If God's so loving why does he send people to hell?

[Walkerbyfaith]

I've heard this said 1000's of times. I've heard Christians reply. "because God cannot be around sin, so he has to send them to condemnation." Thats true to an extent, but what they are missing is God never has and never will send anyone to hell, He will throw them into the lake of fire, but not into hell, people choose to go there. Many times Christians explain the situation very wrong, which A could lead people away from Christ. B. Ultimatly make Christianity sound worse then those extremists make it sound. So I thought I'd post this in case some people were wondering. I'm sure 98 percent of you knew this though. :thumb Btw God will only throw the AntiChrist, Satan, The false prophet, and those who take the mark, into the Lake of fire.

[xajk]

God will only throw the AntiChrist, Satan, The false prophet, and those who take the mark, into the Lake of fire.

Rev.20
[15] And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

[antitox]

Look, I'll tell you what I believe, but I've already been lambasted for doing so because I don't have scriptures that support it (and really there aren't any that make it clear). I believe that God doesn't send people to hell, but He simply doesn't come get them when they die because they don't belong to Him. Demons wait to take those who are not saved, and when they die and God does not take them, demons take them directly to hell. There are a whole host of arguments over this issue, but it's not reason for anyone to break out the boxing gloves. :):

[blitzkreig]

Look, I'll tell you what I believe, but I've already been lambasted for doing so because I don't have scriptures that support it So how do you arrive at an opinion?

[blitzkreig]

I would suggest that you take a study of what it means to be "Holy". That understanding might help you in seeing in part the answer to the question "why".

You might also get an fragmentary understanding of what is means when we say something about "God's Justice" or that "God is Just".

[Jany]

I understand Scripture to say that our Lord God could send us ALL to hell because that is what we deserve.

What we need to remember is His love and that He wants all mankind to be saved and to be in heaven.

No one will be in hell because God wanted him there or didn't do all He could to persuade him to believe the gospel He has freely provided for all. Those who perish do so because they reject the salvation which God offers. <><

[cameron222]

Hal Lindsey once made a compelling statement. He said the inference is that all of our names are in the book of life and it is when a person turns away and rejects God that our name is then removed.

Interesting thought.

[blitzkreig]

I understand Scripture to say that our Lord God could send us ALL to hell because that is what we deserve.

What we need to remember is His love and that He wants all mankind to be saved and to be in heaven.

No one will be in hell because God wanted him there or didn't do all He could to persuade him to believe the gospel He has freely provided for all. Those who perish do so because they reject the salvation which God offers. <><So God's arm is to short to save "all"? :confused

I think it is important to understand that Christians should be "eternally grateful" as they have bestowed a special Grace which enables us to believe.

Now whether or not you feel Grace is "equally applied" to both the person unfortunate enough to be born deep in China's back country and to the person who lives in middle America I will leave up to you... :B:

I would contend that at a minimum, the person in middle America born to Christian parents has a infinitely greater chance of hearing and therefor believing.

[blitzkreig]

Hal Lindsey once made a compelling statement. He said the inference is that all of our names are in the book of life and it is when a person turns away and rejects God that our name is then removed.

Interesting thought.The book of life has every name "temporarily entered" but then removed as we all die. It is a book of the living.

The "Lambs Book of Life" has the names of those who are saved... and that from before the world began.2 Tim. 1:9. "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began."That there are more than one "book of life" is obvious from Scripture... but here is a most thorough study explaining it--> The Two-Books-of-Life (http://www.stupidgentiles.com/QR/TheTwoBooksOfLifeView.htm)


.

[carmen]

Interesting, Blitz...so you don't think everyone has an equal chance of coming to Christ? (Not baiting, genuinely curious :):)

[Maria]

I've heard this said 1000's of times. I've heard Christians reply. "because God cannot be around sin, so he has to send them to condemnation." Thats true to an extent, but what they are missing is God never has and never will send anyone to hell, He will throw them into the lake of fire, but not into hell, people choose to go there. Many times Christians explain the situation very wrong, which A could lead people away from Christ. B. Ultimatly make Christianity sound worse then those extremists make it sound. So I thought I'd post this in case some people were wondering. I'm sure 98 percent of you knew this though. :thumb Btw God will only throw the AntiChrist, Satan, The false prophet, and those who take the mark, into the Lake of fire.


People also make their own decisions... God doesn't throw anyone in Hell, because condemn themsleves by their own actions... God gives more than plenty of warning to people for the consequences of sin...

