Top 10 Blog Posts on

Top 10 Blog Posts on

It’s been a little over a year since I started this blog and this is an assessment by numbers.  Numbers are by no means an accurate measurement of success in the Kingdom of God.  If this blog has any value at all, it is because it belongs to God.  Whether He makes me the manager of much or little, I am blessed to be partnering with Him in the redemption of the world.  Whatever He decides to do with is fine with me.  If the stats drop to one page view per month, guess what?  It can still be a huge success for His Kingdom.

Anyhoo – here are the numbers, as of May 18, 2012:

5,952 people have viewed

63% of these are returning visitors (have viewed the blog more than once)

37% of these are new visitors (have only viewed the blog once) has been viewed 64,275 times

There are 358 blog posts in the archive.


Top Ten Blogs

Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: Saved by Who’s Choice?

Exposition on the Reign of God: Narrow vs Wide

Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: Jesus, Lord of Distance

The Diamond Necklace

Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: In This Life

Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: Fear Not

Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: Abomination

Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: English vs Greek

*about this blog (next to the “Home” tab at the top of the home page)

One of Chan’s Missing Scriptures


Obviously, people like reading the Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell series.  Can you believe I’m only on chapter three?  I used a yellow marker to highlight anything that seemed “off” to me in Francis Chan’s book, Erasing Hell, and I purposed to write a blog on each and every point.

Thank you, to those of you who read this blog.  And to those of you who don’t – may God put another minister of reconciliation in your circle of influence, a gadfly of truth to find you and bite your ass.

PS. This blog post will also be a tab, next to “Home” and “*about this blog” and “Videos” at the top of the home page.  So, if you refer someone to this blog, you may want to use that link, since it has the most popular blog posts.


  • Lanny A. Eichert May 19, 2012 at 4:14 am

    Alice, there’s no way your Amazing Hope heresy belongs to God; nor does your success.

  • Mary Vanderplas May 19, 2012 at 6:12 am

    Thank you for what you do in sharing the good news of God’s love for all people and his purpose that all receive his saving grace. Your blogs have challenged, enlightened, stretched, corrected, inspired, and otherwise blessed and helped me immeasurably. I hope that many find their way to your website and to the God whose love and grace for undeserving sinners knows no limits.

    Keep up the wonderful work! (I am blessed and inspired, too, by your modeling of our task as Christ-followers of giving ourselves for the world – in a spirit of complete solidarity with these others, without any trace of judgment or condescension.)

  • Lanny A. Eichert May 19, 2012 at 12:54 pm

    Well, if Mary cannot discern literal water from figurative water in 2 Peter 3: 7, why should I be surprised that none of you can discern that you all dispute the simple and direct words of the very Son of God, Jesus Christ, in John 17: 12 that Judas Iscariot is perished forever after three and a half years as a thief in His very presence. You call Jesus of Nazareth a Liar and think you are enlightened.

    Nor do you understand that profane Esau who failed of the grace of God while even being in tears he found no repentance and eternall perished. {see Hebrews 12: 15 – 17}

    Mankind are moral creatures and subject to eternal judgment, wake up, you foolishly darkened people. You make God out to be a pervert that unconditionally saves His few Elect by giving them saving grace in this life and then in the after-life tortures everybody else until He has satisfied His sadistic pleasure before He gives them saving grace; and that He planned His horrible actions that way from before He created anything. Your God delights in torturing the majority of humanity by withholding saving grace until His sadistic pleasures are satisfied. Your God saved only a minority so that they’d have no power to object to His unequal justice. See what your Amazing Hope does to your God, you enlightened people? See what a non-literal approach to the Holy Bible does? Don’t you know you all are unbelievers and destined to perish in the Lake of Fire forever?

  • Stephen Helbig May 20, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    Alice, I’m very thankful to Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, for allowing me to come across
    Below is the first post I shared with friends after finding your blog

    • Stephen Helbig via Alice Dean Spicer
    I greatly respect the blog WWW:WHATGODDOES.COM Thanks for pursuing and questioning the very truths found in God Word and comparing them to our “carnal” man made traditions that separate us.
    Avoiding Elaborate Commands «
    Let’s suppose you are judging behavior only. Should you be? Jesus said, “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.”
    Like • • Share • August 29, 2011 at 10:47am

    Having said that I’d like to add, I love it when the Spirit of the scriptures are made known. As we know it is the Spirit which gives LIFE and not the letter (literal) understanding of God’s Word. We are meant to be ministers of reconciliation by His Spirit of truth and love and not of literal repetition of carnal thinking, and for this I give thanks
    2 Corinthians 3:6
    Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

    To quote a friend and precious brother in the Lord;
    “GOD IS LOVE AND TRUTH! And the HIDDEN WISDOM of God is found in every story, in every life, in every situation, in every heart, in every minute or every day. So seek the SPIRIT of the story, not the letter of it all. Seek the WISDOM from above and remember what God’s wisdom truly is.”
    JAMES 3
    17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
    18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

    For those that want to condemn others, persecute others, tear down others, this is the path to a life of despair. But for those who love all, accept all, and stretch their hands toward all… this is the wisdom that is above all.

    It is my great hope and prayer, that this WISDOM which is PURE, PEACEABLE, GENTLE, EASY, FILLED WITH MERCY, WITHOUT PARTIALITY, AND WITHOUT HYPOCRISY… THIS WISDOM of which I find in this blog will continue to write LIFE upon the very souls God sends your way, and I say as Paul states, … Therefore, my beloved sister, be ye steadfast and unmoveable; always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labour is not in vain in the Lord. … Thanks again for watering my soul as our God gives the increase

    • admin May 20, 2012 at 11:30 pm

      Thank you for your encouraging words, Stephen.

  • Lanny A. Eichert May 21, 2012 at 6:07 pm

    Alice, since you hold that salvation is ALL of God and NONE of man, I assume you also hold that God is the first Mover and man cannot respond on his own. Your revulsion from childhood to eternal torment causes you to frame a god who administers saving grace to only a few {the Elect} in this life, but then administers saving grace to the majority after this life when they are in the Lake of Fire from which he has chosen at last to rescue them. The results are that the few enjoy your god’s grace in this life and the ages of the after-life, but the many suffer the struggles and miseries of this life only to find themselves in the torments of the after-life in the Lake of Fire until your god in whatever age of the ages he chooses to rescue an individual administers to that individual grace to be saved and thereafter all that suffering he finally gets to enjoy your god’s grace. You have no idea how many ages they who are in the Lake of Fire must endure because you say it is different for each individual to eventually confess Jesus is Lord, but just that you are certain they eventually will because you god is not willing that any should perish. Do you see that how long they last in the Lake of Fire depends on when your god administers grace to be saved? They cannot be ready to confess Christ until your god moves first to enable them. Therefore your god is responsible for how long they stay in the Lake of Fire. It doesn’t at all depend on them in the least, since they cannot respond to your god until your god administers grace to them. You do admit to ages meaning long periods of suffering torment different according to the individual since they resisted in different ways in this life according to their corruptions and magnitudes of their earthly sins. Your god loves them individually and administers the Lake of Fire remedial punishment in accordance to their individual crimes. BUT YOUR GOD DETERMINES WHEN TO MAKE THEM REFORMED. Your god determines when the remedial work is accomplished, because he holds transforming grace in his own will. Your god determines when to MAKE them reformed. Your god plays with humanity, Alice, like a child plays with dolls. Your estimation of sins are finite like Mary’s. Your estimate of sins reduces your god to a finite god, and your redemption is finite, but you don’t see that your god provided salvation for the finite sins of a finite humanity to remain forever like unto finite humanity.

    Since God is infinite and sins are crimes against the Infinite, the offense is infinite, the punishment is infinite. Since the punishment is infinite, there is never an instant when the remedial work is accomplished. Therefore the punishment is eternal torment. Only the Infinite Redeemer could effect eternal salvation for finite man to be made like unto the Infinite God. Your salvation concept is all wrong, Alice. It doesn’t account for the infiniteness of the Redeemer God.

