——- S A T I R E ———
1 Corinthians 13 (ADMV)
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not discernment, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not discernment, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not discernment, it profits me nothing.
4 Discernment causes the wicked emergents/seeker sensitives/purpose driven to suffer and is kind to all who agree with me; discernment does not envy(except those churches that actually grow) ; discernment does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil of the reformers; 6 but rejoices in pointing out iniquity, and rejoices in the truth(and in the lie about those I love to hate); 7 bears some things, believes all things reformed, hopes all things will become as I see them, endures very little.
8 Discernment never fails. But whether there are prophecies not from me, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they have ceased; whether there is knowledge apart from my own, it have vanished away. 9 For I know in full and I prophesy in full. 10 For that which is perfect has come, and that which is in part has been done away.
11 When I was a child*, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a reformed man, I put away childish things. 12 For now others see in a mirror, dimly, but I see the truth face to face. Now others know in part, but I know the hearts of all while I am never known.
13 And now abide the reformation, doctrine, discernment, these three; but the greatest of these is discernment.
* Outsider
——- S A T I R E ———

Nice satire, Eugene.

Sadly, ADM’s misuse of Scripture would be significantly less troublesome if it was this blatant. But as we know, most heresies are 99% truth.

While I agree that there can be a hesitance to say who is going to hell and who aren’t, does that mean that we should not preach Jesus as the ONLY way to salvation as the Bible does and that if you do not believe in Jesus, you will be damned (John 3:36)?

While I agree that there can be a hesitance to say who is going to hell and who aren’t,

Can be? No. I would say we shouldn’t even hesitate – we should just shut up. That is not for you or I to judge.

I think John 3:36 says something very different from what I think you think it means.

While I agree that there can be a hesitance to say who is going to hell and who aren’t, does that mean that we should not preach Jesus as the ONLY way to salvation as the Bible does and that if you do not believe in Jesus, you will be damned (John 3:36)?

and

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,

Of course you are correct, the Bible teaches (and everyone with posting rights here affirms) that Jesus is the only way.

Many ADM’s, though, have the habit of questioning the salvation of thos who claim to have faith.

So it’s not an issue of the exclusivity of Christ.

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.

Douglas – here you have a case in point as to how someone can take something that is relatively plain and make it into a maze of “perhaps” and “supposes”…

Simply amazing how this can happen time after time, but beware of paying attention to empty rhetoric.

The Lord Jesus came as a Lamb, but is coming back as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. As Jude says:

“Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they havecommitted in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

Or Isaiah 63:

Why is your apparel red,
and your garments like his who treads in the winepress?

“I have trodden the winepress alone,
and from the peoples no one was with me;
I trod them in my anger
and trampled them in my wrath;
their lifeblood spattered on my garments,
and stained all my apparel.
For the day of vengeance was in my heart,
and my year of redemption had come.”

These are just 2 of dozens, if not more, scriptures that outline the wrath of God that will be unleashed upon the earth before the return of Christ.

Of course, some here will attempt to explain away these scriptures as not meaning what they so clearly state – but that’s another story.

Nice try Chad – remember you have a track record of twisting scripture to render it completely irrelevant, compromised and untrue. I simply saw your statement above as yet another case in point of wresting scripture and thought it should be pointed out to someone that appears to be new to this blog – that’s all.

Again – nice attempt to distract from the simple argument that you have a tendency to warp the truth.

And then, when confronted, you pull out your trademark defense: the other guy is self-righteous…

textbook Chad in action.

Douglas,

As you can see, even around here we are willing to hash things out… that said, 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).

ALl too often we have seen them assume someone is not saved regardless of the faith statements expressed and the fruit derived. THAT is why the caution is given.

Neil

OK you two neutral corners…

Offering an example of the hyper-application of one passage does not speak to the clarity of another. On the other hand, what is plain to one person is not always lain to someone else.

Neil

Well, to the issue in question, the “eternal life” spoken of by John, a good paralel is Jesus speaking of the “Kingdom of Heaven/God” in the synoptics. If we take this “literally” then you have the mistake many make today that puts Jesus speaking of some other destination – a heaven. That is not what Jesus is speaking of – rather, it is something much more and is a present reality.

Brendt,

Of course, really what should happen is to throw out Sola Scriptura and discern based on feelings alone, like the emergents are encouraging us to do

Chad,

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…

PB-

Phil answered your question.

The Kingdom of Heaven, when Jesus spoke of it, is the sovereign rule of God breaking into the present reality among us. It is why when Jesus walked among us he said it is “at hand.”

One day heaven and earth will be joined together forever.

hmmmm….

to acknowledge the limits of the construct of sola scriptura does not necessitate our only option left will be “our feelings”.

there’s no such thing as sola scriptura. Even the people who believe they hold to it, don’t really hold to it.

For starters, once you engage Scripture you embark on a hermeneutical journey–that journey is undeniably shaped by a whole lot more than just Scripture. So much for sola scriptura right out the gate.

Second, that hermeneutical journey is shaped by prior decisions/commitments about how one will interpret. So much for Sola Scriptura before you even started.

Third, the moment you say something like…”It seemed good in the Lord…”, or you “discerned God’s will” with respect to an issue not really addressed in the texts, then you ain’t in sola Scriptura anymore, Toto.

I just don’t get why people are so scared about being honest about the simple fact that Sola Scriptura is materially a non-starter, no matter how much you formally scream for it.

The fact that people immediately make you out to be a God-hater, liberal, awful baddie when you say it only proves it more to me.

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.

That’s all I’ll say about that…

you may now return to your regularly scheduled sparring.

RE: Sola Scriptura

Scripture, please.

PB-
People much smarter than I are answering your questions better than I.

See nc #28.

I understand how the idea of heaven and earth being joined together in a loving kiss, like the consummation of a marriage, stands at odds with people who think the Left Behind series is a theological gem.
Or who think God begrudges his “good” but not yet perfect Creation.

Douglas,

What I said was we have discussed it around here before. We have.

Of my entire response to you in #10 all you have to say is that you are waiting for a scriptural response?

If you would like to discuss what I have said you are welcome. It is not my practice to puke up a verse that makes me right and another wrong just so that I can play the “I can quote more scripture” game.

Douglas,

Your first comment/question in this thread was about the exclusivity/uniqueness of Jesus. Has that been answered?

Neil

Neil –
I am not sure I addressed that yet – at least not here. Thanks for bringing it up.

Douglas, apart from Jesus, there is no other name by which we can be saved. The uniqueness and exclusivity of Jesus does not lie in who is in or who is out but in the very nature of the work of Christ as the Israel of God, the second Adam, the one in whom all humanity resides.

What Jesus did on Calvary is the objective truth about you, me and the world and about God’s relationship towards the world. In Christ, ALL things are reconciled to God.

So, let me put it this way: IF all the world and everyone in it ends up beign saved it is ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY because of Jesus Christ – period.

It is NOT because you are a good Buddhist or a good Muslim or a nice person or because God does not judge the world and just lets everyone off the hook in the end or because “all paths lead to God” or any other such nonsense. It is by grace and grace alone and because of the atoning work of the one in whom ALL authority on heaven and on earth has been given.

If the pagan who dies today ends up praising God in heaven with you and I one day it is not because of anything the pagan did or thought but entirely because of Jesus. It is because of this Lamb that the great hosts will gather around the Throne singing Hosanna, as every knee bows and every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Doug – in Chad’s comment above, pay special attention to no mention of the need for repentance or actual faith in Christ.

As Chad has often advocated here: “Everyone is already saved – they just don’t know it yet.”

The Bible is clear that it is the other way around. The world is presently condemned, awaiting the wrath of God which will one day be unleashed on the earth… Christ represented an appeasing of God’s wrath because without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. He was the spotless Lamb of God.

In His love He sent His Son that whoever believes on Him will not perish, but receive eternal life. This belief or faith, resulting in repentance and a changed life, reflects the grace of God.

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.”

Chad,

While all that may be interesting, and it may even foster some discussion – I don’t think it’s what Douglas was referring to. In the original post Brendt talked about not declare(ing) who will and who will not go to heaven.

I think Douglas extrapolated that into a question of Jesus being the only way… say as compared to Buddha.

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.

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

First, I would point out that the word most often translated as “Wrath” (ex. John 3:36)- is orge, which is more accurately translated from the Koine as “indignation”. Orge is a response to dishonor, whereas the English word ‘wrath’ tends to revolve around chaotic/uncontrolled anger (and God is the opposite of chaos and the epitome of control). With this in mind, God’s ‘indignation’ those who have not given God the honor due him (via their sin) are given the just reward for their action.

Unfortunately, because of the nuances in English (which are not present in Greek), we equate God’s “wrath” (orge – indignation) with anger (thumos), when they are emotions which spring from different sources. Additionally, many Christians (not pointing specific fingers) tend to point toward some modern events as ‘evidence’ of God’s anger (which, in reality, is more in line with capriciousness than anger), creating even more confusion.

Anger – as a Hebrew concept – is something which much be appeased. Thus the sacrificial system was seen as the way in which God’s anger was appeased. Jesus’ sacrifice, though, permanently appeased God’s anger for those who would accept it as covering them – so there is no need for us to ‘appease’ God’s anger, as we cannot possibly do so – Jesus has already done it for us.

I disagree with Chad’s assessment as ‘wishful thinking’, because it is contrary to the picture painted within Scripture (both literally, and in historic metaphor), but I also tend to disagree with PSA (which sees Jesus’ death as a judicial payment, rather than a ransom payment), seeing Ransom theory (and possibly Christus Victor) as the more likely explanation of atonement.

#44
Chris L.
I would agree, to a point.
But would you call what happened in Memphis this weekend as a minor doctrinal difference? Would you say that clear scriptural teachings should be abandoned in order to justify (for example) gay marriage?

