Lol, that was great.

But as we know, most heresies are 99% truth.

Then, except for Rick Frueh, we are all heretics???!

“Then, except for Rick Frueh, we are all heretics???!”

I corrected the 1% on November 25th at 4:36 PM, after that you are correct, Gene.

Seriously, we all espouse things that probably are not true, however the term “heretic” should apply to those who alter the salvation message.

John 3:36 ESV Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

Seems plain – believe the Son and you have life. Believe not and you will not see life – on the contrary God’s wrath remains on such a person.

Douglas -

First,we have discussed “wrath of God” around here before and I am not sure it is worth getting into again just yet. In short, this “wrath” that is seen to remain on one who does not know Christ must be held in tension that God has made peace (reconciled) ALL things to him in Jesus Christ. So whatever you want to say about this “wrath” must be said in light of the finished work of Calvary.

Second, it is debateable what John means when he says “eternal life.” Some people restrict this to just the eternal (i.e. life after death and referring to some heavenly destination as oppossed to a hellish one). Others (and I include myself here) think “eternal life” is John’s way of talking about the Kingdom of God/Heaven that the synoptics speak of. It is “life of the ages” and although it certainly includes eternity it is primarily concerned with today – here and now. Jesus came to give life and life “abundantly” – Today. Today you can know what true life is.

Third, what it means to be truly alive is revealed to us in the person of Jesus Christ, through whom all things were made, move, breath and have their being. You do not know who you really are until you meet Jesus. Your identity is always in question and in flux until you meet Jesus. IOW, until you meet Jesus you are under “wrath.” For some this could potentially become an eternal reality for them. Yet, we who know Jesus also know that he is the one who never stops seeking, searching, looking and calling for those that are lost. We know that in him something cosmic happened on the cross and on Easter Sunday. And we know that in the end God will be the Judge – and only God. And in that day there will be surprises. Many will be suprised to see the “whore, the tax collector and the sinner” enter the gates before they.

Thus, I say we ALWAYS hesitate before we judge who is going to heaven or hell.

Yes, Paul C, very good.

I find it amazing that you can either

a) Read anything posted here without any eyes.

or

b) Walk sinless through life as the only man who has never lusted.

What could be more “plain” than to gouge out your eye if it causes you to lust?

Oh, wait – You mean there are deeper meanings to the words of scripture? Meanings that require all of our best efforts and guidance of the Holy Spirit to discern the deeper, spiritual significance of God’s inspired Word?

Or, is it as plain, dump and simple as See Dick Run?

Paul – does it take a long time to type that out with one hand?

Paul -
You have not, even in the least bit, shown how I have “warped the truth.” All you have done is argued that the scriptures are “plain” and “obvious.” I merely showed you how that is not the case.

You are welcome to prove that John does not mean what many scholars argue what I presented above. But an appeal to the “simplicity” of scripture only when it shores up your own opinion is not good enough.

Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of Sodium Chloride when she looked back at Sodom, which actually means we are to gaze at the world with affection and we will become the salt of the earth.

When Jesus uses a “Hebrewism” as an exageration to teach a principle, that in no way means everything is only metaphorical. The Scriptures contain many such symbolisms and metaphors, usually so outlandish that their literary essence is unmistakeable to any reasonable reader.

Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of Sodium Chloride when she looked back at Sodom, which actually means we are to gaze at the world with affection and we will become the salt of the earth.

Why can’t I come up with stuff like this – makes the point all the more clearer.

So is there a heaven that people go to when they die (if they are saved), or is the kingdom here and we improve it by good works that we do?…serious question…

The kingdom is both here now and yet to come…

I didn’t even go to seminary and I know that!

One day heaven and earth will be joined together forever.

Scripture, please.

PB,

Read the end of Revelation.

It actually doesn’t end with blood up to the bridle and Armageddon to satisfy the vengeful hearts of self righteous Christians–happy that “they” got theirs.

It ends with the city of God joining with a redeemed earth, the healing of the nations…

God’s final word is healing.

Not brute force.

To be clear, I love the Scriptures. I read them everyday. I want it to shape me, but I don’t have any illusions about how it actually functions in reality.

hear, hear.

I like the idea of “shaping.” I think that is precisely what Scripture is aimed at doing. It reforms our imaginations. Scripture should be for us, as Paul describes, a means of “renewing our minds” so that we can have eyes that see and ears that hear – we can sing “I once was blind but now I see.”

Errrm Chad,

No we haven’t discussed what “wrath” means – I’m still waiting for a Scriptural answer.

One day heaven and earth will be joined together forever. – Chad

Scripture, please. – PB

Revelation 21 for startes…

Chad, puke up a scripture… yuck… when you were told to hide God’s word in your heart, it didn’t mean eat it…

Mike, lol. I was going to use the more tame “regurgitate” but then figured, what the hell (oops, I mean heck).

As for eating it, Ezekiel tried that: It does leave a bitter taste in one’s mouth.

Think of it like a sinking ship. The ship is going down, but another boat pulls up alongside, shouting for the passengers on the sinking ship to save themselves by coming aboard. That is salvation – “But to as many as received Him, to them He gives power to become the sons of God.”

To use the ship analogy, I think of it more like this. Jesus jumped aboard the sinking ship, and is in the process of repairing it. He’s enlisting passengers to help Him, and those passengers and Him are preventing other passengers from jumping overboard.

One day, the Holy Spirit will completely repair the whole ship and the remaining passengers, but in the meantime the passengers need to realize it’s not a simple pleasure cruise…

Wrath = He’s mad.

Very profound…

This is not what Brendt was talking about as far I interpret his post. I took Brendt to be referring to the ADM habit of questioning the status of fellow believers.

I agree, as well…

Too often the ADM habit is to put quotes around the word “Christian”, when describing brothers with worship habits or minor doctrinal differences that they disagree with. It’s the quotes that denote what I saw as Brendt’s point…

So, if you take a stance that the Bible is not authoratative in this area, are you still a believer in Christ?

How is this not idolatry? At some point PB has exchanged the worship of Christ for the worship of scripture.

Also, what do the scriptures have to say about whether the state endorses gay marriage or not? If your answer is anything but “nothing” then you’ve long ago left sola scriptura and have substituted your own vain philosophies.

How can you read it otherwise? How PB can rain his disdain on people he thinks are universalists while simultaneously holding a view of salvation that has nothing to do with Christ I don’t know.

I agree Bo and Neil.

PB has replaced outward works to earn salvation with and inward, mental assent to man-made doctrines. It is a works-based salvation any way you look at it.

I certainly disagree with the view that homosexual activity is sin… but

Is that what you meant to say, Neil? If so, have you changed your past position?

I believe Brendt’s original intent was not to deny the exclusivity of Jesus, but to reference how many ADM’s assume the worst of others, even those within the Body of Christ (whome they are all to ewager to expell from said body).

I would’ve used a few less e’s, but otherwise Neil is correct.

The issue is not the exclusivity of Christ — that’s clear for those who actually read the Bible. The issue is that there are waaaaaaaaaaaaay too many people out there who keep telling God who He has and hasn’t chosen.

Pastorboy (#23 and #45), please stop using “the emergents” as the boogeyman and a tool to plug your own site. Besides, even if your contentions are true (and I’m not saying they aren’t), I would expect more from you than the rationalization of misusing Scripture by pointing out that others are abandoning it entirely.

Interesting that you note “Sola Scriptura”. One of the issues that I didn’t note in my last post was that very thing. When trying to address the fact that “Patrick” gave no information regarding his main thesis, I asked him if we were just supposed to take his word (since it was “quite obvious” to him), and how “Sola Scriptura” fit into that scheme. His response was the literary rape of the Titus verse.

PB,

were you even in Memphis?

I mean, really, the “what happened in Memphis” talk makes it all sound so…naughty. Like they set the agenda for the legalization of pedophilia in North America.

Sheeesh.

Well Chad, back on my thread on the blog, I have given my answer as an idea of what I mean by Scriptural. I also asked some other questions which may be of interest to you

“They’re both sides of the same coin.”

I believe a person can be a Christian and still practice sin, as in all of us. Believers practice gossip, hatred, pride, the love of money, prayerlessness, anger, unforgiveness, judgmentalism, lust, covetousness, speeding, tax evasion, and a laundry list of other sins.

So although it is very troublesome, someone who claims Christ and yet is deceived about homosexuality is possible.

So, I believe that those who teach that “homosexual practice is not sinful, and that any Biblical prohibitions against it are antiquated cultural relics” are sinning, and will be held to account for any they lead into comfort in their sin, rather than toward repentance from it.

Chris,
So do you believe that those people who ordain women and those people who sit under the teaching of ordained female pastors will be held accountable for violating clear biblical prohibitions?

Rick, I don’t doubt that it is for some.

I need to ask something more:

Exactly what is involved in this “being held to account?”

So the teacher/pastor who sincerely believes that they are, after much study and prayer and communion with other believers, correctly applying God’s Word to situations like homosexuality and femal ordination, will “be held to account” for all the people they have led into a lifestyle of sin.

What if the other side is wrong? What if, on that glorious day of Judgment (and I DO mean glorious) we hear Jesus declare, “You guys missed the entire point of the Gospel when you became obsessed with parsing words in the Bible”? Will they be “held to account” then as well?

I suppose they could use the argument, “But Lord, how can we be blamed for not knowing! I mean, we were trying to hold fast to these words that were penned 2000+ years ago! If only you had been more clear!”

But seriously, what does “held to account” mean? Is it a time-out before they can enter into heaven? Is it banishment to the “eternal punishment” created for evil-doers?

And why does being held to account for screwing up interpretation of Scripture only apply to things like hoomosexuality or, presumably, ordaining women? Why not with having a glass of wine with a meal? I know many, many sincere Christians who have studied the Bible extensively and would say that drinking for any reason is sin. Will people who teach otherwise be “held to account”?

I think it is obvious what slippery slope this puts us on. Or am I missing something?

peace

Rick,
When I read comments by you or anyone else who thinks they are summarizing my beliefs that say this:

but we can never even suggest that an unsaved sinner can remain in his present spiritual state and hope to have eternal life

or this:

I believe that offering eternal comfort to the unregenerate is probably the most serious sin a believer can commit.

I want to spit out my very good cup of coffee while screaming.

BTW – you will gave an account for drinking coffee.

Rick, let me attempt to break this down….briefly….so that I can appear less slippery to you.

I scream and dribble my coffee because your comments assume a posture towards the lost that I do not share. If I have ever said anything that would indicate that in my conversations to one who does not know Jesus I would say anything that sounds like “hey, don’t worry, there is a puppy waiting for you in heaven and you can ride a unicorn while chasing Care Bears” then forgive my lack of clarity, for nothing could be further from the truth.

So, a few points:

1 – Like much of Jesus’ words of judgment upon Israel were a “family squabble” (as I have called them elsewhere) these sorts of conversations should be seen in similar light. My audience here are Christians (at least those responding) and so this is a “family squabble” over the love God has for the entire world and the hope that we as Christians should have for all the world – That NONE should perish but that ALL might have eternal life (and note, eternal life does not mean simply, “go to heaven when they die”).

2- I affirm that God is the final judge, not us. When we speculate about what someone’s eternal destination is we cease to trust that God is judge and God alone but, rather, He in some way needs our input. Discussions among Christians (as we are here) about who will be or who should be going to hell is not only unproductive but says to the world (among other things) that in the end, all we really care about is the life after this and that is all God cares about as well.

3- In no way am I “offering eternal comfort to the unregenerate.” Comments like this have moved us from the realm of the abstract (our family squabble – debating the magnitude of God’s love for all the world and the hope we as Christians have within us that in this One, this Jesus, perhaps ALL the world COULD and WILL be saved) to the concrete. So, what is my response when faced with the one who does not know Jesus? I proclaim to them the good news. I tell them the truth about themselves. I call them to repent, to turn from the sinful, destructive ways in which they have until now lived their lives and invite them into a way of being/living that brings life and partners with the Creator of the universe in bringing about the redemption and the healing of all the nations (the world). Now, do I tell them if they do not they will burn forever in hell? No. Just like I do not find anyone in Scripture threatening the same. BUT, let us assume they tell me that they believe God is loving and will let everyone in heaven anyways no matter what. What would I say to this? I would say: Maybe, maybe not. If God does, it will ONLY be because of the person and work of Jesus who died for you even while you were weak, a sinner and are presently an enemy towards God. But, you are a child of God – you are created in the image of God and loved by this God. To refuse to live in relationship with your heavenly Father, the one who is the giver and sustainer of life, is to be less than human. God created you for fellowship with him and if you continue to reject his offering of fellowship and love and grace than you reject life. Today you are being invited to play a role in the coming Kingdom of God – to enjoy the abundant life that God wants you to know. Are you willing to risk snubbing that love to the point where you eventually cease to be human? Where you eventually cease to bear any semblance of the image of God in you? Where God is no longer the one who sustains you (even as he is now, while you are obstinate?) Can you imagine a life where this God leaves you to yourself and your own devices for all eternity? That would be hell.

4- But what of those I never get to meet or share that message? Now we are back to our family squabble. I believe something was done in Christ that is cosmic. I believe Jesus stands in the gap for those who cannot stand for themselves. I affirm that God’s desire that none should perish will in the end, win. I even affirm that God’s desire may in the end trump our own obstinance (as it did Israel’s time and time again).

5- I look forward with expectation the Day of Judgment. Judgment is not something feared in scripture but anticipated. It is when evil will be named, dealt with, judged and the world will be set to rights. Gods glory will fill the heavens and earth. I affirm that we can have hope and confidence on this day because our JUDGE is the Man of Sorrows, the Prince of Peace, the Servant of All, the one who seeks until found, the one who died for even me.

I do not know how to be any more clear than this. If this makes me a universalist or a heretic or a false teacher who is going to be “held accountable” then so be it. I guess I need to learn to embrace that.

I was rushed and did not spell check… but I’m glad the message still got through.

Just another reason why Firefox kicks butt. Having spell check automatically in all text fields is awesome!

On the lighter side of things, I saw this picture linked to a story in FARK, and it made me think of you

Chad – ya had me until this:

“I affirm that God’s desire that none should perish will in the end, win.”

All the rest is window dressing.

“the emergent mind”?

I’ve pretty much decided you are incapable (or stubbornly unwilling) to have a discussion without creating a caricature of a straw-man to address.

I know it’s a lot easier (like using pejorative names for your enemy in a time of war) but it’s an annoyingly immature habit you have.

I refuse to feel guilty for not starving.

Neil

So, PB and Rick… was God lying when He stated this in the Bible?

2 Pet 3: 9. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Isn’t God still sovereign and that what He wills is done? Jesus also prayed that “Your will be done..”

If this does not come true then is God still sovereign? If God’s will can be thwarted, then can such a God truly be sovereign?

Just asking..
iggy

Rick,

Glad that is cleared up! LOL! I am sure Ingrid will be all over that one soon! LOL!

igs

Just because God wills something does not mean it must come to pass.

Just because God wills something does not mean it must come to pass.

Correct. If God’s will was automatically done, it would seem like Jesus was asking us to participate in an exercise in futility when He told us to ask that God’s will would be “done on earth as it is in heaven”.

