More Active Posts
Front Page
The religion that tickles
 |
 90 Comments |
A friend from church hosts a women’s Bible study in her home every week, and makes an effort to invite women from outside her immediate circle of friends. One of these women, after attending a few meetings, came to her, troubled. “Are you saying,” she asked, “that Jesus is the only way to get into Heaven?” The poor woman felt that in this stricture the Lord was being a bit exclusionary. What about well-meaning Buddhists and kind-hearted Muslims?
This woman is a member of a large and well-known Christian denomination, which in recent years has taken to marketing itself as the church with open doors and minds. Thinking it still adhered to the Nicene Creed, however, my friend urged the woman to ask her pastor if she wanted confirmation of this basic tenet.
The woman met with her pastor, and came away with the impression that yes, Heaven’s doors are wide and accommodating. This Jesus thing is all well and good, but what really matters is the love in your heart/how much you give back/[insert inoffensive pop psychological aphorism here].
So the woman stopped attending the Bible study. Apparently her open mind can handle anything but closed mindedness. There’s no telling what her pastor actually said to her. At the very least, we can surmise that his teaching ability is less than adequate. I’m sure it has a pleasant tickle, though.
I find, when I think about some muddle-headedness like this long enough, that I am frequently just as guilty of it. So I began to sum up all the ways I put conditions on God, just as this woman did. Don’t ask me to do that, Lord. Please don’t expect me to believe this. Let’s be reasonable.
But the shaper of the earth, the whisperer amidst the storm, the redeemer of fools and bull-headed sinners is anything but reasonable, it seems, at least by my standards. If it were all just a hoax, it would seem that the fashioners of this religion would have done a bit to smooth down its rough edges. But it seems the early church fathers did precisely the opposite, with all this talk of bodily resurrection and a divine trinity and other such unreasonable notions.
I suppose we’ve left it to their weak-willed and marketing-minded inheritors to make it all more palatable, lest we run anyone off, as if their belief were up to us in the first place.
 |
Topic: Editor's Choice, Front Page, Odds & Ends |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: christianity, religion |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
While it’s conceivable, and Biblical, that God will save those who have never heard of Jesus, the Bible is very clear that he won’t save those who, having heard about him, reject him.
“Try the United Methodist Church. It’s hardly like church at all!”
Dante muses in the Paradise that perhaps those who have never heard of Jesus still understand the need for divine grace and are saved. Many are the nooks and crannies of the love of the LORD.
That of course leaves no excuse for much of the modern world, with the now widespread gospel message. The agnostics see the nooks and crannies, but choose to stay outside of them, comfortably in the middle, and then lose the grace of God.
It’s a hard saying, but softened by His mercy.
John Newton said:
“When I get to heaven, I shall see three wonders there. The first wonder will be to see many there whom I did not expect to see; the second wonder will be to miss many people who I did expect to see; and the third and greatest of all will be to find myself there.”
Did not Jesus himself make it abundantly clear that He is THE way THE life THE truth, and that none come to the Father but through Him?
How can any denom or seminary wordmeister play definitional games with so plain and clear a declaration??
Sounds as if the visitor to the Bible study is content with an inoffensive mushy god who wont make exclusivity claims. Sadly, she will get just that at the church she goes to.
I think Roger said it best.
This is a problem for Americans. Under our Constitution, in our secular life, we accept compromise to get along. But we can’t accept compromise when it comes to our faith in Christ, which is why the secularists look down on us rather than promote the free exercise clause.
I am mindful of those verses where Jesus says that there will be those who come to him and say we did this in your name, etc., but Christ will say, depart from me. I think Jesus was very clear that he — and he alone — is the way. You either believe in the one true God or you don’t. You either accept Jesus for who he is or you don’t.
Exclusivists have to decide what is true about God:
Is his love imperfect? Or is it his power that fails?
Because make no mistake, if so much as one person is in hell for eternity, God has failed.
And think about why it is so important to you to believe that only some make it to heaven. Why do YOU need hell?
And lastly … how can heaven be heaven if people you love aren’t there with you and in fact are writhing in torment for all eternity? How can you be happy in heaven if your spouse or parent or child is in hell?
How can God’s love for you be real and full if he doesn’t equally love those you love?
I recommend Thomas Talbott’s The Inescapable Love of God and Gregory MacDonald’s Evangelical Universalism, and I do so knowing not one of you will take me seriously.
#7 SteveG…I take you seriously Steveg and wrestle with the same dilemma. However, it is just as foolish to assume everyone will get to heaven as it is to judge who will not. That decision is left to God and God alone. None of us here on earth with our myopic understanding can conceive a valid answer to the questions you pose above. Why? Because none of us still breathing has been to the other side to find out how logic or our thought processes will work in heaven or hell.
One thing I know. God is compassionate. And because He is, we can rest assured that He will do whatever it takes to bring all of His children home (”But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. - 2 Peter 3:8-9). However, some will simply refuse to go for whatever reason; most probably pride. In fact, Jesus even states that many will do all kinds of things in His name, but that He will not know them. I think He may mean those who are so quick to judge rather than forgive, but I can’t say for certain.
So in the meantime, I can only do but one thing and that is to try and love everyone (yes, even the Muslims and Buddhists and Atheists) as Jesus would love them, pray for their salvation and do whatever I can to serve the One True Living God in the redemption of His Creation. I can’t imagine anyone being condemned to Hell; that is, eternal separation from God. Yet, many will wish that once they stand in His presence and come to a full understanding of who He is in comparison to us. At that point, I think we will then fully understand how desparately we need a Savior and that, I believe, is what Jesus meant when he said “No one comes to the Father except through me”.
