I don’t know, but, anything is better than the stupid debate over global warming and human impact on climate.

jerry,

while i understand his point, and even agree with him to some extent… i’m not sure i connect the dots as he does.

i wonder how many of those who reject his perspective do so based on the fact that it means they should get out of the GOP bed.

I am an “Old Perspective” guy and I find the “New Perspectives”…”interesting”.

Brett,

The Catholic ecumenical view of justification is patently false, heretical, and plain bad.

Nah…I’m just kidding I just want to get all knee-jerky about it. It’s been kind of a boring day I needed to liven it up.

RE#13

- 1034 Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna” of “the unquenchable fire” reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost. Jesus solemnly proclaims that he “will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,” and that he will pronounce the condemnation: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!”
- 1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”: Father, accept this offering from your whole family. Grant us your peace in this life, save us from final damnation, and count us among those you have chosen

Put that in your universalist pipe and smoke it, Pastorboy

It doesn’t mean that all respond.

Thank God for Jesus!

No one can legitimately suggest that Roman Catholic doctrine is universalist.

Perhaps we spend an inordinate time discussing and unravelling justification/atonement theories and not enough time spreading them through the gospel, which contains all truth.

Here is what Cardnail Ratzinger, and PJPII had to say:

Nonbelievers Too Can Be Saved, Says Pope

Refers to St. Augustine’s Commentary on Psalm 136(137)

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 30, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent, will be saved even if he lacks biblical faith, says Benedict XVI.

The Pope made this affirmation today at the general audience, commenting on a meditation written by St. Augustine (354-430).

See: Pope Benedict XVI’s general audience, Nov. 30 2005.

1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.”62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church online at the Vatican.

The following is a quote of Pope John Paul II’s statement in English to those gathered in St. Peter’s square on Wednesday, December 6th, 2000, in which he briefly summarized his message of the day, “FOR US, THE KINGDOM IS GRACE”:

“Dear brothers and sisters, the theme of Our general audience during this great Jubilee year, has been the glory of the Trinity, and today we ask what we must do to ensure that the glory of the Trinity shines forth more fully in the world. In essence we are called to be converted and to believe in the Gospel. We are to accept the kingdom of God in our hearts, and to bear witness to it by word and deed. The kingdom indicates the loving presence and activity of God in the world and should be a source of serenity and confidence to our lives. The Gospel teaches us that those who live in accordance with the beatitudes: the poor in spirit; the pure in heart; those who will lovingly [endure] the sufferings of life; will enter God’s kingdom. All who seek God with a sincere heart, including those who do not know Christ and His Church, contribute under the influence of grace, to the building of this kingdom. In the Lord’s prayer we say ‘Thy kingdom come’. May this be the hope that sustains us and inspires our Christian life and world.”

Text of the Wednesday Audience message “FOR US, THE KINGDOM IS GRACE” online at Zenit.

We confess with the Apostle Paul “that there is salvation in no other name” (Acts 4:12). The “Dominus Iesus” declaration, in the wake of Vatican II, shows that with this the salvation of non-Christians is not denied, but explains its ultimate source in Christ, in whom God and man are united. God gives light to all in a way appropriate to their interior and environmental situation, granting them saving grace through ways known to him (see “Dominus Iesus,” VI, 20-21). The document clarifies the essential Christian elements, which do not obstruct the dialogue, but show its basis, because a dialogue without foundations would be destined to degenerate into empty verbosity.

Source: POPE’S WORDS BEFORE THE “ANGELUS”, VATICAN CITY, OCT. 1, 2000 (ZENIT.org)

3. The Holy Spirit is not only present in other religions through authentic expressions of prayer. “The Spirit’s presence and activity”, as I wrote in the Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, “affect not only individuals but also society and history, peoples, cultures and religions” (n. 28).

Normally, “it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour (cf. Ad gentes, nn. 3, 9, 11)” (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue – Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, Instruction Dialogue and Proclamation, 19 May 1991, n. 29; L’Osservatore Romano English edition, 1 July 1991, p. III).

Source: Pope John Paul II, General Audience, Wednesday 9 September 1998

16. … Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.

(19*) Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3869-72.

From Bible Light

You say works salvation, and in a sense it is, but it does suggest also a universal salvation regardless of belief in God.

To teach that a devout Muslim can be saved by God’s grace without faith in Jesus Christ is not just heresy, it does despite to the name and sacrifice of the Lord Jesus.

OR, it serves to accentuate/amplify the life and sacrifice of the Lord Jesus.

To say that a devout Muslim cannot be saved by God’s grace unless he or she has faith in Jesus is to make human faith trump divine faith.

That’s not really the case, Rick.

Personal faith is important but it is not the magic formula that translates a person from an eternity in hell to an eternity in heaven.

No one in the NT preaches Christ as a get out of hell ticket.

There is a reason for that.

#30 – it makes sense.

God will have mercy on whom God will have mercy.

God is not at the mercy of human faith. God can save whomever God desires to save.

“That doesn’t make sense.”

We are not guided by what makes “sense” to us, but we look to what the Scriptures teach.

For by grace are ye saved through faith

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Christ shall profit you nothing.

To discount the element of faith is almost too absurd to address in light of the overwhelming evidence of Scripture. One can make his own hope theology, but it just doesn’t measure up Scripturally.

And to make eveangelism nothing more than information and not the conduit through which God redeems souls is a wicked absurdity.

Let us be perfectly clear and put a perspective upon the suggestion of univeralism. If it is true that all will be saved eternally, then the Bible is one gigantic storybook that is completely nebulous, plays with our emotions, and the entire narrative of creation and mankind was one colossal game of divine solataire.

In summation – the Bible is a lie if everyone will be awarded eternal life without regard to faith in Christ at any level.

#37 – I never said that, however, if there are two separate eternal dwelling places in eternity then that would trump all other issues.

Agreed. And one would expect the entire thrust of Scripture to be all about eternity, which it is not (so if you are right, then the Bible is really trivial and doesn’t even speak to what you claim to be the biggest issue of all).

If it is as important as you claim one would expect to find at least one preacher in the Bible to say, “If you don’t have faith in Jesus Christ you will spend eternity in hell.”

Chad,
I would agree with you that through the years the church has boiled down the message of Scripture to a duality that isn’t really there in that way, but I also think that the type of universalism you’re proposing seems to be reactionary to that error more than anything else.

The Scriptures are Jewish through and through, so to look at them as anything else will always miss something. Certainly the Jewish people understood that God was merciful, even to the point that His mercy trumped His judgment to some extent. Even Jesus seemed to say this. Whereas John the Baptist said that judgment was coming to Israel almost immediately – he said that ax was already headed for the tree – Jesus said that rather than cut the fig tree down immediately, it would be better to wait another year to see if it produced fruit. But, there did come a time when the tree was cut down, and judgment happened.

So I would agree with you that much of the time when the church prays for judgment to come we are operating under the same false assumption that plagued the Jewish people – that judgment will be for other people, not us, or that we will escape because God loves us and not them. That gets back to the scandal of the Cross – God loves all and doesn’t play favorites.

Where I would part ways with you is that in order for love to truly be love, it must be freely given and freely received, and there is a reciprocity. The way you’re describing it is as if God will force everyone to love Him at some point, or that everyone will eventually choose Him at some point. I just do not see that Scripture describes anything like that happening. In fact, it shows just the opposite, that people will continue in idolatry – loving that which is not God – despite God’s greatest efforts. And God will not make these people love Him. He will not override their free will, and in fact if He did they never had free will in the first place.

So while I do have a lot of empathy with the position you’re coming from, I simply can’t take it as far as you do.

Even if I allowed for your very Western and individualistic notions of “free will” (which I am not entirely opposed to but I think you take that further than is reasonable) my position is still very tenable within that framework.

Qualify this statement. In what way does it go further than you’re willing to take it, and how is it based in individualistic Western notions? Judaism has pretty much always affirmed individual free will, and it actually takes it further than many Christians do.

Those who at present either reject Christ or do not know Christ out of ignorance are not doing so because they are free to do as they please but because they are at present bound and incapable of doing anything else.