    • admin May 21, 2012 at 10:33 pm

      Your summary of my views is incomplete and not entirely accurate. My summary of your views is that they are based on conjecture. Where did you get this idea that “Since God is infinite and sins are crimes against the Infinite, the offense is infinite, the punishment is infinite”? What evidence do you have to support this claim?

      • Lanny A. Eichert May 22, 2012 at 12:04 am

        Where is my DETAILED summary of your views incomplete and not entirely accurate?

        Where do you get the idea that it is not so that since God is infinite and sins are crimes against the Infinite, the offense is infinite, the punishment is infinite”? What evidence do you have to support your seeming objection? Is God not infinite?

        For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. {Isaiah 55: 9}

        • admin May 22, 2012 at 10:23 am

          Seriously? That’s your defense of your theory? That verse from Isaiah is a blanket statement that can be applied to so many ideas. It is relevent, but it isn’t specific enough to justify your argument. If you want me to believe the God-is-eternal-therefore-punishment-is-eternal idea, then you will need to find something much more convincing than that.

          The evidence I have to support my objection is that there is not, in all of scripture, nor is there in my heart (where the Spirit of God leads me toward or away from certain ideas), anything to support your claim. If what you are saying is true, then it should be a concept that is demonstrated throughout scripture, or at the very least it is a concept that should be mentioned in scripture. But it isn’t. So that leaves the Spirit of God in you as your only evidence. Not that that should be written off, because it is very important, but it is also subjective evidence, because every human being is fallible and capable of mistaking their own passions or inclinations for that of the Spirit of God. I am not willing to go against the abundance of evidence in scripture that directly contradicts your view or against the Spirit of God in me pushing me away from your view based entirely on very limited subjective evidence. That would be foolish of me. If you can give me one scripture then maybe I could put your view on the table for consideration. I’d have something solid to examine and think about.

          • Lanny A. Eichert May 25, 2012 at 3:20 am

            It is relevent, but it isn’t specific enough, Alice says because she refuses God’s words flat out and is ignorant of her own doings. It is very relevent as I showed May 22, 2012 at 1:03 pm below, but this is not about me convincing you God-is-eternal-therefore-punishment-is-eternal. I wrote “infinite” at least two times and never wrote “eternal,” so why are you substituting my statement? I don’t see how eternal is a better fit to the two ideas of Isaiah 55: 9, ways and thoughts, than infinite is in the context.

            Eliphaz the Temanite accused Job: “Is not thy wickedness great? and thine iniquities infinite?” {Job 22: 5} and who are you to dispute him?

            Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite. {Psalm 147: 5} and you dispute that by calling that verse {55: 9} from Isaiah is a blanket statement that can be applied to so many ideas?

            Your unbelieving heart is showing for the sake of your heretical Amazing Hope falsehood you’d rather believe for the sake of softening the blow to your own selfish heart concerning those you loved who died or will die without confessing Christ. You refuse the truth, God’s word, that they’ll burn in the eternal Lake of Fire in eternal torment forever just as the Holy Bible ends with that Lake of Fire populated without any remedy given in its text and Jesus’ declaration that Judas Iscariot perished without a proposed remedy either. Thanks to Mary you have another witness: the destruction of Sodom and God’s statement: “Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do?” [***Note from comment moderator (Alice – admin), if this comment were directed at someone other than myself, I would have omitted the words “selfish heart” because this is a judgment of another blog commenter’s character and intentions instead of a judgment of her claims. Please stop calling people names and making character judgments, Lanny. It is not your place to do so, according to God, and despite my repeated pleas for you to treat others with respect, you continue to write such things as “selfish heart”, as if you are God who can see someone’s heart. Judge the actions or words or claims, not the heart, and your comment will remain. Judge the heart, call names and be disrespectful, and your comment disappears. My only other option is to continue to allow you to bully other commenters, and as a comment moderator, I have realized that allowing this in the past has been irresponsible of me. Stop name-calling and slandering, please.***]

            Who God is and what God does.

            • admin May 28, 2012 at 1:57 am

              You can’t find it, can you? Your claim, “Since God is infinite and sins are crimes against the Infinite, the offense is infinite, the punishment is infinite”, has absolutely nothing to do with any of the verses you have quoted. Yes, they may have the English word “infinite” in them, but they don’t support the point you are making. There is no limit to the understanding of God. We agree. Eliphaz the Temanite was one of Job’s accusers, Lanny. He was going on about things he knew nothing about, as is evidenced from the rest of the book of Job. You should either admit that you’ve given up on searching for a single scripture to support your infinite-God-sin-offense-punishment theory because it has become obvious to you that there are none, or stop sending me irrelevant scriptures and keep looking. Come on, just look at what you are posting. Apples and oranges.

              • Lanny A. Eichert May 28, 2012 at 3:49 am

                You backing off “That verse from Isaiah is a blanket statement that can be applied to so many ideas. It is relevent” Alice? Pity you don’t like it. You are a scoffer at heart, Alice.

                You agreed “It is relevent” and now you disown it?

                And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; {John 11: 49 – 51}

                Some persons in the Holy Bible speak truths without even knowing it, Alice, so watch what you say about Eliphaz the Temanite, one of Job’s accusers. The same goes for the prophet Balaam. Even the devil is capable of making correct statements of truth.

                Your Amazing Hope still fails in that it makes your god responsible for how much suffering the unfortunate non-elect sinner must endure for how many ages in the Lake of Fire before your god is satisfied he has progressed far enough through the torture to warrant your god administering saving grace. In that your god is a sadistic monster. Your idea of purification is all torture based, Alice, since there is no Gospel in the Lake of Fire. Why don’t you put the same requirement on your supposed salvation from the Lake of Fire as you try to impose on me. Where are the MANY statements in Scripture that irrefutable describe the rescue of people specifically from the Lake of Fire? There are none. There are none because it is all your imagination and a figment of your rebellious evil heart.

                • admin May 28, 2012 at 10:40 pm

                  If I were to ask you how I can be sure that you really are who you say you are, you might reply that you lived in New Jersey when I was a kid, that you and Debbie attended the same church as my parents, and that you all became were friends. You might remind me that I rode in the back of your Volkswagen one time with my sister Jennie. This is how you could convince me, by giving evidence to support that you are who you say you are. Now, if you were to say to me that you lived in New Jersey, I would say this is relevant, because although it is a very general idea, it is vaguely related to the subject at hand. But if that were all the evidence you provided, then I would say, so what? Lots and lots of people have lived in New Jersey. Why should I believe that you are who you say you are just because you lived in New Jersey? The same thing rings true of Isaiah. It simply doesn’t support the point you are trying to make – it is very vaguely relevant, but without being accompanied by something substantial, it only holds as much weight as my NJ analogy.

                  Regarding your final paragraph, I’m surprised that you have been following this blog all this time and you still don’t really have a decent understanding of what I believe about God’s intentions toward mankind. If you would like to continue insisting that I believe those things, even though I have already told you that I don’t, so be it. If you want to know what I believe, read the blog archives. If this is too much time and effort, then you must not really want to know what I believe. If you would rather write “your god _____” (you fill in the blank with cartoonish exaggerations), all the while knowing that I have made it very clear to you that you don’t know what I believe, then I’ll just give it over to God and let him deal with your slander and misrepresentation. Going to God’s woodshed is not fun, Lanny. Since I care about you, I suggest that you stop behaving that way immediately.

                  I have spend a ton of time back and forth with you about the Lake of Fire, already. Go back and reread our conversations in the comment sections of previous blogs. God is so much more than doctrine. There are so many amazing, wonderful ideas that we could be discussing – things that demonstrate God’s glory and power and love, and instead, you keep wanting to visit, and revisit, and camp out, and breathe the toxic fumes of the Lake of Fire or the fate of Judas. Is that all God is to you? Aren’t you excited about the amazing things God is doing in your life? Don’t you have stories to share about friends or family that relate to blog topics? What inspires you? What gives you confidence? What are your dreams or goals? Do you ever go to movies or read books or listen to the radio? Do you have hobbies? I know that there must be a real person behind the name, Lanny. Your heart is not a book, you know, and either is God’s. The book (not the letter, but the Spirit) is valuable and helpful, but you seem to be stuck in certain parts of it, hanging on to your doctrine for dear life. What are you afraid of?

