More Active Posts
Front Page
Fed up
 |
 139 Comments |
“I’m fed up with God!” (2 Kings 6:33, The Messenger )
Bart D. Ehrman got fed up with God and wrote a book about it entitled God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer our Most Important Question — Why We Suffer.
Most of us have flirted with this kind of mutiny — in the face of pictures of starving children and genocides and tsunamis under which planet Earth groans.
Suffering is the wedge that cleaves humanity into two camps — the “curse God and die” (Job 2:9) camp, symbolized by Job’s wife; the “though he slay me, I will hope in him” (Job
Man, beginning with his own mind, tries to draw a circle big enough to circumscribe all reality. He sets out to take in the evidence and judge it, but of course that’s as ludicrous as a child trying to empty the sea with a Dixie cup.
What do you do with the evidence of unspeakable beauty — a perfect lily; a baby’s softness? Which is more reasonable to believe — that God is schizophrenic? Or that there is a mysterious Enemy skulking about who has thrown a wrench in everything? (Matthew 13).
What do you do with the evidence of changed lives: Murderers to ministers of the gospel?
Yesterday I got a letter in the mailbag from a woman who lost her husband five years ago in a freak accident while on a missions trip, serving the Lord. And she has drawn closer to God through it. Go figure.
There is much we don’t see behind the curtain. And where can I go? He has the words of life.
 |
Topic: Editor's Choice, Front Page, Odds & Ends |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: christianity, God, suffering, theodicy |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
A matter of life
Ehrman’s right. The “biblical teaching” on suffering is a bunch of nonsense, and God’s “promises” are sick jokes.
Which is more reasonable to believe — that God is schizophrenic? Or that there is a mysterious Enemy skulking about who has thrown a wrench in everything?
Say, that reminds me … whatever happened to Outkast?
Hey that’s a good point. I haven’t heard his snickering in a while.
Is he ok? Anybody know?
Well, one thing is for sure, there are many innocent folks who do not deserve the suffering they get. That all men are imperfect is no excuse for the suffering that occurs in this world. Whatever punishment an individual receives must be proportionate to his or her sins and stealing a lollipop does not merit being the victim of a brutal murder.
I’d imagine with many folks who die unfair premature deaths or otherwise unduly suffer, whatever religion they may be, when they get to Heaven, God will thank and reward them for their undeserved suffering on Earth and perhaps God will ask their forgiveness.
And, one more time, for the record, the god of the Bible is certainly a schizophrenic being. There’s no way to reconcile Yahweh, the god of the OT, with Jesus, the god of the NT.
The book’s title makes a false statement “How the Bible Fails to Answer our Most Important Question — Why We Suffer”
Last time I checked the Bible was very clear on why we suffer. It’s in Genesis 3. I’ll admit that since I’m related to Adam and Eve it is all my family’s fault.
Yeah, and that’s a real believable story. And God’s quite a compassionate guy to condemn billions of people to lives of suffering, and eternity in a lake of fire, for something someone did 6000 years ago. But I must admit, I’m glad snakes no longer walk upright and talk. That would be freaky.
#5 is correct. The problem is not that God does not share enough truth with us, the problem is that we can no more understand than a first grader could understand a very difficult mathematic equation. With what would he understand since he is still adding single digit numbers? God clearly states that our thoughts are so far beyond His, that we will not be able to understand it all.
Children cannot understand all the moves their parents make on their behalf either. They can learn to trust and therefore obey. We come to God as a child.
” And where can I go? He has the words of life.”
What is the exact Scripture and reference for this? Anyone know off hand?
(NightTrain & SteveG - Grow up. Maybe he had enough of nonsense like yours.)
VS, it’s a paraphrase of John 6:68, ‘Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”‘
Actually, the Bible has a real good explanation for why we suffer. It’s the naturalists and athiest who can’t come up with a good reason for it. They’re the ones with the problem, not God.
There is a very distinct difference between not answering a question and not giving us an answer that we like.
(NightTrain & SteveG - Grow up. Maybe he had enough of nonsense like yours.)
Actually, it would be more accurate to say that maybe he got tired of having his hat handed to him.
Which is more reasonable to believe — that God is schizophrenic? Or that there is a mysterious Enemy skulking about who has thrown a wrench in everything? (Matthew 13).
That might just be a false dichotomy. Sometimes, bad things just happen, without any moral rhyme or reason. Randomly, for all we can tell.
The meaning and morality come in how we respond.
The God thing doesn’t really bother me since no one has ever seen or heard of it and there has never been a “trace of God”. It’s the followers that scare me. Regardless of the God, they all seem scary.
Which is more reasonable to believe — that God is schizophrenic? Or that there is a mysterious Enemy skulking about who has thrown a wrench in everything? (Matthew 13).
By the way, it’s pretty weird to quote Job, and then blame Satan for messing things up, since Jthe book of ob makes it quite clear that Satan answers to, and works for, God.
Make that “the book of Job”…
God uses the poor, the widows, the orphans, those suffering to see if the true righteous will help them!!! It is a way to reveal who are the truly righteous in this world. Guess what?? They may NOT be found in the pulpit!!!! See the whole book of Psalms…
Which is really weird, since Christians tell us that the reason that there has to be a hell is that God is so holy that he can’t abide sinfulness in his presence. So he can’t abide sinful humanity, but he can put up with Satan in his presence? What nonsense. Christian theology is filled with blatant contradictions like this.
#9 - Of course! Thank you.
#12 - I should have said, he got FED UP!
#14 - Right RDean - We’re soooo scary. Is that why you hang out on this blog - to show how very brave you are?
RDEAN says:
I’ve got a cure for your fear, RDEAN. The LORD says “Do not be afraid” over seventy times in the Bible. Try reading it some time. It’s very reassuring. It also says that over 500 people saw the son of God after the resurrection, not counting all those thousands before His crucifixion — so your statement of “no one has ever seen or heard” God just isn’t true.
The very act of indicting God for crimes against humanity, for injustice and the undeserved suffering of the innocent, and for the unpunished sins of evil men, concedes that an absolute justice exists, but offers no basis for that belief. Such a moral reckoning transcends the natural world since we cannot find it there.
If we are the mere chance collision of atoms, moral valuations are delusions. What simply is cannot necessarily give birth to what ought to be. Yet we intuit that justice is real if unrealized and assert in our daily thought and language that it exists.
It is arrogant folly to put God in the dock. God has revealed throughout Scripture both His justice and His mercy and joins them at the cross.
Oh Ken!
Well said. I love your second paragraph. Elegant, simple, and concise.
I believe there is also a third chair in this arena. Because Jesus gave his church the authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of disease and all manner of sickness (Matt. 10:1) and then told us that if we believe in Him and His works, we will do greater works than His (John 14:12), some of the suffering we experience in this world is due to our own lack of understanding of and obedience to the responsibility He has given us to use His authority in healing, dealing with poverty and the like.
For myself, I have recently come to a place of peace in my own suffering, that regardless of whether it is God’s purpose that I suffer for reasons I don’t understand (like Job), or it is an attack by the enemy to try to bring me down which I should be fighting on a warfare level, I should always recognize that His purpose in my life is to conform me to the image of His Son and what He has begun, He will continue until it is perfected. (Romans 8:28-29 and Philippians 1:6) So in that sense, I am trying to recogninze that all things that come my way, joyful or sorrowful, are part of that process. Easy? Not necessarily. Beneficial? Always.
It also says that over 500 people saw the son of God after the resurrection,
The Bible says a lot of things. It says Jesus walked on water. It says snakes used to walk upright and talk.
One UFO group says it has collected reports from over 7000 people who swear up and down that they’ve been abducted by extraterrestrials and taken aboard a UFO. That’s 14 times as many who the Bible claims saw the resurrected Jesus. So do you believe those stories, too?
Re: “There are only two possible chairs to sit in”
Says who? Francis Schaeffer you say?
Well, he was a fallible human being just like the rest of us, and could be totally off his rocker on that.
There could be 4 or 5 possible chairs to sit in on this issue - maybe more.
I’ve noticed that conservative Christians in particular seem stuck on only allowing two sides on any issue. (Naturally, they’re right and everyone else is wrong). It’s simplistic thinking - dividing everything up into “black and white” and “good and evil”. It suits their faith perfectly, which appears to be based on “all or nothing” thinking.
For all the rest of us, it doesn’t work. There are many shades of gray in life. Not everything can be known. Not everything is “black and white”. It’s really not as scary as conservative Christians make it out to be. In fact, it’s quite appropriate to the human experience.
VS at #8: (NightTrain & SteveG - Grow up. Maybe he had enough of nonsense like yours.)
Excuse me?
I don’t engage in “nonsense.” I challenge people’s beliefs yes, and I ask questions that some are not comfortable with, sure. But it’s all for a purpose.
Secondly, regarding Outkast, I like the guy. Don’t agree with him much, but like him. I’ve tried once or twice to talk to him on topics where we have more common ground, but he didn’t go very far down the trail with me. That’s his prerogative of course.
And what the heck do you mean about “grow up?” Because I asked whether he was ok and if anyone knew? I can’t be concerned about someone I don’t agree with?
Grow up yourself.
Reg - When you wrote, “truly righteous…may NOT be found in the pulpit!!!” do you mean that there are no righteous pastors in the pulpit, or that the one in the pulpit is not necessarily righteous?
My own pastor is a humble & righteous man. He is firm about the truth of the gospel, but as gentle as possible in his dealings with his “flock”. He gets paid very little, but is always available in times of crisis. He truly loves God & the people of our church, & has a heart for the lost.
Yeah, I know plenty of people that question God or get angry when the world is in the state that it’s in. I just read the book “The Shack” by William P. Young that tackles the subject…it’s a fiction about a Christian family whose daughter is abducted and murdered by a serial killer…I hate Christian fiction, but this was quite good.
Remember, Christ said one needs the faith of a child to see. I know we have all been hurt, disappointed, disillusioned, and felt disenfranchised when modern churchianity fails to address real needs. Like the Bon Jovi song…we give LOVE a bad name. haha!
Ehrman’s book title,God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer our Most Important Question — Why We Suffer, reveals an attitude of willful deafness.
The problem is not with a failure to communicate on God’s part, but with a human race that, for the most part, refuses to accept His answer—given again, and again, and again in the Bible. They just don’t like the answer and would rather justify themselves and judge and condemn God. The idea that God will have to ask anyone for forgiveness (#3) epitomizes this kind of willful deafness.
The answer and the solution to the problem has been given times beyond counting. The wonder of it all is that God has not yet grown weary of dealing with this rebelliousness. His loving patience is amazing. Yet, He says,
The time of His grace is coming to an end.