Steve: It is clear that you still don’t understand God’s justice, the Cross, and the free will of man. Yet you expect people to take Universalism seriously.
No Tychicus, it’s you who do not understand.
Justice is JUST. And there is no human sin for which ETERNAL torment is a just punishment.
Free will need not end at the grave.
And as for the cross, that is how God reconciled THE WORLD to Himself, according to Paul. Not part of the world. Not bits of the world. The whole world.
Also according to Paul: Sin applies to ALL men because of Adam and salvation applies to ALL men because of Christ. This is a deliberate parallelism of his, so if you want to argue that he really doesn’t mean all are saved, then you have to justify why he doesn’t also mean that not all are under sin. Whether “all” means literally all or only some, it means the same thing in both cases.
I don’t expect you to take universalism seriously. Exclusivists have a need to believe that many people are doomed to an eternity of torment.
But I do expect serious people to take universalism seriously, and many do. (Even some who ultimately don’t accept it take it seriously enough to consider in some depth.)
Universalism was the predominant view of the early church until Augustine and Constantine in the AD 400s. Origen, Gregory of Nyssa and a number of other promient scholars taught it.
However, because I don’t expect anyone here to take it seriously apart from those who may already be sympathetic to this view (Jon Rowe, perhaps), I do not plan to defend it here.
I’ve recommended two very good books that show from the Bible and from logic how universalism is not only defensible, but actually the least problematic of the main ways people interpret the salvation story. People who are interested can order them both for $30 or so from Amazon.com. People who aren’t interested can go on thinking whatever they want to think.
SteveG,
I was under the impression that you were an atheist, or at least an agnostic. That you are a universalist sheds new light on things. You are evidently in pretty good company. I think CS Lewis had universalist leanings as well as some other writes who are highly regarded by current evangelicals…
Not that I’m in agreement or anything, just slightly more in agreement than I was… possibly.
Paul certainly seemed in anguish for his fellow Jews in Romans 9. Why, if they were all saved anyway?
God demands more of those He blesses with more knowledge. He will save those He chooses to save. He is both all loving and almighty. His justice will finally be shown and no one will be able to question it.
Justice is JUST. And there is no human sin for which ETERNAL torment is a just punishment.
Steve: Justice IS just. But you and I don’t make the rules. God [Jesus] is the Creator and Judge, and He makes the rules.
What does it actually mean that God is just? God cannot turn His back on sin. He can’t ignore it. We all stand guilty before Him b/c we fall short of His standard of perfection. But He is also a God of love and mercy. He has wonderfully provided a way to escape the condemnation that we all deserve. He sent His Son to die for us, to pay the penalty for our sin. In the single act of Christ’s death, we see both God’s justice and His love. If we accept God’s gift of forgiveness through Jesus Christ, then His perfect love will grant it. If we don’t accept it, then His perfect justice has no choice but to hold us accountable for our sin. And He has made it clear that the penalty is eternal death in hell [though I’d be interested to know why you think that means “eternal torment”].
Also according to Paul: Sin applies to ALL men because of Adam and salvation applies to ALL men because of Christ.
It seems that you are referring to Rom 5:12-21. Notice these key verses:
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—
15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.
19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
And here’s Is 53:11, a cross-reference of that passage:
11 He shall see the labor of His soul,and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities.
Who are the ‘many’ in these passages? And these are just a few examples among many.
Free will need not end at the grave.
Heb 9:27-28
27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many.
If the cross was necessary for the forgiveness of our sins, then Jesus is necessary for our salvation. God’s plan to save sinners climaxed in jesus.
If God wants to save a well-meaning Buddhist or a kind-hearted Muslim, that’s His call. But I still believe the agent of salvation, even for them or for perhaps for those who never heard of Jesus, would be what Jesus did on the cross.
WHO CAN BE SAVED?
Consider Jesus’ story of a Pharisee and Tax-collector. A simple prayer was the test of justification before God. See Luke 18:9-14.
Consider Jesus’ visit at the home of Zacchaeus. Salvation came to his house as Zacchaeus recognized that he was lost and as Jesus recognized his genuine change of heart. See Luke 19:1-10.
Consider the story of the two thieves on the cross next to Jesus. Heaven was granted to one who on the spot who was honest enough to acknowledge his own guilt while confessing Jesus’ innocence. The spirit which caused that honesty to surface in him (at the expense of his own pride) was enough for Jesus. See Luke 23:39-43.
The Bible certainly teaches that God is the final judge and that Jesus is the indispensable agent of salvation. But that does not necessarily rule out Jesus being the agent of salvation for someone who never heard of him. A knowing rejection of Jesus would, it seems to me, rule salvation out though. But perhaps such a person would not want to be with God for eternity anyhow.
Anyhow, God is both must and mercieful.
The Bible seems to teach that the extent of one’s knowledge of God is considered in God’s ultimate judgments. Consider the following passages:
* “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4:17.
* “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” Jesus, from the cross; Luke 23:34.
* “For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Romans 2:13.
* “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law,” Romans 2:14.
* “…since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.” Romans 2:15
God will judge men’s secrets (see Romans 2:16). That means He alone knows what is going on in the heart and He alone can assess what we do with those secrets.
* “Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”1 Samuel 16:7.
* “God knows your hearts.” Luke 16:15.
* “He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts.” 1 Corinthians 4:5.
