A Christian Objection to “Does God Predestine People To Hell”: A Response to Alex, Part XI

Things Fell Apart

Unfortunately, it is at this point that Alex’s refutation escalates from that of dismissive arrogance to any point concerning the Greek, into a big, jumbled mess. He begins part four of my original study, saying:

“There are so many logical fallacies and errors and self-contradictions in what you’ve been writing that I cannot see a logical argument in what you write. This is concerning because part of making a good coherent argument is to make it actually coherent and logical. I think I will just read what you have to say. Then, I’ll quote some parts and answer. Let’s get to it.”

Without citing an example of a ‘self-contradiction,’ Alex then tells me that he “thinks he will just read what I have to say,” which is what I’ve been asking him to do from the beginning. Unfortunately, I suspect that, to Alex, this means that he will no longer assert to any reader his position on hell, which means that any of us could justly infer that he’s been writing to be argumentative – not to work together to humbly accept what our Father shows us in His inspired words.

Thus, this makes the entire study hypocritical by nature, for it is this very same notion that he has charged against me throughout this entire study. I’ve even considered not uploading this, but in truth, I’ve written over a hundred pages on more ‘hell’ arguments and verses, and Alex’s lacking refutation gave me a perfect opportunity to highlight the simple truth: that these arguments are, indeed, lacking. These arguments in favor of hell are widely accepted by many, and it all stems from this strange “synonym” reasoning with a lack of a foundation or position to stand in.

“Okay, so in the first section you are talking about what Pastor John has to say about predestination. You have a meme and you *sigh*. If I may say, the meme is extra, the sigh is extra. Please stick to your argument. It really isn’t good for you to do these things. It comes off as arrogant. This is supposed to be an argumentative article not some sort of play. Now, I do agree that from time to time it is okay to pop a joke or make a witty remark. The witty remark or joke should not be something insulting to the reader. Especially if said reader disagrees with you. However, if you decide to take that avenue, reassure the reader that you’re just playing around. The issue is you’re not doing that and the thing you do leaves a bad taste in the mouth.”

Yes, let’s be kinder to the doctrine that speaks of the eternal burning of everyone that didn’t see eye to eye with us on the scriptures. You know what’s insulting to me? Being told that, because I’m in fervent disagreement with such a pompous doctrine, that I myself am the pompous one. I believe I’ve done an excellent job at highlighting, in this original series of articles, just how uncaring the doctrine of eternal torment truly is, by matching its energy. Alex’s reply – carrying all the pre-supposed imperiousness of the doctrine with little founded, egocentric critique – proves this point all the more. This is a discussion about eternal torment, not my personal writing style - and it never was.

Alex replied to this, saying, “If your intent is to insult the argument instead of the person, the person tends to feel insulted.” Which… I know! Good! I didn’t want any unabashed eternal torment believer to miss the message: if you are telling me that some of humanity is somehow “choosing” to be burned alive by God by rejecting whatever message you are proposing, then you, my friend, are asking to be insulted! I have nothing kind to say to people who fear-monger and pretend to be good-willed while they do it! You want to get to know someone? Ask them who their god is. When they tell you that their god is a fan of burning people eternally because they don’t choose him, then I believe you’ve said much about your character, and I’m arguably giving more humane respect than I should be giving. In truth, Paul says you should be gagged (Titus 1:11,) and I tend to agree. The world would be a much better place if people weren’t spreading this nonsense as if it’s loving or humanitarian in any way. God will thankfully give you what’s coming to you, so that by the end of the story you’ll actually be someone a sane person wants to talk to!

“Now, it seems that you are one who does not believe in free will. By all means, what you say and write and think are all dictated by God. I acquire this understanding from here, ‘How absolutely silly one would be to say, “God’s subjecting you, but only with your permission!”’ Now my ending in Part 3 makes sense when I speak of God predestinating the KJV translators to make such a great Bible. It is His bible after all. What a petty that your own anger betrayed you in this and made you insult God’s work.”

