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

[steve]

Homer,

It is not hard to predict that some patriots would rather die for their country than betray it—even if they are agnostic about the afterlife.

It is not difficult to know that you would die out of love for your wife or child, whether you were a Christian or not.

Are you suggesting that love for God is by nature inferior to love for family or country? If so, then the person described is "unworthy" of Christ and "cannot be a disciple" (Matt.10:37; Luke 14:26).

[Homer]

We can think of all sorts of hypotheticals and have nothing for sure. I think it would be profitable to again consider Bernard's "Ladder of Love":

Step 1: Love of self for sake of self

Step 2: Love of God for sake of self

Step 3: Love of God for God's sake

Step 4: Love of self for God's sake

I say the person at step 2 is saved. What do you say, and what scriptures prove your position?

I think step 3 is about the best we can do in this life with any consistency, and we can only live at step 4 momentarily. At step 4 the person does nothing for himself unless it benefits God.

[dwilkins]

I don't think you have to go past Acts 2 to see people being threatened with the result that a bunch of them are saved. The implication of Peter's reference to Joel is that the Day of the Lord (always in scripture defined as a military invasion and disaster) was then at hand and the crowd seemed to figure it out pretty quickly. They were being threatened with being thrown into Gehenna per Jeremiah 7 and 19 (which was how Jesus used the terminology as well), so they converted instead of being sent to "hell".

Doug

[steve]

Doug,

Someone wishing to escape the holocaust of AD70 needn't become a Christian or submit to Peter's appeal. Such a person merely would need to relocate. This is a lot easier than becoming a disciple. I call this a miss.

Homer,

I don't feel any need to find scriptures to refute Bernard's ladder. I am surprised you assume no need to defend it scripturally. Where do you find any but step #3 in scripture?

[Homer]

Hi Steve,

I will start with this one; my time is also limited:

John 3:14-15, New King James Version (NKJV)
14. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15. that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

According to Jesus, those in the desert who were snake-bitten, who looked to the serpent lifted up by Moses so that they would be healed, were a type applicable to the gospel era. They looked upon the serpent because it was in their interest to do so. And Paul in his warning, 1 Corinthians 10, alluded to the serpents also, and said it was a lesson for the Corinthians (and us imo).

I'm not asking you to refute Bernard's ladder, which in the simple form I presented does not say at which step a person is saved. I said where I think they are saved; do you say a person who comes to Christ at step 2 is not saved?

Someone wishing to escape the holocaust of AD70 needn't become a Christian or submit to Peter's appeal. Such a person merely would need to relocate. This is a lot easier than becoming a disciple. I call this a miss.

But Peter's appeal to them to "save yourselves" was an appeal to self interest.

[thrombomodulin]

Steve,

You have affirmed a strong desire to live in a way that is characterized as being "right", and that this desire to do what is right is your greatest motivation. Is it not correct to observe that your actions are chosen to fulfill this desire to do what is right? Consequently, if you are acting in such a way as to follow a desire that you possess, then is it not appropriate to acknowledge that your actions are based in the self-interest? That is to say, your course of action is driven by doing what you want to do?

Thanks,
Peter

[dwilkins]

Doug,

Someone wishing to escape the holocaust of AD70 needn't become a Christian or submit to Peter's appeal. Such a person merely would need to relocate. This is a lot easier than becoming a disciple. I call this a miss.

Steve,

I think you are avoiding the point Peter was making to the specific audience in question. Peter was telling Jews in Jerusalem that just like the Northern Kingdom was in the sights of the Assyrians and the Southern Kingdom was in the sights of the Babylonians the Jews in the first century Jews were going to have a Day of the Lord military disaster applied to them as well. Jesus taught exactly this message when he referred to Jeremiah 7 and 19 and possibly Isaiah 66 in his speeches. Those people in that day were due to be wiped out. It was a national disaster. Sure, an individual person could get away but that was not the point. The point was that the nation was in jeopardy. The people (thousands of them on Pentecost) repented because of the threat that the nation was going to be sent to hell.

Doug

[steve]

Hi Homer,

Turning to Christ was not the only option for one wishing to "save himself" from the upcoming destruction of the Jewish State—but it was the one that Peter recommended to those whose hearts had pricked them. This latter expression does not sound like fear, but conviction.

Jesus spoke to Nicodemus about the benefits of faith in Christ, it is true. But He had Nicodemus on the hook well before that came up. Nicodemus was intrigued at the means of participating in God's kingdom (by definition, a God-centered enterprise).

Every objection to what I am saying is failing to address the question at hand. We should not be discussing whether there are advantages to repentance or whether a right relationship with God fulfills any deep desires in the human soul. These questions, I presume, are not debatable.

If we will recall the topic of this thread (which is what I have been discussing), we are talking about the value of a professed "repentance" on the part of someone who admits to having no love for God, but only will surrender under threats of eternal torture. If this person's state seems debatable, then we will have to content ourselves with having different notions of what it means to be a Christian.

Hi Peter,

No sane person would recommend a life that fulfills no proper desires in the heart of the participant. The question is what it is that is desired and what desire is being fulfilled. To desire that God should not be deprived of what He deserves from us is indeed a desire—a proper one. The person who repents in order to fulfill such a desire is on the right path. To delight oneself in the Lord is indeed delightful and desirable, but it is not the motivation of the person described in the original post.

[thrombomodulin]

If we will recall the topic of this thread (which is what I have been discussing), we are talking about the value of a professed "repentance" on the part of someone who admits to having no love for God, but only will surrender under threats of eternal torture. If this person's state seems debatable, then we will have to content ourselves with having different notions of what it means to be a Christian.

Hi Peter,

No sane person would recommend a life that fulfills no proper desires in the heart of the participant. The question is what it is that is desired and what desire is being fulfilled. To desire that God should not be deprived of what He deserves from us is indeed a desire—a proper one. The person who repents in order to fulfill such a desire is on the right path. To delight oneself in the Lord is indeed delightful and desirable, but it is not the motivation of the person described in the original post.

Thank you. I probably need to go back and read through this thread from the beginning again, but it had been my impression that you condemned the man in the OP on the basis that he possessed self-interest. But since every person, including yourself as per my example above, acts upon self-interest, this cannot be the distinguishing factor of what does or doesn't define whether a person is a Christian. Where I am having difficulty is seeing the where to "draw the line". I will grant that any man can be more of less "selfish", but this seems to be a matter of degree and not a black and white issue. After all, cannot every living person choose to act marginally less selfish that they already? One could surely reach great extremes of deprivation.

[Homer]

Steve,

Peter wrote:

Thank you. I probably need to go back and read through this thread from the beginning again, but it had been my impression that you condemned the man in the OP on the basis that he possessed self-interest.

This was my impression also.

You wrote:

If we will recall the topic of this thread (which is what I have been discussing), we are talking about the value of a professed "repentance" on the part of someone who admits to having no love for God, but only will surrender under threats of eternal torture.

What I am saying is that a person who comes to Christ in faith, submits to him as Lord, motivated by either a fear of hell or a hope of heaven, or both, is saved. This is, I believe, Bernard's step 2. This could be the case even if the person believed the universalist idea, some of whom also preach a fierce hell. Is it your contention the person must have no self interest in order to be saved?

I believe the only kind of love we are commanded to have for God is agape which is primarily an act of the will expressed in obedience. This is not to say we should not have feelings for Him.