I’m not sure the Bible fully answers the question why we suffer. The point of the book of Job is that God didn’t answer Job’s questions. God just gave Job a glimpse of His majesty and supremacy.
This Divine touch was enough. For some, this may make them mad because they want all of their questions answered. For others, it is enough and they accept this in humility.
NIGHT TRAIN said:
I have no reason to believe those stories, Night Train, since those 7000 people haven’t amounted to much. But the ones who saw Jesus after the Resurrection turned the world upside down.
Michael Martin, aren’t you the one who used the Charlie Manson defense to defend Jehovah/Jesus’s repeatedly ordering the slaughtering of entire people groups in the OT? That it was really the humane thing to do to slaughter men, women, elders, pregnant women, toddlers and infants, because it spared them a life of suffering? I believe it was you. And you also couldn’t or wouldn’t tell me why abortion is wrong, since killing people and sparing them a lifetime of pain and suffering is a blessing, and act of charity, according to you.
SHEESH! The Bible also doesn’t explain how to fix my lawnmower or what to name my cat. Humanity needs to get over itself and stop thinking that our pain has some huge existential significance. If you step on a nail, you get stuck. That is pain. Bein shot or witnessing genocide is only different in degree, not in type.
God cannot contradict himself, period. He can’t make a universe goverened by physical laws and then just arbitrarily contradict those laws for our convenience.
I feel sorry for the poor reputation Job’s Wife has. After all, the poor woman had lost every single one of her children in one day!
I’d like to think that her “Curse God & die” quote was a momentary lapse of faith, due to being overwhelmed by all that had happened to her.
Her husband, in his grief & affliction, probably wasn’t available to comfort her.
Karen O,
I’ve heard one interesting take on Job’s wife that says she was suggesting “euthanasia” of a sort. If Job’s suffering was unbearable - which she may well have thought it was, considering how she was feeling - he might find it easier to simply die. And cursing God was expected to bring about a very quick death - sort of a “may God strike me dead” kind of remark.
God uses the poor, the widows, the orphans, those suffering to see if the true righteous will help them!!! It is a way to reveal who are the truly righteous in this world.
Reg presents us with yet another novel and outrageous explanation for human suffering. The poor, orphans, the handicapped? They’re merely props in God’s big game. Sure, he could’ve created them with plenty of food, all their limbs, their eyesight; he could’ve kept their parents from dying in that car wreck, but he needed a prop, a stooge, a mark, in order to test his alleged believers. Of course, never mind that he’s supposedly omniscient, and should’ve been able to devise any number of ways of testing his “faithful” without inflicting suffering on hapless third parties. And why a supposedly omniscient god needs to test his followers to find out if they’re really faithful completely boggles the mind, but no matter. God wanted to do it this way.
Wow. He’s really quite a guy when you think about it.
#26 - Ok, SteveG - I accept your scolding and offer you my apology. I read your earlier post too quickly and saw the “snickering” and thought you were being sarcastic so I lumped you in with Night Train when I did the response on OutKast.
I should have just minded my own business.
Thanks, Pauline; that is interesting.
Michael Martin,
Are you the one who suggested Pagan Christianity?
Try a different tactic: many ask the question, “Why is there suffering?”
Instead, ask, “Why is there any joy?”
Without Grace and the Holy Spirit, mankind would do and be nothing except what is evil, selfish, cruel, and barbaric. There would be no kindness, no love, nothing positive in this world. Therefore, while some claim there can be no God because there is suffering, I propose that the proof that there is a God is the fact that there is a LACK of suffering at times and in all places. There is joy, beauty, happiness, laughter, security, peace, etc. in this world. When God ceases to be “with us,” then shall there be ceaseless suffering: hell, literally and eternally.
#5 made me laugh. The VERY FIRST people God put on this earth damned the rest of humanity to this fate! LOL. How hilarious is that? The perfect God couldn’t make ‘em better than that? Talk about setting ‘em up just to knock ‘em down…poor workmanship right there! And to think, that in #5, you have to pay for the sins of your relatives. That’s just nutty, simply nutty. This Bible of yours is just nutty. I LOVE the OT. It’s the greatest filthy, misguided, judgmental, depraved, maniacal, murderous book ever written. I particularly like the book of Job too… kill all his children, but make it all better by giving him MORE children! Who in there right mind would trade their old children for new children and be happy and feel better off for it?!?! Simply HILARIOUS.
Anyway, I digress…suffering stinks, but it happens and we do what humans do… we find a way to move on or we don’t.
I swayed a friend of mine away from the church after a her husband died and she thought that she would be separated from him forever because he was an atheist. She loved him and was sure that she’d never see him again because he was hell bound. And, if you beleive the Bible, many Christians will be separated from the ones they love, from their own children in the End. Something else to look forward to in the Kingdom of God. Long Live the God the Bible, he’s one hilarious dude! He’s going to make you suffer long after Jesus comes back, long long after.
Y’know, I think all the trolls and skeptics who inhabit WoW should thank their lucky stars for Andree’s works, because she writes things that enable you to rage against God, and those of us who walk with Him. You folks owe her a big thank you for whatever twisted pleasure and enjoyment you get out of all this mockery.
I might add, this is straight out of Romans ch. 1, incidentally.
That presumes we have the choice of either atheism or orthodox Christianity. It’s a classic case of a “false dicotomy.” I think the point of the post is that Ehrman remains a believer, but notes the Bible/traditional Christian reasons don’t satisfy.
My own opinion is it’s possible that 1) God exists and 2) we can conclude that people unjustly suffer. That God permits this doesn’t necessarily make it His or Her fault. However, either a) these folks — like children in the ICU, or starving African babies — did bad things in a previous life, or b) God owes these folks for their unwarranted suffering.
So for instance, a young African or Indian untouchable adult dies after a short life of suffering still believing in their pagan religion. They don’t deserve to go to Hell and already probably suffered more on Earth than they deserved for their imperfections or sins. If God exists and is Just, then God will reward these people for their undue suffering.
This system I’ve just described is not “Christianity,” at least not orthodox Christianity; but it’s also not the atheistic materialist system that you rail against. And if you took a poll of most nominal (non-evangelical or doctrinaire) “Christians” you’d probably see they are more likely to believe this than traditional Christian doctrine.
several things skitter across my mind..
Ken [21], says that is folly to put God in the dock, yet that is precisely what the prophets repeatedly do, in the form of their disputes (Heb. rib): these are legal cases, at least as a rhetorical form.
On the question of theodicy (the formal name for this topic), at the very least there needs to be a recognition of the people who suffer. The pain, the suffering is real independent of one’s relation or non-relation to God. It is a deep folly to step in an say “cheer up!” (Proverbs speaks to this foolishness); it is equally foolish to come up with the quick answers. Even in Scripture, in the lives Jesus’ touches, the suffering has gone on for years and years.
There are two answers in Scripture that I cling to : the Psalms and the Cross. In the Psalms, I read some very, very human responses to this suffering. For me, this allows me to have a range of emotions. I may not understand this, it may seem bitterly wrong, but God does not leave me without words. This would seem to be a bit of what Calvin called God’s “condescension,” his lisping to us as to a baby. He gives us words.
Second, there is the Cross. He not only gives us words, but he takes on our life, and so our death. Death (and suffering) is not alien to God. There is here, more of that radical condescension.
Suffering and death ultimately can leave us alone. And that’s again where God steps in, as Paul reminds us in Rom 8.
Suffering. The entire earth moans for God’s redemption. It suffers. We suffer. Christ suffered and in Christ we suffer. Perhaps my Sunday school answer is roiling with oversimplifications but until God’s Kingdom is fully redeemed; suffering will be part of the equation. That is why His Grace, the hope we have in Him and the journey of sanctification is paramount.
It is not suffering I fear; it is my lack of faith to endure it that grieves me most. It is not the banishment from Eden that haunts my mind, no, it is the thorn and thistle I have to pull tomorrow that keeps me awake. Always focused on the gift and not the giver. Just saying…
Exactly how I feel, too, Grey. “It is not suffering I fear; it is my lack of faith to endure it that grieves me most.”
Thankfully, we have a Father Who sanctifies us as we are able, and He promises victory: “In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33)
Matthew Henry: “You shall not have outward peace, never expect it.” Though Christ’s disciples are sent to proclaim peace on earth, and good-will towards men, they must expect trouble on earth, and ill-will from men. Men persecute them because they are so good, and God corrects them because they are no better. Men design to cut them off from the earth, and God designs by affliction to make them meet for heaven; and so between both they shall have tribulation.”
VS at #37:
Thanks for acknowledging my complaint.
I have no idea whether Outkast finds me likable or not, and I suppose just going by the content of our sparring posts it might not be obvious that I like him, but I do. As I said, I very rarely agree with him, but that’s never been a prerequisite for me of whether or not I find someone likable.
I do genuinely hope his apparent absence is just due to busyness or something similarly benign.
The Bible provides four reasons for our suffering:
1. Our fallen world (Rom. 8:19-22)
2. As a direct result of our own sin (e.g. 2 Sam. 12:14, 18)
3. For our discipline, growth and maturity (Hebrews 12:6-13, Job, Romans 5:3-5, Ephesians 4:11-16, James 1:2-4, 1 Peter 1:6-7, Luke 3:16-17)
4. That the glory of God might be seen (John 9:1-3)
JP: There are at least two more.
5. So that God can win a bet with Satan (Job 1:8-12)
6. Just because (Ecclesiastes 7:14-15)
My post at #50 sounds flippant, but that last one (No. 6) is actually kind of important. It seems to me that faith should sometimes mean being content to not have a explanation. Not everything can be put into a neat box so we can say A happened for reason 3, and B happened for reason 2.
Somtimes — often, really — things just happen. If a person’s faith can’t accommodate that, maybe the faith needs some fine-tuning.
SteveG, Thanks for clarifying: God is certainly not playing games with Satan at out expense. No matter what Satan may think, God is in control and “uses” Satan. (e.g. Look at all the times in Revelation that satan is given authority.)
I would suggest that #6 is not an additional category but is how we feel when we don’t understand that it’s really 1-4. It’s all for our good - if we allow it (James 1:4). But boy does it not feel that way sometimes!
Perhaps #6 could be defined a tad more by not stopping at Ecc. 7:15 but continuing the reading to Ecc. 7:20. Romans 8:28-29 come to mind.
SteveG, Thanks for clarifying: God is certainly not playing games with Satan at out expense. No matter what Satan may think, God is in control and “uses” Satan. (e.g. Look at all the times in Revelation that satan is given authority.)
Uh, you’re a little mixed up there. SteveG didn’t clarify #5; he clarified #6. God most certainly does play games with Satan at our expense, as the passage from Job makes clear.
The 2n paragraph above should not be italicized, needles to say.
