Angry God, part II
I recently read a review of several children’s books and videos about the story of Jonah. The reviewer was incensed that children were not learning about a wrathful God. Storybooks that don’t portray the whale as “a terrifying sea monster” are “a lie we should quit telling our children,” he wrote. “We do not bring them to God by pretending that he is cuddly and not terrible.”
One can forgive him for losing sight of the reality that everything is learned this way, in stages. Does any rightminded person start his children on calculus before they can count? Do we demand they recite the doctrinal points regarding propitiation before allowing them to sing “Jesus Loves Me?” But by this reviewer’s logic, the proper thing to do when one’s children sing “Jesus Loves Me”, is to stand over them and recite after every verse something to this effect: He loves some of you, but others are children of the devil, as He Himself said, and will be cast down with the Evil One into a dark pit at some predetermined but unknown point between the resurrection of the dead and establishment of the New Jerusalem.
It’s a legitimate question nonetheless, this matter of what we teach our children about God, and when we teach it. The Bible is entirely true, and we know further that all of it is “profitable for reproof and instruction.” At the same time, it is filled with terrible things. When do we teach them, in detail, to our children? Mark Twain once quipped, after all, that whenever he heard about a library banning one of his books for its potential deleterious effects on the minds of children, he would chuckle at the thought that they were still free to check out the Bible.
I suppose the reviewer’s concern was that children who read these stories about Jonah will only ever get the edited versions. Perhaps his insistence on shocking them with the wrath of God is like one of those mega-doses of antibiotics, administered out of the doctor’s fear that their parents can’t be trusted to give them the full regimen. Or perhaps he’s someone who believes every mention of God’s love and mercy must be given equal time with his wrath. We can’t have people going about believing in a cuddly God, after all. They might start smiling.
I think it’s incontrovertible that God hates sin, and I think it’s important for teachers of the Word to teach the whole Word. But I reject this notion that people must be cowed into faith. It was on display in this particular essay, but we can find it throughout the Christian community. Consider those ubiquitous church marquees with slogans like: Jesus: Accept him now or regret it forever.
And I especially reject this tack when applied to children. They respond to love with love, and to fear with retreat. I certainly avoided God for twenty years in no small part from a conceptualization of him as angry and waiting to punish me unless I behaved better. And I know plenty of other adults with similar training. As an empirical matter, it doesn’t seem to work.
But more than that, it seems a gross mischaracterization of God. “Let the little children come to Me,” Christ said. He didn’t say: “Scare them my way. Dwell on how My Father punished wrongdoers, until they’re shivering in their little boots.” He drew them to Himself with love. Speaking as someone who experienced the reverse, I think hell and judgment ought to come later in a child’s education, not first.
To read Tony’s “Angry God,” part I, click here.



WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Free Hardcover ESV Study Bible!
















back to top175 Comments to “Angry God, part II”
And this, my friends, is why so many people who grow up in the church — or a certain kind of church — run as far from it as they can as soon as they are free to, and never look back.
And good riddance to those hateful, soul-killing ideas, I say.
Report comment to moderator
I am 53. I have lived long enough to see that in the years behind us when so many alleged “soul-killing” church people reputedly used or included the ‘fear of God’ appraoach, a whole lot MORE people went and stayed at church than are going and staying today (allegedly when the all love all the time approach is more in play).
The fact is, the “God is sooooo nice to everyone” approach today is not bringing or holding people all that well. Church attendance rates are significantly lower now than in those old days.
HOWEVER, I am not arguing for or protesting either approach. We have the gospel. Let us teach it faithfully. And every teacher needs to be free to apply discretion as a teacher.
Report comment to moderator
Tony wrote; “They respond to love with love, and to fear with retreat.”
GOOD, either way! We WANT them to retreat from sin. Sin kills! The point is to use discretion on how to present what and when to love and what and when to reject or retreat from what is wrong, and to know what the child is ready to learn and when.
So I agree with Tony about taking the age of the child into consideration and letting the wrath of God be discovered as the child matures.
As they grow as Christians, they will see love and truth doing a beautiful dance, all the way to heaven. But both partners are needed in that heavenward dance.
Report comment to moderator
It is easy to offer open-ended critiques of how others are teaching children (and all the critics can be correct hypothetically on their own terms as open-ended critics). At our church, however, we are grateful just to get a good volunteer to take on the task in the first place.
Report comment to moderator
Having read this article a while back, I remember appreciating it. I don’t remember the author articulating a pedagogy that involved scaring children into faith. Rather, he was arguing that all to often the only elements of a story that make it into books are the harmless elements. Consider telling children the story of Noah; how often is any emphasis placed upon the sins of the world that deserved such judgment? It seems we often only focus upon the merciful aspect of the story (God saved Noah). But is mercy intelligible without justice? And is justice intelligible without proper conceptions of God’s holiness and man’s sinful rebellion?
I would never expect a four-year old to understand the nuances of Paul’s presentation of propitiary atonement — but that same four-year is quite capable of grasping the reality of rebellion, justice and mercy. So as my daughter, who is two, grows up I will of course be telling her that God loves her. In fact I pray every night (in front of her) asking that she would know the love that God has for her. But I also pray some night that she would know of her sin and her deep, deep need of Jesus. The message first to last is summarized in the answers to these three questions: 1) Who is God?; 2) Who am i?; 3)What has God done for me?
For little (covenant) children the answers go something like this:
1) God is the maker of all things, and He determines what is right and wrong
2) We are God’s children, who have rebelled against God.
3) God sent His son Jesus to suffer the punishment that we deserve for our sins so we don’t have to.
As children get older, these answers can be expounded and applied. But the key issue is this: the reality of God’s holiness, our sin and Christ’s atonement must be spoken to our children from first to last — and we cannot neglect any element of the three regardless of age (age determines the degree/depth, but not the overarching topic).
And you know what, my little girl isn’t going to understand those questions and answers right away, but that is ok — over time she will grasp more and more of it. Just as in the same way she doesn’t understand how to speak very well right now, but I still speak to her nonetheless, because overtime her understanding of language will deepen.
Report comment to moderator
Some proper balance is needed regarding God’s love for us sinners and His holiness requiring a disdain and wrath as to sin. With teaching children, an age apropriate course of presenting both facets is required.
Report comment to moderator
We can’t understand the cross without God’s justice. So on some level, God’s justice and His wrath must be taught, even to the youngest children–but yes, age appropriately.
Noah’s ark is one of my pet peeves. It’s an R-rated story–mass drowings, a lot of ugliness. But we sanitize it so much, see it primarily as a story for preschoolers, that even adults see it as a cute kid story and not as what it is–a tale of the justice and mercy of God. Basically God kills off most of humanity and starts over again with one family. If it happened today, and yours was the only family that survived, would you even let your children watch the news (assuming the news reporter survived too)?
Report comment to moderator
It wasn’t a whale and it was the appointed means of Jonah’s rescue, not a monster sent to punish him.
Report comment to moderator
Noah’s Ark is a good example. Without the sin/judgment aspect it’s actually considerably worse … God kills almost every person and animal for no reason at all, if you “sanitize” that aspect out of it.
But even with it, it teaches an image of a God who will hurt you, even kill you, if you displease him. Drill that into an eight-year-old head and you’re well on your way to creating the kind of religiously neurotic adults who find atheism a relief.
Fear-based religion is useful for control purposes (the church or, in times/places where church and state intertwine, the government, controlling the terrified flock), but that’s about all.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: The fact is, the “God is sooooo nice to everyone” approach today is not bringing or holding people all that well. Church attendance rates are significantly lower now than in those old days.
Church attendance may not correlate with faith. If people put their butts in the pews because they’re afraid of divine retribution if they don’t, they’re there … but if they develop a healthier idea of God (not as “nice,” that’s a strawman, but as loving and merciful rather than angry and wrathful) maybe they have both a deeper faith (drawn by love rather than terror) but also a more gracious one that doesn’t require them to go to church as if it were a rule.
Report comment to moderator
“that doesn’t require them to go to church as if it were a rule.”
Hebrews 10:24-25 –> “And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.”
Sure seems pretty close to a rule….
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl – And the Noah story got much worse than R-rated after the ark came to ground!
Report comment to moderator
RobertM–the point is si that we shouldn’t go to church because it is a rule ; the Christ-life is about laying a foundation of love for God, which naturally brings forth holy living (and stuff like going to church).
Regarding Jonah , I taught it recently in my Children’s Church class and noticed an article on the web fussing because most children’s stories leave out the end with Jonah complaining under the plant. To a degree, I suppose this is OK, since very young children will understand Jonah’s repentance in the belly of the fish better than Jonah’s anger under the tree. But the story, to be understood and interpreted as a whole, needs the end: nasty as the story seems, it turns the idea of anger/mercy on its head, because the story revolves around Jonah taking offense that God wants to show mercy to Ninevah. Humans are the ones who hate mercy; God loves it.
Report comment to moderator
Robert: Christians are not under the Law, but granted freedom through grace. Is that not right? If so, then church attendance isn’t a rule and one can’t measure the aggregate level of belief by raw church attendance numbers.
Being terrified into going to church is a good way to ensure that a lot of people walk away entirely.
Report comment to moderator
“Fear-based religion is useful for control purposes.”
Which is why Al Gore wants us all so scared.
Also, that’s why utopian socialists and leftist media pundits are so obsessed with making us all think the economy, the envirnoment, the war and our way of life is falling apart at the seems and Democrats need to ride in and fix it all.
Report comment to moderator
#10 – “Church attendance may not correlate with faith.”
I think it largely does, but not in every case.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG – “Fear-based religion is useful for control purposes.”
Joel Mark – Which is why Al Gore wants us all so scared.
“For Gore so loved the World that he gaveth his only begotten Nobel, so that whoever ever believeth in him shall Prius, and have everlasting life”.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG says,
“…but if they develop a healthier idea of God (not as ‘nice,’ that’s a strawman, but as loving and merciful rather than angry and wrathful) maybe they have both a deeper faith (drawn by love rather than terror) but also a more gracious one that doesn’t require them to go to church as if it were a rule.”
I’ve been thinking about responses like SteveG’s lately. Apparently, to many enlightened people (who, like SteveG, have the most pathetic and shallow understanding of Christian faith), worshipping a God who’s just like them, only bigger, is the primary purpose of religion. It doesn’t matter if they have to invent Him out of thin air, based on no revelation or objective reality or spiritual authority at all–as long as He accords perfectly to what they predetermine He should be like, then He’s legitimate. If He’s not the epitome of a good Democrat, He’s not a true God.
So they reject the God of the Bible because He’s not enough like Barack Obama or Kofi Anan. But the trouble is, reality exists independent of our wills. The God of this world doesn’t necessarily have to have the character as revealed in the Bible. He could be like Hitler or Stalin. Yet we’d still have to placate Him in order to be on His good side. In fact, many liberals look at the Bible, claim that God IS like Hitler (or worse) and then proceed to reject Him. These people aren’t serious at all. If God really WERE like Hitler, then you’d really know the fear of Him, and you’d be doing whatever it took to make Him not exterminate you. Luckily for all of us, God is merciful to His enemies and draws us to Himself in love as well as in fear.
So where does SteveG get his scale by which to judge God (a satanic act if ever there was one)? Define “healthy,” SteveG, as it relates to theology, and then tell me why your fickle, trendy, time-bound standards of what God SHOULD be like have any authority over me whatsoever. It’s pure wish-fulfillment, completely disconnected from reality. If we can all just make up our own Gods and then assert that they’re true, why are you complaining about us Biblical Christians who follow a revelation we didn’t even create?
What does it take to please your “healthy” God? Nothing? He just loves everybody the same? I wouldn’t want your false god because he would let criminals off scot free, send them back out on the street to kill, rob and rape the rest of us. Where’s the justice in a god like yours?
And as for Tony’s blog post here, it makes me worried for the future of this magazine. It’s going to be mushy and watery as Christianity Today in a few years.
Report comment to moderator
I want to know when it became unloving to show anger and why we can’t teach kids that God is both loving and gets angry too. Kids definitely see both sides from their own parents.
Report comment to moderator
I would reiterate the notion that all men deserve eternal damnation and that given the majority of humanity do not become “regenerate” Christians, end up in Hell (if Hell really is a bad, unpleasant place as opposed to a place where folks are simply excluded from the perfect happiness of Heaven) is a horrific truth. It is worse than atheism. And it makes cosmic truth into terribly bad news, with a silver lining that you can escape the fate that awaits most of humanity including some or many of your loved ones.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, I agree that doctine of hell is terrible. The Bible doesn’t deny that. That is why we warn people.
It’s also clear that the wickedness of man is terrible too.
Report comment to moderator
Then what “bad news” Christianity really is.
Report comment to moderator
And again — the way I understand the doctrine — I deserve Hell because of the slightest imperfect (indeed, original sin holds, even before the first sin!). So I steal a lollipop, I deserve eternal damnation. Sorry, can’t believe it; doesn’t make sense. It’s like saying God caused the holocaust and Hitler did His bidding because the Bible says it and that’s the final authority. It couldn’t believe that if the Bible (or someone’s interpretation thereof) said it. Likewise with the notion that I deserve Hell for stealing a lollipop. (Again if Hell is unpleasant; if it’s just a place where I get to eat, drink and be merry not in God’s presence in the company of my fellow unsaved loved ones, then I couldn’t argue against its cosmic unjustness.)
Report comment to moderator
You have way to high an opinion of the goodness of man to think that there is a person out there of which it may be said that the worst thing they have done is steal a lollipop. Also it’s not just our actions but the thoughts and intentions of our heart that are sinful.
God’s verdict on the human heart:
that every inclination of our hearts are only evil continually. genesis 6:5
It’s deceitful above all things and desparately wicked. jeremiah 17:9
All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags Isaiah 64:6
Who can say, “I have kept my heart pure; I am unclean and without sin”? Proverbs 20:9
Report comment to moderator
The question is: Does someone deserve eternal damnation for simply stealing a lollipop? I’m interested in line drawings and I’m asking this particular question no more no less.
Report comment to moderator
David L: You claim to know what God is really like because of revelation. How do you know that the revelation you believe in is the right one, and the many other claimed revelations of God — each of which have their adherents — are not correct?