If God promised it, it will happen as He wills.

A promise from God is different than a desire. I don’t believe that God gets everything He wants. I believe that He desires that all would come to Him, but I don’t believe this will happen.

In the end, a strict Universalist runs into the same conundrum as a Calvinist. God ends up overriding humanity’s free will.

I think that any of us who teach others to violate Scripture (in commissive or omissive means) – intentionally or not – are sinning, for which we should, as we are convicted by the Holy Spirit, repent of. This is not a question of salvation, it is a question of personal holiness.

There is the rub, Chris. No one that I know of is teaching anyone to “violate Scripture.” Rather, where they may differ with you in interpretation and practice they would say they are getting to the heart of Scripture, not “violating it.”

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

The emerging tendency is to stress the former and give lip-service to the latter.

I would not make such blanket claims about people’s tendencies. Really, this hinges on how you interpret “being polluted by the world.” Based on your following comments and argument it would seem that you are limiting this to mere morality, as if being polluted by the world equates to not smoking, dipping or chewing or running around with women who do.

if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Good. But what does Jesus have in mind here when he speaking of being led into “sin”? Again, it seems that you want to argue that Jesus came to teach a new set of morality – that salvation is all about do’s and don’ts. I don’t think you really believe that but when you suggest that “leading one into sin” is tantamount to a person who, upon careful exegesis mixed with a desire to be faithful to Scripture comes to the conclusion that a committed homosexual relationship is not sin.

I would suggest that “leading one into sin” is akin to doing what the Pharisees had become legendary for doing – heaping upon these young children a yoke that is heavier than the one Jesus carries and demanding allegiance to a law rather than grace. It would also be akin to leading a person away from confessing that Jesus, rather than Caesar, is Lord.

You say throughout your comments that it would be awful for someone who “teaches someone to sin.” I agree with that. The disconnect here, though, is I don’t hear anyone teaching someone to sin.

It may be easier to argue this over matters that seem overtly settled, like homosexuality, but I notice you were silent on the drinking. There are, likewise, a whole host of issues that we could drag out that people disagree with when it comes to teaching a lifestyle of holiness. Both sides of the argument seem to make good points and both sides would no doubt confess to a desire to follow Jesus with heart, soul and mind. How do you wade through all that?

None, I guess. A little perspective, maybe. A complete failure. Sorry.

OK – and I over-reacted… sorry as well.

In the end, a strict Universalist runs into the same conundrum as a Calvinist. God ends up overriding humanity’s free will.

Phil,
As you know I am no Calvinist but it not because I disagree with the doctrine of Election. God does elect. His election is corporate, however, and not individual. I guess one could argue that Israel’s free will was overridden when God decided to choose them to be the nucleus of his plan of redemption and that though them salvation would come for all the nations (and they came kicking and screaming). It was an override of their free will to be circumcised on the 8th day, placing them within the covenant – one they had no cognitive choice to be part of.

Yes, we do have free will. We can choose to live in the graces of God and accept the gift of life he freely offers to ALL (another place I differ with Calvin) or we can snub it, reject it and build an idol for ourselves (as Israel often did). We can choose to deny that we are saved and live as though we are not. This has its consequences, many temporal ones which could possibly be eternal.

In the end, IF God’s desires do win out and God, rather than man, gets the final say, I really doubt anyone will be complaining that God overrode someone’s freewill. But I would also say that if that happens it may not be a case of divine fiat at all – it may be the case that God just never gives up until all his sheep are in the fold, safely home. It just may be his desire to love eternally and infinitely. This could be the reason why in the closing scenes of scripture we find that river of life flowing out from the city and trees of life lining it. As Wright says, this is a mystery.

Chad – ya had me until this:

“I affirm that God’s desire that none should perish will in the end, win.”

All the rest is window dressing.

Rick, I am confused.

You say “I had you” until that line, yes? So where we differ is you believe that ultimately man is more sovereign than God. Of course, you wouldn’t state it in such terms but when you get right down to it that is the case – my will trumps God’s will.

As I stated in that response, part of my defnition of hell is exactly that: my will being allowed to trump God’s desires for me. It is God saying to me, “Thy will be done.” This would indeed be hell- being left to myself, the self I have tried to make into a god in vain all my mortal life (and we do this whether we know Jesus or not to some greater or lesser degree).

As Phil has stated before and I agree, judgment begins with us. When I confess that it is my hope that in the end, God’s desire wins out, what I am essentially saying is that in the end I pray God’s desire for me wins out. I pray to God that his will trumps my own – because left to myself, I want nothing to do with God. So yeah, we should all pray that God’s desire wins in the end, lest we all be lost and left to perish.

One other thing: You said I had you till that line and then said all the rest was “window dressing.” So I “had you” with mere “window dressing”?

PB – this is me rolling my eyes

Rick-
You are reading that out of context. Here it is again and pay attention to the part in bold:

But what of those I never get to meet or share that message? Now we are back to our family squabble. I believe something was done in Christ that is cosmic. I believe Jesus stands in the gap for those who cannot stand for themselves. I affirm that God’s desire that none should perish will in the end, win. I even affirm that God’s desire may in the end trump our own obstinance (as it did Israel’s time and time again).

So what am I saying? I am saying that for the person who lives and dies who has never had the chance to accept or refuse the gracios offer of abundant life today that I believe for such people that in the end, God’s desire that none should perish will win the day. I do not affirm that they will be burning in hell but rather, based on what I know of God revealed to us in Jesus Christ, that they will have a seat at the table. If even whores, sinners and tax collectors are entering the Kingdom before the chosen people of God than surely we can affirm the hope that the ignorant will be given rest as well.

As for those who have heard and reject? I say that even they, God’s desire MAY trump even our own obstinance. He did it to Israel numerous times. He prayed for the forgiveness of those who even nailed him to the cross. So I see no problem in holding out such hope. It is a hope, as I said, I hold out for even myself.

The disconnect here, though, is I don’t hear anyone teaching someone to sin.

Chad, might this because you are blinded somewhat?

The reason I ask this is because you are using a political argument here, in a sense. “I don’t see anyone telling people to kill, rape and pillage… therefore…”

The Bible is clear that false teachings, albeit with good intention, are a destructive means of leading people astray. Countless times in the epistles, this is covered.

We can look at Hymaneus, Philetus, Alexander and nameless others as example, but the truth is that by preaching a twisted, false gospel, you are effectively leading people astray…

2 Peter: 315And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

Can false doctrine and teachings lead to destruction? Of course.

Case in point:

Chad: I don’t think you really believe that but when you suggest that “leading one into sin” is tantamount to a person who, upon careful exegesis mixed with a desire to be faithful to Scripture comes to the conclusion that a committed homosexual relationship is not sin.

Chad, might this because you are blinded somewhat?

*smacks forehead* Of course!!!! Paul, why did you wait until now to bring this up??!! You could have saved us all a bunch of trouble.

The Bible is clear that false teachings, albeit with good intention, are a destructive means of leading people astray. Countless times in the epistles, this is covered.

No argument there. The “false teachings” in question though has nothing to do with this discussion.
Belief in a loving God who desires to save the world and being hesitant about declaring who is going to hell is not a “false teaching” that leads people astray or something that causes one to confess in a Lord other than Jesus Christ. Just the opposite, in fact.

The fact that you would take the time to cut and paste all those prooftexts about “hell” or my suspicion that you have them locked and loaded and ready to lay on anyone at any given moment.

Actually, Joe Martino asked me to put together a list and I did. This is only part of it.

Prooftext? No, but it is a typical emergent response when they do not agree with a specific theology, they always accuse people of prooftexting.

Phil-
No problem. I appreciate that.

And I am probably not saying it well. I just posted on my blog some of the above reflections in hopes of being able to work through them. I admitted there that some of the confusion here is most likely my fault for not being able to express my ideas as well as I’d like. In many ways, I am learning to crawl all over again.

Is there a particular conclusion of mine that doesn’t make sense?

One thing I don’t think I stressed before is that I see salvation as a three-fold event. There is past salvation, present salvation and future salvation. I was saved 2000 years ago on Calvary. I am being saved each day I wake up and choose to follow the One who saved me. It is this present salvation that “free will” is at play and we can choose to live into the reality that is true or we can deny it and live unto ourselves (or we are ignorant of both). Then there is the salvation yet to come. This could be full of some surprises (Matt. 25). I hope that I will be saved. But my hope is bolstered by the confidence I have in the one who Judges – who is the Savior of the world. Because I can have hope for even myself (who is wretched and a sinner and even though I should KNOW BETTER (i.e. I have met and decided to follow Jesus) I find myself mucking it up more than getting it right) — if I can hope for that guy (me) than I can have hope for the world.

Actually, Joe Martino asked me to put together a list and I did. This is only part of it.

You really have a problem with truth. You made the claim that Jesus Christ said more about hell and judgment than about the Kingdom of God. To pretend like you casually looked up a list of verses because Joe asked you to is garbage. Not to mention that you immediately back pedaled on your claim.

Prooftext? No, but it is a typical emergent response when they do not agree with a specific theology, they always accuse people of prooftexting.

What emergents have done this?

Well, Paul, forgive me for having a less cynical outlook on the world and the power of God to bring out his redemptive purposes for the world.

I am less caught up in doctrinal tit-for-tats than I used to be and more concerned with the bigger picture. And you do not know me well enough to presume that I am “constantly feeding on the philosophies of men.” I would argue that what I have been going on and on about is from being a student of Scripture and learning to read it not as a concordance of facts and quick texts to cut and paste (well done, PB) to prove a point but as a grant narrative that tells us the truth about God and ourselves and invites us to join in on the song. Do people sing the song differently than I? Yep. Is that wrong? Not necessarily. It may just make up the harmony.

I am less caught up in doctrinal tit-for-tats than I used to be and more concerned with the bigger picture.

having your doctrine correct is not mutually exclusive from the bigger picture. In fact, correct teachings lead to a correct view of the big picture (kind of like, “line upon line, precept upon precept”) – the grand and redemptive plan that God has for humankind.

You are correct, I don’t know you well enough to know just what you’re reading, but it doesn’t take a detective to figure out that you’re tapping into a variety of sources that are at play in your view of scripture – perhaps many tainted by untruths, distortions and false teachings. Some perhaps not so bad. I think the fact you’re in modern-day Bible school (unless I’m wrong) makes the case for this broad range of philosophical thinking I see.

I believe carefully crafted philosophies – not persecution – along with things like materialism and greed, are some of the key undermining influences used by the Adversary. It’s been a key tool in reportoire over the ages (ie: “Don’t destroy churches, just lead them astray.”)

As for influences, shame on me for neglecting to include my mom (Hi mom!), Steve, my youth camp counselor when I was 13, my first high-school sweetheart and the Harry Potter novels.

Oh, and of course, The One and Only, President Elect Barack Obama (cheers, Chris L).

There is the rub, Chris. No one that I know of is teaching anyone to “violate Scripture.”

I would wholeheartedly disagree, especially in light of the narrative of the Gospels. In Matthew, we have Jesus explaining –

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

In Hebrew context, to abolish/destroy the Law was to interpret it in a way that would lead one to sin, and to fulfill the Law was to interpret it correctly. (I can provide a number of Hebrew/Christian references for this, if you would like.)

His condemnation of the Pharisees was because of their interpretation of the Torah, which led to self-righteousness and callousness (because of their elevation of traditions to the place of absolutes, and their hard-heartedness to those who could not bear the weight of the traditional expectations). His warnings to the Hellenistists (such as the ones at Caesarea Philippi) were about remaining set apart, and holy.

To point out again, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and just because you sincerely believe in a lie, doesn’t make the lie any more true. If you teach someone that sin is not sin, you are teaching a lie, whether purposely or not, and you are teaching people that it is OK to violate what God has set down as a cross-cultural absolute.

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

The emerging tendency is to stress the former and give lip-service to the latter.

I would not make such blanket claims about people’s tendencies. Really, this hinges on how you interpret “being polluted by the world.” Based on your following comments and argument it would seem that you are limiting this to mere morality, as if being polluted by the world equates to not smoking, dipping or chewing or running around with women who do.

While I happen to agree with the ‘emerging’ church on a number of their criticisms of the direction of the traditional American church, many of them have overreacted and jettisoned personal holiness as a virtue – beyond simple externals as you’ve characterized. Please see here.

Again, it seems that you want to argue that Jesus came to teach a new set of morality – that salvation is all about do’s and don’ts. I don’t think you really believe that but when you suggest that “leading one into sin” is tantamount to a person who, upon careful exegesis mixed with a desire to be faithful to Scripture comes to the conclusion that a committed homosexual relationship is not sin.

Careful exegesis won’t lead to that conclusion (though spinelessness and wishful thinking might)- if it does, it isn’t all that careful. Once again, we’re back to bunnies running F-77 on a UNIX box…

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I don’t care how “careful” you are (with whatever sin you are coddling, be it materialism or homosexual practice), but providing lemon-soaked napkins and hot towels for the post-meal flight service on an express flight to hell doesn’t do anything to change the destination…

You say throughout your comments that it would be awful for someone who “teaches someone to sin.” I agree with that. The disconnect here, though, is I don’t hear anyone teaching someone to sin.

Teaching someone that evil is good is sin.

It may be easier to argue this over matters that seem overtly settled, like homosexuality, but I notice you were silent on the drinking.

My apologies for not addressing the point – I’ve done so numerous times in the past. It is clear that alcohol was consumed by Jesus and the disciples (and not condemned) – just look at Jesus’ first recorded miracle in Cana. However, even if we have freedom in Christ to consume alcohol, the freedom would also suggest that we be very careful in exercising this right, so as not to lead anyone else to stumble.

There are, likewise, a whole host of issues that we could drag out that people disagree with when it comes to teaching a lifestyle of holiness. Both sides of the argument seem to make good points and both sides would no doubt confess to a desire to follow Jesus with heart, soul and mind. How do you wade through all that?

I would ‘wade through that’ via the “binding and loosing” of the elders of individual church communities. “Binding and loosing” exists to cover the cultural practices which are not expressly forbidden/commanded by Scripture. Thus, one church may decide that their interpretation of “modest dress” is that anyone who speaks before the congregation wear long pants or dresses, whereas another congregation in the same city may have a differing standard of “modest dress”. One church may instruct its leaders and staff to avoid alcohol (for the sake of those who may stumble), while a church next door may have a differing policy – both in line with the teaching against drunkenness.

_____________________

PB – I would note that your list is pretty messy, as it covers multiple topics – the grave (Sheol), Hades and Gehenna – which had distinctly separate meanings to the early Jewish and Greek Christians. I do believe in hell, but I believe it is a state of existence that begins here on earth and has the possibility of extending into eternity until it is cast into the lake of fire…

Also, I would note that Jesus’ teaching on the Rich Man and Lazarus is a parable, not a conveyance of historical fact…

Also, I would note that Jesus’ teaching on the Rich Man and Lazarus is a parable, not a conveyance of historical fact…

Right… next you’re going to tell that there wasn’t really a prodigal son… you, dirty emergent, you…

I guess a meeting of the “emergent mind” is “what happened in Memphis”…

BTW… my last comment is more what an “emergent mind” would think and look like… it seeks more authenticity and purity in the bible’s teaching than a drive by, lazy butt, cut an paste, lame presentation that mixes a bunch of things together that may not even have to do with the “eternal end of man” and call it a representation of what the bible teaches… even better an emergent mind will call out false teaching or Dualism when it is presented as biblical teachings.

iggy

Neil,

you got it.

the whole “emergent mind” crap is born out of the stubborn refusal to admit that this isn’t some cohesive denomination that can be easily assessed by pre-set categories and then dismissed to keep the world intellectually and emotionally simple.

