Seperation from an omnipresent God.

This just crossed my mind now so I thought I'd get your opinion on it.

You often hear Christians making two claims about God. First they say that he is omnipresent, meaning that he is present everywhere. Fair enough. But then they say that in hell you will be seperated from him, meaning that he will not be present in that particular place (2 Thessalonians 1:9).

Well haven't these claims just contradicted each other? It may seem so upon first inspection but I imagine there will be all sorts of ways to respond to this. In responding then hopefully we can develop exactly what is meant by omnipresence.

Maybe hell is simply complete non-existence, because if God exists everywhere, then it is nowhere that he does not exist. 

Well, my opinion about such complements "accompanying" God is that they are not meant to be literal.

Omnipotent, imo, is supposed to describe that God has powers beyond our imagination.

Omnipresent, imo, is supposed to describe that God isnt restricted by distances or physical obstacles, meaning that nothing escapes him.

And so on.

The problem comes with extremists who will attach themselves to the most literal of meanings in almost everything in the Bible, because like I have said before, for some reason literalism has been connected to truthfulness, and for them, interpretable meanings take away from the Bible's credibility in that they arent appropriate for absolute conclusions and extremism is based on absolutes.

This could mean that God can be everywhere but doesn't necessarily have to be everywhere especially in someone who rejects his existence or his Word, this case being the Bible.Genetic_Code

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]This could mean that God can be everywhere but doesn't necessarily have to be everywhere especially in someone who rejects his existence or his Word, this case being the Bible.ChiliDragon

Basically, God separates from those who first separate themselves from God. God's essentially doing what the person wants him to do and for that person, that can be seen as a favor. Of course, if we're dealing with a good and just God, that's not the case, but for the misotheist, that may be desirable.

I'll give you an example where both of these are seen together: the death of Christ.

When Jesus Christ bore the sins of the world upon the cross, God the Father turned his face away.  At that moment, God's wrath was laid upon his perfect Son.  God the Son was seperated relationally from God the Father.

God is always present, but his mercy and grace is not.

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"][QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]This could mean that God can be everywhere but doesn't necessarily have to be everywhere especially in someone who rejects his existence or his Word, this case being the Bible.Genetic_Code

Basically, God separates from those who first separate themselves from God. God's essentially doing what the person wants him to do and for that person, that can be seen as a favor. Of course, if we're dealing with a good and just God, that's not the case, but for the misotheist, that may be desirable.

I'll give you an example where both of these are seen together: the death of Christ.

When Jesus Christ bore the sins of the world upon the cross, God the Father turned his face away. At that moment, God's wrath was laid upon his perfect Son. God the Son was seperated relationally from God the Father.

God is always present, but his mercy and grace is not.

mindstorm

I'd say that I agree with that interpretation (that's not to say that I believe the new testament to be correct, though). I was watching a clip from a sermon by Paul Washer and he said that Jesus is lord of your life whether you believe it or not. If that's true, it suggests that Jesus died not just for those who believe. From that, we can go a step further by saying that he cares [to a degree] about people who don't believe in him. I think that that means that Jesus is always waiting and hoping for people to come to repentance while they're on earth, but if someone is in hell, he no longer has hope for them because the person is seperated from Jesus as well as the other two parts of the trinity.

Am I understanding this concept correctly?

Yes, you are. :) The tradition I was raised in and to a large extent still agrees with, disagrees and says that you can still change your mind even in hell. However, once a person has gone that far, they are very unlikely to want to do so. They will be welcomed "back" if they do, it's just that very few are willing to consider turning in that direction. Jesus did die for everyone, believers and unbelievers alike, I think very few denominations will disagree on that.ChiliDragon

That sounds a lot like the concept of baptism for the dead, which was introduced by the prophet Joseph Smith (although I'm sure a mormon would say that it was technically the holy spirit who introduced it :P). The LDS church says that a mormon can undergo a ritual in which he/she is baptised on behalf of dead people. It says that that ritual allows those dead people an opportunity to accept the LDS faith in the after-life, which can send them into heaven if they agree to it and follow the ordinances.

Out of curiousity, are you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?