Its been over 2,000 yrs since Jesus's death, now hey, that sounds like a lot of time to me.....

[blitzkreig]

Interesting, Blitz...so you don't think everyone has an equal chance of coming to Christ? (Not baiting, genuinely curious :):) Using my China example? Absolutely not.

This is where Hootmon normally brings up "inputed" ;): but the facts are we are truly blessed, and the heathen in central China may have only the evidence planted in them by God and God's creation ... not 24 hour television coverage via TBN. Notwithstanding the TBN doctrinal "challenges", the average North American has a zillion times better chance of hearing God's word.Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Now of course all that is supposing that God has no actual say in where His "special" Grace gets deposited... a "theory" which I directly challenge on the basis of Scripture alone.

But on the basis of "predisposition" allowing only for cultural and familial inclination only... of course we are favoured.

God is "Gracious" to all men. But to those who are saved there is a saving Grace. ;):


.

[blitzkreig]

A most interesting book to read is John Bunyan's thesis titled Reprobation Asserted (http://acacia.pair.com/Acacia.John.Bunyan/Sermons.Allegories/Reprobation.Asserted/6.html)

Even the subtitle is intersting...

The Doctrine of Eternal Election and Reprobation
Promiscuously Handled,
In Eleven Chapters.
Wherein the most material objections made by the opposers of
this doctrine, are fully answered; several doubts removed,
and sundry cases of conscience resolved.
The difference between being reprobated and being appointed to
condemnation; reprobation not the cause of sin or of condemnation.

[carmen]

Hm. I agree we are blessed, but have a hard time meshing what you are saying with the idea that all men that are saved, are saved because God draws them. Whether in China or in America, it is by the same method we are saved.

I guess this is why I have always believed there is such paradox in God's role in salvation (which is everything), and man's choice in salvation (which is also taught) :lol.

[antsinmypants]

I got to hear that famous line today on a talk show here in Bham, and it drove me up the wall that I couldn't call in.

The guy was commenting the new 666 movie coming out... and said how he was a "biblical scholar" this that and the other... and then used that line and how he thinks hell isn't what people say-- and how it never referred to a lake of fire (Guess he forgot about gehinnom {sp? :confused}!)...

Anyway, he used the "G-d is love" and "he can't send people.." blah crap.

He also went in to say he was such a scholar of Judaism and all this- and I just wanted to call and say "Ah yes, but you remember that G-d says "I am the G-d of Mercy" as well as "I am the G-d of justice".."

But it was all to no avail, as he claimed that more than half of the bible was just mythology passed on to Israel :twitch


We are definitely in the last days folks... :sigh

[blitzkreig]

Hm. I agree we are blessed, but have a hard time meshing what you are saying with the idea that all men that are saved, are saved because God draws them. Whether in China or in America, it is by the same method we are saved. I don't understand the question...

I guess this is why I have always believed there is such paradox in God's role in salvation (which is everything), and man's choice in salvation (which is also taught) :lol.have you read the short paper I have posted from time to time called "Are There Two Wills in God (http://www.gracesermons.com/hisbygrace/twowills.html)?"

I think it might help you resolve the paradox (at least in part)...

The first paragraph should be enough to get you to read the rest... ;): My aim in this chapter is to show from Scripture that the simultaneous existence of God's will for "all persons to be saved" (1 Tim. 2:4) and his will to elect unconditionally those who will actually be saved is not a sign of divine schizophrenia or exegetical confusion. A corresponding aim is to show that unconditional election therefore does not contradict biblical expressions of God's compassion for all people, and does not nullify sincere offers of salvation to everyone who is lost among all the peoples of the world.

[carmen]

I don't understand the question...Sorry :lol. I just meant that it seems saying we in America have more chance to come to God than those that don't have God's word in such abundance, is a little in conflict with the fact that no matter the abundance or lack thereof, God's drawing of us to Him is the determining factor in whether or not we are able to come. Not so much the abundance of His word, although He certainly does work through our preaching and teaching of it.

(Wow, I am out of breath just TYPING that first run-on sentence :lol)

And you were right....that paragraph certainly catches my interests. I'll have a look. Thanks :D:

[lookup]

Concerning the subject of a loving God sending people to hell, I would recommend a really good book: "The Loving God of Prophecy," by Tim LaHaye.

[frisian1970]

Unconditionally elect?

Conditions related to the elect or lack there of? Or the election of the elect?

To suggest that the election of beings has no conditions applied seems illogical.

:noidea

[frisian1970]

Using my China example? Absolutely not.