That simply doesn’t make any sense to me.

Were Adam and Eve bound to sin? They knew God in perfection, but they chose to break the command they were given. So it was at that time that they became slaves to sin. So in a sense, I agree with you, people are slaves to sin, but they got in that situation through their own choices. Christ has done all that is necessary to set them free – He has freely given them the key as it were. Even the faith that is needed to make this choice is freely given, but that does not mean that all will do it.

i thought this wasn’t a thread about universalism?

Qualify this statement. In what way does it go further than you’re willing to take it

I guess I am just suspicious of holding up human “free will” as some sort of trump card. While I disagree with Augustine on plenty I think he was spot-on when it came to assessing human freedom and will. I assume you know his conclusions?

As far as Judaism goes, we are speaking of a people already freed for God. But more to the point, I think, where Israel conceived of themselves as free to choose was in regard to a covenantal people. The actions of one affected the whole. So really, an individual was not truly free – they were bound up in a community.

Assertions of “free will” often have the tone of “don’t tell me what to do” or “I can do whatever I want.” That is not really the case from a theological/ Scriptural perspective.

I guess I am just suspicious of holding up human “free will” as some sort of trump card. While I disagree with Augustine on plenty I think he was spot-on when it came to assessing human freedom and will. I assume you know his conclusions?

Yes, I do know his conclusions, and I simply don’t agree with many of them. For one thing, I don’t share the same view of original sin, namely total depravity, that Augustine did.

I do not think that saying that man is a slave to sin means he can never choose anything but sin. Certainly a non-Christian can choose to do actions that are ontologically good, and these could even be explained as within the will of God. These actions, however, count as nothing towards his salvation. My view of original sin is actually very close to the Eastern Orthodox view (this article has a good description).

Assertions of “free will” often have the tone of “don’t tell me what to do” or “I can do whatever I want.” That is not really the case from a theological/ Scriptural perspective.

I guess some people maybe could come off like that, but I’ve never said anything like that.

#836 sounds universalist to me – pastorboy (commenting on comment 9)

there is a difference between “all being called” and “all being saved.”

I’m familiar with the EO view and there is nothing in that article I would dispute. Wesley drew heavily from EO , in fact. If you read my snippet above you’ll see the same themes.

Actual, this from your paper:

What distinguishes heathenism from Christianity, for Wesley, is the confession of Christians that within humankind there is nothing good whatsoever, that we are deeply and utterly sick in heart, mind and soul as opposed to the confession of the heathen that humankind is essentially good, though prone to mistakes. If we are not fallen so totally, Wesley contends, then there would be no need for a religion of the heart. There would be no need for the Spirit of God to work within us, healing us, restoring us to our original nature. Indeed, to know the depths of our disease is to know the depth of our cure.

seems to contradict this, from the article I linked to:

Here we must use caution when speaking of Original Sin. The non-Orthodox teach that Original Sin is the Personal sin and guilt of Adam transmitted from him to all mankind. The Church does not agree with this teaching. Original sin is the “sinful state” of our nature with which we are born. Because of the fall, human nature is disposed toward sinfulness: human nature is corrupt and that which we refer to as man, is really less than man: human nature has been weakened, therefore, the ability to resist every temptation (without the special Graces of God) has been taken away.

If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re saying that mankind is evil to the point that no good is in him. The Orthodox view is that despite the taint of original sin and the separation it cause, the original image of God exists in man. So even sinful men still have some capacity to choose between good and evil. Now of course, they do not take it to the Pelagian end which says that good choices can lead to salvation.

EO does not deny original sin. Nor does it deny total depravity.

As stated in the article I linked to, it doesn’t deny them (although I would say it denies total depravity to a large extent), but it certainly defines them differently.

Either way, you are left with a state pre-fall which was truly “free” and a state of being post-fall which is not free.

Free will is a misnomer, really.

To me the issue is not whether we are totally free or not. There can be any number of factors that influence our ability to choose one thing over another. The issue is whether or not a person has the ability to choose one thing over another. You say that given a set of possibilities to choose from (say A,B, & C for sake of discussion), a man will always choose A or B but can never choose C. I say that even though he is predispositioned to choose A or B, that it is not an impossibility for him to choose C.

So as it relates to judgment and accountability is where this comes into a play. If men have any ability to choose good over evil, than they are still accountable for the choices they make regardless of what factors were influencing their decision.

jerry,

regarding the op – while i understand his point, and even agree with him to some extent… i’m not sure i connect the dots as he does.

i wonder how many of those who reject his perspective do so based on the fact that it means they should get out of the GOP bed.

Phil,

Wesley echoes Paul, who says: I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.

Paul is reflecting on a pre-Christian existence.

The EO view denies the guilt passed on by Adam (which I concur with, as does Wesley). But it affirms the “state,” which is what orthodox Christianity has taught for centuries.

#57 However, I am not a respector of persons

So much for pro-life!

Is to….

Is to…

Look, I do not know Josef personally, but he is a great Catholic Theologian who is dead wrong about the scripture. Therefore, I do not respect him.

The image of God is not “killed.”

Total depravity does not mean you are as bad as can possibly be. It simply means that every aspect of human nature is affected through the fall. The will, the intellect and freedom are all affected – the totality of the person.

but he is a great Catholic Theologian who is dead wrong about the scripture. Therefore, I do not respect him.

From PB’s book of Christian etiquette – you only have to respect those who interpret Scripture the way you do.

All others can go to hell.

When you feel it necessary to be arbitrary and demeaning to your enemies, it says more about you than it does about them.The Pope may be wrong about some important issues, but he might be more right about love your enemies than many who fly the sola scriptura flag.

In any case, I contend that we are not “free” to choose God on our own accord. It is all an act of God.

I don’t think anyone here would deny that. We can only choose God because of the grace He’s given us. I guess we can about when and how that grace was given, but is sort of a moot point. I think it was given to all, just like any Wesleyan would affirm. But since we have been given the ability to choose, some of will choose to reject God.

No, I believe all will be held accountable. What that looks like, however, is different from some modern, conventional notions.

Well, I’d say there are plenty of people who aren’t universalists who would have a view of the future that’s different from Dante’s depiction of Hell. It’s not as if there are only two possible choices.

#71 – That is a massively disingenuous reading of Scripture.

I’d say it is a pretty plain reading of Scripture.

Which is ignoring the context of those Scriptures. You have to ignore a lot of things to turn Paul into a universalist.

I suppose the rich man’s torments were part of heaven’s glory? So much so that he begged someone to go and tell his brothers so that they will not have to COME HERE.

Christ is not victorious over most things upon this earth; the place where you suggest is just as important as eternity. Let us compare 80 years with eternity and then let us weight the general importance of this life with the life to come.

Universalism is a decption from the evil one, and along with other heresies, it will damn many.

Re 70 – i agree. i am just not sure that that is the reason some reject the perspective.

Believing a lie, when the lie has eternal consequences, can lead to damnation.

Chad – Do you believe in cults? And what in your theology consitutes a cult?

Chad – Do you believe in cults?

Sure.

The Muslim says, “I believe he was a prophet, but he was not divine and his death has nothing to do with me. I believe in Allah alone”.

The believer says, “That is OK, Jesus believes in you and you will one day go to be with Him forever.”

That isn’t what I would say. I agree with you, that believer is a liar, for it is not “OK.”

No, I’m realistic. A conversation with me would never look like that.

Rick, I would love to discuss the implications of universalism “on the ground” so to speak. It seems that most people have some crazy assumptions about what it must entail. With your Muslim example, I am curious how that conversation would go with you. Here is how I see it…

The Muslim says, “I believe he was a prophet, but he was not divine and his death has nothing to do with me. I believe in Allah alone”.

Rick: You are wrong. Jesus is God’s son who died for you so that you can have eternal life. You must believe that so that you will have eternal life with him.

Muslim: No, you are wrong. You must put your faith in Allah and forsake your infidel religion so that you can have eternal peace.

Rick: No, you are wrong. You must leave behind your false god and religion or you will spend eternity in hell.

Muslim: You are nothing but an infidel who hates God.

