You weren’t talking about parables, you were talking about stories that the Bible presents as actual occurrences.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

But I didn’t raise the idea expecting agreement here, just a discussion, so I’m good to agree to disagree on it.

******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.*

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.

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.