I suppose misotheists were expecting Christians to dance on the grave of Christopher Hitchens. Gloat over his demise. Pen gleeful obits.
After all, Christians are haters. That’s the stereotype.
Ironically, the truth is nearly opposite of that self-congratulatory cliché. For the Christian obits I read were respectful.
By contrast, if you want to find vindictive obits, just read what some of his fellow infidels have to say:
Atheism is terribly unforgiving. Remarkably intolerant.
And that makes sense. If this life is all there is, then all that matters is what you did in this life. That’s indelible. Irrevocable.
And there’s no vicarious atonement or penal substitution. No one can expiate or propitiate your offenses in your place.
When Hitchens transgressed liberal pieties, that was unforgivable. And I say that literally, not hyperbolically. Infidels will never forgive him for his trespasses. There’s nothing he could ever do in this life to redeem himself. His record stands forever stained in their judgmental eyes.
We tend to divide people into sociological groupings (Christians, atheists, etc.) and then view individuals through that lens. This is particularly counterproductive when we see one group as approved by God and the other as disapproved.
ReplyDeleteThe reality - to which we should discipline our thinking - is that there is Christ and then there is humanity. We are all one when it comes to Him. And each of us is judged individually, irrespective of whatever grouping others may assign us.
That's insightful, Mike. We ought to inform Jesus (separating the sheep from the goats) and Paul (separation of church from the world) about this! ;)
ReplyDeleteAlso, if we're all one and shouldn't make these kinds of distinctions then why are we judged individually? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
From Justin Taylor's post/thread on Hitchens' passing:
ReplyDeleteMike Gantt: "I loved Hitch and I take comfort from the Scriptures that he is in heaven now (for everyone goes to heaven)."
Steve Hays: "Nothing crueler than offering the lost false hope. Not only will their hopes be dashed–dashed when it's too late to turn around, but you rob them of the only true source of hope with this diabolical substitute."
I agree with Steve. Mike, you don't realize you're being cruel.
David J. Houston,
ReplyDeleteThe separation of the world and the church was appropriate before the coming of the day of the Lord, but we now live in the day of the Lord.
As for Jesus separating the sheep and the goats - that's exactly my point. We should let Him do the separating. It's not our role. "The Lord knows those who are His."
When we make judgments that categorize people then we are usurping the Lord's place. He is present throughout His creation because we are living in the days of the kingdom of God. Let us live blameless before Him - not each other.
Truth Unites... and Divides,
ReplyDeleteGo back to the Scriptures and search them. What I am saying is there.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteYou'd have to twist the meaning of Scripture to say the things you're saying.
Your "kindness" is (paved to hell with good intentions) cruelty.
Verification Word (kid you not): deddly
Truth Unites... and Divides,
ReplyDeleteWish you were more like the Bereans.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteDavid J. Houston, Steve Hays, Theology Samurai, and myself among others are Bereans with your teaching.
Truth Unites... and Divides,
ReplyDeleteI will continue hoping that it is so.
Mike Gantt said:
ReplyDelete"The reality - to which we should discipline our thinking - is that there is Christ and then there is humanity. We are all one when it comes to Him. . . . As for Jesus separating the sheep and the goats - that's exactly my point. We should let Him do the separating. It's not our role. 'The Lord knows those who are His.' When we make judgments that categorize people then we are usurping the Lord's place. He is present throughout His creation because we are living in the days of the kingdom of God."
Aren't you making a judgment call by categorizing people together into one group as distinct from Christ? What if that's not how Christ sees things?
Also, some people don't want to be categorized with other people.
"Let us live blameless before Him - not each other."
So we can sin against each other so long as we don't sin against God?
"Go back to the Scriptures and search them. What I am saying is there."
Aren't you a Christian universalist?
If Christian universalism is true, preaching Christian universalism is arguably needless. If everyone will be saved, there's arguably no need to tell anyone. It's not as if telling people will significantly influence their eternal fate.
MIKE GANTT SAID:
ReplyDelete"We tend to divide people into sociological groupings (Christians, atheists, etc.) and then view individuals through that lens."
You mean like dividing the world into two groups: universalists and non-universalists? Yeah, universalists sure have that binary mindset, don't they?
rockingwithhawking,
ReplyDeleteChrist has distinguished Himself from the rest of humanity in more ways than one. His distinction from us is profound and eternal.
You don't understand what it means to live blameless before Him. Otherwise you wouldn't suggest that this would allow us to sin against each other. When people live for the approval of others they only focus on outward sin, but when they live for the approval of God they remove sin at its root - in the heart.
That everyone is going to heaven is all the more reason to preach the gospel. One, it provides hope throughout the world to all who despair at the toll of death. Two, it informs people that our place in heaven is determined by how righteously we lived here. We are being judged for every part of our lives. Those who sin more bring more judgment on themselves, both here and in the life to come. Sin brings death; morality (righteousness) brings life.
Steve,
ReplyDelete"You mean like dividing the world into two groups: universalists and non-universalists? Yeah, universalists sure have that binary mindset, don't they?"
I don't divide the world that way.
Besides I didn't learn that everyone goes to heaven by paying attention to universalists. Rather, I learned it by paying attention to the Bible.
I do not affiliate with universalists. I affiliate with Jesus Christ our Lord.
"We tend to divide people into sociological groupings (Christians, atheists, etc.) and then view individuals through that lens."
ReplyDelete"Wish you were more like the Bereans."
You mean he is not of the group that would be characterized as Bereans, he's of the other group?
"You don't understand what it means to live blameless before Him."
So Steve is of the "misunderstanding group" as opposed to the one that understands?
"I do not affiliate with universalists. I affiliate with Jesus Christ our Lord."
How do you know whether you affiliate with universalists if you don't label people?
Arguing against labeling groups is a logical dead end. We invite labels by our very nature and with our beliefs and practices. If you're not a monist, I would drop that line of argumentation?
Mike Gantt said:
ReplyDelete"Christ has distinguished Himself from the rest of humanity in more ways than one. His distinction from us is profound and eternal."
Well, that's totally vague and doesn't respond to what I said.
Or to put it another way. I could agree with what you said: Christ's "distinction" from us is "profound and eternal." But the fact that Christ's distinction is profound and eternal doesn't mean Christ himself can't make distinctions.
"You don't understand what it means to live blameless before Him. Otherwise you wouldn't suggest that this would allow us to sin against each other."
All I did was quote you: ""Let us live blameless before Him - not each other."
So what you're really saying is you disagree with your original quote.
"That everyone is going to heaven is all the more reason to preach the gospel. One, it provides hope throughout the world to all who despair at the toll of death."
What's to despair if they're going to heaven anyway? In other words, you don't need to preach the gospel to them. You just need to tell them not to worry they'll be in heaven since God saves everyone.
"Two, it informs people that our place in heaven is determined by how righteously we lived here. We are being judged for every part of our lives. Those who sin more bring more judgment on themselves, both here and in the life to come. Sin brings death; morality (righteousness) brings life."
Aren't you continuing to make distinctions and judgments about people while opposing making distinctions and judgments about people? Who are you to tell someone he's sinning? You're not leaving it to Christ to judge. If you tell people to repent from their sins and trust in Christ, then you're assuming they're sinners and sinning.
B. C. Hodge,
ReplyDeleteYou take my words out of context. It is not the mere use of labels that is wrong, it is using them to defame people, to tie people to positions they don't hold, to set people against one another, to stereotype, and so on.
Well, I failed to see the context of you talking about labeling for the purpose of stereotyping versus seeing "one group as approved by God and the other disapproved."
ReplyDeleteIs a Berean (i.e., the label for someone who searches the Scriptures) approved of God or disapproved of God, or do they both have the same divine approval? If they have the same approval, why tell TUAD that you wished he was more like a Berean, implying that Bereans are doing something more worthy of divine approval than non-Bereans?