Night Train, To believe that the story of Job teaches that God plays games with Satan at our expense one would have to believe that 1) the God and Creator of the Universe has a need to win bets (God’s response to Job in chapters 38-41 is a refutation of that kind of thinking), and 2) there was nothing good that came out of this for Job.
In support of the second item I would point out that, while Job was righteous, God 1) knew that Job had room for growth (see their conversation concluding in 42:1-6), 2) knew that Job had a heart for God and therefore desired growth and could stand the pain of that growth, and 3) has eternity in mind and seeks to conform us to the likeness of Jesus through this life. That’s why Paul, who suffered greatly during his ministry, can refer to these “light and momentary troubles that are achieving for us an eternal glory that far exceeds them all.” (2 Cor. 4:17)
Dude. God allowed all of Job’s children to die. That’s a really high price (for them and Job both) for some “growth.” He didn’t even save that one for the most severe test, it happens in Job 1:19.
But it was ok in the end because he got the same number of new ones. Which is a really weird and unrealistic understanding of a parent’s love for his children.
And God most definitely did play a game with Satan in this story. Denying it requires the plain language doesn’t mean what it means. Satan challenged God to see if Job would remain so upstanding if everything good in his life went away, and God said, ok, let’s see.
“God allowed all of Job’s children to die.” That’s the point of this thread: why does God allow suffering?
It was not OK in the end “because he got the same number of new ones.” God never promises us an easy life here. If we get that, it’s gravy. It was OK in the end because Job grew closer to God - in both relationship and likeness. And that has eternal consequences.
As to playing games, note that it was God who instigated Satan in the first place. At first glance, that might seem to support the idea that God is playing with us. But look at the rest of Scripture and see how God is always in control and how He uses everything (Satan, circumstances, our successes, our failures, etc.) for our good - if we are willing. God wanted to work something eternal in Job, knew that Job was willing and able (even through the misery and lack of understanding), and so instigated Satan.
Satan always thinks he’s getting away with murder (as in the case with Jesus) but he’s, in the end, subject to God’s control and boundaries and finds that often his plans work out to further God’s Kingdom (again, think of Jesus’ crucifixion).
I think it helps if we can try (it’s not easy) to remember that we don’t have God’s eternal perspective and we certainly don’t know how much He loves us.
well according to Job, God allows suffering to prove a point.
Sorry, but that’s the clear premise of the book. As a parable, and I suspect the real point is the exchanges between Job, his friends and God, I can accept it. But if you believe in a God who would actually cause the death of your children just to show someone that you have the strength to endure it, you can have Him.
It was OK in the end because Job grew closer to God - in both relationship and likeness. And that has eternal consequences.
Job was already “blameless and upright” and “feared God and shunned evil.” He was not in need of growing closer to God, or at the least, he was surrounded by people in much greater need of it than he was.
Your rationalization makes no sense at all.
I think that, although he was blameless and upright, he could still grow. I think we see that in chapter 42.
And you’re right in pointing out that it might not have been all about Job. For example, if it would cause the salvation of another, would God be wrong to have me die right this instant? Eternity is at stake. This world is passing. Our time here is brief but has eternal consequences. Think of the martyrs who witnessed for Jesus by their deaths and converted some who watched - in some cases their executioners. Do you think they blame God now that they share His eternal perspective?
When modern solipsistic nihilists following Nietzsche rail at the Judeo-Christian religion and want to upend traditional morality two basic results occur.
1. We get folks like SteveG and NightTrain who rail at traditional religion and morality and try to substitute their own limited views of morality.
2.Given the cacophony of viewpoints and lack of traditional morality, tyrants inevitably rise to impose order on the chaotic scene, usually in the name of some breathless utopia. We experienced this in spades during the last century. It is no accident that unbelievers including Hitler and Stalin were responsible for the slaughter of about 100 million people.
People like Job who come to humbly respect God’s rule and accept the inevitable suffering in life then have the strength to live and die.
#62 Peter,
It is rare the person who understands that the wages of sin are death and anything beyond that is only by God’s grace. That doesn’t work when you are your own god or your sense of what you are entitled to as the created doesn’t jive with what God says you are entitled to.
The concept that God allowed Jobs children to die ruins the cosmic bellhop image of the smiley-faced god in the clouds we all would like to believe exists for the jealous God that IS.
Good reminder sir.
The Bible does explain suffering
The Bible says the universe suffers because it is cursed. We are cursed because we humans are enemies of God, right from birth. God can’t remove the curse but He can provide a way through the curse. He’s made a way through the curse by doing to His son, what He has every right to do to each of us — even to humans who are self-righteous like Job. By directing His curse on Jesus, who is perfectly righteous, any who want to have Jesus take the curse for them, can exchange their unrighteousness for a righteousness from God. They can freely exchange their filthy rags for garments white as snow.
Perfecty just, perfectly rational, and perfectly amazing.
#62, that’s just plain ole funny, knee slappin’ funny. People like Job who come to humbly respect God’s rule and accept the inevitable suffering in life then have the strength to live and die.
What is the alternative… to blah blah blah and then NOT have the strength to live and die?
Clearly your god wants people to suffer, at least if you read the Bible, it’s very clear. Just start to look back at Genesis and you’ll find it in the first few pages. This god of yours just cannot be pleased, it’s clear. And NO MATTER what you do to “please him”, it doesn’t matter, your going to suffer right along with the rest of us, maybe less maybe more.. who knows?? So, Christians, suffer away and wait for the day that you’ll be separated from your children and other non-Christian family and friends up in heaven. Your suffering will continue.
Peter Leavitt at #62:
1. We get folks like SteveG and NightTrain who rail at traditional religion and morality and try to substitute their own limited views of morality.
And we get folks like you who can contemplate the most brutal and capricious things imaginable and, if the ancient Scriptures say god did them, twist yourself into knots trying to find a way to see them as good.
I’ve noticed that conservative Christians in particular seem stuck on only allowing two sides on any issue.
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who think there are two sides to every issue and those that don’t.
Steve — My post at #50 sounds flippant, but that last one (No. 6) is actually kind of important. It seems to me that faith should sometimes mean being content to not have a explanation.
Roger — That would be the main point in the Book of Job. The creator doesn’t owe anyone an explanation.
But lest we think God capricious . . .
God is not capricious, He HATES sin. Period. The only one who can please Him is a sinless person. That would be His Son, Jesus. All those who are In Christ are seen by the Father as sinless, because Jesus paid the price for sin in this world. He redeemed us. So those who see God as being against them, there’s a valid reason for that. He IS against them. They need to find The Way to be “in Christ”
Awstar:The only one who can please Him is a sinless person.
This gets to the heart of it. Christians suffer most knowing that they are far from sinless, though they can effectively pray forgiveness and understand that Christ came for the fundamental atonement of human Sin; The unbelievers find this hard to take, as they despise the very term “sin,” particularly the many “gay” advocates on this site who sermonize the WorldWeb believers about sexual freedom and autonomy which, with delicious irony, in reality causes great human suffering.
Well I for one hold out hope that if God exists, He/She/It is nicer than the one portrayed in the OT. I have to disagree with that the orthodox Christan tale is “perfecty just, perfectly rational.” In fact, I think rational folks have good reason to seriously doubt the tale.
I don’t endorse Hitchen’s “slam” on the Atonement discussed in the following post, but think the kernel of Truth in the article is EVERYONE should see how this traditional Christian doctrine, for some/many, even if True, would be hard to make sense of. And so given, it seems all the less just that a God would damn folks to Hell for eternity for making a theological error based on inability to believe in a complicated doctrine.
http://wildphilosophy.blogspot.com/2008/02/however-idea-of-vicarious-atonement-of.html
Note: I’ve seen some sources on the web which say Hitchens doesn’t properly understand the doctrine of the Atonement, which, if right, just proves my point. Hitchens is a brilliant, learned guy. And if he can’t even make proper sense of this doctrine which must be embraced for salvation, what does that say of it?
Jon Rowe: One of the major difficulties I had as a traditional Christian was the idea that God would send most of the people that ever lived to hell while saving only a few.
The standard response to that, and we hear it around here regularly, is that God is perfectly loving but also perfectly righteous, and therefore gives until the point of physical death to repent or else, Lake O’Fire.
The problem with this is that it can’t be right. If God is both 100 percent love and 100 percent righteousness, that creates an eternal tension between those things. If God, on the other hand, withdraws grace at some point, even the possibility of grace, then the Christian is saying (sometimes without realizing it) that God’s grace is less than 100 percent. If forced to choose one of the other, God will (sadly, we are assured) go with righteousness.
Over the years, I’ve come to believe that salvation is universal. Both grace and justice are 100 percent and so the tension doesn’t resolve until the person accepts grace — which may not be on this side of the grave.
The people who are most fervent about hell for the sinners never think they are going there. It’s always for other people. Have you ever heard someone say “I know Jesus can save me and bring me to heaven, but I’m not going to ask him to.” ? I haven’t.
God didn’t create us just to damn us. God wills that none shall perish, and so, none shall. Who are we to put limits on God’s grace?
If only that were true, SteveG. It would make my life a lot easier and less accountability on my part. For 33 years of my life I fashioned my own god and life was much easier then. My own cosmic bellhop. Sadly, I was wrong.
Grey: Yes, you were wrong. God’s not a cosmic bellhop.
But God is infinitely merciful.
Think about it: The assumption in exclusivism is that God cannot save everyone, although he wishes he could … or that God doesn’t wish to. One limits God’s power, the other limits God’s love.
The traditional Christian idea diminishes accountability just as much. You’re not able to be good enough to earn your way into heaven. You have to depend on God’s freely offered grace, and your sins are forgiven.
Universalism is exactly the same. The soul has to turn to God and accept his grace. The difference is that universalism sees no reason that physical death should mark the end of that chance.
Consider an example: A sinful man is finds his heart moved by the Christian message, and as he drives home from the group where he heard it, he is lost in thought and has a fatal accident.
Is God in heaven saying “Rats, I almost had him. If he’d died just one day later, he would have been in heaven. Ah well. Can’t win ‘em all?” I don’t think so.
Or even worse, does God see him hurtling toward the tree he’s about to hit and say, “Well I could turn his car to make him miss the tree and then he’d have time to turn to My Son and be saved, but, nah.”
Eternal hell serves no purpose. It is just torture, never ending, for no reason. I think it does violence to the nature of God to believe in it. A temporary place of rehabilitative punishment, maybe. Probably, even. But it serves the purpose of burning the scales off the eyes so the person will finally surrender to grace.
For some reason, though, people seem to have a lot invested in believing those who don’t believe as they do won’t be in heaven with them.