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe,
As I understand it, one deserves eternal damnation for simply being born and only through repentance and rebirth will one be saved. The problem is that one can steal as many lollipops as one likes, or drown kittens or do other such things, before repenting and being reborn.
Which, in light of David L’s comment: What does it take to please your [SteveG's] “healthy” God? Nothing? He just loves everybody the same? I wouldn’t want your false god because he would let criminals off scot free, send them back out on the street to kill, rob and rape the rest of us. Where’s the justice in a god like yours?
…leads me to ask: Where’s the justice in a god that accepts murderers and rapists into heaven because they’ve repented on their deathbeds, while their victims may be the ones that end up in hell? (And remember, there is no crime that won’t be absolved, except for blaspheming against the Holy Spirit).
Also:
#18: So where does SteveG get his scale by which to judge God (a satanic act if ever there was one)?
Probably from the same place that you got your scales to judge the god of the Bible as being worthy of placation and/or worship.
Report comment to moderator
Flaming Icarus: …leads me to ask: Where’s the justice in a god that accepts murderers and rapists into heaven because they’ve repented on their deathbeds, while their victims may be the ones that end up in hell? (And remember, there is no crime that won’t be absolved, except for blaspheming against the Holy Spirit).
That’s an excellent point. While ranting on about “justice” and the alleged lack of it in my theology, David L is oblivious to this … but his own beliefs mean that a relatively loving, peaceful and gentle — but not Christian — murder victim is tormented forever while the vicious murderer — if he genuinely repents before dying — lives eternally in paradise.
And this is supposedly just?
Report comment to moderator
#27, “As I understand it, one deserves eternal damnation for simply being born…”
That is not how I understanding it. We minimize sin by defining it as biological or incidental or finite or taking lollypops.
In a previous post, Jon Rowe repeatedly claimed that sin was finite. I don’t recall him ever responding to the points some of us made in disagreement with this minimization of sin.
Paul wrote; “everything that does not come from faith is sin.” (Romans 14:23). This is a faith-centered understanding of sin, not a finite understanding.
God’s divine moral will is the basis of sin. Breaking that divine will is ’sin’ and this is not simply a finite mis-step.
We are God’s workmanship, created for good works (Ephesians 2:10). He has a moral will for us, a reason for creating us that transcends finite deeds and existence. We were created to live to the praise of his glory (Eph. 1:6). However, “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).
Sin is not a finite mis-step but a falling short of the infinite glory of God, for which we were made. Sin offends God Himself.
Describing the extent of human wickedness in Romans One, Paul referred to their ingratitude (Romans 1:21), the futility of their thinking (vs 21), the foolishness of their hearts (vs 21), their claim to be wise (vs 22),
“In decent acts” were clearly condemned (vs 27) but Paul went far beyond that to condemn their “depraved minds” which led to sinful deeds (vs 28). Paul did not just say they had committed “envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice” but that they were full of these things (vs 29). He described them as “God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful,” all sins of the heart and mind (vs 29). They even “invent ways of doing evil” (vs 30).
What condemns us ultimately is not what we do that is sinful, but our refusal to repent of our sin.
Paul later speaks of requirements of the law which are “written on their hearts“ (2:15). He writes about “consciences also bearing witness,” (2:15) and God judging “men’s secrets.” (2:16).
No matter how bad you think sin is, it is worse than you think it is.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG and Flaming Icarus,
I’d be happy to carry on this conversation, but my comments don’t get posted for some reason until several hours after I enter them. It kind of kills the conversation.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
I didn’t respond because it looks like we reached an impasse where we disagree on an unproven and unprovable truth: Sin being finite v. infinite.
I understand why you would say “[n]o matter how bad you think sin is, it is worse than you think it is.” Of course you’d have to say something like that if you think it’s just to send someone to Hell for eternity for stealing a lollipop.
Most of us understand the concept of finite sins because we think of the Earthly wrongs we do and we understand, they are finite. I.e., I speed, I deserve a finite punishment. It would be unfair for one ticket for them to take away my license forever and continually issue fines every year based on that one act.
The way I understand your perspective, God is an infinite Holy Being. Thus, one sin “offends” his infinite Holiness. Not that it harms God. Again my example of shooting bullets at Superman. But rather “offends” God. Thus an not only is this God infinitely powerful, but is infinitely egotistical as well. Sorry but I believe God is better than that.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
On what basis do you believe God is better than that? And what is your standard for “better”? It seems to me that you are making yourself god–you decide what the standards for good and evil are, and you decide what God is like based on those standards. You simply cannot do that. God is your Creator and your Lawgiver and your Judge, not the other way around. If you’re going to throw out the God of the Bible as unworthy of being your God, where are you going to find a new one who fits your standards?
Report comment to moderator
These are not simply my personal standards. If they were God would be just if he gave me the guitar talent of Steve Morse and made me a million CD selling rock star.
Rather this is me using my own reason, intuition, and conscience that He (or She) gave me to tell me that there is something wrong with the traditional orthodox understanding of Hell. It’s objective, not subjective truths which I am trying to get at.
Report comment to moderator
I would also note that Heaven v. Hell seems like the worst example of a “false dichotomy” — an unnecessary “either/or” standard.
Let me further address the “infinitely Holy” point some more. Let’s concede that one un-forgiven sin makes one unworthy of being in God’s Holy presence. Fine. Then what? It still doesn’t justly merit suffering eternal punishment (if again, Hell is a really bad place). Like a father saying to a son, “Be Gone! You are no son of mine.” What happens to the son? He simply gets on with his life. He may suffer sadness at his broken relationship with his father for the rest of his life. But that’s a world of difference than his father locking him in a dungeon for the rest of his life!
To me, your understanding of Hell is asking me to accept the justness of the father locking his son in a dungeon (something I can’t) as opposed to cutting the son off and letting him get on with his life (something I can).
There is Hell right here on this Earth, unimaginable suffering. Asking me to accept that, for instance, all of those non-Christian Africans who are starving (I know there are Christian Africans starving as well) await a fate with worse suffering is like asking me to accept that God really did send those 19 Muslims into the WTC and reward them with virgins.
It’s self-evidently unbelievable. It only boggles my mind that so many people do believe it, just as so many Muslims do believe that those 19 highjackers did God’s will.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl: I don’t think we’re deciding “what God is like.” I think we’re deciding what beliefs about God do or don’t make sense.
The idea that God would see eternal torture as a just punishment for one whose only committed sin is stealing a lollipop does not make sense. IF God is like that, then God is evil … but if we believe God is not evil, that requires a rethinking of the doctrine of hell.
It’s not God we’re judging, it’s certain human beliefs about God.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
A biblical doctrine of sin is not necessarily (or at least overly) influenced by whatever consequences God sees fit for it in any particular sinner. God alone is the Judge and I don’t know the specifics of what God should or will do to judge anyone or what that accountability will look or be like. I do believe in hell but I have no idea whether it is best described by the biblcial phrase “outer darkness” or “lake of fire” or “everlasting destruction” or “gnashing of teeth.” I know it’s hard to get fire and darkness together on purely physical terms. So God has full freedom to punish (or not) on His own terms. For all I know, some will die a “second death” (another biblical phrase).
But I beleive that the Holy Spirit does convict sinners of their sin and our task is to come to honest terms with our sin without minimizing it. Then, we come to terms with Jesus Christ to embrace his forgiveness.
What God does in the end is not my department. That’s way above my pay grade.
Report comment to moderator
Jon wrote; “I speed, I deserve a finite punishment.”
You are speaking as if the sinner and the judge are the same person. God determines what we deserve, Jon, and it may well be more than finite punishment. Part of admitting that you are the sinner in this equation, is also accepting that you don’t get tot call the shots for your own judgment or punishment.
Is there a moral difference between a speeder who no one sees speeding and one who accidently hits and kills a child who otherwise might have been the next Billy Graham or Martin Luther King, Jr? Or perhaps you are seen speeding by someone who looks to you as a role model, and your unspoken influence leads to speeding in others that eventually kills lots of people.
God decides what is fair or unfair. He is the potter, we are the clay. Whatever reason, intuition, and conscience we have as humans, I believe, is the result of us being made in God’s image.
We report to God, not vica versa!
Report comment to moderator
CHERYL D.: If it happened today, and yours was the only family that survived, would you even let your children watch the news (assuming the news reporter survived too)?
My daughter was an “echter Waldie” raised on fairy tales, puppet shows, beeswax, and raw wool. Nevertheless, I departed from schedule to read her Noah’s Ark at bedtime when she was about five. The story spared no detail of pathos and violence. Afterwards, she remained silent on her pillow a moment, sighed, and said, “What a wonderful story.”
A year earlier, watching Bambi slide helplessly on the ice drove her to tears. I took her distress as confirmation of the Waldorf prohibition against videos. She wouldn’t be comforted. Rumpelstiltskin and other stories about children in peril hadn’t prepared her for life’s atrocities.
Report comment to moderator
John Rowe (#25) writes:
“The question is: Does someone deserve eternal damnation for simply stealing a lollipop? I’m interested in line drawings and I’m asking this particular question no more no less.”
Ultimately a person does not go to hell for what they do, but for what they are. The child steals a lollipop because he is a sinner. From the moment of conception, he is a sinner, through and through. He did not become a sinner because he stole a lollipop. He stole a lollipop because he was already a sinner.
While a lollipop theft is inconsequential from a human perspective, it is the early manifestation of a sinful nature that will, if left to itself, grow into progressively more gross and ugly manifestations of the same thing—a perverse sinful nature. A lion cub is cute and cuddly, but by its very nature it grows into a vicious, violent and bloody marauder. We make a fundamental, yet understandably human, mistake in reasoning when we judge sin by its manifestations rather than by its nature. We are understandably led into this line of reasoning when we often must evaluate sinful human actions in this way as a practical matter of daily human living. But we are mistaken in our reasoning when we fail to go deeper than that.
In 1891 an “innocent” two year old child named Adolph Schicklgruber surely committed inconsequential acts of sin, as every child does; maybe he even stole a lollipop or a forbidden bite of his mom’s apple strudel. Did he deserve eternal hell for that inconsequential act? Of course not. Then at what point did his acts eventually come to deserve hell? I defy anyone to justly draw that line for him or for anyone else. John Rowe, you say that you are interested in “line drawings.” But, from a human perspective, it simply cannot be done with any degree of justice. On the other hand, virtually no one will say that this child, who grew into Adolph Hitler, doesn’t deserve a place in hell. But, he was Adolph Hitler from the moment of conception. This is a dilemma imposed upon us by our faulty and shallow human reasoning.
The only answer is to accept God’s perspective on our human condition. We are born sinners, made so not by our acts, but by our very genes. This is in accordance not only with Biblical truth, but with the demonstrated scientific laws of cause and effect. Lions can only produce lions, worms can only produce worms, despite the wishful thinking and stupidity of evolutionary speculation. When the fundamental natures of Adam and Eve were changed by their fall, their union could produce nothing more than what they themselves had become. The innocence of childhood, while appealing to parents, is a myth of our own delusions. After all, children are so cute, and what parent wants to believe that they have produced something with the nature to become a monster? Unfortunately, that says something very ugly about all of us as parents and human beings. Nevertheless, it is true.
Beyond accepting God’s perspective on our human condition, we come to His answer for correcting that problem: redemption through Jesus Christ, but that is another subject.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin: It’s a wild leap for you to go from generalizing that this “sin nature” will grow into increasing manifestations, and Hitler. Obviously for most people, while stealing a lollipop isn’t their only or worst transgression, Hitler-level evils remain far beyond anything they ever do.
Jon Rowe makes a useful distinction between an eternity of a benign, but separated-from-God, existence, and active, agonizing torture with no end forever and ever.
That is, even if we believe that unrepented sin is not something God can/will accept in His presence, it does not follow that active, agnoizing torture with no end is a just fate for the lollipop thief.
Joel Mark’s insistence on seeing himself as nothing more than a lump of clay in God’s eyes is both libelous about God and contradicts much of what the Bible has to say about God’s love for mankind. But it serves as an example that ALL of us judge various ideas about God. I do not believe that the doctrine of hell makes any sense at all if I’m also supposed to believe that God is love. That’s not a judgment about God, it’s a judgment about that particular belief.
Report comment to moderator
MICHAEL MARTIN: Ultimately a person does not go to hell for what they do, but for what they are. The child steals a lollipop because he is a sinner.
Michael, would you please flesh out a narrative for the lollipop theft — who, what, when, where, how, etc.? I’m having trouble imagining this child as a sinner.
Report comment to moderator
Steve,
The biblical phrase, “I am the potter, you are the clay”, is a metaphor. Need I define “metaphor?” I could also say it is parabolic. Let him who has ears, hear.
Report comment to moderator
What if the lollipop was secretly laced with poison and the unwitting juvenile thief gave it to a sweet-toothed friend to bribe him to be his “best friend?” Or what if the lollipop was specially treated for a crucial scientific experiment designed to save the planet? Not knowing is not excuse, right?
Seriously, thanks for the conversation, my friends.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: I know it’s a metaphor. But it’s one that can be abused. When it appears in the Bible, it applies to temporary, Earthly-life situations. It sometimes has to do with God bringing earthly judgment on Israel, or individuals pondering why they suffer.
When you turn it to the question of eternal matters, suddenly the character changes. Applied to temporary things, it suggests a craftsman shaping a creation, a process that isn’t always comfortable or pleasant. But when you suggest that, in judging the eternal fate of a soul, God considers it as worth no more than a lump of clay to be discarded (into endless torment) without a second thought if it’s not suitable, it’s a far more disturbing proposition.
Report comment to moderator
Michael,
The Hitler is a good example: I don’t deserve to go to the same place as him for my lesser sins. And if the last minute he converted to Christianity (who knows he might have?) it would be horribly cosmically unjust to think, to use a similar example, all of his Jewish victims in Hell and him in Heaven.
Report comment to moderator
The imaginary Old Testament God is a barbaric wacko. If it was real, it would be hunted down and put in prison. Fortunately Mr. God is only a delusion. Only gullible morons believe in it.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G (#40),
There is no wild leap involved, just an orderly progression of the nascent sin nature that we are all born with. For some, given the right circumstances, the progression from small sins to great is dramatic and horrendous. For others it is less so. But all of us have the inbred capacity to commit any sin that has ever been committed, even the sins of someone like Hitler. The only thing we lack is the series of similar circumstances that led him, step by small step, down the road that took him to the depths he eventually plumbed. The bottom line is that none of us, in our natural sinful state, is any better than the most gross sinner who ever lived.
