by Regnis Numis » Mon Jun 18, 2018 2:01 pm
> I don't think so. The Bible is clear that Jesus is the standard, Jesus is the way, and Jesus is the one in whom one must believe to see eternal life. So there's something about Jesus, in particular, that is crucial to the equation.
If we must believe in Jesus to receive eternal life, then how is it possible for God to make allowances of criteria for those who haven't heard and thus lack belief in Christ? Isn't this a contradiction? Or do such people simply receive a lesser reward than eternal life, depending on their life choices? Or if we accept that God does make such allowances, then couldn't God also make allowances with those who have heard yet do not believe by gauging their motivations, decisions, and the information available to them?
> God is always fair all the time.
And to be a fair judge, wouldn't God need to evaluate everybody individually based on their motivations, decisions, and the information available to them regarding Christianity? Since you've stated the following about those who've heard:
> They will face the appropriate consequences for their choices based on an accurate assessment of how they were thinking, what motivated them to make the decisions they did, and what they did with the information given to them.
And issued a similar claim in your original post regarding those who haven't heard: "Based on Romans 5.13, I think it's fair to say that people who haven't heard of Jesus will not be judged on whether they believed in Christ or not. That doesn't make any sense. They will be judged fairly given their own motivations and actions. People will be judged according to the information they had, what they did with it, and their motives behind it. Every judgment will be fair based on what information people had, what they knew, what their motives were, and how they behaved given what they had access to."
Yet you disagree with my point here: "In that case, wouldn't it be more accurate to claim God judges everybody differently based on their motivations, decisions, and the information available to them?"
I'd like to know where exactly you believe our points diverge.
"C.S. Lewis, whom I consider to be a fascinating thinker, said (my summary, not a quote): You object to the doctrine of hell. What are you asking God to do? To wipe out past sins at all costs and to give anyone who wants it a fresh start, smoothing difficulties and offering help? But He has DONE that. That's what his death and resurrection were all about. OK, then, are you asking God to forgive you? It's a RELATIONSHIP. He will forgive anyone who wants it, and cannot forgive those who choose not to be forgiven. To leave you alone then? Well, I’m afraid that’s what hell is. If a game is played, it must be possible to lose it. If there is a way that must be found by the will, and by love, then it must be possible to refuse it. If the happiness of a person is honestly the result of self-surrender, then no one can make that decision except himself, and he may refuse. I would love to say everyone will be saved. But then I’d have to ask, "Will they be saved against their will, or with it?" If I say "against their will," I'm in the middle of a contradiction; how can self-surrender and love be involuntary? But if the answer is "With their will," it begs the question: "What if they will not give in?"
I have a few thoughts. First of all, doesn't this mean it's entirely possible that those who've never heard of Christ in life may reject Him upon discovering His existence in the afterlife? Secondly, if Hell simply means God leaving us alone, then doesn't this diminish His role as a judge? Judges never punish offenders by "leaving them alone", but through administering harsh penalties. Speaking of which, if Hell is merely separation from God, then why are there varying degrees of punishment in Hell? Where do these various forms of punishment originate from? Did God design them? Or Satan? Or do human souls each carve their own version of Hell somehow through their wickedness?