The LDS church says that a mormon can undergo a ritual in which he/she is baptised on behalf of dead people. It says that that ritual allows those dead people an opportunity to accept the LDS faith in the after-life, which can send them into heaven if they agree to it and follow the ordinances. Out of curiousity, are you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?dracula_16

I'll give you an example where both of these are seen together: the death of Christ.

When Jesus Christ bore the sins of the world upon the cross, God the Father turned his face away.  At that moment, God's wrath was laid upon his perfect Son.  God the Son was seperated relationally from God the Father.

God is always present, but his mercy and grace is not.

mindstorm

I'm not so sure that 2 Thessalonians 1:9 was talking just about God's mercy and power. It reads:

"They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power"

Now if the "presence of the Lord" here meant his power and mercy why does the sentence then go on to add that the "majesty of his power" is also absent. Wouldn't that be a tautology? The most straightforward way to read it is that "presence" refers to God's literal presence and the "majesty of his power" refers to the grace and life that he provides.

As the verse reads then it's not just his grace that is absent in hell but also himself.

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

I'll give you an example where both of these are seen together: the death of Christ.

When Jesus Christ bore the sins of the world upon the cross, God the Father turned his face away.  At that moment, God's wrath was laid upon his perfect Son.  God the Son was seperated relationally from God the Father.

God is always present, but his mercy and grace is not.

domatron23

I'm not so sure that 2 Thessalonians 1:9 was talking just about God's mercy and power. It reads:

"They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power"

Now if the "presence of the Lord" here meant his power and mercy why does the sentence then go on to add that the "majesty of his power" is also absent. Wouldn't that be a tautology? The most straightforward way to read it is that "presence" refers to God's literal presence and the "majesty of his power" refers to the grace and life that he provides.

As the verse reads then it's not just his grace that is absent in hell but also himself.

Hell is indeed absense from the goodness and majesty of God. I suppose there are actually two possibilities outside of that reality:

1. God's presence is still known in hell through his wrath.

2. God's lack of presense is what essentially causes hell to be hell.

Hell is indeed absense from the goodness and majesty of God. I suppose there are actually two possibilities outside of that reality:

1. God's presence is still known in hell through his wrath.

2. God's lack of presense is what essentially causes hell to be hell.

mindstorm

If we presume that it's #2 would that contradict God's omnipresence in your mind?

Out of curiosity, where does it say that God is present everywhere?  I can't remember what the precise wording was.

Out of curiosity, where does it say that God is present everywhere?  I can't remember what the precise wording was.

GabuEx

This is from Jeremiah 23

23 "Am I only a God nearby,"
       declares the LORD,
       "and not a God far away?

 24 Can anyone hide in secret places
       so that I cannot see him?"
       declares the LORD.
       "Do not I fill heaven and earth?"
       declares the LORD.

Although curiously, according to the King James version God is present in hell, rather than just heaven. Psalm 139:8 says:

"If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there."

But the NIV and almost (excluding the GOD'S WORD translation and perhaps a few others) every other English translation renders "hell" as "the depths" or "underground" or "sheol".

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

Hell is indeed absense from the goodness and majesty of God. I suppose there are actually two possibilities outside of that reality:

1. God's presence is still known in hell through his wrath.

2. God's lack of presence is what essentially causes hell to be hell.

domatron23

If we presume that it's #2 would that contradict God's omnipresence in your mind?

I found something in one of my books which helps here.  I'm quoting it below. :P

Out of curiosity, where does it say that God is present everywhere?  I can't remember what the precise wording was.

GabuEx

I know domatron gave you some passages but I have a few more.

1 Kings 8:27 - "But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!"

Isaiah 66:1 points into the direction of omnipresense - "This is what the LORD says: 'Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. Where is the house you will build for me? Where will my resting place be?'"

In speaking about this subject, Wayne Grudem in his Systematic Theology on pages 174-175 states the following:

"There is nowhere in the entire universe, on land or sea, in heaven or hell, where one can flee from God's presence. We should note also that there is no indication that simply a part of God is in one place and a part of him in another.  It is God himself who is present wherever David might go (referencing Psalms 139).  We cannot say that some of God or just part of God is present, for that would be to think of his being in spatial terms, as if he were limited somehow to space.  It seems more appropriate to say that God is present with his whole being in every part of space. . . .