Rom 3:9-10 ”What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike [i.e., everyone on earth] are all under sin. As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous, not even one.’”
Moth (#41),
The important point is not a hypothetical lollipop theft, but the fact of original sin transmitting a sinful nature to all of us from the moment of conception. Like it or not, this is what the Bible teaches. It also conforms to the facts of human nature that we observe every day. A child does not need to be taught to sin. He does it naturally because it is inherent in his very nature.
Jon (#45),
Frankly I do not know if there are degrees of suffering in hell commensurate with one’s degree of earthly sinfulness. Some (eg., Dante, etc.) seem to think so, but I can find no Scriptural basis for the idea. However, it seems like a pointless argument. Why speculate over degrees of suffering in hell when the more important question deals with the plain simple proposition of hell vs. heaven? If I am saved in Christ, the possible levels of hell are of no concern to me. I don’t even have to worry about it.
In saying that, I am not ignoring the issue you raise, but simply trying to put it into what I believe is a proper perspective for dealing with it. In my experience, many questions have to be put into sort of a queue and handled in sequence for proper understanding. For example, the concept of multiplication cannot be adequately understood until the concepts of addition are first understood. I used to be worried no end about the people who had never heard of Christ and what I considered the injustice of their fate according to the Bible as I then [mis]understood it. But that was a question I could not successfully deal with until I accepted the fact of original sin and man’s consequent sin nature—or at least accepted the fact that the Bible teaches those principles.
At this point, that is all I am emphasizing. The Bible teaches that all people are sinners from the moment of conception. That means the child still in the mother’s womb, the newborn infant, me, you, everyone. We are all sinners, even before we ever commit a sinful act. The passages I have cited above plainly say that.
Report comment to moderator
If I am saved in Christ, the possible levels of hell are of no concern to me. I don’t even have to worry about it.
I suppose. If your only concern is for yourself.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G (#48),
You pretend to miss the point only for the sake of making an unjustified accusation. If you are genuinely interested, read again the paragraph following the quote you have cited.
Report comment to moderator
I understand the point; I don’t agree with it.
At this point, that is all I am emphasizing. The Bible teaches that all people are sinners from the moment of conception. That means the child still in the mother’s womb, the newborn infant, me, you, everyone. We are all sinners, even before we ever commit a sinful act. The passages I have cited above plainly say that.
If people really believed this, the rational thing to do would be to remain childless. Every soul that comes into the world is doomed to hell from the beginning and must be rescued. If the default position is to be destined for damnation, how cruel it is to create more people facing that fate.
Report comment to moderator
Michael,
Again let me assert: I think we’ve reached a point where we are arguing over an unproven and unprovable premise: Whether Hell even exist, what it’s like, and how to avoid it.
Just let me say, unless Hell for most ordinary folks is like a “benign separation from God” to use Steve’s point, the notion that so many people end up there for just being born and not managing to “find” the proper religious truth, is such a horrible, bleak and unhappy truth that it seems self-evidently wrong to most ordinary folks like me.
It’s like asking you to consider that Allah really not only is God but sent those 19 highjackers in to the WTC to do God’s bidding. I don’t think for a second you or anyone reading this blog would consider any arguments on that behalf but just would reject it out of hand as a self-evident falsehood. But the scary thing is millions of people do believe that.
There are about a billion Muslims on the planet. I know there are some folks on this blog who believe Bin Laden, Atta et al. represent true Islam — what the majority of Muslims believe. I don’t. But I’d say conservatively at least 10% of Muslims believe in this. And I fear the number may be more. That’s at least 100 million people who devoutly believe Allah sent those highjackers into the WTC to do God’s bidding.
It often stuns me how so many folks could believe in things that are so self-evidently unbelievable. And I’d put the notion of Hell as articulated by folks like Jonathan Edwards to be as bad as the worst of Islamo-fascism.
Report comment to moderator
#47,
In light of your comments it could be said that the only sin is non-repentance, for everything else (bar blaspheming the Holy Spirit) will be pardoned if one repents. Therefore, enacting holocausts and stealing lollipops are rendered somewhat inconsequential when it comes down to the final question: Did you genuinely repent?
Thus no amount of butchery, abuse and villainy on earth will prevent a repentant soul from entering eternal paradise, and no amount of good works on earth will prevent an unrepentant soul from going to hell for eternity.
It’s hard to see either justice or mercy in that.
Report comment to moderator
And btw Michael. I just briefly looked at your profile. Let me take this opportunity to thank you for your service for this country in Vietnam.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG (#50),
Note that I began the quote that you cited, with the qualifier, “At this point,…” I did that because the fact of human sin is not the complete picture. There is more to the story.
The Bible is true. It teaches that men are born naturally sinful and destined for eternal separation from God (hell), in accordance with their own desires.
If humanity remained in that condition, there indeed would be cause for despair and your following comment would be logical. However, that is not the complete picture. On the contrary, there is cause for great joy in the solution that God has provided through Christ. For centuries, the Psalmists and hymn writers have exhausted the resources of language to express that joy and to cite its availability for all mankind. Just listen and think about the words to some of the old Christmas hymns for confirmation. We can joyfully and confidently follow God’s command to be fruitful and multiply, knowing that sin, death, and hell have been overcome.
Report comment to moderator
MICHAEL MARTIN #47 The important point is not a hypothetical lollipop theft, but the fact of original sin transmitting a sinful nature to all of us from the moment of conception
I understand your narrative, but I don’t think the facts of our experience support it, nor does the Bible in all its parts. The story of Adam’s fall and its affect upon us all explains at once too much and not enough — from lollipop thefts to the holocaust.
I’ve started reading Bart D. Ehrman’s latest book about the Bible. Readers’ comments suggest the book is about God, but my take so far is that the book is primarily about the Bible, like all his books.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG wrote at #44, “I know it’s a metaphor. But it’s one that can be abused.”
And that’s exactly what you did with it at #40. And you continue to misunderstand it.
It means that we answer to our Creator, not He to us (not even you).
Report comment to moderator
But Joel, I’m not saying God answers to me. I’m saying human ideas about God are subject to analysis and should be discarded if they don’t make sense.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg – 57
When you make a comment such as this — “I’m saying human ideas about God are subject to analysis and should be discarded if they don’t make sense.” —
Yes the Word of GOD does make sense, but when ‘little man’ tries to decide, to discard what the LORD says because it doesn’t fit into his agenda, it is ‘little man’ who is lost, unable to grasp GOD’s plan, unable to come to grips with his own sin, his own weakness and sinful nature.
Human ideas about GOD are just that ‘ideas’ we can learn from the Word of GOD who GOD is, that’s why HE made it available to us. Man’s problem — he doesn’t want to follow the LORD, he wants to follow his own way. GOD’s ways don’t make sense to anyone who doesn’t believe in HIM or His Son as Savior.
Report comment to moderator
Jon (#51),
You are correct. The existence of hell is not provable in the same manner that the existence of God and heaven are not provable in the strictest scientific sense. This is no accident. God has deliberately made it so.
You demand proof for the existence of God, heaven and hell. Yet, I find it interesting that you reject the concept of hell, not by any similar standard of “proof” for its falsity, but merely because it “is such a horrible, bleak and unhappy truth that it seems self-evidently wrong.” From what you say, it seems that you reject the idea mainly because you just don’t like it. If it were more “benign,” as Steve puts it, then you might be more inclined to believe.
If someone told you that you had a terminal disease called cancer, what would you do? Would you demand proof that such a disease actually exists? Good. We have proof that cancer exists. Similarly, we have abundant proof around us that sin exists. Would you demand proof of your personal affliction with cancer? Good. The doctor can provide that. Similarly, any honest person, upon examining his own life, will most likely admit that he has sinned and is therefore a sinner. You, “Dr. Jon,” have admitted such with your acknowledgment of “lesser sins” at #45. OK, so far. The only issue that seems to remain is the consequences.
If the doctor told you that the consequence of your cancer, if untreated, would be a painful death, would you now reject the whole idea merely because it was so horrible to you? I know you wouldn’t. Yet, that seems to be what you are doing with the idea of hell. It is horrible and therefore unbelievable. But if it were more benign, then maybe it would be more believable? At this point, there seems to be a definite disconnect and breakdown in your logic, Jon.
Report comment to moderator
#52, Flaming Icarus wrote: “Thus no amount of butchery, abuse and villainy on earth will prevent a repentant soul from entering eternal paradise, and no amount of good works on earth will prevent an unrepentant soul from going to hell for eternity.”
I agree with that. Well said, FI. In fact, the astounding uniqueness of Christianity, distinct from all other religions, is seen in your words above.
The cross is a scandalous offense to some. But it is God’s plan for sinners. And as long as the possibility of repentance remains, there is no such thing as a hopeless sinner.
But it is crucial to understand what genuine repentance really is. If you think that repentance is simply some emotional regret or momentary act or word of penitance, then you’ve completely missed it (not even a foul tip). It’s much ore than that and there is no eternal hope for those who refuse to repent (according to God’s Word, that is).
Report comment to moderator
#52, “It’s hard to see either justice or mercy in that.”
Actually, there is ample mercy in the “that” to which you were referring, and it is rather obvious to see. What is hard to see is the justice in it.
The justice in it is that Jesus paid our debt, thus the debt is justly paid i God’s eyes.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, I’m saying that you have misunderswtood and misused the potter/clay metaphor. The theological ramifications are another matter of difference between us.
Report comment to moderator
Where does the Bible specifically and unequivocably teach, beyond parabolic references, that anyone with be forever consciously tortured in hell?
Jesus spoke of fearing him who can destroy BOTH the body and the soul in hell. Revelation speaks of the “second death.” There are references to gnashing of teeth, but it’s not made clear in the text that the suffering will be eternal. There are references to “everlasting destruction,’ but perhaps than simply means destroyed forever.
I am not making any sort of claim that whatever God does is unjust. I don’t question God’s right to punish as He sees fit. In fact, if I could find a Bible passage that unequivocably teaches eternal conscious torture, I would believe it and not condemn God for what seems rather harsh. After all, He is God! But where is such a teaching? Even John 3:16 refers to perishihng, not consciously experiencing pain forever.
I am teachable on this. It’s been on my mind for a couple years. The view I am coming to is that eternal life is a blessed gift of God, NOT an automatic consequence that happens to all who ever lived and died. Did Jesus think of hell in a similar way that the Hebrews thought of ’sheol’ (the deep dark grave).
I do think the Bible teaches that we all will be rasied to face a judgment day. But that judgment may be eternal life for those who repent and believe and no eternal life (sheol) for those who don’t.
Is this wrong and is there a passage that settles it?
Report comment to moderator
Joel – 63
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day. 2 Thessalonians 1
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. Matthew 25:46
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. Revelation 20:15
9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. Revelation 14
Report comment to moderator
Icarus (#52),
The mercy is in God’s forgiveness for those who truly repent.
The justice is in Christ’s voluntary and substitutionary payment for our sins. No sin will be left unaccounted for; all will be paid for; that is absolute justice. Either you will pay for your sins, or Christ will.
What often sticks in our craw, as vengeful human beings, is that the actual perpetrator is getting off “Scott free.” Our limited concept of justice demands that the perpetrator pay for his crimes himself. We want that satisfaction because of our own lack of mercy and lack of love, that is, until we are the perpetrator. Then we are more than glad to accept what I call God’s expanded concept of justice—a justice tempered with love and His own voluntary sacrifice in Christ.
I have to admit that I struggle with the same conflicting feelings that you mention. Sometimes, it just doesn’t seem right that a terrible criminal might get off the hook in that way, especially if I, or someone I love, was his victim.
Yet I remember the story of Louie Zamperini. As a fresh high school graduate, he was a world-class runner and went to the 1936 Olympics in Berlin in the 5,000 meters. He didn’t win there, but had the real prospect of competing again in the 1940 Olympics scheduled for Tokyo. The next time it would be in his favorite and best event, the mile. In the meantime he went to USC and was the NCAA mile champion for two years in a row. But the war intervened, the 1940 Olympics were cancelled, and he became a B-24 bombardier.
Later, his plane went down in the Pacific and he spent two years in a prison camp in Japan. He saw a great deal of brutality and death and grew to hate the Japanese on a very personal level. After the war he became a Christian and gradually had his hate replaced by love. He eventually returned to Japan to see the guards who had brutalized him and the other Americans there. Now his former guards were in prison as convicted war criminals. He didn’t return seeking vengeance, but as witness for the forgiveness of Christ. Many of those guards became Christians and Zamperini became a genuine friend.
They were guilty, as you put it, of “butchery, abuse and villainy.” Yet they were forgiven, and as you say, “it‘s hard to see either justice or mercy in that.” However, Louie Zamperini, the man who should have really been angry, saw both the justice and mercy, even though it is sometimes hard for us.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you Victoria.
I strongly believe in our accountability before God and that he has every right to punish as he sees fit.
Still, the 2 Thessalonians 1 passage speaks of everlasting destruction, not necessarily everlasting torture.
The Matthew 25 passage comes close, Victoria, but it does not unequivocably teach eternal conscious torture. plus, it is parabolic (which may not necessarily negate your point). But the “punishment” may well be death (which is definitely bad considering that eternal life with the Father was the alternative).
Your reference to Revlation 20:15 is actually at 20:10 and it simply refered to the devil being thrown into that lake (where the beast and false prophet had been thrown), not necessarily human sinners. See also verse 14 where it says that “death and hades (and presumably the dead who were being judged) were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.”
This seems to me to say that the judged will experience a “second death” rather than eternal torture (which is apparently what the devil will experience).
Regarding Revelation 14, it is problematic that the torment of the beast worshipers are in the presence of the holy angels and the Lamb. Perhaps this torment in their presence is not everlasting. The “smoke” may have some eternal quality, but this passage does not literally contradict the point in Rev. 20 that the judged will end up receiving a “sceond dath” after the presumed torment.
But I hasten to say that I respect the possibility of your interpretation, Victoria, and I have not ruled it out. I hesitate to derive specific doctrine out of such a visionary and figurative inspired book as Revelation. But I respect those who may do so. I just wanted to get feedback from other posters. My inquiries are offered honestly.