This is where Hootmon normally brings up "inputed" ;): but the facts are we are truly blessed, and the heathen in central China may have only the evidence planted in them by God and God's creation ... not 24 hour television coverage via TBN. Notwithstanding the TBN doctrinal "challenges", the average North American has a zillion times better chance of hearing God's word.Now of course all that is supposing that God has no actual say in where His "special" Grace gets deposited... a "theory" which I directly challenge on the basis of Scripture alone. I suppose I would question what you define as equal chance as opposed to what God defines as such.

But on the basis of "predisposition" allowing only for cultural and familial inclination only... of course we are favoured. If we are truly favoured, that makes election conditional.

God is "Gracious" to all men. But to those who are saved there is a saving Grace. ;):


.

Hmm, big deal in regards to "mere graciousness".

[blitzkreig]

I think we need to account for "where in the world" God placed a particular "soul". I mean He would not place a soul which was elect, in someone in inner China ... without a number of preconditions. I don't believe it is in any way "random".

Those preconditions could be any number of variables ... but which would ultimately lead to that persons salvation. Not the least of which is the "hearing" of the Word.

Paul was "steered" clear of Asia by God ... then He was "steered" to Asia by God. All of which would never have been random but planned in advance. Just because I don't know what the plan was, doesn't negate the fact that there was a plan ... right down to who Paul met with and when they met.

[frisian1970]

I think we need to account for "where in the world" God placed a particular "soul". I mean He would not place a soul which was elect, in someone in inner China ... without a number of preconditions. I don't believe it is in any way "random".

Those preconditions could be any number of variables ... but which would ultimately lead to that persons salvation. Not the least of which is the "hearing" of the Word.

Paul was "steered" clear of Asia by God ... then He was "steered" to Asia by God. All of which would never have been random but planned in advance. Just because I don't know what the plan was, doesn't negate the fact that there was a plan ... right down to who Paul met with and when they met.

I agree there is a plan, I just disagree with the speculation being portrayed as other than such.

[seeker42]

My aim in this chapter is to show from Scripture that the simultaneous existence of God's will for "all persons to be saved" (1 Tim. 2:4) and his will to elect unconditionally those who will actually be saved is not a sign of divine schizophrenia or exegetical confusion. A corresponding aim is to show that unconditional election therefore does not contradict biblical expressions of God's compassion for all people, and does not nullify sincere offers of salvation to everyone who is lost among all the peoples of the world.


I thought this was very well stated.

People end up in Hell because they accept to believe a lie, they do not have a love of the truth and they refuse to obey God. In other words, people receive the consequences of their own rebellion (by going to Hell) when they rebel against God.

Romans 1 notes that God ascribes Salvation to those who believe in Him with the right heart. This is also what it means when it says that Abraham believed, and God accounted Abraham's belief as righteousness.

God reveals Himself to those who genuinely seek Him. We may not know who genuinely seeks God and who does not. But God knows this.

[blitzkreig]

I suppose I would question what you define as equal chance as opposed to what God defines as such.

There are two major schools of thought about "equal chance" to choose ... "indeterminism" and "determinism".

The definitions I got from a quote of an article by a Dr. John Feinberg. His book is a heavy philosophical article titled "God Ordains All Things, Predestination and Freewill".

indeterminism: This view claims that an individual’s acts are free only if that person could always have chosen to do otherwise. They typically deny that there is anything which causes a person to have to act in one way rather than another. Causal conditions (causes, forces, or influences) may push or incline the will, but the individual can always choose contrary to them. While choices are made for a reason, the indeterminist cannot provide a causal explanation why an individual would act according to one particular reason or another.

determinism: By contrast, the determinist claims that with every decision a person makes, there are causal conditions playing upon his or her will so as to incline it decisively and sufficiently in one direction rather than another. Given prevailing causal influences and without mitigating forces, it is impossible for an individual to choose otherwise.

By those definitions I would tilt toward determinism.
If we are truly favoured, that makes election conditional. Just the opposite I would think...


.

[blitzkreig]

People end up in Hell because they accept to believe a lie, they do not have a love of the truth and they refuse to obey God. In other words, people receive the consequences of their own rebellion (by going to Hell) when they rebel against God. I think we all are under that condition...
Rom 3:10-12
(10) As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
(11) There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
(12) They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.


Romans 1 notes that God ascribes Salvation to those who believe in Him with the right heart. This is also what it means when it says that Abraham believed, and God accounted Abraham's belief as righteousness.

