE in their day...or to ISRAEL!
So, where did Christ CHANGE this?

[RandyPNW]

Excessive focus upon less important details obscures the point in names. A name identifies a person so we know who is being talked about. How you spell Jesus, or how you spell your own name, is not so important. Knowing who is being talked about is.

If I want to call you "Questions," or simply refer to you as "?," it matters not. Same with the name Yahweh, Jehovah, God, Lord, or the multitudes of descriptive names for God. I'm suspicious that those who make a big deal out of this are either obsessive compulsive about spelling things right, or are part of a cult that wishes to trash people who are orthodox so they can substitute for orthodox teaching their own cultic teaching.

Go ahead and ask your questions, but I've certainly not heard anything but a set-up for substituting your doctrine for orthodox Christian doctrine. Let me know if you're open to the doctrinally-orthodox positions or not? That's my main question for you!

[Athanasius]

Go ahead and ask your questions, but I've certainly not heard anything but a set-up for substituting your doctrine for orthodox Christian doctrine. Let me know if you're open to the doctrinally-orthodox positions or not? That's my main question for you!

It would be worth considering if this person (bot?) is actually here for answers, or if they're here to raise questions in the name of an agenda: God's name, priestly blessing, conspiracy, etc.

[RabbiKnife]

Watchtower.

[Athanasius]

Watchtower.

The JWs used to frequent our front door every 3 weeks or so. First, it was a lady by herself, then her husband, then some kids. An attempt not to argue in front of the children, I guess? But you know, I answered the door once wearing socks that had a floral pattern on them, and they never showed up again. Was it the theology? Was it the socks? We'll never know.

Also, overrated song, too.

[RabbiKnife]

Dude, it is that you answered the door wearing ONLY socks with a floral pattern, I'm guessing.  I mean, geez louise, bro...

My dad used to answer the door, invite them in, get into a great discussion about John 1:1, then reach in the side table hand hand them his Greek New testament UPSIDE down and ask them to show him how that "no definite article thingy" was consistent between "in THE beginning" and "the Logos," not six words apart, even in their Watchtower translation.

[Athanasius]

Dude, it is that you answered the door wearing ONLY socks with a floral pattern, I'm guessing.  I mean, geez louise, bro...

Yes, just floral socks, but it's Europe so I mean that's cool right?

My dad used to answer the door, invite them in, get into a great discussion about John 1:1, then reach in the side table hand hand them his Greek New testament UPSIDE down and ask them to show him how that "no definite article thingy" was consistent between "in THE beginning" and "the Logos," not six words apart, even in their Watchtower translation.

I should pick up a new Watchtower translation. The book of Mormon is looking a bit old.

[Quantrill]

I wanted to put this as a reply in another thread in Controversial issues but that thread is locked. To me this isn't really a controversial issue.

I saw that comment under someone's YouTube video a few weeks ago and decided I would give the person a reply. This is what I said:

"If you understand what "you shall surely (most definitely) die" in Genesis 2:17 means you will understand what "God is not willing that any of us should perish" in 2 Peter 3:9 means; and if you understand what "for all have sinned" in Romans 3:23 and "Christ died for our sins" in 1 Corinthians 15:3 means, then finally you will understand what "did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world" and "He who believes on Him is not condemned" in John 3:17-18 means.

Then you will understand that the burning thing is a personal choice people make for themselves because we are not robots forced to receive rescue from everlasting death EVEN when it's freely given."

The everlasting death is both spiritual (separation from the Spirit of God, who is Life, John 6:63; John 3:6-8) and physical. Jesus used gehenna as a symbol of this state every time He spoke of it (example Matt 5:29; Matt 10:28). If Jesus spoke of this state implying that it is a real state, then it's a real state. John saw death and hades delivering all the souls in them in Rev 20:13-15. Anyone who was not found in the Lamb's book of Life (John 6:63; John 3:6-8) was cast into the Lake of Fire.

I would say there is no free will being asked for in the statement 'love me or burn forever'.   Based on the law which says 'thou shalt love the LORD thy God', it is not an act of will but of obedience. 

In my opinion, love can be demanded, but never gotten by demand.   God knows this.   When one first comes to Christ, do they love Him?  Probably not.  They want to be saved by Him and are saved by their faith in Him.  Which is why we are not told to 'love me and thou shalt be saved'.  We are told to 'believe and thou shalt be saved'.  (John 3:18)  (Acts 16:30-31)

God wants our love towards Him.  But He gets it by loving us, despite us.  (1John 4:10)  We respond in kind.  Why?  Because love begats love.  Law does not begat love. 

Lees