It sounds like Alex is one who would say, ‘God’s subjecting you, but only with your permission!’ This, of course, goes directly against the verses we’ve discussed so far, which point directly to God’s authority over His creation. As I’ve pointed a number of verses out, now, it looks as though the burden of proof is, in actuality, on Alex to show where he identifies ‘free will’ in the original Greek text. Just because “the majority” accepts this doctrine does not mean that the components of a simple argument (claim>support & evidence>conclusion) don’t apply.

To wrap up the “KJV” shite from Part 1: the KJV is not God’s Bible – it’s King James’ Bible. He had the final say. It is his version of what he thinks the scriptures should say, and those who swear by it are limited to his fallible interpretation of the text, and lose the value in the textual criticism of a refined translation.

“Further on, I see you quote all the typical Calvinist verses used for predestination. I find it interesting. Did you not say in an earlier part that Calvinists are wrong? Moving on…”

So, for anyone who doesn’t know: John Calvin did not write the Bible. What Alex calls ‘Calvinist verses’ are just verses. How on earth do you even reply to something like this? “Calvinist verses are used, but Calvinists are wrong,” ergo – the verses themselves are wrong? I don’t understand. I thought all of Scripture is inspired by God, and beneficial for teaching (2 Tim. 3:16?) What happened? You could argue that Alex is simply saying that I’m “interpreting the verses the same way the Calvinists do,” which a) is an assumption, and b) is unfounded, as Alex did not give the so-called “proper” interpretation of these verses, but simply labeled me and moved on.

“I found this quote of yours interesting and worth time to deal with, ‘It is unjust for God to predestine people to hell – not because ‘predestining at all is inherently unjust,’ but because claiming that He is predestining people to pass through fire is unjust! This is especially true when He explicitly says that the idea is abhorrent to His heart. It is ‘hell’ that is the issue, here, that it has been worked into a text and passed off as absolute truth.’

Switch out hell for any sort of punishment or negative sounding thing you’d like!”

Why would I do this? I didn’t write the Scriptures. They are not subject to my personal view on any one matter. Why don’t I just study the Greek for myself, consider the original terms used, and not the umbrella term ‘hell’ which is used to justify a billion different interpretations, and realize a more exact, calculated punishment that God is referring to?

(Alex replied I missed the point of his argument, here. I reply, Alex, that I heard you loud and clear. You didn’t answer me, though – you just gave me a mindless generalization. Answer the objections! It’s not my problem if you can’t, and it is understandable why you must dodge.)

“You stated, ‘What Pastor John should say (and it’s what I will also tell you,) is this: study it for yourself. Stop taking crap from others and study the original Greek text. Detach whatever personal feelings you may have about the world, because God did not write His word with intent to adhere to man’s feelings, but to clarify His own. It’s not “don’t believe yourself, even if it’s true.” It’s simply, Believe what’s true.’ Take your own advice man. Get out of that Concordant crap.”

Tell me, in a well-founded, actually researched argument (one where you do not screenshot the blue letter bible, but study the evidence and expound upon your methodology, interpretive method, and your conclusion,) why you believe I should run away from these others who study the oldest known Greek texts. If you can’t do this, then you have no grounds to make this claim.

“You state, ‘For Pastor John, it seems as though only the worst of the worst go to hell. There is not a single verse that we’ve read that mentions this being the case for ‘Gehenna,’ ‘Tartarus,’ or ‘Unseen.’ None of them say ‘You have to be really bad to end up here!’ As we have studied, Gehenna is true of lawbreakers in the kingdom, Tartarus is for sinning messengers, and the unseen is what happens to every soul when they die.’

You are making a straw man against Pastor John. Honestly, this is just very horrible.”

Is this even a study anymore? Alex could have said “I disagree, and I don’t like you,” and taken a three hour lunch.

Alex tells me that it is “not a study to begin with,” but that it was a document which was meant to point out the errors in my arguments and help me improve. His version of “help” was an excuse to rashly criticize anything and everything he could, from the style to the substance of the writing.