Chad: There is the rub, Chris. No one that I know of is teaching anyone to “violate Scripture.”

Chris L: I would wholeheartedly disagree, especially in light of the narrative of the Gospels. In Matthew, we have Jesus explaining –

Chris, you misunderstood what I was going after. No one that I know is intentionally, with volition, teaching anyone to “violate Scripture.” No one is entering into the arena of interpretation with the intent to purposefully undercut Scripture (at least not myself nor the people I know well. That is my point and it is they I am curious about when you say they will be held accountable for their mistakes.

Here is what I hear in your above comments. Feel free to correct me if this summarization is off base.

I hear you saying that anyone who misinterprets scripture (not purposefully) and then teaches others this misinterpretation run the risk of either at best being “the least of these in the kingdom” or at worst being dragged under into the abyss.

If that truly is what you are saying then God have mercy on us all.

One of the things Wesley says that Christian perfection is not is freedom from mistakes of ignorance, which includes mistaken interpretation of Scripture. I agree.

I am at a loss as to how you come to the conclusion that “binding and loosing exists to cover the cultural practices which are not expressly forbidden/commanded by Scripture.” Says who? That could certainly be one of the uses of it but it is not necessarily limited to only “cultural practices” that are “expressly forbidden/commanded by Scripture.”

It is curious to me because you are too smart a guy to not see the double standard you hold when it comes to what women can and cannot do or drinking or homosexuality. It is you that is making the determination of which things are culturally bound and which are not and on some issues you completely toss out scripture (women shall not speak in church, for instance) in favor of “binding and loosing” or “the culture” and on other issues you dismiss culture altogether and appeal to a strict, literal reading of Scripture.

You dismiss the drinking issue like it is no big deal. You say:

It is clear that alcohol was consumed by Jesus and the disciples (and not condemned) – just look at Jesus’ first recorded miracle in Cana.

While I agree with that interpretation I know you are not so naive to think that everyone is on board here or that it is as “clear” as we assume everyone else should think it is. Log on to Crosswalk.com, a conservative forum and you’ll find thousands of pages of post on that topic alone with people on both sides of the issue claiming they are right and the other wrong – both sides are guilty of misinterpreting scripture, it would seem, and someone is either going to “be the least of these in the kingdom” or sink fast.

Now, what you claim is so “clear” about drinking there are other biblical scholars who would claim it is “clear” about homosexuality or women ordination or any number of other things that you would disagree on as a matter of interpretation. What is it about the way you see things that allows you to smugly assume everyone else who sees it differently is “going to be held accountable”?

And for the record, the people I know who would argue against you on matters like homosexuality and female ordination are some of the most Scripture-loving people I know. They drink them in. They are full of grace and joy and the fruit of the Spirit is evident in their lives. They are not out to “violate Scripture” but seek to be nurtured and challenged by it, always allowing it to speak to them rather than they to it.

So, while your arguments may be more sophisticated and less offensive they are really just a differently packaged version of the “well if you would just read your Bible” attack that the ADM’s throw out so often.

As for this stuff:

Careful exegesis won’t lead to that conclusion (though spinelessness and wishful thinking might)- if it does, it isn’t all that careful. Once again, we’re back to bunnies running F-77 on a UNIX box…

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I don’t care how “careful” you are (with whatever sin you are coddling, be it materialism or homosexual practice), but providing lemon-soaked napkins and hot towels for the post-meal flight service on an express flight to hell doesn’t do anything to change the destination…

Come on. It would be nice if you would stop creating some charicature of my position (the unicorns, the puppies, etc) and attacking it and start actually responding to the things I have said about hell, judgment and so forth.

peace.

nc,

When someone mixes judgement, hell, paradise, a holding place for fallen angels, teachings from parables, and so on in one big mess, they in no way take the Bible serious or literal. They take it as they want to… be that they may have not been taught properly, or did not listen… or may have never really heard… the Holy Spirit who teaches us which is something many denominations deny if not in word… in their actions.

I do not credit myself as smart at all. I am first to state what I know of Scripture I learned the hard way or by revelation… (not to be confused with Gnosticism.) I often am amazed what I do know but realize it is the Holy Spirit teaching me. Granted I fail like anyone else… but people tell me they learn a lot from me… I smile and know that I am but an idiot with a loving and compassionate God who does amazing things like speak through an idiot like me.

So many people who are “anti” (whateva) seem to miss and actually teach against the Holy Spirit. I listened to Paul Washer state:

“We need revival. We need an awakening, but we cannot simply expect the Holy Spirit to come down and clean up all the mess we have made.”

What sort of hogwash is that? To deny the Holy Spirit? PW then gives a bunch of man-based indictments in how to bring about revival!

Again that is the issue they deny the Power of the Holy Spirit then attempt to read the bible in their own understanding and we get Dualism…

BTW the Holy Spirit is already here fixing things… He came down at Pentecost and never left…

iggy

Chris, you misunderstood what I was going after. No one that I know is intentionally, with volition, teaching anyone to “violate Scripture.” No one is entering into the arena of interpretation with the intent to purposefully undercut Scripture

I don’t misunderstand you at all – which is why I keep going back to the futility of the gospel of good intentions (as differentiated from the Gospel).

“Well, you know, as long as you really believe you’re doing the right thing, go for it…”

Whatever. I’m OK, you’re OK…

I hear you saying that anyone who misinterprets scripture (not purposefully) and then teaches others this misinterpretation run the risk of either at best being “the least of these in the kingdom” or at worst being dragged under into the abyss.

You do misunderstand – not all misinterpretations lead one to sin. Some are theological systems (examples – eschatology, mode/method of atonement, mode/method of the Trinity, etc.) and others deal with ontologically neutral activities and cultural preferences.

However, teaching that something is good/acceptable when it is clearly listed as sinful activity* – no matter how “sincerely” you wish to believe the lie – is what Jesus is addressing. The Pharisees were certainly sincere in their belief in the salvatory requirements of ceremonial law, and we see where that got them…

I would also note that being the ‘least in the kingdom’ is kind of like finishing last in your class in Med School (i.e. people still call you “doctor”…)

*(I would even note that Paul’s admonitions on women in ministry, meat and idols, and similar issues are not framed in the rabbinic structure of absolute sin – but rather one of guidance based on principles from Torah).
___________________

I am at a loss as to how you come to the conclusion that “binding and loosing exists to cover the cultural practices which are not expressly forbidden/commanded by Scripture.” Says who? That could certainly be one of the uses of it but it is not necessarily limited to only “cultural practices” that are “expressly forbidden/commanded by Scripture.”

My apologies for you being at a loss. I just go back to the Jewish practice of “binding and loosing”, and observe that Jesus used the same language with his followers and their leadership in the church. “Binding and loosing” NEVER allows one to permit something defined by God as sinful, nor does it ever allow one to forbid something that is commanded by God. “Binding and loosing” was the community’s method to give guidance on how to apply the principles of Torah to the plethora of topics not explicitly addressed by it.

In the matter of homosexual practice, it cannot be covered by “binding and loosing”, because it is cross-culturally prohibited by Scripture. To be more specific – First, it is directly addressed in Torah and specifically defined under the umbrella of sexual sin (not as ceremonial or dietary practice). Secondly, sexual sin is covered by Noaic Law, not just Mosaic Law, and thus applies to all men, not just Jews. Thirdly, the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) reiterates Noaic Law as applying to Gentile Christians (reaffirming that sexual sin is not only forbidden to Jews). Finally, Paul consistently treats homosexual practice as sexual sin, and treats sexual sin as something to be dealt with via the process Jesus described in Matthew 18 – going so far as to expel a member for shacking up with his step-mother (also covered under the umbrella of ’sexual sin’).

In the case women having authority over men, there is no direct prohibition in Torah, though it appears to have been practiced (via Talmudic references) by the Jews after the Babylonian Captivity. Paul, though, cites the Creation order and the fall as the basis for his advice in the Epistles. So, while it is possible that Paul is making a “binding” ruling here, his rooting this ruling in pre-Mosiac Law suggests that his ruling is cross-cultural. Thus, I would fall on the side of caution in teaching my community, since being wrong has no consequence of causing sin. Other communities may choose the more risky interpretation of Paul’s ruling (with some hermeneutical support – since Paul’s ruling is not rooted in one of the commands or prohibitions of Torah), which has a greater potential of leading its members to sin.

It is curious to me because you are too smart a guy to not see the double standard you hold when it comes to what women can and cannot do or drinking or homosexuality.

Maybe that’s because no double-standard exists.

It is you that is making the determination of which things are culturally bound and which are not and on some issues you completely toss out scripture (women shall not speak in church, for instance) in favor of “binding and loosing” or “the culture” and on other issues you dismiss culture altogether and appeal to a strict, literal reading of Scripture.

The determination of what is covered by “binding and loosing” is based upon viewing Torah, and upon viewing Jesus and Paul’s interpretation of Torah in applying it to orthopraxy.

Paul’s admonitions on women’s head-coverings, for instance, is tied back to the Torah guidance on modesty. Thus, he is using the lens of “modesty” with which to make a cultural ruling on what is “modest”.

Paul’s admonitions on alcohol are based upon the Torah’s teaching on drunkenness. As such, he has no problem admonishing Timothy to drink wine for his stomach problem. [I would note, as a Chemical Engineer, the moment you make unpasteurized grape-juice, you are in the process of making alcoholic wine - you cannot prevent the process w/o pasteurization, which came along 1800+ years later. So, arguments that "wine" in the first century was just unfermented grape juice is an impossibility.]

Paul’s admonitions on homosexual practice are based on the Torah’s teaching on homosexual practice – there is no “lens” through which to make a cultural ruling. Just like murder, lying, theft, etc., he is just affirming the Scriptural prohibition – there is no cultural context/ruling needed or given.

No double-standard on my part. Just consistent application of Torah and rabbinic practice in application, with Paul as the chief example for the Gentile church (by his own admission).

I know you are not so naive to think that everyone is on board here or that it is as “clear” as we assume everyone else should think it is. Log on to Crosswalk.com, a conservative forum and you’ll find thousands of pages of post on that topic alone with people on both sides of the issue claiming they are right and the other wrong – both sides are guilty of misinterpreting scripture, it would seem, and someone is either going to “be the least of these in the kingdom” or sink fast.

Wrong, yet again.

1) If a community “binds” drinking alcohol for its members, then they should not drink, because they are to submit to the authority of their community (which rests in its elders).

2) If a community “looses” drinking alcohol for its members, then there is no sin with them drinking (so long as they do not get drunk), though they should keep in mind Paul’s words on “freedom in Christ” and avoid drinking in situations that would lead a brother to stumble, out of love for both Jesus and for their brother.

The disagreement at hand deals with a cultural conviction, not a cross-cultural absolute. As such, disagreement on the topic will not lead one to sin in the matter of drinking/abstention.

Now, what you claim is so “clear” about drinking there are other biblical scholars who would claim it is “clear” about homosexuality or women ordination or any number of other things that you would disagree on as a matter of interpretation.

Sorry. I didn’t write the Bible, and it is probable/possible I’m wrong about a whole slew of things. Homosexual practice, adultery, lying, murder and theft don’t happen to fall into that list I’m concerned with being wrong about, though. At the same time, if I’m going to take on the mantle of a teacher, I have a higher standard I must meet, and if that means I’ve made poor choices and I’m better off with a millstone around my neck, then it isn’t something I can just chalk up to “differences in interpretation”.

With homosexual practice, we’ve now got about 6000+ years of consistent teaching on the topic, and there is no respectable hermeneutic available that can give an alternate interpretation, outside of the loopy logic of “People can live in ‘loving’, committed homosexual relationships, and since the narrative of scripture teaches that ‘God is love’, He wouldn’t condemn their lifestyle”. You might as well set up shop with the Universalist Unitarian “church” that just opened in the strip mall north of my subdivision if you’re going to fall for that line of crap. Thus, your question about “careful/prayerful Scriptural interpretation” approving of homosexual practice is analogous to the UNIX bunnies – an oxymoron.

And for the record, the people I know who would argue against you on matters like homosexuality and female ordination are some of the most Scripture-loving people I know.

That certainly explains a number of things… Maybe you should get out more (just a suggestion). Again, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and people who are “Scripture-loving” don’t seek out ways to destroy it, which is what you’ve just described.

Come on. It would be nice if you would stop creating some charicature of my position (the unicorns, the puppies, etc) and attacking it and start actually responding to the things I have said about hell, judgment and so forth.

I have responded, but you just keep repeating the same contradictory statements. I just happen to disagree with both you and PB on the subject (which takes some doing). PB just keeps living in the land without logic, where assertion = truth. And you keep living in the land of puppies and unicorns, where what one “feels” about the overarching narrative of Scripture trumps what is actually written in it.

John Chisham,
Did you get my email about the story being true or not?

PB,

He is to fill us, giving us the power to live righteous in this world.

So in saying this you believe the Holy Spirit did not fix you to live this way in order to bring awakening (revival) to others?

Shheeesh!

iggy

The Universal Good News

Just read the first paragraph. I wrote that yesterday morning. You make me sound prophetic (in the predictive sense). Thanks.

Chris L-
I went back and read the rest of your post. I stand by what I said earlier that your argument is just another version of the ODM’s, “well, if you would just read your Bible” variety.

You claim that I have several contradictions yet you don’t specify any. Where have I been contradictory? It would be helpful to me if you could spell that out some. I do not deny that what I am trying to articulate here is easy or that I have all the answers. If I am contradicting myself perhaps you can help show me where that is so I can think through this more.

And as you do so, please refrain from cheap-shots like “I’m OK your OK” or the straw man that I am arguing for a anything goes sort of life, zero holiness or no judgment. That is simply untrue. I don’t mind if you disagree with my conclusions but at least do so on the facts, not your poetic imaginations of what you think I think.

thanks.

PB – Perhaps the name Lazarus, itself, is important to the parable and its interpretation (which is not uncommon of first-century parables), and Abraham is highly symbolic in usage. I have to say I am rather dumbfounded that you don’t recognize this as a parable – I’ve heard Johnny Mac and other Reformed folk treat this as a parable, and I’m not familiar with any respected scholarship that has ever suggested otherwise…

There is evidence to suggest that Jesus is taking a common folktale, one in which listeners would have known the character’s names already, and tweaking it to prove His point.

In any case, the point of the parable is less about the nature of Hell than it is about who is in risk of facing judgment and who will be blessed in the Kingdom.

John,
Per #137. Thank you

Chad and Chris L.

I would agree with Chad as that is how I took that statement also. I had a question asked one time that if there was not eternal Life or punishment and this was all there was would I still follow God?

