Barclay was convinced (UR)
Re: Barclay was convinced
Any one care to explain how universalism and Hebrews 6 can coincide? It seems that it is not fairly dealt with (in my experience it is surprisingly overlooked) and perhaps suspiciously so, considering the force of its challenge to universalism.
-
RICHinCHRIST
- Posts: 361
- Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:27 am
- Location: New Jersey
- Contact:
Re: Barclay was convinced
I would probably have lumped this passage in with a lot of the other passages which I thought disproved universalism.... although I'm no longer as assured of them.Roberto wrote:Any one care to explain how universalism and Hebrews 6 can coincide? It seems that it is not fairly dealt with (in my experience it is surprising overlooked) and perhaps suspiciously so, considering the force of its challenge to universalism.
Hebrews 6:4-6 is a difficult passage...
This passage would seem to prove that once someone 'falls away', it is impossible for them to be accepted back into the family and kingdom of God (if we take the word impossible literally). I used to believe this myself. However, that would seem to be untrue to reality. Many people do come back to the Lord, in seemingly sincere repentance, even after falling away and serving the devil for a time. Then, we must conclude that either: 1) those people did not really come back to Christ, or 2) we should not interpret "impossible" literally in this verse.
I would opt for option #2. The reason is because Jesus used similar language in reference to whether the rich young ruler (or other rich people) could be saved.
Jesus said it was hard for a rich man to enter heaven. Then, later on, he says it would be impossible apart from God's intervention. I think Jesus is using the word impossible hyperbolically. I think He is exaggerating the meaning in such a way that we should not take Him hyper-literally. I think He was using the word 'hard' as a synonym for 'impossible'.
I believe God has the heart of the father in the prodigal son parable (Luke 15). He is always waiting for His sheep who have gone astray to come home. In fact, I believe He is active in trying to bring them home as well (contrary to what Homer thinks), since Jesus' earlier parable in that same chapter is the parable of the lost sheep (Luke 15:4-7). Clearly, the Shepherd goes after His lost sheep and rejoices after they come back to Him. I think this picture of the Shepherd God is consistent with the heart of the father of the prodigal son. In other words, it's always possible for someone to come back to Christ, if God is active in drawing that person. However, if they didn't have God drawing them, then it would definitely be impossible for them to return. But nothing shall be called impossible with God! If God is drawing his astray sheep back to Himself, then it is possible for them to return and respond to His wooing grace. It may be hard for them, due to their ties with the world, but it is not impossible.
If this is true, then I don't see why it's impossible for God to not reconcile people who deny Him in this life. If nothing is impossible with God, then that would seem to include the reconciliation of those who reject Him in their short life-span. It may be hard for even us to grasp this, but perhaps it is within God's reach, that is, if nothing He desires is beyond His reach.
Re: Barclay was convinced
Thanks for the reply, Rich. Good points!
Re: Barclay was convinced
Steve wrote:
Apparently you have not seen my post replying to your claims regarding the meaning of kolasis (pruning)and aionios ("enduring") in Matthew 25.
I have "browsed around" the tentmaker website and I was not impressed, just as I am not impressed with Tom Talbot's arguments. I don't know if you read Talbot's debate with Glenn Peoples, but Talbot IMO became desperate and implausable.(I assume this means that the scriptural support for it is "slim" or lacking), and talking as if it is a doctrine hard to find in scripture, betrays, it seems to me, an ignorance of the scriptural case upon which the doctrine is based. This ignorance could be easily remedied by spending a short time browsing around the tentmaker.org site.
Could you post that list? I would like to see it.apart from the thirty-something proof texts that UR people can present that appear to teach the doctrine outright
Is it possible that your "fondest hope" could have clouded your view? And I think God knows whether it is true or not.I have never made a secret of my sympathies for this view. It is my fondest hope that it may be true—just as it certainly must be God's fondest hope that it may be true
Reading the post I responded to, do you think anyone who read it would not think you were a convinced universalist?Instead of inferring that I am a closet universalist (if I were, I would not object to being labelled as such), I would prefer that people interact with my points. To simply say, "you seem to be a universalist", with the implied subtext, "Since universalism is wrong, it is unnecessary to answer the points you made", is not a helpful approach to debating a biblical question.