To repeat the beginning of my argument: Alex’s view on “proper argumentation” is quite short-sighted; satire, biting commentary, and strong, decisive diction is an attention-grabber, and always has been. Many well-written, structured arguments employ similar methods that I have, and I see no reason that I cannot replicate the attention-grabbing nature of those arguments (learned for the most part from the inspired writers of scripture themselves.) Alex’s arguments against the style are entirely subjective, and a matter of discourse; opinion. Conjecture. Stance. Impression. I am not required to adhere to his 57-point plan to writing a perfect argument.

Moving on, Alex really seemed to dislike Romans 11:26-36, because, after skipping past the cited verses and support that display God’s willingness to save even the most irreverent of Israel (“And thus all Israel shall be saved,” 11:26,) all he had to say was,

“You once again mess up the meaning of another verse. This time in Romans 11. It is contrasting Jews and gentiles. God wants none to perish, that is true. But for Him to not want anyone to perish means someone is perishing. Otherwise, how can you wish for something to happen if it is going to happen either way?”

Alex does not properly elaborate on how I’ve ‘messed up’ Romans 11, and why I should not believe God when He says that all Israel shall be saved. Alex replies to this objection, saying,

“I mean we could talk about how “all” does not mean each and every single person. This is actually something Calvinists and Arminians agree on. For different reasons but they agree on the notion that “all” does not mean “all.” This is because the Greek word pas may mean it in a collective or in general sense. Cross referencing with John (3:16-21), we see why.”

Alex falsely correlates John 3:16-21 with Paul’s argument in Romans 11. Judgment is a pre-cursor to salvation, not the barrier to be saved. Judgment comes first, salvation later. We’ve been over this numerous times throughout this study, and I don’t feel a need to repeat myself, but let’s try not mixing two completely separate arguments next time!

Anyway, God does not ‘wish’ for anything to happen, and I never said He did. And, even if God did say, ‘I wish this happened’ – He would then make it happen! So here’s Yahweh, in Is. 46:9-10–

For I am El, and there is no other! Elohim! And no one like Me! Telling from the beginning, the hereafter, And from aforetime what has not yet been done, saying:

All My counsel shall be confirmed, and all My desire shall I do.

Then here’s Yahweh, in 1 Tim. 2:4–

[God] desires that all mankind be saved and come into a realization of the truth.

Then here’s Yahweh, in Eph. 1:9-11–

[God is] making known to us the secret of His will… to have an administration of the complement of the eras, to head up all in the Christ -- both that in the heavens and that on the earth -- in Him in Whom our lot was cast also, being designated beforehand according to the purpose of the One Who is operating all in accord with the counsel of His will…

Again, I’m left to wonder; did God say, “I wish for this to be, but it probably won’t happen,” or “I want this, so I’ll make it happen.” Is God proactive, or reactive?

Alex replies,

“It is clear that He wanted for certain things to happen and they did not. He also wanted certain things to not happen and they did.”

To which I say that Alex is misapprehending the difference between will and intention. These are two separate words, and, yet again, should be treated as such. Some can go against the relative will of God. But the intention of the all-knowing, Supreme Deity that created the universe and all in it would, naturally, not be thwarted by man’s unbelief (Rom. 3:4, 9:18-24.) Even the verse above, Eph. 1:11, points out that all occurs in accord with the counsel of His will – not just “all occurs in accord with His will.” This is to point out that there is a larger intent for the acts the defy His will.

The relative verses where God tells someone to do something and then they don’t do it are explained by Paul, in Romans 5:20–

Yet the law crept in by the way, that the offense should be increasing.

Never does God reveal this fact to the Israelites. He never pulls Moses aside and says, “Hey, so the purpose of the law will be to cause all of your loved ones’ offenses to increase. Good day!” This is a distinctly Pauline revelation revealed after the death, entombment, and resurrection of our Lord. His will was for the Israelites to follow the law. His intent was for the Israelites’ offense to increase (for, if there were no known offense, then there is no revealed need for a Savior.)