What counts is the sincere pledge of a good conscience toward God, more than the labels or rituals one uses to express that pledge.
* Consider this verse: “This water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” 1 Peter 3:21.
There is no excuse for us to ingnore God’s high standards of love, faith, obedience and hope just because “He knows my heart.”
I believe we need to respond to Him in earnest and in full measure to our knowledge of what He wants from us. But in the end, it is only God who judges our fate. He is just and merciful but not to be taken for granted.
In the end, mankind’s sins are forgiven by virtue of the debt Jesus actually and literally paid on the cross for us. But the applications and dispensations of that forgiveness are in God’s hands.
#12: Good observation, KI. That Paul, along with the other apostles, certainly was a fool dying for the gospel if everyone was going to be saved anyway. And why write all those letters to combat false teaching in the churches? What a waste of time!
And speaking of wastes of time (and money), please stop sending out missionaries. Besides, if folks can be saved apart from the gospel, the worst thing you can do is actually tell them about Jesus and remove the ignorance defense from them.
StevenG wrote: Justice is JUST. And there is no human sin for which ETERNAL torment is a just punishment.
Just a thought here Steven, hope to clear things up: when we wrong each other–finite beings that we are–we repair it with an apology and makeup. When we wrong an eternal God, we owe Him far more than an apology: it follows that our wrong puts upon us an infinite debt that is satisfied only by an infinite Hell.
Yes, it’s tragic.
Joel Mark, thanks for all those verses. I believe you put it well.
SteveG - “if so much as one person is in hell for eternity, God has failed.”
I completely disagree. If people reject God, we choose to go to hell. That God doesn’t stop all of us in our bad choices is not chargeable against God.
There may also just be a ‘point of no return’ aspect to it. If one does get to hell, perhaps it shows one is cemented onto one’s rebellion.
A holy God can not abide by sin. If one rejects cleansing for sin, one rejects God, not the other way around.
I wonder if we really have a fully clear understanding of what constitutes the narrow path into heaven.
Jesus did indeed say He way the way and no one gets there but through him. I accept that - but am not entirely sure I fully grasp the outer parameters of this concept.
I struggle with the level of concreteness or explicitness by which we need to go through Jesus. Doesn’t Scripture indicate that some OT figures got there? Jesus had not been on Earth yet, so how precisely did they go through Him? Does the Trinitarian nature of God come into play? I don’t know exactly where the edges of this fall.
The reason there is a hell is because God is good.
He is so good, as a matter of fact, that he can’t tolerate non-goodness. If a righteous judge were to judge unjustly he would no longer be a righteous judge.
However, God prepared a way were he could remain just and good, yet allow the unjust into heaven.
The righteous judge wrote you into his last will and testament and then died in your place.
You see, he is still just, since justice was served, but his grace is at no cost to you.
How can anyone be more good than that, than for an innocent person to give his life for the unjust? God is good to the extreme!
Yet ignorant self-centered scoffers revile their Redeemer anyway. God, in his goodness, will grant them the destiny they desire.
KRM #22
The parameters of getting into heaven are given in John 3:16. What is required of you? Absolutely nothing, but to trust him. Jesus paid it all. You don’t have to do anything. But your desire should be to serve him with thanksgiving.
OT people did not go to heaven directly. They went to Sheol, the place of the dead, awaiting Jesus to open the way to heaven. This is outlined in the story of Lazarus and the rich man. There were two areas separated by a great gulf. One was pleasant and one was not. Jesus alone had the keys to heaven. Now that Christ has opened the way to heaven, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (for those who are in him).
Tychicus at #13: 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
….
Who are the ‘many’ in these passages? And these are just a few examples among many.
Who is the other “many” in the Romans quote, Tychicus? The many who were made sinners?
“Many” has one of two meanings here: It either is a figure of speech really meaning “all,” or it is literally many but not all.
But this is a parallel construction. Whichever meaning of “many” you settle one applies to both.
If you’re going to argue that the “many” who are saved are only some but not all, then you have to also say that the “many” who were made sinners are only some but not all.
And this is proof-texting anyway. Read Paul in his full context and his message is quite universalist.
But again … the books I recommended say it much better than I can, and at the length needed to really explore all the relevant issues.
Steveg, the offer of salvation transcends race, gender, class and is thus universally available to all who truly repent. The problem is that because repentance is not universal, neither is salvation.
Paul’s point (in Romns) is that the work of Jesus has the power to overturn the work of Adam. It is an affirmation of Christ’s victory over sin, a triumph of his legacy over Adam’s legacy; not a “universalist” proof-text.
Listen to Paul elsewhere:
“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
Clearly, he is no universalist. Redemption through Christ is available even to those in that list and they can truly change by the power of God, but they are not saved until they submit to God on His terms.
Joel Mark at #26: Clearly, he is no universalist.
Clearly, he is and you are mistaken.
First of all, what is meant by “the Kingdom of God?” Jesus said “the Kingdom of God is within you,” which suggests that it’s not heaven or eternal life, it’s a state of mind … so Paul is quite correct if what he means is that those who are selfish and self-absorbed (the common thread running through all of the sins he lists) are unable to experience the selflessness required to be part of the Kingdom on Earth WITHOUT it necessarily having a thing to do with eternal life.
Interestingly enough, it is just a few lines earlier in the very same epistle where Paul exhorts the church at Corinth to expel from their body one who is sexually immoral in a particularly egregious way. He does not, however, so much as hint that the man’s immorality might keep him from eternal life. On the contrary, he says, “hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 5:5.)