Apparently you have not seen my post replying to your claims regarding the meaning of kolasis (pruning)and aionios ("enduring") in Matthew 25.
Re: Barclay was convinced
For those new to the forum, and landing on this thread, maybe. But Steve has often stated his positon - an Arminianist with Univeralist sympathies. Anyone following his train of thought over a long period of time would not fairly reach the conclusion that he is a closet anything.Reading the post I responded to, do you think anyone who read it would not think you were a convinced universalist?
Re: Barclay was convinced
If open theism is true (and God doesn't know every detail of the future b/c it hasn't happened yet and is therefore impossible to know), that might explain why the Bible is somewhat ambiguous on this subject. Some verses sound like conditional immortality b/c God knows that anyone who would refuse to turn to Him would face extinction. Some verses sound like universal reconcilation b/c God knows that anyone who would repent will be received. But God doesn't ultimately know what individuals will do, and so both truths found their way into His Word.
I, by the way, am not an open theist. I just am open to open theism. And I do think it, as a view, can account for the presence of CI and UR sounding verses.
I, by the way, am not an open theist. I just am open to open theism. And I do think it, as a view, can account for the presence of CI and UR sounding verses.
Re: Barclay was convinced
Hi Homer,
I wrote:
Homer, you have often said that this position depends upon philosophy, more than on scripture. It is a strange objection, since all theology depends upon philosophy. Logic is a category of philosophy. The case for many of the most important doctrines depends entirely upon our ability to make a logical synthesis of scriptural affirmations—none of them, in themselves actually stating the conclusions that we have reached. The doctrine of the trinity comes to mind. Any critic of the trinity doctrine can say that this doctrine depends upon philosophy, rather than scripture, if what is meant is that there is no passage of scripture teaching the doctrine directly, but that it is the most logical synthesis of the biblical data that we can come up with.
By contrast, universal reconciliation do not depend entirely in patching together passages that do not in themselves teach it. There are passages which, taken at face value, without equivocation, seem to declare the doctrine outright. The only evidence I know of that would require these statements to be reinterpreted in a non-universalistic manner is that which is found in four or five ambiguous verses that give the impression that God’s punishment of sinners may last forever. In contrast to this smattering of evidence, it seems strange that a position which takes at face value the most natural meaning of dozens of passages would be described as lacking in scriptural support.
Like any other formidable doctrine, universal reconciliation does not rest upon a few direct proof texts alone, but upon various biblically-defensible theological streams which flow as tributaries into the single river that appears to require certain conclusions. These I have itemized below. I am not claiming that the verses can not be interpreted in ways that would avoid the universalistic conclusions. Virtually all of them can be. The question is, when interpreting a verse contrary to its surface meaning, do we have good reason to do so, or are we simply defending our tradition by appeal to desperate alternative interpretations of verses that seem to be hostile to that tradition? Every thinking Christian must answer that question for himself.