“You stated, “With everything we just considered about God’s sovereignty, when on earth do you see God say that man is responsible for their actions??He never once says this. He spends most of His time in Scripture highlighting man’s inability to act, so that the message of faith on His terms is established! He says that He is responsible for all:” You are kidding me, right? Here, I’ll leave this link here so you can see just some of the many verses about personal responsibility:

https://www.gotquestions.org/personal-responsibility.html

here is another one:

https://www.openbible.info/topics/being_held_accountable_for_what_we_know”

This is where I will be instilling an executive order. Because Alex has not replied to any of the verses prior to this, and has firmly demonstrated that he is pre-supposing his beliefs, and because the translations that these links are using are undoubtedly questionable, I am not going to explore the 80 verses spanning across these two links in this study. If Alex believes that finding ‘gotquestions.org’ and citing the link will be a pleasing Bible study to his pyromaniac of a god, then that’s his business. In the meantime, I will be sticking to the oldest Greek texts that my God claims to have inspired, and scrutinizing them carefully.

And, after saying “nuh-uh” to another founded claim, we have reached the abrupt end to his “rebuttal” to Part 4 of my original study. Unfortunately, his part 5-response is even shorter than his part 4-response, with even less rationale.

I’ll start with my original quote, criticizing Pastor John’s cognitive dissonance:

“ ‘God is sovereign – but you are responsible!’ What?? Wait, wait, hang on – let me try!

-       I finished the book, but I’m only on chapter one!

-       I’m in space – but I’m on earth!

-       I’m a man – but I’m a woman!

-       I’m a smart idiot – but a stupid genius!

I don’t know. I don’t think I’m as good at it as Pastor John is.”

You stated, “I don’t know. I don’t think I’m as good at it as Pastor John is.” Tell me, why should I entertain you anymore? Look, I disagree with Pastor John as well albeit for different reasons than you but how dare you act in an unloving way towards someone who is predestined to say what he did? Oh, that’s right, you think you being rude is predestined by God and you are to not be held accountable, right? How vile.

And, if Alex had actually read the previous article instead of dismissing it (as well as remaining ignorant to the brief Romans 9 study conducted in the original series of articles,) he would have seen that accountability and responsibility are undoubtedly not the same thing. Any accountant would tell you that to have something accounted to your name is not the same as you being responsible for it. Many receive some small fortune from loved ones that pass away, leaving their will behind. This fortune is accounted to the living individual, but it does not mean that they are the reason for the loved one’s passing!

Similarly, believers have received a much larger fortune from Christ, being ‘righteousness through His faith.’ His faith is accounted to our faith, but it does not make us the source or cause of our fortune or belief, and thus not the source or cause of any righteousness (Rom. 1:17,  3:10-11, 19-26.)

The End of Alex’s Original Argument

With no argument, no careful study to unfold, and with no proper reasoning as to why we should accept this eternal fate for billions of people, Alex has nothing left to throw but insult – which reveals that what he is judging me in, he has condemned himself (Rom. 2:1-2.) Feigning a moral high-ground while secretly admiring many readers’ flaming, cyclical demise, we watch Alex self-destruct. It’s kind of painful to read:

“Honestly, all of your argument has been crude, vile, twisted and just a heap of prideful selfishness which does not take other people into account. I understand the truth hurts but allow the truth to hurt for what it is not because you’re being rude, or unloving to others.

This part is probably the most hateful and arrogant part out of your whole series. What’s worse is that you seem to be belittling my friend, Gavin. What is wrong with you?! I do not appreciate the tone of any single one of your 5 articles especially this one. You can disagree with people without making them feel like idiots. You did a great job at insulting other people and if your goal was to convince individuals of your side of the argument, you did a poor job of it.

I cannot express how much disdain I have for these articles. Not because you think it is the truth but because they are written is such a vile way. For even if you were right about anything that you said, you must say it in a loving manner. I am not going to deal with this section any longer. It seems like it deals more with predestination than it does with hell. It’s like I am going to argue a Calvinist who believes the final destination is not hell.

In conclusion, I do hope you can switch your arguing style. It is severely wanting and leaves a foul taste in the mouth. I tell you this not to offend you but to help you become a better individual. And if at any time you got offended at my arguing and even feel the urge to point out the “rude” parts, then I have successfully shown you what is wrong with your arguing style as I intentionally copied your rude argumentative style in order to highlight the severity of this issue.