Report comment to moderator
Michael, thanks for the Louie Zamperinin story!
Report comment to moderator
Joel
YOU WRITE:…. “But I hasten to say that I respect the possibility of your interpretation, Victoria, and I have not ruled it out. I hesitate to derive specific doctrine out of such a visionary and figurative inspired book as Revelation. But I respect those who may do so. I just wanted to get feedback from other posters. My inquiries are offered honestly.”
It’s not my interpretation Joel, I didn’t write the New Testament, it is the words which are the inerrant inspired Word of God. Many rule out certain sins, with just as much excuse, therefore leaving Salvation, Heaven and Hell a designer approach to GOD’s Word. Many find an everlasting hell to be unimaginable, and because they can’t imagine it, — it then becomes easier to say it is figurative which isn’t true.
Then you would have problems with everything that is spoken of in Revelation. There are groups such as Jehovah’s Witness who believe Revelation is not literal but figurative. They don’t believe that Jesus is Deity.
To take 2 Thessalonians 1, the passage in Matthew and both passages in Revelation and discount the meaning, dilute it in any way is not correct. You can then take both books, Matthew and Thessalonians, and others if you don’t agree with what’s written and discount it, by saying “I hesitate to derive specific doctrine out of such a visionary and figurative inspired book as Revelation.” There are other books which speak to those who are not Believers, we could discount those as well, with similar excuse.
In the Greek New Testament “Aionas ton aionon,” occurs eighteen (18) times in the New Testament and translated means “forever and ever.” In over sixteen (16), the phrase extends into infinity, “without end” –
And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. Revelation 14:11
Remeber the words in the last chapter of Revelation:
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Revelation 22
That is a STERN, DIRECT, CLEAR WARNING to all who read and study GOD’s Word.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I do think you need a bit more tolerance for people who are honestly struggling to understand Scripture or certain passages in ways that might be different from the way you interpretn them. Just my opinion. That said, I do respect your view on eternal torment in hell and I have not ruled it out. I don’t think the Bible is as clear on that point as you think it is.
But in the end, God is independent of both your interpretations and mine. And yes, you are “interpreting” as much as I am. There is no way to understand Scripture without interpreting it.
Victoria, whether I find everlasting torment in hell unimaginable or not is not my point. I am seeking to stand by what the Bible teaches regardless of my imagination and still don’t see any passages that unequivocably affirm that the judged will indeed consciously suffer torment in hell for ever and ever.
Maybe they will, but I don’t find any passage that spells that out, including those in Revelation. I don’t think Jesus is literally a “lamb” but I understand the principle that he is the Passover lamb sacrificed for us. I don’t know what beast has seven literal heads. but I do think the apostle John had a vision of one that did. But how to literally apply that vision and other visions related to the beast to our doctrine of hell and eternity is not clear to me from the book of Revelation.
I do believe in Jesus’ deity and I also think that Revelation is very figurative, as well as fully inspired by God. Jesus’ parables are often figurative and they too are fully inspired.
And, yes, I do have problems with much that is written in Revelation, but it’s not that I don’t like it or that I disagree with it, but that I don’t fully understand it in specific terms. i do understand that judgment lies ahead for the unrepentant. But give what i read from the NT, I need to leave the specificas of that judgment to God alone.
Victoria, I did not discount the meaning of 2 Thess 1 or Matthew 25, or Revelation. I just don’t necessarily think they mean what you think they mean. I never disagreed with a thing they said, but I may disagree with what you think they said.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: I am not making any sort of claim that whatever God does is unjust. I don’t question God’s right to punish as He sees fit. In fact, if I could find a Bible passage that unequivocably teaches eternal conscious torture, I would believe it and not condemn God for what seems rather harsh. After all, He is God!
And there is the difficulty that always comes up in these kinds of discussions.
You’re committed to take the Bible as the literal word of God, which means if it’s in the pages, you must accept it, no matter how little sense it seems to make. I appreciate that in this instance you are saying that you do not see a clear teaching of eternal torment, but the fact remains that if you did, you’d be obligated to believe it.
I see the Bible as a collection of documents written in specific times and places and reflecting the understanding of God that the writers held … but not the “word of God” meaning, not spoken or dictated by God.
Just because something is in the Bible doesn’t mean it’s right, in my view. When I encounter something there that suggests God is less than good, I am free to take it is a relic of the writers.
Report comment to moderator
#60 Michael Martin #65 Joel Mark,
Thanks for your responses. I can see that there’s ample mercy and justice metted out to those that repent, but for those that don’t there is really no such blessing. So again I’m left feeling like there’s no sin but non-repentance.
Which actually makes sense of your comment, Joel, (but possibly not in the way you intended) in #29 that; No matter how bad you think sin is, it is worse than you think it is.
Because our inherent sinful natures must be so atrocious in God’s eyes that any additional sinful acts we commit, not matter how atrocious, will pale in insignificance to our inherent sinful nature.
It’s as if we’re born with 666 trillion units of sin but every sinful act we commit only adds a tenth of one unit of sin to our tally so that the difference between Hitler and most other people is barely perceptible.
Which all does kind of make some sense, but I still don’t agree with it. But my disagreement is more to do with original sin.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: #68
It’s not my interpretation Joel, I didn’t write the New Testament…
If you didn’t write it, you’re interpreting it
Report comment to moderator
59,
I think a big difference between the cancer analogy is that cancer and how to deal with it is knowable in a scientific sense. What we are dealing with here are philosophical truths — in many ways truly unknowable which is why they require faith — that have moral elements to them. Therefore if something seems not morally sensible, it’s a non-starter in terms of whether I’d believe in it. Again it’s like asking you to seriously consider that Allah is not only God but sent those 19 highjackers into the WTC. Is this something you’ve seriously considered? If not, then why not? What if you are wrong?
But your point is well taken — something can be horrific and true. Truth is not necessarily “good”: That road may lead to atheism and nihilism (though the new atheists, unlike the philosophers of old, are fond of denying the unpleasantness of atheism; the atheist Allan Bloom termed this “nihilism without the abyss.” That’s why Bloom thought the masses needed “religion” as an opiate; atheism/nihilism was only fit for a secretive philosophical elite few like himself and *some* of his students — those in his inner circle): That nothing exists beyond the grave whether you like it or not. Rather I “hope” for something better. And what you offer on Hell & humanity is not. But believe me, if I were convinced by your “truth” claims, I’d be a Christian like you. Rather, as a philosopher, what I have found is a number of competing exclusive claims of truth, with no way to tell who is right. For instance, I’ve examined the arguments of top Roman Catholic intellectuals v. top evangelical intellectuals (and contrary to today’s PC influenced “evangelicals & Catholics together” the two systems are incompatible and both hold one another to be apostate Churches) and I can testify: It’s an utter wash. There is no way, based on available evidence, to claim as a matter of objective evidence, one side or the other has the better argument. And, according to the teachings our souls depend on getting that answer right. So essentially it’s like we are left with a number of doors and we have to pick one without truly knowing which is the door of salvation, if any of them do.
Again — this strikes me as cosmically absurd. A non-starter in my eyes even if I can’t “prove” your system erroneous.
That’s the circumstance your claim of truth, in reality, presents to the world. That’s the reality of Pascals Wager: For all you truly know Pope Benedict, no intellectual slouch, is right and you are part of an apostate Church.
Report comment to moderator
Joel – 69
YOU WRITE:…. “I do think you need a bit more tolerance for people who are honestly struggling to understand Scripture or certain passages in ways that might be different from the way you interpretn them. Just my opinion. That said, I do respect your view on eternal torment in hell and I have not ruled it out. I don’t think the Bible is as clear on that point as you think it is.”
The Bible speaks a great deal about Heaven, although there is more spoken regarding hell then Heaven.
Do you believe the parts about Heaven are literal or figurative? Who’s to say then that Heaven is a literal place? Why not say its just figurative. And lets not stop there:
When someone dies who is not a Believer, then they just cease to exist, never going to hell or if they do they are just burned up instantly, that’s it? Is hell then a place which has nothing more than an incinerator which burns the unbelievers, and they exist NO MORE? THAT’S IT? That’s hell in a nutshell? SO those who have turned their back on Christ, are just burned, as if they were cremated? — nothing more?
Then what is hell?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG wrote: “Just because something is in the Bible doesn’t mean it’s right.”
You have a right to say that. However, just because something is in the Bible DOES mean it is “biblical.” And since I do believe the Bible to be God’s inpsired word, I would affirm that teaching. If I have learned one thing in my life, the Bible reflects the will of God far better than my inclinations and preferences.
The Bible is our primary source for what Christianity is. For one to have a biblical doctrine of heaven and hell, one would would need some text to base it on. So, if the text clearly teaches a particular doctrine, then yes, I would accept that as foundational for my Christian faith and doctrine.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria asked, “Do you believe the parts about Heaven are literal or figurative?”
Paul wrote; “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him.” (1 Cor. 2:9).
So, if our mind has not conceived it, then I would say that inspired phrases like “streets of gold” may well be figurative. But it will be better than you or I can imagine.
When Jesus said, “In my Father’s house are many ‘mansions’ (KJV) or ‘rooms…’” (NIV), I can only picture structures literally made with human hands. I’[m sure that heaven is actually much better than that. To use figures of speech, does not negate the truth or the greatness of the point, but it is often necessary when describing things that TRANSCEND our literal awareness.
Report comment to moderator
So then with your post #76 you have decided that “So, if our mind has not conceived it, then I would say that inspired phrases like “streets of gold” may well be figurative.”
With that idea, you can magically make up your own heaven, if in fact you think there is a heaven, after all if hell is just figurative than Heaven could be figurative as well.
Then I ask again Then what is hell? Is it figurative?
Report comment to moderator
Joel
YOU WRITE:…. “When Jesus said, “In my Father’s house are many ‘mansions’ (KJV) or ‘rooms…’” (NIV), I can only picture structures literally made with human hands. I’[m sure that heaven is actually much better than that. To use figures of speech, does not negate the truth or the greatness of the point, but it is often necessary when describing things that TRANSCEND our literal awareness.
When Jesus created the heavens and earth no ‘human hands’ helped Him, so WHY would HE need ‘human hand to help him? That’s the whole idea Joel, you seem to think God the Son needs human hands, because man needs this because of TRANSENDING literal awareness?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: You have a right to say that. However, just because something is in the Bible DOES mean it is “biblical.” And since I do believe the Bible to be God’s inpsired word, I would affirm that teaching. If I have learned one thing in my life, the Bible reflects the will of God far better than my inclinations and preferences.
The Bible is our primary source for what Christianity is. For one to have a biblical doctrine of heaven and hell, one would would need some text to base it on.
And so we circle back to the question of, how do you know you’ve chosen the correct text? There other claimed true revelations of God. On what basis do you conclude the Bible is the right one and the others are all false?
People like me, who have beliefs drawn from a variety of sources — including my own intuition — are often accused of “just making it up.” But it seems to me that you’re just taking the word of people who lived thousands of years ago and wrote in and for an entirely different culture. How do you know they were not “just making it up?”
Report comment to moderator
Victoria – Joel Mark didn’t say that he believes the mansions or rooms are actually made with human hands, but that in his mind all he can imagine is what is made with human hands. He hasn’t seen a mansion made by God, yet that is, so his mind can not quite conceive what it would look like.
Report comment to moderator
After posting my final (and lengthy) comment on Tony’s first installment on the “Angry God,” I’ll bite on a (much briefer) comment on this second installment, too. Simply put, if God is truly the vindictive and retributive person in whom so many here appear to delight, I’m thinking we should all be learning about him at as early an age as possible. In the event we aren’t, as many believe, predestined to wrath, it seems to me that learning about god’s nasty character traits as a child may be exactly the key to appeasing him or avoiding his wrath during the child’s lifetime. Postponing this teaching for any period of time would be to the endangerment of our childrens’ souls. On the other hand, if these characteristics aren’t really part of the Divine Essence in the first place, maybe we should just skip such false instruction altogether and instruct our children, instead, in the way of holiness . . .
Cheers.
Jonny
Report comment to moderator
JON – To me, your understanding of Hell is asking me to accept the justness of the father locking his son in a dungeon (something I can’t) as opposed to cutting the son off and letting him get on with his life (something I can).
Just curious – where would the unrepentant son get on with his life after death if he has been cut off?
Report comment to moderator
SBG,
I don’t know, purgatory? The entire universe outside of Heaven? The possibilities are endless.
Report comment to moderator
JONNY – if God is truly the vindictive and retributive person in whom so many here appear to delight
I think I can speak for the others that they do not delight in an angry God. Please do be careful with general characterizations such as this.
JONNY – we should just skip such false instruction altogether and instruct our children, instead, in the way of holiness . . .
Again with the general characterizations that you presume to know what all of us are teaching our children. I agree we should teach our children the way of holiness (and are commanded to in Deut 11:19) but we also must teach them the consequences of straying from that way since we know they will (we all do), that God hates sin since He told us He does, and that God has provided the only solution to our problem – His Son.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe – The lollipop (your example) is insignificant to God.
The damning sin in stealing the lollpop is the blighted heart that would lead one to even contemplate taking it. You aren’t recognizing the holiness of God – which is perfect – along with His love (also perfect).
God can’t abide by the sinfulness shown by the bad heart of the lolly thief. God gives us a way to avoid the harsh consequences, if only we will take it, so as to maintain both His holiness and His love.
Report comment to moderator
“if only we will take it,”
I think a lot of people don’t take “it” because they don’t know which door “it” is behind. Is it Roman Catholicism? Evangelical Protestantism? The Mormonism? The Jehovah’s Witnesses? Islam? Roy Masters? The only way to know what “it” is is to see “it” face-2-face at death. And perhaps that’s when we get to make the choice.
Report comment to moderator
Jon (#73),
You dismiss the cancer analogy as non-applicable because you posit two realms of discussion with little or no common ground. You say that the facts of cancer are scientifically knowable while the realm of philosophical truths and morality is essentially unknowable and accessible only by faith. In broader terms, you present the “facts of life” vs. the mysticism of faith and contend that there is a hard line of demarcation between them.
I disagree. I think that there is such a great deal of overlap and/or commonality between these two realms that drawing artificial lines and even presenting them as two separate areas leads to many errors in thinking and living.