I have presented the verses below in categories (most of the universalist lists that I have seen just list them all together, though some passages support one affirmation of the position and others support other affirmations of the view):
Verses favorable to Universal Reconciliation
1. The message of the Gospel is that God has acted to reconcile the whole world (not just a tiny remnant) to Himself: Luke 2:10 / John 3:17 / John 12:47 / Acts 3:21 / Rom.5:18 /Rom.11:15 / Heb.2:9 / 1 Cor.15:54-55 / 2 Cor.5:19 / John 1:29 / 1 John 2:2 / Isa.53:6 / Col.1:19-20 / Eph.1:9-10 / 1 Tim.2:6 / 1 Tim.4:9-10 / Tit.2:11
2. God is not satisfied that any lost ones should fail to be recovered: Matt.18:11, 14 / Luke 15:4 / 1 Tim.2:4 / Rom.11:32 / Ezek.33:11 / 2 Pet.3:9
3. God is merciful even to His enemies, despite His obligation to justly punish sin: Ex.33:5-7 / Psalm 103:8 / Hab.3:2 / Jonah 4:2 / Matt.5:44 / Luke 6:35-36 / Luke 23:34 / Rom.5:8 / James 2:13 / 1 John 4:8, 16
4. The penalty for sin is not endless, but proportionate and just: Gen.18:25 / Deut.32:4 / Ps.19:9 / Ps.103:8-9 / Isa. 40:2 / Ps.30:5 / Ps. 62:12 / Ps.103:6, 9 / Rom.2:5-6 / 1 Pet.1:17 / Micah 7:18
5. Through judgment, God corrects: Isa.26:9 / Lev.26:23-24 / Job 5:17-18 / Jer.9:6-7 / Jer.30:24 / Hab.1:12 / Rev.15:4
6. After judgment, God restores: Jer. 23:20 / Lam.3:31-33 / 2 Sam.14:14 / Ps.107:10-13 / Isa.25:6-8 / Zeph.3:8-9
7. Every knee shall bow: Ps.22:27, 29 / Ps.65:2-3 / Ps.66:3-4 / Ps.72:11 / Matt.12:18-21 / Rom.14:10-12 / John 12:31-32 / Phil.2:10-11 / Isa.45:22-25 / Rev.5:13
8. Christ is victorious; God will not fail: John 17:4 / Isa.42:4 / Isa.53:10-11
Ps.2:8 / 1 Cor.15:55 / Phil.3:21 / Rom.5:20
Comments on the above:
a. Not every verse listed in a category gives exactly the same information as is included in every other listed verse. The ones that are more explicit, however, by normal canons of exegesis, would be permitted to inform the interpretation of the ones that are less explicit.
b. The verses in category #4 would support conditional immortality as readily as universal reconciliation, but would not allow for eternal torment.
c. Clearly there is a context for each passage. In most of the judgment-related passages, the context actually describes temporal, not eschatological, judgments. But since eschatological judgments are hardly (if at all) mentioned much in the Old Testament, and since the meaning of the New Testament references to eschatological judgments are the very point under dispute, it is not unreasonable to extrapolate from God’s consistent policies in this life to the probability that He is going to be the same God, manifesting the same character, and following the same policies in our next life. This may not be 100% certain, but it would be a fair assumption in the absence of any good evidence to the contrary.
d. Obviously, many of the Old Testament passages, in their context, speak of Israel, and not of the world as a whole (though some, like Lam.3:31-32, specifically apply these things to "the children of men," and not just Israel). However, it is apparent that “God made known His ways unto Moses; His acts to the children of Israel” (Ps.103:7). In other words, God’s merciful character demonstrated to Israel was not an anomaly uncharacteristic of His sentiments and behavior in general. On the contrary, what God showed to Israel was a demonstration of “His ways” and “His acts”. If the merciful God whom He demonstarted Himself to be in the Old Testament and in Christ is not characteristic of His nature generally, then these revelations were deceptive, and do not represent a making known of “His ways.” It seems obvious to me that Israel served as a type and an example of what God intended ultimately to accomplish on a more global scale.
e. Not all of the verses in category #7 make it clear whether "bowing" means true, heartfelt worship, but several of the passages make this plain, and give reason to interpret the more-ambiguous passages that way. Of course, any bowing to God that is not heartfelt amounts to "drawing near...with the lips" while the heart remains far from God—which gives Him no pleasure whatsoever, and can hardly be a final solution with which He could be satisfied.
When you think about it, would it be surprising if reality were to conform to the fondest desires of maturing Christians, who haste no interest in any outcome other that that God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven? How strange it would be if God had set up a system which was universally repugnant, even to those who love Him and who are willing to believe and defend any truth found to be revealed in scripture.
Does it seem to you a credit to your view that it goes against your every godly instinct and against your (and God’s) fondest hopes for your lost friends and loved ones?
I find it amazing, for example, to find you contending that the kolasis of the disciples inflicted by the Sanhedrin was not an example of such correction. Almost all criminal penalties have as their object the correction or deterrence of behavior unacceptable to the government. This would include the Mosaic system, the Medieval Inquisitions, the modern tortures of Christians by Communists, and all the penalties of the modern judicial system. All of these use penalties as a means to alter behavior of individuals or of societies at large.
