If eternal conscious torment is false, then its "party time"

[dwilkins]

I hope that statement is indeed not impossible to refute, for then it may be impossible to disabuse me of this error.

When I said that the interviewer's statement was impossible to refute, I wasn't speaking of it being impossible in reality. I mean it was impossible because of the interviewer's attitude.

An analogy is the case of the once-saved—always-saved people. Having been one of them in the past, I know their technique well. You cannot bring up a counter-example which will convince them. If you bring up the case of Simon the magician who "believed and was baptized" (Acts 8:13), and who later (according to early Christian history) went back to his old ways, claiming to be God, and taking a woman around with him whom he claimed he had "begotten", they simply respond that Simon was not really saved in the first place. "Yes, he believed. But what did he believe? Yes, he was baptized, but that doesn't save you."

Or you might bring up the case of Charles Templeton, who preached the gospel for years together with Billy Graham. One day, he told Billy Graham that he was no longer a Christian. Mr. Graham had a long talk with him to try to restore him, but Charles said, "Billy, I appreciate your kindness and your concern for me, but I just don't believe that stuff anymore." But the OSAS person says that Charles never was a true Christian. "The fact that he preached the gospel doesn't prove that he was a Christian. A non-Christian can learn to preach the gospel, too." If you ask them how they know Templeton never was a Christian, they respond, "The very fact that he turned away from it proves that he never was!" Thus it is impossible to refute a OSAS position; it doesn't matter how many examples you supply of Christians permanently turning away from the Lord. They can explain away any scripture you bring forth to the contrary. I once did exactly that. I had to be struck to the heart before I was able to repent of that false teaching. It was the words of some of the early Christian writers that struck me to the heart.

Though I agree completely with the point you are making, it's worth being precise about OSAS. What you are describing above is the typical approach of Calvinists and their approach with the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. In that doctrine, you know you are saved because you persevered, because all really saved people will persevere. OSAS, is a slightly different animal. OSAS (from DTS, Charles Stanley, Robert Thieme Jr., etc.), would say that Templeton is still saved. They would say that once he made that momentary decision in time there is nothing he can do to void it. He might put his rewards in heaven in jeopardy, but he would not risk missing out on heaven. They would say that God would continue to ping on Templeton, and that he might eventually die "the sin unto death" as a means of punishment for his sin. But, they wouldn't question whether or not he was really saved.

Doug

[steve7150]

. Mother Theresa had a choice to make and acted according to her values. She valued the state of affairs where she was deprived of certain particular comforts of life and assisted others, to the state of affairs that would be if she would avail herself of those comforts and forgo the giving assistance to others. This is not "selfish" - but it is most certainly acting with "self interest", for she was doing exactly what it is that she wanted to do.

The same idea holds for the examples from personal experience that Mr. Gregg has given. Mr. Gregg's examples affirm that he is able to act so as to do exactly what it is that he wants to do - absolute self denial is impossible. The difference between Mr. Gregg and the man I described in the opening post is that their scales of values are on opposite extremes of the spectrum.

What has me quite perplexed, however, is that if God requires us to be willing to serve him in the absence of both rewards and punishments, then why is it that He has revealed to us that such exist? Does it not significantly hinder a man from making an honest assessment of his spiritual condition?








I agree about Mother T in that in serving the poor and needy it probably did give her pleasure and why shouldn't it as "it is more blessed to give then to receive." If it is a blessed endeavor it may very well give the giver pleasure, but for the right reason. You can do things that are both in your self interest as well as in the other person's interest.
Re rewards in heaven, didn't Jesus several times reference treasures and rewards in heaven which is simply a biblical condition regardless of whether we think this motivation matters to us, God revealed it to us. Perhaps it's not necessarily meant as a major motivator but more as an expression of God's love, but either way it's in the mix.
Getting back to the original post, i don't think avoiding punishment is the best reason to follow Christ but it certainly can be part of the mix but the thing that was troubling with this fellow was that he only would follow Jesus IF ECT were true. He would only follow Christ conditionally which actually opens up a can of worms about other doctrines.
I myself have to think about if i somehow knew ECT were true, what would it mean to me.

[Singalphile]

So is it a conundrum? If I want to love and obey God and I strive to do so, then I'm just acting on my own desires out of self motivation or interests, but if I don't want to love and obey God but I still do it, then my heart's not in the right place and it doesn't count. ... that's a bit of over-thinking, I reckon. 1 John 4,5

Like steve7150 just wrote, treasures and rewards and even self-preservation are "in the mix", no doubt, but that's true of any relationship, I think.