Rick: You are a sinner who hates God.

Is this the more “faithful” way, Rick?

I am still curious to learn how faulty doctrine can damn many to hell if proper doctrine does not save anyone.

err hear…
typing quickly before work

Even Worse:

Samir: So you are a Muslim?

Osama: Yep

Samir: Well, you should come and worship with my christian and jewish friends at the faith house. We desire to find god or allah in ‘the other’

Osama: Sounds cool, but I am far to serious about Allah being the one true god and Mohammad being his prophet to hang out with you infidels. You could convert and come over to my mosque, however!

even if they are given some sort of second chance after death.

Thats not even close to Biblical, it is fantasy. I just wish to refute that! It is appointed unto man once to die and after this comes judgment. There is no second chance; if you are not found written in the book of life, it means the lake of fire.

Chad, I’m not trying to be snarky or a wise guy, I just have a couple of questions. I’ve seen you go round and round with others here on this topic, even watched you leave, what appeared to be, angry.

My question is, given what I assume you believe, a form universalism, why do you keep “evangelizing”, for lack of a better term, to all who disagree with you? Especially, when one takes it to it’s end result, it doesn’t matter. I say this because, if I read correctly what you say, everyone is going to make it “in” regardless of what they believe. Universalism taken to it’s end needs no converts. So who is it you are trying to convince?

I have been amused in the same way with Hinduism. When one thinks about it, one doesn’t have to be a Hindu to be a Hindu. You’re going to get another shot to get it right anyway. And to my mind it’s not that different with a universalist point of view…..it doesn’t matter in the end if you are or aren’t It may be a simple observation, for I am a simple man.

I know your dislike for PB, but are you that different? Just an observation, as I watch PB try to highjack a thread by seeing Rob Bell in every OP. It appears to me that you are doing the same thing, only with a universalist slant.

As I get older my pain threshold seems to get lower ,so, I can’t comprehend why someone would continually want to keep bashing their head against a wall. If it was me? I would look to more fertile ground, but HEY, that’s just me!!

As for the question, Why evangelize, I answered that HERE. But I’ll elaborate:

“Blessed be the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our tribulations that we may be able to comfort those who are in any trouble, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God” (2 Cor. 1:3,5).

The curse of death and the fear of it is the greatest humankind knows. No person is spared this bondage ( Heb 2:15). The world is cursed with this fear and those who know Jesus have a cure. We are called, like Jesus, to proclaim the GOOD NEWS to the poor, to heal the broken hearted and proclaim liberty to the oppressed.

Why evangelize? Because people are hurting. Because Christ commands us to do so (Mt. 28:18-20, Mk 16:15) and woe to us if we do not (1 Cor. 9:16, Luke 12:47; Rom. 14:10).

How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, who bring glad tidings of good things! (Rom. 10:15).

We love others because Christ has first loved us. Our evangelism should not spring from some sort of ego-driven desire to move a person from hell to heaven (as if we could!) but to spread the Gospel (good news) that Jesus Christ is Lord of heaven and earth – and this is a good thing!!!

Knowing Rick, I simply cannot imagine that he would ever tell anyone that they were “a sinner that God hates”.

Phil, read closely. I didn’t say that.

Oops… Dislexia strikes again. I honestly did think I read “God hates”. Sorry about that.

But in any case, I don’t think it’s very helpful to write those sorts of things guessing what a person will say in a given situation.

We love others because Christ has first loved us. Our evangelism should not spring from some sort of ego-driven desire to move a person from hell to heaven (as if we could!) but to spread the Gospel (good news) that Jesus Christ is Lord of heaven and earth – and this is a good thing!!!

Again, this is pretty much a straw man. I don’t think most Christians would say they have the power to move anyone from hell to heaven, and I think there are plenty of people who evangelize and believe in hell, but aren’t evangelizing because they’re ego-driven. I think that a lot them do genuinely love the people they’re trying to reach.

Your whole stance seems rather reactionary to me.

So, I am curious, Chad. How a conversation between you and a Muslim progress. I am curious.
Rather than have other people put words into your mouth, I would rather here your own words.

Thank you, Mike. It is nice to have someone not try to put words in my mouth

I’ll take Rick’s opening line from the Muslim and for the sake of argument, assume this is a drive-by conversation and I have only one shot to say anything at all (IOW, if I am to assume I am in a relationship with this person, like say, we are neighbors, this conversation would probably look very different. But I’ll play along…).

Muslim: “I believe he was a prophet, but he was not divine and his death has nothing to do with me. I believe in Allah alone”.

Me: I respect that. It seems that both of us believe in a sovereign God who orders all of creation.

Muslim: If you say so.

Me: I believe that who you call Allah is actually the God of all the universe, the God of both Esau and Jacob and all he nations, and loves the world so much that He actually came to us as a human to show us how to truly be human, how to truly live and die and give us hope for the life yet to come.

Muslim: You are talking about Jesus.

Me: I am.

Muslim: I already told you, I don’t believe in him like you do.

Me: My friend, one of us is living a lie. I must be going now, but let me leave you with this: You may not believe in Jesus Christ but he believes in you. As do I. Jesus loves you, and because of that, so do I. My prayer for you is that you may come to know that peace and joy that comes from walking with the God of the universe. Assalaamu alaykum

and those are the same things that any Christian should be sharing and offering but, those verses don’t necessarily represent the universalist point of view.

I’m not trying to use those verses to represent any sort of view, universalist or otherwise. Those verses are why we evangelize – or why we OUGHT to evangelize. They have nothing to do with preaching an eternity in heaven over hell. That is the point.

And Scotty, re:98, I didn’t bring universalism up in this thread. Why do I talk about it here? Because every now and then someone brings up something that I had not thought about before and it gives me a chance to think it through. But also, just because. I don’t think I need to justify to you what topics are important to me. You are free to ignore me.

So in typical Chad fashion it always ends on a high note!

Hope and change, baby… hope and change…

Chad, Thanks for the honest answer. And yeah in keeping with the situation that you wrote about Rick, it would need to be a drive-by. I would also agree that a long term friendship or acquaintance would maybe require a completely different discussion.
I liked your answers. The end left me feeling abit itchy, but that’s prolly more my traditional paradigms having to adjust than anything else.

Have a great weekend all.

-Blessings

The Bible is against it, God is against it

And that settles it! Lol.

98.2% of posters here are against it…

Therefore, I like my chances

Actually, I will be taking post #104 and be commenting on it on my own blog.

Lol – so much for ignoring me, huh? You are comical.

And please do post about it. I love the free press.

RE 90: that’s an interesting dialogue – yet completely moot to the question.

Re: 104

I would take issue, no surprise, in affirming to the Muslim that his Allah is the creator of the universe. The creator of the universe is the triune Godhead – and this is not the Muslim Allah.

I would also never say – “You may not believe in Jesus Christ but he believes in you.” It’s sounds way too cliche – and just what is “He believes in you” suppose to mean?

How so, Neil?

What would you say to Rick’s Muslim?

i think it moot in that the discussion was regarding the final state of unbelievers and you interjected a conversation that makes a caricature out of rick, and only fortifies your argument in that manner.

anyone could create caricatures of the other person’s argument.

in affirming to the Muslim that his Allah is the creator of the universe.

I didn’t. Read carefully.

The creator of the universe is the triune Godhead – and this is not the Muslim Allah.

I know. However, if you read closely, you’ll see that I am affirming one thing while moving to another. I believe that is a far more viable way to move the conversation where I think it should go.

Wanna know the first and best way to ENSURE a Muslim won’t hear what you have to say? Make your first remark to him or her one that disrespects and totally undercuts everything they have only known and believed all their life.

“You may not believe in Jesus Christ but he believes in you.” It’s sounds way too cliche – and just what is “He believes in you” suppose to mean?

What do you think it means?

Why isn’t anyone saying what they would say to the Muslim?

Neil, Phil, Rick or Mike – would any of you tell the Muslim in a drive by conversation they are going to hell unless they believe your gospel?

How would you say it?

anyone could create caricatures of the other person’s argument.