True, the death penalty does not "correct" the guilty criminal who is executed, but this does not mean it is not intended as a corrective policy. Its presence is intended to deter certain criminal behaviors (that is, to correct criminal tendencies before they manifest in action). In the case of the Sanhedrin’s persecution of the Christians, it is plainly declared that they did this in order to change the behavior of the disciples—i.e., to get them to stop preaching.
I wrote:
and you replied:apart from the thirty-something proof texts that UR people can present that appear to teach the doctrine outright
Thanks for asking! I had never actually compiled such a list myself, but had merely encountered such lists on universalist websites and in universalist books. When I actually compiled this list today, at your request, I received such a blessing as I rarely receive from studying any other topic. Thanks for giving me this assignment! I will say that the following list does not contain “thirty-something” verses. Once I got into the task, I found more like double that amount. The universalist lists contain at least double again the amount that I am listing here, because they include some verses that are not as direct in their statements, but which fit the paradigm admirably. Therefore, this is a partial list, representing what I consider to be the best passages to make the various points that inform the evangelical universalist view.Could you post that list? I would like to see it.
Homer, you have often said that this position depends upon philosophy, more than on scripture. It is a strange objection, since all theology depends upon philosophy. Logic is a category of philosophy. The case for many of the most important doctrines depends entirely upon our ability to make a logical synthesis of scriptural affirmations—none of them, in themselves actually stating the conclusions that we have reached. The doctrine of the trinity comes to mind. Any critic of the trinity doctrine can say that this doctrine depends upon philosophy, rather than scripture, if what is meant is that there is no passage of scripture teaching the doctrine directly, but that it is the most logical synthesis of the biblical data that we can come up with.
By contrast, universal reconciliation do not depend entirely in patching together passages that do not in themselves teach it. There are passages which, taken at face value, without equivocation, seem to declare the doctrine outright. The only evidence I know of that would require these statements to be reinterpreted in a non-universalistic manner is that which is found in four or five ambiguous verses that give the impression that God’s punishment of sinners may last forever. In contrast to this smattering of evidence, it seems strange that a position which takes at face value the most natural meaning of dozens of passages would be described as lacking in scriptural support.
Like any other formidable doctrine, universal reconciliation does not rest upon a few direct proof texts alone, but upon various biblically-defensible theological streams which flow as tributaries into the single river that appears to require certain conclusions. These I have itemized below. I am not claiming that the verses can not be interpreted in ways that would avoid the universalistic conclusions. Virtually all of them can be. The question is, when interpreting a verse contrary to its surface meaning, do we have good reason to do so, or are we simply defending our tradition by appeal to desperate alternative interpretations of verses that seem to be hostile to that tradition? Every thinking Christian must answer that question for himself.