In our daily living we constantly operate on faith, faith that a chair will hold us when we commit to sitting down, faith that opposing traffic will stop when we commit to going through a “green” intersection, etc. We do not really know that the chair will hold us until we act in faith and commit ourselves to its hoped for integrity. Our experience then becomes our proof and we then really know that it will hold us—after the fact.
Or take the example of a man whose doctor tells him that he needs heart surgery. “You are going to die unless you have this surgery,” he says. “But don’t worry; my friend Joe here had the same surgery and it worked for him. It works 99% of the time. These are knowable, proven facts.”
“Yeah, Doc, but will it work for me?”
“Well, the only way you will really know is if you climb up on the operating table, let me put you out, and when you wake up [if you wake up], then you will know.”
Faith in the so-called spiritual realm works in the same way. Hebrews 11 is the Bible’s golden chapter on faith. In the first verse we have a good definition of faith and we see that faith is operative in two dimensions: the future (things hoped for) and the invisible (things not seen).
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
As you read further in the chapter you see that it contains many examples of people who lived by faith. Either they were given promises by God of things that were going to happen (things of the future), or they were told about things of God that could not be seen with their physical eyes (the invisible), like His love and compassion. Then, in response, they were required to do something or to live in a certain way, all based on their conviction that God was real and also faithful to what He had promised. God is not some mystical being living in an abstract world of philosophical concepts. Although invisible to our eyes, He is just as real and present as the doctor who told the man that he needed heart surgery. So, in essence, an operative definition of faith could be stated this way:
Faith is obedience to the promises of God.
Living by faith is an absolute necessity in these two intertwined and inseparable worlds. Verse 6 tells us that it is impossible to please God without it. Also, consider the consequences of refusing to do so in each of the examples. For example, if Noah had refused to believe God’s promise about the coming flood, he would have failed to build the ark and he and his whole family would have perished along with everyone else who didn’t believe.
Faith is not some vague hope that everything will turn out all right. It is not a hopeful leap into the blue based on your mere personal confidence. Faith is very concrete and specific. It Is based on the promises of the real God and my obedience to them. If you have no promise, you have no basis for faith. For example, if you and I were to go to the top of the Empire State Building and I said to you, “Jon, do you believe that God could save me if I jump?”
You might reply, “Yes, I believe God could save you.”
“Me too,” I reply.
Then I jump. But about half way down, I realize that, although God could save me, He never promised that He would, and my life will be over in another few seconds. So what I did was not an act of faith, but an act of arrogant presumption. No promise, no faith—it is as simple as that. The Bible is full of promises to us as Christians and we need to find them, believe them and then live in accordance with them. That is the real and knowable life of faith.
God promises that if I repent of my sins and trust in Christ, I will be forgiven and that the Holy Spirit will actually take up residence within me and begin to change my life, my heart, my very being. I will be “born again.” This is an actual, palpable experience that only those who live it can know and appreciate. My experience has become my proof, my faith realized in concrete fact. That promise is no longer something of the future. It is a done deal, a present reality, and that particular facet of faith is actually no longer needed. It is the beginning of the fulfillment of I Cor 13 where it says, “Now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face.” However, other facets of my faith in God are still operative because they are yet future and/or still invisible.
Christians are often criticized because we seem so sure of ourselves in this post- modern world of doubt and uncertainty. But that is merely our confidence being labeled arrogance by those who don’t understand its source. It is not self-confidence, but confidence in the one true triune God of the universe.
Jon, you ask if I have considered the tenets of Islam and the possibility that the Allah of the 9/11 terrorists is in fact the real god. Sure, I have considered it, but not in the same way that you have. To use your analogy of the multiple closed doors: you have no way of knowing what is behind each of them. However, I do know by experience. The door of Christianity is no longer closed to me. It is partially open and I have seen a little bit of what is on the other side. I know the truth of it, and that truth negates all the competing and false claims of Islam. Allah is no god. He is the demented delusion of a 7th century satanic charlatan. But that is another subject and this post is too long already.
Summary: there is one God, one universe, and one world. They are all interconnected with many common operative methodologies because they all have the same source: the one true God. Some things, by God’s permission, are humanly knowable, others are not. The knowable things are not just restricted to the present or what we can see by science. The false dichotomy between science and religion promotes that mistaken view, but it is just that, mistaken.
Report comment to moderator
JON,
Perhaps we get to make the choice now. I prefer to listen to the only guy who actually came from God the Father and rose from the dead – “it” or He is Jesus Christ.
Jesus said,
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”
You don’t have to see “it” or Him face-2-face.
Jesus said,
“Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”
Report comment to moderator
Karen, you don’t need to translate Joel’s post.
Report comment to moderator
Our conversion reminds of a joke that President Reagan supposedly used to tell. I’ll paraphrase because it’s the kind of joke that fits well with paraphrasing: Billy Graham calls the Pope and says there’s good news and bad news. The Pope says: What’s the good news? Graham: Jesus has returned. Pope: That’s so wonderful, how can there be any bad news? Graham: The bad news is He made his return in Salt Lake City.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, can you find this ’supposed’ joke anywhere, or did you make it up? It wasn’t like Reagan to have said anything like this EVER!
Report comment to moderator
And by the way Michael, your testimony of knowledge by experience proves very little of the ultimate truth of your underlying claim. Indeed, as a student of religion, I know that all sorts of religious folks who believe in incompatible claims of truth testify to the same knowledge by personal subjective experience. I also know that these are the profoundest of emotions (indeed, it’s one reason why I’m a lifetime student of religion).
But when I see Muslims praying five times a day to Mecca and indeed as absolutely terrible as it is, when I see them blow themselves up with the “knowledge” that God will reward them virgins, I witness just as much if not more faith by Muslims in the “knowledge” of the “truth” of their theology as I see by Christians.
And by the way, I seriously doubt you’ve seriously contemplated what the Muslims believe can be Truth. Your response belies this. You should; your soul hangs in the balance.
My reaction to Islamofascism is a gut, “look at how horrible that is, it can’t possibly be True.” But we’ve already established that just because we personally find something horrible doesn’t make it false. In short, my reaction to suicide bombers is not all that different from my reaction to the notion that ordinary people not only deserve but the overwhelming majority of them will get eternal punishment in the flames of Hell (a profoundly unpleasant place).
Report comment to moderator
I assure you Victoria; I didn’t make it up; I’ll look for a primary source, but I distinctly remember one of his key cabinet members relying this joke. And I wonder why you think this was so out of character for Reagan. He reminded me a lot of George Washington on religion; Reagan was very friendly to religious Protestant conservatives, but was friendly to many different types of religious groups that preached incompatible claims of Truth. I haven’t studied Reagan’s faith in detail. But his public supplications to God are in line with the civil religion that America’s Founders established: generically theistic, not specifically Christian. Though I understand from his atheist son, Ron. Jr. that Reagan was a “Christian.”
Report comment to moderator
Here’s a gem we should ponder.
Unveiled and revealing, AT LAST!
Report comment to moderator
Read more carefully I was referring to Ron Reagan JR. who is an outspoken ATHEIST.
Report comment to moderator
94: Victoria, how do you demonstrate your “faith” any more clearly than utter confidence in the face of death?
Report comment to moderator
Jon – 96
I’m aware of who you were referring to. I was speaking of Michael Reagan who would know much MORE of what his father believed.
Report comment to moderator
Jon – 97
You can sit and ponder that one for yourself.
Report comment to moderator
Jon (#’s 92 & 97),
The “faith” of Muslim suicide bombers is far different than that of Christians. Current recruitment methods for these “faithful” robots concentrate on the mentally retarded, drug users and the very young—anyone who is capable of being easily manipulated.
That hardly falls into the category of genuine religious faith. So your example of Muslims willing to die for their faith has, in this instance, some pretty serious shortcomings. Better try something else.
Report comment to moderator
Michael,
You know very little about Muslim suicide bombers because this describes the utter antithesis of the background of those 19 highjackers.
Report comment to moderator
From “Strategic Forcasting” 5 May 08 (Stratfor.com)
Summary
Umar Hamza bin Laden, Osama bin Laden’s 18-year-old son, is recruiting young people aged 13-16 to form small jihadist cells in their areas of residence. The younger bin Laden reportedly is focusing on young people with low IQs or who are mentally disabled and those from broken homes. The move is a sign of al Qaeda’s desperation — but also of its ability to adapt to a changing security environment.
Analysis
A Stratfor source reported May 5 that the 18-year-old son of Osama bin Laden is on a mission to boost recruitment for the jihadist movement.
Umar Hamza bin Laden is one of 19 children reportedly fathered by the renowned global terrorist. Instead of aspiring to become a Western pop singer or calling for peace between Muslims and the West on CNN like some of his other siblings, Umar Hamzah bin Laden has apparently followed in the footsteps of his father in Afghanistan, where he reportedly resides with his Saudi mother.
Umar Hamza is widely recognized in jihadist circles. A poem he allegedly wrote for his father in 2003 is posted on a jihadist Web site where the young man is praised by jihadist sympathizers as a successor to his father.
Now, it seems the younger bin Laden allegedly has been tasked with recruiting minors from 13-16 years old to form small jihadist cells in their areas of residence. According to the source, Umar Hamza is focused on recruiting minors with low IQs or with mental disabilities or those who come from broken homes. The jihadist group is especially intent on boosting recruitment in the West African state of Mauritania, where a jihadist presence has reared its head in recent months and where poverty and homelessness among children is high.
Al Qaeda’s apparent focus on recruiting minors is revealing of the group’s desperation. It is well known by now that al Qaeda is attempting to counter serious shortages in recruits since its ranks have been depleted, particularly in Iraq where the group has been severely hampered by U.S-allied armed Sunni groups.
Though al Qaeda is facing some rough times, the group’s reaching out to mentally disabled minors is also a sign of the group’s innovation. Capable militant groups will learn to adapt to a changing security environment in order to sustain their operations. For example, in 2003 it might have been relatively easy for a suicide bomber in Iraq to storm a security checkpoint, but it is now far more difficult for an adult male with a bulky vest to get close to his intended target. Iraqi insurgent leaders eventually learned that it was a lot easier and more effective for a woman in a loose-fitting abaya to pass security checkpoints than for a man, leading to the more prevalent use of female suicide bombers in attacks.
In the end, it is more effective for these groups to preserve their more skilled or “mentally stable” operatives for the purposes of bomb-making, planning, fund-raising and recruiting than to expend them on suicide missions — thus the need to seek out mentally ill or troubled youths and drug addicts who can be convinced that their salvation will come only from sacrificing themselves in martyrdom missions. Though these foot soldiers might have low skill levels, they are key to the group’s ability to sustain a regular tempo of attacks.
Furthermore, insurgent leaders have developed a variety of insurance policies to ensure a successful attack, regardless of the bomber’s mental health. Such methods include remotely detonating the suicide bomb from a getaway vehicle parked near the attack site, tying the hands of the bomber to the steering wheel of a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device and having a gunman on site to shoot the suicide bomber and automatically trigger the release on the bomb should the attacker get cold feet.
Militant groups around the world have demonstrated their innovation in suicide bombing. In early May, an Iraqi female suicide bomber faking pregnancy detonated herself in the middle of a wedding procession in a Shiite town northeast of Baghdad. In February, two mentally disabled women unwittingly set off bombs in a coordinated suicide attack on two pet markets in Baghdad, killing 73 people.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban has been known to recruit young men who suffer from mental illnesses or who are hooked on drugs. Islamist militants fighting during the Soviet war in Afghanistan were known to employ the use of “kamikaze camels” — camels packed with explosives that could wander in the desert near military sites and be remotely detonated.
The Israelis and Sri Lankans have come across a few interesting suicide lingerie cases as well. Back in 2005, a female suicide bomber was caught at an Israeli checkpoint with 20 pounds of explosives stitched in her underwear. The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, one of the early users of suicide bombing as a tactic, have even devised a suicide brassiere; last November, a mentally disabled Tamil Tiger bra bomber unwittingly blew herself up outside the office of a Tamil minister.
Regardless of ideology, religion, language or purpose, militant groups worldwide will continue to learn from each other and adopt new tactics to maintain an upper hand in their insurgency. While suicide bombing may be a decades-old phenomenon, the ingenuity surrounding the tactic is very much alive.
Report comment to moderator
I read a recent story that said one reason why they were having a hard time recruiting suicide bombers was that many traditional Muslims are turning away from Al-Quaeda — that they’ve ceded the moral high ground in Islam because of all of the innocent Muslim victims of those suicide bombers. This was more the result of a moral debate within the Muslim community. And ultimately that’s going to be a core element in bringing them down. Which is should be. America can and I hope does defeat this enemy. And we can do that if they represent a fraction of Muslims. However, if they represent “Islam” in general, then that’s a billion people…then we are in for a much longer and harder battle.
Report comment to moderator
You should also read up on the background of those 19 highjackers and do a comparison and contrast between them and post 102. Again, Mohamed Atta and company were the opposite of young, gullible drug addicts. They were rather wealthy, well educated, highly intelligent and urbane Islamo-fanatics. And as Dinesh D’Souza pointed out in his last good book (before the “The Enemy at Home” which I hated) “What’s So Great About America” these were not all “insane” in the clinical sense. To the contrary, as a military man, you would know better than most what they pulled off took the utmost amount sane, rational, strategic planning — this is something that 19 drug addicted retarded folks wouldn’t have been able to pull off. So if Bin Laden, et al. are losing the hearts of many devout Muslims and can’t recruit or has recruited all of the Mohamed Attas he’s able to, that’s good news for us.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Here is a primary source for William Rusher of National Review on the Ronald Reagan joke. Although I like the way I relay it better:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_12_56/ai_n13648206/pg_1
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Here is a primary source from William Rusher of National Review on that Reagan joke. I like the way I tell it better, between the Pope and Billy Graham, as opposed to the Pope and a Cardinal. (I originally remember it being told my way as well.)
Report comment to moderator
Jon
Jon
YOU POST # 90 … “Our conversion reminds of a joke that President Reagan supposedly used to tell. I’ll paraphrase because it’s the kind of joke that fits well with paraphrasing: Billy Graham calls the Pope and says there’s good news and bad news. The Pope says: What’s the good news? Graham: Jesus has returned. Pope: That’s so wonderful, how can there be any bad news? Graham: The bad news is He made his return in Salt Lake City.”