In the absence of anyone coming forward and sharing what they would actually say I am left to imagine for myself.

It is not moot, though. It serves to highlight the tensions at stake.

I’m looking forward to hearing how you or anyone would respond to the Muslim who tells you that he believe Jesus is just a prophet, not divine, and that he only believes in the one true God, Allah.

Go..

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by a drive-by conversation

Phil, I’m sorry, but I thought I was pretty clear in my opening comments on 104. perhaps you missed this…

I’ll take Rick’s opening line from the Muslim and for the sake of argument, assume this is a drive-by conversation and I have only one shot to say anything at all (IOW, if I am to assume I am in a relationship with this person, like say, we are neighbors, this conversation would probably look very different. But I’ll play along…).

I would not.

Thank you.
That is my point.

If you’ll recall, this is about Rick’s characterization of my position which assumed that I (or the universalist believer) would respond to the Muslim in question with little more than, “That’s OK.”

I have shown that this is not the case. The other extreme would be to suggest that the only “faithful” evangelism would be to make it all about heaven or hell, as if our task is to convince the Muslim that they are hell-bound unless they believe. Rick (and no doubt, PB), at least, appears to think that unless you present this option you are potentially damning them.

You, Phil, like myself, appear to not see it that way either.

So obviously there is plenty of room somewhere between a pronouncement that someone is OK no matter what they believe and the pronouncement that they are hell bound unless they believe our gospel.

My hunch is that most of us are somewhere in that middle area. Christian universalists are, too.

That is my only point.

I don’t necessarily think that all types f universalism are as dangerous as others.

Phil, forgive my ignorance but is that like saying “I like some shades of black, but others not so much.”

I am curious what you mean that some types of universalism aren’t “as dangerous” as others. How so?

Chad – can you, in a sentence or two (OK, a paragraph) summarize your view of Universalism without any couching? Just straight up?

132- Paul C, I think I have been pretty clear and “straight up” from the get-go.

Besides, I have my reservations that you are seriously hoping to understand as opposed to just wanting to find one more thing to judge.

Wanna know the first and best way to ENSURE a Muslim won’t hear what you have to say? Make your first remark to him or her one that disrespects and totally undercuts everything they have only known and believed all their life – chad.

i agree. and i see that you did not refer to the creator. yet, i would not go so far as to affirm that the one the muslim calls allah is the one true god.

I’m looking forward to hearing how you or anyone would respond to the Muslim who tells you that he believe Jesus is just a prophet, not divine, and that he only believes in the one true God, Allah.

i would tell him i believe otherwise.

i think creating conversations of what we would say is dangerous.

whether i believe it or not is irrelevant, telling him would serve no purpose.

Really? That is interesting.

So you may believe with all your heart and soul that the person you are talking to is bound for an eternity in hell and yet your telling him this would serve no purpose?

Then why believe it?

“Allah” is a shadow of the full, revealed truth we know as Yahweh.

Is this what you actually believe? That is completely untrue.

I am merely affirming their desire to worship a sovereign God. IOW, “Allah” is a shadow of the full, revealed truth we know as Yahweh.

i agree – allah is but a shadow… yet a shadow is not the real thing. I could not affirm to a muslim that allah is the god of the universe. i understand saying, What you say is unknown i will make known – but i believe you got too far in affirming Allah is actually the God of all the universe,

I will not disrespect a Muslim by stating emphatically, right off the bat, that their god is fake and my god is real. That will get me nowhere, fast.

i agree – again, strategy and truth – two different issues.

you want people to come to christ.

Yes. But just as much I want them to know Christ has come to them.

and you think that it’s best if they do.

Yes.

however, the ramification of not coming to christ are temporal

Not quite, but almost..see below.

ultimately, if they do not except christ, they will be “ok”

Depends on your definition of “ok.” I believe ALL will face judgement and this will not necessarily be pretty or easy or “ok.” Jesus said we will not get out “until” every last penny is paid. I’m not sure what it means exactly (we can only speculate) but I do know that standing before an Almighty and Holy God will be very hellish. The refining fire we will go through may be more than many of us wish to bear (but God will not put more on us than we can bear).

However, the harshness of God’s wrath will most likely fall on those of us who knew Christ in this life yet were luke warm. Jesus’ harshest words were always to the one’s who should have known better (think Nicodemus – you are a teacher of Israel and do not know this???) Or consider Israel as a whole. They always got the worst of it. Jesus said to those who have been given much, much will be expected.

God’s mercy is over all his works, Scripture says, and God desires none to be lost or perish. I believe that. I have hope in the coming Judgment because I know the Judge – the one who died for me and you and all the world and even said of his murderers, “forgive them.”

If anyone should fear the coming Judgment it should probably be those of us who feel we are already “ok.” Those of us we presume to not be “ok” will probably enter heaven before us (the whores, the sinners, the tax collectors). But yes, in the end, I think even the kings of the nations (the very people who are rejectors of Christ) will enter heavens gates (as Revelation announces towards the end) but this will be only because they have come to the full saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and their robes have been washed clean, like our own.

“Allah” is a shadow of the full, revealed truth we know as Yahweh.

Is this what you actually believe? That is completely untrue.

The muslim conception of a deity is absolutely a shadow. Just like the mormon, jehovah witnesses, and any other strain of a mono-theistic religion is shadows (a poor reflection) of the one true God.

Why is it so hard for others to understand Chad and I understand perfectly. He’s not a unitarian nor his a “all paths lead to God” believer.

Chad I don’t mean to defend you (you are certainly capable on your own) but it’s clear to me what you’re trying to say.

I am back. It does not matter if the opportunity is a “drive-by” (woman at the well, Phillipian jailer, Etheopian eunich, etc.) or whether it was in more depth. We must preach Christ accurately as well as compassionately.

I would tell that man who Jesus claimed to be, and when he informed me that he did not believe tha, I would lovingly and genuinely tell him that I would pray that Jesus would reveal Himself to him personally, and that he can call me at anytime for anything, even if it did not have anything to do with Jesus. I would close my conversation by telling him that this was not just a religious issue, but that this was an extremely important decision.

I would cloe with, “I love you with the love of Jesus”.

148 – thank you, Chris. Your interpretation of shadow/reflection is spot-on.

Rick, what I find fascinating about your hypothetical response to the Muslim is that as much as you go on and on and on about hell and heaven and that this is the focus of the gospel you say nothing of it to the Muslim.

#153 – Do you understand that although we may use the same verbiage, I am coming from a profoundly different perspective on eternal truth? And if that man called me later and inquired as to eternity, I am sure my answer would be dramatically different than if he calls you to inquire.

Mine would be an imperfect attempt to communicate the eternal implications of his decision concerning the Lord Jesus, while yours by definition would be a verbal dance, without teeth, and in the end – a lie. Sorry.

Neil – at what point would your strategy match up with your beliefs?

IOW, at what point would you actually tell a person they are going to hell? When you know them better?

I don’t really think it’s any of our jobs to tell anyone they’re going to hell.

I would tell someone that I believe there are consequences for rejecting God, and that they need to do some soul searching and ask themselves who or what they are in living for. I would tell them that true life can only be found in Christ and the settling for anything less is living a life that is less than they were created for.

Rick, what I find fascinating about your hypothetical response to the Muslim is that as much as you go on and on and on about hell and heaven and that this is the focus of the gospel you say nothing of it to the Muslim. – chad

chad,

somewhere along the line you have decided that if we believe this thing, we MUST bring it up in even the briefest of encounters.

you may think it odd not to.

you may not even understand how we could hold a thing and not bring it up.

but these are construct YOU need to deal with.

the question has been answered – it is a difference between truth and strategy.

I would tell someone that I believe there are consequences for rejecting God, and that they need to do some soul searching and ask themselves who or what they are in living for. I would tell them that true life can only be found in Christ and the settling for anything less is living a life that is less than they were created for. – phil

problem is, chad could say the exact same thing – yet mean something diametrically different.

Chad – As you have pointed out many messages in the New testament were not “hell, fire, and brimstone”, however without an understanding of eternity you cannot preach the gospel of Jesus Christ without making it a purely life help philosophy.