.Tickle’s comment that there are forty-four specific events that underline the move away from Sola Scriptura. I would love to see what those 44 are but that would be like icing on the cake. The final subject in the turn away will be how we address homosexuality in the church. She reiterated that it’s not if Sola Scriptura ends but when.

This is but one example of how the emergent, post-modern movement is departing from the Word of God and replacing it with their own vain philosophies. So, if you take a stance that the Bible is not authoratative in this area, are you still a believer in Christ?

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

I don’t know what happened in Memphis… but are you saying you have to hold to a set of doctrines about the Bible to be saved?

I certainly disagree with the view that homosexual activity is sin… but to imply someone who does not believe that is no longer “a believer in Christ” is ice too thin for me to venture onto.

But would you call what happened in Memphis this weekend as a minor doctrinal difference? Would you say that clear scriptural teachings should be abandoned in order to justify (for example) gay marriage?

I don’t know what happened in Memphis this weekend – I’ve been rather busy with day-to-day life in my living, breathing community…

Now, I’m not sure why we’re pulling gay marriage into it – I would agree that homosexual activity is ontologically sinful, and I think any attempt to make Scripture say otherwise is an exercise in eisegesis (in the same way that creating a role of “Watchman” and policing (under the guise of ‘warning’) every church you disagree with is sinful and an exercise in eisegesis).

This is but one example of how the emergent, post-modern movement is departing from the Word of God and replacing it with their own vain philosophies.

Again, you’re trying to create “emergent” as some sort of monolithic entity that ‘believes’ a fixed set of doctrines – rather than what the ‘emerging’ church actually is – a response of the church to exist in an increasingly post-modern world, without becoming part of it.

As such, I would say that some ‘emerging’ churches are succeeding at this mission, whereas others have fallen into the trap of hedonism in the same way that many Reformed churches have fallen into the trap of Phariseeism – both are just as deadly, and both are to be condemned.

Interestingly, one of the churches you love to pick on (with pretty much zero knowledge of the truth, no matter how many folks extend you an invitation to learn first-hand of your error), Mars Hill Bible Church, has – on several occasions in the past year – made clear their belief in the exclusivity of Christ, the grace and mercy he offers, the effects of sin on the world around them, and the need for Christians to operate in the narrow space between the sell-out of hedonism and the hell-on-earth of Phariseeism.

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

I believe that Jesus offers grace that can cover any sin, but that he also calls us to obedience (as a response to grace). As such, I believe that those who teach that homosexual activity is not a sin (as some emergent churches do) are equally as guilty of gross misrepresentation of Scripture as those who practice “discernment” by misrepresentation, falsification, and slander (as you continue to do), and that all who do such things ought to consider Matthew 18:6 with a sore neck…

equally as guilty of gross misrepresentation of Scripture

This is an interesting comment, Chris L.

I am not so sure that I would call honest mistakes, or “gross misinterpretation” a “sin.” Now, if we are talking about people with ulterior motives who wish nothing more than to defame Christ and his Church and who secretly despise Scripture, then sure, I could go with that.

But I am not ready to stand up and declare that anyone who makes a mistake in intepretation of Scripture is sinning or, worse yet, a false brother (as PB would seem to suggest).

thoughts?

Chad – notice that my verb was “teach”, not “believe”, which is why I then noted the higher standard mentioned in Matt 18:6 (and elsewhere).

I believe that teaching bad commissive orthopraxis – that being, behavior deemed sinful for Gentile Christians, as defined by Jesus and his Apostles (particularly taking to light the Jerusalem Council ruling) – or, to be more general – to teach that absolute prohibitions/admonitions are simply cultural convictions is just as wrong as elevating cultural convictions to the level of absolute prohibitions.

But I am not ready to stand up and declare that anyone who makes a mistake in intepretation of Scripture is sinning

I believe that an answer to accept Christ’s grace is a call to repentance and obedience, and I believe that leaders are called to a higher account for leading those in their care into sin – that is, leading their followers into actions that are contrary to scripture. This leaves room for differences in interpretation (such as how atonement works, the mode of Creation, views of eschatology, the mode/method of the Trinity, etc.) that are apart from -praxis.

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.

In the same way, I believe that those who teach others to scorn vast swaths of the church and spew hatred, disdain, malice, misrepresentations and lies about other brothers – primarily based upon Pharisaical views of Scripture and their own cultural likes & dislikes – will be held to account for any they lead into comfort in their sin, rather than toward repentance from it.

They’re both sides of the same coin.

Chris L (#44):

Too often the ADM habit is to put quotes around the word “Christian”… It’s the quotes that denote what I saw as Brendt’s point.

Most often, yes, their divine clairvoyance is represented by the snarky implications of quotation marks.

But there have also been a couple times where the author DEFINITIVELY stated, in no uncertain terms, that someone else was going to hell. And back in the days of comments being allowed on certain ADMs (which shall go unnamed), the moderators allowed many statements even more blatant than that.

It might have gotten lost…

but…here it is again…I’m genuinely interested.

Sola Scriptura?

Scripture, please.

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

No, that was an omission. I do believe homosexual sex is a sin.

hmmm….

Sola Scriptura anyone?

“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?”

Yes. That is the unpardonable sin.

I think Jesus said they will be the least in the kingdom. We will all be held accountable, but what exactly that means cannot be comprehended by our earth bound minds. The issdues you list are secondary, including ordaining women (that hurt).

But when we deal with the gospel and the essence of salvation, that is the core truths that are most grevious when compromised. I believe that offering eternal comfort to the unregenerate is probably the most serious sin a believer can commit.

We must pffer earthly comfort and ministry, we can offer love and friendship, but we can never even suggest that an unsaved sinner can remain in his present spiritual state and hope to have eternal life, that is heresy at its zenith.

I reiterate…you are very slippery.

you will gave an account for drinking coffee.

Knowing this is why I choose to spice mine up a bit. It’s 5pm somewhere

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

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

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?

First, as I’ve noted before, the question of female ordination is not nearly as clear (in terms of its cross-cultural absolute-ness), and upon weighing the historical evidence and Paul’s citation of OT precedent, I would take the more conservative approach (still following the normative principle) by counseling women to engage in appropriate leadership roles that don’t place them in an authority role over men – which does not prevent teaching of material (see, for example, Beth Moore studies), but would preclude an accountable, authoritative role over men.

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.

To go to James:

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. The ‘reformed’/fundy tendency is to stress the latter and give lip-service to the former. However, we are called both to service and to personal holiness.

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

Let’s ask Jesus…

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.

I would note that the word ’sea’ is also the word for the ‘abyss’, and holding both meanings (which would appear to be contextually most correct, based on the location – Capernaum – and the context of his comment).

Slightly less severely, we have-

Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

There are other admonitions about leaders and ’shepherds’ and their greater responsibility of care and direction.

So – the accountability that comes with teaching others seems to have some sharp edges to it – teaching others to sin will have you ‘called the least in the kingdom of heaven’, and ‘it would be better for you to have a large millstone hung around your neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea’ than to do so… I don’t know about you, but that seems to hold some level of import for me…

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 [...] will “be held to account” for all the people they have led into a lifestyle of sin.

Again, the weight of responsibility is not light, and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Does that mean that to “be held to account” is equivalent to damnation? I don’t see that indicated (as I do with the curse to Judas, that it would be better for him to have never been born than to betray the Son of Man), but Jesus seems to indicate it’s something more serious than those who are not in a teaching role.

If you’re OK w/ those consequences, be my guest, but as for myself, I’m not…

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?

If it has led the ‘little ones’ into sin, then yes.

But somehow, I don’t see any possibility that counseling celibacy for those struggling with homosexual temptation or giving women leadership positions that have no authority over men are causing someone to sin… In fact, I can see no precedent or mitzvot in Torah to tie either policy (celibacy for those struggling with homosexuality, appropriate leadership positions for women) back to which would identify it as sinful, so I’m pretty comfortable that your hypothetical is along the same lines as “what if dogs could fly and rabbits could program in FORTRAN?”

(Clarification – not you riding naked on a unicorn, but… well… you can appreciate the humor, hopefully…)

Nevermind…

#78
Therein lies the very problem…with the emergent mind

They sound very good until that one line gets ya. Sorta like the Mormons.

Let me at this point reveal another aspect of my thoughts concerning these issues. I often feel like an absolute hypocrite because of this type of continuing scenarion that occurs as we blog dogs play verbal badminton -

The mother sits under the intense heat of the Sahara sun, surrounded by three of her children and clutching a fourth. She is aware they have not eaten in two days, and she knows instinctively the infant she holds will die today. Part of her has surrendered to her circumstances, but part of her grieves in the same way the wealthy couple in New York grieves over their dying infant.

This precious woman is unaware that in another part of the world her brothers and sisters in Christ live in comparative splendor, and engage in doctrinal disputes as recreational since their lives are not in jeapordy and it costs them nothing.

This majestic creation of Jehovah, resplendent in her shining black skin, has no hope but Christ and any earthly promises are but wind to her situation. The dry eyed Christianity in the west refuses to be moved in any substantial way, and in fact the western church gets much more excited in supporting political candidates than rushing to meet her needs.

The day ends with the sound of a mother’s tears providing a funeral requiem for her own baby. Oh, did I mention that the mother herself died later the next month, leaving three little orphans?

OK, enough irrelevant documentary. Resume the general dialogue fest that is “full of sound and fury…signifying nothing”.

Neil – a breathtaking but typical response, viod of even a scrap of compassion, you reply with you as the center. It isn’t about you, it never will be.

Yes, He was lying.