If all you were saying is that we shouldn't stereotype people, that's fine. I still don't agree that calling Hitchens a misotheist (to use Steve's term)/atheist and saying that he is unlikely to be saved as such is a "stereotype." It's a confirmation of the words of Christ who labels such a one as condemned. But, of course, that is not at all what you said originally. If I misunderstood, please clarify your stance further. Thanks.
B. C. Hodge,
ReplyDeleteRegarding my point about labels, perhaps the Berean example will illustrate. Acts 17 gives us a distinction between two different mindsets: the positive Berean one over against the negative Thessalonian one.
This doesn't mean, of course, the every single Berean is a Scripture searcher and that every single Thessalonians is a Scripture shirker.
Beyond that, the Scripture is implying that we should imitate the Berean mindset and eschew the Thessalonian mindset as presented in that context.
Using this model, God may consider me a Berean one morning and a Thessalonian that afternoon. It all depends on my behavior. The main thing I'm arguing for on the labels is that there is a lot more mobility between them than we usually allow. Moreover, there is a lot more variety within them than we allow. And particularly when we use labels as epithets we misuse them.
I don't mind necessarily mind being called a universalist if my opponent calls himself a particularist and we can collaboratively argue our respective positions in the hope of reaching a common conclusion. But when someone throws around "universalist" as a pejorative term that is a misuse of the label. There are other misuses, but I hope this explains. Thanks for letting me.
I'll go ahead and admit my skepticism about seeing Judas Iscariot the son of perdition, in addition to the anti-christ, and the false prophet of Revelation joyfully exalting Christ in heaven.
ReplyDeleteIn fact it seems rather unfair of God to force people who wanted no part of Him on earth to spend eternity worshipping Him.
And to think of all the time Jesus wasted warning of hell in the most graphic and shocking of terms, no doubt causing myriads of people to needlessly "despair at the toll of death".
I suppose that's a sort of divine irony. The twist at the end. A "gotcha" moment.
Coram Deo,
ReplyDeleteHave you not read that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess? Does "every" to you mean "not every"?
The hell Jesus warned of is quite real. It occurs on this earth and in this life - and His goal was to spare us from it. Nonetheless, narrow is the way and few are those who find it. But as for death, He came to deliver us from the fear of it. If that deliverance doesn't include everyone how does that fit with His command that we should love everyone?
By the way, you have a great pseudonym but your rhetoric doesn't seem worthy of it.
But back to the topic of the OP. Contrast the treatment Hitchens' demise has generally received from Christian theists to the treatment Hitchens gave to Jerry Falwell:
ReplyDeleteFaith-Based Fraud
All evidence points to the diagnosis that Hitchens was a man whose soul was infected by an abscessed hatred; a fatal disorder for which - despite numerous opportunities and offers - he steadfastly refused both treatment and cure. Sadly without intervention said disease is always eternally terminal.
If Hell is this world and we all go to Heaven... shouldn't we rejoice when war breaks out?
ReplyDeleteIf Hell is this world and we all go to Heaven... shouldn't we applaud for the mother who kills his children in cold blood?
If Hell is this world and we all go to Heaven... shouldn't you pull a Jim Jones?
Mike said: Have you not read that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess? Does "every" to you mean "not every"?
ReplyDeleteDoes this include Satan? After all, it does say "every"...
No, no CD. That is an elementary mistake. If it was appropriate to distinguish between stupid people and not-stupid people I'd number you among the former. Satan is a spirit. Spirit's don't have knees. If you would like anymore help in elementary exegesis you can kill yourself and Jesus himself will tutor you.
ReplyDeleteThanks for helping me see past my blinkered ignorance, David.
ReplyDeleteBut I must confess that I'm extremely disconsolate to discover that my spirit doesn't have knees.
*hold me*
I'd also point out that Mike assumes that every knee bowing and every tongue confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord means that everyone will do this in worship. But why believe that?
ReplyDeleteIn the two passages that employ this phrase (Rom 14:10-12; Phil 2:9-11), one makes reference to a final judgment and the other asserts Christ's lordship over all things, even his enemies, harkening back to prophecies concerning the reign of Christ upon the earth (Ps 2, Ps 110, etc.). Nothing in the context indicates that he will save everyone. Quite the opposite fact. He will bring forth justice to the nations.
So your proof-texting misses the mark by a long shot. Not that that will slow you down because we all know that it was never the Bible that convinced you that everyone is going to Heaven. It just made you feel all warm and fuzzy inside so it had to be true.
Coram Deo,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "All evidence points to the diagnosis that Hitchens was a man whose soul was infected by an abscessed hatred; a fatal disorder for which - despite numerous opportunities and offers - he steadfastly refused both treatment and cure. Sadly without intervention said disease is always eternally terminal."
While there are many things Hitchens said that I find deplorable, I also found much to admire. You seem to know enough to make a final net assessment. I don't.
David J. Houston,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "If Hell is this world and we all go to Heaven... shouldn't we rejoice when war breaks out?
If Hell is this world and we all go to Heaven... shouldn't we applaud for the mother who kills his children in cold blood?
If Hell is this world and we all go to Heaven... shouldn't you pull a Jim Jones?"
Paul was quoting one of your ancestors in Romans 6 when he gave the answer to these kinds of questions.
To piggyback on David's observation, "bowing the knee" can be a mark of military subjugation rather than worship.
ReplyDeleteCoram Deo,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "Does this include Satan? After all, it does say "every"..."
Only if he's in heaven, on earth, or under the earth.
David J. Houston,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "If you would like anymore help in elementary exegesis you can kill yourself and Jesus himself will tutor you."
If Jesus is not your tutor in righteousness you have no part with Him.
I'm sorry, Mike, but didn't you make the comment that Hitchens was in heaven? Judgment works both ways. If we can't judge whether a man is in hell based upon Christ's words, we cannot judge whether he is in heaven either. You're simply judging in the positive. You can assume neither heaven nor hell. Is there a plank to be removed here?
ReplyDeleteHowever, Christ gives authority to the church to proclaim one's destination based upon one's profession and evidence thereof (John 20:23) and judge with a righteous judgment (7:24; 1 Cor 5:1-5)).
David J. Houston,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "So your proof-texting misses the mark by a long shot. Not that that will slow you down because we all know that it was never the Bible that convinced you that everyone is going to Heaven. It just made you feel all warm and fuzzy inside so it had to be true."
I would not have the nerve to declare that everyone is going to heaven without having the support of the Scriptures. Here is the extensive biblical case for everyone going to heaven: http://wp.me/PNthc-i6
steve,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "To piggyback on David's observation, "bowing the knee" can be a mark of military subjugation rather than worship."
Indeed this distinction is a problem for many Christians today. That is, they declare subjugation to Jesus but do not worship Him. Instead of walking in the light of His presence and giving Him a life according to Romans 12:1-2, they go to church one or more times a week and call that worship.
B. C. Hodge,
ReplyDeleteI didn't declare Hitchens to be in heaven based on any Hitchens did. Rather, I said it based on what Christ has done in His grace for all of us.
As for judgment, please consider that God's judgment will be far more finely tuned than what you are suggesting. We shall give an account for the entirety of our lives - and that implies far, far more than a pass-fail grade.
And we declare that someone is likely not saved based on what Christ has done for only those who believe in Him as opposed for those who do not. So what's your point? We're both declaring positive and negative judgments based upon what we believe Christ has done. So your objection should not have been along the lines of placing people in groups who hold divine favor versus divine disfavor that leads to heaven or hell, since that is not the issue, but that since you believe that God saves everyone, in contradiction to Christ's actual teaching, no one can say that Hitchens is in hell.
ReplyDeleteOur objection, of course, is going to be that you're twisting Scripture to get a result you want out of it that really isn't there, and in the process, redefining concepts with partial, but incomplete, truths concerning those concepts (I glanced over your ebook, and this is precisely what you're doing there).