Then was Jesus wrong?

1″I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. 2The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. 3The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.” 6Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them.

7Therefore Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. 8All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. 9I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved.[a] He will come in and go out, and find pasture. 10The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

11″I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.

14″I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

19At these words the Jews were again divided. 20Many of them said, “He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?”

21But others said, “These are not the sayings of a man possessed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?”

There is no mention of eternity. I know, some will argue that you have to take the entirety of Jesus’ words. Agreed but to assume that everyone Jesus encountered he explained eternity to is not true.

somewhere along the line you have decided that if we believe this thing, we MUST bring it up in even the briefest of encounters.

No, Neil, I am not saying that. I asked you a fair question: WHEN would your strategy line up with your belief? I think you are dodging the question.

If you truly believe that one must confess Jesus Christ as their personal savior before they die or else they are heading for an eternity in hell I think it fair to wonder when that would come up in your evangelism. It is also fair to wonder why it doesn’t come up if you really believe it.

You guys rightly say (like Phil) that it is not our jobs to tell people they are going to hell or not. Yet you clearly believe that many are. That is like saying the building is on fire and everyone in it is going to die but it isn’t our job to tell them about the fire – lets just convince them to leave because of some other reason.

To me, that is a belief that is not lining up with how you actually live out the faith.

Let me be clear: If you truly believed people who don’t know Jesus are hell bound then that should be your biggest selling point and your primary one. It should also compel you to tell everyone you pass on the street (as PB does).

i wish i could embrace you optimism for the eternal state of everyone – but i cannot

That’s OK. If I may be honest, I feel sorry for people who have a less optimistic view of eternity. To me, that tarnishes the Gospel. The gospel is good news for the world – this includes those who never even hear the name “Jesus” in their lifetimes. I am filled with a sense of awe and wonder at the majesty of this God who IS love and who is relentless in his pursuit of his creation.

Any gospel that proclaims less than that is one that isn’t really, truly, good news.

problem is, chad could say the exact same thing – yet mean something diametrically different.

I suppose.

I guess my “problem” with talking about hell as it pertains to evangelism is that using a negative motivation seems to a very poor strategy to me, and actually my experience has been that the vast majority of people who respond to that sort of thing quickly forget about it change their minds. Fear is kind of an “in the moment” emotion, so if a person stops feeling that emotion for whatever reason, than it seems they will simply return to their old life.

I liken it to this. I don’t suspect my wife would appreciate it too much if I told the reason I married her was that I wanted to avoid being single for the rest of life. And actually that reason was the furthest thing from my mind when I asked her to marry me. So I wonder if i doesn’t sorta kinda offend God when people say avoiding hell is the only reason they want to have a relationship with Him.

It seems to me that evangelism is primarily announcing to people the God loves them and has shown that love through the death and resurrection of Christ, and He now invites them into the life they were created for. Of course just with every invitation, there are consequences for rejecting that invitation, but I think that the Holy Spirit still will convict people about these. If someone straight up asks me what I think the consequences of rejection are, I would not hesitate to give them a few examples from Scripture. I would also say that I believe that according to Scripture, that continued rebellion and rejection has severe consequences and that the longer a person walks down that path, the harder it is to turn back. And it seems from Scripture that there are many who walk down that path for so long, that they can never turn back.

So I guess I see hell as something a person traps themselves in for all eternity, rather than something that God traps a person in.

Who will accuse me of telling sinners they will burn in hell? Who can suggest that I communicate condemnation and derision to the most flagrent of gay activists?

But I cannot tell them that without Jesus they are just missing a more fulfilling life here on earth. I admit the gospel should reshape our life and thoughts, but some have made this world an idol. It will burn one day and a new orld, more glorious than any man can imagine, will be created by the Creator and ruled in glory by the Redeemer Creator.

Not all will be there, and in fact, most will not.

Chad – As I have noticed previously, you are very slippery.

I believe (again answering for Chad) that God the father allowed, as in nothing comes into existence without His consent, the birth of Islam. Which leaves me with; why did God allow it rather than who created it?

Very different perspective.

I believe there are plenty of things in the world that are not the will of God.

I don’t want to get into yet another topic, but this is probably the main reason as to why the work of open theist theologians is appealing to me. It seems to the only other valid answer to evil than “God allowed” or “God planned it”.

you are assuming what we should do based on our belief. i am saying your assumption is not universal.

And I am saying that this is universally hogwash.

Neil, are you seriously trying to make an argument for dualism in the sense that it is rational and normal for a person to not do what they believe?

OF COURSE I am assuming we should do based on what we believe!

Perhaps my only mistake is assuming that you assume this too.

you have also switched gears. you initially asked if i would bring it up in a drive-by… then you say “It is also fair to wonder why it doesn’t come up if you really believe it.” – well – it probably would… but not as you think it must.

Which is why I asked you WHEN would it come up and how? I have given you every opportunity to describe what a conversation would look like and you haven’t done so.

At what point in your relationship with a person would you tell a person the truth about their destiny, that they are going to hell?

Isn’t the argument that people not living up to a claimed belief or being somewhat hypocritical in the application of a belief doesn’t change the truth or falseness of a belief what you argued in the global warming thread?

Phil, as I have maintained throughout, I don’t expect anything of politicians, certainly those who are not professing Christians.

My standards for those who speak for Jesus are higher.

However, I would be more than gracious if Neil would simply admit that he believes they are going to hell but doesn’t have the guts to tell them this. I could understand that.

What I won’t allow to slide, however, is the insistence that we do not have to do what we believe, or the corollary, that we can believe something we do not do. That is hogwash.

Scripture is pretty clear: We really only truly believe that which we are doing. (ie – faith without works is dead)

Which is why I asked you WHEN would it come up and how?

and i believe i answered that – it probably would come up in due time… i cannot answer past that since it is hypothetical.

181 – and your M.O of accusing me of condescension when you don’t want to answer my questions is dully noted.

WOW – seriously? now this is my MO?

i have answered you every question. if you are not satisfied with them that is not my problem.

i am not going to further engage you in a pissing match about who answered who’s questions.

geesh!

Whatever, Neil.

Do you deny that there are not commenters here who have declared that the gospel is all about our eternal destiny?

fortunately i am not one of them.

Do you deny that there are not commenters here who have declared that the gospel is all about our eternal destiny?

No, of course I wouldn’t deny that. But you seem to be lumping everyone who doesn’t agree with you into the same category.

In reality, I think there’s more diversity of belief on this particular issue here than you’re giving people credit for. Really, the techniques you’re using in these discussions aren’t much different than a politician who tries to paint his opponent as an extremist in the opposite ideological direction as him.

It seems to me that we would well to acknowledge the fact there are spectrum of beliefs regarding these different theological issues.

Yes, I am one who believes the gospel is overwhelmingly about eternal life. It may begin here, but the majority will be experienced after physical death. And I also believe there will be billions who will one day wish that more followers of Jesus made it more about eternity than earthly issues.

“What does that say about the God you worship?”

Neither you nor I have the insight, wisdom, or right to create God according to what I think. What does it say about the God we worship when He has the power to deliver hungry children who will die today and yet He watches it all happen?

These kind of questions reveal our pitiful and incomplete perspective of God. We must searcg the Scriptures for they reveal Christ to us. Everything else is conjecture at best and false imagery at worst.

With the above in mind, does it not bother any of you that your theology insists that a person’s ignorance during such a vaporous, temporary and fleeting moment is the determinative factor in where they will spend time without end?

Not in the least. We deserve nothing, so the availability of His grace during that “fleeting moment” (which, to us is quite long, since we’ve got a poor concept of the length of eternity) is more than sufficient.

What does that say about the God you worship?

That He is love, that He is just, and that He is a God of order who keeps His promises.

Really?

What is loving and just about a God who sends the ignorant to an eternity in hell for an ignorance maintained during a mere moment compared to all of time?

We deserve nothing

That doesn’t really say anything. Sure, none of us “deserve” anything but that is not to say God still saw fit to send Jesus to die for us. Obviously, God saw something worth saving.