I admit the question is not that fair of one, but it gets to the core of why we believe and follow Jesus… it is for what we get out of it? Or is it out of fear of loss? Is it out of “obedience? Or is it out of love of God because He alone is worthy?

iggy

As for “obedience” I seem to have a view much different that most. I see that in Rom 5:19.

For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

I see obedience as imparted through Christ Jesus just as righteousness, holiness, sanctification and all else are imparted to us. We do not have obedience to give on our own… only the obedience of trust and total dependency on Jesus for all He has done.

I walk in the faith that Jesus did all that was needed for my salvation. If I try to be obedient in the way many teach, I see that as trying to add to what Jesus has already done.

Can anyone make themselves more holy than Jesus has already done?

Can anyone add more righteousness that Jesus has already given us?

I see in trust and submission to the fact that Jesus did all as the obedience of the faith. I cannot be obedient in and of myself, but only by being available to God to do His will and purpose in and through me. It is all of God and none of me.

This is why I laugh when called a semi-pelagian… it shows that person to not even begin to understand what I do believe. I am not even a true Arminian! LOL!

I have learned to follow Jesus out of love for what all He has done. To me that is the core of our faith.. to love God and love others.

iggy

Rick – I think you’ve said #151 (much clearer) what I was trying to say…

I am greatly encouraged by your open stand against universalism in any form.

Rick,

My first real exposure to universalism was at my college graduation ceremony. The university allowed any denomination that wanted to participate to rotate through the graduation ceremonies (6 in one weekend), so as to not show any favoritism.

The graduation for the Engineering School happened to draw the local priestess/pooh-bah from the Universalist Unitarian Church for the benediction. It was the most bizarre, non-specific, convoluted thing I’d ever heard. Afterward, my Dad referred to her as the “priestess from the Church of To-Whom-It-May-Concern” – a description that still makes me laugh to this day….

Chris-
What is BS is the way you continue to set up straw men about what I am saying just so you canknock them down.

This is the thing about you that has disappointed me the most. I have been in discussions with numerous people who say Rob Bell denies the virgin birth. Even after I show them direct evidence (his own words) that proves otherwise they continue to say things like “yeah, well this is what I know he really means..”

You are now doing the same thing to me. I am not sure why. It is as if you are hell bent on finding fault in anything I say even if it requires you to make things up about what I believe. When you disagree with the ODM’s you are usually quite sensible and reasonable. But when you disagree with someone like me, who is not an ODM, you seem to adopt their playbook. I don’t get that about you.

Contrary to your fairy tale world that you have put me in, I am not trying to be “sensitive” nor am I offering anyone a way to “hedge their bets” nor am I saying anyone is free to do whatever the hell they please or that we are all OK. That is a lie, Chris, and you are either more ignorant than I once thought or you are just a liar who manipulates the truth to look superior – just like the people you most often write about.

I find it amusing that you give lip service to the fact that salvation isn’t all about going to heaven or getting out of hell but about life today and yet when the rubber meets the road you fall back on all of that – “the compelling reason” to follow God. When you suggest that I am “peddling” a message that suggest God will “force his grace upon” people who don’t want it you are no doubt speaking of eternity and reducing God’s grace to nothing more than the thing that gets us into heaven. And for that matter, I have not argued that God will force people into salvation – either it be this life or the next. I have said numerous times that hell is real and the worst thing that could be said to any person by the God who upholds ALL things is “THY will be done.”

Why don’t you do what you would commend our ODM brothers and sisters to do and start addressing things I have actually written rather than your own assumptions and conclusions of what you think you know.

Did we really just drop the BS bomb in here? Everyone just back slowly away from the keyboards.

Smile Guys, There are those who are watching every word we type b/c they’re obsessed with what goes on here. That alone should make you happy.

Chad…

Just reread the “quote” and thought… should not do homework and comments at the same time… good thing you can read past the missing words and wrong conjunctions… LOL!

iggy

But here’s the thing – you may not be saying that, but the position you espouse leads directly to that conclusion.

No. All this means is that you have drawn the wrong conclusions. Just because you come to that conclusion doesn’t make it the only conclusion that can be drawn and for you to continue to pin me with your mistaken assumptions after I have repeatedly told you you are wrong is baffling to me.

Seriously, as I read the charicature you have constructed I shake my head and wonder who this person is. In fact, I find myself SIDING with you as you argue against the conclusions YOU have drawn! How funny is that? I’m not the guy you are arguing against, Chris L. So this is becoming increasingly futile.

Would it surprise you to know that 2 years ago I did a series for about 6 months on entire sanctification and personal as well as social holiness? I still have most of those manuscripts if you are interested and would preach them again today. Seriously, dude, you are barking up the wrong tree each time you assume that universalism automatically leads to hedonism or a laisez-faire attitude towards the world and God.

If I was following someone other than Christ, the message you conveyed in your post from yesterday morning has no meaning for me.

This is interesting. It has no meaning to you if you are told you are presently living a lie? That the thing you worship is not God and cannot give you life? That continuing to deny the grace of Christ who died for you is to seal yourself off from the only True One who can give you life and not just life but life abundantly and eternally? That your identity is in flux until you find rest in the one who is the God-Man, the one who calls us out of the structures of Babel and into the Promised Land? That an invitation into a life of communion and covenant with the Creator of the universe and a call to be co-creators with Him as we build for the Kingdom yet to come has no meaning for you? Really, this has no meaning for you? Wow.

So what I hear you saying is that the only thing that really matters, that has any meaning for you, is this God can and will send you to an eternal hell unless you choose to follow him and only him. This is what engenders real, abiding love in Christians. Gotchya.

Again, when it comes down to it, all you are really about is hell vs. heaven in the life after.

OK… I can’t believe i am the one saying this.

Chris L.: You believe Universalism in its core is wrong. Good.

Chad:You hope that all will be saved as this is also the desire of God Himself as Peter states in scirpture.

You both seem to be talking past each other and really it is getting boring… can we agree to disagree?

I mean, a person can hold out hope for all who are lost and still not believe all will be saved in the end… I do… God does…

Chris L, take a step back and look at it from a different perspective if you can. The logic you say is missing is not logic… it is hope. Hope cuts across human logic…

Paul states in 1 Cor 1: 19.

For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” 20. Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21. For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23. but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24. but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.

In the end all our logic is foolishness when God is involved.

iggy

I mean, a person can hold out hope for all who are lost and still not believe all will be saved in the end… I do… God does…

God does not hope…that is open theism. God is sovereign. God knows.

phil, it is not God’s will that any should perish but that all will come to repentance. Yet, it is clear, that they do not.

God did not Saul up to fail. Saul made choices. Free will. Yes, man’s description of God’s response is grief. Does that mean it turned out differently than God had hoped? Maybe. Maybe it means that God was simply grieved. It certainly did not surprise God; for He warned Samuel exactly what would happen with a King, and warned Saul about what disobedience would bring.

God did not Saul up to fail. Saul made choices. Free will. Yes, man’s description of God’s response is grief. Does that mean it turned out differently than God had hoped? Maybe. Maybe it means that God was simply grieved. It certainly did not surprise God; for He warned Samuel exactly what would happen with a King, and warned Saul about what disobedience would bring.

Well you’re contradicting you’re earlier comment then. If God can grieve, then by default, it means He can hope. Grief is really sadness over loss. To feel sadness means there is regret over something that was once was or something did not turn out as hoped for. I don’t think God was surprised. I don’t think He can be, really, as He can anticipate every possible future outcome.

It’s amazing to me that the people who say these passages aren’t saying what they clearly say are often people who say, “I take the Bible seriously” or “the plain meaning of Scripture is clear…”.

Phil,

I am taking them seriously. You are attributing to God a human emotion, as the Bible did. Yet you assume that if the attributed emotion is grief, then God must hope like a human must hope. Yet it does not say that he hoped.

You are making God human in some respect. He is not. It grieved God that he made man. Did that mean that he made a mistake? Nope. Did it mean he didn’t know man would sin? nope.

In hoping for myself to be saved one day in glory I also hold out hope for all the world. If God can save even me then who can he not save?

Nobody! Praise God! Thats why we evangelize!!

But that does not mean that all will be saved!

But PB, you do not know the eternal destination of one single person who ever lived or is presently living – not even yourself.

And would you go further and say that it is WRONG to claim to have confidence in one’s salvation?

That is an Old Order Amish teaching.

PB,

God does not hope…that is open theism. God is sovereign. God knows.

I think you are missing something… have you ever studied out biblical hope? Sheesh…

Biblical hope is not wishful thinking… if I may “cut and paste” from Chad’s blog it will esplain it.

Biblical hope is trusting in that what God has done will come as it was promised. Jesus’ return is the Blessed Hope… For Jesus is our Hope… to say that “hoping it happens” is not biblical hope at all… Biblical hope is to “anticipate with confidenc or expectancy.” I think God placed His Hope in Christ Jesus… and knowing that His desires would come to fulfillment in the Hope that is and comes through Christ Jesus. Do a word study on “Hope” in the bible and you will see what I am saying. Often “Faith” and “Hope” are translated from the same word from Greek.

I think God anticipates with expectancy that which he began in Christ Jesus before the Creation of the world… or as the writer of Hebrews put it…

Hebrews 11: 1. “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.”

I see God hoped to redeemed all people and it is by faith in Christ he planned to do this and was certain it would work.

I hope you do not disagree that God held in total confidence that His Hope for us would save us… For it is His Hope we receive as all things are a gift from God… for if salvation is of God alone as you state you believe, then Hope is from God and of God and imparted to us through Jesus Christ… If the hope as you state is only produced from human effort it is Godless hope and does nothing for us.

So before you poopoo stuff take time to think about what you may be poopooing…

iggy

Nope…178…God does not hope as humans hope. Sorry. Not biblical.

Hope requires trust in what is promised- like chad says- anticipate with confidence or expectancy.

God wills. God knows. He does not require the human expression of hope. He does not need faith. He KNOWS.

Okay, so where does it say God hopes?

Check out Isaiah 5:

1 I will sing for the one I love
a song about his vineyard:
My loved one had a vineyard
on a fertile hillside.

2 He dug it up and cleared it of stones
and planted it with the choicest vines.
He built a watchtower in it
and cut out a winepress as well.
Then he looked for a crop of good grapes,
but it yielded only bad fruit.

3 “Now you dwellers in Jerusalem and men of Judah,
judge between me and my vineyard.

4 What more could have been done for my vineyard
than I have done for it?
When I looked for good grapes,
why did it yield only bad?

or Jeremiah 3:

6 During the reign of King Josiah, the LORD said to me, “Have you seen what faithless Israel has done? She has gone up on every high hill and under every spreading tree and has committed adultery there. 7 I thought that after she had done all this she would return to me but she did not, and her unfaithful sister Judah saw it. 8 I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries. Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed adultery. 9 Because Israel’s immorality mattered so little to her, she defiled the land and committed adultery with stone and wood. 10 In spite of all this, her unfaithful sister Judah did not return to me with all her heart, but only in pretense,” declares the LORD.

Both of these passages describe God expecting or wanting something to happen that didn’t happen. So were the prophets wrong in attributing these thoughts and emotions to God?

Who’s the one doubting the veracity of Scripture now?

Still does not say God hopes, Phil.

PB-
The Catholics have much to teach us

But, if God does not know what is going to happen

*sigh* Whoever said he doesn’t?

PB,

Jesus is our Hope and the eternal plan of Hope for us. It was in God and of God… in fact to say God does not hope, negates much of your argument for certainty.

Again, re-read what I actually wrote… I am talking about BIBLICAL HOPE not WORLDLY HOPE.

iggy

Chris L,

As I stated, Hope and Faith are often translated from the same word in Greek… Biblical Hope has in it certainty and is not the same as what we use in English…

Does God wish all to be saved? No… I would not say that… but as Jesus is our Hope, and all that is godly comes from and is of God, the Biblical Hope is different.

The Blessed Hope is not wishful thinking… it is having faith in what has not come to be yet… but we have the Hope of certainty that Jesus will return.

iggy

Chad,
Have you read The Great Divorce? It seems like you’re alluding to something that’s similar to that, but you seem to be going further than Lewis does. Lewis’ point was that even though God may be relentless in pursuing the lost, there has to be some submission of will on the behalf of the lost.

Even, in the parable of the lost sheep, isn’t it possible that the sheep could turn and bite the hand of the shepherd? Isn’t it possible that some sheep will never truly understand the shepherd’s heart?

I do understand the sadness in that statement, which is why I think it is our job as Christians to reveal the heart of the Father, but I do think we need to present both sides of the coin. We do need to tell people of God passionate, burning love for them, but we also need to let them understand that there is a submission of will required on their end.

As Peter notes -

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

So it is not God’s desire that any shall perish.

However, in this same letter, Peter makes it clear that those who are blasphemers and false teachers will perish.

And so it is – God desires that all men will be saved, but not all men will accept that salvation.

So it seems that already God has not received what He desires, and we’re only three chapters into the Bible…

Chris, you ignore the entirety of my post to point out what? That God doesn’t get what God wants?

Is that really your position?

Yes, 3 chapters in we find our human condition. Read on and you find the solution.
It appears that God, like any good parent, won’t let his children get the last word.

I would certainly expect that we would not – that we would praise God for everyone He has saved.

Seriously? Why would you suddenly change your demeanor while in this life you argued the opposite?

Don’t you get that that is exactly the point of Jesus’ parable? Israel could not IMAGINE God saving anyone but they (even though their prophets told of God’s desire to heal the nations through them). For the Gentiles to come “in the last hour” and be given the same reward was scandalous. Yet this is God’s way.

Today, we Gentiles are doing the exact same thing. We cannot IMAGINE God saving those who are not of our church. They are not like us. Even though Jesus said he has other sheep which are not of this fold we want to presume we are the sheep par excellance. We should get special treatment. It is perhaps our nature always to do so – sheep are dumb.

If Scripture teaches us anything at all it should be that what we expect to happen may get turned on its head. And the scales more often than not are favored to tip in the direction of God’s abundant mercy and love for ALL the world.

I don’t see that we (aside from PB) have consigned any individual to hell – only that we’ve recognized that God has said that there will be some who reside there (a plain fact).

I don’t deny this, Chris. The question is: Will they reside there forever? Why did Jesus descend into hell on Saturday?

We should not HOPE that all will be saved, because God doesn’t state that we should expect that.

I would advise that if you are going to continue saying this (something I, who understands what you are saying, finds offensive) that you would not use the word “HOPE” when you say “I do not HOPE all to be saved.” Just say what you mean and say you do not expect all to be saved while you desire that they are. To those not familiar with Greek and who stumble on this site and read only your line there it makes Christians sound extremely arrogant and spiteful.

We cannot IMAGINE God saving those who are not of our church.

[making the assumption that your use of "church" is of the catholic (not RCC) church, and not a denominationalist one]

I would point out that all of Revelation is about Jesus (the bridegroom) returning for his bride (the church), and taking her to live with him. Are you suggesting that all of humanity makes up the bride?

I don’t see anything in there about the other ladies in waiting…

Chris-
To your first question I did answer that on #163 – at the bottom.

The story of Jesus is not only alluded to as a story of a second Adam

True. But that allusion is enough to make one stop and think: So if ALL have died because of Adam what does it mean that Jesus is the flip side of that? If only some are saved because of Calvary than why did not only some die with Adam?