B.C. Hodge,
ReplyDeleteMy objection to classifying people was along the lines of the lesson our Lord taught us in Luke 18:9-14.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteThe lesson there is that one needs to recognize that he is a sinner and repent in order to be forgiven. Did you miss that this is precisely why we divide between the saved and unsaved (i.e., because Jesus here argues that the one who does not do this is not forgiven). Ergo, to be forgiven/restored to a salvific relationship with God, which in the biblical context is what salvation is, one must acknowledge his sin and repent. Did Hitchens do this? As far as we know, he did not. Hence, what you've said concerning dividing people into groups of saved and unsaved has nothing to do with Luke 18, other than proving the point that anyone who doesn't truly repent is not forgiven.
B.C. Hodge,
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be relegating salvation to the afterlife. God desires us to be saved in this life, which means a constant walk in His presence doing righteousness and eschewing evil.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI do no such thing. The problem with your theology is that is only half of the story. The Bible teaches already, not yet; but you teach "already" without the "not yet." What do you do with statements such as Jesus' from Luke 18:29-30 (notice that what is received in this lifetime is only a shadow of what is to come "in the age to come"?
And He said to them, "Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive many times as much in this present time and in the age to come, eternal life."
Does eternity start now. In a sense, yes. That's the "already." Does it fully begin now. No, it is received in the age to come. That is the "not yet." Your theology of heaven and hell lacks this qualification, and with all heresy, it emphasizes one truth to the exclusion of its qualifier.
B.C. Hodge,
ReplyDeleteThe "not yet" began with the coming of the kingdom, so it has been present tense ever since then.
http://wp.me/pKqSA-u
Mike said: “Paul was quoting one of your ancestors in Romans 6 when he gave the answer to these kinds of questions.”
ReplyDeleteNo. Paul was explaining why those who Christ atoned for will not continue in their sin. The reason being that those whom Christ died for were not simply atoned for, being united to him in his death, but were also raised in newness of life with him in his resurrection. Believers are not simply justified. They are also sanctified. Made more like Christ.
But you’d rather go with the fundy-style ‘once saved always saved’ approach where God doesn’t make you more Christ until you get to Heaven. You just widen the scope to everyone rather than it being just for those who make a commitment to Christ at some point.
Whether you live like Mother Theresa or Adolf Hitler you’re still heading to the same place.
Contrary to the thrust of Romans 6, there’s no resurrection motif in your theology where those whom Christ died for are regenerated to do good works which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
There is a huge emphasis on perseverance throughout the Scriptures but you ignore that stuff. It doesn’t fit with your agenda.
David J. Houston,
ReplyDelete"But you’d rather go with the fundy-style ‘once saved always saved’ approach where God doesn’t make you more Christ until you get to Heaven."
Much to the contrary, I believe we must pursue holiness and we must pursue it now. If I were to summarize all the messages of my blogs it would be "Repent, and follow our Lord Jesus Christ." This is the way to find redemption in this corrupt world in which we find ourselves.
"Whether you live like Mother Theresa or Adolf Hitler you’re still heading to the same place."
Your destination of heaven won't change based on that variation but your destination in heaven certainly will. To think that everyone going to heaven means that everyone will have the same experience there and be in the same place there is like saying, "If two people go to earth they'll be in the same place and have the same experience." As there is variation in earthly places and experiences so there is variation in heavenly places and experiences. Those who walk closest to Christ here will walk closest to Him there.
Therefore, if you are walking with Christ do not lose heart. Persevere!
So you believe that the Second Coming already occurred in the first century? Who was the antichrist that Christ slew at the appearance (i.e., something that can be seen) of His coming? Why does the angel in Acts say that He will return in the same way he left (i.e., physically in bodily form)?
ReplyDeleteMy more pressing question is if one takes hell to be this worldly, with all being saved in the end, why does Christ speak of Sodom and Gomorrah (people who have long since died) as undergoing a future punishment (at the same time that Christ's present generation will undergo punishment in the future)?
Now, after reading your response to David, Mike, I think you are preaching a heaven and a hell, but yours is simply a kinder, gentler hell than that of the Bible, and so you call your hell, a variation of heaven (or "heaven-lite," that I assume is not as good as regular heaven, and is therefore "hell" in contrast to regular heaven).
btw, John is likely writing Revelation at the end of his life, and since he was likely the youngest of the apostles, his generation is pretty much over. Yet, this is what he records as Christ's words to him:
ReplyDelete"Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen." (Rev 1:7)
Mike Gantt said:
ReplyDelete"Much to the contrary, I believe we must pursue holiness and we must pursue it now. If I were to summarize all the messages of my blogs it would be 'Repent, and follow our Lord Jesus Christ.' This is the way to find redemption in this corrupt world in which we find ourselves. Your destination of heaven won't change based on that variation but your destination in heaven certainly will. To think that everyone going to heaven means that everyone will have the same experience there and be in the same place there is like saying, 'If two people go to earth they'll be in the same place and have the same experience.' As there is variation in earthly places and experiences so there is variation in heavenly places and experiences. Those who walk closest to Christ here will walk closest to Him there."
If it's true God will save everyone, then someone could simply decide they'd rather enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin in the here and now than the delayed gratification of rewards in the hereafter such as intimacy with Christ. Sure, it might be irrational to trade eternal treasures for temporary pleasures, but many humans are irrational.
If what you say is true, then God is undermining himself too. On the one hand, God calls people to live a holy life so they can experience more rewards such as intimacy with him later on. But on the other hand, God will save everyone anyway so maybe some people will decide they'd be fine with a meager reward in heaven if it means they get to indulge in wine, women, etc. The latter takes the wind out of the sails of the former.
And it's not as if the God of Gantt is helping people like lifelong atheists to see what's so good about walking closely with him anyway. Or at least it's not as if the God of Gantt is doing a whole lot to persuade lifelong atheists that walking closely with him is superior to sex, drugs, etc.
Heb 11:24-27, according to the God of Gantt: "By faith Moses, when he was grown up, figured it'd be better to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter than to be mistreated with the people of God since he was going to be saved anyway. He considered it better to enjoy the immediate pleasures of sin and avoid laying bricks all day long in the hot Egyptian sun than the delayed and rather vague gratification of walking with Christ. Moses considered the reproach of Christ a deal-breaker in comparison to the pleasures and treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the coffers of jewels and riches, harem of women, scores of slaves at his beck and call, and many other delights. By faith Moses stayed in Egypt, keeping in the good graces of pharaoh, so that he could hopefully become pharaoh someday. After all, why endure suffering with the Israelites since the God of Israel is invisible, whereas the land of Egypt and all it contained was quite visible and palpable? It's good to be the prince of Egypt!"
ReplyDeleteEcc 12: 13-14, according to the God of Gantt: "Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: it's recommended that you fear God and keep his commandments. But don't worry too much about it, for you will be saved anyway. It's true God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil. No one's perfect, which just means you might not get a front row seat in God's throne room, a few steps away from the patriarchs and apostles. But as long as you're generally a good person and don't mess up as badly as Hitler or Stalin, you should still get a seat somewhere in the vicinity. Unfortunately Hitler and Stalin have to sit in the adjacent room to the throne room and watch God and the rest of the saints via a live TV feed. On the plus side, at least they're in heaven."
B. C. Hodge,
ReplyDeleteThose are all fair questions and at the link I gave you will find another link to a book which addresses those questions and many others. In other words, I've not just written a post declaring the Second Coming as fait accompli but also written a book - a biblical case - for it.
The online book is organized in such a way that you can ask questions and challenge at more than one place.
rockingwithhawking,
ReplyDelete"If it's true God will save everyone, then someone could simply decide they'd rather enjoy the fleeting
pleasures of sin in the here and now than the delayed gratification of rewards in the hereafter such as
intimacy with Christ. Sure, it might be irrational to trade temporary pleasures for eternal treasures, but
many humans are irrational."
People are already doing that.