God reveals Himself to those who genuinely seek Him. We may not know who genuinely seeks God and who does not. But God knows this.I think it is more "orderly" than that. No one actually seeks unless given the unction by God ...


.

[blitzkreig]

To suggest that the election of beings has no conditions applied seems illogical.
I think you could find parallels in "son-ship". We are his children.

I have no preconditions for my children and neither does He.

To address the OP question " If God's so loving why does he send people to hell? " ... we are all under judgement and the sentence is to be hell. The better question is "why is He saving us?". And "if it is only us, why not everyone?".

That is the question which drives the "freewill" camp. And it sure is a good question.

The answer is bound up in God's Eternal Counsel and we are not privy to that information. It has something to do with Justice. Perhaps there can't be a perfect "reward" if there is no perfect "punishment"? Heaven wouldn't be Heaven if there were no Hell... ? But that would be pure speculation.

[frisian1970]

There are two major schools of thought about "equal chance" to choose ... "indeterminism" and "determinism".

The definitions I got from a quote of an article by a Dr. John Feinberg. His book is a heavy philosophical article titled "God Ordains All Things, Predestination and Freewill".

indeterminism: This view claims that an individual’s acts are free only if that person could always have chosen to do otherwise. They typically deny that there is anything which causes a person to have to act in one way rather than another. Causal conditions (causes, forces, or influences) may push or incline the will, but the individual can always choose contrary to them. While choices are made for a reason, the indeterminist cannot provide a causal explanation why an individual would act according to one particular reason or another.

determinism: By contrast, the determinist claims that with every decision a person makes, there are causal conditions playing upon his or her will so as to incline it decisively and sufficiently in one direction rather than another. Given prevailing causal influences and without mitigating forces, it is impossible for an individual to choose otherwise.

By those definitions I would tilt toward determinism.


Which as opposed to balance and paradoxes rely heavily on strict determinism or non-determinism.

Just the opposite I would think...

I suppose we need to define what is a condition. Are attributes of God, conditions? I suggest so.

[frisian1970]

I think you could find parallels in "son-ship". We are his children.

Which is of none of our own choosing? What would logically follow is that our actions are not of our doing thus making us innocent, as that of those not chosen.


I have no preconditions for my children and neither does He.

How about "fitting" into his Sovereign plan? How is that not a condition?

[blitzkreig]

I suppose we need to define what is a condition. Are attributes of God, conditions? I suggest so.I would think just the opposite. God is absolute and not contingent in any way...

Jam 1:17-18 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. That is the definition of "Sovereign"... in a single verse.


.

[carmen]

Good chapter, Blitz...thanks for providing the link. Not sure I agree entirely with the final conclusion, but overall it fits much of what I thought--though there is no way I ever could have put it into words, much less so eloquently :):

[blitzkreig]

Which is of none of our own choosing? What would logically follow is that our actions are not of our doing thus making us innocent, as that of those not chosen.Using human logic it would seem so but read God's reply ...
Rom 9:19-21
(19) Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
(20) Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
(21) Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

How about "fitting" into his Sovereign plan? How is that not a condition?You keep reverting to the supposition that we need to cooperate in some way :lol (just kidding)


.

[frisian1970]

I would think just the opposite. God is absolute and not contingent in any way...

That is the definition of "Sovereign"... in a single verse.


.


:confused Are attributes greater, lesser, or the essence of God therefore "equal to?

[blitzkreig]

Good chapter, Blitz...thanks for providing the link. Not sure I agree entirely with the final conclusion, but overall it fits much of what I thought--though there is no way I ever could have put it into words, much less so eloquently :):I rarely agree 100% with anything myself (except Scripture that is :doh ) but it is a "keeper" kind of article. :thumb

[frisian1970]

Using human logic it would seem so but read God's reply ... And God doesn't deny it, just reverts to might makes right?


You keep reverting to the supposition that we need to cooperate in some way :lol (just kidding)


Hmmm, or I would suggest strict determinism is akin to Aleister Crowley's "do as thou wilt". Because you aren't influencing your choices anyway.

What is really "you" anyway? A priori assumptions that are rather God's tuning of our perception to adapt to his predetermined course?

[blitzkreig]

:confused Are attributes greater, lesser, or the essence of God therefore "equal to? The nature of God is that He gets to set the rules. We know only in part what God's "attributes" are and only to the degree which He has chosen to reveal them.

We think we know more than we likely do ...

We have Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, etc. but each of these absolutes actually are diminished because we chose to set them down in words on paper. They are no longer absolute. (I hope that makes a bit of sense).