I have presented the verses below in categories (most of the universalist lists that I have seen just list them all together, though some passages support one affirmation of the position and others support other affirmations of the view):
Verses favorable to Universal Reconciliation
1. The message of the Gospel is that God has acted to reconcile the whole world (not just a tiny remnant) to Himself: Luke 2:10 / John 3:17 / John 12:47 / Acts 3:21 / Rom.5:18 /Rom.11:15 / Heb.2:9 / 1 Cor.15:54-55 / 2 Cor.5:19 / John 1:29 / 1 John 2:2 / Isa.53:6 / Col.1:19-20 / Eph.1:9-10 / 1 Tim.2:6 / 1 Tim.4:9-10 / Tit.2:11
2. God is not satisfied that any lost ones should fail to be recovered: Matt.18:11, 14 / Luke 15:4 / 1 Tim.2:4 / Rom.11:32 / Ezek.33:11 / 2 Pet.3:9
3. God is merciful even to His enemies, despite His obligation to justly punish sin: Ex.33:5-7 / Psalm 103:8 / Hab.3:2 / Jonah 4:2 / Matt.5:44 / Luke 6:35-36 / Luke 23:34 / Rom.5:8 / James 2:13 / 1 John 4:8, 16
4. The penalty for sin is not endless, but proportionate and just: Gen.18:25 / Deut.32:4 / Ps.19:9 / Ps.103:8-9 / Isa. 40:2 / Ps.30:5 / Ps. 62:12 / Ps.103:6, 9 / Rom.2:5-6 / 1 Pet.1:17 / Micah 7:18
5. Through judgment, God corrects: Isa.26:9 / Lev.26:23-24 / Job 5:17-18 / Jer.9:6-7 / Jer.30:24 / Hab.1:12 / Rev.15:4
6. After judgment, God restores: Jer. 23:20 / Lam.3:31-33 / 2 Sam.14:14 / Ps.107:10-13 / Isa.25:6-8 / Zeph.3:8-9
7. Every knee shall bow: Ps.22:27, 29 / Ps.65:2-3 / Ps.66:3-4 / Ps.72:11 / Matt.12:18-21 / Rom.14:10-12 / John 12:31-32 / Phil.2:10-11 / Isa.45:22-25 / Rev.5:13
8. Christ is victorious; God will not fail: John 17:4 / Isa.42:4 / Isa.53:10-11
Ps.2:8 / 1 Cor.15:55 / Phil.3:21 / Rom.5:20
Comments on the above:
a. Not every verse listed in a category gives exactly the same information as is included in every other listed verse. The ones that are more explicit, however, by normal canons of exegesis, would be permitted to inform the interpretation of the ones that are less explicit.
b. The verses in category #4 would support conditional immortality as readily as universal reconciliation, but would not allow for eternal torment.
c. Clearly there is a context for each passage. In most of the judgment-related passages, the context actually describes temporal, not eschatological, judgments. But since eschatological judgments are hardly (if at all) mentioned much in the Old Testament, and since the meaning of the New Testament references to eschatological judgments are the very point under dispute, it is not unreasonable to extrapolate from God’s consistent policies in this life to the probability that He is going to be the same God, manifesting the same character, and following the same policies in our next life. This may not be 100% certain, but it would be a fair assumption in the absence of any good evidence to the contrary.
d. Obviously, many of the Old Testament passages, in their context, speak of Israel, and not of the world as a whole (though some, like Lam.3:31-32, specifically apply these things to "the children of men," and not just Israel). However, it is apparent that “God made known His ways unto Moses; His acts to the children of Israel” (Ps.103:7). In other words, God’s merciful character demonstrated to Israel was not an anomaly uncharacteristic of His sentiments and behavior in general. On the contrary, what God showed to Israel was a demonstration of “His ways” and “His acts”. If the merciful God whom He demonstarted Himself to be in the Old Testament and in Christ is not characteristic of His nature generally, then these revelations were deceptive, and do not represent a making known of “His ways.” It seems obvious to me that Israel served as a type and an example of what God intended ultimately to accomplish on a more global scale.
e. Not all of the verses in category #7 make it clear whether "bowing" means true, heartfelt worship, but several of the passages make this plain, and give reason to interpret the more-ambiguous passages that way. Of course, any bowing to God that is not heartfelt amounts to "drawing near...with the lips" while the heart remains far from God—which gives Him no pleasure whatsoever, and can hardly be a final solution with which He could be satisfied.
I should be surprised if our fondest hopes were to have no impact upon our views. However, you have raised (and I have answered) this objection previously. I would have hoped for the salvation of all at any time in my previous theological pilgrimage, but such hopes did not move me from my commitment to the traditional view for at least 30 years of adult ministry and study. It is clear that my hopes did not dictate my theology during those decades. If my hopes are encouraged more now then they were then, it is not due to having fonder wishes than I had previously, but rather to the consideration of a greater body of scriptural evidences than that which I had previously considered.Is it possible that your "fondest hope" could have clouded your view?
When you think about it, would it be surprising if reality were to conform to the fondest desires of maturing Christians, who haste no interest in any outcome other that that God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven? How strange it would be if God had set up a system which was universally repugnant, even to those who love Him and who are willing to believe and defend any truth found to be revealed in scripture.