[Homer]

Doug wrote:

Steve,

I'm having a hard time thinking of an example of your approach (that avoiding sin is only associated with loving God, not avoiding punishment) from the Apostles' advice to people in scripture. For instance, in Hebrews 10 we see an admonition not to fall back into sin, thus turning from Christ. It is coupled tightly with the idea that to do so will result in punishment,

24 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. 26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

This example seems to be the standard way that the Apostles admonished people on sin. It seems to me that your approach would require a completely different set of advice. Can you find an example outside of the gospels (I'm not granting your argument there, but I'm more interested in how the material there is played out in real life) where your approach is used?

Important question; been looking forward to seeing it answered.

It seems to me that the meaning of the Greek word agape is not being considered. It is rooted more in the will than in feelings.

Singalphile wrote:

So is it a conundrum? If I want to love and obey God and I strive to do so, then I'm just acting on my own desires out of self motivation or interests, but if I don't want to love and obey God but I still do it, then my heart's not in the right place and it doesn't count. ... that's a bit of over-thinking, I reckon. 1 John 4,5

If you make the choice to submit to and obey God you love (agape) God, just as you can agape your neighbor although your feelings (emotionally) do not incline you to do so.

Suppose I get a call from LoveInc saying there is an elderly man in need of help. I set aside for a time what I really want to do that day. I go see the man and find that he is someone in the past that has treated me badly. He is foul-mouthed and shows an attitude of entitlement. He is not likeable at all. Yet I see he is very much in need of help. I set aside my feelings and take care of his need. I have loved (agape) the man.

If we are dependent on our feelings to love as we ought, we are in trouble because we have an ongoing war with the flesh. But with God's help we can will to love.

[steve]

Who has introduced the idea of feelings here? Not I.

I have never once depended upon any feelings in my decision to love and serve God. Submission and love are simply the right responses for one who is totally indebted to Another.

[Homer]

Hi Steve,

I have never once depended upon any feelings in my decision to love and serve God. Submission and love are simply the right responses for one who is totally indebted to Another.

Its good to agree! But I was hoping to be helpful to Singalphile, though I may have misunderstood his post. I kind of combined two responses there - still hoping to hear your (or someone's) response to Doug's question.

[thrombomodulin]

To make us aware of the icing on the cake. Knowing human nature as God does, He doubtless was aware that this would be an additional incentive for some.

I understand Mr. Gregg to be affirming the idea that if this "additional incentive" were a factor that is able to tip the balance in favor of a decision for Christ (somewhat like the man describe in my OP) then the decision to follow Christ is worthless because he did it for selfish reasons. So for a man to ascertain whether or not he is a true follower of Christ, he must imagine how he might act in a situation in which he does not find himself. His actual decisions in the face of the circumstances of the world in which he has placed is not what matters. One could certainly have a much easier time of making an honest assessment of his spiritual condition without the knowledge of rewards and punishments. We might have been better off without such knowledge. If indeed God seeks to ascertain whether we would follow him absent rewards and punishments, then it would seem to make sense for him to have placed us in a world where we didn't know about rewards and punishments. This is in now way meant as a proof that Mr. Gregg is wrong, for God has been known to do things that I do not understand.

[thrombomodulin]

I don't think Mother Theresa thought at all about what her values were or what she wanted to do in order to feel good about herself; she thought only about the needs of other people and how she could meet those needs.

I don't think my position really depends upon this. Mother Theresa had the free will to choose on thing or another. She made an a conscious decision to a particular course of action with certain ends in mind that she was aiming at. Since acted according to the values she held and did exactly what she had wanted to do. She acted with self interest, but nobody should say she acted selfishly.

[steve]

Doug wrote:

I'm having a hard time thinking of an example of your approach (that avoiding sin is only associated with loving God, not avoiding punishment) from the Apostles' advice to people in scripture...Can you find an example outside of the gospels (I'm not granting your argument there, but I'm more interested in how the material there is played out in real life) where your approach is used?

And Homer added:

Important question; been looking forward to seeing it answered.

Is Jesus a good enough source? I think "If you love me, keep my commandments" is pretty straightforward on this.

I am not sure why texts in the gospels should be excluded from the survey, but if you are looking for the normative apostolic evangelism, I think every example in Acts (as I have often noted here and elsewhere) is precisely such an example. No sermon in the book of Acts relies on threats or scares to elicit conversions. In every case, the appeal is made to the hearers' respect for, and conscience toward, God and His prerogatives. Those who had no such respect, felt no conviction, but they were not further pursued with threats or bribes. You may check these for yourself. I have pointed them out numerous times, and will not look up the references again. The burden of proof is upon the one who claims that they used such motivators.

As for the separate issue of threats being made to Christians (as in Hebrews) about the dangers of apostasy, it is evident that these are addressed to people who, though once converted by respect for God's claims upon them, have obviously either drifted from this pure motivation or have misunderstood what it is God wants, and whether (in the case of Hebrews) God might allow a reversion to the older forms of worship which He ordained in the Old Testament.