Taken as a whole, the message Paul is proclaiming here is — clearly — that living a self-absorbed life keeps one from experiencing the “Kingdom of God” for as long as they persist in their immorality, but it does not prevent them from being saved by God’s grace.
Paul’s point (in Romns) is that the work of Jesus has the power to overturn the work of Adam. It is an affirmation of Christ’s victory over sin, a triumph of his legacy over Adam’s legacy; not a “universalist” proof-text.
If it is the first, it also must be the latter. If Christ’s victory over sin is anything less than universal, he failed. And he did not fail.
Why is it important to you, Joel Mark, to limit God’s grace?
Why do you need to believe people go to hell?
Argh. I said I wasn’t going to argue this here. Read the books. They’re cheap.
SteveG,
The Revised Standard Version is to be preferred over the New International Version at 17:20-21. The better translation is “The kingdom of God is in the midst of you.” (RSV).
Do you know who Jesus was talking to when he said this? You should. That makes a difference.
Jesus was asked “when” the kingdom was coming by the Pharisees. Jesus explained that it would not be coming with signs to be observed, rather, it was already here. The Pharisees, known for their spiritual blindness, often looked for signs. Jesus’ point was that it was in their midst already (but the Pharisees could not see it). I do not think that Jesus was saying that the kingdom of God was within the hearts of the Pharisees. That was not his point in context.
SteveG, the kingdom of God is wherever God reigns as King–on earth and/or in heaven. Your notion that “it’s not heaven or eternal life, [but] it’s a state of mind” does not square with many of Jesus’ sayings about the kingdom. In fact, throughout the book of Matthew, Jesus uses the phrase “kingdom of heaven” (whereas Luke often used the phrase, “kingdom of God”).
The concept of eternal life was often closely tied to Jesus understanding of the kingdom of heaven and the coming of the kingdom of God. But it did often have both earthly and heavenly elements in its usage. But the other-worldly or heavenly element is rather clear in John 18:36, where Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world.”
Read I Corinthians 6 again, SteveG, at face value. Not entering the kingdom of God is a fatal fate, spiritually, and it is the fate of the wicked who fail to repent. One must repent and be washed and sanctified in order to inherit the kingdom of God–an eternal reign.
I’m not going to change your mind and you’re not going to change mine, so I’m leaving it here. If you want to read Talbott or MacDonald, I think you might be surprised at the depth of reasoning.
Final word: God’s mercy is not limited by our weakness and blindness.
Christ’s victory over sin applies as God wills or sees fit. SteveG, you cn believe what you want but the Bible is too clear on the point that many are called by few are chosen. It speaks far too clearly to the reality of the wages of sin and what happens to the “chaff,” or the “goats.” And so on.
It’s not Christ’s failure if anyone refuses to repent, and rejects Him and His forgiveness. It’s the one doing the rejecting who has failed, not Jesus.
The terms God sets or uses for His judgments are His own. I discussed some of them in previous posts. It is absurd to speak of limiting His grace, because that’s just impossible. I have not dictated what God will or must do, but it seem that you have. You seem to think that if God judges an unrepentant sinner and keeps him out of heaven, then God is a failure and His grace is limited. The universalist is the one doing the dictating for God by stating He must save all or He’s not truly God or truly loving. That’s nonsense. Plus, it’s not biblical (your spins notwithstanding).
I believe what the Bible teaches and it teaches God has full freedom to make His own judgment and that we must be ready.
Steve: JM is correct. You appeal for full context, and the whole teaching of the Bible is absolutely clear: Salvation is effectual for those who repent and trust in Christ. We can’t change God’s Word - rather, we must trust in His truth and wisdom.
If you read the books I recommended, you might become persuaded that universalism is what the Bible teaches. (And where the Bible speaks of punishment, it is either punishment in this life or a tormented existence after physical death, possibly of a very long duration but not eternal; and that punishment is always with a redemptive purpose.)
And again I ask … why do you (collectively) need to believe that some go to hell? It is clear that you do, because otherwise, you would be not just willing, but eager, to find out if you can maintain your Christian beliefs while expanding your belief about the wideness of God’s mercy. It would be worth investing a few hours in reading a couple of books to find out.
Who will have the courage to answer the question?
SteveG, others might find you a bit more persuasive in your request if you engaged in a bit of quid pro quo with them. For instance, someone might agree to read one of the two books you mentioned in exchange for, say, you going to see Expelled.
Oh I plan to see it when I can TJ, but I’m already pretty familiar with most of the ID arguments (and the bogus linkage of Darwin to Hitler) from things I’ve read.
But sure, I’m quite willing to see it. I’ll even pay good money to.
Did you catch my comments from last night on the “Expelled opens today…” thread? I saw Ben Stein on a late night talk show saying that the basic theme of the film is that “We don’t believe Darwin explained how the planets stay in their orbits.”
It was really quite bizarre.
Steve,
We “need to believe” that some go to hell b/c it is part of the whole message of the Bible. Jesus clearly taught the reality of hell and actually spoke more about it than any of the Biblical writers. And Jesus does not lie - He is absolutely trustworthy.
One of the main reasons that we share the Gospel with people, of course, is b/c we don’t want them to be separated from God for eternity.
I don’t agree with your beliefs about Universalism, but I do like many of your ideas re. a universal health care plan.
Well, that’s not actually the basic theme of the film … which is one reason you’ve been encouraged to see it.
Universalism is held only by those who base their beliefs on other notions and books besides the Bible, books written without much serious regard for what the Bible actually teaches (despite their claims otherwise).
