Comments on: Romans 5:12 and the Fate of the Unborn, Infants, and Other Human Beings Who Cannot Believe From Birth

By: MSH

MSH — Sun, 20 May 2012 00:31:14 +0000

I think this comment needs to be reposted under the universalism posts somewhere.

By: Someone

Someone — Sat, 19 May 2012 03:19:35 +0000

Being thrown in the Lake of Fire and suffering for your sins because you did not accept Jesus is the stupidest thing I ever heard of. God does not “torture” people because of your sins and then allows them to be saved. In the Old Testament whenever someone sinned, death was his punishment. In fact, God said to Adam & Eve that death would be their punishment for disobeying Him, not suffering/torture.
AND WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THEY’RE THROWN IN THE LAKE OF FIRE AND PAY FOR THEIR SINS BY TORTURE? WHAT IF THEY DON’T WANT TO BE SAVED AFTER THAT? WILL GOD FORCE EVERYONE TO BE SAVED?
That’s a legit question. Say for example a person that wants nothing to do with God. He doesn’t want to be saved or anything, but just wants to die and get things over with (there are people like that you know). Will God throw them in the Lake of Fire and they will change their minds because they were tortured? God is forcing His salvation on people. A person cannot have a free will if he knows he will be tormented if he doesn’t accept Jesus.
FREE WILL
1.The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion.
Choosing between colours like blue and green. That is free will. But choosing either being with God or being tormented is NOT free will, because you’re being compelled to choose God.
Annihiliationism is the view that makes most sense. You either choose to be with God, or you are annihilated/obliterated from existence as punishment for your sins. Free will.
And also, do you ever wander what Judgement Day is for? If you believe in eternal torment in hell, the unbeliever dies and goes to hell, when Judgement day comes you are taken out of hell and judged for your sins, then thrown into something that is somehow worse than hell ! As you can see, that is extremely absurd, makes no sense, and is unjust. Why would you be tortured before your Judgement? Now about Universalem. Unbeliever dies, (sorry, dont know about universalism that much) then is judged, then thrown in lake of fire to be cleansed of your sin by torment? How would you feel if you were that person that was so “loveingly saved” by God? Annihilationism makes perfect sense. When an unbeliever dies he is dead. (well obviously) And then God resurrects him and judges him and tells him everything that he did wrong and why he deserves to die. And God kills him. That;s the end of that. No cruel torturing or “cleansing” required. IF I were that person I would see that God is just. After all, He did say that if you disobey Him you will DIE (Genesis 2:17) Yet most believe man cannot die, believing what the serpent said (Genesis 3:4). But if God threw me into Hell, or put me through some **** cleansing I would see that God is a tyrant and is not just and fair.

By: MSH

MSH — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 05:53:45 +0000

you really need to spend more time reading through the blog. The rapture comment was in jest. Please see my archive on eschatology. I take no position defending a rapture.

By: panamarick

panamarick — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 14:23:52 +0000

After fifty six years, fifty of them trying to understand “God’ and trying out every religion I could; I’m convinced religion it’s self is a load of s..t used by those in power to control those who are not in power.

With that said, I’m always trying to learn more on the subject. I find you interesting so far, but then you write something like this “Despite their moral innocence before God, though, they will (as will all humans – unless there is a rapture!) suffer death.”

My problem is with only one part of your opinion; it’s the “rapture” part. For the love of god man, how can a man of your education even utter the word let alone suggest there is any validity to the concept. We both know the “rapture’s” origin. Why advance this myth making your self look incompetent and your research suspect in the process? Really, I want to know.

By: MSH

MSH — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 07:32:46 +0000

I actually ran across something in an older article on a completely different subject where the author rabbit-trailed on Romans 5:12, criticizing it for incoherence in other regards (that made sense). Maybe some day I’ll hit it. I want to try and devote 2012 to academic journal publications. I have 6-7 divine council-related papers from conferences that need to become articles before I hit some other things.

By: Cris Putnam

Cris Putnam — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 00:34:28 +0000

Mike,

You should write this view of Ro 5:12 up and present it to ETS. It seems solid to me, I would like see if there are any serious challenges to be made. I can’t see any problems with it and it solves a lot of issues. I’ve heard the age of accountability exception used but this is much more coherent in total.

Cris

By: MSH

MSH — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:34:11 +0000

please read my posts on biblical anthropology; that will answer your questions.

By: Charlie Simpson

Charlie Simpson — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 12:25:33 +0000

Dr. Heiser, Do you agree with the view of man as a three part being (body, soul, & spirit) 1Thessalonians 5:23 & Hebrews 4:12 or do you agree with other Scholars that man’s spirit and soul are the same? In my view the first one is more scripturally correct. If so then where does man’s spirit come from? I am not of the opinion that man’s spirit comes from man when man procreates. God is the father of spirits (Hebrews 12:9). If man’s spirit comes from God at brith or conception then man does not suffer spiritual death (separation from God’s spirit) at birth. Spiritual death happens sometime later when the propensity to sin or sin nature which was passed on in the flesh body and perhaps soul or mind revives itself after knowing the difference between right and wrong (the law). Isn’t this what Paul is taking about in Romans 7:9 when he said that he was alive once but the law came, sin revived and I died? He cannot be talking about phycical death of the body since he is still writing the letter to the Romans. He is talking about Spiritual death and he says he was alive once spiritually but the propensity to sin which was in his members (flesh and mind) overcame him and he sinned (died spiritually). Every person’s name no matter what religion or non religion they are born into appears to be written in the book of life from birth. The 70 Christ sent out had their names already written in the book and they were not yet born again. If an infant, baby etc. dies without ever having a name then God gives them a name. If after they die spiritually they do not accept the free gift of spiritual regeneration offered then their names are blotted out of the book. I conclude with you that babies, infants, etc. are in heaven because they have not yet died spiritually and their names have not yet been blotted out of the book. YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS?

Charlie Simpson

By: Heiser and MacArthur: What Happens to Babies, the Unborn and Others When They Die? « Kit’s Blog

Sat, 15 Aug 2009 06:36:50 +0000

[...] Heiser and MacArthur: What Happens to Babies, the Unborn and Others When They Die? 2009 August 14 by kittykit Romans 5:12 and the Fate of the Unborn, Infants, and Other Human Beings Who Cannot Believe From Birt… [...]

By: MSH

MSH — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 18:29:36 +0000

@JEBoothjr: I think that David did see his son, but I cannot be *certain* David was thinking that. To me, the statement seems optimistic, and not *only* that David thought he would accompany his dead son in Sheol. I should do some blogging on the Sheol issue. I think the OT had a more optimistic view of the afterlife than many OT scholars do.