If salvation is universal, why did Jesus make such a big deal about us going and telling everyone the good news? Did He lie? Did he lie to Nicodemus about those who don’t believe in Him are already condemned? (John 3:18) Did he choose apostles on a whim? No - I think Jesus means every word He says. That’s He calls Himself Truth and why we call Him LORD.
Besides Jesus also describes degrees of Hell. He says that those who haven’t received the light of the Gospel are better off than those who have and reject it. And He certainly has unkind things to say about those who impede the Gospel.
Does morality imply a moral law giver? Design, a designer? If to each is own, then harm to you may be viewed as for good by others. This logic of Relativism only works for the perceiver and his disciples. The God of the Bible established a moral law for the world to be tested against His righteosness. Pain and Suffering is His test He allows to happen to test our Faith in Him, whether by the individual suffering, or to those observing, or both. This hurts. Jesus hurt. God hurts. The Holy Spirit is grieved by His Children. God knows the outcome. Believers have the outcome of Victory in their Hearts. None can take that away. God’s Word established The Foundation. This makes sense and fits into Creation’s design. Design implies a Designer. God stands ready to redeem those who will accept His Son’s sacrifice.
Awstar at #76: So are you willing to say, then, that God’s love and grace are imperfect? Or is it his power?
What does it mean to “believe in Jesus?” As long as we’re proof-texting, what about Jesus saying that unless you are more righteous than then Pharisees you will never enter the kingdom? Does that mean you have be righteous then? If so, believing in Jesus isn’t enough. Or did Jesus lie then?
Did Paul lie in 1 Timothy 4? “This is a faithful saying worthy of all acceptance. For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.”
God is the savior of ALL men. Especially, but not only, of those who believe.
SteveG, the notion of Universalism that all humans are equally saved for eternity is a pleasant human thought with no real Biblical basis. Those who believe this intellectual candy ought to study Pascal’s Wager, which makes the point that given the Judeo/Christian view of the eternal consequences of sin versus that of death as simply the final end, let alone universal salvation, it would be eminently rational to hedge one’s bet with as holy a life as is humanly possible.
Even on a rational or experiential basis, one finds, unless a psychopath, that little and large sins are usually compensated with due suffering and justice.
Peter: Actually universalism has a pretty sound Biblical basis, if you’re not an inerrantist. It also makes far more sense than exclusivism.
It is important to note that universalism does not mean no punishment for sin. But the punishment is for redemptive purpose, and limited in duration to a just payment for the sin. It is not burning in hell forever and ever because you once stole a candy bar and on another occasion lied about being sick to get a day off work.
If God seeks to reconcile all people to himself, and is not bound by time or death, eternal hell makes no sense.
Pascal was wrong.
SteveG, I don’t know what Bible passages you refer to; the one, among many, that I take most seriously is what Jesus said:
Do not be afraid of those who kill the bodybut cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.(Matthew 10:28)
I have to agree with Steve G that there is a strong biblical basis for universalism.
If salvation is universal, why did Jesus make such a big deal about us going and telling everyone the good news? Did He lie? Did he lie to Nicodemus about those who don’t believe in Him are already condemned?
The universalism of America’s Founding era with which I am familar believes men are temporarily punished, eventually saved. Some believed men would be punished for a long time. Escaping a temporary time in Hell or purgatory is reason in itself to believe in Jesus.
I see no reason why God should be the God of cosmic loopholes that says once you are dead, you choice is over. Why can’t Jesus still work on saving people after they are dead. Once you see God face2face that’s when many skeptics finally have the proof of His existence.
Otherwise there is no way to tell who is right: Unitarians or Trinitarians, Christians or Muslims, Catholics or Protestants, Theists or Atheists, etc. All you can do is argue. Pick the right door and you find bliss, pick the wrong one and a tiger rips you to shreds. All you see are a number of different doors, but if you pick the wrong one, it’s still your fault and you get what you deserve.
That’s how I view orthodox theology.
So God is not the savior of all men after all? Someone tell Paul.
Does can have to mean will?
“For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” I Corinthians, 15:22… if only some will be made alive, then maybe only some die in Adam. Same word.
“God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on all men.” Romans 11:32.
There are more.
Universalism was common among the early church leaders, despite those passages that appear to speak against it, until the exclusivist position was made official and universalism deemed a heresy.
“We can set no limits to the agency of the Redeemer, to redeem, to rescue, to discipline, is his work, and so will he continue to operate after this life.” Clement.
“In the end and consummation of the Universe, all are to be restored into their original harmonius state … and the prayer of our Saviour shall be fulfilled that all may be one.” St. Jerome
There are more of those too.
Peter Leavitt: If salvation is universal, why did Jesus make such a big deal about us going and telling everyone the good news? Did He lie? Did he lie to Nicodemus about those who don’t believe in Him are already condemned?
Jon Rowe: The universalism of America’s Founding era with which I am familar believes men are temporarily punished, eventually saved. Some believed men would be punished for a long time. Escaping a temporary time in Hell or purgatory is reason in itself to believe in Jesus.
Yes. And also, fellowship with the Divine is our highest need. Hearing and believing that truth is a head start into eternity.
Otherwise, Jon’s right, it’s just God playing a gotcha game. The person who is seeking and who is drawing close to accepting the grace, but dies one day too early to get his mind all the way there, is just as damned for eternity as the brutal dictator who killed millions. That isn’t justice.
SteveG
Be sure you choose the right definition of “all”. “all” as in all with out exception — like you say, or “all” as in all without distinction like Paul usually argues — like in “all men”, both Jews and Gentiles.
Be careful how you choose, it has eternal consequences.
SteveG, first, on If salvation is universal, why did Jesus make such a big deal about us going and telling everyone the good news? That was Awstar’s excellent point.
Second, the argument that God is playing a “gotcha” game is a straw man argument. God clearly has established moral law and gives all of us freedom to obey it or not. God’s law has been clear through both Revelation and careful reasoning. We know from Christ that it is necessary to obey the Law, though God is forgiving for fallen men who fall short of it providing they honestly repent of their sins, something that you refuse to do, for example, on the matter of the sexual sin of sodomy.
You argue that men are autonomous- our bodies or will ourselves- and that there is at best little consequence for our actions. This is essentially a romantic and foolishly hopeful point of view. A truly rational person at the least would pay attention to Pascal’s wager.
It should be clear to evangelical and orthodox Christians that you, John Rowe, et al are basically nihilist jokers who have lodged on this blog to defend an essentially hedonistic style of life without serious consequence in the here and the after. You must think that we naive Christians just fell off the turnip cart.
I would like to know where I have ever defended “an essentially hedonistic style of life without serious consequence in the here and the after.”
‘oos, I have done no such thing.
SteveG- romans 8:28-29 may come in handy when trying to determine who is saved from God’s wrath. You asked if God’s love is limited; the way we perceive it as humans? yes. Is it infinite? The way He gave His only Son? Yes.
Perhaps we may be running aground on the missing concept that God detests sin and the wages of sin is death. Can you reach peace between you and God that He, as your creator, demands sinless living from you according to His word and you, as a sinner, have not done so? Having not done so and being ripe with sin, you deserve death. You lacked the faith to walk in the law given you by your creator. You failed Him; He did not fail you. Here’s the best part; His love and Grace provided a way for you to reconcile to Him. That way is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I, like Paul, skewered Christians for many years and fought its precepts. I humiliated them for their nonsensical faith and religion. Their angry and unjust god was a joke to me. Like Paul, I have been saved by God’s grace and love alone. Perhaps instead of arguing the precepts of Christianity which are revealed by the spirit to believers; you could actually pray for God’s grace and presence in your life. Just saying…
Awstar at #85: Be sure you choose the right definition of “all”. “all” as in all with out exception — like you say, or “all” as in all without distinction like Paul usually argues — like in “all men”, both Jews and Gentiles.
Right. So when Paul says “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” (I Corinthians, 15:22) which way does he mean the word?
Have only some died in Adam, so that only some (but all types) will be made alive?
Or have all died, so that all (all!) will be made alive?
When Paul writes in I Timothy, “…because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe,” does he mean only even though he said especially? If so, then when he writes ” Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith,” (Galatians 6:10), does he mean only to do good to those who are in the household of faith, even though he says “all” but “especially” those?
I don’t argue that there’s no scriptural support for the view that salvation is limited. Obviously there is. But there is at least as much for universal salvation too, and I think had the early church not decided that exclusivism was to be the official doctrine, it wouldn’t even be a controversial position.
Grey at #88: Perhaps we may be running aground on the missing concept that God detests sin and the wages of sin is death. Can you reach peace between you and God that He, as your creator, demands sinless living from you according to His word and you, as a sinner, have not done so? Having not done so and being ripe with sin, you deserve death. You lacked the faith to walk in the law given you by your creator. You failed Him; He did not fail you. Here’s the best part; His love and Grace provided a way for you to reconcile to Him. That way is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Nothing about what I said is contrary to any of that.
But:
Eternal torment for a lifetime of sin is not justice. It is not even revenge. It is indifference to suffering.
Having the chance for salvation end with the death of the body is arbitrary. What you believe is that a man who, after death, beholds the reality of God and says “Lord forgive me, I did not understand,” will hear “Too late, go burn.” Does that sound like a merciful God?
Or take someone who lost faith from being broken by life. One severe loss after another, no sign of help on the way. God says “Wow, sucks to be you. Lake O’Fire for you.” ? I don’t think so.
If we are free to reject God’s grace, don’t you think God is free to reject our rejection? That’s a profound meaning of the resurrection story, really … man rejected Christ, and then God rejected their rejection.
Your idea of God is a fearsome, harsh judge who saves us only grudgingly because Jesus gets in between you and God and says “No dad, let this one in.” You see the triumph of vengeance over mercy in God. Why should it not be the other way around/?
Luke 16:19
“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores
21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22″The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried.
23In hell,[c] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.
24So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
25″But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony.
26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
27″He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house,
28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29″Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30″ ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31″He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ “
Revelation 20:11
Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them.
12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.
13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done.
14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.
15 If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Annelise … I’m sorry, I’m not being able to find where this says that the rich man’s torment lasts forever. Can you point it out?
At any rate, this is a parable, not a literal picture of what happens to the unsaved after death (or do you imagine that when you’re in heaven you’ll be able to look into hell as Lazarus does in this story and see your unsaved loved ones in torment? Does that seem very heavenly to you?)
It’s also the last of a series of parables Jesus told on one Sabbath day, starting in Luke 15:3. The first three tell of God’s unfailing love and grace to the sinner. The last two are directed to his accusers.
The ending of this story makes it clear that Jesus is talking about the unwillingness of the Jews to listen to Moses and the Prophets and, in the future, the one who rises from the dead.
It is symbology. It is not literal.
If you have the patience for a longer article on this topic, go here.