Universalism is held by those who seek “a religion that tickles” and excludes personal or collective accountability. You can’t get that from the Bible, but in the USA, you are free to believe it.
The issue is not really that anyone has some alleged “need to believe that some go to hell.” All that is out of our hands in the end anyway. The issue is simple intellectual honesty about what the Bible teaches.
Joel Mark: Universalism is held only by those who base their beliefs on other notions and books besides the Bible, books written without much serious regard for what the Bible actually teaches (despite their claims otherwise).
If you read the books I recommended you’d see you’re wrong about that.
You might still not agree with the authors’ conclusions, but you would understand that there is a Biblical case to be made, without any appeals to other “notions and books.” They are not talking about a squishy New Age “nice guy God,” or even an inclusivism in which all religious ideas are considered equal. They agree that God’s revelation is the Bible and that salvation comes only through Christ. They just dispute the idea that Christ’s work is not sufficient to save all or that God’s will can be thwarted by human stubbornness or ignorance.
Universalism is held by those who seek “a religion that tickles” and excludes personal or collective accountability.
Not at all true. The books I recommended make a strong case that sin is punished appropriately, even severely; just not eternally.
Think about it: What human sin possibly justifies eternal punishment? If Stalin, say, is sentenced to suffer 100 years of severe torment for each person whose murder he approved, he will be in agony for about 300 million years. Is that not enough?
If universalism is such a heretical notion, why was it the most common view of the early church for the first four centuries (until Augustine and Constantine?)
The religion that tickles is of mere words, no matter the flavor.
SteveG wrote; “If you read the books I recommended you’d see you’re wrong about that.”
I have read the Bible and I think you are wrong about it’s teachings. Beyond that, your “book recommendations” are coming off as all you have left to say instead of actual arguments for your case. SteveG, I care enough to listen to your thoughts in our conversations, but I couldn’t possibly care about some books that you claim make your point better than you can.
All human sin justly calls for separation from God. But through Christ, we can be reconciled with God and abandon forever the alienation we casued in the first place. athis is good news.
Paul wrote; “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romns 6:23).
I recommend the books because if two scholars who are quite concise in their writing need around 300-400 pages total to make a case, I can hardly do it justice in a few short blog posts.
The two authors I recommend would agree completely with what you say in #41. And with Paul in Romans. Where they differ is in the insistence that God’s grace is limited only to those who explicitly believe in Jesus as their only hope of salvation AND do it prior to the end of their physical life.
And since that never made sense to me either, it is refreshing to find that it is neither the only position of the church today nor the historical position of the earliest few generations of Christians.
40-
The religion that tickles is of mere words, arguments, polished speeches, skilled rhetoric, great logic, the clanging cymbal, the Lod’s servant must not argue, what is true religion?
42
“if two scholars who are quite concise in their writing need around 300-400 pages total to make a case, I can hardly do it justice in a few short blog posts.”
Steve,
what you don’t get is that we have whittled the Bible, and thus our religion, to a pamphlet. Our conversations follow suit.
Someone earlier wrote that they thought that CS Lewis was a universalist, and I just wanted to write that “I really don’t think so!” Nothing I’ve read would indicate that he was, and I just looked in Will Vaus’s book on Lewis’s thought, and there isn’t anything in there to indicate that he was a universalist. Just read “The Last Battle” in the Chronicles of Narnia; I don’t think he’d go against his beliefs in that book or any other.
Anyway, how can anyone think that some form of “hell” doesn’t exist? There are many verses about it in the Bible, so why listen to other folks who ignore them? Are the references to hell in the following verses just empty threats? If so, why believe in a God who warns of non-existent punishments?
Mt 5:22, 29, 30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33.
Mk 9:43, 45, 47.
Lk 12:5; 16:23.
Jas 3:6.
2Pe 2:4.
I don’t pretend to understand hell, and I don’t like the idea of it, but God is God. He is so much more than I am, so I trust in his judgement.
No one’s argued that. The Christian Universalist view is that hell does exist and may be severe … but no one stays there eternally.
That does not mean some don’t stay there a very long time, unimaginable eons in our sense of time. But they can, and eventually will, be saved.
Well, interesting. I’ve never heard that before (I’m sorry, I didn’t read ALL of the posts). But even if that’s so, it would still mean an unimaginable amount of suffering. So, we’d still want to help anyone, if we could, not go there in the first place, right?
Absolutely. MacDonald and Talbott both have entire sections discussing the implications of a universalist view on evangelism. Both of them reach the conclusion you suggest.
Steve — That does not mean some don’t stay there a very long time, unimaginable eons in our sense of time. But they can, and eventually will, be saved.
Roger — Can you find at least one statement from Jesus, Paul, Peter or any other apostle, in which Hell sounds remedial rather than punitive?
Roger — It’s not about proof-texting, it’s about the whole context. Yes, there are such verses, but there are others that seem to oppose them, so the larger story matters.
When I have time I’ll try to summarize the case, but it really would be better if you would read at least one of the books. It’s very hard to condense several chapters of closely-reasoned argument into a post. Especially for an audience I know is pre-disposed to reject it.
Quick thought though: If God finds the idea of eternal torment is a suitable punishment, serving no purpose other than the punitive infliction of unbearable, unrelenting pain, WHY would any sane person believe such a God is worthy of love and worship?
Because He made a way of escape, a way of salvation - He gave us a Savior, His own, & only, Son.