"If what you say is true, then God is undermining himself too. On the one hand, God calls people to live
a holy life so they can experience more rewards such as intimacy with him later on. But on the other
hand, God will save everyone anyway so maybe some people will decide they'd be fine with a meager
reward in heaven if it means they get to indulge in wine, women, etc. The latter takes the wind out of the
sails of the former."
God's not undermining Himself at all; rather, He's going to have walk closest to Him there those who
walked closest to Him here. And, by contrast, whoever chooses the foolish way will have much longer
to regret it there than they'll have to enjoy it here.
"And it's not as if the God of Gantt is helping people like lifelong atheists to see what's so good about
walking closely with him anyway. Or at least it's not as if the God of Gantt is doing a whole lot to
persuade lifelong atheists that walking closely with him is superior to sex, drugs, etc."
Many atheists today profess a strong interest in morality. When they hear the traditional evangelical gospel and watch how evangelical Christians live, they consider it a moral cop-out - and they have a point. What is called grace today often looks like licentiousness. My point is that morality is supreme (we are to "love righteousness") and everything we do is judged. Grace is not meant to be an escape from the requirements of righteousness - rather, it is the means of achieving them.
Mike Gantt said:
ReplyDelete"God's not undermining Himself at all; rather, He's going to have walk closest to Him there those who walked closest to Him here. And, by contrast, whoever chooses the foolish way will have much longer to regret it there than they'll have to enjoy it here."
1. This misses the point. Many people behave irrationally. Many people don't care about delayed gratification. Many people desire instant satisfaction. Many people would be willing to choose "the foolish way" and suffer the consequences living for the momentary pleasures of sin so long as it means they're ultimately in heaven. Many people would be willing to reign on earth and then serve in heaven (to paraphrase Milton). In fact, you yourself conceded: "People are already doing that." All the more if universalism is true.
2. All this attenuates the God of Gantt's command for people to live a holy life. Blunts the edge. So, yes, in this respect, it undermines the God of Gantt.
"Many atheists today profess a strong interest in morality. When they hear the traditional evangelical gospel and watch how evangelical Christians live, they consider it a moral cop-out - and they have a point. What is called grace today often looks like licentiousness. My point is that morality is supreme (we are to 'love righteousness') and everything we do is judged. Grace is not meant to be an escape from the requirements of righteousness - rather, it is the means of achieving them."
You can continue to shriek against licentiousness and extol righteous living all you want, but your universalism belies the fact since your universalism only helps to excuse licentiousness and erode righteous living. So you're just paying lip service to biblical morality while at the same time your universalism actually torpedos biblical morality. It's all bark but no bite.
rockingwithhawking,
ReplyDelete"Hebrews 11:24 By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, 25 choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, 26 considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward. 27 By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured, as
seeing Him who is unseen."
Therefore, if you would imitate the faith of Moses, refuse to be called a churchgoer; choose rather to endure ill-treatment with those walk in the kingdom of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the approval of institutional Christianity.
"Ecclesiastes 12: 13 The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. 14 For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil."
Therefore, honor God constantly in your hearts and do what you know His will to be, because this applies to every person. Be not a hypocrite who takes pride in church and its rituals, but rather do what is right in God's sight, laying down your lives a sacrifice of love for Him - and through Him for others.
"Therefore, if you would imitate the faith of Moses, refuse to be called a churchgoer; choose rather to endure ill-treatment with those walk in the kingdom of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the approval of institutional Christianity."
ReplyDeleteThere's no pressing need to do so given your universalism. Your universalism accommodates a "sin now, repent later" disposition.
"Therefore, honor God constantly in your hearts and do what you know His will to be, because this applies to every person. Be not a hypocrite who takes pride in church and its rituals, but rather do what is right in God's sight, laying down your lives a sacrifice of love for Him - and through Him for others."
Just empty exhortations. As I explained above, there's no bite to your bark.
1. By the way, nice try but no cigar in attempting to change the topic from universalism to "non church-going." I guess if you can't make your point about universalism, then try and change the subject to something else.
ReplyDelete2. However, changing the subject to non church-going isn't exactly all that helpful to you. After all, since you subscribe to both universalism as well as non church-going, it does make you seem like a rather effete Christian. Apparently the God of Gantt is the God who can't backup his commands. Someone who believes everyone will go to heaven in the end and at the same time believes there's no need to attend church is more or less indistinguishable from the person on the street who thinks there's a God, it's likely God will let them into heaven since they're a pretty good person, and who doesn't attend church. As a supposed Christian, you're not too distinct from much of the rest of the world.
rockingwithhawking,
ReplyDeleteThe recurring theme of your recent comments seems to be that if everyone is going to heaven, there's no point in choosing righteousness over pleasure.
The first thing I'd say to this is that you remind me of the laborers in the Matthew 20 parable who complained that others hadn't worked long enough. The Lord asked them, "Is your eye envious because I am generous?"
Second, you seem completely unaware of the judgment that is upon us - judgment here in the earth and final judgment when we go to heaven. Those judgments are exceeding fine and would inspire the fear of God in you if you really took them seriously. It's not as if calamities in Old Testament times were caused by God but today they're caused by science. God is one. Wake up to the wrath that is in the world, repent of your sins, and pray with me that God may forgive us so that our children and grandchildren will have a country worth living in.
http://wp.me/pKqSA-M
Mike Gantt said:
ReplyDelete"The recurring theme of your recent comments seems to be that if everyone is going to heaven, there's no point in choosing righteousness over pleasure."
No, that's incorrect. Not that my comment was particularly nuanced but it's more nuanced than what you're suggesting here. You'll have to re-read my comments above. Otherwise you're continuing to miss the point.
"The first thing I'd say to this is that you remind me of the laborers in the Matthew 20 parable who complained that others hadn't worked long enough. The Lord asked them, 'Is your eye envious because I am generous?'"
One could say a lot about this parable, but one thing I'll say is it isn't about me. It doesn't matter what I think or don't think. I could be "envious" or not "envious." It doesn't matter. Rather this debate is what your universalism entails.
"Second, you seem completely unaware of the judgment that is upon us - judgment here in the earth and final judgment when we go to heaven. Those judgments are exceeding fine and would inspire the fear of God in you if you really took them seriously."
Given your universalism, that's one good reason to take these judgments less seriously than they ought to be taken. If your universalism is true, then it diminishes what's packed into these judgments. I've already explained this to you at length above, but you keep failing to interact with what I've said.
"Wake up to the wrath that is in the world, repent of your sins, and pray with me that God may forgive us so that our children and grandchildren will have a country worth living in."
Once again, you're utterly missing the point. Your universalism undercuts the strength of your exhortations to repent and so forth. Re-read my comments above.
rockingwithhawking,
ReplyDeletePer your request, I re-read all your comments on this post...and it's your universalism that's undercutting the strength of my exhortations to repent, not mine.
Mike Gantt said:
ReplyDelete"Per your request, I re-read all your comments on this post...and it's your universalism that's undercutting the strength of my exhortations to repent, not mine."
Obviously I should've spelled it out for you. Re-read and comprehend my comments. Grok them. Interact with them. Not re-read my comments and have them go in one ear and out the other.
Since I'm not a universalist and since I haven't issued any exhortations to repent, I have no idea how you came to your conclusion. Although I suppose it's because you fail to understand the nature of an internal critique.
rockingwithhawking,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "Since I'm not a universalist and since I haven't issued any exhortations to repent, I have no idea how you came to your conclusion."
You have a perception of universalism. That is, you have a definition of it in your mind. When you hear me say "everyone goes to heaven," that definition clicks on and you ascribe to me whatever baggage goes with your definition of universalism. It is you who are not interacting with my views. You are interacting with your view of universalism.
Mike Gantt said:
ReplyDelete"You have a perception of universalism. That is, you have a definition of it in your mind. When you hear me say 'everyone goes to heaven,' that definition clicks on and you ascribe to me whatever baggage goes with your definition of universalism. It is you who are not interacting with my views. You are interacting with your view of universalism."