We neglect God by relegating Him to heaven in our culture. And it is hard to part with our human understanding. It is typified by that Bette Meddler song where she sings about God "at a distance".

Without God's constant intervention (support) my atoms would fall to the ground breaking even the Laws of Physics which He set in motion ... because the Laws of Physics have to be "underwritten" by the surety of God's bank. ;): My check would bounce :lol

[frisian1970]

The nature of God is that He gets to set the rules. Agreed, must they be consistent? And unchanging?
We know only in part what God's "attributes" are and only to the degree which He has chosen to reveal them.

We think we know more than we likely do ...

:confused I think I agree.

We have Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, etc. but each of these absolutes actually are diminished because we chose to set them down in words on paper. They are no longer absolute. (I hope that makes a bit of sense). :confused

We neglect God by relegating Him to heaven in our culture. And it is hard to part with our human understanding. It is typified by that Bette Meddler song where she sings about God "at a distance". All Bette the Meddler references shall be ruled void.

Without God's constant intervention (support) my atoms would fall to the ground breaking even the Laws of Physics which He set in motion ... because the Laws of Physics have to be "underwritten" by the surety of God's bank. ;): My check would bounce :lol

Ok, if you say look at the pony I will likely look and have many thoughts on it, how does this fit into it?

[blitzkreig]

And God doesn't deny it, just reverts to might makes right? No I don't think so. He even makes the rules too ... ;):

But because of God's "attributes" as you say, He can not lie and he has told us that He is Just. So like it or not when He says something it is "Truth" by definition. We won't necessarily understand it "this side of heaven"... but we will when we get there and Scripture says we will rejoice at His Justice.

What is really "you" anyway? A priori assumptions that are rather God's tuning of our perception to adapt to his predetermined course?... all on God's bigscreen TV?

I have read philosophers who wax on about the universe being contained in a glass jar on God's fireplace mantle. I doubt it but who knows ... ?

[frisian1970]

No I don't think so. He even makes the rules too ... ;):

But because of God's "attributes" as you say, He can not lie and he has told us that He is Just. So like it or not when He says something it is "Truth" by definition. We won't necessarily understand it "this side of heaven"... but we will when we get there and Scripture says we will rejoice at His Justice.

Eh, but according to your we know not all of God's attributes we don't know further paradoxes. And what you just said could contradict itself.

[blitzkreig]

Agreed, must they be consistent? And unchanging? He is immutable (unchangeable) but the way he treats man and what His expectations of man are changing all the time. By my count we are in the 6th Dispensation right now.


Ok, if you say look at the pony I will likely look and have many thoughts on it, how does this fit into it?OK it was a limp comment :pound I was trying to convey the constant nature of God's dealings with mankind...

[blitzkreig]

Eh, but according to your we know not all of God's attributes we don't know further paradoxes. Now you are getting it! :thumb

And what you just said could contradict itself.Exactly. :nod

I love that recent quote from Rumsfeld...

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." :pound

[frisian1970]

He is immutable (unchangeable) but the way he treats man and what His expectations of man are changing all the time. By my count we are in the 6th Dispensation right now. You are abusing the fact that I can be led on tangents. :fish 6th Dispensation? What is that?


OK it was a limp comment :pound I was trying to convey the constant nature of God's dealings with mankind...

:tsk

:lol

[frisian1970]

Now you are getting it! :thumb

Exactly. :nod

I love that recent quote from Rumsfeld...

:pound

Are you using my long winded aim at suggesting we don't know "jack", and yet we debate "jack" all day here?

:confused

[carmen]

I'm not sure how much this helps at all, but in discussing the question about if or why God "sends people to hell," we have to remember that Christ told us why hell was created in Matthew 25:41. It wasn't for man, but for satan and the demons: "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

[Hootmon]

Are you using my long winded aim at suggesting we don't know "jack", and yet we debate "jack" all day here?"Reports that say that some Jack hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are Jacks we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some Jacks we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the Jacks we don't know we don't know."

[frisian1970]

:fish

[blitzkreig]

You are abusing the fact that I can be led on tangents. :fish 6th Dispensation? What is that? This should be fodder for another thread but in short, there are seven "dispensations" or "administrations" (stewardships?)which are —Innocence, Conscience, Human Government, Promise, Law, Grace, and Kingdom—in the traditional sense of Dispensationalism.

Some of the more notable early dispensationalists such as John Edwards (1639-1716), and Isaac Watts (1674-1748) recognized six dispensations while others acknowledged seven—J. N. Darby (1800-1882), James Brooks (1830-1897), James Gray (1851-1935), and C. I. Scofield (1843-1921).