Steveg - Maybe it’s a matter of perspective in relation to God’s presence. To those who are “saved” (or who will be) and want to be with God, the environment of hell as described in the bible would be unbearable. But for those who don’t want to be with God, maybe it will be a place that to them isn’t as unbearable. Just speculating.
Xion - Are you saying that, say, Moses, Elijah and David are … or are not in Heaven now.
And if in Heaven, how did they get there in that they predarted Jesus?
If not, why not? People after God’s own heart left out due to the timing of their births?
I can’t buy that, Karen. The New Testament says that God IS love. Not lovING, not capable of love …. love.
Love does not allow even one person to suffer eternal punishment with no purpose other than torture.
Your argument has never made sense to me and never will.
Also by the way, people point to God’s justice as a counter argument, but no rational definition of justice allows for a punishment that so infinitely outweighs any possible crime.
SteveG - while I understand your desire for people to read two books, understand theirs - for your two, at least 10 other authors come to mind that would directly counter your arguments…names such as Grudem and Erickson (both Systematic Theology text writers), Swindoll, Piper, Anderson, Block, Fee, and Bryson - and that just to start.
God has incommunicable and communicable attributes, all of which describe Him to us - and Love is one of them. Just is as well. True understanding of Him involves an understanding (or at least an attempt at understanding) how all of His attributes combine in His interactions with man…which is revealed in the OT and NT.
As to CS Lewis - not sure how one could read “The Great Divorce” and believe Lewis did not have an understandning of eternal separation (hell).
Steve, and others - we chat in little bursts here to grow and learn, something that must never stop. We stretch our minds, and each other, in discussion, and also in pointing out books to read. Keep it up, I urge you…Steve, you have challenged me to truly know and understand my faith! Hopefully, you too are being challenged - perhaps to read others who take views counter to you and to the two books you mentioned.
LLeo: I spent a good many years as a traditional Protestant Christian, and I have no doubt read many of the books you would recommend.
Christian universalism is a minority view now, I realize that. It was not always so.
I dispute that love is “an attribute” of God. If you take the Bible seriously, you have to accept that God is love.
And if God is love … and love never fails … God never fails.
And if God is willing that none shall perish … and God never fails .. then none shall finally perish.
The books I recommended make a scriptural case in great detail that I am not going to try to reproduce here. But the above is the logical skeleton of the argument.
There are three basic ways to view God and salvation from a Christian POV. Two of them require God to be imperfect.
1. God loves all of us and wants to save all of us, but does not have the power to.
2. God does have the power to save us all, but does not love us all and therefore does not will us all to be saved.
Or…
3. God wants us all to be saved, and has the power to save us all … and so we all will be saved, in the end.
Steve - I am curious as to your thoughts on “The Great Divorce.”
LLeo: I think Lewis was right to a great extent in The Great Divorce. “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’”
The disagreement I would have with it is that phrase, “in the end.” The common assumption is that once the body dies, whether it’s at 20 or 80, the period of choice is over and one’s fate is sealed.
Why should that be so?
Imagine you have a man who is seeking God. He’s been hurt badly by people who claimed to be acting in the name of Christ, so he’s very very reluctant to kneel before the cross and yet, he feels the Spirit of God pulling him in that direction strongly. One night, as he is driving home and turning his conflicting thoughts over in his mind, another car runs a red light and plows into our anguished man, killing him.
Does this man, an honest seeker wanting to know God but struggling with the pain of old wounds, get bounced to hell with no recourse because he died before he could quite get to his knees?
I don’t think so. I can’t believe in a God whose perfect love can be defeated by an irresponsible driver. Can you?
I believe it was also in this book that Lewis wrote, “The gates of hell are locked from the inside.” I don’t think he ever quite got all the way to universalism, but that statement suggests that he might have gotten close to it.
And if God is willing that none shall perish … and God never fails .. then none shall finally perish.
Steve: God never fails, IT IS WE WHO FAIL b/c of our sin, and therefore we are under condemnation. Those who go to hell actually choose not to be saved. That’s why C.S. Lewis made the assertion that you quote in [59]: “The door of hell is locked on the inside.” There could be no hell without the possibility to choose to go there. God loves you enough to give you the freedom to choose. His love can’t force you to love Him. Rather, His love actually demands that there be a hell - a place for people who don’t wish to be with Him and love Him.
If you’re serious about the concept of justice, then the question is not “How could a loving God allow a hell to exist?” but rather “How could a loving God not allow a hell to exist?”
So, to correct your first view of God and salvation…
God loves all of us and wants to save all of us [and has the power to do so], and has given us the freedom to accept or reject His free gift of salvation through His Son Jesus Christ.
Tychicus at #60: God never fails, IT IS WE WHO FAIL b/c of our sin, and therefore we are under condemnation. Those who go to hell actually choose not to be saved.
And God has no ability to change their minds? Then he fails.
Tychicus, do have children? Imagine if your child is drowning in the ocean and won’t grab the life preserver you keep throwing. Do you shrug and say, well, he chose not to take the life preserver? Or do you dive in and swim out to him to pull him in?
This argument you make is the conventional one, and it makes some superficial sense. But if you really contemplate the elements here … a God who we are to believe loves us, a God who IS love, and saving us from an eternal destiny of unending agony being at stake, then suddenly it sounds just really, really lame to say, “Well, some people want to go to hell.”
There could be no hell without the possibility to choose to go there. God loves you enough to give you the freedom to choose. His love can’t force you to love Him.
Can there be a free choice that is made with anything less than the best information available?