YOU WRITE:… “106 “Here is a primary source from William Rusher of National Review on that Reagan joke. I like the way I tell it better, between the Pope and Billy Graham, as opposed to the Pope and a Cardinal. (I originally remember it being told my way as well.)
I went to both sites post 105 and 106. There is NO mention of Billy Graham on either site.
It wouldn’t be like Reagan to have included Billy Graham in this sort of joke. Where is the referrence to Billy Graham?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Your comments at #77 & #78 betray a misunderstanding of what i was saying.
Nothing I wrote implies that I or anyone can magically make up our own heaven. Not even close. Heaven and hell are not figurative, Victoria, but they transcend our grasp here and now. Thus, the descriptions of them in God’s word ARE often figurative.
And I never hinted that ‘human hands’ helped jesus create anything or that he needs such help. Where do you get those interpretations of my comments, Victoria?
Report comment to moderator
Joel
You have contradicted yourself Joel.
“Heaven and hell are not figurative”
“the discriptions of them in God’s word ARE often fiturative”
I strongly disagree, there is NO proof they are “figurative” -
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin, your cancer analogy at #59 was insightful. Great points.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, #94, thanks for highlighting that rather revealing quote from Jon Rowe. I think he often fails to grasp fair or healthy distinctions between Islam and Christian practices and doctrine.
Now to your comments aqt #109, Victoria, I am exasperated with your failure or refusal to understand what I am saying. Take care.
Report comment to moderator
I remember the dialog being between the Pope and a Protestant leader. I’m not sure if it was really Billy Graham. That might be my “remembering” incorrectly. I thought your objection was the fact that Reagan could joke about Jesus returning and calling in from “Salt Lake City.”
Report comment to moderator
Michael martin, #100, wrote; “The ‘faith’ of Muslim suicide bombers is far different than that of Christians.”
You are 100 percent correct. Thanks for making the case clearly and well. Their ‘faith’ is by no means genuine or sincere at all.
What you said is right about the suicide/homicide bombers and Jon’s comments only add the point that they are a diverse group of vicious hateful murderers.
The diversity of backgrounds, motives, demographics and so on of the Islamic jihadist homicide bombers only goes to show how deep and resonating this aspect of radical Isalm is.
And the 19 9/11 hijackers were also easily manipulated.
Report comment to moderator
#101, Jon Rowe wrote; “You know very little about Muslim suicide bombers because this describes the utter antithesis of the background of those 19 highjackers.”
I disagree. All jihadist homicide bambers are far too “easily manipulated” and are often on drugs (which may apply to the 19 9/11 mass murderers too.
I often appreciate Jon’s contributions, even when I disagree but I did not like Jon’s superior tone with Michael Martin, at least that was my impression.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
You may be exasperated, but I find no reason to believe that Christ would have spoken more on hell then Heaven, only to have those in this day and age call it “figurative” – We either believe the Word of GOD, and take what has been graciously given to us as ‘literal’ or we make up our own ideas of Heaven and Hell.
I understand fully what you are saying, I don’t agree with it for a moment. Down-playing a literal hell, which those who are going there will be tormented forever and ever, is not giving out the truth. It’s a horrible thought, but GOD doesn’t mince words.
YOU WRITE #76:… “So, if our mind has not conceived it, then I would say that inspired phrases like “streets of gold” may well be figurative. But it will be better than you or I can imagine.”
GOD can do anything he likes, it says there will be streets of gold, there will be streets of gold.
We come to Revelation 21. Here we see precise views of the city, the stones that are used, the names of the 12 Apostles, the measurements, and yes the gold streets – this isn’t figurative it’s LITERAL, to say otherwise isn’t reading and examining the text carefully.
14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
15 And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof.
16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.
17 And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.
18 And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass.
19 And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald;
20 The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolyte; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst.
21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls: every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.
22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. Revelation 21
Report comment to moderator
Joel (#110),
Thanks. I have been reading with great interest, the exchanges between you and Victoria regarding the destiny of God’s enemies and the possible nature of hell.
Let me run this by you. From all the scripture I have read, it seems to me that all human beings will exist forever. The main difference between them is not whether one just painfully disappears, but where they will exist, heaven or hell. In Scripture we certainly see no such thing as a benign cessation of existence as Steve speculates, and as evolutionary theory implies. On the contrary, the Bible indicates that there are significant eternal consequences, both positive and negative, to how we respond to God during our earthly existence.
One passage that comes to mind is the exchange between Lazarus and the rich sinner in Lk 16. That rich sinner has not ceased to exist. He is “alive” and pleading with Lazarus to warn his brothers so that they might do whatever is required to avoid his torment.
Perhaps it is just a parable, but even if that were so, I don’t see Christ using a parable that far out of synch with “reality,” i.e., the speculative “reality” that God’s human enemies merely cease to exist. Some other parable closer to that “reality” would seem far more appropriate.
Instead, the passage (parable or not) portrays eternal punishment as the reality of human destiny apart from Christ.
What do you think?
Report comment to moderator
Michael – 116
I had decided to finally bring Lazarus into the discussion, and now your post.
In Luke 16 we see the story unfold of Lazarus – Jesus uses the name of the man in the story which is Lazarus, the LORD would not have given the name of someone who did not exist. This story then was not a ‘parable’ but a true story, one that has haunted many a person. The exchange between the rich man and Abraham are telling, – this is no parable but the truth of what hell is – Jesus was giving the story of Abraham in Heaven and the exact EXCHANGE between the rich man and Abraham.
The rich man then exclaims:
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off and Lazarus in this bosom.
24 And he cried and siad, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; For I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Report comment to moderator
“I don’t see Christ using a parable that far out of synch with “reality,…”
Oh come on?!? Jesus used parables that were so far out of sync with reality that practically everything he said — especially when he speaks of Hell — can be dismissed as “metaphorical.” If I am wrong then I expect to see you, Joel, and Victoria walking around with one eye and one arm.
Report comment to moderator
And then there are those who can’t see at all, they don’t believe in Christ so they wouldn’t have the ability to see the wonderous works of the LORD Jesus Christ.
Better to walk around with “one arm” and “one eye” then to be sightless, and mindless of the might works of GOD Almighty -
Report comment to moderator
You’ve just proven my point. The Bible speaks in metaphor. And it’s entirely likely that every passage in Hell is as metaphorical as those “one arm” and “one eye” passages.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
If you knew the Word of GOD, you wouldn’t post — “The Bible speaks in metaphor” — Can you PROVE that?
Report comment to moderator
Yes. Or else you’d have one harm and one eye. When you show yourself as such, then you’ll have refuted my case that the Bible doesn’t speak on metaphor.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, you can confuse yourself, but I’m not confused by what you say.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria wrote; “I understand fully what you are saying, I don’t agree with it for a moment.”
That is incorrect. You are certainly misunderstaning me and the paragraph immediately above your claim to understand me at 115 is a perfect example of misunderstanding me.
I never denied the reality of hell. I do not claim, however, to know many details about the nature of hell and what exactly takes place there and for how long. Such detailed descriptions of it may well be figurative. See my examples in previous posts.
I have not made up any notions of heaven or hell either. Dante and others have done that, but I am not so sure of the details. I think maybe too many people have already made up notions about heaven and hell that aren’t necessarily biblical.
When Jesus “literally” spoke of pucking our eyes out or cutting off our arm, I take his point very seriously, but not as a “literal” command. Do you understand hyperbole? Well, it is not meant to be taken literally.
You are misunderstanding me, Victoria.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin wrote; “From all the scripture I have read, it seems to me that all human beings will exist forever.”
This is the crucial question for me, Michael. I’m not sure this is all that clear. Jesus told us not to fear those who can kill the body, but to fear those who can destroy both the body and the soul in hell. This may mean some can or may undergo a ’second death.’ (permanent).
I am still looking for that unequivocating and non-parabolic passage that clearly promises eternal existence for God’s enemies. I do believe that the saved are granted the gift of eternal life.
I wonder if the notions of the immortality of the soul is a Greek innovation. The Hebrew thinking on God’s punishment runs pretty much toward death or ‘sheol.’
The Luke 16 account is a good challenge to my speculations on this. It is the passage that has not let me “rule out” the notion of ongoing torment in hell. But it is parabolic and Jesus’ point may not be in the details. But then again, it may.
In the end, my faith stands firm as I acknowledge that God has the freedom to punish and reward as He sees fit. But my questions are sincere.
Michael martin asked; “What do you think?”
I think you have made compelling points and you confirm that my questions do not justify ruling out the possibility of the eternal conscious existence of the unrepentant and unsaved. But I still am glad to leave the details of judgment to God and will not be surprised if the unsaved are all just destroyed. I do not plan to be in that category!
Report comment to moderator
#118, Jon Rowe makes a bit mistake to apparently presume that a figure of speech or parable “can be dismissed as ‘metaphorical.’”
This is dead wrong. When Jesus spoke of gouging an eye out, it would be a fatal mistake to “dismiss” his comment as metaphorical. We could recognize it as metaphorical (and NOT har our eye) and ALSO take his point about the severity of sin extremely to heart. It should be a life-changing passage for the serious reader. But it should not lead to physical mutilation.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, have you sold everything you own and given the proceeds to the poor? Jesus told one man that was what he must do to gain entry to the Kingdom. Or was that metaphorical?
The parable of the rich man and Lazarus has nothing to do with hell, by the way. It is about the nation of Judah’s falling out of favor with God. Here is a detailed explanation.
Report comment to moderator
Joel (#125),
You have used the term “parabolic.” What do you mean by that?
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
If I had thought more, I wouldn’t have asked the question in #128. It means of or related to parables, right?
Report comment to moderator
Some call a parable – “An earthly story with a heavenly meaning.”
By parabolic, I mean that the particular passage has a deep spiritual truth to teach, but some of the practical details or circumstantial elements of the story are besides the point.
In other words, if there’s a servant and master in a parable, this does not mean that slavery is justified. If there are sheep and goats in a parable, this does not mean that sheep are essentially good and goats are evil. Also, the parable of the pearl of great price is not necessarily telling us to sell all we have for pearls. And the Prodigal Son story is not a mandate or lesson on how families should arrange their inheritances.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG (#127),
I used your link and read the interpretation of the Lazarus parable provided by Mr. J. Preston Eby at the “Tentmaker” site. He makes a compelling case for viewing the nation of Judah as the rich man of the parable. In that case it would be directed to Christ’s immediate audience, the hypocritical Pharisees. The rich man could also represent hypocritical legalists of any age, ours included.
I also toured the “Tentmaker” site and gained a greater understanding of where you seem to be coming from in many of your other views expressed on this blog. The key feature of the site appears to be the concept of Universalism, that ALL of mankind will eventually be saved through the ministry of Christ. If they are not saved during this earthly life, they will eventually come to accept Christ and be saved at some unspecified future time.
Hence, there is no need for a hell and all Scriptural references related to hell are then reinterpreted to mean something far different than the traditional views held by most Christian churches. The site unapologetically acknowledged that this concept of Universalism has been labeled a heresy by most Christian denominations. While I commend Mr. Amirault (the site’s main spokesman) for his honesty in this regard, I am afraid I have to agree with the view that this concept of Universalism is a heretical departure from Scripture as I understand it.
Not only does it color many Scriptures with what could be called a “private interpretation” (see 1Pt 1:20 and other warnings about false prophets), but there are several common sense objections as well.
For example, If ALL men are eventually going to be saved, there is little or no incentive to do right at any time in life. You can enjoy the pleasures of sin and the abuse of other people with no long term consequences. God’s love, under this view, is so all encompassing that the eventual destiny of everyone is heaven, so what does it matter how I act at any time?
Am I on track with my overview of this site and it’s concept of Universalism? Is this also your view? If so, I now have a better understanding of your views on hell, or non-hell, I should say.
Report comment to moderator
Michael,
If you are going to talk about conduct on this earth, the notion of grace as opposed to works belies the notion that salvation leads to proper conduct. Folks who’ve once secured their salvation “can enjoy the pleasures of sin and the abuse of other people with no long term consequences,” because all will be forgiven.
Report comment to moderator
There is nothing substantive in the text of Luke 16:19-31 or the context that compells or suggests that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is about the nation of Judah’s falling out of favor with God. The rich man is not the nation of Judah, but any unmerciful and selfish person who lives in luxury without any reasonably concern for the needs of others. If the rich man expects to be rewarded in the afterlife or if he thinks Lazarus is not significant in God’s eyes, he may be in for a big surprise.
Nor does this parable teach what nations or governments should do to make the needy dependent on those governments.
Report comment to moderator
If we are talking about “rewards & punishments” let me point out to Michael et al. that theological universalism is not inconsistent with the notion of rewards and punishments in the afterlife and ultimately that’s utilitarian argument for religion — how belief in the afterlife leads to moral conduct in this life. This is something George Washington recognized when he praised a Universalist Church.
Report comment to moderator
Michael:
Tentmaker.org is indeed a Christian universalist ministry. Myself, I am a universalist but I’m not sure I’d call myself a Christian universalist … I’m undecided on that question. However, Christian universalism makes much greater sense to me than Christian exclusivism.
My time is short at the moment (at work), but let me quickly address two points:
Not only does it color many Scriptures with what could be called a “private interpretation” (see 1Pt 1:20 and other warnings about false prophets), but there are several common sense objections as well.
However, it’s possible — and indeed, Christian universalists argue — that the universalist readings of Scripture are indeed the correct and original ones.
Jesus’s words about hell are mostly about “Gehenna,” not (Greek) Hades … that is, he’s describing the earthly fate of those Jews who rejected him on earth, not eternal fate.
Many prominent early Christian teachers, including Origen, Gregory of Nyssa and many others, believed that Christ’s salvation would ultimately extend to all. The New Testament itself is filled with references that support that reading … “In Christ, God was reconciling the world to Himself,” for example. Or 1 Timothy 4:10, “Jesus Christ, the savior of all men, especially those who believe.” The use of “especially” rather than “only” is not a mistake.
The New Testament often speaks of punishment, but it usually does not explicitly talk about unending punishment. That’s something modern readers, brought up to believe in hell, read back into the words.
Universalism only became a heresy under the rule of Constantine, several centuries after Christ. Until that time, it was a well-accepted option. Constantine, seeking political power, realized that being able to convince people they stood in danger of eternal torment if they did not conform was a strong political tool.