There are many phrases that you write that can be taken personally by any individual who disagrees with your position. When we argue we must dedicate ourselves to showing our position and disagreeing with the other position(s) that there is/are. When we disagree with the other position(s) we must do so in an eloquent manner. In such a way where we point out the flaws of another’s argument without insulting the argument or the person making said argument. It takes understanding social cues or what is proper polite speech. As I said earlier, let the truth offend but do not be rude when presenting the truth. It is here where we find that you made so many offenses. How do I know this? You position is essentially one where everyone will go to heaven. It is called Universalism. How offensive is that really? That’s the best news anyone could have! However, you made it offensive by how you argued.”

I’m not going to take measures to reply to all of this, as most of it is emotional whiplash as opposed to passionate refutation of any of the points made in the final article. But I will say that it fascinates me that he was so irreparably pained by my final article, considering it’s the article that fully unveils the distinctly Pauline truth that all will be saved. In order to dismiss the facts, he must criticize the person. I will end this with the same statement Paul made, in 1 Tim. 4:9-11–

Faithful is the saying and worthy of all welcome (for for this are we toiling and being reproached), that we rely on the living God, Who is the Saviour of all mankind, especially of believers. These things be charging and teaching.

For adhering to this statement – for clinging to it – I am being reproached. I have been throughout this entire study, and you can see it in Alex’s articles. When you teach that we rely on the living God, Who is the Savior of all mankind, you will face reproach on all sides. Yet the statement is still faithful, and is still worthy of all welcome. And, yes, it is these things that I will be charging and teaching. No amount of complaints from the sons of the Adversary will change that.

Final Thoughts

When I completed my first draft of this argument, I had not yet received a “reply” from Alex on any point. It was not until I completed my first draft that Alex wrote a 200-page reply to said draft. He had a couple of good rebuttals, but the vast majority of his arguments resorted to blindly accepting man’s claims from the first century and screenshotting the blue letter bible. I ignored many points, as they were typically long moral discussions about the ethics of the method of argumentation – not concerning each argumentative point itself.

Throughout our dialogue, I kept getting this… weird, nagging feeling that he was intentionally not elaborating or explaining his views up front and clearly. It was this, to me, that made me realize that Alex is not trying to play with a fair vantage point. He would continually withhold random, specific tidbits of information in order to seemingly “surprise” me with a random point to shift the argument into one of him educating me on the “dangers” and “pitfalls” of arguing in the manner that I did. He states on multiple occasions that the purpose of his original series of articles was not to argue the topic at hand, but to personally show me how to improve my argumentation (“Now, it was not a study to begin with. It was a document which was meant to point out the errors in your arguments and help you improve.” p. 250.)

This is called, in simple terms, dodging. You are trying to discredit the person so that you can dismiss the evidence. It is exactly what the pharisees did to Christ when He presented them with evidential facts, and they sought to discredit Him with trick questions and charge Him with breaking their own traditional law. A sense of this in the opponent – instead of seeking to consider the word of God’s careful and beautifully precise grammar, seeking to guide and educate you from an unknown and shifting stance – is the very same spirit the pharisees held. Alex here sought to fix the opponent by pointing at the wrongs of his opponent, instead of, himself, reflecting on his own beliefs concerning all life, and honestly walking with the opponent.

And my suspicion that this attitude of “help” was fake only grew. Throughout this whole darned thing, I never once felt I’d read a genuine “Well, Stephen, this is certainly a wealth of textual evidence that, even if I don’t agree with or just may not understand, I can… fairly… see why you don’t believe in hell, and why you wouldn’t want this to happen to all of creation.” Not once did he even try to concede that it is, indeed, possible to read the Greek literally and reach that conclusion.

That would have been true humility. Not epistemological humility, which I can only hope Alex disregards. It would be a real reflection on the conversation, you know? I will admit, if I had seen that at least once, I would probably feel far less frustrated, the more I especially got through his written behemoth of complaints. It would leave the conversation feeling far more worthwhile, from my perspective.