. . . While it seems necessary for us to say that God's whole being is present in every part of space, or at every point in space, it is also necessary to say that God cannot be contained by any space, no matter how large. . . . Heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain God; indeed, he cannot be contained by the largest space imaginable (as Isa. 66:1 above seems to imply). . . .

. . . The idea of God's omnipresence has sometimes troubled people who wonder how God can be present, for example, in hell.  In fact, isn't hell the opposite of God's presence, or the absence of God?  This difficulty can be resolved by realizing that God is present in different ways in different places, or that God acts differently in different places in his creation.  sometimes God is present to punish.  A terrifying passage in Amos vividly portrays this presence of God in judgment:

'I saw the Lord standing by the altar, and he said: 'Strike the tops of the pillars so that the thresholds shake. Bring them down on the heads of all the people; those who are left I will kill with the sword. Not one will get away, none will escape. Though they dig down to the depths of the grave, from there my hand will take them. Though they climb up to the heavens, from there I will bring them down. Though they hide themselves on the top of Carmel, there I will hunt them down and seize them. Though they hide from me at the bottom of the sea, there I will command the serpent to bite them. Though they are driven into exile by their enemies, there I will command the sword to slay them. I will fix my eyes upon them for evil and not for good'' (Amos 9:1-4).

At other times God is present neither to punish nor to bless, but merely present to sustain, or to keep the universe existing and functioning in the way he intended it to function.  In this sense the divine nature of Christ is everywhere present: 'He is before all things, and in him all things hold together' (Col. 1:17)."

Grudem continues on in other ways he is present within all of creation but you get the idea. :P

I can't say that I see anything that he has said that I even partially disagree with.

'I saw the Lord standing by the altar, and he said: 'Strike the tops of the pillars so that the thresholds shake. Bring them down on the heads of all the people; those who are left I will kill with the sword. Not one will get away, none will escape. Though they dig down to the depths of the grave, from there my hand will take them. Though they climb up to the heavens, from there I will bring them down. Though they hide themselves on the top of Carmel, there I will hunt them down and seize them. Though they hide from me at the bottom of the sea, there I will command the serpent to bite them. Though they are driven into exile by their enemies, there I will command the sword to slay them. I will fix my eyes upon them for evil and not for good'' (Amos 9:1-4).

mindstorm

Good Lord!

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

'I saw the Lord standing by the altar, and he said: 'Strike the tops of the pillars so that the thresholds shake. Bring them down on the heads of all the people; those who are left I will kill with the sword. Not one will get away, none will escape. Though they dig down to the depths of the grave, from there my hand will take them. Though they climb up to the heavens, from there I will bring them down. Though they hide themselves on the top of Carmel, there I will hunt them down and seize them. Though they hide from me at the bottom of the sea, there I will command the serpent to bite them. Though they are driven into exile by their enemies, there I will command the sword to slay them. I will fix my eyes upon them for evil and not for good'' (Amos 9:1-4).

RationalAtheist

Good Lord!

Problem Rational? I rather like that verse. It is very comforting. :D

I'll give my imput on the hell question a bit later. I want to give a solid reply.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="mindstorm"]

'I saw the Lord standing by the altar, and he said: 'Strike the tops of the pillars so that the thresholds shake. Bring them down on the heads of all the people; those who are left I will kill with the sword. Not one will get away, none will escape. Though they dig down to the depths of the grave, from there my hand will take them. Though they climb up to the heavens, from there I will bring them down. Though they hide themselves on the top of Carmel, there I will hunt them down and seize them. Though they hide from me at the bottom of the sea, there I will command the serpent to bite them. Though they are driven into exile by their enemies, there I will command the sword to slay them. I will fix my eyes upon them for evil and not for good'' (Amos 9:1-4).

maheo30

Good Lord!

Problem Rational? I rather like that verse. It is very comforting. :D

I'll give my imput on the hell question a bit later. I want to give a solid reply.