You are correct, my response was void of compassion and me-centric. It was void of compassion because it addressed your breathtakingly irrelevant condescending and soppy comment. It was me-centric because it expressed the opinion of me.

You have no idea how much compassion I have toward others who are less fortunate or even starving. Furthermore, you have no idea how this compassion (if it exists) motivates me to action.

You simply dropped this anecdote into an ongoing dialogue… and for what purpose? To make us feel guilty that we have the freedom to squander our time addressing petty complaints of ever ADM with a website?

I simply answered you with the same condescension and irrelevance with which you addressed this group.

“You simply dropped this anecdote into an ongoing dialogue… and for what purpose?”

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

Neil,

The whole idea of predestination is all about Gods will being done. To say that Gods will may not happen, then throws us all into spiritual crisis. If God’s will can be thwarted, then who can we trust His promises? It would mean that the promise of salvation may not happen as God promised.

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

And I know I am being a lil stinker here.

iggy

Phil,

It is not that some will not participate in GOd’s will. That is still the choice that hinges on all mankind. CHoose life in Christ of face eternal death.

Now we can participate it God’s will or not, but still God’s will is not Thwarted… it will happen.

Will all be “saved”? no, but all will be judged. God’s will.

But, to say God’s will may not happen is to me not biblical at all.

The act of futility to me will be that Jesus asks us to participate in God’s will and it may not happen.

iggy

Now we can participate it God’s will or not, but still God’s will is not Thwarted… it will happen.

Well, I think in some grand sense, that’s true. The issue is we tend to use the term, “the will of God” to refer to things of all scopes.

I guess where I differ from a classic sense of divine providence is in the idea that God’s plan has been set through all eternity past. In some sense, I believe His plan at least the details is always changing. It’s not that God’s reacting, per se, but just that He waits for us. It’s like dance partners. They are continually adjusting to each other.

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

True enough, butif he promised it will happen, but has he promised all will be saved?

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.

Well, I have no issue with the concept of election, either. I think election is corporate, but there is an element of individual choice on whether or not to take part in that election. What you are talking about seems to be the difference between what N.T. Wright calls “getting in” and “staying in”. So it does seem that even though some had no choice in entering the covenant, they certainly had some say in staying in it.

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.

Well, I still don’t think God will hold captives in His kingdom. I think love is a two way street, so for some who don’t understand this love, I don’t believe God will try to make them love Him.

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

A complete systematic theology in a sentence. I will claim that sentence as my own in the future.

Chad – You seemed to present a cojent treatise about presenting the gospel, and then suggested all will be saved. A disconnect in my view.

God’s sovereignty included creating man with a free will to disobey God and refuse His redemptive offer. He is sovereign enough to do that!

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).

That is your definition of Hell- and it sounds like the earth in present!

What about the Bible’s definition of Hell?

PSA 9:17 The wicked return to the grave, all the nations that forget God.

139:8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.

PRO 5:5 Her feet go down to death; her steps lead straight to the grave.

15:24 The path of life leads upward for the wise to keep him from going down to the grave.

23:13 Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die.

MAT 5:22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is
answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

29 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to
be thrown into hell.

30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body
to go into hell.

7:13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.

10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in
hell.

13:38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the
age, and the harvesters are angels. 40 “As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at
the end of the age.

41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.42 They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be
weeping and gnashing of teeth.

49 This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and
gnashing of teeth.

16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

23:15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one,
you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

25:28 “‘Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten
talents. 29 For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance.
Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where
there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

41 “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.

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to
eternal life.”

MAR 9:43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire
never goes out.

45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell.

47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be
thrown into hell,

LUK 12:5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the
killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

16:23 In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far
away, with Lazarus by his side.

24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus
to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in
agony in this fire.’

26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed,
so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross
over from there to us.’

2TH 1:9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out
from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power

JAM 3:6 The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the
body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on
fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

2PE 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to
hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;

JUD 1:6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but
abandoned their own home–these he has kept in darkness, bound with
everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.

REV 1:18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever
and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

6:8 I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named
Death, and Hades was following close behind him. They were given power over
a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild
beasts of the earth.

9:1 The fifth angel sounded his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen
from the sky to the earth. The star was given the key to the shaft of the
Abyss.

2 When he opened the Abyss, smoke rose from it like the smoke from a
gigantic furnace. The sun and sky were darkened by the smoke from the
Abyss.

14:10 he, too, will drink of the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured
full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning
sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb.

11 And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no
rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for
anyone who receives the mark of his name.”

19:20 But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had
performed the miraculous signs on his behalf. With these signs he had
deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his
image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning
sulfur.

20:10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of
burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They
will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up
the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he
had done.

14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of
fire is the second death.

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

21:8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the
sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all
liars–their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the
second death.”

Does not sound like being left to myself…sounds like the wrath of God being poured out on me, being tormented forever, the fire never goes out, I am conscience, I know whats happening, its hot, it stinks, I thirst….Just does not sound like me being left to myself.

The earthly, natural consequences for sin mean that God’s grace and mercy are still holding you up. When we are dead, game over, the full measure of God’s wrath is poured out on us.

This is what his word says, Chad. This is not PB speaking. He that has the Son has life, he that has not the Son does not have life, but the wrath of God abides on Him. We are all already condemned. Jesus came to save, but we must repent and trust.

PB- I am not sure what bothers me more: 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.

By the way, Chad, I was not really meaning to imply that you were a “strict Universalist”. I don’t really think that’s what you’re saying.

I understand where you are coming from, I believe. I just am having trouble seeing how you are coming to some of your conclusions. It could just be that I’m not understanding them.

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.

We agree in a loving God, of course, which is the reason He sent Christ, suffers long and embodies love.

I don’t believe in a burning hell at all. Sheol = place of the dead where there is no consciousness. Jesus never spoke Greek, so the Greek translation of the NT simply overlays the word Hades (the Greek underworld) on top.

If there’s any doubt, look at Revelation 20’s reference to the SECOND DEATH: “Death and Hell” actually die. Why? Because death is swallowed up of life (1 Cor 15).

The consequences of the gospel are not heaven and hell BUT life and death.

NOW, coming to “false doctrine”: it is destructive to preach a gospel that accommodates and makes allowance for rebellion against God – like homosexuality (and other sins).

Remember, the Devil himself is transformed as an angel of light and his ministers posing as ministers of righteousness.

This means they are preaching Christ – but with a slant. He is not necessarily concerned with closing churches down, but leading them off the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ as the cornerstone.

This is what I see you advocating on a rather regular basis and in couched terms and carefully crafted mazes… lots of clouds – no rain.

To quote from an article about Obama’s response to today’s scandal: “The answer [Obama gives about his involvement] has the whiff of imprecision we’re familiar with from politicians.”

This is what I see you advocating on a rather regular basis and in couched terms and carefully crafted mazes… lots of clouds – no rain.

Yeah, you are probably right, Paul. It would be better for you to walk away and ignore a wolf in sheep’s clothing such as I.

It would be better for you to walk away and ignore a wolf in sheep’s clothing such as I.

Not accusing you of that, though I think that with all your re-imagining and re-inventing you yourself are being led all over the place. When you are constantly feeding on the philosophies of men, you cannot help but be affected.

All I am saying is that not everything with a steeple is a church acceptable to God, not everyone who preaches “Jesus” is preaching the truth, many people are being deceived – some by malevolent individuals and some by well-meaning people – hence the need for vigilance and adherence to the foundation of truth.

Notice how the apostles, prophets and Christ agree in almost all cases. Not so with the vast majority of modern-day leaders…

While others attempt to “kill you with kindness” I prefer to speak plainly… forgive me for that.

“grand” narrative, not “grant” narrative.

Paul,

I hear your sentiment but I am left scratching my head to wonder why your fears of church apostasy are directed towards me.

I am not leading a charge to disband the church, to throw out the fellowship of believers, to tarnish Eucharist or Baptism, to lead people to confess in a Lord other than Jesus Christ, to replace the Bible as the norming norm of our storied faith or to lead people hedonism or a life that denies the power of the Spirit rendering one sanctified unto God (dont forget I am a Wesleyan and believe in Christian Perfection).

So I am at a loss as to where you are coming from. I would really like to know how the views I have been espousing here threaten to lead the church astray and would tempt one to replace their Lord Jesus with a substitute idol.

As far as influences? Scripture. Beyond that, Athanasius, Origen, Cyril, Gregory of Nyssa (and Nazianzus), Maximus the Confessor, Calvin, John Wesley and Karl Barth (to keep the list short). If you never read Barth I commend him. I can email you a PDF of his “The Election of Jesus Christ” if you wish – it is a phenomenal piece and not too long or difficult to read through.

Chad – sorry to across as directing things against you specifically. As I said above, I have no concerns that you are intentionally doing anything negative.

In interacting with you, on and off, over the course of a few months, it seems there are repeated themes where there is what I would consider a departure from the foundation of truth. None of us are perfect in our understanding or actions and to attempt to get every jot and tittle just right is not what I’m about either.

I apologize for not coming across as diplomatically as I could. I know that sometimes throws a wrench in things.

The church is becoming more and more apostate (departing from the foundation). This has happened throughout history, hence the need for vigilance and a caution against “re-imagining” and “re-discovering” through intellectual enterprise (and no, I am not anti-intellectual, though I do have some distrust of people who feel the need to add all sorts of initials in front of and behind their names).

Enlightenment to the truth comes from God, but it can be distorted by men. The truth of God can be understood by a widow, child or uneducated person in a third world country, while it is hidden from the “wise” doctors and lawyers of our day.

Just something to consider…

Chad – sorry to across as directing things against you specifically. As I said above, I have no concerns that you are intentionally doing anything negative.

Thank you for saying that.