People often need a jolt back to reality. If a once-dutiful child begins to drift into a rebellious mode, the dad may say, "If you do not snap out of it, and properly honor your mother and me, you will have to leave this home. Then where will you sleep and how will you eat?" It is clear that rebellious kids can often benefit from a swift kick in the pants, and, being brought to their senses, may return to their former proper obedience. Nonetheless, the parent will not be happy to have the child only remain in the home for the sake of meals and shelter. Honoring the parents is the goal, which must be an attitude of the heart, if the dad is to be satisfied. Bare, grudging obedience does not satisfy any parent—especially not God.

If Jesus and the New Testament teach nothing else clearly, they teach that God is looking for heartfelt love, not pretentious and opportunistic external compliance. In this thread, we are discussing the state of the person who, without threats of eternal torment, will not embrace Christ. This means that the person in question clearly does not love God or Christ, but only loves himself and knows what side of the bread the butter is on. If anyone at this forum would not recognize the hypocrisy of any such "obedience" and that there is little that God finds more revolting than such hypocrisy, then I have certainly overestimated the general biblical literacy of my correspondents. This is not deep stuff. It is the most elementary.

To be informed of potential benefits for right behavior is reassuring to those who are involved in such behavior, but if it turns into the primary (or sole) motivation for right behavior, it is counterproductive. When Jesus said, "Seek first the kingdom of God...and all these things will be added unto you," He was reassuring His disciples that the choosing of such a narrow course would actually not leave them worse off. He never thought for a moment that His disciples should then superficially "seek" the kingdom primarily in order to obtain food and raiment (the things promised)!

Many may wonder how dangerous or costly it will be to follow God—though they are willing to do so at any cost. In Luke 14:26ff, Jesus makes it clear that one who will not hate his own life and family, who will not bear a cross, and who will not forsake all that he has, can never be a disciple (that is, a Christian). A man or woman must choose Christ even if it costs him or her everything, and benefits nothing. It is Christ's due. Yet there are promises made that God will provide all that one needs. These promises reassure the disciple that it will not be as risky and one might think, to place oneself wholly in God's hands. The mention of such things is a kindness, not a bribe.

Merlin Carothers, in the 70s, wrote three best-selling books about how, when certain people praised God in their trials, it often happened that their trials disappeared. No doubt this is true. Many readers took this as a promise, resulting in a rash of people "praising God" in trials as a deliberate attempt to manipulate circumstances. People were often not praising God sincerely out of love or admiration for Him, but as a device to gain relief from their trials. It is a great temptation for carnality, to use God's promises merely as a means of personal advantage. Those who believe that "godliness is a means of gain" are those from which we are to turn away. God has no pleasure in those who draw near to Him with their lips, but their hearts are far from Him.

I have brought this up before, but those who say that no one can serve God without selfish motivation seem to forget that even non-christians in the military often lay down their lives without having any concept of reward in this life or in the next. There are patriots in every nation who love their country disinterestedly. Apparently some feel that God is not capable of being loved similarly.

Those who think this, generally, believe in a god rather less lovable than the God who sent Jesus. He is not difficult to love, if anyone has come to know Him truly. Much of our traditional theology (e.g., about hell) has definitely painted a picture of a barely-loveable god, whom no one would serve apart from threats of torture. This is not the God Jesus revealed in word or in His person.

In affirming (as I have been saying since my teen years) that I would serve Christ even if there were no rewards or punishments to consider, I know I am telling the truth, and I never thought of it as a boast. I simply have considered this to be the biblical attitude of those who love God—who, until recently, I assumed, included virtually every Christian I knew. I thought all of my Christian friends knew the same Jesus and served Him for the same reasons I do. I will say that life has proved to be full of surprises.

[Homer]

Hi Steve,

You wrote:
In affirming (as I have been saying since my teen years) that I would serve Christ even if there were no rewards or punishments to consider, I know I am telling the truth, and I never thought of it as a boast. I simply have considered this to be the biblical attitude of those who love God—who, until recently, I assumed, included virtually every Christian I knew.

I affirmed long ago that if we were conquered by some despot (muslim?) who ordered all person's executed who refused to deny Christ, that I would say "go ahead and chop my head off". And I still think so. But I do not really know because I haven't faced the circumstance. And besides that, the promise of resurrection and eternal reward awaits. This is where faith comes in; do I believe the promises, and, yes, the threats? Can you be sure you would be a martyr, knowing this life was all there is?

Peter was confident, thought he knew also but he denied Jesus. And I am sure you grew up aware of the threats, punishments, and rewards in the scriptures, and I do not believe you can know know for sure what you would be or would have done absent them. Even the heroes of faith, Hebrews 11, were looking for the reward.

Hebrews 11:6, New King James Version (NKJV)

6. But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.