If a person rejects Christ because the only Christians he ever knew were part of an Army that was oppressing his people (Ghandi was in this boat), does he go to hell? What if after he dies, and can see spiritually the reality of things far more clearly than he could in his place-bound, time-bound, culture-bound earthly life, he says yes, Lord, save me … does God say, “Sorry, two minutes too late?”
No rational person acting on accurate information would choose to go to hell. No choice made that is less than rational can be a free choice. So God is not honoring your free choice by forcing you to live up to a bad decision with eternal consequences. God is being something of a sadist in doing so, and hardly a merciful Father.
If you’re serious about the concept of justice, then the question is not “How could a loving God allow a hell to exist?” but rather “How could a loving God not allow a hell to exist?”
A just punishment fits the crime. An eternity of torment for any finite sin grossly exceeds the crime. If you are serious about the concept of justice, you will realize that justice that is not primarily about making the bad person into a better person (rehabilitation) is mere vengeance.
So, to correct your first view of God and salvation…
I was correct already.
One further thought:
Those who go to hell actually choose not to be saved. That’s why C.S. Lewis made the assertion that you quote in [59]: “The door of hell is locked on the inside.”
By phrasing it that way, Lewis suggests that those on the inside can unlock the door. That is, that the death of the body does not end the chance to make a different choice.
I do not think he followed his own logic quite all the way to its end, but he was on the right road.
SteveG - There is perhaps a bit of the (a) Calvanistic angle at play, God created and elected some from the start, whom He would call and brought to saving faith, and some whom He would not and/or (b) the omniscient and prescient angle at play, God knows who would and would not respond and those who will languish in hell are those known not to be going to repond.
And God is, in addition to perfect love, perfect holiness as well. If people are not going to truely repent, they aren’t.
KRM:
I never did buy Calvinism. The idea of God deliberately creating human beings with every intention of seeing them condemned to hell (by not choosing them to be among the elect) makes god a reprehensible monster.
I’m sorry, I know a lot of people around here hold to some degree of Calvinist thought, but I find it does obscene violence to the character of God to suppose that he is not just willing to send people to hell but proactively intending to.
My earlier Christian theology was Arminian, similar to what LLeo described, that God would save anyone who asks but many don’t ask.
But that doesn’t really do either, because it still means God is creating people destined for hell. His role may be less direct, but it’s still unavoidably there.
And God is, in addition to perfect love, perfect holiness as well. If people are not going to truely repent, they aren’t.
I partly addressed that in #61. The assumption you make is that there’s some sort of time limit on when a person can repent, or that God would for some inexplicable reason not honor repentance unless it comes before physical death … when the person is seeing only through a glass darkly.
What sense does that make?
#56, Lleo. I’m not sure why you expect a reply with the attitude you have, but then maybe you’re trying to make people not reply? It’s been a long time since I read The Great Divorce, and it’s one of the few works by Lewis that I don’t have at home. Besides that, Lewis may have changed his views on hell since writing The Great Divorce. So I looked up the info in Will Vaus’ “Mere Theology.” I’m not sure why that’s not good enough.
CSLewisLover - apoligies…did not intend to have an “attitude.” My comment was not directed at you - in fact, had not even realized there was a CSLewis named post. Was actually asking SteveG if he had read it, and his thoughts on it. I would not hazard a guess as to the final thoughts of CS Lewis, having only written work to go from, which would seem to indicate he believed in a final separation, “hell.”
Steve - guess I need ask then - where does evil come from? You lead to the thought men don’t have a choice, that it has been made for them, that God created perfection, and IS perfection in love…so, where does evil come from?
Where does evil come from…. good question.
And not one I claim to have any definitive answer to, but human free will and selfishness are certainly among the causes. Is there a spirtual force that tempts people in that direction? Maybe … I have no definitive opinion on that.
What I do believe strongly though is, again, the logical conclusion: Man — being created in the image of a loving Creator — is inherently good. “Sin,” or evil, is a disease that corrupts the good.
The loving response to a disease is its cure, not the punishment of the sick. And the rational response of the sick to the cure is to accept it, so those who reject it for now are not choosing freely.
For that reason, I think the “punishment” that the evil must endure is to burn away the corruption and leave the pure … a painful, agonizing process for some, but leading ultimately to redemption.
By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 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. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.
(1 Corinthians 3:10-15)
LLEO - Thanks. I probably shouldn’t have taken it that way; it just looked like “boiler plate flame” to me. Part of it is that I’m getting older and I use glasses to read, although I can read without them - and it’s hard to read a computer screen with them. (I have to be more careful.) I’m not sure if you’ve experienced that kind-of thing. Anyway, great; thanks for your response.
I know you guys are getting into it with book-length references. I just wondered if you ever consult the RBC website. They have an “Answers to Tough Questions” section that, when I did a search on hell, came up with 35 results (http://www.rbc.org/advancedSearch.aspx?term=hell&s=ATTQ). Within the RBC site itself, there were 366 results. I know they also have info on the Calvanistic aspect too. So taken altogether, the results would be book-length. I bring that up only to imply that there are detailed writings on these subjects there, but they are for lay people.