None of us are perfect in our understanding or actions and to attempt to get every jot and tittle just right is not what I’m about either.

Cool. I agree.

I apologize for not coming across as diplomatically as I could. I know that sometimes throws a wrench in things.

Don’t mention it. I probably deserve it.

The church is becoming more and more apostate (departing from the foundation).

I’m not so convinced. Perhaps a “form” of Church is – and certainly if you restrict your take of the church to just America – but what one person may consider apostate another may consider as reformation.

Enlightenment to the truth comes from God, but it can be distorted by men. The truth of God can be understood by a widow, child or uneducated person in a third world country, while it is hidden from the “wise” doctors and lawyers of our day.

I agree. However, I think we start off shooting ourselves in the foot if we begin from a foundation that suggests theology is about ideas. Theology is about relationship. We must not forget that we are being called into a relationship with the one who is simultaneously leading us into truth. We should not expect that leading to have concluded at some point in the past. Part of our problem, I think, is we have turned theology into a process that codifies and sanctifies our present condition and the way we see the world. I think that is every bit as dangerous and a slippage backwards than is the false teachings you seem to think I tend to veer into.

I believe that any who cannot see the terrible state and direction the church is in is as blind as the man who thinks society, on the whole, is getting better with each day.

PB,

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

Have you ever really studied out what “hell” is in the bible? It seems that you do proof text as you have mixed many of the different “hells” altogether in a big mush pile of proof text.

John, some of the texts you cut and pasted are…

1. Hades
2. Sheol
3. Abraham’s Bosom
4. Paradise
5. Gahanna
6. Tartarus
7. The grave
8. The Lake of Fire

You miss the nuances and differences that each verse carries in your presentation thus miss the nuance and differences in your very understanding.

So again, John, I plead with you… go and study these things out better before you present them to us as your Platonist Dualism is an offense to the teachings of scripture about hell… you diminish the truth with grandiose mischaracterization of it!

Please… go and get a Strong’s Concordance at least… look up all your verses you cut and paste then come back and present a real argument for your case…

iggy

…but it is a typical emergent response when they… – Pastorboy

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

Iggy,

Isn’t it amazing when people actually start doing a real close reading of the Scriptures that that’s when you get told you don’t believe the Scriptures?

I believe that any who cannot see the terrible state and direction the church is in is as blind as the man who thinks society, on the whole, is getting better with each day.

Again, the church is not limited to America.

But on the world stage, I think there is good reason to be hopeful. There are great inroads being made on the ecumenical front. There are more open discussions and movement between Catholics and Protestants (which I know irks you to know end but…) and I believe that the emerging conversation that is going on now is, like Phyllis Tickle argues, a reformation of sorts – one that will serve the church of Christ well.

So yeah, I think there is good reason to be excited about the future of the church. We are living in a prime time to be involved in the work of ministry.

Igs,

It’s sad, ironic and kind of…silly…all wrapped into one.

And don’t get me started about quavery voiced, no one tells the truth but me, PW…

makes me want to rip my hair out.

Paul says “doesn’t nature itself teach” as reasonable evidence on some issues. I would suggest that the physiological makeup of female verse male genetalia, as well as the necessity of two different genders for procreation, is enough evidence even without Scripture, which is clear.

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

Have you looked at the world lately?

Do you realize what His role is? It is not to fix things…It is to convince the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment.

He is to fill us, giving us the power to live righteous in this world. He convicts Christians of sin.

I know He is here, to a degree, to maintain the common grace. If He were removed, the world would not even survive one day.But He is not here to ‘fix’ things.

Joe,
I did, to put it shortly…

I don’t know, but it is the only Parable in which there are names of specific people (Lazarus, Abraham) which might indicate it is a story that is at least based in reality. This will be one question I will ask God when I get to heaven.

Whatever. I’m OK, you’re OK…

I apologize, but I stopped reading after the above line.

If you are going to continue to misrepresent what I am saying and continue to use the same tired lines as the ODM crew then I see no point in discussing this with you.

I wish I could say I am surprised. But this seems to be your M.O. whenever you have a disagreement with me.

I am reviewing my notes for a theology final that I am about to take in 30 minutes. These last few thoughts I felt were worth chewing over….

In this (the “this” is the atoning, vicorious work of Christ who has swallowed up our “no” with God’s “yes”) a new modality of Jesus’ judgment arises. Now all judgment itself becomes a modality of mercy and hope. This means we must now say what the early church said and did: They always took God’s judgment with absolute seriousness – same as hell. And yet, it never took the next step of putting anyone in hell. Why? Because it recognized that in the person of the Judge who is put in our place all judgement, even hell, is dealt with. What this means is that we must dare to hope that all will be saved. We must dare to hope this because in Jesus YHWH has definitevly decided to judge all of our judgment (our ‘no’) – in Adam ALL have died. But God’s gift of grace has abounded….

The deepest point is that for those in whom we are willing to hope for are we willing to hope for all to be saved? Inside of the question of who do we want to send to hell is a person living inside a malformed body of Jesus. It is another way to live inside of the in/out – a form of identity that is national rather than the social space that is Jesus. Who are you willing to risk hope for? Will we be like Moses who when YHWH determined to wipe out Israel offered to take their place? Will we do like Jeremiah when God determined to judge Israel and plead to take their place? Or Paul who said he will exchange himself for them? Or Jonah who said “throw me overboard.” Will we stand in the place of others? Of course, this begs the question: Who really is my brother? Am I my brothers keeper? Who is my neighbor? The real issue behind the question of who goes to hell or not is hidden behind who do you see as your brother and sister?

This is where we find our problem again – cultural nationalism. It is this “sin” (this fallen way of seeing the world) that makes us see who is and who is not my brother. We will die for those we see as our kin, our folk, our people, our nation. For all others – go to hell. We can make them the massa damnata that populate hell easily, without so much a flinch and definately not a tear. But Jesus’ judgment that has judged ALL politics is a judgment of election. It is a judgment to CHOOSE Israel and in choosing Israel he chooses ALL. The elected one has chosen to cast out the Devil and say when he is lifted up will draw ALL to himself. The savior of ALL men, especially those who believe. It is not to the exclusion of those who believe but espcecially them.

If you are going to continue to misrepresent what I am saying and continue to use the same tired lines as the ODM crew then I see no point in discussing this with you.

But that’s the thing – I’m not misrepresenting you. Every time you give ‘clarification’, you end up digging the same hole which leads to the same logical conclusions (which you’ve just not come to for yourself yet…) – that, truly, any call to love God in this lifetime (where love requires submission and obedience) is pretty much meaningless. Taken to its logical conclusion, no matter how you try to nuance it, your view ends up saying “I’m OK, you’re OK – God will save us all in the end.” By trying to be ’sensitive’, you end up trying to sell the Gospel at a discount, which devalues it in the minds of the recipient, rather than convincing them that it is something priceless, but free.

The Greatest Commandment is the shema – to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. And how do you love God – you submit to Him and obey Him. But obedience and submission are made meaningless by a theology which makes anything uncomfortably defined as ’sin’ as something other than sin. Submission is pretty darn easy if you don’t have to have a change of heart. To love God is not to be “sincere” and to have good intentions. To love God is to be obedient and submissive to Him.

You mistake God’s desire for God’s will in much the same manner as the 5-pointers, and you’ve supplanted the Greek concept of agape (as a description of God) with the American/English expansive definition of “love”, and then driven it off a cliff.

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.

Most lies are built on at least a grain of truth. The fact of the matter is, though, is that Scripture – God’s words to us – matters more than what we ‘feel’ or wish, and that molding it to fit our desires (rather than molding our desires to fit with Scripture) is just one of the (many) roads to hell.

You make me sound prophetic (in the predictive sense).

Is it prophecy, though, if I read it and then purposely crafted portions of my response (since you DID post the link a couple times in Facebook prior to my response)?

___________

I don’t know, but it is the only Parable in which there are names of specific people (Lazarus, Abraham) which might indicate it is a story that is at least based in reality.

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…

This is where we find our problem again – cultural nationalism. It is this “sin” (this fallen way of seeing the world) that makes us see who is and who is not my brother. We will die for those we see as our kin, our folk, our people, our nation. For all others – go to hell.

I don’t think anyone here desires that those who have rejected Christ will go to hell. I just think that God has communicated with us that this will be the case – regardless of what we collectively desire.

When God rescued the Hebrews from Egypt, why did He not deliver all of the slaves of Egypt, instead choosing just the Israelites?

What this means is that we must dare to hope that all will be saved.

No, it doesn’t, because that would be hoping that God has lied to us. Rather, we should hope that God will keep His promises and that He will move in the hearts of men, and that they will accept His gift.

Your “daring to hope” is exactly what I mean by a “false hope” – you offer no compelling reason for anyone to choose to follow God in this life.

you offer no compelling reason for anyone to choose to follow God in this life.

Chris L-

This statement by you sums up entirely our disagreement.

Your statement is fraught with error.

1- It assumes people on their own simply choose to follow God apart from God.

2- It assumes that one need a “compelling reason” to follow God.

3- It assumes that this “compelling reason” must be fear. IOW, you better follow God or burn in hell.

I reject all all of those assumptions that your statement makes.

I also reject your assertions that what I am saying denies a life unto holiness or that anyone is even remotely “OK” apart from Christ. That is hogwash. You ARE misrepresenting me and arguing against something I do not believe.

We do not love God because we put the fear of hell into them. We love God because he first loved us. A life of obedience to Christ is not about getting out of hell but about walking into life. People who do not know Jesus do not know life. What could be a more “compelling reason” to follow God than to become fully alive? I can think of no better reason to follow God than to come to the recognition that “I once was blind but now I see” and to realize that the identity I have been told to live into by my culture, my race, my gender and even my religion is peanuts compared to the identity found in Jesus Christ – an identity that is continually being formed in we who know Christ in so long as we FOLLOW IN OBEDIENCE.