                • Lanny A. Eichert May 29, 2012 at 12:41 am

                  all the while knowing that I have made it very clear to you that you don’t know what I believe

                  What a scapegoat, Alice!!! Your Amazing Hope is anything but clearly detailed which it lacks considerably. You yourself don’t even know how it works, as you’ve at times stated. That’s why you will not define what you claim I misrepresent that you’ve framed about your god. Your god turns out to be a liar like yourself, all wrapped up in a pseudo love.

                  The orthodox God is Truth and Judgment; a judgment to which you need to return with fear and trembling, because His judgment is not in vain.

                • Lanny A. Eichert May 29, 2012 at 1:14 am

                  Step by step, Alice.

                  #1) How does God save the non-elect from the Lake of Fire?

                  Perhaps why not detail how Judas Iscariot is brought through salvation. Suppose you track his experience from his hanging.

                  You might want to listen to a few Unshackle stories at to get some ideas.

                  • admin May 29, 2012 at 9:49 am

                    Give me a satisfactory answer to my questions: “Where did you get this idea that ‘Since God is infinite and sins are crimes against the Infinite, the offense is infinite, the punishment is infinite’? What evidence do you have to support this claim?”

                    If you scroll up, you will see that you first made an outlandish claim, and I then challenged that claim by asking you to support your claim with some kind of scriptural evidence. You found one verse that ever-so-vaguely relates to the subject, but doesn’t really support your claim unless you give it the six-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon treatment, linking a single truth to a series of conjectures that ends with a false and unsupported claim that has nothing to do with the truth that you first stated. You found two other verses containing the English word “infinite” and misapplied them to your claim, even though the context, content, and all other aspects of the verse having absolutely nothing to do with your claim.

                    Then you suggest, “Step by step, Alice.”

                    Step by step, indeed, LANNY.

                    And #1 in this conversation ought to be that you give me some evidence to support your claim. You started this conversation by posting an outrageous and unscriptural claim. I am not going to be suckered into yet another Lake of Fire discussion when you haven’t given me the courtesy of answering my response to your original comment. In the past you have suckered me into don’t-look-at-that-but-look-at-this-instead, but we have had enough discussions that I am more aware of your conversation habits now. Why else would almost every conversation we’ve had end with you talking about the Lake of Fire and Judas? You almost always redirect to that, no matter what the original topic. It’s an unproductive waste of my time and yours to continue a pattern of conversation that never explores an idea or claim to its logical conclusion. Whether this is intentional or just an unconscious habit on your part, I don’t know, but I am aware of it and I am no longer participating in pointless (I use that word as such: pointless = a point that is made without exploring to the point to any logical conclusion) conversations.

                  • Lanny A. Eichert May 29, 2012 at 5:02 pm

                    Alice, it is shocking: how many years have you been searching for a relationship with God and you don’t even have a proper understanding of your sins? I’m still trying to recover from the shock: really!!!

                    Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. {Psalm 51: 1}

                    The point is sin is against a PERSON. Surely David sinned against Bathsheba, Uriah, his mighty men of valor, every trusting person in his kingdom, and his own body; but most important of all is God. David violated God’s person in every way possible: His entire “glory.”

                    For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God {Romans 3: 23} There the and should be understood as even: explaining what sinned means: short-changed everything God is. EVERYTHING, Alice, everything God is. How can you not define that offense as infinite?

                    When a stranger destroys your property, you feel violated as a person, don’t you? That’s offense. You know you’ve been violated and you are offended as a person. You were made in the image of God and that’s why you feel and think that way. God’s thoughts are greater or lesser than our thoughts, Alice? How much greater ought you to suppose His thoughts are concerning your abuse of His character? You’ve sinned against God, Alice. That’s sin against the infinite glory of the infinite God. That’s infinite offense requiring infinite penalty as demonstrated in Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and ascension.

                    Your blindness should be evidence of your lost and perishing condition, Alice. Sin is not just another thing God in His greatness can handle. To Him it is the absolute worseness of His once perfect creation now spoiled by the self-corruption of Satan and men.

                    For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else. {Isaiah 45: 18} Notice “vain.” That’s what it became because of sin, Alice, and the text clearly says that was not His purpose when He created it

                    • admin May 29, 2012 at 10:13 pm

                      Please explain how infinite penalty = Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and ascension.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert May 30, 2012 at 12:36 am

                      Infinite God afflicted none other than the infinite son.

                      Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. {Isaiah 53: 10, 11}

                      SOUL sacrifice, Alice, SOUL satisfaction.

                    • admin May 30, 2012 at 8:15 am

                      Are you talking about infinite travail of the soul? Please explain the “infinite” part of your point.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert May 30, 2012 at 4:11 pm

                      Infinite travail of the soul of Jesus Christ

                      My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring? {Psalm 22: 1} {Matthew 27: 46 & Mark 15: 34}

                      I have roared by reason of the disquietness of my heart. {Psalm 38: 8}

                      What was this travail of the soul of Christ that satisfied God?

                      Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him {Proverbs 8: 30}

                      Do you at all comprehend anything of this “forsaking?” The Second Death is this kind of forsaking: the cutting off of the soul from the God of life. For Wisdom, the Word, the Son of God, Who had always been with God there could be no more infinite distress than this forsaking.

                      Unlike Christ Who “conquered” this death in that it could not hold Him, finite sinful humanity is powerless to do the same and so remains naturally forever in this infinite distressing torment because they did not choose to receive the grace of God before they died.

                    • admin May 30, 2012 at 10:26 pm

                      You wrote, “Since God is infinite and sins are crimes against the Infinite, the offense is infinite, the punishment is infinite. Since the punishment is infinite, there is never an instant when the remedial work is accomplished. Therefore the punishment is eternal torment.” These scriptures you’ve posted do not support this claim. Is Christ still in distress? No. So, His distress is not infinite. Assuming for arguments sake that the penalty doctrines are accurate (even though it was not taught in the early church and didn’t really become defined until Anselm 1098 AD): If the wages of sin is “infinite distressing torment” as you say, then in order for Christ to pay the wages of sin, He would need to experience “infinite distressing torment”. Is Christ still in distress? No. So according to your doctrine, Christ hasn’t conquered death for anyone other than Himself. The title, “Savior of the World” is impossible in light of the doctrine you defend. Nine days have passed since the challenge to defend your claim was put on the table, and I have yet to see anything of substance. Isn’t it time to just admit that this idea is based more in tradition than in truth?

                    • Lanny A. Eichert May 30, 2012 at 11:41 pm

                      experience “infinite distressing torment”

                      Dear Alice, why didn’t the blood of bulls and goats do the job {Hebrews 10: 4}? Why did God need to supply Better Blood?

                      For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. {Hebrews 10: 14}

                      Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot {1 Peter 1: 18, 19}

                      Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. {Hebrews 7: 25}

                      Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD. {Jeremiah 23: 24}

                      Who He WAS made the “distressing torment” infinite, dear Alice. There was none other that could satisfy God. So the man that will not receive His grace will be left to try to match that penalty on his own. Essentially God will have said you didn’t want My grace then so I leave you to satisfy My justice on your own now.

                    • admin May 31, 2012 at 1:07 am

                      A discussion for another day – compare Heb 7:25 to your final statement. One or the other is inaccurate, and I’m betting it’s not Heb 7:25.

                      Today, though, none of these verses support your infinite torment claim. Only your added commentary supports the claim. Your commentary is useful for other reasons, but NOT for establishing doctrine that has no scriptural support. I’m so not convinced. But you can keep trying if you want.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert May 30, 2012 at 11:55 pm

                      Just another thought, in our society our product warranty requires repair or replacement with like value and quality.

                      So what does he do that rejects the Son of God? He must replace Christ’s sacrifice with one of like value and quality. Is that at all possible, Alice? So is then the final result eternal failure in the Lake of Fire without ever a remedy?