I'm just taking you at your word in your above link which leads to your website. Is it accurate?
rockingwithhawking,
ReplyDeleteTo what specifically on my website are you referring?
Mike Gantt said:
ReplyDelete"To what specifically on my website are you referring?"
Um, at the risk of stating the obvious, whatever my response to your question is, so long as it's to material on your website which you've authored, you would presumably agree with it.
Anyway to answer your question I started here and clicked around your website.
Of course, if you think I've misread you, then why don't you explain to me what you really think. You think everyone will be saved, no? You think even though everyone will be saved, they could still suffer more on earth if they're not walking as closely with Christ than if they were, no? And you think even though everyone will be saved, there are various degrees of rewards in heaven depending on how closely one walked with Christ here and now, no? Also, you don't think it's right for Christians to attend church, no? And so on and so forth.
rockingwithhawking,
ReplyDelete"Um, at the risk of stating the obvious, whatever my response to your question is, so long as it's to material on your website which you've authored, you would presumably agree with it."
Of course I stand behind everything I write on my website. I was trying to understand what specific point you were trying to make.
"Of course, if you think I've misread you, then why don't you explain to me what you really think."
You've misread me if you think my belief that everyone goes to heaven means that it doesn't matter how you live. If that's what you think, you've been very limited in what you've read of my site.
"You think everyone will be saved, no?"
Everyone goes to heaven at death. I don't think "saved" refers exclusively to the afterlife. We need saving here, too.
"You think even though everyone will be saved, they could still suffer more on earth if they're not walking as closely with Christ than if they were, no?"
There's two kinds of the suffering in the earth: the kind that comes from unrighteousness and the kind that comes from righteousness. Those who walk close to Christ sin less and thus create less suffering for themselves and others. However, "all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus shall be persecuted," so there is a suffering they will have to endure for being righteous. The comfort of the Holy Spirit, however, sustains them through it.
"And you think even though everyone will be saved, there are various degrees of rewards in heaven depending on how closely one walked with Christ here and now, no?"
Yes, of course.
"Also, you don't think it's right for Christians to attend church, no?"
I think those who love Christ should be seeking the kingdom of God instead. Church leaders ought to be preaching Christ instead of building church. The kingdom of God made the church obsolete the way that the church made Israel and its priesthood obsolete.
Mike Gantt said:
ReplyDelete"You've misread me if you think my belief that everyone goes to heaven means that it doesn't matter how you live. If that's what you think, you've been very limited in what you've read of my site. . . . I think those who love Christ should be seeking the kingdom of God instead. Church leaders ought to be preaching Christ instead of building church. The kingdom of God made the church obsolete the way that the church made Israel and its priesthood obsolete."
1. Good. So I haven't misread or misinterpreted your beliefs. Or at least I haven't significantly misread or misinterpreted your beliefs.
2. As such, what I've said against your position in my previous comments applies.
3. Unfortunately you still don't interact with what I have said against your position. Rather you just keep asserting and re-asserting ad infinitum the same old lines. But as I pointed out above, no matter how often and how loudly you keep trying to tell me it isn't the case, unless you can overturn my points against your position, it sure does seem to be the case!
4. However, if you want to try again to interact with what I've said:
Many people behave irrationally. Many people don't care about delayed gratification. Many people desire instant satisfaction. Many people would be willing to choose "the foolish way" and suffer the consequences living for the momentary pleasures of sin so long as it means they're ultimately in heaven. Many people would be willing to reign on earth and then serve in heaven (to paraphrase Milton). In fact, you yourself conceded: "People are already doing that." All the more if universalism is true.
All this attenuates the God of Gantt's command for people to live a holy life. Blunts the edge. So, yes, in this respect, it undermines the God of Gantt.
You can continue to shriek against licentiousness and extol righteous living all you want, but your universalism belies the fact since your universalism only helps to excuse licentiousness and erode righteous living. So you're just paying lip service to biblical morality while at the same time your universalism actually torpedos biblical morality. It's all bark but no bite.
rockingwithhawking,
ReplyDelete"Many people behave irrationally."
Okay. So what?
"Many people don't care about delayed gratification."
Okay. So what?
"Many people desire instant satisfaction."
Okay. So what?
"Many people would be willing to choose "the foolish way" and suffer the consequences living for the momentary pleasures of sin so long as it means they're ultimately in heaven."
Many people are already choosing "the foolish way," ignoring the consequences of living for the momentary pleasures of sin without any assurance of their going to heaven and even with plenty of people like you assuring them that they won't. You say that the size of that group will increase if people believe that everyone goes to heaven. I say the exact opposite. If someone truly believes that God is taking everyone to heaven, his heart will be filled with gratitude. That person will want to serve God more than before, not less than before. He or she can only believe if his or her heart is touched by the Holy Spirit of God. You looking at this situation exactly backwards.
"Many people would be willing to reign on earth and then serve in heaven (to paraphrase Milton). In fact, you yourself conceded: "People are already doing that." All the more if universalism is true."
I do not at all concede that more people would live licentiously if everyone is going to heaven is true. I don't preach universalism - I preach Jesus Christ, Lord of all. If you believe you're going to heaven, you believe you're going to face Him. And if you love Him - truly love Him not just fearful that you might go to hell - you won't want to disappoint Him.
"All this attenuates the God of Gantt's command for people to live a holy life. Blunts the edge."
According to who? You seem to be suggesting that the only reason people want to obey God is to avoid hell in the afterlife. Do you have no reason for loving God other than that? Would you love God less if He were taking everyone to heaven? If so, why? Would you have a hardened heart that your prodigal brothers were still loved by your Father?
"So, yes, in this respect, it undermines the God of Gantt."
Only in your mind. Would you serve God less if you knew everyone was going to heaven? Don't you pray for the lost to be saved? Are you then telling me that you'd be disappointed and quit living for God if He answered your prayers?
"You can continue to shriek against licentiousness and extol righteous living all you want, but your universalism belies the fact since your universalism only helps to excuse licentiousness and erode righteous living. So you're just paying lip service to biblical morality while at the same time your universalism actually torpedos biblical morality. It's all bark but no bite. "
For someone who doesn't like repetition of assertions you repeat a lot of assertions.
Finding out that God is taking everyone to heaven brought me the most profound happiness and wedded my heart to God more closely than it ever had been before. I can understand that you're not yet ready to accept this to be true. What I can't understand is why you don't even want it to be true. Jesus taught us to love everyone. How can you then be happy if even one person you love is confined to unremitting physical and emotional torment forever and ever and ever and ever?
Mike Gantt said:
ReplyDelete"Okay. So what?"
Given your universalism, the fact that many people behave irrationally, don't care about delayed gratification, and want instant satisfaction, well, all this undermines your exhortation for them live a holy life in the here and now. That's "so what."
"Many people are already choosing 'the foolish way,'"
Yes, and this is a point in favor of what I'm saying (as I noted above). If many people are already choosing "the foolish way" without assuming universalism is true, then how much more so if they believe they'll all end up in heaven in the end. So your concession that "Many people are already choosing 'the foolish way'" itself undermines your own argument that everyone will be inspired to live a holy life given your universalism.
"ignoring the consequences of living for the momentary pleasures of sin without any assurance of their going to heaven and even with plenty of people like you assuring them that they won't."
Actually I haven't mentioned anything about my own position. So far I've only been making an internal critique against yours. And indeed what I happen to believe or disbelieve isn't germane to your position.
"You say that the size of that group will increase if people believe that everyone goes to heaven."
Actually I've never said that.
Now you're doing precisely what you alleged I was doing earlier (just replace universalism with your statement about me here): "You have a perception of universalism. That is, you have a definition of it in your mind. When you hear me say 'everyone goes to heaven,' that definition clicks on and you ascribe to me whatever baggage goes with your definition of universalism. It is you who are not interacting with my views. You are interacting with your view of universalism."
Once again what I believe or disbelieve is irrelevant to your universalism.