For example, If ALL men are eventually going to be saved, there is little or no incentive to do right at any time in life. You can enjoy the pleasures of sin and the abuse of other people with no long term consequences. God’s love, under this view, is so all encompassing that the eventual destiny of everyone is heaven, so what does it matter how I act at any time?
That is not that much different from the exclusivist Christian view, is it? You can be the vilest murderer and thief for 60 years of your life, then repent in your final six months, and go to heaven.
Christian universalism does not argue for consequencelessness. There is indeed divine punishment in Christian universalism, and in the view of some it can be agonizing and last a very long time … just not eternally.
Think about it … if you killed 10 people and your punishment was to feel as if you were burning alive for 1,000 years for each victim … 10,000 years without respite from the pain of being engulfed in flames before God considers you purified from your sin … does that sound like “it doesn’t matter how you behave?”
The key thing about Christian universalism is that it holds that sin is a disease to be cured, or impurity to be burned out … but once the soul is healed of sin, it becomes worthy to be in God’s presence. That’s a contrast to the eternal dungeon, but one that seems infinitely more merciful and more just.
Report comment to moderator
Jon – 132
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? James 2:14
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. James 2:17
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. James 2:18
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? James 2:20
Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? James 2:22
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
James 2:24
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. James 2:26
Report comment to moderator
The key thing about Christian universalism is that it holds that sin is a disease to be cured, or impurity to be burned out … but once the soul is healed of sin, it becomes worthy to be in God’s presence. That’s a contrast to the eternal dungeon, but one that seems infinitely more merciful and more just.
I don’t see how any sane Christian could not embrace this.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg – I don’t agree with you.
The story of Lazarus has nothing to do with the nation of Judah -
Report comment to moderator
Victoria … I’m not surprised. You are unable to see anything as non-literal. You don’t even get irony or hyperbole most of the time. So of course you have to take it at face value. I understand.
When someone starts a joke by saying “A priest, a businessman and a moose walk into a bar,” you’re the person saying, “Hey, mooses don’t go to bars … did you really expect me to believe that?”
Report comment to moderator
Steveg, carry on.
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG – The key thing about Christian universalism is that it holds that sin is a disease to be cured, or impurity to be burned out … but once the soul is healed of sin, it becomes worthy to be in God’s presence. That’s a contrast to the eternal dungeon, but one that seems infinitely more merciful and more just.
But wouldn’t your statement imply that Jesus is not the Savior of all if those who don’t believe are saved by suffering temporary torment in order to be healed of their sin? And please explain how burning alive for 10,000 yrs without respite from the pain of being engulfed in flames is merciful?
Report comment to moderator
JON – I don’t see how any sane Christian could not embrace this.
To say that 10,000 yrs of burning alive is merciful is not sane.
Report comment to moderator
I’d imagine that the purging in Hell is both painful and enjoyable at the same time, similar to how throwing up feels cathartic as you are doing in and you feel much better when it’s done. Another analogy might be if you’ve ever had something foreign stuck in your body like a splinter of wood — once the tweezer gets a hold of it and pulls it out — there is pain involved, but the process of removing such an impurity from the body feels good at the same time.
Report comment to moderator
SBG:
But wouldn’t your statement imply that Jesus is not the Savior of all if those who don’t believe are saved by suffering temporary torment in order to be healed of their sin? And please explain how burning alive for 10,000 yrs without respite from the pain of being engulfed in flames is merciful?
It’s far more merciful than burning alive forever, which is what the traditional hell doctrine demands. Only annihilationists — another near-heretical view — avoid that issue.
Christian universalists assert that Jesus is the savior and the soul’s embrace of that is necessary. They just also hold that God holds the door open as long as necessary for each invidiual to come to that point. The purging of sin applies to all, perhaps even to those who find salvation in this life (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:11-15).
Report comment to moderator
Also, my hypothetical 10,000 years was just an example … Christian universalism doesn’t teach that we die and go to heaven easily or painlessly no matter what we’ve done.
But what specifically might happen is, of course, not something anyone knows. I raised that as an example to counter the “it doesn’t matter how you act” argument.
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG,
You guys obviously need a lesson on the definition of mercy. It means to alleviate pain or lessen punishment – not inflict it. Neither temporary or eternal torment is merciful. And the traditional hell doctrine does not claim that eternal torment is merciful. God’s mercy is demonstrated by His gift of eternal life to those who believe in His Son. He saves them from the punishment they deserve and that’s mercy.
1 Cor 3:11-15 is the judgment of believers works in order to receive a reward for what they have done in His name – not a purging of sin.
“They just also hold that God holds the door open as long as necessary for each invidiual to come to that point”
No – according to what you said God holds them in the flames until they are cleansed – burning alive with no respite from the pain.
Report comment to moderator
Well there is nothing merciful about God burning people forever because folks flunk his theology test. And that’s exactly what it is that your side teaches. Muslims believe they worship the true God. Mormons believe they’ve got it right. Atheists genuinely believe they’ve discovered God doesn’t exist. I know some balk at this notion but evangelical Protestantism has traditionally held Roman Catholicism to be an apostate Church and hence Catholics qua Catholics go to Hell upon death. There is nothing merciful about burning them for eternity because they didn’t get their theological answers “right.”
Report comment to moderator
“They just also hold that God holds the door open as long as necessary for each invidiual to come to that point”
No – according to what you said God holds them in the flames until they are cleansed – burning alive with no respite from the pain.
God may require punishment for sin, but once the penalty is paid, it’s paid. If the soul has accepted grace as means to be forgiven, then it is forgiven. If not, then the due punishment may be inflicted.
But the punishment, severe as it may be, is finite. The mercy is that it ends, in contrast to the standard doctrine of hell in which it never ends. It’s also more just, because justice demands that the punishment fit the crime … eternal torment outweighs, infinitely, every sin or crime imaginable.
Report comment to moderator
JON -
It’s not about theology. It’s about relationship. God’s main desire is for us to KNOW Him. If you think you can know Him by reading the Quran or the book of Mormon or etc. or you think we can’t know Him or you think you can create your own image of Him or you think He doesn’t exist then all I can do is pray for you and hope that one day you do know Him – because He knew you before you were born.
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG – once the penalty is paid, it’s paid.
So Jesus’ death is not necessary and forgiveness is not necessary because we can pay for our own sins.
Jesus paid the penalty so we don’t have to – that’s mercy. We will have to agree to disagree – please read my post to JON. I think I need to take another break from all this. It’s getting too repetitive.
Report comment to moderator
Jon (#137),
The statement you quoted from Steve’s post #134 bears no resemblance whatsoever to actual Christianity. If that is an accurate representation of Universalism, it is indeed a heresy that no “sane Christian” will embrace. Steve needs to support that statement and tell us exactly where in Scripture it comes from.
In contrast to the above fantasy, a very brief summary of the Biblical position on the problem of human sin can be summarized as follows (with Scriptural proofs):
What is sin? Sin is any lack of conformity to or transgression of the law of God. (1John 3:4)
What is the penalty of sin in this world? The penalty of sin is death. (Rom 6:23)
What is the penalty of sin in the world to come? In the world to come, the punishment of sin is everlasting separation from the presence of God. To be separated from God is to exist in the torments of hell forever. (2Thes 1:8,9; Mk 9:42–48)
What is the solution to our sin problem? God, in His mercy, did not leave us in the aforementioned helpless and hopeless state. He has provided a loving solution in Jesus Christ for all who trust in Him. (1Thes 1:9)
How do I participate in this solution? I repent of my sins and trust in Christ for forgiveness, a new life of victory over sin, and eventual sinless perfection with God in heaven. (Acts 3:19; Rom 3:21–26; Ps 103:12; Rom 8:1–8; 1Cor 15:42–44; Phil 3:21)
The above summary is necessarily brief. There are a multitude of similar passages and for anyone who takes the time to read even these, they will see that there is not even a hint of the kind of scenario put forward by the concept of Universalism. The Bible teaches that Christ freely pays for the Christian’s sins, once and for all. There is no, repeat no, residual amount of sin that must be paid for by us in some future state. Christ’s sacrifice is all-sufficient in the eyes of God and there is nothing we can do now, or suffer in some kind of future purgatory, to make us worthy to be in God’s presence, as this mistaken concept of Universalism speculates.
In the Christian’s earthly life he diligently progresses through a growing process, sometimes called “sanctification,” to become more like Christ. He is aided in this process through the indwelling of God Himself in the person of the Holy Spirit. After the Christian’s earthly death he is instantly transferred into the presence of God and infused with a new and absolutely perfect spirit, free from all taint and influence of sin. The Bible speaks of this as “glorification” and this is done by the power of God Himself and not by some lingering, punishing, burning out process as Steve has stated. ALL the after-life punishments of sin have, for the Christian, already been taken care of by Christ. The scenario that Steve imagines is not found anywhere in Scripture.
Report comment to moderator
Well Jefferson couldn’t fathom how anyone could believe in the Trinity; I understand his criticism (1+1+1=3, not 1, a “self-evident” truth) but don’t have as hard a time with that as with eternal damnation. Honestly, I don’t see how anyone really deep down really believe in it. You just talk tough. I suspect that most Christians — orthodox, evangelical, Trinitarian — deep down don’t really believe in eternal damnation or express hope that the punishment will be temporary.
That’s probably why I don’t have a hard time equating “Christian” with “Universalism.” I’ve conceded in debates about the Founders that “Christian” can be equated with “Trinitarianism.” Therefore men like Jefferson, J. Adams, Franklin, Madison and others who understood themselves to be “Unitarian Christians” really weren’t “Christians,” just “Unitarians.” However, as long as one believes in orthodox doctrines like the Trinity, I don’t think the words “Christian” and “Universalist” are mutually exclusive as are “Christian” and “Unitarian.”
Report comment to moderator
“There is no, repeat no, residual amount of sin that must be paid for by us in some future state.”
It’s possible that men are PUNISHED in the afterlife until they accept Jesus. That Jesus is willing to work with men after death to save them. This is what the early Arminian Universalists believed in. After all if Christ’s Atonement is Universal, not Limited, then that itself suggests all will be saved (indeed that’s a major Calvinist critic of Universal Atonement).
Report comment to moderator
“It’s possible that men are PUNISHED in the afterlife until they accept Jesus. That Jesus is willing to work with men after death to save them. This is what the early Arminian Universalists believed in.”
Anyone can believe whatever they like, the above is not in the Word of GOD.
Report comment to moderator
“Well Jefferson couldn’t fathom how anyone could believe in the Trinity;”
Because Jefferson or anyone else has ‘trouble’ understanding the Trinity doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
Report comment to moderator
SBG at #150: So Jesus’ death is not necessary and forgiveness is not necessary because we can pay for our own sins.
Jesus paid the penalty so we don’t have to – that’s mercy.
You’re creating a contradiction where there isn’t one. The CU view is that Jesus did indeed pay the penalty so we don’t have to. And we have to accept and embrace that to be saved. But those who don’t do that, rather than being damned for all eternity, are punished for their sin (because they did not accept forgiveness). Punishment, in the CU view, is ultimately redemptive. It’s God’s last resort to persuade the reluctant soul to come into His presence.
Consider this: God is said to be love (not loving, not capable of love, but love) and God is also said to be unwilling that any should perish.
If even one human soul perishes — that is, cannot ultimately be redeemed — then God has failed and his will and love have been thwarted.
Jesus, Paul tells us, defeats sin and death. You defeat sin not by destroying the soul (just as you don’t cure cancer by killing the patient) but by eradicating the sin from the soul, leaving the soul pure and healed.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin: Christ’s sacrifice is all-sufficient in the eyes of God and there is nothing we can do now, or suffer in some kind of future purgatory, to make us worthy to be in God’s presence, as this mistaken concept of Universalism speculates.
You’re misstating the Christian Universalist position. CU also believes that Christ’s sacrifice is all-sufficient. But CU also teaches that it extends to all people, eventually. Many do not embrace it during their Earthly lives, but God, in His mercy, doesn’t close the door at the grave. (And what sense does it make to suppose He does?)
Punishment is not a substitute for grace, it’s a necessary phase for those who have not (yet) accepted the grace.
The book The Evangelical Universalist by Gregory MacDonald lays out a compelling Biblical case for it, in far more detail than I can do in a blog comment. I recommend it for anyone open-minded enough to consider the point of view.
Report comment to moderator
Jon (#153),
The keys to this argument are, 1) the veracity of the Bible and, 2) how one interprets it.
In the first case, the Bible claims within itself that it is the living, breathing Word of God, and (as originally written) without error. If this claim is a lie, then virtually nothing within it can be trusted. Nor is it a satisfactory drop-back position to accept Steve’s view that the Bible contains the word of God, rather than being the actual Word of God. Somewhere, within its thousands of words, is hidden the real Word of God, while the rest is just a husk to be discarded. Such a compromise view puts one in the same position as before, nothing the Bible says can be trusted. It all becomes subject to error and the judgment of the individual reader.
This defies logic and is the equivalent of anarchy, with each man deciding for himself what portions of the Bible, if any, are true. In such a situation the truth is impossible to find with any certainty. So, in order to dispel this untenable situation, the Bible (or God Himself) MUST make the stupendous claim that it is the actual, inerrant Word of God. We are then faced with an either/or proposition. No sort of middle-ground compromise is possible. Either the Bible is what it says it is, or it is not. Make that decision and then follow through with it, one way or another.
If I reject the Bible’s claim to be the actual Word of God, then I reject its authority over me—I reject God’s authority and I get to make my own rules. This has been mankind’s problem with God from the very start.
The second issue is how one interprets the Bible. This is a moot point if one rejects its claim to be the Word of God in the first place. If the Bible is just subjective opinion from the start, what difference does it make if I just add another layer of subjectivity to it when I interpret it by my own unique method? The end product is just a hash of subjective, human opinions.
However, if I accept the proposition that the Bible is the actual Word of God, then how I interpret it is extremely important. That is why legitimate seminaries place a great deal of emphasis on hermeneutics, the principles of Biblical interpretation. These principles are basically no different than the common principles of interpreting any written language. They are all designed to arrive at an accurate understanding of what the author of the text is saying.
After saying all this, Jon, I believe that the differences between you and me, all boil down to our acceptance or rejection of the Bible as being the actual Word of God. I accept it, while you reject it. I use commonly accepted hermeneutic methods in its interpretation and you use “other” methods convenient to your already formed subjective views.