                    • Lanny A. Eichert May 31, 2012 at 12:10 am

                      Your Anselm 1098 argument is meaningless because even the Jehovah’s Witnesses argue against the Trinity doctrine claiming it didn’t surface until Tertillian and the Mormons use the same to dispute the Trinity claiming Nicea. What they fail to realize is before heresies rose there was no need to build a doctrinal defense of the accepted “norm” found in Scripture. Therefore both Anselm and Tertillian establish the validity of the doctrines.

                    • admin May 31, 2012 at 1:32 am

                      JW’s believe Arian introduced the doctrine, I think, but I get the point anyhow. The modern Christian fairy tale version of church history may cite “accepted ‘norm'”, but what they don’t say is that those who did NOT accept the “norm” imposed upon them by horrific leaders had to wear rags, lay prostrate before elders, or much worse. That’s why I place no value on the idea that if something is orthodox it should be automatically considered true. “Test everything, hold on to what is good.” That includes everything that JW’s or Mormons have to say, too. All of it. Because truth will stand up to scrutiny.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert May 31, 2012 at 1:26 am

                      No contradiction, Alice.

                      Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. {Hebrews 7: 25}

                      Essentially God will have said you didn’t want My grace then so I leave you to satisfy My justice on your own now.

                      God cannot save those who don’t COME to Him and in the Lake of Fire there is no coming to Him, no possibility of that whatsoever; they are locked out in solitary confinement. The only possible circumstance for any to come to Him is in the circumstance of this mortal existence on this current earth.

                    • admin May 31, 2012 at 1:40 am

                      Then why doesn’t it say that He ever liveth to make intercession for them who come to Him before they die? What is the purpose of Him ever able to make intercession if there is no possibility that anyone can come to Him for it? To me, the Hebrews text very strongly implies that people do come to Him. They are not in solitary confinement, according to the text (Rev.), they are in the presence of the angels and the Lamb.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert May 31, 2012 at 1:44 am

                      (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now [is] the accepted time; behold, now [is] the day of salvation.) {2 Corinthians 6: 2}

                      I’ve given you this before: NOW is here on this earth in this life as the appointed time for salvation.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert May 31, 2012 at 2:02 pm

                      not in solitary confinement, according to the text (Rev.), they are in the presence of the angels and the Lamb.

                      tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever {Revelation 14: 10, 11}

                      No COMING to God there, just torment, dear Alice.

                      when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power {2 Thessalonians 1: 7 – 9}

                      No COMING to God there either, dear Alice, just vengeance and destruction.

                      There is no inherent primary idea of purification here or in Mark 9: 43 – 48 {into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched} just eternal torment, dear Alice.

                      The inherent primary idea is, beyond any doubt, punitive not remedial, Alice, so get your head on straight, will you, and stop believing that Satanic heresy of yours. Stop stretching and forcing Scripture to fit that heresey.

                    • admin June 1, 2012 at 12:00 am

                      Yes, in English, it does look hopeless, doesn’t it? It would be a stretch. Greek is another story. No stretching there.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert May 31, 2012 at 2:14 pm

                      For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth {Hebrews 12: 6} is remedial and not the punishment of 2 Thessalonians 1: 7 – 9, which is punitive. Two different words, two different peoples, two different applications.

                      Repent, Alice.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert June 1, 2012 at 1:48 am

                      Appeal all you want to your perversion of the Greek, but the Greek is no good when you violate the context, dear Alice. There’s not a hint of remedial intent in ti, just the contrary: purely punitive.

                      All your readers can see your purifying by fire and brimstone presents a malicious hostage torturing god forcing some sort of progress before giving grace, so that grace is no longer grace. You have corrupted your own theology.

          • Lanny A. Eichert May 25, 2012 at 4:32 am

            O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever! {Deuteronomy 5: 29}

            these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. {1 John 2: 1}

            It is that God doesn’t want man to sin. D 5: 29 is the written record of God’s broken heart over man’s sins and how His heart has been continually broken from the beginning when Abel’s blood was crying out to God from the ground. God’s infinite heart is infinitely broken, Alice, infinitely offended by human sins. It took death of the Infinite Son of God to satisfy the justice of God in order to redeem mankind, meaning the penality of human sins that was paid was an infinite penality. Those refusing this payment must themselves suffer infinite death. That death is infinite because it is their separation from the infinite source of life, namely the Creator God. Has Abel’s blood {Luke 11: 50 & 51} ever stopped crying out to God, or has any other human sin ever stopped crying out to God? Then God’s heart is ever broken until the New Heaven and the New Earth in which there will be no blood on or in the ground.

            Mary, this is the necessity for the promised {2 Peter 3: 10 & 12} literal dissolving by literal fire of the old heaven and the old earth which is poluted by blood. This current heaven and earth must cease to exist before the new ones begin. There will be a gap between the old and the new when God will judge the spiritually dead and cast them into the remote Lake of Fire then existing as always in the absence of any heaven and earth.

            Mary, just because you refuse to believe in the literal Holy Bible doesn’t change reality. It will be so just as God has written it. {Romans 3: 3 & 4} For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

            Final thought: Who was the first to know the very first human sin?

            • Mary Vanderplas May 26, 2012 at 7:37 am

              The idea of sinners owing God an infinite satisfaction because of having offended God’s honor by their sin and of Christ by his perfect obedience and sacrifice satisfying God’s honor and justice (infinitely) is the brainchild of Anselm. (Calvin developed it further, adding the idea of “penal substitution” – i.e., that Christ took our penalty upon himself.) The problem is that the idea of an infinitely offended God whose justice must be infinitely satisfied before he will forgive and save us is a pagan notion. The Bible testifies not to a god who needs to be reconciled to us but to the God who in Christ reconciles us to himself. If it can be said that God’s justice is satisfied, it is God who in Jesus satisfies his own just judgment against us for our sin by taking upon himself the punishment we deserved. It is not the case that God’s justice is satisfied by Jesus so that God is willing and able to accept us. Nor is it the case that those who refuse Christ’s payment must pay infinitely themselves. Only a vengeful tyrant, not the God revealed in Jesus Christ, punishes (tortures) his enemies beyond measure.

              In first-century apocalyptic, fire is a symbol of judgment and (yes, I agree with Alice) purification. The evil of the earth will be judged. That is the point of this text. Imagery of cosmic dissolution is also a feature of apocalyptic (e.g., Revelation 6:12-17). How God will bring about the promised eschatological transformation of creation I don’t know.

              • Lanny A. Eichert May 31, 2012 at 1:10 am

                Mary, which came first, God’s truth or paganism? Paganism is a perversion of God’s truth, but God’s truth is evident in paganism. All false religions contain some small measure of truth as well as much error evidently truth twisted. There is no validity in using paganism to dispute Biblical doctrine, because paganism actually supports it.

                God is not a vengeful tyrant because He merely leaves sinful enemies to the natural consequences of His holy laws. You blaspheme God to so accuse His holy precepts. When you jump off a chair and get hurt do you accuse God of being a vengeful tyrant because of His laws of gravity and physics? Follow Alice to a vengeful tyrant who imprisons the unfortunate souls he didn’t elect, and that’s most of humanity, in the Lake of Fire until he is satisfied that their flaming torture moved them in some little way toward repentance before he will administer saving grace without which they cannot complete the program. She mades her god with an attitude, a sadistic attitude!!!

                • admin May 31, 2012 at 1:43 am

                  For the record, I do not believe God is sadistic, nor do I believe He tortures people. Lanny is not accurately representing my views.

                  • Lanny A. Eichert May 31, 2012 at 1:49 am

                    Prove it, Alice.

                    • admin May 31, 2012 at 1:55 am

                      Prove what?

                    • Lanny A. Eichert May 31, 2012 at 1:56 am

                      nor do I believe He tortures people. Lanny is not accurately representing my views.

                    • admin June 1, 2012 at 12:06 am


                    • Lanny A. Eichert May 31, 2012 at 2:18 am

                      Prove I misrepresent your god imprisons the unfortunate souls he didn’t elect, and that’s most of humanity, in the Lake of Fire until he is satisfied that their flaming torture moved them in some little way toward repentance before he will administer saving grace without which they cannot complete the program.