"If someone truly believes that God is taking everyone to heaven, his heart will be filled with gratitude. That person will want to serve God more than before, not less than before."
Say a woman is brutally attacked and raped repeatedly. Telling her that her attacker is also going to heaven someday won't necessarily fill her heart with gratitude or inspire her "to serve God more than before."
"I don't preach universalism - I preach Jesus Christ, Lord of all."
Now you're dissembling. Sure you might "preach" Jesus Christ but you also happen to subscribe to universalism.
"If you believe you're going to heaven, you believe you're going to face Him. And if you love Him - truly love Him not just fearful that you might go to hell - you won't want to disappoint Him."
This doesn't require universalism in order for it to occur.
"You seem to be suggesting that the only reason people want to obey God is to avoid hell in the afterlife."
ReplyDeleteWrong. That's not what I believe.
"Do you have no reason for loving God other than that?"
You're just putting words into my mouth.
"Would you love God less if He were taking everyone to heaven? If so, why? Would you have a hardened heart that your prodigal brothers were still loved by your Father? Would you serve God less if you knew everyone was going to heaven? Don't you pray for the lost to be saved? Are you then telling me that you'd be disappointed and quit living for God if He answered your prayers?"
This isn't about what I feel or don't feel. This is about the truth. So there's no use trying to leverage my sentiments or feelings in the matter.
"For someone who doesn't like repetition of assertions you repeat a lot of assertions."
I wouldn't need to repeat myself if you got the point right away.
"Finding out that God is taking everyone to heaven brought me the most profound happiness and wedded my heart to God more closely than it ever had been before. I can understand that you're not yet ready to accept this to be true."
Once again this is an appeal to emotions.
"What I can't understand is why you don't even want it to be true.
It doesn't matter what I want or don't want. The priority isn't my desires. Rather it's God's Word. And what I've read from you hasn't persuaded me universalism is biblical. Far from it. I just think you're mainly appealing to emotions and Hallmark card type sentiments.
"Jesus taught us to love everyone."
Yet Jesus made distinctions in love. See D.A. Carson's Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God and his Love in Hard Places for example.
"How can you then be happy if even one person you love is confined to unremitting physical and emotional torment forever and ever and ever and ever?"
Too long to go into. That's another debate for another time.
By the way, I noticed you in fact didn't overturn my point at all. Rather your comment has mainly been trying to convince me of your universalism largely via emotional appeals. But since you don't actually address my original objection (since I still don't think you grok it) your words have no purchase with me.
rockingwithhawking,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "...your words have no purchase with me."
Apparently, the Lord's don't either.
Mike Gantt said:
ReplyDelete"You said, '...your words have no purchase with me.' Apparently, the Lord's don't either."
I didn't know you thought your words were the Lord's words.
Mike, your view of hell falls short of what the Bible teaches concerning hell. In the New Testament hell (or Gehenna) it refers to a condition of punishment after death...
ReplyDeleteAnd do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matt. 10:28 ESV)
In hell there is no forgiveness of sins and the people are eternally guilty and eternally condemned for "eternal sins". The "Unpardonable Sin" (whatever that might be) is called by the Lord and "eternal sin" that will never be forgiven. Therefore whoever commits it cannot be saved or go to heaven.
31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. (Matthew 12:31-32 ESV)
28 "Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter,
29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"--- (Mark 3:28-29 ESV)
The Apostle Paul referred to hell as eternal destruction (i.e. not temporary) AWAY from the presence of the Lord (not a slightly less intimate relationship with the Lord).
They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, (2 Thess. 1:9 ESV)
Jesus said of Judas that it would have been better for him never to have been born because of the condemnation he would receive for his sin of betraying Christ. If universalism were true, and Judas will also finally (in the end) go to heaven, then Jesus' statement would be false.
Jesus also taught that sin and the punishment of sin are so serious that it would be better to cut off body parts than to be cast into hell. That doesn't seem to be compatible with universalism either.
47 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell,
48 'where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.' (Mark 9:47-48 ESV)
Jesus also taught that in the eternal state the saved and the lost will be eternally separated.
7 "He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son.
8 "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." (Rev. 21:7-8 NASB)
There are so many passages that teach an eternal hell that I personally don't understand how anyone could ever read the New Testament and come to a confident conclusion that everyone will be saved. Mike don't you think you're reading the Bible with blinders on? Or at least with one eye closed so that you only see those parts that are appealing to you?
I think our dialogue on the Trinity, while more important, is less urgent because your version of universalism (as little about it as I know) sheds light on your interpretive/hermeneutical principles and approach. You have a way of evading or not seeing the uncomfortable implications of Biblical passages.
Btw, while there are various versions of universalism/apokatastasis (especially in recent times) all of them, to some degree or another encounter the kinds of problems revealed by books like Universalism Not of the Bible (click here).
Mike, while I'm hesitant to post the following passages because of your version of realized eschatology, I'll post them anyway since they do indicate that hell is eternal separation from God. Btw, I take no dogmatic stand on the timing (or the duration) of the millennium in relation to Christ's 2nd Advent.
ReplyDelete10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. (Rev. 20:10 NASB)
Notice that the beast and false prophet (who presumably are human beings and who have been in the lake of fire since the beginning of the "Millennium") will be tormented day and night FOREVER AND EVER. That implies that at least two human beings will never get to heaven. If those two are exceptions, then maybe the rest of unsaved humanity will also be eternally separated from God as well.
9 Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand,
10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.
11 "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." (Rev. 14:9-11 NASB)
Notice that these people have no rest day and night while they are being tormented (literally or figuratively) with fire and brimstone (presumably another reference to the "lake of fire") while the smoke of their torment wafts up FOREVER AND EVER. I personally don't know how these passages can be harmonized or reconciled with universalism/apocatastasis.
Mike, finally consider that if you're right, then the traditional teaching on hell/Gehenna doesn't irrevocably and eternally hurt the people who hear it and believe/accept it.
ReplyDeleteON THE OTHER HAND, if the traditional view of an eternal hell is true, then those who hear and accept/believe your version of the Gospel and of hell can have the eternal consequence of indirectly sending people to hell because they didn't believe in Christ and repent of their sins since they thought it wasn't necessary considering everyone will end up in heaven eventually anyway.
Please think deeply on Steve's statement.
"Nothing crueler than offering the lost false hope. Not only will their hopes be dashed–dashed when it's too late to turn around, but you rob them of the only true source of hope with this diabolical substitute."
If you do, you'll realize that it's better for you not to teach universalism (even if it were true) given that you COULD be wrong since the (overwhelming) preponderance of the New Testament evidence goes CONTRARY to your position. Your teaching could actually inoculate people from the true Gospel and so bar them from getting into heaven.
I say this as someone who hopes more will be saved than actually make a profession of faith in this life. While there are Christian near death testimonies of people who claim they died and went to hell but were eventually rescued by Christ and given a second lease on life here on earth on account of a believing family member's past persevering prayers; none of these have Biblical authority.
I also could wish that some form of inclusive were true, but passages like the following seem to rule it out completely.
But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope. (1 Thess. 4:13 NASB)
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." (John 3:36 NASB)
7 and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire,
8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
9 These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,
10 when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed--for our testimony to you was believed. (2 Thess. 1:7-10 NASB)
Many more passages could be cited.
Mike, so please don't think that I'm defending the traditional view out of a party spirit or merely because it's traditional. I used to hold to annihilationism years ago but the Biblical evidence for eternal punishment is just so strong.
rockingwithhawking,
ReplyDelete"I didn't know you thought your words were the Lord's words."
I would not have written any of these teachings if I had not found them in the Scripture.
Annoyed Pinoy,
ReplyDeleteI have written an extensive biblical case for everyone going to heaven on my blog and covered the issue of Gehenna. I'd be happy to respond to your questions and challenges there, but I don't have time to re-write all that information for this context.