Does it seem to you a credit to your view that it goes against your every godly instinct and against your (and God’s) fondest hopes for your lost friends and loved ones?
No, I suppose people would draw such conclusions from my statements—but they needn’t. That is their prerogative, and will depend upon their powers of inference. I cannot worry myself overmuch with image-management. As always, my ministry is concerned more with presenting what seems to me to be the most responsible exegesis of scripture, and letting people think of me what they wish. If this had not been my policy, I would probably be a Calvary Chapel pastor today!Reading the post I responded to, do you think anyone who read it would not think you were a convinced universalist?
I may have missed one or more of your posts, but I think I have seen them all. Especially in the case of your treatments of these two words, I have been perplexed by your refusal to consider anything other than the lexical evidence that supports your tradition, when actual literary evidence has been abundantly provided to undermine your definitions of these two words. It is my contention that both “olam” and “aionios” can refer to things that are “eternal,” but that they often do not. Likewise, while it is possible that “kolasis” may, at times, refer to a punishment that has no correction as its object, none of the examples I have seen have demonstrated this.Apparently you have not seen my post replying to your claims regarding the meaning of kolasis (pruning)and aionios ("enduring") in Matthew 25.
I find it amazing, for example, to find you contending that the kolasis of the disciples inflicted by the Sanhedrin was not an example of such correction. Almost all criminal penalties have as their object the correction or deterrence of behavior unacceptable to the government. This would include the Mosaic system, the Medieval Inquisitions, the modern tortures of Christians by Communists, and all the penalties of the modern judicial system. All of these use penalties as a means to alter behavior of individuals or of societies at large.
True, the death penalty does not "correct" the guilty criminal who is executed, but this does not mean it is not intended as a corrective policy. Its presence is intended to deter certain criminal behaviors (that is, to correct criminal tendencies before they manifest in action). In the case of the Sanhedrin’s persecution of the Christians, it is plainly declared that they did this in order to change the behavior of the disciples—i.e., to get them to stop preaching.
-
jriccitelli
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
Re: Barclay was convinced
Steve, I was surprised that I didn’t see Ezekiel 16:53, but "maybe you decided not too.
I 'do' think the scriptures teach of hell, punishment "proportionate and just" then annihilation. (category 4)
I believe scriptures speak of terrible judgments, and varying punishments for each offense or person, then sooner or later annihilation, this is the second death.
I am sympathetic towards those who have died without Christ, who will stand only on their own righteousness.
I hope they can repent and avoid the second death, but I hold this hope only as a 'philosophical' hope, a hope that really good people may receive some sort of grace, but I would not consider this as a biblically supported doctrine anymore than I hope my dog and cat go to heaven.
Aren’t all these verses still in other contexts, the idea of a post mortem second chance does not seem to be the clear focus of any biblical chapter, where all other aspects of salvation are clearly addressed in detail. All the following doctrines virtually have complete chapters (or more) where these are their own subjects;
Repentance, Belief, Unbelief, Faith, Works, Grace, Atonement, baptism, Christ, the Incarnation, the Cross, the Law, Judgment, sin, Covenants, our new bodies, the resurrection, Marriage, the Church, the lords supper, sanctification, prayer, the priesthood, spiritual gifts, suffering, Love, joy, etc. even chapters on the use of the tongue, and partiality in the Church. A second opportunity for all is never presented as a subject of its own, yet it would require one if it is part of the Good news. But no chapter on it exists, why?
The Gospel does not seem to include such an idea, in fact such an idea as this would be its own goodnews.
Thats why I believe that if it is not true, then I will be in a lot of trouble for teaching something that wasn’t true. And then it will be too late, if this Gospel is preached only here and now, tomorrow will be too late for everyone. There certainly seems to be urgency to the Gospel, "today if you hear His voice", I cannot believe the apostles believed in another day after judgment to repent, if they knew this would they not have dedicated at least some few verses directly addressing this?
And why would all the saints go through extreme torture rather than reverse they're confession?