Seemingly, but there's little I can do about GS line-spacing!

Seriously though, it is interesting to note the comfort you draw from such an aggressive and violent passage. Don't forget that solid relpy, later!

Seriously though, it is interesting to note the comfort you draw from such an aggressive and violent passage.RationalAtheist

I agree with mahao in that it can indeed be a comforting passage. God's judgment and his restoration of the world go hand-in-hand.  As an example of this in Scripture, Isaiah 63:1-6 speaks of how God will "trample his enemies in the winepress."  To put it more clearly, Jesus will trample the fallen in such a way that it will be comparable to treading through a winepress with all of the blood spilt.  In this vengence towards sin, he is still refered to as one who is "mighty to save."

Part of God's restoration of the world is to destroy sin.  Through this destruction a great peace will come.  Yes, it is scary.  Yes, it will be bruttal.  But yes, there is a comfort in knowing that God will make all things right.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Seriously though, it is interesting to note the comfort you draw from such an aggressive and violent passage.mindstorm

I agree with mahao in that it can indeed be a comforting passage. God's judgment and his restoration of the world go hand-in-hand. As an example of this in Scripture, Isaiah 63:1-6 speaks of how God will "trample his enemies in the winepress." To put it more clearly, Jesus will trample the fallen in such a way that it will be comparable to treading through a winepress with all of the blood spilt. In this vengence towards sin, he is still refered to as one who is "mighty to save."

Part of God's restoration of the world is to destroy sin. Through this destruction a great peace will come. Yes, it is scary. Yes, it will be bruttal. But yes, there is a comfort in knowing that God will make all things right.

It must be good feeling "knowing" your big bully mate is coming to beat up your adverseries. There are plenty more places in the bible where vengance is substituted for comfort, in an inverse-fear context: i.e. to set up some fantasy notion of the "power" usually used to suppress you turned on someone else.

It must be good feeling "knowing" your big bully mate is coming to beat up your adverseries. There are plenty more places in the bible where vengance is substituted for comfort, in an inverse-fear context: i.e. to set up some fantasy notion of the "power" usually used to suppress you turned on someone else.

 

RationalAtheist

I don't think of it like that at all.  Scripture says that God yurns for us to turn back to him.  He's been through the peace-talks for many years now and we've refused to reply.  What is he to do, let the world continue in its sin?

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

It must be good feeling "knowing" your big bully mate is coming to beat up your adverseries. There are plenty more places in the bible where vengance is substituted for comfort, in an inverse-fear context: i.e. to set up some fantasy notion of the "power" usually used to suppress you turned on someone else.

 

mindstorm

I don't think of it like that at all.  Scripture says that God yurns for us to turn back to him.  He's been through the peace-talks for many years now and we've refused to reply.  What is he to do, let the world continue in its sin?

I don't think of it like that at all. Scripture says that God yurns for us to turn back to him. He's been through the peace-talks for many years now and we've refused to reply. What is he to do, let the world continue in its sin?

mindstorm

Even according to you, God has let the world continue in sin for over 2000 years, despite the Amos 9:4 threat of violence.

Do you think threatening behaviour is consistent with yearning?

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

I don't think of it like that at all. Scripture says that God yurns for us to turn back to him. He's been through the peace-talks for many years now and we've refused to reply. What is he to do, let the world continue in its sin?

RationalAtheist

Even according to you, God has let the world continue in sin for over 2000 years, despite the Amos 9:4 threat of violence.

But if he were to have brought about his judgment back during that time then none of us would even be alive today.  In God's patience regarding sin, sin will indeed be in this world for a longer period of time but more will come to salvation.  

Do you think threatening behaviour is consistent with yearning?

RationalAtheist

I see this to be little different than a parent interacting with his child.  God is not constantly threatening us but that is his response to our rebellion.  Would a loving parent be no different?

One of my cousins has a child about the age of 17.  This kid constantly gets into trouble, drinks under the age limit, does drugs, and threatens his mother.  His mother in her anguish has pleaded with him and had to threaten him but to no avail.  Because of his rebellion, she has had to have him taken away by the police in order to put an end to it.  Are we before God any different?