Even sinners are loved by God – so to say we “deserve” nothing means little.

so the availability of His grace during that “fleeting moment” (which, to us is quite long, since we’ve got a poor concept of the length of eternity) is more than sufficient.

What does that mean, “more than sufficient?” Are you talking about “saving” grace? If it is “more than sufficient” than why does it not save all? Why is it not available to all?

I am not suggesting God cannot do what God will do. But I still would like to know how it does not bother you that this God who is love, who is best revealed to us in Jesus Christ, is in the end a God who holds an eternal grudge and refuses to forgive, sends billions to an ETERNITY in hell for ignorance that lasted for just a blink of an eye in comparison.

God sends no one. It is a divine law of justice which has always been a mystery. But let us examine the overarching narrative and see if it passes your “this cannot be God” smell test.

Why couldn’t an all powerful God just make a “not guilty” decree? Why all the melodrama; why all the blood; and why does He send His own Son to die such a horrible death?

Could it be to satisfy this ogre’s justice? The justice He could have avoided by adding one less “free will” micro-chip in Adam? So God knew Adam would sin before He created him, but His hands were tied and He couldn’t tweet the creation before the horror began?

What kind of a sick and twisted divine narcissist gets this ball rolling and watches a panorama of the worst suffering anyone can imagine? And then decides that His justice can only be satisfied by some more blood and guts?

You see, Chad, once you start down the “this can’t be God” street it becomes an endless labyrinth of human logic, not an enlightened overthrow of some of the more distaseful aspect of God’s sovereign nature and written Scripture.

And to summarize what has occured:

A perfect God hasn’t just created an imperfect creation; He has made an unspeakable monstrosity that is steeped in huamn death and suffering.

You are now presented with only two options:

* You must trust that God knows what you do not and has revealed what you need to know.

or

* You cannot reconcile what you think is fair with what Scripture teaches and so you process the Scriptures through your perspective.

Perhaps your cause in noble, however things can appear noble which eventually turn out to be massively deceptive. (I will refrian from invoking a Jim Jones reference)

Why the subjective distinction?

It’s not subjective but rooted in Scripture. One day the lion and the lamb will lie down together. One day there will be no more war but we will beat our weapons into plows. One day all the tears will be wiped from every eye – mourning and crying will be no more, death will be no more, for the first things have passed away.

My faith is rooted in a God who saves. THIS is what God does. Jesus came not to condemn the world but to save it.

My faith is rooted in a God who is in the business of bringing all the world back to rights.

So I have no problems reconciling your issues. You, however, have the unenviable position of having to reconcile a God whom you believe to be a saving God, not a damning one; a loving and forgiving God, not a spiteful, hateful, begrudging God with the notion that this God will in the end send billions to hell for all eternity for their ignorance during a 70 year time span.

Can you not admit, at least from a purely rational, logical standpoint, how that image of God does not line up with who we find in Jesus, who forgave even the very people who killed him?

During the meeting at Wannsee, Germany to deicde the Final Solution, Dr. Kritzinger argued for total steriliztion and against murdering the Jews. General Heydrich replied,

“So starve them, impoverish them, sterilize them, and take away their freedom but do not kill them and you are God’s noblest of creatures? I find that…remarkable.”

Your reading of Scriptures leaves you and me with no agreeable reference point.

Rick, what is just and loving about damning billions to hell for all eternity because of 70 years of ignorance?

Please, explain that.

Rick,
And for someone who has a doctrine of hell as you do I’d expect you to have an answer to that question. So what would you say to the atheist?

Here is another one:

According to your doctrine of hell, as I understand it, Hitler, who killed 6 million Jews, will have the same sentence as the 18 year old girl who died of rape and torture and never heard the name “Jesus” in her short, hellish life. BOTH will spend an ETERNITY in hell according to your idea of God’s “justice” and “love.”

Please, explain that to me?

chad,

i apologize for losing my temper yesterday. i do believe i answered your questions and dodged none – if you believe this is not the case and care for an answer, please list any that you believe i dodged and i will answer them.

though it is no excuse, your implication that my actions do not line up with my beliefs (is that not the definition of hypocrisy) served as a tipping point for my anger.

i try to see things from your pov even when we disagree. i would ask you to understand how i can believe a person is going to hell and yet, not feel the need to tell them that in a drive-by conversation.

all that said, i lost my temper and time has shown me such – for that i apologize.

You have accurately outlined our finite understanding of all things divine and utter and complete reliance upon divine revelation to give us a small glimpse into the mysteries we call truth.

What we call justice, love, and God Himself are pitiful caricatures when compared with the actual realities. And so we should, we MUST, be completely tethered to His revelation to us. Our mental consternations and human sensibilities can never compete with God’s Word.

If we jettison Scripture either wholesale or by interpretive manipulation, we have entered the hall of mirrors where our contemplative contructs become our guideposts, and in fact, the idols before which we bow.

And please do not place me the average orthodox crowd who relish in judgment and look forward to seeing souls thrown into hell. Just as I do believe that heaven’s gates are not made with oyster spit, so I do not believe in a literal fire either.

I openly and publicly admit I do not know what hell is like, but I do know that the Scriptures teach that eternity has two distinct dwelling places, one infinitely good and the other infinitely bad. And there will be souls in both.

“Neil, thank you for the first honest answer.”

You, my friend, are self indulgent. The FIRST honest answer?

Goofball. (yes, Jerry, you are correct)

one infinitely good and the other infinitely bad. And there will be souls in both.

How is it loving or just to send both Hitler and the ignorant teen girl to the “infinitely bad” place for eternity?

Neil, thank you for the first honest answer.

Translation: Everybody who won’t answer my false-dilemmas the way I want them to is a liar.

221- yet another example of not answering the question.

I did answer the question. You just don’t happen to like it (or the truth).

I suppose if you wanted a fuller answer, I could just post Job 40, since it contains the answer a bit more fully, as well…

Neil, thank you for the first honest answer. – chad

i am not sure ow to take this. are you saying all my previous answers were dishonest? Are you saying everyone else who answered differently was being dishonest?

I openly admit I was sucked in once again into a disingenuous interaction which I had mistakenly assumed was between honest men who respected each other’s honest opinion. And once again I discovered my intellect is no match for Chad’s and my game of comment dodge ball was uncovered by his intuitive judgment.

This comment, of course, was meant to deflect the issue of universalism since I have no substantive perspective. All I have are dodge balls!

re 217:

chad, i also read no further. i came back today in a spirit of embarrassment for how i responded to you yesterday. i apologized. i answered you question (as others have).

yet, just like yesterday, you have rejected all answers except the one you have pre-determined to be correct… and all other answers are rejected as dodges.

i do not understand how someone who is so caring of others in so many ways, is so hostile, judgmental, and vindictive when it comes to us who disagree theologically.

do you not see how you have judged our motives?

do you not see how you have decided we must be hypocrites?

do you not see how you have asked us questions, then rejected the answers as dishonest because you disagree?

it is unfair and arrogant to decide someone’s opinion must be dishonest just because you cannot see how such an opinion can be held.

And with a “grow up” to boot!

This could now become a “humor thread” since it has lost all semblance of serious discourse.

“Humor, I love it!!” (Commander Data)

The last time I heard the term “circle jerk” was in 9th grace as we giggled in the boys locker room. And I am commanded to grow up??

The internet – I love it!!!

You could say: No, it does not bother me and here is why….Neil was the ONLY one who answered the question, being honest about it being something that bothered him.

case in point.

chri l. did answer “no it does not bother me and here is why…” but you reject his opinion as dishonest.

i answered that it did and i am honest.

see? you have decided that there is only one honest answer… and even though both rick (cf. 196) and chris (cf. 198) did answer you call them dishonest because you do like, or cannot reconcile, their opinions.

your responses are making me think you were being dishonest when you said the question was being asked with sincerity.

if you ask for an opinion with sincerity, you would not call someone a liar if their opinion does not match yours.

re 235:

seriously chad, i think you are just looking for a fight. i tried, i really really tried! i came here today and apologized and you ignored that and chose to maintain your hostility.

i do not understand your anger.

i do not understand you thinking we are laughing at your expense.

apparently my pleas of comment 234 have been rejected as well – in favor of name-calling and continued hostility.