                    • admin June 1, 2012 at 12:06 am

                      I’m grateful for your presence in the comment section. But I can only deal with so much of this —> You’re doing that pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain thing again… I called you out on something important – that you don’t have scriptural evidence to support your point about infinite God, infinite sin = infinite punishment. I’m not going to continue in this thread unless I see something of substance. I’m spending a lot of time back and forth with you (and getting nowhere) when I could be writing blogs.

                      You want me to spend hours of time “proving” that you are misrepresenting my views? um, no. God knows it, I know it, people who read my blogs know it… and you can know it to, just check the archives, it’s there if you really want it.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert May 31, 2012 at 2:59 am

                      Deny the non-elect are unfortunate souls compared to the bliss of the elect. Deny the non-elect are the majority of humanity. Deny your god chose some for bliss but left the majority for fire and brimstone. Deny your god keeps these unfortunates in the Lake of Fire without leave until they are convinced to repent and confess Christ. Deny they somehow must be purified by fire toward right belief {convinced} and change their minds. Deny that your god withholds administering saving grace until he choses it is appropriate to their level of achieved purification before they can actually believe in Christ. Deny these things are what your Amazing Hope involves in the after death salvation of souls. Deny each thing may take ages upon ages to accomplish. Deny them by contrasting your actual view point by point.

                • Mary Vanderplas June 2, 2012 at 5:38 am

                  To “fall short of the glory of God” means that we fall short of the glory that God wills for us, not that we short-change God of his honor. Yes, our sin is directed against God. Yes, we have hurt and offended God by our sin. But to acknowledge this is not the same as saying that we have “short-changed everything He is” and therefore deserve to be punished infinitely. As finite creatures, we commit finite sins. A god who punishes eternally for finite sins is a vengeful tyrant, not the God of the Bible.

                  The larger issue concerns the notion of “satisfaction.” Anselm argued that God’s justice had to be satisfied in order for God to forgive us and accept us. But the Bible doesn’t teach that God had to be pacified/appeased/bought off/satisfied in order to stop being against us. This is a pagan notion, not a biblical one. On the contrary, what the Bible teaches is that while we were enemies of God, hostile toward him and alienated from him, God reached out to us in love to save us and reconcile us to himself (Romans 5:8ff.). It isn’t that God was alienated from us, but that we were alienated from God. In Jesus God acted to overcome our sin and alienation. Yes, this happened by Jesus taking upon himself the punishment that we deserved. But this was not to appease an angry God or to pay God back for honor that was stolen from him. Rather, it was God acting in Jesus to “satisfy” the judgment that our sins deserved, God suffering with us and for us in our painful alienation, in order to free us from guilt and make us right with him.

                  • Lanny A. Eichert June 3, 2012 at 12:10 am

                    But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear. {Isaiah 59: 2} God’s hidden face and non-hearing shows God is alienated from humanity as well, dear Mary. Think also of the Romans 1: 18 – 32 withdrawal of God and His giving them over to theirselves.

                    your second paragraph seems to be arguing against what you affirm. Since sin alienates both ways, men from God and God from men; sin’s infinite penality has to be satisfied “for God to forgive us and accept us.” Again you seek to minimize the nature of sin which is an offense against the Infinite God’s glory. You fail to realize the glory of God’s saints is His name and His name is HIS glory given to His saints. That makes falling short of HIS glory, dear Mary. We were made in HIS image, which is HIS glory. Now you minimize the glory of man. How can you minimize so much and still claim to believe the Holy Bible.

                    Mary, face the faces of how you two and this website minimize God. That’s against Christ.

                    [***Comment removed – Please don’t make character judgments. You are not God, and you don’t know the intentions of people’s hearts.***]

                    • Mary Vanderplas June 3, 2012 at 8:23 pm

                      I’m not minimizing anything. Sin is an offense against God. It involves falling short of the glorious life that God wills for us. It leads to alienation from God, who created us for the purpose of having fellowship with us. God’s judgment against sin is real. The cost of bearing our sin is great: the cross of Jesus Christ. What I am doing is emphasizing what the Bible teaches and emphasizes: namely, that it was God in Christ who acted to reconcile us to himself, that it was God who reached out in love to save us while we were still sinners, enemies of him. It wasn’t that Jesus had to remove the barrier in God’s heart, buying God off so that he would love us and forgive us. It wasn’t that God was against us. The Romans 1 text about God giving them over doesn’t mean that God gave up on them, that he stopped loving them and willing their good. God continues to love all of us no matter how much we rebel against him, no matter how entrenched we are in our alienation from him. The Isaiah 59 text is an oracle that was spoken to Israel in exile. The point of the verse is that it wasn’t God’s inability to save that caused the separation and estrangement; it was the failure of God’s people to keep the demands of the covenant. God’s “hidden face” and “not hearing” show only that our hostility to God causes a rift in our relation to him.

                  • Lanny A. Eichert June 3, 2012 at 2:56 am

                    Why, Alice, is it a character judgment or moral judgment to refuse a person the identity of a Christian or a believer and label that person a pagan? Does it carry the same weight as refusing a person’s claim to Abraham as their father? What did Jesus do in John 8 to those who so claimed.

                    Alice, it is just a judgment of FACT, not of morals or of character. What belief system is truly followed is all that is judged. It is true that if you don’t have the one and onely right belief system, you are eternally damned, but the identification of your belief system is not in itself a personal condemnation or a personal attack by he who identifies you. It is only a statement of FACT.

                    You and Mary and others find it offensive because you all equate Christianity with moral correctness, and unbelief and paganism with moral corruption. Your equations are wrong. Unbelievers and pagans can be very moral, nice, and courageous persons who consider themselves free of their supposed christian vices.

                    Your objectivity has failed, dear Alice, and your emotionally perverted logic shows itself in your deletion of my refusals to allow you and yours any title but paganism. Your heresy is an emotional perversion of the Holy Bible in which the height of it is your refusal to accept Jesus’ prophetic statement of Judas Iscariot’s perished condition showing you to be against Christ.

                    Simply put that means you are an antichrist, dear Alice. [*** Comment removed – no character judgments, please. *** (I’ll leave your character judgments of me alone, but I’m not going to let you bully and name call other commenters any more, Lanny.] I’m not judging morals or character, just making factual statements of your belief systems.

                    If the shoe, fits wear it along with all those implications you feel you must attach to it.

                    • Mary Vanderplas June 3, 2012 at 11:49 am

                      Your statement that I “equate Christianity with moral correctness, and unbelief and paganism with moral corruption” is totally off-base. My comments connecting your belief with paganism had to do with your doctrine of the atonement, which in my view is erroneous, reflecting the pagan notion of “appeasing the gods,” not the biblical truth of God acting in Christ to reconcile the world to himself. I was talking doctrine, not morality. And in any case, I equate Christianity not with moral correctness, but with becoming free by God’s grace in Christ to live genuinely human lives, loving God and others with our whole selves.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert June 4, 2012 at 2:07 am

                      Dear Mary, Christianity is NOT becoming free by God’s grace in Christ to live genuinely human lives. The Christain life is a supernatural life, against human nature.

                      Mary, the cost of bearing our sin is not just great, it was infinitely costly, an infinite penalty paid. You refuse its infiniteness and so doing minimize it. God in Christ is not an infinite pair, Dear Mary, not an infinite effort with infinite energy and infinite grief?

                      Mary, God’s “hidden face” and “not hearing” just a “rift” it is not. He has actually hid Himself from you and He will actually not hear you. The text is a precept that goes well beyond just Israel to every sinner as well.

                      Deary, to not hear God is to not be a Christian.

                    • Mary Vanderplas June 5, 2012 at 6:22 am

                      Please note: If you persist in addressing me with the patronizing term “dear” or some variation thereof, I will not respond to your comments.

                      We were created in God’s image for loving fellowship with God and others. God’s saving act in Christ frees us to become what we were created to be, to live a genuinely human life.