I will say the following: Gehenna appears in the New Testament 12 times. Only if you think God was deciding to stop His judgments that occur before death and move them to after death would you draw the conclusion that you have. Jesus was warning His contemporaries about the same sorts of things the prophets before Him had warned theirs. In the day of the Lord, however, the judgment wouldn't be in one calamitous event; it would be constant and unending. The wrath of God is poured out on the earth - can you not see it? Consider also, for example, that James 3:6 tells us that the human tongue is "set on fire by Gehenna" after telling us the tongue is the source of evil. Why then would you insist that hell is relegated to the afterlife?
I'll also say that if Gehenna is an afterlife issue then consider that anyone of you who so much is angry at your brother in your heart (or calls him a name like "Raca" - a rather standard occurrence on a blog like this) and dies unreconciled then you go to hell after this life (Matt 5:22ff). But - good news - you get out after you've paid the last cent (v. 29) - but then what does that do to your "no return" policy?
Lastly, I'll point out that the traditional evangelical doctrine of hell is riddled with inconsistencies, but the greatest inconsistency is found in the behavior of evangelical Christians. That is, they might say they believe in hell after this life, but hardly any of them - and I dare say this includes most who read this blog - acts like it. If you really believed an eternal hell awaited your neighbor you wouldn't talk about anything else. Every other human activity would shrink to insignificance in the light of that thought. And yet I see evangelical Christians concerned about all the same things that everyone on earth is concerned with: inflation, politics, football games, calories, promotions at work, and so on. Therefore, don't ask me to take this doctrine seriously when hardly any of you do. It gets trotted out on occasions like this, but as soon as I am gone you'll go back to considering a hundred other things more important than this doctrine. If I go to a different church every Sunday for the next ten years, how many times out of 520 will I hear about hell? Yet if you folks really believe what you're saying, there'd be no other sermon topic worth covering. Who cares about 5 steps to a more rewarding marriage (or even the 5 points of Calvarminianism) if the guy you just bought a donut from is headed for hell. Examine yourselves and see that you lack the courage of your convictions on this issue. And with good reason: it's false.
Turn to the Lord Jesus Christ. Ask for forgiveness of your sins - public and secret. Stop merely giving Him lip service and live your lives wholly unto Him and for His glory. Beseech Him for deliverance from His judgments which our sins have brought upon us and our children. The Lord is merciful. He will forgive. But He will not fail to judge us if we insult the Spirit of grace.
Mike suffers the typical quandary of the universalist: he imagines that God will save everyone, no matter how evil, yet he keeps urging evildoers to be good. But, of course, evildoers, being evil, find his unctuous moralizing risible. You might as well lecture a lion on the virtues of veganism.
ReplyDeleteOnly if you think God was deciding to stop His judgments that occur before death and move them to after death would you draw the conclusion that you have.
ReplyDeleteI never denied that God sometimes punishes people for their sins (to some degree) in this world before death. I affirm that. However, the Bible also teaches that the ultimate punishment and rewards are in the next life. Notice that in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man that those in hell CANNOT get from where they are to Abraham's bosom and that people are more fully recompensed in the afterlife than in this life.
25But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ - Luke 16:25-26 ESV
Btw, the "hell" in this passage is "hades" rather than "Gehenna". Luke probably used the word "hades" instead of "Gehenna" since he was writing primarily to a Gentile audience and the mythological Greek "hades" was analogous to the the Hebrew concept of punishment in the afterlife which Jesus compared to the burning garbage dump in the Valley of Hinnom (i.e. Gehenna).
Mike, your view of hell here on earth doesn't account for why the righteous sometimes perish while the wicked sometimes prosper (see Ps. 73; Ps. 37 and the entire book of Job).
Your view also can't make sense of Luke 13:1-5 since Jesus explicitly states that people of near equal guilt don't always get punished here on earth to the same degree.
1There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? 5No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”
Why then would you insist that hell is relegated to the afterlife?
I never said that Gehenna-like consequences are confined to the future afterlife. I affirm that at times, there are negative consequences to sin in this life and that sometimes they are (to some degree) a manifestation of God's punishment (cf. Rom. 1:18-28ff).
On the contrary, *you're* the one who is denying the other half of the truth that the full punishment for sin is yet future and after this life.
But - good news - you get out after you've paid the last cent (v. 29) - but then what does that do to your "no return" policy?
You assume that Jesus is actually teaching that you *can* pay the last penny. On the contrary, Jesus is implying that one cannot ever (i.e. never) pay the last penny. Besides, in the same Gospel of Matthew Jesus repeatedly describes the fire of Gehenna as eternal.
Lastly, I'll point out that the traditional evangelical doctrine of hell is riddled with inconsistencies, but the greatest inconsistency is found in the behavior of evangelical Christians.
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen a serious inconsistency in the traditional *doctrine* of hell from you so far. Rather, you want to point to Evangelical behavior. But I'm sure you know that one's behavior doesn't prove the truth or falsity of one's position. Just because someone dying of lung cancer tells you that smoking is bad for your health while he's puffing on a cigarette at the same time *doesn't* mean that smoking *is not* bad for your health.
If you really believed an eternal hell awaited your neighbor you wouldn't talk about anything else. Every other human activity would shrink to insignificance in the light of that thought.
Doing apologetics and evangelism is a manifestation of a concern for the lost. Besides, Christians have other obligations beyond loving our neighbor and seeing the lost saved. For example, we're also called to worship God (Mark 12:29-30), provide for ourselves (1 Thess. 4:11-12), take care of our relatives (1 Tim. 5:8), and to the degree that God allows us (in our station in life), to enjoy the life He has given us for His glory's sake since "He gives us richly all things to enjoy".(1 Cor. 10:31; 1 Tim. 6:17). All the while living a life of praise, thanks, and prayer (Ps. 34; 1 Thess. 5:16-18).
Therefore, don't ask me to take this doctrine seriously when hardly any of you do.
Your experience of Evangelicals is not universal. Just because it might be the case that the majority of Evangelicals are like that doesn't mean all are. For myself, before I encountered Calvinist theology and while my theology was greatly influenced by Wesleyan and Charismatic theology, I can testify that the burden of the lost was so taxing on me that I came to a point where either I would go crazy or lose my faith. The Doctrines of Grace (Calvinism) saved me from apostasy or insanity. Besides, there are many Christians out there (whether Arminian-like or Calvinistic-like) who have a great burden for the lost being saved.
If I go to a different church every Sunday for the next ten years, how many times out of 520 will I hear about hell?
You're just confirming how bad things have gotten in Evangelicalism. This wasn't the case in previous generations of Evangelicals. I'm sure you've heard of Jonathan Edwards' sermon "Sinners In the Hands of an Angry God".
steve,
ReplyDeleteBut what about you personally, Steve? That is, if everything you knew about Christ remained true except that everyone was going to heaven, would your desire to do good similarly remain unchanged?
Mike Gantt said:
ReplyDelete"I would not have written any of these teachings if I had not found them in the Scripture."
Then you shouldn't have written your "teachings."
"...if everything you knew about Christ remained true except that everyone was going to heaven..."
Don't pretend this is all there is to it. You also believe Christians shouldn't attend church, you also believe the second coming of Jesus Christ has already happened, you also undermine the Trinity, etc.
Anyway there's no reason to waste our time entertaining hypotheticals which have no Scriptural support.
rockingwithhawking,
ReplyDelete"Then you shouldn't have written your 'teachings'."
They're not mine; they're His. That was my point when I said I found these teachings in Scripture.
"Don't pretend this is all there is to it."
I wasn't pretending anything - unless you want to say that anything hypothetical is ipso facto "pretending."
"You also believe Christians shouldn't attend church, the second coming of Jesus Christ has already happened, you also undermine the Trinity, etc."
Yes, all that's true but it doesn't make my question illegitimate. My views are clear for anyone to see on my website. If I were trying to hide them I've done a terrible job.
"Anyway there's no reason to waste our time entertaining hypotheticals which have no Scriptural support."