If I was God I would not have a “hell”. I would allow everyone into heaven.

Alert: I am not God.

I do not hear you!

(he says with fingers in ears)

You are right. I do find your answers dishonest and disingenuous.

then i have no option but to also find your asking of questions to be insincere… when someone asks a question having already decided but one answer can be honest – the asking IS NOT sincere.

the fact that you have decided to show me less grace than you say we should show to “outsiders” is heartbreaking.

Scotty – You remember the circlejerk joke back in the day, right?
I haven’t heard it since high school, and I graduated in 1970!

Nastalgia!!

‘68 for me, Rick…..

i guess i must live with that decision.

I guess so.

but why?

why can you not acknowledge my apology?
why can you not acknowledge that chris and rick have given honest answers even if you think they are wrong?

there is a difference between being wrong and being honest – right?

instead of calling someone dishonest or hypocritical – why not just disagree?

instead of saying the question was dodged – why not just argue the point?

“He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

12And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

13I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

14Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

15For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.”

‘course, using revelation as a basis of a theology is tentative at best.

are you assuming the kings in 21:24 are the same as in 19:19? if so, on what is this based…given the judgment of 19?

Well, the question was directed to Rick for a reason (he ignored it). Rick is emphatic that government is “antichrist.” I wanted to know how he reconciles that with the fact that the “kings of the earth” bring their “glory” into the New Jerusalem.

They may or may not be the same kings from 19:19. I do not know. What is striking, regardless, is the fact that the entire book of Revelation is an indictment on empire and the “kings” and yet before the final curtain call they very things and people that throughout we have been led to believe are evil are in fact entering the Kingdom. Of course, by this point their robes will have been washed white, presumably they have undergone some sort of “chastisement,” for nothing unclean will enter.

Rick has maintained that the “powers” of government are antichrist. I have said they can act antichrist but they are not beyond redemption.

The fact that the kings one day enter glory evidence that either antichrists are allowed into heaven OR the “powers” are redeemable as well, just like humans.

262 – ok fine. that is an argument you have with rick. and i too have argued with rick regarding his view of gov’t.

but this does not address MY issues with your interpretation.

Neil,

As for 21:27, is it not probable that once a period of judgment or refinement (fire is notoriously a symbol of refinement in Scripture) that their names will be in the Lamb’s book of life?

So yes, nothing unclean will enter. And yes, your name must be in the Lamb’s book of life. I see no reason to assume that will not at some point include everyone.

I think a key to understand this is found in 2:11. Keep in mind this book is written to Christians, to give them hope in time of persecution. John, a good pastor, is exhorting them to remain strong and faithful. In 2:11, he says that if they do remain faithful, they will not be HURT by the second death.

An argument can be made (again) that being “hurt” is a season of chastisement or punishment. John seems to say that if we remain faithful we can bypass this age of refinement.

Being “hurt” by something is a far cry from everlasting torment. Also, on what Scriptural grounds can it be established that the second death as “death” is not included in the “last enemy” that will be destroyed? (1 Cor. 15:26).

But I also agree with you Neil, in that making or breaking a theology based solely on Revelation is dubious at best. We need to be careful here. So I am not willing to say there is a bullet proof verse in Rev that proves universalism anymore than I would want to hear someone say there is a bullet proof verse that disproves it.

“is it not probable that once a period of judgment or refinement (fire is notoriously a symbol of refinement in Scripture) that their names will be in the Lamb’s book of life?”

It will only be probable if a sinner can be justifed by his own sufferings rather than the sufferings of Christ.

why speak of those who will not enter, if there are none?

Because there will be a period where certain ones will not enter.

22:14 seems to suggest that those who are left “outside” can be “blessed” if they wash their robes and enter, where they “will have a right to the tree of life and may enter the city by the gates.”

To say “Blessed are those who wash their robes” seems to imply that those who are found unclean have an opportunity to be cleaned.

there is nothing temporary or chastising about the second death.

How do you know that?

Will death ultimately be defeated or not?

those who overcome will not even be hurt by it.

Correct. But even believers will be judged by their works. Those who remain faithful will not be hurt by this second death. But the fact that John is writing to the Church (believers) and assumes that some could be “hurt” by the second death, implies that they could be judged in a way that won’t be very pleasant for them if they do anything less than conquer.

If Rev.22:14-15 can be interpreted as Chad suggested, then Scripture can mean anything and nothing simultaneously.

Please note the word “speculated” which seems to be the operative word concerning all the doctrines of universalism. Cull out a verse, even from Revelation, attach your imagination, and let it take you where you were going anyway.

As I have said before, universalism is the other side of the doctrinal coin where Calvinism is imprinted. Just the word “elect” reveals a distinction among sinners.

If Rev.22:14-15 can be interpreted as Chad suggested, then Scripture can mean anything and nothing simultaneously.

This is what I would call making an idol of one’s own interpretative grid.

Rick has put all his eggs into the basket that insists the main (if not the only) intent of the gospel is to separate those who are heaven bound from those who are hell bound. It’s all about eternity.

Therefore, the veracity of all of Scripture rises or falls on how intact this interpretation stays. Anything that threatens this interpretation must be cut off at the knees or else “all” of Scripture is pointless.

And nothing could be further from reality.

Actually, Rick, it’s less to do with what is primal (this world or the next – I would agree with you that the next is far more important) but about who is primal (man or God).

In the end, I believe God will get everything God desires. And as it turns out, God desires a whole helluva lot.

He certainly did not get His way in Eden, and pretty much from that day on.

Ah, yeah. So let’s therefore reason that God is impotent and will never get his way. Great theory!

I wonder what the missionary martyrs will think when they see that everyone was saved anyway?

I imagine they will do what all of us will do – fall to our knees and worship.

Rick, who do you think the people are in Rev. 22:14? Why are they there? How did they get there? Did they some how fall through the cracks during the preceding judgements?

Why are these people allowed to mingle around just outside the city gates?

The elect?

The elect?

I don’t think so. Presumably they are already in the city. “Outside” is everyone else. Yet they are still considered “blessed” for washing their robes and coming in to partake of what everyone else is partaking.

i’m a “hopeful comment thread universalist”…i hope all comment threads can be redeemed into a fruitful discussion.

i’m hoping this one can still continue…

but, yeeesh, all that icky in the middle was…well…icky….

But if you don’t really care about Scripture when it disagrees with your own sentiments, then do you really care about it at all?

Shucks, I guess I have been found out. How very astute of you, Chris L.

Saying it’s an inevitability really makes Creation nothing more than a game of divine Solitaire.

Well, should it turn out that all are saved in the end, you can take your beef up with God.

Well, should it turn out that all are saved in the end, you can take your beef up with God.

And if the moon is made of green cheese, we’ll be able to feed the planet.

Re: “not caring about Scripture” – things only become stereotypes if there is a frequent level of truth in them. In your particular case, you demonstrate your utter disdain for what’s actually in Scripture in pretty much every thread your choose to bless/curse us with your presence. Just the literary gymnastics you’ve demonstrated in this thread have led Mary Lou Retton to weep in envy.

I cannot claim any corner on correct Scriptural interpretation, but it does not take a spiritual giant to recognize something’s amiss when the court jester declares a pile of skubala to be creme broulee.

“Just the literary gymnastics you’ve demonstrated in this thread have led Mary Lou Retton to weep in envy.”

You continue to expand the parameters of your metaphorical prowess. I may steall this one too.

“what does PB have to do with the oxymoron of divinity school with a Muslim on its board”?

There is no Muslim on the Divinity staff. PB has tried to play the GBA card on this – numerous times.

You are just an ODM mouthpiece anymore.

22:14 seems to suggest that those who are left “outside” can be “blessed” if they wash their robes and enter, where they “will have a right to the tree of life and may enter the city by the gates.”

To say “Blessed are those who wash their robes” seems to imply that those who are found unclean have an opportunity to be cleaned.- 270

What do you make of 22:14-15? – 273

i think you are missing or ignoring a clear shift in the text.