                      I don’t share your doctrine of the atonement. The notion of an infinite satisfaction needing to be made for an infinite offense against the infinite holiness of an infinite God so that this God can love us and forgive us is unbiblical. In the cross of Jesus Christ, God bears our sin and its painful consequences so that we are brought back to God, so that the separation between us caused by our sin is ended and the relationship restored. To affirm that God in Christ bears our sin and its painful consequences is hardly to minimize who God is and what he does. On the contrary, by seeing God as the one who reconciles us instead of the one who needs to be won over and reconciled, this view gives God his rightful place of honor as the source and fulfiller of our salvation.

                      If God’s face is hidden and his fingers are in his ears (and his back is turned and the door of his heart is slammed shut and locked and the key buried??), how is it that Paul said, “But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8)? Was Paul lying, or just totally misguided?

                    • Mary Vanderplas June 6, 2012 at 5:38 am

                      Our sins stand between us and God so that God doesn’t hear. The problem isn’t on God’s end; it’s on ours. Our sins – in particular, acts of injustice – stand as a barrier between us and God. That’s what the prophet is saying in Isaiah 59. He is not saying that God is hostile toward us.

                    • admin June 6, 2012 at 8:27 am

                      I agree. When you’ve wronged someone, it is very uncomfortable to be in their presence. The natural tendency is to avoid. God’s forgiveness and act of reconciliation demonstrate that He is not the One putting the barrier there. The offender, in recognizing God’s intentions toward him/her, is then in a position that demands humility or stubborn pride, recognizing the offense and repenting of it or denying the offense and continuing in discomfort each time makes His presence known to him/her. Fortunately for the former, God will not allow the barrier to remain forever. The offenders who hold out in rebellion until He fills all things will be “submerged” in His presence (nowhere to run/hide) and their stubborn pride is no match for His “over-abounding” grace.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert June 6, 2012 at 12:59 pm

                      The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. {Psalm 11: 5}

                      God’s soul hates the wicked, you forget it is written as previously discussed whether or not you choose to believe it. The wicked are infinitely offending God and He is continuously hating them from the depths of His soul. God’s wrath burns hot against the wicked.

                      The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation {Revelation 14: 10}

                      You two minimize the emnity and have a low view of sin.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert June 6, 2012 at 1:04 pm

                      in particular, acts of injustice

                      Oh now Mary chooses out a particular class of sins. All sin is sin. Every sin infinitely offends God because of Who and What He is.

                      Here is another example of her low view of sin.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert June 6, 2012 at 1:09 pm

                      They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness {Romans 3: 12 – 14}

                    • Lanny A. Eichert June 6, 2012 at 3:18 pm

                      Mary, your June 5, 2012 at 6:22 am question on Romans 5:8.

                      The emnity was a present two way reality when God loved the elect enough to die for them. God’s love made a choice in the very face of two way emnity. Remember love is a choice not driven by emotion. God both loves and hates. We agrued this before: God hates the guts of the wicked. {Psalm 11: 5}

                    • Mary Vanderplas June 6, 2012 at 9:24 pm

                      I love what you say. May it be so!

                    • Mary Vanderplas June 7, 2012 at 5:51 am

                      God “hates the guts” of no one. The texts you cite prove nothing except that God stands for justice and righteousness and works to set things right, judging sin and evil and vindicating those who in his strength do right. The wrath of God is his just judgment against sin; and it is born of his love for all people, not of hatred.

                      I do not minimize the enmity. The enmity is real, but it is on our end, not on God’s. We, all of us, by our sin and by our attempts to justify ourselves were enemies of God. In the cross of Jesus Christ, God demonstrated his love for his enemies, all of us, by taking upon himself the judgment for our sin. There is nothing here about God loving only some and Christ dying for only some. And consider John 3:16, which says that God gave his Son to die because he loved us, all of us, not so that he could begin to love us.

                      Read Isaiah 59 in its entirety, not simply one verse. Count the number of times the word “justice” is used. The picture that is painted of the failures of God’s people is a picture of injustice. Their practice of injustice is what stood between them and God.

                      I’m done on this. I simply do not agree with your (in my view) unbiblical doctrine of the atonement and your (in my view) unbiblical doctrine of God as one who is inconsistent in his dealings with his human creatures (treating some with love and justice and others with only justice) and whose justice is without love (vengeful tyrant).

                    • Lanny A. Eichert June 8, 2012 at 2:39 am

                      Alice refuses to believe Judas is permanently lost, perished and the Lake of Fire has not exit when she writes: The offenders who hold out in rebellion until He fills all things will be “submerged” in His presence (nowhere to run/hide) and their stubborn pride is no match for His “over-abounding” grace. Dear girl, they will be separated from God in the Lake of Fire in torments and if the grace of God didn’t get them in this world what makes you think it will when they are tormented by His WRATH in the Lake of Fire? God’s not hugging them in the fire, dear Alice, hoping they repent. They are incurable rebels and that’s why the Lake burns forever. The fire doesn’t ever go out: don’t you know that from Mark 9: 43 – 48? They have nobody to preach the Gospel to them, so they can’t get saved; and besides they will never again ever want the Gospel, remember they are rebels, forever rebels and that’s why they are there in the Lake of Fire in the first place. You’re dreaming to think rebels will be “submerged” in His presence (nowhere to run/hide). God doesn’t force Himself upon the moral creatures He created, excepting the forced final judgment. Since they don’t want Him, He has prepared a place for them to be isolated from God and all things of God. That place is the Lake of Fire where He gives them in full the desire of their hearts. As I quoted Isaiah 59: 2 for Mary, so the same for you: But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear. Their rebellion will have completed the separation in the Lake of Fire and God also will not hear them in the Lake of Fire. That they are cast into the Lake of Fire at the Judgment proves even at the Judgment people aren’t repenting and getting saved but are entrenched in their rebellion, hence their fiery disposition; so why should anyone think after they had been forced to face God in judgment they’d get a forced display of God’s grace in the Lake of Fire that would change their minds? Alice, please face the reality of Jesus’ Matthew 7: 13 statement of the many and the few. That reality is the same after death. The many never convert no matter what. They are trash reserved for God’s trash bin, and there’s no recycling with God for those who die without confessing Christ now. See “now” in 2 Corinthians 6: 2 which I have recently quoted to you. It was now in this life when it was written and it still means now in this life after two thousand years. It hasn’t changed to now and then. Impossible.

                      Tell Mary that God’s wrath is hatred with a vengence. The poor woman says the Bible is God’s word in which He contradicts the revelation of Himself in one single true life story about Sodom and Gomorrah in two chapters in Genesis because the second part is written by somebody else. She does a cut and paste job on the Bible because she doesn’t believe it was all written by God Himself using divinely superintended human penmenship and I’ve tried to tell her she has a low view of Scripture. Jesus credits the Penteuch to Moses, but she will not believe Jesus’ words that he wrote of Him. He spoke to Abraham and He destroyed every soul in those twin cities rather than saving them alive, showing Himself to be a vengeful God of justice Whose patience had expired and Whose wrath had come. That is the New Testament perspective God insured would be revealled to us by including references to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah during and after the ministry, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. For such a person as her, knowing a lot of the Bible, to manufacture such a view of the Sodom and Gomorrah talk between Abraham and Christ as she does is numbing: that God changes His mind, that God isn’t sure of what He first plans, that God needs the counsel of a people person He created who is closer to the twin cities in order to determine if His course of action would be appropriate, that God needs to be told that He forgot one or two considerations.

                      The bottom line is Abraham interceded for the cities and only Lot and his two daughters escaped the wrathful vengence of God’s fire and brimstone destruction and death. He is effort proved fruitless, because two of the three went ahead to remove just Lot from the cities before Abraham began his intercession. His intercession was essentially pointless as regards results. Abraham did not know the will of God and putting in our language was not praying and interceding in the spirit and will of God. God saints are guilty of praying for that which is NOT God’s will and their prayers go unanswered. The exercise is only good for humbling them in their ignorance of God’s will and their need to accept His will unknown to them, in other words, the personal realization of the sovereignity of God in their personal lives. The question raised by Genesis 18 & 19 is since prayer doesn’t change God’s course of action, of what value is it to pray, since it makes no difference? Answer is that prayer changes the people who pray. How can it not be so? Moses talked with God and his face glowed. I suspect 2 Corinthians 3: 18 is at work when saints pray: But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. Just remember if you’re not a saint [***Comment removed – please, no pronouncing judgments of the conditions or intentions of another commenter’s heart. Stick to the subject at hand, instead.***], God doesn’t hear you and His face is turned away from you {Isaiah 59: 2} so neither does 2 Corinthians 3: 18 work for you. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. {John 3: 7} if you’re going to know anything.