Are you really wanting to argue that the reason you follow God is so that he won’t smite you?

Iggy, good questions.

In the East there is an understanding of “person” that is very different from us here in the West. When you read Eastern theologians you find that personhood isn’t something we own but something that is given to us as gift. In fact, you might say you are not even a “person” until you see yourself in Christ (which includes seeing yourself as incarnated, dead, buried, risen and reigning with Christ).

Until we meet Christ we live a lie. We do not know what it means to be a human being – a person. We only know what it means to be a “better” American, or white or black person, or male or female, or Jew or Gentile. We do not know that in Christ we transcend that as God calls us out of the structures that named us and gives us a new name. This is not compelling?

Chris L. – I am greatly encouraged by your open stand against universalism in any form. You are much clearer than Pastor Bell, however I do not accuse him of anything.

Chad – This is a statement I could embrace from someone with your views:

I sincerely hope everyone will be with God in eternity through the grace of Christ, however my current reading of the New Testament seems to suggest otherwise. I hope I am wrong.

But instead of the essence of that statement, you seem to suggest the New Testament teaches your hope.

This statement by you sums up entirely our disagreement.

Your statement is fraught with error.

1- It assumes people on their own simply choose to follow God apart from God.

2- It assumes that one need a “compelling reason” to follow God.

3- It assumes that this “compelling reason” must be fear. IOW, you better follow God or burn in hell.

I would disagree with all of these characterizations. People choose to follow God in recognition of the grace He has already given, and by the Holy Spirit.

Nor is the compelling reason avoidance of hell.

Rather, I would go back to my previous statement – By trying to be ’sensitive’, you end up trying to sell the Gospel at a discount, which devalues it in the minds of the recipient, rather than convincing them that it is something priceless, but free.

Grace is given freely, but the message you’re peddling is that you can pretty much do whatever the hell you want, because it’s God’s desire to force that grace upon you.

Basically, you’re offering a twofer that allows me to hedge my bets.

Say I’m a Mormon – I can trust in Joseph Smith and that I will get to be a god of my own world, with my wife and spirit children to populate it. If I’m right, then great – I’ve got my own world. If I’m wrong, your God will save me anyway…

Your “hope” is spineless hucksterism, not the Gospel. To reiterate Rick’s statement:

This is a statement I could embrace from someone with your views:

I sincerely hope everyone will be with God in eternity through the grace of Christ, however my current reading of the New Testament seems to suggest otherwise. I hope I am wrong.

But instead of the essence of that statement, you seem to suggest the New Testament teaches your hope.

But that’s the rub – you go beyond hoping against being wrong – you suggest that the NT teaches that everyone will be saved and that hell only has a lock on the inside of its door.

Which is BS.

Chris L.

You realize there are different types of Universalism.

I have a relative who heads the Universalist Church here in Billings. I would say that there view of the bible, which they see as not having “authority” or final word is wrong. Their view is “hope based” that all are saved and will be saved. Personally I see that as not valid in any way shape or form.

But, there are those that also believe that all are saved in the end in the way of all that is good and of God will be saved. Meaning though a person may have good or bad in them the good will go with God and the bad will be burned away. This leaves a person not fully human in eternity. I do not believe that though I see that some may in Emergent. I do see how they can come to that idea from scripture when it states things like:

1 Cor 3: 11. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13. his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. 14. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward.
15. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames

.

1 Cor 15: 26. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
27. For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Though this Universalism is closer to what I see as biblical I still see that they misread this passage.

There are more types as I am a bit of a Universalist Atonement though I do not come to the conclusion all will be saved in the end… I have many good friends that hold this view and it is the closest I see Chad may hold.

In this view though all are saved, they are purged by fire. They do not receive reward and they are held for an age in hell to atone for their sins.

I see that all that is saved must be in relationship with God through Christ Jesus. Without a relationship, then there is no Life… for the Life is in the Son.(1 John 5:11)

I see Chad’s position as more of hope that God’s desire that none should perish come true. It is the same hope that some hold that Hell is not eternal such as John Stott who hold annihilation instead of eternal punishment.

I see nothing wrong in holding out hope and it is the desire that God puts in us that we find those who should also desire none should perish. If it is stated clearly that this is God’s desire, then I is should be our own desire. Whether it is a hope that may not pan out is in God’s hands…

iggy

I see nothing wrong in holding out hope and it is the desire that God puts in us that we find those who should also desire none should perish. If it is stated clearly that this is God’s desire, then I is should be our own desire. Whether it is a hope that may not pan out is in God’s hands…

Iggy – Amen.

Thank you for being a fair reader.

Joe-

While typing that last comment I was eating a Bologna Sandwich (seriously, I was – I have 4 kids!). I figured that was what Chris L was referring to also.

Sorry Joe – you’re correct… I’ve finished my bologna sandwich, as well…

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..”

I guess what I don’t see Rob doing is saying “I affirm the virgin birth”, but then immediately explaining how he does not believe it in practice.

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.

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

It’s similar to saying “I believe abortion is wrong and nobody should kill their children”, but espousing a position that says women should be allowed to kill their children with no legal restrictions. You may say you believe one thing, but a position you’ve taken leads to the opposite result of what you say you believe.

Or – to use an example from the other end of the political spectrum, it’s like saying “I believe we should act in a responsible manner toward the environment”, but espousing support for unregulated dumping while driving alone to and from work in an SUV…

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.

This actually tells me I’m probably on the right track, then. With the ADM crowd, I do not disagree that the final arbiter of disagreement ought to be Scripture, but I do disagree with 1) their inability to separate systematic theology from Scripture, 2) their willingness to lie/misrepresent folks w/o allowance for rebuttal, 3) their elevation of personal preferences to cross-cultural absolutes, and 4) their inability to allow room for grace in tertiary issues (which I’m not sure they even believe exist). In short, with ADMs/ODMs I try (and often fail) to be like Jesus in his dealings with the Pharisees (whose orthodoxy was not so much a question as was their focus on praxis).

On the other hand, when I am dealing with the mainline/liberal stream of Christianity, I am in full agreement that (on the whole) the American church’s focus on ‘the least of these’ – particularly in our own cities and towns – has been lacking, and needs to be improved, if nothing more than for credibility’s sake. I differ, though, with 1) the general unwillingness to recognize sin for what it is; 2) the willingness to abandon sound hermeneutics when faced with sharp edges in Scripture; and 3) their willingness to go so far beyond ‘not being a Pharisee’ that they have become indistinguishable from the world (kosmos – not simply externals) in most matters. In short, with ADMs/ODMs, I have to follow the NT examples of dealing with Herodians and Hellenists (which is much less frequent, since the early church’s focus was on proselytism of religious Jews first, and then expanding into the Hellenized world).

In both cases, the answer lies in the use of Scripture and the precepts within. Unfortunately, what I get from both sides shows very little regard for the bulk of the Text, outside of a small set of Pauline and red-letter proof-texts.

To go back to Rick’s point – your writing is ’slippery’ – You say you don’t believe in universalism, but you turn around and suggest that the NT teaches that all will be saved in the end! Apart from a few cherry-picked verses (which I’m not all that convinced are being taken in anything even near their original context). For a long time, what I thought I heard you saying was this:

I sincerely hope everyone will be with God in eternity through the grace of Christ, however my current reading of the New Testament seems to suggest otherwise. I hope I am wrong.

However, as you’ve expounded this to others, you seem to suggest the New Testament teaches your ‘hope’.

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.

Salvation isn’t all about going to heaven/avoiding hell - but it isn’t divorced from those things, either. Jesus told both the parable of the Good Samaritan and the parable of the Bridesmaids.

If I was following someone other than Christ, the message you conveyed in your post from yesterday morning has no meaning for me. In fact, what you’ve conveyed to me is that a) you believe I’m on the wrong path; and b) even if I am, your God is likely to save me at the end of time. [Yes, I see that the focus in this example is on the afterlife, but I wouldn't expect myself to care about any other focus if I was following someone other than Christ. I have the best of both worlds - I live as I want now. If I'm right, my god will save me. If I'm wrong, your God will.]

Now, to get to a larger question, can you answer this question for me:

When God rescued the Hebrews from Egypt, why did He not deliver all of the slaves of Egypt, instead choosing just the Israelites? What happened to the slaves that were left behind in Egypt?

When God rescued the Hebrews from Egypt, why did He not deliver all of the slaves of Egypt, instead choosing just the Israelites? What happened to the slaves that were left behind in Egypt?

Chris, what is the purpose for this? Why not ask why God chose Abram and not his father? Why not ask why my friend’s daughter son died at birth?

Short answer: I don’t know what happened to them. Do you?

Perhaps they were wonderfully surprised by Jesus on Saturday.

My meditations on “compelling”

http://chadholtz.wordpress.com/2008/12/12/surrendering-to-i-am/

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

It certainly does seem that God desires or hopes for some things that do not come to pass.

Hope may not be the best term, but I think it’s pretty clear that God can be pleased or displeased based on our reactions. He does seem to have expectations.

Check out 1 Samuel 15. It says that God was grieved that He allowed Saul to become king over Isreal. How was He grieved, unless it turned out differently than He had hoped?

Than there’s Jesus saying this in Matthew:

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.

It’s not about sovereignty. Sovereignty doesn’t mean controlling everything at every given moment. It means having the ability to do so and having the absolute knowledge about everything.

The universe is as it is because God created that way, but He isn’t micromanaging it.

It’s not about sovereignty. Sovereignty doesn’t mean controlling everything at every given moment. It means having the ability to do so and having the absolute knowledge about everything.