22:7 starts a new section, the epilogue, with repeated promises and warnings and blessings. 22:1-6 finish the vision and 22:7-21 is the conclusion or salutation.

there is no way i would agree that this is some secondary entering following sequentially.

the test just does not support that.

#296
Quit bearing false witness. I never said that.

Even if there were, I doubt that Chad or anyone else going there would care.

You are either lying PB or you have a short memory.

You embarrassed yourself in the past by claiming you read a book in B&N by a Duke Div prof who was connected to the Jesus Seminar or something (Goodyear or whatever his name was) only to be shown that he was not part of the Div staff. You then went on and on about how a Muslim was on staff.

It’s the same GBA garbage that this site USED to denounce. But Chris L seems to be the new head of ODM land. He’s no different than Chris R. or Ken Silva, IMO.

303- Neil, I suggest you go back and read the comments carefully and what prompted that. I hardly think you are an objective voice here.

It’s the same GBA garbage that this site USED to denounce. But Chris L seems to be the new head of ODM land. He’s no different than Chris R. or Ken Silva, IMO.

well, ok then.

i would think you are not serious… but maybe you are.

if you cannot see any difference between even pb and chris l – let alone chris r or silva… well that would explain a lot.

but since i think you are just being argumentative…

Neil – this is why I say you are not objective. You can’t honestly read Chris L’s last many comments and not see PB or Silva or Chris R in them

chad,

just like the comment i referenced in 303, 302 is too hyperbolic.

in 308 you say “You can’t honestly read Chris L’s last many comments and not see PB or Silva or Chris R in them”

but seeing pb or chris r (for the sake of argument) in some of chris l’s comments is a far cry different than “he’s no different than…”

chad,

since we are talking nice like… i have a few questions – in sincerity.

[and please, no one else be snarky]

have you ever acknowledged you were wrong in a thread?

have you ever apologized?

have you ever acknowledged someone else’s attempt to be nice?

in a sense, and i apologize in advance, you remind me of pastorboy, only on the other extreme.

there is no sense of exploration in your comments… there is little or no gray or unknown or mystery.

you have all the answers and can not be taught.

in a thread a long time ago i pestered you about how old you are. i thought you sounded young…

…like i was my third year of seminary when i was young and knew all the answers… when i had a system.

i know how this sounds. and i am sorry. but between brothers, may i suggest you allow yourself to question your assumptions and be teachable by those who you may not agree with.

or at least play nicer.

and to mop up a point: i do not think john says that christians can be hurt by the second death.

it will no how effect them, that is his point.

big picture; there will be those who die a second time (again, whatever that means) and there will be those who will not even be hurt by it.

But allowing unbelievers in a position of authority

You are as dense as PB, and just as blind.

No one can read the Scriptures literally and believe that everyone will be eternally saved.

Translation: Anyone who interprets Scripture differently than me is wrong.

Apparently around here “play nicer” means that you are not allowed to expose the truth that the emperor is without clothes, that the head writer here is no different from the people he has for so long written against. He has become what he has hated.

He, however, can say whatever he damn well pleases and his fellow writers here will nod, laugh, giggle and say amen. But if you dare call them on it, you will be told to “play nice.”

I just love the smell of irony in the morning.

Chad – Chris does go over the line sometimes, but I love creative verbaige when I find it. Kinda like:

“I just love the smell of irony in the morning.”

Very good. Oh, let me note also that you go over the line as well. Suggesting that all my comments were not honest was much worse than the Mary Lou Retton metaphor – much worse.

Apology accepted. But let me be open and honest. I admit a person can be a true born again believer in Jesus Christ and teach universalism.

But I believe that teaching is a profound heresy with many eternal consequences for some unbelievers.

Pure honesty.

BTW – One man’s honest answer seems to be a dodge for another man. Such is the complex nature of language and different understandings of logic and communication.

One more thing, Rick…

My comment to Neil about being the first honest answer to a particular question was meant more as an olive branch towards Neil because he and I had a short spat earlier in the discussion. Perhaps I should have chosen my words better. Everyone seemed to enjoy pouncing on that, though, as further evidence that I am nothing more than a moron being taught by Muslims. Surely you can appreciate what it might feel like being bombarded at all angles by 4 or 5 commenters all at once. Or maybe you can’t. I dunno.

“Surely you can appreciate what it might feel like being bombarded at all angles by 4 or 5 commenters all at once.”

Research the archives. I have been there, and I have gotten my feelings hurt as well. It’s difficult for me to acknowledge that since I strive to maintain an aura of intellectual superiority as well as emotional stability.

Both of those constucts sometimes crumble and need repair.

Neil,

I wish I could say I’m surprised.

I wish I could say I’m surprised.

by what? my disappointment? you called my post drivel – how was i not to be disappointing?

Neil,
It is completely lost on you how I might have a valid argument that Chris L is no different from the ways the ODM’s argue and your silence in the matter makes you complicit as a fellow writer here.

Until you can acknowledge that your “sincere” attempts to paint me as some hostile, unapologetic, closed-minded person is nothing more than drivel.

333- There is no Muslim on the faculty at DUKE DIVINITY (which is a thoroughly CHRISTIAN seminary whose mission is, from its website:

Duke Divinity School’s mission is to engage in spiritually disciplined and academically rigorous education in service and witness to the Triune God in the midst of the church, the academy, and the world. We strive to cultivate a vibrant community through theological education on Scripture, engagement with the living Christian tradition, and attention to and reflection on contemporary contexts in order to form leaders for faithful Christian ministries.

The Muslim in question is a CHAPLAIN who is faculty of Duke UNIVERSITY (which is not the DIVINITY School). The University has many chaplains – A Jewish one, a Muslim one, Christian ones, and others.

The only reason he is listed on the site is because he teaches some classes on Islamic studies in the school of religion which is located near the Div School. He is useful there in that if you desire to be a missionary as a CHRISTIAN to a MUSLIM land you just MIGHT want to learn about ISLAM. I have never seen this person nor does he teach classes in the Seminary so if you would like to take a class from him you’d have to have some particular interest in that area of studies.

THIS has been stated before when PB made the same GBA argument about me and Duke. Chris L is just another mouthpiece for the same crap.

And again, EVEN IF HE WAS ON STAFF THERE it would not add anything to Chris L’s argument, unless you guys are all just another ODM stooge.

Real bad.

What is “real bad” about any of that?

You guys sound like a bunch of fundamentalists.

Yuck.

339 – Umm, yep. So what? Duke University is a big university and guess what? There are some Muslims there!! Hurry! Hide your children before they get eaten!!

He’s a Muslim Chaplain, Rick, hired by the university (not the Divinity school) to be a chaplain.

Are you just as opposed to a Jewish chaplain?

Seriously, you guys are sounding completely irrational.

Maybe the university should discriminate against religious preferences and tell the Muslims on campus that if they want pastoral care they have to go see a Christian.

I have a new appreciation for UNC Basketball.

Full disclosure:

There was this one day during our Old Testament class that the Jewish Rabbi who is one of Duke Universities chaplains, came in to guest lecture for 45 minutes about how Jews read the Hebrew Scriptures.

The class WAS comprised of 100 professing Christians before this lecture but afterwards 60% converted to Judaism.

I believe it is a planned coup.

Did those 100 professing Christians believe that Jewish Rabbi was saved or lost?

Did those 100 professing Christians believe that Jewish Rabbi was saved or lost?

I didn’t ask and I don’t have the gift of omniscience. Sorry.

Of course, if they did believe that then they wouldn’t really be Christians, right?

the “muslim at Duke” thing is a fake issue.

Merry Christmas!!!

#353 – I agree, especially in the context of a better understanding to effect a better evangelistic outreach. But this is unacceptable:

“His work at Duke focuses on three primary areas: religious leadership for Duke’s Muslim community; pastoral care and counseling for persons of any faith, or of no ascribed faith; and intra- and interfaith work.”

HA!

You guys are hilarious.

I feel like I must have caught a ride on Fineas and Ferb’s time machine and ended up in Salem in 1692!!

Merry Christmas!