What sense is there in fearing the Lord?
I thought the Devils line was that we would live forever, would he be correct?
I can have these ‘thoughts’ and ‘wonders’ about the afterlife, but should I promote this as being taught in scripture, or a belief held by the apostles?
If it is not true, I will have misled people to think they had a second chance, or eternal life no matter what, and what if it really is too late after death, I dont want to be telling anyone this.
I 'do' think the scriptures teach of hell, punishment "proportionate and just" then annihilation. (category 4)
I believe scriptures speak of terrible judgments, and varying punishments for each offense or person, then sooner or later annihilation, this is the second death.
I am sympathetic towards those who have died without Christ, who will stand only on their own righteousness.
I hope they can repent and avoid the second death, but I hold this hope only as a 'philosophical' hope, a hope that really good people may receive some sort of grace, but I would not consider this as a biblically supported doctrine anymore than I hope my dog and cat go to heaven.
Aren’t all these verses still in other contexts, the idea of a post mortem second chance does not seem to be the clear focus of any biblical chapter, where all other aspects of salvation are clearly addressed in detail. All the following doctrines virtually have complete chapters (or more) where these are their own subjects;
Repentance, Belief, Unbelief, Faith, Works, Grace, Atonement, baptism, Christ, the Incarnation, the Cross, the Law, Judgment, sin, Covenants, our new bodies, the resurrection, Marriage, the Church, the lords supper, sanctification, prayer, the priesthood, spiritual gifts, suffering, Love, joy, etc. even chapters on the use of the tongue, and partiality in the Church. A second opportunity for all is never presented as a subject of its own, yet it would require one if it is part of the Good news. But no chapter on it exists, why?
The Gospel does not seem to include such an idea, in fact such an idea as this would be its own goodnews.
Thats why I believe that if it is not true, then I will be in a lot of trouble for teaching something that wasn’t true. And then it will be too late, if this Gospel is preached only here and now, tomorrow will be too late for everyone. There certainly seems to be urgency to the Gospel, "today if you hear His voice", I cannot believe the apostles believed in another day after judgment to repent, if they knew this would they not have dedicated at least some few verses directly addressing this?
And why would all the saints go through extreme torture rather than reverse they're confession?
What sense is there in fearing the Lord?
I thought the Devils line was that we would live forever, would he be correct?
I can have these ‘thoughts’ and ‘wonders’ about the afterlife, but should I promote this as being taught in scripture, or a belief held by the apostles?
If it is not true, I will have misled people to think they had a second chance, or eternal life no matter what, and what if it really is too late after death, I dont want to be telling anyone this.
Re: Barclay was convinced
I have to agree with jriccitelli. I can appreciate what Steve is saying and what Rob Bell says, but I think it argues from silence and could potentially cause people to reject God's grace thinking that can live it up now and repent post mortem. Pretty risky!
Let me boldly state the obvious. If you are not sure whether you heard directly from God, you didn’t.
~Garry Friesen
~Garry Friesen
Re: Barclay was convinced
I have to agree with jriccitelli. I can appreciate what Steve is saying and what Rob Bell says, but I think it argues from silence and could potentially cause people to reject God's grace thinking that can live it up now and repent post mortem. Pretty risky!
I lean toward UR or something close to it but i never even would bring up post mortem salvation unless the issue legitamately came up re "what about the people who never heard" "or my deceased mom who was a wonderful person", i would say that God can do anything and he is just and merciful , so he can save people after death if he chooses.
That gives hope to someone concerned about others, but i always would encourage a person that today is the best time to accept Christ. I don't need eternal hell to scare me, the idea of God's wrath scares me enough and i certainly believe that.
I lean toward UR or something close to it but i never even would bring up post mortem salvation unless the issue legitamately came up re "what about the people who never heard" "or my deceased mom who was a wonderful person", i would say that God can do anything and he is just and merciful , so he can save people after death if he chooses.
That gives hope to someone concerned about others, but i always would encourage a person that today is the best time to accept Christ. I don't need eternal hell to scare me, the idea of God's wrath scares me enough and i certainly believe that.