New One) Just wondering – realizing that living a life of salvation is always possible, while one still has breath – where do we find reference that one’s eternal salvation may be altered after death?

Where do we find that it cannot be? And why must it be “altered” after death? What if it is already decided and we just haven’t been filled in on the secret….yet? Salvation, whether it be in this life or the next, is not our possession. To those who would make it so, who are convinced they are saved, Jesus says, “hey, I never knew you.” To the goats, who do not even know Jesus, he says, “enter” (Matt. 25). To the Jews who think they know they are saved more than anyone he says “sinners, whores and tax collectors will enter the kingdom before you.” When he holds a banquent and the people who should come don’t he sends messengers out into the streets to shake down the rafters and invite everyone one. All.

When he holds a banquent and the people who should come don’t he sends messengers out into the streets to shake down the rafters and invite everyone one. All.

But not everybody shows up… to my point.

Salvation, whether it be in this life or the next, is not our possession. To those who would make it so, who are convinced they are saved, Jesus says, “hey, I never knew you.”

Now wait a minute – that would imply that someone would end up in hell.

Maybe you better rethink that.

To the goats, who do not even know Jesus, he says, “enter” (Matt. 25).

**scratches his head**

Maybe you should ask for a new Bible for Christmas, Chad. My version of Matt 25 says…

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

[...]

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

I don’t see any goats headed out the door on the right…

Sorry on the Matt 25 bit – I was thinking ahead of myself (or behind).
What I meant to say about the sheep and the goats was that both are suprised. Neither knew who Jesus was (the sheep included).

If we should hope (expect) that all will be saved in the end – then shouldn’t Jesus’ parable in Matthew 25 been about the Sheep and the … well … just the parable of the Sheep? Otherwise, he is implying that goats may (even theoretically) exist. And if any (even theoretically) exist, then some of them will be told “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” and not everybody would be saved, and our hope (expectation) would be for naught…

212

Not to mention wheat and tares, foolish and wise virgins, good soil vs. bad, fruit vs. thistles, narrow vs. wide road, etc. etc. etc.

Chris – as it applies to the word “hope”. When we find ourselves “hoping” against the clear teaching of Scripture it is not hope, it is unbelief. The Word seems to temper within me any ungarded thought about total reconciliation, which I admit I have had as a passing thought.

“The Catholics have much to teach us”

Only the Word through the Spirit can teach us, certainly no denomination and certainly not Roman Catholicism.

Chris – as it applies to the word “hope”. When we find ourselves “hoping” against the clear teaching of Scripture it is not hope, it is unbelief.

Again, you’ve summed up my thoughts more eloquently and succinctly than I have done…

Chris – as it applies to the word “hope”. When we find ourselves “hoping” against the clear teaching of Scripture it is not hope, it is unbelief.

An excellent point Rick, and an excellent summation of open theism.

No i do not….there is no place in scripture where it says that God hopes Phil. God knows. PERIOD.

Unless you read the GBV

(Greg Boyd Version)

Thats still not hope, Phil.

Looking for is not expecting….It is as though you are saying when God was calling out to Adam (looking for) he was actually looking for Him? That He did not know where Adam was??

Give me a break.

If open theism suggest an omnipotent and omniscient personal God who is open to allowing some history to conform to human actions and prayers, all while knowing the beginning from the end including the embedded said human participation, then I am for it.

What am I missing?

I do not believe God willed Katrina, the holocost, etc. ad infinitum. He allowed it and knew it, but these things just magnify the intellectual handcuffs we all live with as it pertains to the divine.

Much of “systematic theology” is boring, impractical, unproveable, subjective, and is usually nutrition for the doctrinally erudite and leaves the widow to fend for herself.

From CARM

Following are the basic tenets of open theism. It is with these presuppositions that open theists approach the Bible and interpret it.

God’s greatest attribute is love

This attribute of God is often elevated above His other attributes and used to interpret God in such a way as to be a cosmic gentleman who wants all to be saved, mourns over their loss,

Man’s free will is truly free in the libertarian sense.

Man’s free will is not restricted by his sinful nature but is equally able to make choices between different options.

By contrast, compatibilist free will states that a person is restricted and affected by his nature and that his nature not only affects his free will choices, but also limits his ability to equally choose among different options.

God does not know the future

This is either because God cannot know the future because it does not exist, or…

It is because God chooses to not know the future even though it can be known.

God takes risks

Because God does not know the future exhaustively, He must take risks with people whose future free will choices are unknowable.

God learns

Because God does not know the future exhaustively, He learns as the realities of the future occur.

God makes mistakes

Because God does not know all things and because He is dealing with free will creatures (whose future choices He does not know), God can make mistakes in dealing with people. Therefore, God would change His plans accordingly.

God changes His mind

God can change His mind on issues depending on what He learns and what He discovers people do. Usually, God’s change of mind is due to Him being surprised by something He didn’t not plan for or expect.

As you can see, open theism presents a view of God contrary to classical and historic Christianity which sees God as sovereign, all knowing, and unchanging.

HT Matt Slick

The omnipotent and omniscient and sovereign part.

This is a God who changes, and who does not know the end from the beginning.

“Knowing” involves dealing with things that aren’t certainties as well. Even humans have the ability to “know” things that aren’t certain to happen to a degree. For a simple example, I know that if I touch a hot stove I will get burnt. I can even “know” other people’s reactions to some degree. If I say something to someone, I can have a good idea of what they’ll say back.

Now if we can do this with our limited knowledge, just imagine how God can do it through his infinite knowledge. He knows everyone and everything perfectly, and can tell everyone’s motivations, so that’s why I think he can in some way “know” without predetermining. It seems that sometimes people have the ability to work in a way God wasn’t necessarily expecting as well.

In my opinion, this makes God not less sovereign, but more.

Phil – I would agree with that, but the mystery is that God knows the “possibilities” as settled from God’s vantage point and as still forming from man’s.

Let us not reject an amount of mystery in this.

I would mostly agree with this. I think that at some level there’s not much point to this debate, other than I think a lot of people have a hard time seeing God in the way he is described in a Calvinist system as “living and active”. So I think anything that helps people see God as actually being intimate and close and genuinely responding to their prayers is a good thing.

If we should hope (expect) that all will be saved in the end – then shouldn’t Jesus’ parable in Matthew 25 been about the Sheep and the … well … just the parable of the Sheep? Otherwise, he is implying that goats may (even theoretically) exist. And if any (even theoretically) exist, then some of them will be told “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” and not everybody would be saved, and our hope (expectation) would be for naught…

That is one way of looking at it (and apparently the only way you wish to look at it).

If you consider the audience Jesus was talking to then it is not so clear. And again, the point Jesus is making is NOT about eternal punishment for some. He is speaking to Jews about the necessity of treating the least of these with justice and mercy. And like a good Rabbi, he is using strident language that insists on the urgency of the matter. And, let us keep in mind this is a parable.

Neuhaus says that language like this is not predictive but more cautionary. It is as if to say “this is what could happen if you continue down this road” and not “this is what will happen.”

and not everybody would be saved, and our hope (expectation) would be for naught…

Again, I ask with Jesus in John 21: What is that to you?

There are many teachings and parables in which Jesus used to show an abundant and God honoring life, no one considers them as just cautionary and not actual. However in some teachings Jesus includes the afterlife, and these are not just cautionary concerning this life, but they give a view of the life to come.

Jesus died for forgiveness, fulfillment comes as a result of receiving that forgiveness. “The life to come” means “the life to come”. While it is true eternal life begins now, there is a life after death with a different body and a different reality and at least two different places. If “eternal torment” is exclusively metaphoric, then so is feeding the poor.

You ought to examine this piece when it comes to one of your heros, and the theology of open theism.

Wait…Ken Silva has a problem with Greg Boyd? Shocker!

Amy-

While I agree with you that the views I am espousing about hell and God’s desire for the world are probably more in line with Bell than what Chris L would care to admit I think an important distinction should be drawn here.

You seem to be trying to divide and conquer. It appears that you are under the impression that if you can prove that I and Rob Bell are in agreement here and that Chris L diagrees with me than he must disagree with Bell and that that in some way proves something.

I would argue that this is a case in point of how different the ODM crowd is from this crowd at CRN (and Chris L, feel free to disagree). Whereas the ODM crowd would dismiss someone from the ranks of their “brother” or “sister” on a doctrinal difference such as this and then dismiss those who defend the wrong-doer through a guilt by association, that is not how it works here.

IOW, even if Bell agrees with me in this that does not make him a false teacher or someone that does not have much to teach us or that everything else he says is false.

Chris L has stated publically here that he does not agree with everything Bell teaches. I would hope that you or anyone else wouldn’t believe everything someone says just because of who they are. So I really don’t see why this should matter.

But nice try.

Amy,
Forgive me, but based on past interactions with you on this site I think most would assume you have anything but the best motives in mind. For instance, I am still trying to figure out what view of scripture it is I hold (or rather, you say I hold).

But in any event, your entire post begs the question: Who cares? So what if Rob Bell thinks more like I do on this matter? Does that mean Chris L or anyone else shouldn’t defend him? Does that mean he is a heretic and false brother? Who cares?

And by the way, orthodoxy does not mean the “majority” belief. I would argue that my take on hell and God’s universal reconcilation of the world is more in line with “orthodoxy” than your modern slants of it.

Forgive me, but based on past interactions with you on this site I think most would assume you have anything but the best motives in mind.

Why are you free to judge my motives?

If “”most” are judging my motives wrongly, then your statement is true.

Who cares? So what if Rob Bell thinks more like I do on this matter? Does that mean Chris L or anyone else shouldn’t defend him? Does that mean he is a heretic and false brother? Who cares?

Who cares? If Rob Bell is teaching false doctrine, then God cares.

2 Peter 2:1-3.

Who cares about false teachers? I care. I care because I see so many people being led away from the simple but amazing truth that God loves them, and sent His Son Jesus to take the punishment that they deserve.

I care because I see people being led to another Jesus all together.

I care because I love people.

Amy, please show where I or Bell have denied the above.

You espouse the belief that everyone is a child of God whether they know it or not, and whether or not they believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

So that makes believing that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life rather inconsequential, doesn’t it?

It puts the belief on the same level as thinking that green is a nicer color than blue . . . .

Rather than making the belief a matter of Eternal Life or Eternal Suffering, a matter of knowing and enjoying God forever, or being separated from Him forever.

You espouse the belief that everyone is a child of God whether they know it or not, and whether or not they believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Correct. And that is because of Jesus Christ, not because you were so wise to believe in him.

So that makes believing that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life rather inconsequential, doesn’t it?

Not at all. Not if you you think living a lie, never knowing what it means to be loved by God so ruthlessly, and never knowing “abundant life,” is merely “inconsequential.”

It puts the belief on the same level as thinking that green is a nicer color than blue . . . .

Duh. Of course it is.

Rather than making the belief a matter of Eternal Life or Eternal Suffering, a matter of knowing and enjoying God forever, or being separated from Him forever.

Actually, that is unbiblical, Amy. Getting your head straight about who Jesus is is not the linch pin for your eternal destiny. Jesus is the linchpin. Your description here makes salvation nothing more than a bargain exchange. It is a salvation by works, not grace.

It’s either all grace, Amy, or it’s nothing about grace. Belief in this life is essential in saving me subjectively. It pulls me out of my blindness of seeing the world as something to manipulate and control and dominate. Belief is also essential in this lifetime in that it witnesses to the rest of the world who do not yet know Jesus that God is doing something peculiar to redeem Creation – i.e. God has not left the world without a witness to Himself. IF the entire universe is saved it will be because of Jesus Christ. Not because of you, not your belief, not anyone else. You will not be able to stand on judgment day and boast, “see, I was smart enough to believe rightly.”

Rather than making the belief a matter of Eternal Life or Eternal Suffering, a matter of knowing and enjoying God forever, or being separated from Him forever.

Actually, that is unbiblical, Amy. Getting your head straight about who Jesus is is not the linch pin for your eternal destiny. Jesus is the linchpin. Your description here makes salvation nothing more than a bargain exchange. It is a salvation by works, not grace.

Chad, it’s not about “getting my head straight.” It’s about God Himself giving me the power to believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God whose blood has paid the price for my redemption. It’s about the Spirit of the Living God giving me new life.

You will not be able to stand on judgment day and boast, “see, I was smart enough to believe rightly.”

That’s for sure.

Actually, I would be disappointed if Bell believed exactly as you do (that we should expect that all will be saved), and while it would not negate everything he teaches, it would demonstrate much disregard for Scripture, which would contradict the way he has treated it in other areas…

Well, feel free to be disappointed. The thing I was defending you (and this site) about was that you would not declare him a false teacher or brother simply because he has expectations that hell will not be eternal and that God through Jesus will save all. As far as regard for scripture goes, I think such a view (if it were Bell’s) has a deeper respect and understanding for what scripture seeks to do.

Actually, I would say that your view is just as unhealthy

Why? You keep saying this but never back it up. Sure, you think you do by saying things like “I’m OK your OK we are all OK” or saying that it leads people to believe they can live however they want, holiness doesn’t matter and it is a free for all. None of that is true, Chris. And I have explained why that is. Your conclusions are simply false or at best not the only ones to be drawn.

Well, feel free to be disappointed.

Maybe you didn’t read my comments (or between the lines) all that well. The difference between your position and Bell’s is that his use of “hope” was obviously in the English/broad sense, and that he’s affirmed his belief in a literal hell where people do, and will, exist – for eternity.

He chooses not to dwell on the issue, and to demur when questioned about it. It’s not how I would handle it, but that’s me. (I would rather affirm the belief in hell and then answer “why is it any of your business?” to the follow-up of “who will be there?”, as I think it provides a more teachable moment. I suspect that his non-public answers on the subject are more out of disdain and perhaps a bit of peckishness with the folks who keep asking the question.) I understand his reasons, and I’m not disappointed.

You, on the other hand, go further than desiring that all will be saved to expecting that they will be. You then say it doesn’t mean “I’m OK, we’re OK”, but that’s where it ends. It provides false hope – false expectations – where no such hope exists.

hasn’t he also said that he hopes that hell will be empty (just asking, don’t remember the exact quote.)

This sounds familiar – again using “desire” as “hope” in this context. To say that hope (desire) that hell would be empty isn’t denying hell – it’s just an expression of how much we should desire that none be there.

I see this similar to Peter’s comment “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”

So, if it is God’s desire that none should perish and that all should repent, shouldn’t that be our desire as well (in which case, we would desire that hell be empty)?

It is since that original discussion that I’ve come to understand that Chad believes that (expects that) everyone will be saved.

Yes, exactly. And that is where he differs from Bell, and why I still defend Bell on the point.

why not talk about what a “literal hell” is as well?

(see my previous comment #258) Probably because the people he’s speaking to aren’t asking the question, and the people asking the question are ones he’s likely to not answer a question for, on purpose. (see Matt 21:25-27) Again, probably not the way I’d handle it, but he’s not me…

You, on the other hand, go further than desiring that all will be saved to expecting that they will be. You then say it doesn’t mean “I’m OK, we’re OK”, but that’s where it ends. It provides false hope – false expectations – where no such hope exists.