In process theology some good writers talk about Sovereignty being about God being maximally related to all things. IOW, sovereignty has little if anything to do with our notions of power and control – that is a very anthrocentric understanding of sovereignty and, I think, a gesture to our fallen nature.

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.

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

Chad,

I know my eternal destiny. I have been Born again!

Did you turn Catholic or something? Will you be transfering to Georgetown?

PB-
To take scripture seriously and the way of Jesus seriously is to be a bit more humble than you let on to be.

We do not know. We have hope. But that hope is not vacuuous or without teeth – we have confidence in the one we hope IN – Jesus – as being the one who judges righteously. Our hope is found in the One who is the Good Shepherd.

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?

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.

Well, I already showed where we are told Jesus “longed”, so that is a form of hope, is it not?

I just choose to believe that when the Bible says God experienced something, He really did. What your doing is coming from the perspective that God must be a certain way, probably from the Greek conception of deity, and trying to make the Biblical narrative fit into that box.

I think it’s the other way around. We have to believe that what the Bible says about God is true, and then formulate what His nature is like.

Okay, so where does it say God hopes?

Jesus longed….

No, I wouldn’t call it hope. He desired to gather them in, but he would not force them.

Remember, Jesus took on human form. He had emotions that humans had.

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.

Amy, I am always amused at how you and others label everything. To PB I am wrong because I sound “Catholic” (oh no!) and you label something else as “Old Order Amish.” I take it you think they are wrong about everything like Catholics?

And why “take it further?” I prefer to take things as far as scripture does and not to presume more than that. Is is “wrong”? What do you mean by that?

If you read what I have actually said I said we DO have confidence. You and PB seem to place that confidence in yourself and your own subjective feelings about your salvation. I desire to put my confidence in Jesus. My hope and confidence rests in him and him alone for my salvation and for the salvation of the world. I am very confident that Jesus will get what Jesus wants. And from what I know of Jesus, that is fine by me.

If you read what I have actually said I said we DO have confidence. You and PB seem to place that confidence in yourself and your own subjective feelings about your salvation. I desire to put my confidence in Jesus. My hope and confidence rests in him and him alone for my salvation

Me to. Amen. But, if God does not know what is going to happen, then we don’t have that hope….But since God is sovereign and omniscient, and keeps his promises, I can have that hope. Praise God!

And the comment about Catholic? That is their theology, in fact, you are ananthema if you claim knowledge of your eternal destiny. That was an obscure reference for you when you said I couldn’t know. My feeling is objective; it is not subjective. It is based on the promise of God.

PB,

Did you even read what I wrote? It seems like you did not and if you did… you missed what I stated completely. Go re-read it about 5 times and then see if you understand it.

I will also add that all godly things come from God. As with righteousness and holiness, hope is also a gift of and from God. Our hope is not as this world hopes it is God’s hope imparted to us. Otherwise to say we have “hope” in Christ, by your definition leaves us with uncertainty.

iggy

I think part of what we’re getting hung up on (both in this morning’s conversation and the one between Chad and I) is that the English word “hope” has a number of shades to it. When I use “hope” in referencing its Biblical use, though, I try to stick with the more narrow meaning, from the Greek word used, elpis – which is directly translated as expectation.

So, for the word “hope”, I try to stick to the definition – “to wish for something with expectation of its fulfillment.”

This is different than the word “desire”, epithumia, which means to ‘yearn’ or to ‘long for’ – but does not have an element of expectation (that it will come to pass).

Thus, I would agree that God desires that all men would be saved. But He does not hope that all men will be saved, because He already has declared that this will not be the case (thus it is not His expectation).

So Chad – this is why I object to your usage of ‘hope’ in these discussions – because I have no expectation, based upon Scripture, that all men will be saved.

Do I desire this? Certainly! So does God.

Do I hope this? Nope. Because there is no expectation that this will happen.

Still does not say God hopes, Phil.

It says he “expected” – same thing. You’re just being petty now. There are dozens of other examples I could point to in the prophets where God said He expected or wanted one thing, and something else happened.

God can direct history without foreordaining it. Think about it. What takes more omnipotence – winning a game where the outcome is fixed, or winning because you are infinitely wiser and stronger than your opponent, answering and anticipating everything he throws at you?

Well Chris, if ALL we had to go on was one verse that said God “desires” all to be saved than you may have a point.

However, Jesus said that if he be lifted up then he will draw ALL men to himself. All.

Paul said that through Christ ALL things are being reconciled to God. All.

Paul said that if in Adam all sinned how much more are all made righteous through Christ. All.

Paul also said that God bound all in disobedience so that he could be merciful to all. All.

Story after story that Jesus tells that give us a window to the heart of God is of the Father, the Shepherd, the woman, the master who does not stop searching until all are found. All.
God promised that Israel would bring salvation to the nations. All.

God on the cross forgave those who put him there. Did they ask for forgiveness? Nope.

So in the end, I would say your expectations (hopes) of who God is and what God may do are too small.

I fully and completely EXPECT God to get all that God desires and wants. I fully EXPECT God to get this through Jesus Christ. I fully EXPECT that God will save any and all whom God desires to save. Who does God desire to be saved?

Again, to quote Karl Barth when asked if he believes in hell: NO! I Believe AGAINST it!

That, IMO, should be the posture of everyone who has come to know Jesus.

I fully and completely EXPECT God to get all that God desires and wants.

Then maybe you’ve not read Genesis 3. I would venture to say that it wasn’t God’s desire for Adam and Eve to eat of the Tree…

Or for Cain to kill Abel…

and on…

and on…

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

Phil,
I have always appreciated how you bring up points of disagreement you have with myself or others without going beyond what someone has actually said. I admire that in you.

I own that book but have not read it in full….yet. I know enough about it though to be dangerous enough.

there has to be some submission of will on the behalf of the lost.

I am not denying that. I am not saying that there will be people in heaven who don’t want to be there. I don’t believe they will come kicking and screaming.

With that said, who are we to limit God’s reach and ability to win over even the most stubborn? I cannot speak for others but I know how subborn I was. To avoid becoming a preacher I did what Jonah did and joined the Navy and ran around the world for 8 years. Why should we presume that when God judges the entire world that in the very act of judgment, when the fires burn the hottest, all the world will not bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord?

What I am left wondering is this: If in that moment God does save everyone will we Christians be left standing around like the laborers who were in the vineyard the longest (not as long as Israel, but longer than most) wondering why the laborer who came at the last hour gets paid the same?

To me, much of these abstact discussions about who should be in hell or demanding that we should not HOPE for all to be saved is sinful. It makes us sound no different than the laborers above. We are still asking with Peter, “Lord, what about him?” (John 21:21). And Jesus, exasperated, as if they will never get it: What is it to you? Follow me!

If in that moment God does save everyone will we Christians be left standing around like the laborers who were in the vineyard the longest (not as long as Israel, but longer than most) wondering why the laborer who came at the last hour gets paid the same?

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

To me, much of these abstact discussions about who should be in hell or demanding that we should not HOPE for all to be saved is sinful.

And now we’re back to “whatever…”

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).

We should desire that all will be saved, and to do otherwise would be sinful.

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

A couple of questions – one new one, one still unanswered:

Old One) When God rescued the Hebrews from Egypt, why did He not deliver all of the slaves of Egypt, instead choosing just the Israelites? What happened to the slaves that were left behind in Egypt?

[To answer your question about this question - perhaps the answer to this question is the answer to the question of why eternal salvation will not be universal. The story of Jesus is not only alluded to as a story of a second Adam, but also as a story of a second Moses...]

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?

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?

Perhaps because I’m not arguing for the opposite.

I’m just saying that I happen to believe God, and don’t question Him when He says that not all will be saved in the final day. If He chooses to do so, and my interpretation of His Word is wrong, I certainly won’t be upset with Him…

Why did Jesus descend into hell on Saturday?

Where does it say he descended into hell?

He was in the grave (Sheol) on Saturday, not hell (Gehenna).

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.

I understand this, and take it to heart (I had someone email me asking about “UNIX bunnies” already in this thread

I will try to include ‘expect’, at least parenthetically, if the need should arise to emphasize this again. Or perhaps, more accurately state that I do not have hope that all will be saved in the end, because that is not what we have been told to expect.

On a separate note – I would point out that the permanence of our decisions in life (regarding our acceptance/rejection of God’s grace) was taught as part of the Oral Law (which hearkened back to the story of Noah, among others in the written Torah) during the two hundred years leading up to Jesus’ life (and on after), and that Jesus’ parables (such as the Rich Man and Lazarus, the Bridesmaids, Sheep and Goats, etc.) and teachings regarding urgency all fall within this construct, as well.

To an earlier point – Maybe part of your confusion is between “salvation” and “reconciliation”.

To reconcile does not imply that all come to him and choose him.

Reconciliation (as a Greek and English concept) is derived from economic/budgetary terms. Reconciliation happens when you balance the books, both the negative and positive sides of the ledger.

So, Jesus reconciling all men to himself does not imply that all men who ever lived will then be saved in the end. Rather, it is in reference to the final accounting, where the ledgers are balanced, and those who accept Jesus’ payment will find their books in the black, and those who have refused will be in the red, because they cannot pay the debt, themselves.

Where does it say he descended into hell?

I am glad you asked this because at first I did not know

It forced me to look more deeply into a book I was supposed to read this semester and did not finish: The Creed by Luke Timothy Johnson. If I may, let me just quote a section. I did not know this beforehand but the more I read the more I liked what I read…..

(he first mentions Paul’s seemingly flippant confession about Jesus being buried in 1 Cor. 15:1-2 and then goes on to say….)