The "rapture" depends upon Dispensationalism line of thinking as a foundation... for example.

this from A Dispensational Model: The Essentials
John M. Baze, Jr.:


The English term, dispensation, originates from the Latin word, dispensatia, which is defined as a “management or administration.” [14] The Latin Vulgate utilized this word to translate the New Testament Greek term, oikonomia. With twenty occurrences in various forms, [15] an examination of its usage in the New Testament demonstrates the lexical meanings of:

• oikonome (verb-1): 1. be manager; 2. manage, regulate, administer, plan
• oikonomia (noun-9): 1. management of a household, direction, office; 2. arrangement, order, plan
• oikonomos (noun-10): 1. (house) steward, manager [16]
As Ryrie points out, “the central idea in the word dispensation is that of managing or administering the affairs of a household.” [17]

After presenting his concise definition, “A dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God’s purpose”, Ryrie follows with an explanation of each principal part: [18]
In using the word economy as the core of the definition, the emphasis is put on the biblical meaning of the word itself. Economy also suggests that certain features of different dispensations might be the same or similar.

However, the word distinguishable in the definition points out that some of the features are distinctive to each dispensation and mark them out from each other as different dispensations. These are contained in the particular revelation distinctive to each dispensation.

The phrase “the outworking of God’s purpose” in the definition reminds us that the viewpoint in distinguishing the dispensations is God’s, not man’s. The dispensations are economies instituted and brought to their purposeful conclusion by God. The distinguishing features are introduced by God; the similar features are retained by God; and the overall combined purpose of the whole program is the glory of God.

The importance of understanding each of these practical elements affects a proper interpretation of the progressive revelation of truth in the Word of God as he summarizes: [19]

Dispensationalism views the world as a household run by God. In His house-hold world God is dispensing or administering its affairs according to His own will and in various stages of revelation in the passage of time. These various stages mark out the distinguishably different economies in the outworking of His total purpose, and these different economies constitute the dispensations. The understanding of God’s differing economies is essential to a proper interpretation of His revelation within those various economies.


.

[blitzkreig]

I'm not sure how much this helps at all, but in discussing the question about if or why God "sends people to hell," we have to remember that Christ told us why hell was created in Matthew 25:41. It wasn't for man, but for satan and the demons: "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.It isn't stated that "it WASN'T prepared for man"... but that it "WAS prepared for Satan et al". There is a big difference.

I have heard the sentiment before... but I would find it difficult to believe that God wouldn't actually know "ahead of time" that sinners of the human kind would also be housed therein ... that it was some kind of an afterthought...

[carmen]

Knowing ahead of time and actually creating it for that intention are two different things :P: :lol

[blitzkreig]

Knowing ahead of time and actually creating it for that intention are two different things :P: :lolGood point. You are right ... and come to think of it, it is likely worded that way on purpose as well :doh

[frisian1970]

Good point. You are right ... and come to think of it, it is likely worded that way on purpose as well :doh

:gossip This is the place to use tangents. Like tell her, her avatar is evil or something.

[blitzkreig]

:gossip This is the place to use tangents. Like tell her, her avatar is evil or something.I thought it was three doctors wearing green surgical cap and masks looking down on me ... not that it was evil too :twitch

[frisian1970]

:spit I thought it was three doctors wearing green surgical cap and masks looking down on me ... not that it was evil too :twitch

[prairiedog]

Why should God spare those who reject His Son?

Think of it this way:

Let's say you (the reader) have a really neat vacation home located in a popular recreational area.

You aren't particularly popular for reasons that are not your fault.

You genuinely love other people, & you have a certain marvelous gift in which you wish to share with others. Only the people you wish to share with are too shallow to recognize that the marvelous gift is better than anything else you have to offer.
They are only interested in using you to go to your vacation home...for free of course, & without you.

Should you let them use the retreat so that you won't look like a big meanie?

God has a really neat vacation home called Heaven.
He isn't particularly popular with the secular world, & that isn't His fault.
He offers all mankind the gift of Salvation through His Son, Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
The non-believers aren't interested because they refuse to admit their need for the Lord & do not value the gift of Salvation.
But they expect to escape hell, & have a lovely eternal existence without God and without penalty.

Is it reasonable to expect God to be lenient in order to be considered loving & merciful?

I believe He is fair and just.

[carmen]

I thought it was three doctors wearing green surgical cap and masks looking down on me ... not that it was evil too :twitch:evil :heh