Chris, seriously. Do you really believe that when talking to someone who does not know God and rejects Jesus that I say to them, “Hey that is cool. Don’t worry about it. You’ll get to heaven anyway.”

I might, based on what I know of my father, expect that he would take be back into his home no matter how I live but that doesn’t mean I want to stay in the pig sty forever. At some point I hope to wake up and walk home.

I don’t know what will happen to those who willfully reject God in this lifetime. I know they, like ALL of us, will be judged. I don’t know what will happen to those who never knew Christ or had the chance to know him in this life. What I do know, is they too will be judged. Based on what I know of this God through Jesus Christ, I have complete confidence that this judgment will be righteous and good. It may even be hell for many of us (including those of us who smugly assume we are not like “them”). But because I know who Jesus is I believe agaisnt an eternal hell.

And btw, I think if Bell were pressed on the literal hell aspect he might say something like “yeah, many people are literally in hell right now.” Our task as Christians is to point the way to the light.

Two people are walking toward a cliff, one hears a warning and ignores it while the other does not hear any warning. Which of these two men fall to their death?

From what I can discern from the Scriptures no one can be saved without hearing and believing (Rom.10). Is that fair? I would suggest that any sinner that spends eternity with Christ is unfair, not those who do not. If I were God I would judge those who never heard by their works, however I am willing to acknowledge my complete inability to accurately assess divine truth, I must bow to God’s Word and leave it at that.

Amy, can you be any more obtuse?

Please speak plainly for us dumb people.

Okay:

God never told me in His Word to consider that those who haven’t heard about Him will get their chance to know Him one day. He simply said, through His Word and the leading of His Spirit, “Go.”

Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

And He tells us to go into all the world and preach the gospel.

So I’m trying to be obedient to His command.

There’s my answer. Again.

What my feet do shows what I really and truly BELIEVE.

Stubborn, ain’t I?

Chris,
Again, thanks for your response.

It would be very interesting to hear what intelligent people without a background in Scripture, people who have gone to his lectures or listened to his videos, think that Bell believes about hell and redemption and just what the Word of God is.

True. Sadly.

“Those who answer “true” to that question, IMO, do not truly know the Jesus their dear scriptures point to.

Ah yes, a sentiment not unlike expressed by ODMs. Maybe someday I’ll meet Him.

Chad – Jesus wept over Jerusalem, and God takes no pleasure in the punishment of the unrighteous. You can paint your own box concerning what the Scriptures teach but do not provide personal imagery and suggest it accurately reflects God.

Of course I’ve never met the real Jesus, I worship a caricature of my own making.

Rick-

Jesus wept over Jerusalem because they should have known better.

Jesus was not weeping over lost people who never met him or never were going to have the chance to meet him.

For you to say the ignorant are going to hell and that that is “sad” is to miss the point of what Jesus has truly done.

Rick, is Paul speaking of this present salvation or future salvation? And is he saying that those who are not “saved” in the future sense are spending eternity in hell?

FWIW – Paul’s writings are to a primarily Gentile (and Greek) Christian audience, and I do not see that he makes the same distinctions he might make to a primarily Jewish audience.

But again, does this “judgment” mean that on the other side of it there awaits an eternal hell for those who do not pass muster?

I would not categorize it that way, no. Rather, following Paul’s teaching, I would note that ALL are destined for hell, but some who accepted the grace given to them will ‘unjustly’ be saved from an eternity apart from God.

The person who lives and dies without ever hearing the name Jesus spends eternity in hell: True or False?

Jesus to Peter – what is it to you? It works both ways, Chad.

Those who answer “true” to that question, IMO, do not truly know the Jesus their dear scriptures point to.

And now we’re back to baloney sandwiches.

We aren’t the arbiter of their fate to make the call. There is absolutely no basis to answer “false” to the question, and there is enough narrative and literal material to make at least a guess of “true”, but even that is a guess.

So, just to fit with your statement, those who answer “false” to that question, IMO, don’t really give a whit as to what is written in Scripture, giving favor instead to their make-believe Jesus of puppies, rainbows and unicorns…

Amy.

False… They may have heard the name Y’shua, or Jesus as pronounced by the Hispanics as Yesus… I see that you are falling into the trap of ‘knowing a specific name” as the JW does with Jehovah….

God judges the heart and if that person has the “Name” of salvation that is only from the True God, they will be saved. Yet, many have heard the “Name” yet are not saved…as they choose to reject Him.

If someone in that imaginary tribe of Amazonians is a true seeker of the Living God, I have faith God will also seek them out and guide one to lead them in salvation.

So the answer is more complex than your “yes or no” as you have reduced it way too simplistic as far as how the Bible approaches what “No other Name than Jesus” for yes that is true, yet also there is more to that scripture than a specific “name”. For if we are to answer as you are stating then the specific name is Y’eshua Hebrew or Iesous in Greek neither which is as we say His Name… so by your very question then if it is a specific name we are not saved by Jesus… BTW we are saved by the Person of the Name… not the name of the Person.

iggy

and Chris, wiggling out of answering only makes your entire argument one of smoke and whistles.

You have said repeatedly that it is wrong for me, based on what I know of God as revealed to us in Christ, to expect (hope) for all to be saved in some way on the day of Judgment. You say it is wrong of me to believe this because you KNOW people will be in hell. Obviously, you must have an idea of WHY those people are in hell. Certainly it must include those who never knew Jesus, right? I mean, is not Scripture CLEAR that the ONLY WAY to be saved is through Jesus?

So, you and Amy evading the question tells me you are happy to have a hell you just don’t want to put anyone there for any reason. That is a good start, at least.

As for Rick being “sad” over the fact that they will be in hell I still don’t get that. If you are “sad” over what your God justly and righteously and gloriously does on Judgment day than why worship him? The attitude taken towards judgment day in scripture is one of expecatation and delight – a day to be looking forward to, a day that ALL of creation is groaning for.

Only because it reveals your unbelief in His word, supplanted by wishful thinking.

Yes of course, Chris. To disagree with you here is equal to “unbelief in His word.” The typical ODM line.

Once again, true of false: Those who never hear the name of Jesus will burn in hell forever.

Since you will not answer that it is true, shall I presume that you must not “believe His word” which is quite clear: only those who call on Jesus are saved.

Why are unwilling to answer?

Chad – I answered your question and you played the “you don’t know the merciful Jesus” card. I see that card and raise you the “coming in flaming fire taking vengance” Jesus card.

had – you continue to be very slippery. Sometimes you seem to openly espouse universalism and then when confronted you retreat…somewhat.

It’s the difference between believing in some degree of absolute truth and none.

So apparently you do not believe the “absolute truth” that only those who call on the name of Jesus can be saved, as Rick does, right?

I can at least respect Rick for being consistent. He agrees with you that no one should hope (expect) God to save everyone and then takes that non-hope to its logical conclusion – that people who don’t know Jesus burn in hell.

You, however, waffle. So you either dont believe the abslute truth of scripture like Rick (and unlike me, apparently) or you know something about Jesus that you aren’t willing to admit here.

Instead, you tuck your tail and say “who are we to question?”

True of false: Those who do not confess the name of Jesus burn in hell.

What do you expect to happen to people who never get a chance to meet Jesus in this life? If you were a betting man, where would you put your money? You see, based on what I know of God revealed in Jesus, I expect (hope) that they will be saved.

Honestly, do you know something about Jesus that makes my hope nothing more than wishful thinking? If so, then why won’t you declare them in hell?

ISo apparently you do not believe the “absolute truth” that only those who call on the name of Jesus can be saved, as Rick does, right?

I can at least respect Rick for being consistent. He agrees with you that no one should hope (expect) God to save everyone and then takes that non-hope to its logical conclusion – that people who don’t know Jesus burn in hell.

You, however, waffle. So you either dont believe the abslute truth of scripture like Rick (and unlike me, apparently) or you know something about Jesus that you aren’t willing to admit here.

No – Apparently you’ve not been reading what I’ve written.

1) Scripture is clear that only those who call upon the name of Jesus can be saved.

2) Scripture is clear that those who reject Him and His gift will be damned.

3) What is not completely clear (as I read it) is where those fall who have never heard in the first place (since you cannot accept or reject what you do not hear). We do have the example of Jesus witnessing to those who died before he came to earth (which does not imply that all he witnessed to were saved, though), but Peter’s use of the wicked in the days of Noah in this narrative suggests that only a few of those were saved. Thus, I’m not going to play your game, because the answer’s not clear, and it’s none of my business why God saves some but not others.

What do you expect to happen to people who never get a chance to meet Jesus in this life?

It doesn’t matter, because I don’t need to know. I’ve just been told to spread the Gospel to all nations – a Gospel which has implications from the moment it is heard on into eternity.

Honestly, do you know something about Jesus that makes my hope nothing more than wishful thinking?

Other than what is recorded throughout Scripture, no. You can’t cherry pick the parts you like about Jesus and then toss everything you don’t (which is exactly what you’re doing).

This is not a game, Chris L. You won’t answer because you’ve painted yourself into a theological corner and you don’t like the result of your own argument.

Please. Apparently you’ve not been reading. I see no ‘theological corner’ –

1) It is clear that those who reject Jesus’ gift will be damned; You still keep searching for an exception to this rule, because you do not like the rule – thus, wishful thinking.

2) The question still remains – can those who did not hear still reject him? Can those who did not hear still accept him? We are not given a definitive answer, but we are given a definitive task – to spread the Gospel, so that others will hear.

Now, we might speculate, based on this mission and the importance and urgency assigned to it, that others hearing is important, for some reason. Possibly, it is only so that they may benefit from the grace Jesus grants during this life, but that doesn’t completely square with the urgency given.

We might also speculate that those who have not heard of him will be damned from an exercise in logic – 1) If those who have not heard, and thus have not had an opportunity to accept/reject him, will be saved, then perhaps, in the long run, it would be better for them to never hear the Gospel – to never have the chance to reject him; but 2) Since we are told to spread the Gospel, we would not be given a mission that would damn people – just by them being given a choice to accept/reject him – when ignorance would be best for them in the long run.

However, we are not explicitly given the answer to the question about whether or not the person who never heard will be given a chance to accept or reject Christ, so apparently we don’t need to know.

There’s no corner there. We’ve got a job to do, and “what about him?” is none of our business. To teach that the answer of “what about him” is “I expect that he will be saved in the end, anyways” is wishful thinking and unbelief in the warnings given by God.

Other than what is recorded throughout Scripture, no. You can’t cherry pick the parts you like about Jesus and then toss everything you don’t (which is exactly what you’re doing).

Chris, it is comments like these that I find so exasperating about you. I am not “cherry picking” nor am I tossing aside parts of scripture that I don’t like. I have interacted with each of the passages you have thrown around.

Listen, I affirm that ALL of scripture is inspired. I am not cut and pasting the parts I want to fit some God I want. That is just ridiculous and I wish you would stop insinuating it.

This has NOTHING to do with the God I want. It has EVERYTHING to do with the God we have. I am not interested in the slightest bit to invent a God from my own desires and perspectives. If you haven’t figured it out yet, much of what I have been sharing here comes directly from great students of scripture such as Karl Barth. Are you aware of Barth’s take on revelation and Scripture? He, as I, would find such a notion of making God fit our own desires repugnant. We only got the God we got and that is the one revealed to us in scripture and is most concentrated in the person and work of Jesus Christ – period. I do not ignore or brush aside the passages that you think prove your point. I merely read them in light of what we know about God in Christ, beginning with Israel and culminating in the Incarnation.

What would I want? If it were left to me I would create a God that is going to damn everyone that ever did me wrong. Left to myself, I would create a God that is going to make anyone who is not on my “team” be the losers. I would act as Israel acted when they heard in Luke 4 that God is acting on behalf of the world and not just them (and tried to kill him).
You see, I would not want to love my enemies or pray for those who persecute me. I would not want to let those who have done nothing for the Kingdom to get the best seat at the table. I would not allow whores, sinners and tax collectors in before myself.

Frankly, the God you guys glean from scripture sounds a lot like the God I want than the God we get in Jesus Christ.

I have consistently and strongly steered all my Bible students to avoid Karl Barth at all costs.

Once again, true of false: Those who never hear the name of Jesus will burn in hell forever.

I believe “true” is the only conclusion you can come to since the Scriptures say only those who are in Christ are saved. Is there another way besides Jesus?

Once again, true of false: Those who never hear the name of Jesus will burn in hell forever.

No, those who do not have their sin paid for will burn in Hell forever.

What do you expect to happen to people who never get a chance to meet Jesus in this life? If you were a betting man, where would you put your money? You see, based on what I know of God revealed in Jesus, I expect (hope) that they will be saved.

Why don’t you ask questions based on your own beliefs, Chad? You believe that people who never know the name of Jesus and people who hear and reject will all be saved. So why are you framing your question as you do above?

If I were a betting woman, Chad, I would put my money on my feet. God said “Go” and I “Go.”

My orthopraxy is more important than my being forced into a “yes,” “no,” answer by you. It’s rather disgusting to try to be forced to answer a question from someone who usually will not communicate with me at all. Suddenly I’m not all that you have previously described me as and instead am someone whose viewpoint you are interested in?

Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man comes to the Father but by me.” God never said, “Hear this verse (I am the Way . . . ) and be comforted to know that only those who hear about me will not be held accountable.” He said, “Go and tell the nations.”

You want my Jesus to be “big enough” to forgive everyone, whether they want it or not. I want my Jesus to be the one I see in Scripture.

“God revealed in Jesus,” is the one who spoke the exclusive way. “God revealed in Jesus” is the one who said “whoever does not believe stands condemned already.”

“God revealed in Jesus” is the one who talks about not only giving a cup of cold water in His name, but spreading the Good News.

“God revealed in Jesus” is the great High Priest, the one who makes the Father accessible to those who believe in Him. He is the one who makes those who have been washed in the blood of the lamb His brothers.

You want a Jesus who brings people into God’s presence without the covering of the Blood of the Lamb, for He does not forgive people who don’t want to be forgiven. You want all to be children without the Blood of the Lamb. You essentially make His Blood of little consequence. He only saves those who have come to God through Him.

“Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.” (Hebrews 9:28)

As for your “hunch,” #285, you are so wrong. And this is especially wrong:

And since you know Jesus you know that there is something that goes beyond a few passages that seem to make knowing him an event that excludes others.

Beyond a few passages? The story of scripture is one of sin and redemption provided by Jesus Christ, for those who believe. There are not just “a few passages” that make knowing Jesus an exclusive event.

How is such deception coming upon you?

One thing in all this that confuses me is your talking about how the God who saves you must certainly be able to save everyone. This confuses me because in another post you said that no one can know if they are saved. How is it that you are then basing your argument on the fact that you are saved?

If people who never hear are saved, then we should cease all evangelism and missions, lest someone hear and reject. Neil

The other day, PB agreed with me that all were forgiven at the Cross… but today he states the opposite.

No, those who do not have their sin paid for will burn in Hell forever.

So which is it double minded man.. is it based on Grace or our works and beliefs? Is it forgiveness to all available since the Cross or only to some. PB bounces between limited and unlimited atonement… and at time ventures out into Universalism as in the Humpty Dumpty thread.