But another dimension of the burial is equally ancient and important. The burial symbolizes Jesus’ descent into the realm that in ancient cosmology was most removed from “heaven” or the place of God’s dwelling. He goes “under the earth” which in the Psalms is called sheol, and in the Greek translation, hades. In Peter’s speech at Pentecost, he quotes Psalm 16 in connection with Jesus’ death: “You will not abandon my soul to hades, or let your Holy One see corruption” (Acts 2:27).

This connectoin may help account for the conviction that Jesus, after his death, entered into the dungeons of the lower depths in order to free those most distant from the divine presence, a motif that wsa subsequently termed “the harrowing of hell” or, in the Apostle’s Creed, “the descent into hell.” In Eph. 4:5, Paul asks cryptically, “when it says ‘he ascended,’ what does it mean bu tthat he has also descended into the lower parts of the earth?” The conviction is stated more clearly by 1 Peter 3:18-20: He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison, who oin former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah.

Peter continues, “For this is the reason the gospel was proclaimed to the dead, so that, even though they had been judged in the flesh as everyone is judged, they might live in the spirit as God does” (1 Pet. 4:6).

The descent of Jesus into hell is, in this view, an expression of God’s universal will for salvation and a part of his cosmic victory, so that every tongue, even those “under the earth” should proclaim that Jesus is Lord (Phil. 2:10).

(pg. 174-75)

I would point out (as Iggy has a couple of times now) that Sheol and Gehenna/Hades are two separate concepts.

Sheol is a state of death (translated as “death” or “the grave”), whereas Gehenna is a state/place of punishment (more often translated as “hell”).

I would also note that Peter (I Pet 4:6) was answering a practical question of how those who had lived before Christ could still have opportunity to be judged in light of his gift.

Chris L

I have not consigned anyone to Hell, it is not my job.

I only point out that according to the Bible, our default position is condemnation; children of wrath.

I don’t want anyone to go to hell! Thats why I share the Gospel!!

I would point out (as Iggy has a couple of times now) that Sheol and Gehenna/Hades are two separate concepts.

Sheol is a state of death (translated as “death” or “the grave”), whereas Gehenna is a state/place of punishment (more often translated as “hell”).

Though I understand that there is a difference between Sheol and Hades, I’m not sure that the average Jewish person during the Second Temple period would see such a sharp distinction between the two. It seems to me that most Jews would see judgment and punishment as something that happened after the resurrection.

There are some texts that support the idea of the wicked dead receiving some form of punishment now, but it’s not a concept that was particularly hashed out. It seems that one thing that is consistent is that the wicked will endure some sort of shame after death. I guess overall, they were more concerned about who would participate in the resurrection than what would happen to those who didn’t.

Though I understand that there is a difference between Sheol and Hades, I’m not sure that the average Jewish person during the Second Temple period would see such a sharp distinction between the two.

Phil – the concept tied to Hades (Gehenna) was the town dump (the Hinnom Valley), where the stench was awful, the dogs constantly fought (with descriptions of the sound of their fighting described as “gnashing of teeth), and the fires were always burning.

It was the general understanding that all who lived would eventually go to the grave (Sheol), to await the final judgment. But to be tossed into Gehenna after death, I suspect, had a much more visceral impact than we can appreciate today…

It was the general understanding that all who lived would eventually go to the grave (Sheol), to await the final judgment. But to be tossed into Gehenna after death, I suspect, had a much more visceral impact than we can appreciate today…

I’m not really disagreeing with that. I guess I was just poorly making the point that the reason being tossed into Gehenna would be such a bad thing was 1) no righteous person’s body should be treated that way after death, and 2) it implied that person would experience a public shaming after death, rather than the honor of the resurrection.

As far as Hades and Sheol and how they’re related, it almost seems as if Hades was a special place within Sheol within Jewish thought. Of course Hades was a concept brought over from Greek mythology to some extent, but it seems to be a concept that the Jews took and ran with.

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

I’m pretty sure Rick wasn’t even talking about open theism with this point…

As far as the “clear teaching of Scripture”, you have yet to answer how you can so easily ignore the parts that go against your systematic theology.

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

So you basically refuse to acknowledge those passages I pointed out to you?

What does it mean when it clearly says God expected one thing to happen and something else ended up happening?

Someone give me a short definition of oepn theism.

#225

God does not know what is going to happen, and what is going on in the world.

God’s will can be changed by Man’s prayers.

It is the radical end of Arminianism.

Example: God did not will hurricane Katrina. It just happened. God did not want people to die in Hurrican Katrina. It just happened.

The omnipotent and omniscient and sovereign part.

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

Someone give me a short definition of open theism.

Well there are different variants, but I would say the simplest definition is that God has not predetermined future events (or at least not all future events), and that the future is at least partially open and dependent upon mankind’s decisions and actions. God knows all future possibilities and outcomes of the future, but hasn’t set them as certainties. In essence, the future is still being created.

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 point out (as Iggy has a couple of times now) that Sheol and Gehenna/Hades are two separate concepts.

Sheol is a state of death (translated as “death” or “the grave”), whereas Gehenna is a state/place of punishment (more often translated as “hell”).

Chris, that may be the case but that does not negate 1 Peter 3:18ff and the rest of the quote from Johnson which makes a pretty good argument that Jesus “set the prisoners free” which is further supported by the early teachings of the church.

Do you dismiss all of that just because there appears to be a difference in Sheol and Gehenna? I think the argument Johnson makes, very briefly there, outweighs the semantics you presented.

I am an “Open Deist”, meaning God’s redemption is open to ALL sinners.

I’m pretty sure I would have had to avoid Geneva in that day.

I don’t want anyone to go to hell! Thats why I share the Gospel!!

PB, it is this fixation with hell that you lose me.

I think your intentions may be right but you are placing the emPHAsis on the wrong syLAble.

I would say what you say about this way:

I want people to know life! That’s why I share the Gospel!

Chad and Phil,

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

Chris L,
I have been having a question for some time that I haven’t brought up. This is what I’ve been thinking:

Some of your discussions with Chad re universalism and hell have made me see that your defense of Rob Bell is based on the fact that you truly do not see him as one who believes in universalism , and do not see him as one who does NOT believe in hell.

As you may have seen Ken Silva has put up a comment from you and Mr. Frueh and some quotes from Rob Bell on CRN. I went to the original interview in The Ooze and I do not see that Bell’s quote has been taken out of context in any way.

What amazes me is that this is almost exactly what I was hearing from Chad many discussions back. It’s the kind of talk you have been arguing against.

In my discussion on hell with Chad I felt like Chad was trying to back me into a corner, make me feel guilty and like the “bad guy” because I believed in hell. I was the one with the problem, because I didn’t have HOPE that God would redeem everybody. It’s gone from that to seeing that Chad puts forth the belief that all will be redeemed.

This part of the quote by Bell is much of what I was picking up from Chad:

I don’t know why as a Christian you would have to make such declarative statements. Like your friend, does he want there to be a literal hell? I am a bit skeptical of somebody who argues that passionately for a literal hell, why would you be on that side? Like if you are going to pick causes, if you’re literally going to say these are the lines in the sand, I’ve got to know that people are going to burn forever, this is one of the things that you drive your stake in the ground on. I don’t understand that.

And this:

Yeah, I would think it would be your duty as a Christian to hope and long and pray for somehow everybody to be reconciled to God. If you are really serious about evangelism, as I’m sure you friend would claim, and you wanted to save people from hell, then wouldn’t your hope be that everybody reconciles with God? Why would you hope for anything else? It would be your duty to long for that. I would actually ask questions about his salvation.

Is there any way you could consider what he is saying objectively? I do not in all honesty see how you are having such a problem with what Chad is saying, but not with what Bell says here.

If Bell were to say the above (along with the rest of his quote that I have not included) and yet later say, “I believe in a literal hell, and I believe that some are going there,” and “I can hope that many will be saved but the Bible teaches that some will be eternally lost,” I would not then decide, “Oh, Rob Bell is orthodox after all.” I would say, what does Rob Bell really believe?

Believe me I have absolutely no reason to want Bell to look bad. No, I don’t go to his church. But his teaching is going out in many places, and you are defending it, and in light of your discussions with Chad your defense is confusing.

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.

But I am not the least bit interested in “dividing and conquering.” (And what exactly is it that I would be “dividing” anyway – support of Rob Bell? ) And I am under no such petty “impression.” This is not a “nice try.”

I am not a child and I am not playing games. Please don’t treat me as one.

Believe it or not, I have come to understand much more how orthodox Chris L is from his discussions with you. And I see a dissonance in his orthodoxy and what I have been understanding about the orthodoxy of the one he defends -from that person’s own words, not from what others say about him.

Believe it or not I actually have some respect for Chris L’s beliefs and integrity and would simply like for him to consider what I am saying and respond to it.

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.

Chad,
“A doctrinal difference such as this”

Underneath it all we’re talking about Jesus being the Way, the Truth and the Life. Without Him, no one can come to the Father.

Please don’t limit those who hold this truth dear to “the ODM” crowd.

IOW, even if Bell agrees with me in this that does not make him a false teacher

What WOULD make him a false teacher?

Underneath it all we’re talking about Jesus being the Way, the Truth and the Life. Without Him, no one can come to the Father.

Amy, please show where I or Bell have denied the above. I affirm that 100%.

What WOULD make him a false teacher?

Denying the above.

Amy,

I don’t want to get in between you and Chad… since you seem to be talking past each other.

However, you asked a question in comment 243 about Bell and some quotes posted by Ken Silva. I took a look at both the original interview and the blog post by Ken Silva. I decided this deserved a post of it’s own.

In that post I answer your Bell question as well as address how Silva misused the quotes.