Grey at #88: SteveG- romans 8:28-29 may come in handy when trying to determine who is saved from God’s wrath.
Does it? Let’s see.
28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
And who are those God foreknew? Nothing in here suggests it isn’t, eventually, all of us.
But why stop at verse 29? Let’s continue:
30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
31What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36As it is written:
“For your sake we face death all day long;
we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.” 37No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.
Now we come to the best part:
38For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Nothing can separate us from the love of God. Not even ourselves.
Thanks for that.
“[God] can’t make a universe governed by physical laws and then just arbitrarily contradict those laws for our convenience.”
While I suppose He could, it appears He doesn’t very often. Why is that? Why would a God who is good set a world on a course whose story is intermixed with evil, one where suffering occurs? It appears He’s allowed a universe peopled by folks who are other than Himself. There are many human circumstances where we might consider this act of self-emptying an other-releasing, other-regarding love. Think of the story of the prodigal son, the one where the father’s love is as present in blessing his son’s departure as it is in the welcoming back. Then there is the cross, the place where God the other was God the us, and in terms too profound to plumb, took part in the suffering of the world he loved. If God is really present among us in Christ, He is a fellow sufferer. That might be enough to earn the trust of the loved. Fed up people? They’ve lost hope, and hope makes up the remainder of the story.
RE:93
There is nothing in the parable that suggests he got out, either.
Jesus died for the sins of the world; however, it is by faith, accepting the gift, that makes it mine and changes my destiny.
All sins are forgiven. All do not go to heaven. If that were so, why did Jesus even talk about hell if it wasn’t going to be a possibility?
Annelise: The parable isn’t about the afterlife at all. Jesus is making use of familiar imagery to speak about the Jews rejecting him.
Read the three parables that start at Luke 15:3: The shepherd who loses one sheep goes out and searches until he finds it. The woman who loses one coin sweeps her house and searches until she finds it. The father whose son has left home waits hopefully by the door every day until he comes home.
These are all parables of God’s grace. It extends even to most seemingly unimportant, and it doesn’t stop until it finds what it seeks.
It is interesting that you easily slide right past the serious significance of those parables and hone in on the one that, you believe, speaks of people being damned forever. Is that an atrractive idea to you?
why did Jesus even talk about hell if it wasn’t going to be a possibility?
You haven’t been reading what I’ve said closely. I didn’t say hell isn’t a possibilty. I said eternal damnation is inconsistent with both love and justice.
#94 — Romans was written to Christians and as such, the promises in Romans 8 apply only to believers, not unbelievers.
Romans was written to Christians and as such, the promises in Romans 8 apply only to believers, not unbelievers.
Huh … when Paul says Jesus died for all … as he does repeatedly through his epistles … I don’t see him adding any qualifiers to it.
All means all. If all really means only some, then only some died in Adam.
Why are you so determined to consign most of the people who ever lived to hell? Why do you believe God’s grace can be limited by us mere mortals?
“If that were so, why did Jesus even talk about hell if it wasn’t going to be a possibility?”
It could be a possibility, a place of temporary punishment.
It’s pointless to have a discussion with skeptical unbelievers on this topic. SteveG couldn’t really care less about St. Paul or Christian doctrine. He’s really trying to jerk us around with some half-baked Biblical interpretation and theology in order to refute serious Christian believers.
One needs to be serious Christian believer to discuss issues of atonement and salvation. Basically these unbelievers become sophists when discussion serious Christian topics.
Bottom line is that SteveG and Jon Rowe are shilling for a very weak form of Christianity that C.S. Lewis referred to as Christianity and water.
Peter Leavitt at #101: SteveG couldn’t really care less about St. Paul or Christian doctrine. He’s really trying to jerk us around with some half-baked Biblical interpretation and theology in order to refute serious Christian believers.
Hey stop crawling around in my brain! Did you happen to find the source of my rose-colored glasses while you were in there?
Look bub, in all seriousness, I don’t jerk people around. Not worth my time to do that. I raise the possibility of universalism due to some recent reading I’ve done about it and in hopes of finding out whether there are weaknesses in the idea that I hadn’t already seen. (So far, no.)
I’m really kind of tired of having my motives diagnosed by people who have no clue. I certainly entertain ideas that are out of the mainstream — always have — but I don’t bring them up to discuss for the purpose of causing annoyance. I’ve never been, nor seen any point in being, an Internet troll.
There’s a theological discussion to be had here, that you can engage in if you like or stay out of if you prefer. But trying to shut the topic down by impugning my alleged motivation is a cheat.
And oh, for the record: I actually care very much about Paul and Christian doctrine. At times I’ve been a believer and at other times I’ve been a skeptical student, but I have all my life been fascinated by it.
So kindly stop telling me what I think, capice?
While I hate to be the person to agree with Jon Rowe and SteveG (since I don’t on many subjects), I think they are dead on right here. There is nothing in the Bible that goes against universal salvation in the long run (after a temporary period or an “age” of punishment), and much to commend it.
If that goes too far for some, then it is quite easy to defend annihilation…that after an appropriate time of punishment, the sinner will cease to exist forever. That was the predominant view of the Jews before Jesus, and has many verses which could support it.
I don’t know why one can’t be an “inerrantist” and believe this, since I have known such, including myself.
When we take the whole Bible into account, and God’s declared attributes, it doesn’t make any sense that God would put anyone into ETERNAL torture. I think we forget what ETERNAL means when we contemplate it.
Even if we punished Hitler a 1000 times over for each of his many sins, we could not argue that eternal torture would be just. And, God is nothing if He is not just.
Maybe Peter Leavitt thinks he’s St. Peter and holds the keys to Heaven. That would explain how he can hold forth on who is or isn’t a Christian on here. So watch out SteveG - he could hold your mortal soul in his hands!
SteveG
I didn’t think I would ever have to resort to the New Living Translation for authority but try this out:
1 Corinthians 15:22 Everyone dies because all of us are related to Adam, the first man. But all who are related to Christ, the other man, will be given new life.
This spin is consistent with all the other references to the needing to believe in Jesus Christ to be gain eternal life. And I believe the reason is because we need to be related to Christ to have eternal life. Relationship comes by faith in who He is. God isn’t interested in giving humans eternal life who aren’t receptive to Him. He’s interested in begetting His life into a receptive soul, just as human life is begotten when a man’s sperm enters a receptive womans egg. Who cares about a woman’s egg that receives no sperm? Is it entitled to life anyway?
Well Anlir, it is rather clear that you and SteveG are dubious Christians here. My advice to the good Christians who try to deal seriously with your likes is non legitimes caborundum.
Awstar: But sure belief in Christ doesn’t mean just choosing to believe certain stories about him, does it? It’s faith in the grace of God as lived by Jesus, and as coming through Jesus.
The NLT comes from a variety of conservative scholars; how do you know they didn’t translate the passage with their theological beliefs in mind? How come the NLT seems to be the only version that renders the passage this way?
And if we hold that a soul must “believe in Jesus Christ,” how do you know God doesn’t continue to hold out the possibility of reconciliation after physical death? Why set such an arbitrary cutoff point?
Consider my examples of the honest seekers who seriously want to find the right path but who die before reaching that point. By your theology, their punishment is just the same as brutal killer who raped and murdered dozens with never a whisper of remorse.
That is not justice.
Peter Leavitt: Well Anlir, it is rather clear that you and SteveG are dubious Christians here. My advice to the good Christians who try to deal seriously with your likes is non legitimes caborundum.
I’m not trying to grind anybody down. I’m just conversing. And leave my parentage out of this!
C’mon man, have some fun with it. This is a debate forum that we all take part in because we like it. So, like it. Defend your ideas and I’ll defend mine and we can all toast one another’s health and the end of the night.
“Bottom line is that SteveG and Jon Rowe are shilling for a very weak form of Christianity that C.S. Lewis referred to as Christianity and water.”
An aside: This form of Christianity is closer to the theology that America’s key Founders — Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, & Franklin — believed in than the Christianity of traditional orthodoxy. I can offer a quotation from Washington where he praises one of these Christian Trinitarian Universalist Churches as preaching sound religion.
But my larger point is if most of humanity, because of their original sin and not becoming “born-again Christians,” end up being thrown into a lake of fire for all eternity, then this is not good news, but very bad news. This is about as self-evidently believable as the teachings of Muslim fundamentalism. I’m not an atheist and would agree that if atheism is true, it would be quite a bleak reality or Truth (many of my atheists friends disagree). But traditional Christian teaching on Hell is even bleaker. It’s horrificly bad news with a silver lining that you may be able to escape the fate which most of humanity including many loved ones and people you admire will not.
SteveG- Paul’s letter to the Romans was intended for gentile believers. Paul was the apostle to the gentiles and his letter is understood to be intended for the believers in Rome. Please see the beginning of Romans for the context.
As for your query, please see the following verse and contemplate who you feel this may be referring to: 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
SteveG, I can’t convince you of God’s plan, only He can do that. Your struggle with His word, will and plan are your own walk. Many here have given you the words of God and the good news of his plan and Son. Your continued obstinacy is really a personal conflict with God not his followers. How do I know? Because I fought a spiritual war for 33 years of my life. I carried water for paganism and was the worst kind of person; indifferent to God. If Paul had not said it; I would be the chief of sinners.
My comments toward your questions are not meant to be terse. I have all the patience in the world for the unbeliever but little patience for the Pharisee. Part of my sinful nature to be sure. Please understand that as a Christian there is a revealed truth that only comes from the Holy Spirit. No matter how long we explain it, it will seem daft to you and others who share a universal view of salvation. It will seem exclusionary and elitist to some. It is not intended to but as God’s truth is revealed by His Spirit, I can only tell you that your quest for truth should start with God. Your questions should be posed to God and your supplication should be that God reveal that truth to you. Ultimately are your arguing for the reasons of understanding and seeking God’s truth or are you arguing for your own prides sake and the chance to build your debating skills?
The truth has been shared with you and to continue debating the finite details of universal salvation is futile. I can assure you that you will not change a single soul in here as to their understanding of God’s word as it is revealed by His Spirit. You will only continue to frustrate yourself as the answers you seek are not being said. That’s because the truth you seek is ultimately your own truth and not Gods. If I had a dime for every time that was the case for me; you and I would be sitting on the beach earning 20%. Just saying…
Steve — What does it mean to “believe in Jesus?” As long as we’re proof-texting, what about Jesus saying that unless you are more righteous than then Pharisees you will never enter the kingdom? Does that mean you have be righteous then? If so, believing in Jesus isn’t enough. Or did Jesus lie then?
Roger — You seem to have made a subtle but critical mistake. Jesus didn’t say “unless you are more righteous”, he said, “unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees”. It isn’t a question of who is the most successful at adhering to moral principles as if Jesus found the Pharisees to be morally average as compared to the ideal moralist who is always moral.