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

I don't think of it like that at all.  Scripture says that God yurns for us to turn back to him.  He's been through the peace-talks for many years now and we've refused to reply.  What is he to do, let the world continue in its sin?

Teenaged

I approach free will differently than most Christians but ultimately, yes.  Our "free choice" since Adam's fall has been rebellion against God.  We are an obstinent and stubborn people who refuse to turn to God as he yurns for us.

I'm slightly confused where you are trying to take the question.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="mindstorm"]

I don't think of it like that at all.  Scripture says that God yurns for us to turn back to him.  He's been through the peace-talks for many years now and we've refused to reply.  What is he to do, let the world continue in its sin?

mindstorm

I approach free will differently than most Christians but ultimately, yes.  Our "free choice" since Adam's fall has been rebellion against God.  We are an obstinent and stubborn people who refuse to turn to God as he yurns for us.

I'm slightly confused where you are trying to take the question.

That passage is about the second coming of Christ, right?

Oh my mistake.

That passage is about the second coming of Christ, right?

Teenaged

The ultimate fullfilling of that passage will arive at the second coming, yes.

But if he were to have brought about his judgment back during that time then none of us would even be alive today. In God's patience regarding sin, sin will indeed be in this world for a longer period of time but more will come to salvation.

mindstorm

That's circular reasoning, thinking God held off for you. God is to let sin continue on then - you just answered your earlier question.

I see this to be little different than a parent interacting with his child. God is not constantly threatening us but that is his response to our rebellion. Would a loving parent be no different?

One of my cousins has a child about the age of 17. This kid constantly gets into trouble, drinks under the age limit, does drugs, and threatens his mother. His mother in her anguish has pleaded with him and had to threaten him but to no avail. Because of his rebellion, she has had to have him taken away by the police in order to put an end to it. Are we before God any different?

mindstorm

Some intereaction, when a parent threatens deadly violence on their child! What makes you think the threat isn't constant? Your cousin's partner's own threats have been to no avail; your story only shows that negative encouragement does not work.

Personally, I'd much rather be taken away by the police than being crushed by pillars, slayed with swords and have God be vindictively evil to me. Fortunately, so does western society.

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

But if he were to have brought about his judgment back during that time then none of us would even be alive today. In God's patience regarding sin, sin will indeed be in this world for a longer period of time but more will come to salvation.

RationalAtheist

That's circular reasoning, thinking God held off for you. God is to let sin continue on then - you just answered your earlier question.

I see this to be little different than a parent interacting with his child. God is not constantly threatening us but that is his response to our rebellion. Would a loving parent be no different?

One of my cousins has a child about the age of 17. This kid constantly gets into trouble, drinks under the age limit, does drugs, and threatens his mother. His mother in her anguish has pleaded with him and had to threaten him but to no avail. Because of his rebellion, she has had to have him taken away by the police in order to put an end to it. Are we before God any different?

mindstorm

Some intereaction, when a parent threatens deadly violence on their child! What makes you think the threat isn't constant? Your cousin's partner's own threats have been to no avail; your story only shows that negative encouragement does not work.

Personally, I'd much rather be taken away by the police than being crushed by pillars, slayed with swords and have God be vindictively evil to me. Fortunately, so does western society.

That can happen when one tries to rely on a bunch of ancient desert nomads to give them their moral code. :P

Fortunately, Christianity and Judaism have become more and more secular. Some islamic states are happy still living in the dark ages, though. :?

Part of God's restoration of the world is to destroy sin.  Through this destruction a great peace will come.  Yes, it is scary.  Yes, it will be bruttal.  But yes, there is a comfort in knowing that God will make all things right.

mindstorm

Except, apparently, for all of the sinners. :P

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

Part of God's restoration of the world is to destroy sin.  Through this destruction a great peace will come.  Yes, it is scary.  Yes, it will be bruttal.  But yes, there is a comfort in knowing that God will make all things right.

GabuEx

Except, apparently, for all of the sinners. :P

Psht, are exception clauses all that important really?

Oh wait... I guess it would be wouldn't it. :P