I’m sure Chris L. will also answer, since your questions were adressed to him.

Neil

Some of your discussions with Chad re universalism and hell have made me see that your defense of Rob Bell is based on the fact that you truly do not see him as one who believes in universalism , and do not see him as one who does NOT believe in hell.

I would agree with this – As I take in the whole, I observe that Bell does not believe that the mode/method of hell (and exactly who is headed there) should be the focus of sharing the Gospel. With this, I would agree.

As you may have seen Ken Silva has put up a comment from you and Mr. Frueh and some quotes from Rob Bell on CRN. I went to the original interview in The Ooze and I do not see that Bell’s quote has been taken out of context in any way.

I would note this from the chosen quote:

wouldn’t your hope be that everybody reconciles with God? Why would you hope for anything else? It would be your duty to long for that.

Earlier, I offered Chad the out (which it appears he refused to take) that perhaps his use of “hope” was from a broad English sense, and not from the narrow usage from the Greek. (i.e. hope (broad English) = to wish/long for vs. hope (elpis) = to expect, based on God’s promise).

In Bell’s quote, he follows up his usage of “hope” with “it would be your duty to long for that“, which seems rather clear to indicate he is using the broader form of “hope” (which I think most people do in everyday conversation – i.e. “I hope the bus isn’t running late this time…”)

Is there any way you could consider what he is saying objectively? I do not in all honesty see how you are having such a problem with what Chad is saying, but not with what Bell says here.

I hope you can now see the difference (and I also hope that Ken will add this to his article in order to give a correct representation of my position on the topic). [With use of "hope" in the previous sentence intentionally in the broad sense.] So, in the same way that I hope that Ken will issue a correction, I hope that all would be saved in the end. I have no expectation Ken will ever admit wrong (and the evidence that exists suggests that hell will freeze over before Ken updates an article to make it accurate, refuting one of his original claims), but I truly have the desire that he would repent and do so.

If Bell were to say the above (along with the rest of his quote that I have not included) and yet later say, “I believe in a literal hell, and I believe that some are going there,” and “I can hope that many will be saved but the Bible teaches that some will be eternally lost,”

It’s interesting that you say that, because in the audio of that interview, he was asked if he believed in a literal hell, and his answer was “of course – but that’s not the point”. (And I’ve heard him say the same thing in a couple other venues, as well…) Where Bell chooses to focus his discussions on hell is with the hell that exists today, which is something that Christians can have a direct impact on today (because they often contribute to it, rather than driving it out).

I don’t see that his position is any different from the First Century Hebrew perspective of the afterlife – if one walks with God, under His grace and mercy, by the grace of God he has the hope of continuing to walk with God beyond the veil of death. If one chooses hell and rejects Gods grace in life, he will continue to do so beyond the veil of death. The only “control” man has in any of it is whether or not he chooses to walk in the grace that has already been given to him.

I can also see why Bell doesn’t dwell on the topic, or speak much on the subject of an eternal hell – because the immediate next question is “Who will be there?” I don’t think it’s our place to decide who will be there, and that we should desire that none should be there. However, simply based on a plethora of examples given by Jesus and his Apostles, we should not expect that none will be there. And so, to Rick’s point – as “hope” moves from desire to expectation, one crosses the line between Christian love and unbelief.
_________________

Regarding “Open Theism” – PB, you are once again mischaracterizing something you pretty much are demonstrating you don’t understand. It ends up going back to God and the nature of time – and the difference between how He experiences it and how we experience it. If He exists beyond time (which Gen 1 and lots of other passages support), then He can see all future possibilities. If He gives man the slightest bit of “free will” in anything, then He does not ‘know’ the future (from our perspective). However, if He can see all possible futures, and if His will is contained within them, then man has freedom – within God’s will – to act, and man is able to impact (from his own perspective) what future becomes reality. This does not contradict any Scripture.
_____________

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.

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…

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.

Actually, I would say that your view is just as unhealthy as PB’s blurting out of “I don’t want anyone to go to hell! Thats why I share the Gospel!!” Each chooses one side of the equation (before death/after death) and pretty much pays lip service to the other.

Reconciliation (per my earlier comment) is not analogous to “saved” – it is an economic concept in which all balances are tallied and reconciled (i.e. the separation of wheat from the tares is “reconciling” a field). You seem to miss that.

Do you dismiss all of that just because there appears to be a difference in Sheol and Gehenna? I think the argument Johnson makes, very briefly there, outweighs the semantics you presented.

Sorry – I’ll take the first-century view.

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.”

Well, apparently if you expect that it won’t happen, then there there’s no factual basis behind “this is what could happen if you continue down this road”, because it can’t happen to you down the road. A toothless threat.

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?

I don’t know – I suppose the veracity of God’s word. But other than that, nothing…

A less flip answer – the answer to the question “who (specifically) will be there” is “what is it to you”. The answer to the question “will anybody be there, or is it an empty threat?” is NOT “what is it to you.”

So, Amy, serious question: If you agree that salvation is not about “right belief” and that in the end none of us will be able to boast that we believed rightly but that our salvation is due to Christ and him alone, then what do you expect to happen to the person who lives and dies and never hears the gospel of Jesus? That is, based on what you know of this God revealed to us in Jesus and what you know about what actually happened on Calvary and Easter, what do you expect to happen to those who never knew him?

Chris,
Thanks for your thoughtful answer.

I’m still left with the same questions. I understand what you are saying about different ways to use hope. But I never took Bell or Chad as using hope as “expect.” (I’ve only just gone back and read some of the discussion where you were talking about the usage of those words.) I’ve taken them both as talking about hoping (desiring) that all are saved. It might help if you could look at the original discussion I had with Chad; unfortunately I don’t remember where it is. It is since that original discussion that I’ve come to understand that Chad believes that (expects that) everyone will be saved.

You said this:

I’m just saying that I happen to believe God, and don’t question Him when He says that not all will be saved in the final day.

And that’s what I believe, and I can’t equate the need to hope ( desire) that ALL men will be reconciled and some kind of need to downplay a literal hell with that belief.

Yes I hope that many will come to Christ, even those for whom it looks hopeless. But I cannot hope in any way that ALL will come to Christ because to do so is to hope against what God’s Word has said is true.

You mentioned that Bell says he believes in a literal hell – but hasn’t he also said that he hopes that hell will be empty (just asking, don’t remember the exact quote.) If that is so, how could that then be the literal hell of the Bible?And has he ever expounded over just what a “literal hell” is? He has had so much to say about hell, in great detail – why not talk about what a “literal hell” is as well?

Why would you hope for anything else? It would be your duty to long for that. I would actually ask questions about his salvation.

Who, in your opinion is the antecedent of “his” in this last sentence.

what do you expect to happen to the person who lives and dies and never hears the gospel of Jesus?

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.

what do you expect to happen to the person who lives and dies and never hears the gospel of Jesus?

What is it to you?

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.

Amy, can you be any more obtuse?

Please speak plainly for us dumb people.

Let me ask again:

what do you expect to happen to the person who lives and dies and never hears the gospel of Jesus?

It’s a simple question. According to you there are only 2 options.

From what I can discern from the Scriptures no one can be saved without hearing and believing (Rom.10).

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?

I would suggest that any sinner that spends eternity with Christ is unfair, not those who do not.

And again, it is a good thing we are not the judges. Christ alone is. And Christ said that even whores, sinners and tax collectors are entering the kingdom of God before “you.” (The YOU is the people that thought they were A-OK).

If I were God I would judge those who never heard by their works

And there seems to be some precedent for this in scripture. 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?

It is curious to me that the people who say I should not “expect” hell to be empty based on who I know Jesus to be or that I should not “expect” all to be saved based on who I know Jesus to be will not say without equivocation that they “expect” those who do not know Jesus or never heard his name uttered will burn forever in hell.

2000 years later and we still don’t know the Way to heaven?

No, not stubborn. Evasive and inconsistent, perhaps.

So let me ask another way.

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

Rick, what is sad about your answer is it completely ignores Jesus Christ. It undermines and eviscerates the Cross and Easter and what was done, cosmically, that weekend.

Those who answer “true” to that question, IMO, do not truly know the Jesus their dear scriptures point to. They will be the ones most surprised, I think, as “whores, sinners” and tribal peoples from distant lands and those “sheep of another fold” enter the Kingdom before them.

On another note-

“Sadly”???? What is sad about it? How can you say that it is “Sad” that the God you love and worship is going to send people who never knew or had the opportunity to know him in this life to an eternal punishment in hell?

If that is “sad” than perhaps you either have the wrong idea about what God is like or you dont know how to properly rejoice and praise God for being exactly like this.

I should think that if you truly praise this God for being God and loving us enough to die for us, even while we were his enemy, that you wouldn’t find it “Sad” that he will send people to hell but that would be one of the things you praise him for.

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

I didn’t say you never met him, Rick. I “know” my wife but I anticipate knowing her more years down the road.
When a person first comes to know Christ and thinks Jesus is about “feeling good” or about being a good American I don’t say they don’t “know” Jesus but that they have yet to come to know Jesus in a deeper sense.

I have no doubts that you know Jesus and that you are a Christian and brother (a sentiment NOT expressed by ODM’s who find disagreement with someone).

I, personally, think that people who limit Jesus’s work on the cross to just themselves and those who had the chance to make a confession with the right words in it during this lifetime, miss the bigger point of what Jesus was doing. I have no doubt you are fine. But that ain’t the point of Jesus.

Amy, still interested in your answer:

True or False: Those who never hear the name “Jesus” in their life burn for eternity in a literal hell.

Amy, still interested in your answer:

True or False: Those who never hear the name “Jesus” in their life burn for eternity in a literal hell.

Again – what is it to you?