Rather, Jesus has addressed, in that passage, a different question, which deals with the forensic result of a man’s (or woman’s) search for God’s approval. The question is, whom does God justify?
The Pharisaical answer centers around the keeping of the Mosaic Law in the context of a covenant God made with the nation of Israel. The Pharisee taught that God would justify the one who kept the law, as opposed to the one who didn’t. Jesus, on the other hand, taught that while God wants Israel to keep the law, keeping the law is not enough to gain God’s favor — i.e. to be justified in his sight. In essence, Jesus was telling the crowds that the means by which the Pharisees sought God’s declaration of “just”, falls short of what is required.
In another passage, Jesus tells a parable about a Pharisee and a sinner. Both went to the temple to pray, but only one left the temple justified. In summary, the one whom God justified is the one who had a realistic self-assessment. God is not saving the pious, the person who follows a system of ethics to the letter. Rather, he is saving the honest, humble, person who is willing to face the truth about themselves. As David says in Psalm 32, God is forgiving the man or woman “in whose spirit there is no deceit.”
Roger: I know this. I have always thought the series of teachings Jesus laid out in Matthew about needing to scrupulously righteous (i.e. don’t think yourself good because you don’t murder; if you get angry it is just as much sin) were really meant to make very plain the need for grace. Who, upon hearing that message, could consider themselves worthy? No one (except possibly one severely self-deluded) … so salvation must be in God’s grace, not our good behavior.
The Pharisees thought themselves better than everyone at carefully obeying every stroke of the Law; Jesus came to tell them, you missed the point.
Grey Archer: Ultimately are your arguing for the reasons of understanding and seeking God’s truth or are you arguing for your own prides sake and the chance to build your debating skills?
Both. I also enjoy challenging others to defend their beliefs. This is a debate forum. Debating is what is done here. It’s what it’s for.
Grey Archer: Do you ever wonder if perhaps it is those who believe in eternal damnation who have misunderstood the message? when Jesus tells the parables about the woman who loses a coin, the shepherd who loses a sheep and the father who loses a son, all three of them search, or wait, until they find what was lost. They don’t give up, ever. If these are pictures of God, why should be suppose that God eventually gives up when Jesus just told us he doesn’t?
Think about it logically: Is God perfectly loving? If so, then his love can’t fail.
Is God perfectly just? If so, then his justice can’t fail.
Eternal damnation is a failure of both love (because it means God eventually throws up His hands and gives up on us) AND justice (because even the vilest sinner has suffered a just penalty long before eternity — after that it’s just gratuitous and God then becomes either a sadist or indifferent to the suffering.)
I am sure you know people who are not Christians. Think of the one of them you love the most and imagine that person burning in torment forever. Now picture yourself in heaven, knowing this is happening to someone you care about. Could it be heaven if you know? And even if God mindwipes everyone so they don’t know (which is a rather grotesque idea itself), God knows.
Steve — Eternal torment for a lifetime of sin is not justice. It is not even revenge. It is indifference to suffering.
Roger — Granting for the moment that you have properly understood the Biblical references to “forever” as if it meant “time without end,” which I don’t think it does, we are left with the question of whether we can imagine a crime for which an eternity of torture is just punishment.
Human courts recognize a hierarchy of punishment as it affirms that not all crimes have the same weight of offense and neither do all crimes have the same significance. Many of our wise judges understand the difference in severity and significance between a common murder and the assassination of a US President. The courts also recognize the grave implications when a person kills a police officer, or any other person acting in the name of the State. And the courts typically give heavier sentences to those who commit such crimes.
One can imagine then, a crime most grievous against Heaven, deserving of Heaven’s most severe response. If human law applies a more severe form of punishment for the murder of a police officer, and even higher still for killing a President, what would it mean to commit an offense against the divine law giver?
God is not so trite as to put the average sinner into the lake of fire. Rather, the lake of fire is reserved for those who commit the most egregious offense against God — blaspheme. Specifically, the offense that deserves an eternity in hell is to call God a liar.
But God is not, as you seem to think, into pain and suffering for it’s own sake. And the torture does not last for all time. As it says in Revelation, “He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be [any] death; there will no longer be [any] mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.” What are the “first things” if they are not tears, death, mourning, crying and pain?” Having put the first things into the past, we do not expect to find a lake of fire in which these things exist or else he did not put them away.
Steve — Having the chance for salvation end with the death of the body is arbitrary.
. . .
If we are free to reject God’s grace, don’t you think God is free to reject our rejection?
Roger — We must resist the temptation to worship the god of our own making rather than the God who is really there. According to the scriptures, Today is the day of salvation and we ought to enter into his rest while it is still called “Today.”
TRS — There is nothing in the Bible that goes against universal salvation in the long run (after a temporary period or an “age” of punishment), and much to commend it.
Roger — Actually, if God were going to offer remedial punishment, there would be no reason for Jesus to die on the cross. The idea of remedial punishment runs contrary to the clear teaching that Jesus was the propitiation for the sins of the people. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.
Jon — But traditional Christian teaching on Hell is even bleaker. It’s horrificly bad news with a silver lining that you may be able to escape the fate which most of humanity including many loved ones and people you admire will not.
Roger — It’s also possible that the “Traditional” teaching on Hell isn’t the Biblical teaching on hell.
Steve — The Pharisees thought themselves better than everyone at carefully obeying every stroke of the Law; Jesus came to tell them, you missed the point.
Roger — Agreed.
SteveG- There certainly is that argument. I often said that Christians had hijacked God and what he really meant. I can understand your concern about this issue.
Importantly, why do you enjoy challenging others to “defend” their faith? What enjoyment is derived from that? Do you feel people in here are “defending” their faith? Just wondering.
I defend nothing as God needs not my defense of His word or law. I simply tell you that your continued struggle could be something born from pride and not truly seeking God’s revealed wisdom and a redemptive relationship with Him. Have you taken a core sample of your heart and determined what you are really seeking by this.
Saying this is a forum of debate is a non sequitur given the real prime mover behind your arguments. I’ve read all the posts and most are sharing the gospel with you in kind and trying to explain why universal salvation is extra-biblical. You’re perceiving this as “defending” their faith but seeing God is best done in the available light, Steve.
Many people have done a terrific job of explaining theology to you but as I said, it is a revealed truth that is symbiotic with God’s regeneration of your heart, justification of your soul and sanctification of your life. It is a process, Steve, and it will seem nonsensical to you as long as you are enjoying people “defending” their faith and not seeking God’s revelation of your own faith. These people aren’t defending their faith, Steve, their explaining God’s word which is in contrast with sinful mans best laid plans and understanding. No amount of straw man arguments and hypothetical can betray the fact that man is a sinner, the wages of that sin is death and a path to redemption has been given. If it isn’t taken, eternal suffering is the price and God is not unjust to do so. His perfect love provided His son and if you can’t accept His Son, you do not gain his salvation or share in His perfect love. Your expectations are much higher than God’s, Steve. Much higher.
To be human is to be immortal one way or another. Choose wisely. Just saying…
Again I’m not an atheist, but this link by an atheist raises all sorts of good questions regarding the moral legitimacy of eternal damnation. It specifically references the following:
“[W]hat would it mean to commit an offense against the divine law giver?”
And answers arguably nothing. If God is all powerful He is immune to any harm which measley humans may try to use against Him. It’s like asking what would it mean to shoot Superman with a machine gun? You’ve seen the movies/read the comics….
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/infinitepunishment.html
Roger: But God is not, as you seem to think, into pain and suffering for it’s own sake.
Actually no, I don’t think that. I think Christians who believe in eternal damnation haven’t thought through the implications of that belief for the nature of God.
The doctrine of hell was one of a few reasons I could not ultimately stay inside of traditional Christianity. I knew people who were goodhearted and loving but not Christians, and others who were mean, judgmental and backbiting who were “saved.” I could not accept a system where the former would writhe in torment forever and the latter would skate into heaven.
The idea of progressive punishments and your analogy to human courts is actually in harmony with what I’ve been saying here. We punish criminals in accordance with their crimes. Hell, as traditionally viewed, is a one-size-fits-all punishment for everyone who doesn’t sort out all the questions and reach the one right answer by the time their bodies die, which is unpredictable.
And the torture does not last for all time. As it says in Revelation, “He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be [any] death; there will no longer be [any] mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.” What are the “first things” if they are not tears, death, mourning, crying and pain?” Having put the first things into the past, we do not expect to find a lake of fire in which these things exist or else he did not put them away.
So are you also arguing a universalist point of view, or is this annihilation? (Which is still far more merciful than eternal torment.)
We must resist the temptation to worship the god of our own making rather than the God who is really there. According to the scriptures, Today is the day of salvation and we ought to enter into his rest while it is still called “Today.”
Ought to, yes, but obviously many do not. Are we to believe God gives up on them? The whole story of the Bible is of God zealously and unfailingly pursuing his wandering sheep and never ceasing to love and show mercy (even in judgment).
Jesus said the shepherd will leave the 99 sheep in the field and search for as long as it takes to find the one lost one. As long as it takes. The prodigal son’s father doesn’t wait hopefully by the door for a year or two and then lock it.
These parables mean something important that should not be overlooked.
God is not so trite as to put the average sinner into the lake of fire. Rather, the lake of fire is reserved for those who commit the most egregious offense against God — blaspheme. Specifically, the offense that deserves an eternity in hell is to call God a liar.
I am not clear on whether you’re saying there is, or is not, eternal damnation. Can you clarify?
What of the soul who calls God a liar in this life and then, on the other side, cries out for mercy and begs forgiveness. Does God fold His arms and say, tough pal, too late?
Actually, if God were going to offer remedial punishment, there would be no reason for Jesus to die on the cross. The idea of remedial punishment runs contrary to the clear teaching that Jesus was the propitiation for the sins of the people. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.
How so? Most Christians believe God chastises in this life. Is that not remedial punishment? And if it is, why assume it won’t continue as long as necessary until the soul repents?
It’s also possible that the “Traditional” teaching on Hell isn’t the Biblical teaching on hell.
I am beginning to think so.
Grey Archer:
Importantly, why do you enjoy challenging others to “defend” their faith? What enjoyment is derived from that? Do you feel people in here are “defending” their faith? Just wondering.
I think the nature of a debate forum is for people to present their ideas, engage with other people on their ideas, explain and defend their own, challenge the others and be prepared to occasionally change one’s mind about something.
Occasionally people have complained that the blog welcomes all manner of people, from atheists to the most devout. I think those complaints are misguided. If Christians, or atheists, or anyone else want to have discussions just among the like-minded, there are places online to go for that. This isn’t one of them, and the editors intended it to be that way.