                    • admin June 8, 2012 at 8:14 am

                      regarding Mark – “not quenched” and “fire that never goes out” are two entirely different concepts, the first communicates the Greek meaning, the second communicates human conjecture

                      since consciousness is only possible because God creates it and sustains it, it is impossible for one to be “isolated” from God – besides to be in the Lake of Fire is specifically stated to be in His presence

                      about the many/few – read:

                      You write, “there’s no recycling with God for those who die without confessing Christ now,” and again I challenge you to give some solid evidence to support your ungodly claim that there is no post-mortem salvation.

                      “Tell Mary that…” – that is a conversation between you two that I am choosing to not participate in at this time. I have to pick and choose, because of my limited time and other priorities. Thanks for the invitation, though.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert June 8, 2012 at 3:05 am

                      When Mary writes God “hates the guts” of no one.

                      She sterilizes the Bible to keep it from condemning her. You keep cutting and pasting, dear Mary, and you’ll cut and paste yourself right into hell, and then the Lake of Fire from which you’ll never escape. To sterilize is to minimizes, Mary.

                      {Psalm 11 5} the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

                      the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man. {Psalm 5: 6} What, Mary, does abhor mean? What is abominal? How are the two words related?

                      And she thinks: God “hates the guts” of no one.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert June 8, 2012 at 11:37 am

                      Alice, you want me to prove that there is no post-mortem salvation when you cannot prove there is, makes no sense, because “now” in 2 Corinthians 6: 2 means “now” even today, never now and then.

                      “The second communicates human conjecture” means your Bible isn’t God’s word reducing your view to a low view of Scripture.

                      Does sin and death exist because God creates and sustains them? Your god of life sustains death? You have a different definition of death than separation from God? Do I need to go further? Examine how you say what you say. Satan is well practiced in words and an excellent teacher of God’s enemies.

                    • Mary Vanderplas June 8, 2012 at 9:16 pm

                      You talk out of both sides of your mouth, saying that what is recorded in Genesis 18 and 19 is a “true life story” while at the same time dismissing as meaningless fiction what the text says about God investigating the situation in Sodom in consultation with Abraham before making a final decision. Moreover, you twist what the text actually says, arguing that Abraham was not praying in accordance with God’s will, when the text gives no indication whatsoever that Abraham’s petitions were not in sync with God’s character and will. Quite the contrary, that God gives his verbal assent to Abraham’s petitions suggests that what Abraham was asking/demanding was right in line with the character of God as a just and loving God. There is not one hint that Abraham is “humbled in his ignorance” and needs to “accept God’s will unknown to him.” These are ideas you read into the text by racing ahead to chapter 19 and twisting the “pieces” of chapter 18 in order to make them fit into the puzzle of God judging and destroying Sodom given in chapter 19. You claim to have a high view of the Bible, and yet you read what you want the text to say instead of what it actually says. You completely miss/dismiss the profound theological reflection that the story of God consulting with Abraham over the fate of Sodom is.

                    • Mary Vanderplas June 8, 2012 at 9:23 pm

                      Dear Lanny, Lanny dear, pookey wookey,
                      The use of vengeance language in the psalms does not mean that God hates the wicked and destroys the wicked. If it did, there wouldn’t be any wicked around for God to hate; he would have destroyed them all. What the language suggests is the justice of God that opposes evil and sets things right.

                      God hates the guts of no one. Indeed, the scriptures reveal a God who loves the world. See John 3:16.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert June 9, 2012 at 4:28 am

                      Alice writes, since consciousness is only possible because God creates it and sustains it, it is impossible for one to be “isolated” from God – besides to be in the Lake of Fire is specifically stated to be in His presence. Yet she fails to realize Isaiah 59: 2 is also at work in the Lake of Fire.

                      But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

                      God is and always will be present everywhere in His creation to sustain it, but that doesn’t negate isolation. Even Romans 1: 18 – 32 proves His “giving them up” to be effective isolation during mortality. That same effective isolation will forever be true in the Lake of Fire. God is able spontaneously to be present but isolated.

                      The last enemy destroyed is death, EXCEPT regarding the sinner. Remember death and hell are cast into the Lake of Fire where the devil and his angels ARE WITH ALL unsaved dead, but conscious, humanity. I repeat, dear Alice, you have people AND death in the Lake of Fire at the same time.

                      The last enemy destroyed is death for God’s holy ones and none else. Keep the context of 1 Corinthians 15 to, for, and of God’s saints.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert June 9, 2012 at 4:44 am

                      Alice, the death of death is it being cast into the Lake of Fire. Put two and two together, will you. 1 Corinthians 15: 26 is accomplished in Revelation 20: 14.

                      All things bad have been disposed into the Lake of Fire: Satan, his angels, sinful humanity, death, and hell; never to be reworked or recycled. The End. All else that remains is good and has an eternal living progressive future.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert June 9, 2012 at 4:56 am

                      Alice, when the Revelation 20: 14 & 15 are accomplished, there will never again be anything going into the Lake of Fire and there will never be anything ever coming out of the Lake of Fire. So don’t you dare to add to it or take away from it, Alice, or you will face the Revelation 22: 18 & 19 plagues.

                    • Mary Vanderplas June 9, 2012 at 10:19 am

                      The references in the New Testament to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of the final judgment hardly proves your theology of God as vengeful tyrant or your claim that this is “the New Testament perspective.” Read the New Testament in its entirety. That it centers on Jesus Christ, the definitive revelation of God, is beyond dispute. In his life and teaching, Jesus showed and taught the love of God for all people. And in his death and resurrection, God acted for the salvation of the world. This is the centerpiece of the biblical revelation, the biblical drama. Every other revelatory act of God in history must be interpreted in light of this one, in light of Jesus the Christ, who embodied the love and mercy and kindness of God.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert June 9, 2012 at 5:44 pm

                      June 6, 2012 at 8:27 am Alice wrote: The offenders who hold out in rebellion until He fills all things will be “submerged” in His presence (nowhere to run/hide) and their stubborn pride is no match for His “over-abounding” grace.

                      She failed to take into account the words of Jesus literally reporting Abraham replying to the formerly rich man now in hades. See Luke 16: 29 – 31 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

                      They resisted God’s grace in this life and they’ll continue resisting God’s grace in the after-life. They are incurable rebels and unrecoverable. God does not waste His time, effort, and energy where it will do no good.

                      Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me. {John 14: 22 – 24}

                      Jesus will NEVER manifest Himself to the world, Alice, but He manifests Himself only to those who will believe. Here is a KEY PRINCIPLE you need to know and upon which to correct and build your theology. Salvation is effective only for the elect and nobody else. They neither will nor can believe.

                      Stop leaning on your own logic, your own understanding, and turn to every one of God’s individual words {Matthew 4: 4}.

                      Judas is perished and the Lake of Fire has no escape. Who are you going to believe: you or Jesus?

                    • Lanny A. Eichert June 9, 2012 at 11:58 pm

                      Alice, when you write: The offenders who hold out in rebellion until He fills all things will be “submerged” in His presence (nowhere to run/hide) and their stubborn pride is no match for His “over-abounding” grace. do you understand his filling all things means he fills every fiber of the being of the rebels so that there can be no separate exercise of their will contrary to his? In other words, he invades their total being without their permission and that’s forced entry. Your god is a burglar, invading and stealing their free will. There is no repenting of stubborn pride and believing the Gospel in such a scenario. Your god forcefully enters filthy sinners because he loves the filthy and their filth. You just degraded your god and forgot holiness and the atonement. Without holiness no man shall see God. {Hebrews 12: 14}

                      Mary, face the facts: the majority of humanity are thrown into the Lake of Fire, locked away, and the key effectually thrown away too. God destroyed everybody in Sodom and Gomorrah and knew He would before allowing that conversation with Abraham.