But PB is not a heretic in all his confused mumbo jumbo theology… only everyone else is. And truth goes to the waste can as long as PB can be right in his own eyes.

LOL!
iggy

#301

As I once said, Chad, when you are confronted with your own unbiblical beliefs you won’t own up to them.

Why is this?

Are you
1)just playing games (and really wasting people’s times)
2)operating under the belief that what is true changes from one second to the next
3) under some spiritual oppression that keeps you from seeing your own false beliefs

If people who never hear are saved, then we should cease all evangelism and missions, lest someone hear and reject. Neil

Neil, if salvation were soley about going to heaven vs. hell after you die than you would have a point. But that is not salvation.

I believe scripture teaches us that salvation is about being caught up in the dream God has for the world. You and I, we who know this Jesus, we get to be part of that dream!! It is an amazing thing to know you are loved and forgiven by the creator of the universe and get to live this life in such an abundant way – with a purpose that speaks to the hope we have in this God who intends to renew and recreate the world – when the heavens and earth are joined together forever. How cool is that!!!! We get to be “co-laborers” with Christ as we work to build the kingdom with God “on earth as it is in heaven.” That is our mission. And to those of us who have been given much much will be expected (Luke 12).

We love others because we have first been loved by this God. We have come face to face with Love. THAT is what compels us to evangelize. NOT to win “converts” that we can move from the category of “hell bound” to “heaven bound” to recruit disciples who will be part of this dream that is God’s. Judgment will come. But that is God’s judgment – not ours. Our task is to point to the one who is Lord of heaven and earth and through whom ALL THINGS are being reconciled to God. Our task is to tell the world the truth about themselves – they ARE saved, therefore, REPENT and live unto God.

That is why we evangelize. Isn’t that a far more robust reason to do it than to presume one’s eternal destiny rests upon my witness? Isn’t that quite arrogant of us?

Chad,

Well stated.

Salvation is not a destination it is the Person of JEsus Christ and we in Him and Him in us…

It is to be in the presence of Jesus to Glorify God the Father.

John 17: 15-26

15. My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17. Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.
18. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19. For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified. 20. “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21. that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23. I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. 24. “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. 25. “Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. 26. I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.”

To make salvation all about me and where I will go diminishes what salvation truly is…

iggy

Neil.

I already gave an answer way up there in the thread #280… and in fact it is a very obtuse question and I had hoped Amy would clarify it a bit instead of using it as a tool to “get someone”. The question is poorly written as it is unclear what she is really asking. Again see my comment and you will understand.

The big issue is that Amy seems to thing we are not saved by the Person of the Name, but somehow we are mystically saved by the Name of the Person. I keep asking for clarity but she ignores me and refuses to give an answer…

So as far as the question it is really impossible to give a right or wrong answer in how it is posed.

iggy

I never said there wouldn’t be judgment, Chris. In fact, grace without judgment is….nothing. There can be no embrace without exclusion.

Well, then there must be a hell, and it must not be an empty threat, and therefore, we must not expect that it will be empty.

My point exactly.

Are you saying that the only way to approach someone who does not know God is to dangle the carrot of hell in front of them?

No, but you don’t tell them that it doesn’t exist, and that you expect there’ll not be anyone there either.

True or false: Those who never hear the name of Jesus in this lifetime burn for eternity in hell.

This is fun to watch all the dancing going on over this question. Don’t you believe in your Bible?

There’s no dancing going on, apart from what you’re doing on top of your bible…

Just to check my grounding on the issue, I talked to one of my mentors this morning at church about our conversation, and I asked him your question. His answer: What’s it to you, Chris? I think he was surprised by my smile, nod and “thank you” after he gave me that answer.

There is absolutely no point in answering your question, because the answer is not up to us. We know that those who reject Jesus are damned. If they have not heard, they’ve not had the opportunity to accept or reject Him, and it will be up to God what standard He uses. However, to Neil’s point:

If people who never hear are saved, then we should cease all evangelism and missions, lest someone hear and reject.

And no, this isn’t an obsession with the afterlife, it goes for both sides of the grave, and since the life on the other side of the grave is a whole lot longer, it should at least be given significant consideration.

I am encouraged, actually, that you are not willing to answer “true” (along with Chris L). Really, the only difference between us on this issue is wheras you choose to waffle I have determined to answer “false.”

I’m not waffling. The answer is not mine to give. It’s none of your business or mine what God decides to do with that person.

And why do I answer “false”?

Probably because you’ve been deluded, which happens to far too many people who go to school for an MDiv and come out unbelievers…

Probably because you’ve been deluded, which happens to far too many people who go to school for an MDiv and come out unbelievers…

wow, Chris.
Perhaps if Ken Silva or Chris R. needs a sabattical they will give you a call.

I talked to one of my mentors this morning at church

Well, that settles it then, doesn’t it?
I had a guy on my blog affirm all this. So I guess we are even.

Well, then there must be a hell, and it must not be an empty threat, and therefore, we must not expect that it will be empty.

Chris, this is where you seem to be confused. Judgement does not equal hell. ALL will be judged, even the righteous.

I said there will be judgment. You conclude from that “well then, there must be a hell.” Why? Judgment does not necessitate a hell. There could be a hell, but it is not a necessity.

Who are you to say that in the crucible of judgment that one is not rendered completely speechless or led to fall on their knees and confess with their tongue that Christ is Lord?

I’m not waffling.

Yes you are.

Probably because you’ve been deluded, which happens to far too many people who go to school for an MDiv and come out unbelievers…

I never had you pegged as anti-intellectual, Chris. You really surprise me.

Now, it would seem you think that one who does not believe in a literal hell or think that certain people are in it are an “unbeliever” and that such a belief could only be the fault of the evil seminary.

Well, that settles it then, doesn’t it?
I had a guy on my blog affirm all this. So I guess we are even

Let me put it this way – I asked someone who I trust, and who I consider to be a wise scholar on theological matters. And the fact that he gave me the exact answer I gave you was all the comfort I need that I’m coming from a solid viewpoint.

I’m not waffling.

Yes you are.

Whatever. I’m sure you’d have been counseling Job to question God, as well, when he was told it was none of his business. (And by the way “It’s none of your business” IS an answer – I’m using it in the same general context as Jesus w/ Peter, so unless he was waffling, I’m not either.

I said there will be judgment. You conclude from that “well then, there must be a hell.” Why? Judgment does not necessitate a hell. There could be a hell, but it is not a necessity.

Whatever. You’re so open minded your brains have leaked out all over the floor… I’ll just take what God says (which tends to be fairly illustrative, including words like ‘eternal’, ‘weeping’ and ‘gnashing of teeth’) and you can live with what Chad wants to fantasize about God, unicorns and puppies…

wow, Chris.
Perhaps if Ken Silva or Chris R. needs a sabattical they will give you a call.

Sorry Chad, not gonna bite. I’ve seen too many students that went off to divinity school and ended up going off the deep end as a result. And right now, I’ve gotta say I’m not all that impressed with Duke (not that I ever would have suspected they would have a divinity school…)

Now, it would seem you think that one who does not believe in a literal hell or think that certain people are in it are an “unbeliever” and that such a belief could only be the fault of the evil seminary.

Let’s not put words in my mouth.

I would say that someone who doesn’t believe in a literal hell shouldn’t be teaching other Christians.

And I would also say that there are a lot of really stupid spiritual ideas and theories that don’t require a seminary to come up with them – it typically requires a seminary, though, to craft the slimy ones that contain enough of the truth to sound plausible, but enough lies to make them heretical.

I do believe Paul used the word “dung” as it referred to his academia, when compared to a simple faith in Jesus Christ.

The University of Dung.

The Fighting Dungmakers ( Indiana)

Confucious say “He who thinks he is an intellectual isn’t”.

“The Fighting Dungslingers”

I believe they are located in West Lafayette, Indiana. They are notorious for their anti-intellectual view of Scripture.

That view of Scripture takes its toll when they enter into combat with the fundamentalists from South Bend.

OK, so those who believe are part of the process… So what is the status of those who never heard and those who heard and rejected?

Neil-

I hope I answered that in my last post (329). For the ignorant I put my confidence in Christ and do not waffle (where as Chris L does waffle) and as to those who willfully reject Christ I hold out hope based, also, on who Christ is (wheras Chris L is overly dogmatic and quite sure of himself).

IOW, I do not put a limit on the extent to which God’s grace and forgiveness can extend. To be sure, no one will be in God’s Kingdom who has not confessed Christ as Lord.

As an example, at 9:47 AM on June 6th, 1996 I was finally led into all truth without any hint of error or compromise, HOWEVER, I refuse to receive any praise for that accomplishment. It is my duty to stoop down and lend people adoctrinal hand up to my level, to the praise of His glory.

I do it with joy.

How magnanimous of you. Let God speak for Himself. To suggest that YOU don’t limit God’s grace etc. is very doctrinally self righteous. It is the other sdie of the same coin that says “I believe fully in God’s wrath” and I do not limit that!

This doesn’t make much sense, Rick. If the NT was all about God’s wrath and how Jesus came not to save but condemn and if Jesus were not go about teaching forgiveness, love, mercy and grace than you might have a point.

The person who puts the emphasis on God’s wrath and refuses to limit that has misread the gospel.

My prism is Jesus, Rick, and it does not exlude justice or grace but, as only Jesus can do, upholds them both perfectly. There is no grace without justice and vice versa.

The problem here is that some of you want to declare with absolutes what God’s justice must look like and on whom it falls. Have we not learned from Jesus that God’s justice is not our justice? Have we not learned that it takes on a form that is unlike anything we know or understand in our fallen state?

None of us would have written the cross into the story of God’s justice. But there it stands.

I suppose you are right, Chad, that God is full of surprises and we should always hope that he has a plan for those who do not hear, or hear and reject.

That said, I would certainly waffle more when it comes to giving that hope openly and confidently.

It is one thing to observe God’s nature through the narrative of Scripture… though it seems you are willing to allow these passages to trump others in which the future of those unsaved at death appears certain.

Neil

That said, I would certainly waffle more when it comes to given that hope openly and confidently.

You think so?

On a pastoral note, I have been asked the question several times about the eternal destiny of a loved one departed who did not know Christ in the way we might expect one to know Christ.

Wanna know what I tell them?

I ask them to put their trust and hope in the all-sufficiency of Jesus Christ – the one who stood for us when we could not stand or would not stand. I point them to the God who IS love and who desires none to perish but all to have everlasting life. I pray with them that the Spirit of peace give them comfort and assurance that their son or daughter is in the presence of the only Righteous Judge the world has ever known and that this Judge died for him or her because, even while he or she was weak, in sin and perhaps even an enemy of Gods, this Judge loved him or her.

I take my duty as a pastor to point to the GOOD NEWS that is Jesus Christ.

though it seems you are willing to allow these passages to trump others inwhich the future of those unsaved at death appears certain.

I think the word “appears” in your quote is worth emphasis.

but I do not pray the Spirit gives them comfort on an issue I cannot know.

Seriously? So you only pray the Spirt’s comfort on people over things settled in your mind?

Boy, haven’t you guys gotten tired of this conversation yet? I lost interest over a week ago…

I guess at some point, I get to a “rubber meets the road” aspect of theology, as in where does a particular theology take us and what does it cause us to do. I could see how someone who was a hardcore Universalist could get a “I’m OK, your OK” attitude, but as far as I can tell, Chad doesn’t seem to exhibit that. He seems to be exhorting others to draw near to Christ and to change their lives, and frankly, I’ve seen plenty of Christians in “Bible-believing” churches who don’t do that, despite consistently living with the threat of hell.

So in the end, each of us will answer for own actions. As to how far we can offer commentary on the fate of others, I’m not sure. I guess at this point in my life, I’m more content to let the Holy Spirit convict people of sin. He’s been doing it for the last 2,000 years without me, and I think He’ll continue to do so.

Phil – thank you again for your fair reading of my position and not resorting to fairy tales.

This topic is not boring to me at all. I have learned a lot and it has helped me anticipate some of the questions bound to come from it.

What has been disappointing is the depths to which some will stoop in order to make their point or prove they are right. I did not expect that from some people.

Guess I have a lot to learn in that area.

Iggy-
I agree. It seems like weeks ago but at one point I tried to point out that theology must be embodied (enfleshed). We can’t conceal this sort of discussion to the ivory towers of our blogs or minds but ask how does this enter into the fabric of our lives and transform?

I remember my first funeral. He was an alcoholic. Died younger than he should have and his life wasn’t all that to write home about. I called my dad, a seasoned pastor (full disclosure: he has a DMin – oh my!), and asked him what on earth should I say?

My dad said: You preach on the full and complete sufficiency of Jesus Christ. You preach in such a way that everyone’s focus is turned upward, to Jesus, and the hope we have in him as the Savior of the world – the one who brought Good News.

At the time I did not fully grasp the gravity of that proclamation. I am beginning to now.

Joe – I challenge you to produce one personal attack in my comments. See, you can’t, you moron.

This sort of appeal is beneath you, Chris.

As are your attempted appeals to my vanity.

I wasn’t arguing that my position is truth based on a second opinion. Rather, I’m trying to express that I’m not just trying to ‘wing it’ – that I’m looking to other sources of wisdom (not just books by authors I can proof-text to my liking) to help keep me on track. Too often ,when I have gotten into discussions or debates in the past (and sometimes today), I rely only on myself and what wisdom/knowledge I’ve accumulated – and that leads to blind spots. Thus, I try to pick and choose folks to trust whose ‘blind spots’ are different than mine, but whose wisdom is evident.

Obviously, you don’t believe your Bible as strongly as Rick and PB do.

You actually made me laugh there. I’m not “waffling” by refusing to give a true/false answer to a question whose answer is “we don’t know for certain, and it’s none of our business”.

You’ll notice that Rick’s backed off the certainty of his initial answer -

(#319) It is entirely possible, and indeed probable, that God did not address the issue because He thought He had made the issue very clear in Romans 10. “How can they believe if they do not hear” seems to clearly put salvidic weight upon hearing the gospel.

I would completely agree with his answer, but rather than answer your question “true” based upon this – because of the lack of certainty (since you’re asking about a case of not hearing vs. not believing) – I would choose “we don’t know for certain”. However, I would say that the trajectory of the message given to us on the matter, as observed by Rick, points far more toward “true” than to “false”.

Wright’s statement:

“The last thing I want is for anyone to suppose that I (or anyone else) know very much about all this. Nor do I want anyone to suppose I enjoy speculating in this manner…I should be glad to be proved wrong but not at the cost of the foundational claims that this world is the good creation of the one true God and that he will at the end bring about that judgment at which the whole creation will rejoice”

I would agree – I don’t know a lot about how the afterlife works. I don’t enjoy speculating in the matter. I would like to be proved wrong that I expect that not all will be saved, but not at the cost of the foundational claims of Scripture. No need for him to contact me – I agree with him.

And you surmise all of this because you are so convinced that you and your trusted mentor are right on this that anyone else must be deluded, haters of scripture, nonbelievers and unfit to teach or preach and it is the fault of education.