The Christian of my persuasion then looks at the Bible and accepts it for what it says, whether he likes it or not. He sees himself as a person subject to sin and error and who must obediently allow himself to be shaped by God’s Word, rather than trying to reshape God’s word to his own views. I must accept that I, as a natural man, have serious problems and that I am in need of correction by the one true God. The truth of God’s Word supersedes my own opinions and I must conform to it, not vice versa.
To take this from the perspective of the individual to the collective perspective of all mankind, I see no hope for the world in Jon’s view. Having rejected the one true God and His absolute Word, there is nothing left but billions of people in a perpetual anarchy of moral/religious views and constant, ensuing conflict.
Report comment to moderator
#158 “This defies logic and is the equivalent of anarchy, with each man deciding for himself what portions of the Bible, if any, are true. In such a situation the truth is impossible to find with any certainty. So, in order to dispel this untenable situation, the Bible (or God Himself) MUST make the stupendous claim that it is the actual, inerrant Word of God.”
Michael Martin,
I ask this as a Christian, not wanting to reject the Bible as the Word of God but to have a better understanding on what basis I accept it –
How is it against logic to say the truth is impossible to find with any certainty? Against our desire to know the truth with certainly, yes. But how is it against logic?
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin: This defies logic and is the equivalent of anarchy, with each man deciding for himself what portions of the Bible, if any, are true.
Just pointing out that your position does not solve this in any way. You’re still “deciding for [your]self what portions of the Bible, if any, are true.” You’re just deciding that all of them are.
I think this requires you to believe some rather ridiculous things on the basis that they’re in the Bible, rather than applying reason to discern where there may be truth. But it is certainly easier to just decide it’s all true, and think no more about it.
But again, that doesn’t solve the objection you raise. Deciding it’s all true is no less arbitrary than anything you might criticize my view for.
Report comment to moderator
MM again: If I reject the Bible’s claim to be the actual Word of God, then I reject its authority over me—I reject God’s authority and I get to make my own rules. This has been mankind’s problem with God from the very start.
That does not logically follow. If you believe — as I do — that the will of God is only partially, and not exclusively, reflected in the Bible, then rejecting Biblcal inerrancy and rejecting God are two entirely different things.
In making this assertion you are assuming the truth of your hypothesis — that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God — rather than demonstrating whether the hypothesis is correct.
In rejecting Biblical inerrancy, I am rejecting God’s authority ONLY IF your hypothesis is correct. But you have not shown that it is; it is just a position you choose to assume.
Report comment to moderator
MM concludes: To take this from the perspective of the individual to the collective perspective of all mankind, I see no hope for the world in Jon’s view. Having rejected the one true God and His absolute Word, there is nothing left but billions of people in a perpetual anarchy of moral/religious views and constant, ensuing conflict.
Again though, this is premised on the undemonstrated belief that the Bible is God’s “absolute Word.” If it is not, then rejecting the Bible is not the same as rejecting God.
And I think the conflict you lament comes from just this attitude. You are presenting your belief about God and God’s relationship to the Bible as absolute truth. Rather than showing humility in the face of the unknown, you decide — arbitrarily — what is what and pronounce everyone else wrong.
It’s this kind of absolutism that leads to religious conflict. If people went around saying “This is what I believe, but I acknowledge that it is only one way to believe and that the ultimate truth is unknown,” people would get along far better. As it is, we tend to go around saying “The Bible is the absolute Word of the one true God and if you don’t agree, you are bound for hell,” or “The will of Allah is revealed inerrantly only in the Holy Koran, and I must destroy the infidels who don’t believe.”
And thus, we fight. NOT because we have different beliefs, but because we have an inflated sense of certainty about them.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline (#158),
Logically, for a given proposition, say 2+2=4, there is one right answer and an infinite number of wrong answers. So, if I reject the idea that there is an authority who knows and who can tell me the right answer, then I must accept the idea that all the various infinity of answers could be right. This approach is illogical to the truth of a single right answer and makes it impossible to ever find the right answer with any degree of certainty.
But, of course, if you hold the view that there is no “right” answer, and that there are a variety of “right” answers, then it is not an illogical approach.
In my example I used a mathematical proposition which make the whole thing easier to see. Jon, I am sure, will say that Biblical issues are not that clear-cut and that there are no similar absolutes. However, I would disagree.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin,
The existence of an authority who knows the right answer does not logically require that the authority provide the answer in a book.
I don’t know about Jon’s view, but SteveG’s view (as I understand it from reading a great many of his comments in various threads) is that the right answer does exist, but we don’t have an infallible book to tell us what that right answer is, that we come as close as we can to it through a combination of observation, conscience, wisdom passed on from others, etc.
That’s not the same as saying there is no right answer or that there are a variety of right answers. It does still leave one lacking certainty that one does in fact have the right answer.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline: I don’t know about Jon’s view, but SteveG’s view (as I understand it from reading a great many of his comments in various threads) is that the right answer does exist, but we don’t have an infallible book to tell us what that right answer is, that we come as close as we can to it through a combination of observation, conscience, wisdom passed on from others, etc.
Yes!
Wow! That’s exactly it!
Report comment to moderator
Pauline (#164) writes:
”The existence of an authority who knows the right answer does not logically require that the authority provide the answer in a book.
You are right, there is no logical requirement that the authority, God, provide us the right answer in a book. However, throughout the book He has graciously and repeatedly told us, that this is the case. He also sent us His Son, Jesus Christ, to live among us so that we might believe. He even did many astounding miracles so that we might believe.
When speaking to Philip He said,
Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time?…Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.” (Jhn 14:9,11)
John goes on to say:
”Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” (Jhn 20:30,31)
God has gone to extreme measures to provide a doubting mankind with all the evidence they need concerning Him, including the remarkable book, the Holy Bible. It is an unnecessary tragedy for people, but especially for Christians, to doubt its message and to spread that doubt among others.
”So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded. You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what He has promised. For in just a very little while, ‘He who is coming will come and will not delay. But my righteous one will live by faith. And if he shrinks back, I will not be pleased with him. But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.” (Heb 10:35-39)
Report comment to moderator
Ah yes … the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says it is the Word of God, and we know that must be true because, being as it is the Word of God, it can’t be wrong.
Do you ever get dizzy from spinning in circles?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG (#162),
Two points:
First, you say that there is no demonstration that the Bible is God’s “absolute word.” You call my belief in that a mere assumption.
However, the Old Testament prophets, Christ Himself, the disciples of Christ, and Paul all testify repeatedly that the Scriptures are God’s word. That is NOT an assumption. To believe that is simply to believe what these witnesses say. Are they reliable witnesses? I am convinced that they are. If you trust in Christ for your salvation as you claim, it makes no sense to doubt Him on this point.
Second, you claim that a Christian’s assurance about his faith contributes to world and religious conflict. You put the Christian faith in the same category of the Muslim who vows to destroy those who do not accept his religion.
Your claim is absurd. The Christian witness for his faith is guided by this principle:
”Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience.” (1Pt 3:15)
We do not cut heads off if people do not believe. That approach is for the Muslims. In this life, the Christian enthusiastically and zealously seeks to preach the gospel as commanded by Christ in the Great Commission (Mt 28:19,20). But, the ultimate consequences for unbelief are rendered by God alone in the afterlife. While we draw attention to the fact of God’s ultimate judgment in our witness, that is in no way comparable to the physical threats and acts of death and destruction perpetrated by Muslim murderers in this life.
You should know that and I am astounded and disappointed that you would make such a false accusation.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin:
However, the Old Testament prophets, Christ Himself, the disciples of Christ, and Paul all testify repeatedly that the Scriptures are God’s word. That is NOT an assumption. To believe that is simply to believe what these witnesses say.
And there is the circle.
Where do these witness say it?
In the Bible!
You are arguing essentially the Bible is true because stories recorded IN the Bible include accounts of people saying the Bible (or parts of it) are true.
Do you not see how absurd that logic is?
As to your second point, I did not say that Christians are as likely to be violent as Muslims. What I said was that the dogged insistence that one’s own view is the only possibly correct one is what causes religious conflict.
When two people each believe they have the one and only truth about God, and their beliefs are opposed to each other, and they cannot find the humility to accept that what they have are beliefs rather than certain knowledge, that’s the recipe for conflict.
Report comment to moderator
You should know that and I am astounded and disappointed that you would make such a false accusation.
I made no such accusation. You completely mistook what I said.
Report comment to moderator
And thus, we fight. NOT because we have different beliefs, but because we have an inflated sense of certainty about them.
Indeed, it’s not the belief, it’s the fundamentalism that’s the problem.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG (#169),
You are mistaken in your evaluation of my logic. Circular reasoning is far different than plainly believing what a witness says.
A good example of true circular reasoning is found in the evolutionary practice of dating rocks by their fossil content and vice versa. The fossils are said to be a certain age because of the age of the rock. Yet, the age of the rock was established by the supposed age of the fossils in the first place. That is true circular reasoning, and it is indeed absurd.
On the other hand, I am saying that I believe what the writers of the Bible say about the words they have written. That is no different than believing Robert Louis Stevenson when he says, “I wrote ”Treasure Island.” There is no circular reasoning involved at all. Neither is there circular reasoning involved in believing the Biblical claims as to its authorship. Your assertion is bogus.
For me, the strength of proof lies in a number of things, including the credibility of the witnesses, historical accuracy, fulfilled prophecies, internal consistency, and the amazing wisdom contained therein. The Bible has no peer in its accurate assessment of human nature and human relations. I won’t go into a detailed exposition on each of those points for the sake of space and time. Suffice it to say that millions of people over the centuries have reached the same conclusion: the compilation of such a book by human hands alone was and is, impossible. The only possible author is God Himself, just as the writers of the Bible claim.
In regard to the second point on religious conflict, you reason like the liberal politicians of today who hold us responsible for Muslim violence. The Muslim is like the robber/murderer who blames his victim and says it was the victim’s fault for resisting his criminal advances.
According to your reasoning, I am supposed to say to the Muslim, “Gee, I’m not really sure about my faith. The Bible is just an ordinary book and my faith is only a matter of opinion. You and your “Holy” Koran might be right after all.”
Even though I as a Christian pose no threat to him, I’m supposed to say this to appease his sensibilities so that he won’t become angry and do something violent. In effect, you want me to lie about the assurance of my faith so as not to offend a bunch of petty tyrants with a swords.
That would amount to nothing less than a denial of my faith and a denial of my Lord based on pure cowardice. I will not do that, nor should any genuine Christian.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin: You are mistaken in your evaluation of my logic. Circular reasoning is far different than plainly believing what a witness says.
Sigh.
As simply as I can put it: You didn’t hear those witnesses say anything. You have second-hand accounts (at best) reporting that they said those things. You have alleged witness testimony about other alleged witness testimony and no way to independently verify any of it. You can’t put any of those “witnesses” on a witness stand under oath and ask them questions.
Seriously, why don’t you get this? It isn’t complicated.
On the other hand, I am saying that I believe what the writers of the Bible say about the words they have written. That is no different than believing Robert Louis Stevenson when he says, “I wrote ”Treasure Island.” There is no circular reasoning involved at all.
There is when your proof that the Bible is true is that the Bible says it is true.
Your RLS example doesn’t fit. Nobody debates that RLS wrote Treasure Island, and nobody debates that various people wrote the books of the Bible.
But if people were arguing that Treasure Island was a work of non-fiction, and their evidence for it was that on page 112, Long John Silver says it’s true, you’d have a circle.
For me, the strength of proof lies in a number of things, including the credibility of the witnesses, historical accuracy, fulfilled prophecies, internal consistency, and the amazing wisdom contained therein. The Bible has no peer in its accurate assessment of human nature and human relations. I won’t go into a detailed exposition on each of those points for the sake of space and time. Suffice it to say that millions of people over the centuries have reached the same conclusion: the compilation of such a book by human hands alone was and is, impossible. The only possible author is God Himself, just as the writers of the Bible claim.
Millions of people over the centuries have also reached just the opposite conclusion. And many of them are equally impressed by other alleged words of God which they insist would have been impossible for mere humans to have written. The argument from “gosh, wow,” is only compelling to people already persuaded.
Most of your claims of supremacy are exaggerated. In fact many Bible stories are unsupported or even challenged by archaeology. The books are riddled with internal contradictions that apologists have to go to great lengths to try to explain away. Most of the claims of “fulfilled prophecy” that I’ve seen don’t stand up under examination. And while it is true that the Bible stories show a good understanding of human nature, it’s hardly unique even among ancient texts in that regard. The writers are telling honest stories about people, of course they reveal important things about human nature.
In regard to the second point on religious conflict, you reason like the liberal politicians of today who hold us responsible for Muslim violence.
No one does that, least of all me.
According to your reasoning, I am supposed to say to the Muslim, “Gee, I’m not really sure about my faith. The Bible is just an ordinary book and my faith is only a matter of opinion. You and your “Holy” Koran might be right after all.”
Again you distort what I said. According to my reasoning, you should say to the Muslim, “I believe that what I believe is true and is the way to God. But I understand you believe the same thing about your faith, and I can respect that we have a difference of opinion.”
Because if you don’t respect the difference of opinion and he doesn’t respect it either, what room is left for peaceful dialog?
That would amount to nothing less than a denial of my faith and a denial of my Lord based on pure cowardice. I will not do that, nor should any genuine Christian.
OK. But then stop complaining about religious conflict or trying to blame it on those of us who don’t think conservative Christianity is the one and only true path to God. Everyone who insists that only they and those who agree with them have the real truth are the direct cause of religious conflict.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG (#173),
No need to sigh Steve. The Lord promises:
”You will seek Me and find Me when you seek Me with all your heart.” (Jer 29:13)
If you are not yet a Christian, He can bring you into the fold. If you are a Christian, He has the power to remove all your doubts and strengthen your faith.
I pray that He will do that for you.
Report comment to moderator
I think the Lord uses many different ways through our personalities and gifts to bring people to Him. Whether its turn or burn or starting in stages. However the complete picture is needed. In fact I’m willing to bet a child has a much easier time dealing with the consequences of sin than adults do.
Typically though, things go much better in the doctor’s office when the doctor tells you whats wrong before he tells you how to fix it.
Report comment to moderator