I may be wrong SteveG, but it seems like this issue may never be resolved for you, at least not by thought or research. When it comes to these kinds of issues for me, it boils down to the reality of God and Christ (and the Holy Spirit, of course). I know the trinity is real because Christ revealed himself to me in a couple of ways. If he had not, I’m not sure that I could be a Christian or trust the bible. In other words, it was and is the work of the Spirit to help us to believe and trust in God and his works. I don’t know the verse off-hand, but the one where Peter says to Jesus, “Where else can we go, or turn, or who else is there to believe in?”, is one that comes to mind when things like this come up. Scandalous, difficult things. It’s just the way it is, at least for me. I know God is true, and there is no other way; understanding will come later. This isn’t satisfying when trying to answer nonChristians, I know, but that’s when I know I need to leave it up to God. Does that make sense?
CSLewisLover: Oh, but the issue is resolved for me. What have I said that suggests it’s not? I believe in God. I am a universalist.
There is much else that I don’t have firm opinions or beliefs about, of course, and they are questions I enjoy pondering and exploring what people think. But those two statements in my first paragraph here, on those I’m firm. God will save every person, because he wants to and he can.
OK, SteveG, lol! I’m not sure why I was equating debating with a lack of decision. Maybe it was a subconscious thing with me, thinking that you were looking into it more. I’m two for two here–maybe I should go on a vacation. I guess I go by what RBC has at their site (and in their books- they’re nondenominational-they talk about the free will issue), and in the “Disciple’s Study Bible” (under the summary of church doctrine related to sin, it says the separation is permanent), and other such references. Even if, somehow, these sources and church doctrine weren’t correct it wouldn’t make any difference in how I act as a Christian. I wouldn’t want people to suffer in any case. I guess the suffering, the concept of really bad suffering as we imagine it, for what would seem (or be) an eternity, just seems unlikely. So yeah, I think most people take Lewis’ The Great Divorce as something to grasp about it, about hell.
Steveg 70
YOU WRITE:….
“God will save every person, because he wants to and he can.”
That’s a myth. God doesn’t save those who don’t repent of their sins and turn from them.
Interesting thread to lurk around– kinda’ depressing, though. Perhaps y’all should check out this for a summary of the historic Christian answer to these questions and a strong challenge to the way we tend to conceive of them in the modern era: http://www.philthompson.net/pages/library/riveroffire.html
I think Steve G’s onto something but seems to take it a bit further than is proper– perhaps to the point at which Origen was declared a heretic (ie. apokatastasis). Anyone unfamiliar with Origen’s problem might find the following link of interest on this topic: http://www.monachos.net/library/Origen:_the_Final_Restoration_…_a_Question_of_Heresy%3F
Jonny
Victoria: If you bothered to read the thread you’d know that nobody’s said otherwise.
CSLewisLover: Well, I understand the reluctance to committing oneself to reading a whole book, especially one defending a position you consider unlikely to be convincing to you. I don’t run out and read everything I’m recommended either. But if you did want to study this more, either of the books I recommended earlier shows you a completely Biblical/logical case for Christian universalism. I have touched on a very small bit of the content in this thread, but there is no way I can really do it justice in a few short blog posts.
Even if, somehow, these sources and church doctrine weren’t correct it wouldn’t make any difference in how I act as a Christian.
Nor should it. But it does encourage a person to act with a great deal more grace and less condemnation, to see all others as saved by the same astounding mercy that you have benefited from.
Steveg - 42
Steveg YOU WRITE:..
“The two authors I recommend would agree completely with what you say in #41. And with Paul in Romans. Where they differ is in the insistence that God’s grace is limited only to those who explicitly believe in Jesus as their only hope of salvation AND do it prior to the end of their physical life.
I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Luke 13:3
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16
Steveg you write post 46..
“No one’s argued that. The Christian Universalist view is that hell does exist and may be severe … but no one stays there eternally.”
Steveg you post 51..
“Quick thought though: If God finds the idea of eternal torment is a suitable punishment, serving no purpose other than the punitive infliction of unbearable, unrelenting pain, WHY would any sane person believe such a God is worthy of love and worship?”
Steveg YOU post 70..
“There is much else that I don’t have firm opinions or beliefs about, of course, and they are questions I enjoy pondering and exploring what people think. But those two statements in my first paragraph here, on those I’m firm. God will save every person, because he wants to and he can.”
SteveG- Gotta agree with you when you say: “If God finds the idea of eternal torment is a suitable punishment, serving no purpose other than the punitive infliction of unbearable, unrelenting pain, WHY would any sane person believe such a God is worthy of love and worship?”
I used to believe in this God because that’s what my parents believed in– they handed down the tradition, if you will. We basically dichotomized the Godhead into God the Father the terrible and punitive Judge and Creator of Hell and Jesus the Son the one who loves. This is bogus. There is no such differentiation in the Godhead. God is LOVE. Because God is Love, He gives us freedom to choose. God doesn’t create Hell nor, as the Bible indicates, does He desire ANY person to go there. Hell is something that we create and choose for ourselves. If a person hates God, God’s presence (from which none of us can escape) is an unbearable pain. Again, I think you are guilty of Origenism if you hold and teach the doctrine of universal restoration of all things. However, you are not a bit heretical if you hope for the salvation of all by the mercy of God. I think the counter to Victoria’s question “Steveg, where does the Bible say that no one stays in hell eternaly? Scripture please!” is exactly “Victoria, where does the Bible say that people stay in Hell eternally? Scripture please!” These things are mysterious and viewed through a glass dimly.
However, we do know, beyond any doubt, that God is Love and is merciful toward us. Augustine, Anselm, and Calvin all created God in their own image based on their misinterpretation of the term “justice” as used in the Old Testament (see Alistair McGrath’s excellent tome on justification for more details, here). Thus, the Protestant world as a whole has anthropomorphized God in the likeness of