                      Do you deny God destroyed everybody in Sodom and Gomorrah? You only deny He KNEW He would when He began communing with Abraham, right? Yet you believe God knows everything, right? You know both 18 & 19 of Genesis are God’s self-revelations, right? You do or don’t know 18 & 19 paint different pictures of God according to Mary? Was God successful in His will in BOTH pictures, Mary? Was the will of God according to Mary in 18 successfully accomplished in Sodom and Gomorrah? If it wasn’t is all this according to Mary a fallacy?

                    • Lanny A. Eichert June 10, 2012 at 12:27 am

                      Alice, Without holiness no man shall see God. {Hebrews 12: 14} proves your heresy doesn’t have a chance to work. It is impossible for holy Jesus to fill the world {Lake of Fire} of the dead sinner to the point of the sinner being able to see and hear Jesus preach the Gospel and he be saved as a result of responding to grace. In the Lake of Fire the sinner is isolated from the holy Jesus, because he, the sinner, has no holiness. Again because of sins {Isaiah 59: 2} God’s face is hidden from him as well as God’s ears: effectual isolation, solitary confinement forever.

                      Again, when Jesus fills all in all, the Lake of Fire and its population is excluded as an impossible absurdity.

                  • Lanny A. Eichert June 3, 2012 at 12:07 pm

                    Alice, there are millions of religious people across America who according to the institutional church think they are Christians, but are not, neiter do they believe the Holy Bible, but are pagan in thought and life style. It is loving, not bullying, to tell them so. They need to honestly confront their unbelief. [***Comment removed – Please don’t make character judgments about other commenters. Let your comments be about the subject at hand.***]

                    • admin June 3, 2012 at 11:31 pm

                      Lanny, I know you mean well. Do you claim to have a perfect understanding of scripture and/or God’s judgment? What if your understanding is not accurate? If you are mistaken, then you are condemning people that God does not condemn. (“…and whoever may cause to stumble one of those little ones who are believing in me, it is better for him that a weighty millstone may be hanged upon his neck, and he may be sunk in the depth of the sea.”) Or you could think of it in another way. If someone needs “to honestly confront their unbelief,” and you do it for them, are you really even accomplishing anything? Your adversarial manner is not at all like the instructions Jesus gives, “treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” Jesus friends with religious outcasts (pagans and tax collectors). I doubt that He talked to them like you do to others in your comments. Love covers a multitude of sin, including the sin of erroneous judgment. In other words, God’s love in me for you allows me to see past the ugly comments and understand that you are only acting according to your belief. In my case, love preemptively covers my sin of lashing out at you – it intercepts my knee-jerk reactions. In your case, God’s love in you (assuming His love is actually in you) can help you say what you feel it is necessary to say in such a way that even if you are wrong, it won’t be destructive toward the other person. In my opinion, the Spirit of God is far more able to help people confront their own unbelief than any human being. I’m not saying that God doesn’t use one person to help another person discover their own unbelief, but if you always do this for God, when will you ever learn the joy of seeing God do His thing, without your “help”? I’m trying to say that even in your extreme case, I give you the benefit of the doubt that you use harsh, destructive language because your motives are good, but your understanding and methods are screwed up. I don’t know your heart. Only God does. If I am wrong, and you are, in fact, a spiritual bully, then I have erred on the side of grace. To err on the side of grace is better than to err on the side of judgment, since God is the Only Righteous Judge. It shows honor and respect for God’s judgment to give matters of the heart into His hands and trusting Him to handle it. You can say what you want to say, in love, based on behaviors only (not heart motives), and assume the BEST about a person instead of the worst, humbly recognizing that you are a fallible human being. This is how we are to relate to one another, pagans, believers, mentally handicapped people, vegetarians, midgets, baseball players, emotionally damaged people, scientists, garbage collectors, poker sharks, tax collectors, and whores. All of us. What a world this would be if we could relate to one another in the same manner Jesus related to the religious outcasts.

                    • Lanny A. Eichert June 4, 2012 at 9:05 pm

                      Dear Alice, any fundamentalist Christian can know beyond doubt by reading what is expressed on this site is written by persons who are NOT Christians, NOT believers of the Holy Bible, but would be rightly evaluated as religious pagans who don’t know what they write and are content to share their ignorance to no value.

                      They think they are Christians and Bible believers, but when I refuse them that distinction, you, dear Alice, feel they are offended thinking I made character and moral judgments, when I made a doctrinal judgment. It is as simple as back verses white. To not believe Jesus {John 17:12} is to not be a Christian. There is no mystery in that. There is no: maybe that’s wrong. There are many other doctrines that equally, in black verses white fashion, reveal that a person is not a Christian, so again there is no: maybe that’s wrong for the Fundamentalist.

                      There is only “maybe that’s wrong” for the unbeliever like you are suggesting. Alice of the Enlightenment ought to know that.

                      So the question still remains: what do you believe? do you believe all of Jesus’ words or only a perverted selection of them? Are you a Christian or a Pagan? The Christian verses Pagan question is raised when you attempt to attach Christian to your distinction of being a Universalist. It is the same question raised by the Mormon Church when it and its people insist they are Christians. They as well as you must be exposed and declared antichristian: they with their individual persons and you with your individual persons.

      • Lanny A. Eichert May 22, 2012 at 12:32 am

        Does being complete and entirely accurate of your view change the god I described you framed? I noticed many times you just deflect the real issue, so does it make any really significant difference, Alice? I stated in my very first statement I made an assumption which implied I wanted you to correct my statement of your view.

        Is it possible for unregenerate man to properly repent and believe by his own volition and power?

        • admin May 22, 2012 at 10:20 am

          No, it is not possible for unregenerate man to properly repent and believe by his own volition and power.

          As for other issue, that’s why I am writing this blog, and most anything in your summary statement about my beliefs that needs to be clarified can be discovered by reading through the blogs and comparing what I wrote to what you wrote. That is your homework assignment, optional, of course, based on the severity of your need to know.

  • Lanny A. Eichert May 22, 2012 at 1:03 pm

    Seriously? That’s your defense of your views: a simple assertion implying that I didn’t read you correctly without specifics? Come on now, Alice, and stop letting your emotions rule your day.

    God’s thoughts are higher than your thoughts, therefore He thinks sins are worse than you think they are, therefore sins are a greater offense to Him than they are to you. God found no other way to satisfy the sin problem than that the infinite living Son of God should become a man and suffer death in man’s place. So horrible a deal it was that God hid His suffering from us by darkness and the grave, and you seem to make light of it as if some finite suffering of a man in the Lake of Fire for whatever ages will somehow satisfy your idea of your god’s justice, adding man’s suffering to Christ’s, before your god is satisfied with those unfortunate humans your god didn’t elect to administer saving grace in this life, but then pities them and at the last administers that long overdue saving grace without which they cannot be saved. The bottom line, dear Alice, is that your god determines how long humans suffer in the Lake of Fire, how long they must endure until your god determines they are purified enough and ready for saving grace.

    Defend your view against this analysis. That’s what I asked May 21, 2012 at 6:07 pm and you are refusing to do it. Declare WHAT I have misrepresented.

    It seems that at least since it is not possible for unregenerate man to properly repent and believe by his own volition and power, your purgatorial Lake of Fire experience doesn’t bring man into responsibility for his sins by requiring he change himself, but places all the responsibility upon your god to change man.

  • Lanny A. Eichert May 23, 2012 at 3:33 pm

    Alice, your purifying view of the Lake of Fire only works if man has responsibility in some measure for his salvation, don’t you see that? He must eventually participate with Christ’s torturous work of purification by not opposing it until he comes to full submission after which Christ is able to bring him to some better level of purity that still is short of perfection. Only then can Christ administer saving faith according to your view, complete his purification, and take him from that dreadful place.

    So you have proposed two salvations: one for the elect in this life that is all of God and one in the after-life for the non-elect that is man-plus-God in cooperation.

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.