Of course, I know, I didn’t make the same quote of understanding toward him, throughout this entire series. But I don’t think a reciprocal admission of such a statement denotes humility on both ends, because, in truth, the context is such that this statement wouldn’t make sense in two directions. There wasn’t much textual criticism on Alex’s end. Some of my eternal torment readers must realize that… right? Alex really just didn’t put a lot from the text out there, or much in the name of concrete answers to the arguments. He would show me man’s reasoning on an interpretive website, but other than that, his actual textual evidence was so lacking that, in order to hide the fact, says, “The purpose of my original articles was to show the flaws in your argument” (p. 246,) as opposed to just answering a simple question or two.

And, moreover, I really can’t see why Alex would believe in hell, and he never really explained why he cared about that doctrine so much, or even why he was defending it so hard. I think I’m quite clear when I clearly assert why I don’t believe in the doctrine, and why I argue against it. In that, I believe my humility is found in the fact that I don’t wish to see my enemies be burned alive. I don’t wish to see them destroyed, and it is such a great relief to be shown that God, against all of my beliefs about Him, feels exactly that same way (2 Cor. 5:18-21, 1 Tim. 2:4, 1 Cor. 15:22.) As such, Alex’s claims that I’m blindly insulting him, or carry some agenda to harp on him, are completely unfounded. Unlike Alex, I am not seeking to dwell on Alex’s sin. I am celebrating, instead, Alex’s ultimate reconciliation to God through His divine judgment, illuminating Alex’s spirit.

In short, I don’t know how to kindly tell Alex that I didn’t ask him his opinion – I asked for an argument against the evidence and simple logistical proofs that I’d brought to the table. And, even if I were looking for writing tips, I certainly wouldn’t ask the man who says, “I am not on a moral high ground. I can, however, tell you how to improve and give you advice in everything” (p. 253.) This “epistemological” humility is not true humility – it is a show, fabricated in each and every deflection in his work, and secured by his belief that folk like myself, unless conforming to his view, are subject to eternal flames and hellfire for a never-ending period of time.

Epilogue

At this point, I was going to dive into Alex’s promised 12-page exhortation on hell, to wrap everything up. However, when I did so, I was going to enforce three rules that were necessary, for the sake of time.

First, I was only going to respond to points that are explicitly from the scriptures. If Alex’s argument were in reference to an outside source, then said outside source must cite the Biblical text, or I’ve no reason to consider them.

Second, if I had already covered a statement similar to one he makes in this 12-page wrap-up, I would not be replying to it a second time.

Third, if “proof” for his argument boiled down to a screenshot or citation from the blue letter bible, then I would be ignoring it, for it is unproven that the blue letter bible is infallible.

I thought that there would be at least one or two claims in his twelve page diatribe that would be worth discussing, but when I applied these three rules, I found that there were, indeed, no arguments to be made. The pillar for his argument is, of course, found in the blue letter bible, and the citations he brings are each and every verse from the New Testament which employ the word “hell.” I have nothing to say to this, for his argument is one of stubborn ignorance – not honest academic consideration.

With that, this entire series reaches its end. I am glad to have gone through all of these arguments, and I didn’t realize I had so much fuel in me to dissect them. The more time passes, the fewer rational arguments I find from the “pro-eternal-torment” camp – nor do I find in them a rational ability to answer me properly. This is why I wrote this series. Does Alex speak for every eternal torment guy? No. But for those eternal torment folk who hadn’t given their personal beliefs on this matter more than a second thought, I advise you give it a second thought. Think about it. Ask yourself: is a loving, all-knowing God incapable of saving the worst of us? Do the back-stabbers, cheaters, drinkers, murderers, and rapists deserve an eternal torment, or is the loving, all-knowing God actually able to correct them, rehabilitating them into people who aren’t complete garbage – like He said He will (1 Tim. 4:10, Col. 1:18-20?)

The irony here has long reached its beautiful climax, as our positions, at the end of the day, speak for themselves. The “prideful, selfish, arrogant” nature of the “salvation of all?” Or the “sweet, tremulous sounds” of “people I disagree with screaming as they are perpetually seared a la The Holocaust?”

I will leave it to the reader to reconsider who, indeed, is being “disrespectful” to the masses.

- GerudoKing