While I would not agree with this characterization, it also has nothing to do with my mentor (who does have an MDiv), and nothing to do with the ‘fault of education’. I’m not exactly sure why this is a touchy subject for you, but I’m sure that would be an interesting path to go down at some point.

Apparently, if you are consistent, you believe people who ordain women and believe that is OK shouldn’t be teaching either.

I didn’t say that, either. As I’ve noted before, there are some legitimate hermeneutical approaches which may allow for women in leadership positions. Though I would disagree with that conclusion, I would not put that in the same boat as one that would require the utter disregard of Scripture required to suggest that we should expect that all will be saved – let alone teach this with any degree of certainty. While I doubt I would submit myself to an eldership that ‘loosed’ the ordination of women, I would not consider them to be heretical or apart from the Christian faith. However, I wouldn’t see a church that taught that we can expect that all will be saved in the end as all that much different than a Universalist Unitarian Church hedging its bets…

It could be that those found wanting will be cast in to an eternal lake of fire.

Well, you can’t rightly expect that this won’t happen, then Chad. And that’s the issue we keep coming to – the certainty by which you continue to claim that all will be saved. If you expect that all will be saved, then it could not be that those found wanting will be cast into an eternal lake of fire.

I do not waffle when I am asked about the fate of those who never knew Jesus in this lifetime or had the opportunity to know him.

I don’t waffle, either. I just don’t choose to put words in God’s mouth that were never spoken to me in the first place.

Paul holds out hope that one day every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Christ is Lord.

I see, too, that Paul holds out that expectation, as well, though for some it will be a confession of damnation, not salvation.

Do your smokescreens about what I believe and your stupid caricatures mirror the above?

Yes. You just phrase them in more positive, slippery language.

I find your arrogance and insinuations that anyone who disagrees with you must be lost an insult and akin to the sort of lame arguments the ODM crew make all the time.

The perhaps you’re not reading all that closely. There is plenty of room for disagreement on a plethora of issues (as noted with female ordination), but I’m not open to being so ‘open minded’ that my brains litter the floor.

As for ‘waffling’ – if it is “waffling” to refuse to give an answer where God has given none, then so be it. In that case, I’ll “waffle” every time – especially if the choice of “not waffling” is between being graceless (on one hand) or spineless (on the other).

Neil: That said, I would certainly waffle more when it comes to giving that hope openly and confidently.

It is one thing to observe God’s nature through the narrative of Scripture… though it seems you are willing to allow these passages to trump others in which the future of those unsaved at death appears certain.

QFT

I am only certain about those things of which I am certain. I remain uncertain about uncertainties and never suggest certainty about uncertainties because about uncertainties I cannot be certain they are uncertain.

That is what I am certain about…

The big issue is that Amy seems to thing we are not saved by the Person of the Name, but somehow we are mystically saved by the Name of the Person

Again, Iggy, you continue mixing me up with Chad. It appears that you truly have an issue with Chad. Please address your questions regarding the yes/no question and “the Name” to him.

I Dreamed a Dream…

I dreamed a dream in time gone by
When hope was high and life worth living
I dreamed that love would never die
I dreamed that God would be forgiving

Then I was young and unafraid
And dreams were made and used and wasted
There was no ransom to be paid
No song unsung, no wine untasted

But the tigers come at night
With their voices soft as thunder
As they turn your hope apart
As they turn your dreams to shame

****************

Life is filled with many happinesses, but I as well as all of us have experienced many heartbreaks. This being a part of “God’s dream” stuff is a new age sounding way of saying God had to die to pay for our sins and reconcile us to Himself.

The parable of the rich man is a good example of how an unsaved man can enjoy the comforts of this life and reliquish the life to come, and the reverse for the believer.

This life? A vapor. The life to come? Joy unspeakable and full of glory – FOREVER.

Amy,

Again, Iggy, you continue mixing me up with Chad. It appears that you truly have an issue with Chad. Please address your questions regarding the yes/no question and “the Name” to him.

OK, the original quesiton was posed by Chad, but I am now asking you. Chad is set on the Person of the Name saving us… you seem to be hung on the Name of the Person saving us. I am asking YOU to clarify YOUR thoughts on this.

My question was not a yes/no question. It was an either/or question.

iggy

Rick… I never knew you were a Les Miserables fan! (And yes, I recognized it right off – no Googling needed)

Why? I’ll answer. . A person who is truly born again becomes a child of God and that makes all suffering worthwhile. They are able to endure because they have the Holy Spirit.

Agreed. Good answer.
Did you think I would disagree with this?

How can you agree with it? A person can’t BECOME a child of God if they already Are a child of God. Also what on earth could “truly” born again mean to you?

Do you agree with this?

All or truly born again, they just don’t realize it. All have the Holy Spirit, they just don’t realize. All are able to endure suffering because they have the Holy Spirit, they just don’t realize it.

If you believe that all men are born again then you believe that the Holy Spirit, God Himself, is living in men who have not cleansed by the Blood of the Lamb.

This is not the God of the Bible.

God cannot dwell in the presence of sin; that’s what His Holiness is all about.

I come from a Broadway family. My mother was an off Broadway actress and a stand up comedian, can’t you tell?

Iggy – the name and the person should be the same, especially in the Scriptural context in which they were given. “Believe on the name” is the same as “Believe on the Lord”, or it should be. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, trusts a painfully incomplete knowledge of the Savior and Lord. That is where grace in our moment of salvation comes in as well.

I knew an aviation missionary who was sitting in a South American hut as some Indians listened to a tape of a gospel message in their own language for the very first time. Suddenly a comotion began in the corner and many Indians began to move away from a coughing woman. She was dying from TB and was coughing up blood.

That missionary quietly went to her, explained that God wanted to have her live in His hut, and all she must do is believe that His Son would take her there. She agreed and prayed with him, dying in ten minutes. I believe with all my heart God heard her prayer and she was saved if she was sincere, based upon a very simplistic and incomplete knowledge of almost everything but God’s desire to save her through his Son.

A true story.

“I think it would be wise for you to at least let Chris L’s and Rick’s words to you put a tiny smidgeon of doubt in your confidence about who you are spiritually and where you are going.”

For the record, I have never called into question Chad’s regenerate status. I believe he is a believer who is confused about some important things, but I will not engage in salvation identification. That would be certain about uncertainties and that makes me emergent.

Chris L-

You dismissed or ignored most of what I said in my last post to you.

You agree with the first quote I give by Wright – fine. However, you seem to miss that his humility in dealing with this subject matter is aimed towards dictating what judgment looks like or what is on the other side of it. In any event, you ignore the other quote, taken from the same chapter, that speaks to the mystery of Rev. 21 and 22 and the nature of God to suprise us (this relates to the nature and work of Christ). You obviously disagree with him on this point and feel that you know very well what judgment looks like and who will be on the other side of it.

Rick –
I have had the great pleasure of seeing Les Mis in London and Toronto as well as St. Louis.

I have seen it in New York City, Chris, the Mecca of Broadway shows. (Did Ingrid notice I used the word “Mecca”?)

I am facing the east as well.

Amy,

Thank you.

iggy

I have an unabridged list of people who are actually saved. I must confess that Joe Martino has been in and out of that list several times. At present he is in, but on probation.

Amy – I never said any “sins” were OK.

And if you know me so well to know that I do not exhort myself nor others to “draw near to Christ” (like you know me so well to know my view of Scripture and the state of my soul) well, I don’t really care what you think.

“It appears that you are the reason then, why “It always comes to this.”

No, you are.

No, it’s you!

It’s always you and always will be.

I can’t hearrr you.

So, it’s down to you and it’s down to me. I cannot copmpete with your hubris and you are no match for my intellect.

You’re that smart, Rick?

Have you heard of Einstein? Hawkings? Lyons? Morons. Well, at least Lyons.

For the record, I have never called into question Chad’s regenerate status. I believe he is a believer who is confused about some important things, but I will not engage in salvation identification.

I would second this, Rick.

You dismissed or ignored most of what I said in my last post to you.

No – I responded to what I saw as the parts that should be responded to…

However, you seem to miss that his humility in dealing with this subject matter is aimed towards dictating what judgment looks like or what is on the other side of it.

How so? I’ve noted a number of times that we have no idea exactly what it “looks like” on the other side of death.

In any event, you ignore the other quote, taken from the same chapter, that speaks to the mystery of Rev. 21 and 22 and the nature of God to suprise us (this relates to the nature and work of Christ).

Certainly there is mystery in Rev 21 and 22, but I’ve quoted a whole lot of items to you outside of apocalyptic literature, prior to Rev 21 and 22. I also have a pretty firm grasp on the afterlife cosmology of the first century – which Jesus affirmed on numerous occasions (particularly in his parables, including the wheat and the tares), clarified (’will there be a bodily resurrection?’), and did not contradict. NOWHERE are we told to expect that hell will be empty. NOWHERE. To teach otherwise is to give false hope (expectation).

You obviously disagree with him on this point and feel that you know very well what judgment looks like and who will be on the other side of it.

Since I haven’t read this particular work of his, I have no idea if I disagree with him, or if you’ve just prooftexted him to make the disagreement seem apparent.

I don’t know exactly what judgment looks like, and I can’t point to anyone specifically (outside of Judas) who will be (or may already reside) there. All I have to tell about the qualities of those who will be there is that they will have rejected Christ. I do not expect otherwise, because I believe Jesus’ descriptions, allusions and affirmations regarding the matter to be true, rather than just verbal slight-of-hand.

Judgment may or may not include some sort of punishment and that punishment may or may not include an eternity in hell.

If it may, then we really ought not be telling everyone that we expect it will be empty, now should we? Or are you just playing lip service to may?

IF it does, it will be because the person chooses to be there.

I see you’ve got the same favorite book of the Bible as Ken – II Opinions. Somehow I don’t see any scriptural support for the final choice being theirs… The choice to accept or reject the grace of Christ? Theirs. The choice of final destination? God’s.

So you are right to say that you do not know what judgement looks like. You are wrong, however, to presume that it only means bad news for the judged

It is bad news for the judged only if they receive what is just for them.

This statement capsulates, I think, your confusion.

No confusion between what is clear and what is not – existence of hell? clear. Exactly who will be there? not clear.

No, your entire argument is based on your “clear” and “right” reading of scripture that says that on the other side of judgment is an eternity in hell for those who do not believe and probably for those who never had a chance to believe. It is exactly this posture of self-assuredness that Wright calls for humility.

IF that is an accurate assessment of Wright’s position, then I doubt he’s right.

I’ll take Jesus at his word on this issue (see all of the parables mentioned above in #295) and let you claim certainty where none exists (your expectation) and uncertainty where certitude exists (that hell is not empty with its lock on the inside).

If it may, then we really ought not be telling everyone that we expect it will be empty, now should we? Or are you just playing lip service to may

To whom, Chris? Seriously – put some flesh and bones on your theology. Who am I telling that they can expect hell to be empty? Honestly – play it out for me. And can you do it in a way that doesn’t make you look like all you think salvation is about is making converts that go to heaven instead of hell? Thanks.

It is bad news for the judged only if they receive what is just for them.

Dude, it is bad news for us ALL if we receive what is just for us.

No confusion between what is clear and what is not – existence of hell? clear. Exactly who will be there? not clear.

Yeah, maybe.

IF that is an accurate assessment of Wright’s position, then I doubt he’s right.

Well, forgive me then for siding with him over you and your mentor.
You might want to read the book. You might be surprised. Or, at least less arrogant.

I’ll take Jesus at his word on this issue

Once again, I wish I had thought of this!

Since we’ve brought up Judas, let’s take a look at what Peter believed about him:

From Acts:

In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) and said, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus— he was one of our number and shared in this ministry.”

(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

“For,” said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms,
” ‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’[a] and,
” ‘May another take his place of leadership.’[b]

Now, Peter being a student (most likely the eldest/lead student) of Jesus, the master of the remez technique, quotes two specific passages from the Psalms.

Let’s take a look at those passages:

[a] Psalm 69 -

They put gall in my food
and gave me vinegar for my thirst.

May the table set before them become a snare;
may it become retribution and a trap.

May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and their backs be bent forever.

Pour out your wrath on them;
let your fierce anger overtake them.

May their place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in their tents.

For they persecute those you wound
and talk about the pain of those you hurt.

Charge them with crime upon crime;
do not let them share in your salvation.

May they be blotted out of the book of life
and not be listed with the righteous.
[remez italicized]

And [b] Psalm 109

When he is tried, let him be found guilty,
and may his prayers condemn him.

May his days be few;
may another take his place of leadership.

May his children be fatherless
and his wife a widow.

May his children be wandering beggars;
may they be driven from their ruined homes.

May a creditor seize all he has;
may strangers plunder the fruits of his labor.

May no one extend kindness to him
or take pity on his fatherless children.

May his descendants be cut off,
their names blotted out from the next generation.

May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the LORD;
may the sin of his mother never be blotted out.

May their sins always remain before the LORD,
that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth. [remez italicized]

And that’s just Peter. What did Jesus have to say on the subject of the one who would betray him?

The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”

Now, let’s see – “better for him if he had not been born”, his name “blotted out of the book of life”. What might this mean?

maybe Rev 20 will shed some light on the subject:

If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

But that’s OK – we shouldn’t expect that this will happen. It’s just an empty threat, because we expect that hell will be empty.

Thanks, but no thanks. I’ll put my kids in front of Nickelodeon for the morning before I put them in front of a teacher who would spin such a fairy tale as expecting that all will be saved in the end. At least then they know what they’re being exposed to is fiction…

Amy – just observing Chad’s responses to you, along with some of my past interactions.

I suspect I was much the same in my responses, being more than a little bit exasperated.

You have my apologies if this is how I’ve been. I do not always have the patience required to converse in contention, and I often get short and snitty when I’m at that end.

In the future, I may not always respond – or respond in full – to your questions, but I will try to give answer as I can, and be as gracious as I can when I don’t have the patience to continue answering.

I hope you will forgive me, and grant me some lenience in the future in dealing with my shortcomings in the realm of patience…

Willimon (another scholar I trust greatly) says:

In his Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Pope John Paul II wrote that, although there sure is a hell, the church has never said for sure who, if anyone, is in hell. We do not even know, the Pope says, whether Judas Iscariot is in hell. If we can’t say for sure that Judas is in hell, why not everybody? Or perhaps more the point, if I have some reason to believe that I’m not in hell, then why not believe that hell might be empty?

and more…

“I will not in passing that when Karl Barth celebrated the grand mystery of divine election his prime example was Judas! What sort of Savior would choose a person like Judas to be among his first disciples? The sort of Savior who would choose me.”

Karl Barth and John Paul II. Two “theologians” to aggressively avoid. I can see where you views have been forged, Chad.

John – that is my cousin, I am Rick FRUEH. But sanity has been a word rarely used in my direction. Genious. Intellectual. Profound. Wise. Humbling.

But not sanity so much. It’s always hurt me too.

Barth wrote one of the best homiletics books I have ever read. If he was anything, he was a man of the Word. We may not like all his points of view, but the notion that we should ‘avoid’ him is ludicrous. We should read him again and again and again. I won’t say the same about a dead pope, but Barth and avoid in the same sentence? And you are saying this blog is insane?