This is also one of the most civil and respectful debate forums around, something I appreciate very much. Even when people disagree vehemently, they rarely (sometimes, but rarely) make it personal.
I have always enjoyed vigorous debate about theology and philosophy, politics and society. I thrive on the intellectual give and take. It is both sport and serious for me.
I defend nothing as God needs not my defense of His word or law. I simply tell you that your continued struggle could be something born from pride and not truly seeking God’s revealed wisdom and a redemptive relationship with Him. Have you taken a core sample of your heart and determined what you are really seeking by this.
Saying this is a forum of debate is a non sequitur given the real prime mover behind your arguments. I’ve read all the posts and most are sharing the gospel with you in kind and trying to explain why universal salvation is extra-biblical. You’re perceiving this as “defending” their faith but seeing God is best done in the available light, Steve.
The more I read on it, the more I think that universalism is the most natural reading of Scripture. If you can read it as it is, without filtering it through centuries of later teachings (hard to do, I know) the language is plain.
So that’s the give-and-take I meant. They can explain why they think it’s unscriptural and I can explain why I don’t agree. And in the end, maybe no one’s mind is changed, but the arguments have been tested, on all sides.
I am always seeking truth. I always have been. I have come to be comfortable in pondering questions without having to necessarily feel that I know all the answers.
Many people have done a terrific job of explaining theology to you but as I said, it is a revealed truth that is symbiotic with God’s regeneration of your heart, justification of your soul and sanctification of your life. It is a process, Steve, and it will seem nonsensical to you as long as you are enjoying people “defending” their faith and not seeking God’s revelation of your own faith.
But do you not see the assumption you make? You describe those who disagree with me as “explaining theology.” There’s an assumption that they’re right and I’m wrong. How do you know this is so, when you’ve just dismissed my arguments as being impossible, rather than seriously consider what I’ve had to say?
These people aren’t defending their faith, Steve, their explaining God’s word which is in contrast with sinful mans best laid plans and understanding. No amount of straw man arguments and hypothetical can betray the fact that man is a sinner, the wages of that sin is death and a path to redemption has been given. If it isn’t taken, eternal suffering is the price and God is not unjust to do so. His perfect love provided His son and if you can’t accept His Son, you do not gain his salvation or share in His perfect love. Your expectations are much higher than God’s, Steve. Much higher.
Eternal suffering is not death. It is torment for no purpose. It has no redemptive value. And after a time, it goes infinitely beyond just punishment for any sin.
To be human is to be immortal one way or another. Choose wisely. Just saying…
Jon — And answers arguably nothing. If God is all powerful He is immune to any harm which measley humans may try to use against Him. It’s like asking what would it mean to shoot Superman with a machine gun?
Roger — I would argue the opposite point of view. If God were to allow such an injustice to stand, he would violate his own integrity. This would be the analogous equivalent of eating kryptonite.
man is a sinner, the wages of that sin is death and a path to redemption has been given. If it isn’t taken, eternal suffering is the price and God is not unjust to do so. His perfect love provided His son and if you can’t accept His Son, you do not gain his salvation or share in His perfect love. Your expectations are much higher than God’s, Steve. Much higher.
I’m not sure what you mean by higher expectations.
Nevertheless, what if I don’t argue with any of that but instead ask you how you know that God’s pursuit of those who don’t accept the Son end when their bodies die?
And how do you square that belief with the parables I’ve been talking about … the lost sheep, the lost coin and the prodigal son?
“Roger — I would argue the opposite point of view. If God were to allow such an injustice to stand, he would violate his own integrity.”
This sounds like such a God has the biggest Ego in the Universe.
“This would be the analogous equivalent of eating kryptonite.”
I don’t think you understand what happens to Superman when he eats Kryptonite.
Steve — Actually no, I don’t think that. I think Christians who believe in eternal damnation haven’t thought through the implications of that belief for the nature of God.
Roger — I believe in eternal damnation, but not eternal torture. I see a difference.
Steve — I could not accept a system where the former would writhe in torment forever and the latter would skate into heaven.
Roger — Would you accept the reflection in which God punishes the judgmental people and rewards the good hearted? Or must your God shine it all on?
Steve — Hell, as traditionally viewed, is a one-size-fits-all punishment for everyone who doesn’t sort out all the questions and reach the one right answer by the time their bodies die, which is unpredictable.
Roger — I didn’t know this was the traditional view. Catholic teaching includes the concept of purgatory, which seems close to your idea of remedial punishment. I can’t find Biblical support for purgatory, but I can’t say the traditional view doesn’t speak of graduated punishments. Some Protestant denominations also teach a system of rewards, which is a positive version of a type of graduated judgment in which people like me get to be in heaven but must live in the apartment next to the ice machine.
Steve — So are you also arguing a universalist point of view, or is this annihilation? (Which is still far more merciful than eternal torment.)
Roger — If given a choice between the two, I would argue for annihilation. However, I can also see a combination of two things: a just, and measured punishment followed by ultimate annihilation. But I stand by my earlier statement that blaspheme is a crime worthy of torment and pain.
Mark’s gospel puts it this way.
Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.
Muslims speak of the seriousness of blaspheme in their culture, but according to Jesus, God is willing to forgive all kinds of blasphemies, save one. To call the Holy Spirit a liar is just not forgivable because it logically contradicts the very concept of forgiveness.
Steve — Are we to believe God gives up on them? The whole story of the Bible is of God zealously and unfailingly pursuing his wandering sheep and never ceasing to love and show mercy (even in judgment).
Roger — I also see this in the Bible. But if I understand universalism correctly, it suggests that all human beings are “his wandering sheep” by virtue of the simple fact that they are human beings. And while the Bible teaches that salvation is open to all without regard to race, sex, birthright, class, or economic status, Jesus says that “my sheep hear my voice.” The qualification for being a “sheep” is whether a man or woman hears his voice. Experience would demonstrate that some do not.
So then we come to your point that given enough time, all folks will come around eventually, even if it requires a postmortem decision. But I can’t find any Biblical evidence for a postmortem decision. If I am going to reject the traditional view of hell on the basis that it lacks Biblical support, then I must also reject postmortem repentance also for the same reason.
Steve — I am not clear on whether you’re saying there is, or is not, eternal damnation. Can you clarify?
Roger — I think there is eternal damnation, if what we mean by “eternal” is more akin to “permanent.” That is, the Bible seems to suggest that history is on a trajectory toward a final state in which God has removed the possiblity of corruption, decay, entropy, ruin, mortality, etc. , causing a permanent state of immortality, incorruption, and etc. It could be that he will leave lost souls in a dark place full of regret, something that is best described as a place of torment. But I believe the lost souls will just burn up with the rest of creation on the final day.
Steve — What of the soul who calls God a liar in this life and then, on the other side, cries out for mercy and begs forgiveness. Does God fold His arms and say, tough pal, too late?
Roger — I’d say, yeah, that’s what the Bible teaches. But my answer assumes a particular orientation of the penitent toward God at that moment, which we assume comes from fear of punishment rather than a genuine change of mind and heart. If your scenario assumes the repentance is genuine, I see no reason to think God would toss him in the garbage can.
But again, I couldn’t support this postmortem change of mind from Scripture. Jesus’ allegory concerning Lazarus and the rich man suggests that a man will, of course, be sorry about his fate and wish to be free of his punishment, but the rich man seemed to understand the permanence of his position, only wishing to have his thirst sated.
Steve — Jesus said the shepherd will leave the 99 sheep in the field and search for as long as it takes to find the one lost one. As long as it takes.
Roger — I agree that these parables speak to God’s persistence. But the main point of these parables is understood in contrast to the attitude of the Pharisees, who seemed perturbed by the fact that Jesus ate with sinners. By analogy, Jesus didn’t spend time with the sheep who were not lost, (tongue in cheek — the Pharisees) Jesus spends time with other people in search of that one lost sheep who needed saving.
But I think it would be taking the analogy too far to infer that 100 sheep were initially lost, requiring the shepherd to look for all 100 sheep until he found them all. I think Jesus expects us to focus on the one lost sheep in contrast to 99 sheep who didn’t stray from the flock in order to highlight the relative value of the sheep to the shepherd. When he points us to the shepherd’s rejoicing, he makes the point that the one lost sheep is of equal value to the shepherd as the other 99. By contrast, the Pharisees would not place themselves as being equal in the eyes of God as the lost among them.
Jon — I don’t think you understand what happens to Superman when he eats Kryptonite.
Roger — Perhaps not. I only wished to draw a distinction between what men can do to God, and what God can do to himself.
Just because God is omnipotent it doesn’t logically follow that God is not vulnerable to loosing his integrity (though his other character qualities would.) The point is, if God were to remain God, he would need to protect his integrity, which requires that he not allow such a grave injustice to pass without a response. As Paul says, “otherwise how will he judge the world?”
Steve — How so? Most Christians believe God chastises in this life. Is that not remedial punishment? And if it is, why assume it won’t continue as long as necessary until the soul repents?
Roger — The Bible draws a distinction between “chastisement”, which is something that coaches do to athletes, parents do to children, and teachers do to students, and “punishment”, which is not remedial but the suitable response to injustice.
The chastisement of the Lord is pedagogical, and meant to bring us to wisdom and maturity.
As I understand it, the final judgment is meant as the final word concerning the ultimate product of the arc of my life. It isn’t so much a simplistic question of whether I was good or bad, but where I was headed, what I loved, what I valued, what I ultimately wanted.
SteveG- Fair enough my friend. To each his own walk and there is nothing wrong with liking politics and debate; I was just wondering what the prime mover was.
I hope that in time you will see God’s truth and not see it as a debate but a revelation. I appreciate your decorum and affable nature in the midst of an overwhelmingly Christian crowd that is telling you that you are wrong.
You’re wrong Steve but I like you anyway. LOL. Hang in there my friend; keep searching.
Roger, I don’t have time now to dig into everything in your post (I will later), so let me for now address just this one point.
But again, I couldn’t support this postmortem change of mind from Scripture. Jesus’ allegory concerning Lazarus and the rich man suggests that a man will, of course, be sorry about his fate and wish to be free of his punishment, but the rich man seemed to understand the permanence of his position, only wishing to have his thirst sated.
This parable doesn’t really have anything to do with the afterlife, it’s a warning to the nation of Judah, who had it all (the rich man). There is a lenghty article here that unpacks the symbolism almost word by word. It will take a little time to get through but it’s well worth it.
SteveG
I think we see eye to eye on Jesus purchasing us through the shed blood, and I think we agree that He certainly has every right to every human soul. I think where we disagree is on how Jesus and His Father determine who is reconciled and who isn’t. You seem to be taking the position that “all” means “all” when the Bible states all are made alive. And granted, the use of English translations of ideas encoded in Greek might possibly support your position. However, in the context of the whole Bible, there is a continual thread that supports the idea that “all” means “all in Christ”. Noah certainly could take on a few more souls on board, and the NT even points out that he encouraged everyone to come aboard. But when the doors shut, only he and his family passed through the flood IN the wooden ark. When the LORD chose to reveal himself to the world, he chose to do it through the offspring of just one man, Abraham. And Abraham was chosen for his trusting that the LORD was going to keep his word. When Abraham’s children through Jacob were finally carried off on eagles wings out of Egypt by the LORD, it was only those who were IN the homes with lamb’s blood on their wooden door posts. And when it came time to take the land they were given, the lost the opportunity because of their unbelief, and only their children entered the land 38 years later. And when Isreal again lost favor with the LORD and sent into exile, only a remnant returned with their time of punishment was over. And when Jesus walked through Galilee, he stopped performing miracles in towns that did not believe, and He said their fate was to be worse the Sodom and Gamorah. And when Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to the apostles He rebuked them for not believing the women who he appeared to in the garden. And when the LORD wrote his letters to the seven churches through John in Revelation, it’s pretty clear that there would only be a remnent who would persevere to the end.
So I’m not impressed with your argument.
But I toast you for your effort. But too bad it isn’t being applied to get the message out that all it takes is faith in what we are told that Jesus Christ has done for us to receive eternal life and peace with a God who has cursed mankind for its unbelief. Which by the way isn’t any greater requirement than he placed on Adam way back in the beginning.
Actually, if God were going to offer remedial punishment, there would be no reason for Jesus to die on the cross. The idea of remedial punishment runs contrary to the clear teaching that Jesus was the propitiation for the sins of the people. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.
******I disagree. If those not covered by the blood of Jesus had to accept their true and just punishment, there would be nothing “remedial” about it at all. It would be horrible. It just wouldn’t be ETERNAL, which would not be just, fair, or even reasonable. Your version would simply be eternal TORTURE to no reasonable end.
BTW, if the two concepts were mutually exclusive, there wouldn’t be so many Christians who believe it, including many early Church fathers.
Your theology is very heavily influenced by church *tradition.*
Awstar at #131: I would just point out that in all of your examples except for the one from Revelation concern people’s earthly lives. Unless they’re read as allegory, they really don’t say anything about what happens to people after that.
But I didn’t raise the idea expecting agreement here, just a discussion, so I’m good to agree to disagree on it.
Roger at #126:
Steve — I could not accept a system where the former would writhe in torment forever and the latter would skate into heaven.
Roger — Would you accept the reflection in which God punishes the judgmental people and rewards the good hearted? Or must your God shine it all on?
God may punish whomever he deems merits it. The only question is what form and duration does the punishment take? All souls may pass through the purifying fire, and some may linger there longer than others. But it would be unjust to require anyone to linger there forever.
Steve — Hell, as traditionally viewed, is a one-size-fits-all punishment for everyone who doesn’t sort out all the questions and reach the one right answer by the time their bodies die, which is unpredictable.
Roger — I didn’t know this was the traditional view. Catholic teaching includes the concept of purgatory, which seems close to your idea of remedial punishment. I can’t find Biblical support for purgatory, but I can’t say the traditional view doesn’t speak of graduated punishments. Some Protestant denominations also teach a system of rewards, which is a positive version of a type of graduated judgment in which people like me get to be in heaven but must live in the apartment next to the ice machine.
Well that may be punishment enough.
By “traditional” I mean the eternal duration of punishment. Your point that the degree of punishment may vary in the view of some traditions is well-taken.
But I stand by my earlier statement that blaspheme is a crime worthy of torment and pain.
Mark’s gospel puts it this way.
Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.
But what does that mean, to “blaspheme against the holy spirit?” Some say it means questioning the genuineness of another’s faith, and yet I see Christians engaging in that all the time. Witness Victoria’s rantings against the “emerging church” movement, or Night Train insisting that Bono of U2 is not a real Christian. Others say it means to resist the holy spirit’s pulling of us toward Christ, but if that’s the meaning, then it’s just another way of saying you are only saved when you repent.
I never did understand just what this unpardonable sin was supposed to be.
Steve — Are we to believe God gives up on them? The whole story of the Bible is of God zealously and unfailingly pursuing his wandering sheep and never ceasing to love and show mercy (even in judgment).
Roger — I also see this in the Bible. But if I understand universalism correctly, it suggests that all human beings are “his wandering sheep” by virtue of the simple fact that they are human beings. And while the Bible teaches that salvation is open to all without regard to race, sex, birthright, class, or economic status, Jesus says that “my sheep hear my voice.” The qualification for being a “sheep” is whether a man or woman hears his voice. Experience would demonstrate that some do not.
This opens up a whole book’s worth of pondering. Maybe a whole library’s worth.
If it is necessary to explicitly accept Christ in order to be saved, but that chance doesn’t end after physical death, then perhaps death knocks the scales off the eyes in a way that only a few are blessed enough to have happen in this life, making it much easier for all to call on his name.
But what does it mean to hear his voice? Could it mean to feel the touch of the Holy Spirit and allow yourself to trust in grace even if you’re not specifically a Christian? Did Ghandi hear his voice? (Is Ghandi deserving of torment?)
I don’t think the meaning of the words is as simple as it may sound at first.
So then we come to your point that given enough time, all folks will come around eventually, even if it requires a postmortem decision. But I can’t find any Biblical evidence for a postmortem decision. If I am going to reject the traditional view of hell on the basis that it lacks Biblical support, then I must also reject postmortem repentance also for the same reason.
Close your Bible and open your mind for a moment. What about just meditating on the understood nature of God.
What sense does it make for God to set a time limit on repentance? If God is truly not willing that any should perish, and if “neither life nor death” can separate us from the love of God, then why assume that the chance ends at any point?
I submit that the idea that the moment before death is our last and final chance is an assumption, one that doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Steve — I am not clear on whether you’re saying there is, or is not, eternal damnation. Can you clarify?
Roger — I think there is eternal damnation, if what we mean by “eternal” is more akin to “permanent.” That is, the Bible seems to suggest that history is on a trajectory toward a final state in which God has removed the possiblity of corruption, decay, entropy, ruin, mortality, etc. , causing a permanent state of immortality, incorruption, and etc. It could be that he will leave lost souls in a dark place full of regret, something that is best described as a place of torment. But I believe the lost souls will just burn up with the rest of creation on the final day.
That’s a more creditable position than eternal torment, but it raises the question then of what’s the purpose? Such suffering isn’t redemptive, nor corrective. It’s just vengeance.
Steve — What of the soul who calls God a liar in this life and then, on the other side, cries out for mercy and begs forgiveness. Does God fold His arms and say, tough pal, too late?
Roger — I’d say, yeah, that’s what the Bible teaches. But my answer assumes a particular orientation of the penitent toward God at that moment, which we assume comes from fear of punishment rather than a genuine change of mind and heart. If your scenario assumes the repentance is genuine, I see no reason to think God would toss him in the garbage can.
Doesn’t all punishment to some extent depend on compelling good behavior by fear? If your child doesn’t understand why it’s wrong to steal your neighbor’s apples, he does understand that if he does it he’ll get spanked or, alternately, sent to bed at 5 in the afternoon.
Why wouldn’t the repentance be genuine? For the first time to such a person the truth is clear.
[Skipping the part about the parable of the rich man and Lazarus because I responded earlier.]
Steve — Jesus said the shepherd will leave the 99 sheep in the field and search for as long as it takes to find the one lost one. As long as it takes.
Roger — I agree that these parables speak to God’s persistence. But the main point of these parables is understood in contrast to the attitude of the Pharisees, who seemed perturbed by the fact that Jesus ate with sinners. By analogy, Jesus didn’t spend time with the sheep who were not lost, (tongue in cheek — the Pharisees) Jesus spends time with other people in search of that one lost sheep who needed saving.
But I think it would be taking the analogy too far to infer that 100 sheep were initially lost, requiring the shepherd to look for all 100 sheep until he found them all. I think Jesus expects us to focus on the one lost sheep in contrast to 99 sheep who didn’t stray from the flock in order to highlight the relative value of the sheep to the shepherd. When he points us to the shepherd’s rejoicing, he makes the point that the one lost sheep is of equal value to the shepherd as the other 99. By contrast, the Pharisees would not place themselves as being equal in the eyes of God as the lost among them.
I agree with that interpretation completely, but I’d ask you to not short shrift the persistence. I didn’t intend to imply that the other 99 were originally lost, but the shepherd leaves them in the open field, not safely in the pen, which suggests the urgency of finding the lost one.
The shepherd searches until the lost one is found. As the widow searches until the lost coin is found. As the father waits until the lost son comes home.
I think those are key points.
SteveG — you said: ” Unless they’re read as allegory, they really don’t say anything about what happens to people after that.”
But isn’t that the purpose of a parable? To teach us something about which we have no way of understanding by using an example that we can understand? The whole Bible is filled with parables written out in human lives to teach us about a spiritual life we can’t possible understand in our own knowledge. And each Bible story ends with the same lesson: Lean not on your own understanding, trust in God. Which pretty much gets us back to Job and his undeserved suffering.
You weren’t talking about parables, you were talking about stories that the Bible presents as actual occurrences.
Does anybody remember the end of the debate in Job?
6Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:
7 “Dress for action like a man;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.
8Will you even put me in the wrong?
Will you condemn me that you may be in the right?
9Have you an arm like God,
and can you thunder with a voice like his?
10″Adorn yourself with majesty and dignity;
clothe yourself with glory and splendor.
11Pour out the overflowings of your anger,
and look on everyone who is proud and abase him.
12Look on everyone who is proud and bring him low
and tread down the wicked where they stand.
13 Hide them all in the dust together;
bind their faces in the world below.
14Then will I also acknowledge to you
that your own right hand can save you.
SteveG said:
That’s my point, SteveG. Practically every story in the old testament tells us something about the coming Messiah through their circumstances, which were engineered by God.
He’ll be like the ark that we might escape God’s wrath which will wash over the world like a flood. He’ll be like Isaac, whom His father would have to sacrifice in order to be a blessing to the nations, He’ll be like Job, who endured Satan’s wrath even though he was blameless, He’ll be like Joseph who had to be betrayed by his own kin, in order that they might be saved from world famine, He’ll be like Moses who delivers us from the slavery of sin, and on and on it goes. The Rock that issues water in the desert, the bread of life (manna) from heaven, the warrior who conquers the promised land, the shepherd king, etc. etc. etc.
All stories that help us to understand the fix that we’re in (ie. a world full of sin and suffering), who Jesus is, and how He saves us; even though we can’t see Him face to face — yet!
Oh, I see. That makes sense. Thanks.