Sounds like you are speaking for yourself and steve hays, so I'll try to remember that neither of you like hypothetical questions. (You also don't like questions that contradict your views but there's less I'm at liberty to do about that.)
Here then is an actual question (i.e. nothing hypothetical about it):Do you believe that you have repented and turned to Christ or that we should be repenting and turning to Christ every day? In other words, does God want our repentance to be a one-time transaction or a lifestyle?
Mike Gantt said:
ReplyDelete"I wasn't pretending anything"
You asked: "if everything you knew about Christ remained true except that everyone was going to heaven, would your desire to do good similarly remain unchanged?"
However it's not as if you actually believe this yourself. It's not as if you actually believe what we believe about Christianity except for the singular fact that everyone will be in heaven. On the contrary, this singular fact forms only a small part of your overall package which also includes a belief that the second coming of Christ has already occurred, anti-Trinitarianism, etc. So your question is hardly innocent.
By the way, this isn't the first time you've dissembled. For example, earlier you said, "I don't preach universalism - I preach Jesus Christ, Lord of all." See my response above.
"[rockingwithhawking said:] 'You also believe Christians shouldn't attend church, the second coming of Jesus Christ has already happened, you also undermine the Trinity, etc.' Yes, all that's true but it doesn't make my question illegitimate. My views are clear for anyone to see on my website. If I were trying to hide them I've done a terrible job."
A good warning for people.
"Sounds like you are speaking for yourself and steve hays,"
This is a public weblog. Anyone is free to comment on other comments.
I don't speak for Steve Hays.
"so I'll try to remember that neither of you like hypothetical questions."
No, I didn't say that. Rather it's a waste of time to entertain the sorts of hypotheticals about Christianity you're proposing since they don't have Scriptural support.
"You also don't like questions that contradict your views but there's less I'm at liberty to do about that."
1. I don't know what "like" or "dislike" has to do with it. It's not as if feelings should be central to this debate.
2. It's simple: either your views are Scriptural or they're not, either they're reasonable or they're not.
I don't find your views either Scriptural or reasonable.
I don't think your argument carries the day. When I compare what you're arguing with what others have argued I don't find your argument convincing on Scriptural or rational grounds.
3. Also, insofar as I'm aware, it's not as if you're a trained biblical scholar.
4. All this is just for starters too. For your views also impinge upon biblical theology, systematic theology, and philosophical theology, among other areas.
"Do you believe that you have repented and turned to Christ or that we should be repenting and turning to Christ every day? In other words, does God want our repentance to be a one-time transaction or a lifestyle?"
Short answer which needs to be unpacked: both.
Next see the relevant chapters in J.I. Packer's Concise Theology, Paul Helm's Beginnings, and John Frame's Salvation Belongs to the Lord to better unpack what I believe about repentance.
It's standard Calvinistic teaching that repentance is a daily thing. Even though "justification" is a one time judicial verdict and declaration by God that a person is righteous (received through faith alone on the basis of Christ's finished work alone).
ReplyDeleteHere are some quotes from Calvin on repentance.
"Therefore, so oft as the voice of the gospel doth sound in our ears, let us know that God doth exhort us unto repentance." - Calvin's commentary on Acts (chapter 17:30)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom37.v.vii.html
Here are other random quotes I've found on the internet (but haven't verified)
"œTrue repentance is firm and constant, and makes us war with the evil that is in us, not for a day or a week, but without end and without intermission" "“ Short Treatise on the Supper of Our Lord in Tracts, II.178.
"œRepentance does not consist in one or two works, but in perseverance" "“ Daniel Commentary, I:236.
"œThe faithful ought throughout their whole life to repent"¦ for we must ever contend with the flesh" "“ Jonah-Nahum Commentary, 104.
"œThe exercise of repentance ought to be uninterrupted throughout our whole life" "“ Synoptic Gospels Commentary, II:341
These were found at http://www.puritanboard.com/f35/john-calvin-repentance-12265/
Mike you said,
"I would not have written any of these teachings if I had not found them in the Scripture."
The problem with you saying that is that most Christians also believe that what they believe comes from Scripture. In which case, most other people could say the same thing you just said. Your saying it would be neutralized by someone else saying the same thing (and vice versa). So, there's no point in you saying it in the first place. Moreover, you seem to say it as if you can't seem to be able to distinguish between what Jesus really said and meant and your *interpretation* of what Jesus meant. AS IF your interpretation were infallible. It does no good to just assert that your position is in the Bible in a disagreement. You have to actually make an argument for it.
ANNOYED PINOY,
ReplyDeleteMuch of what you are questioning here, and many of the verses you reference, have been covered in what I have written in the following places. (See the first for references to Sheol, Hades, and Gehenna. See the second for answers to the logical objections.)
The Biblical Case for Everyone Going to Heaven (http://wp.me/PNthc-i6)
Essays on the Implications of Everyone Going to Heaven (http://wp.me/PKqSA-HM)
You also said, "Please think deeply on Steve's statement: "Nothing crueler than offering the lost false hope. Not only will their hopes be dashed–dashed when it's too late to turn around, but you rob them of the only true source of hope with this diabolical substitute."
I have done as you requested. To heed Steve on this point would be to give his words more heed than the Scriptures. I can't do that.
I am offering people the only hope I have. If I am wrong then even I am not getting into heaven myself. I have no basis for believing that I will get into heaven except that Jesus has made the way. If it weren't for Him, we'd all be going to Sheol. When He changed the destination of heaven, He did not do it for some - otherwise Sheol would still be there.
I believe that my going to heaven is entirely a gift of God's grace. I have done nothing to earn or deserve it. There is no prayer I've prayed, no confession I've made, and no work of righteousness I've done that qualifies me for heaven. God's grace and God's grace alone accounts for my hope.
If you believe that only some of us are going to heaven then you must believe that something in addition to God's grace qualifies us for heaven.
If you do, you'll realize that it's better for you not to teach universalism (even if it were true) given that you COULD be wrong since the (overwhelming) preponderance of the New Testament evidence goes CONTRARY to your position. Your teaching could actually inoculate people from the true Gospel and so bar them from getting into heaven.
According to your view, the preponderance of New Testament evidence is against me, but according to my view, the preponderance of biblical evidence is against particularism. You have to look at both testaments; you can't understand one without the other.
Could I be wrong? Sure. Any human being can be wrong. You also must be thinking, "But, Mike, the preponderance of evangelical Christians are against you." Yes, but they're all human beings so they could be wrong, too. I cannot violate my conscience and deny what I see in the Scripture just because a lot of people think I'm wrong. I am being judged by God - that's a far more fearful prospect.
Annoyed Pinoy,
ReplyDelete"Your view also can't make sense of Luke 13:1-5 since Jesus explicitly states that people of near equal guilt don't always get punished here on earth to the same degree."
Again, please look at the references I have given you for more extensive explanation but for here I will say that the fact that "people of near equal guilt don't always get punished here on earth to the same degree" by no means requires that they therefore must suffer unremitting physical and emotional torment for all eternity. It just requires that the scales of justice be fully balanced - and this I believe God will do. That's what final judgment is all about: working out all that justice that wasn't fully worked out on earth.
"You assume that Jesus is actually teaching that you *can* pay the last penny. On the contrary, Jesus is implying that one cannot ever (i.e. never) pay the last penny. Besides, in the same Gospel of Matthew Jesus repeatedly describes the fire of Gehenna as eternal."
The fire of Gehenna is indeed eternal and it is still burning today, consuming today. This earth is a lake of fire. Judgment and wrath are all around. For some reason, you seem to think that "eternal" means something can't start until after we die - that is must be an afterlife issue. But the Scripture would have us view eternal as now.
"I haven't seen a serious inconsistency in the traditional *doctrine* of hell from you so far."
That's only because you must not be reading the links I've been providing. A major inconsistency is its claim to biblical authority while ignoring the Old Testament's teaching on Sheol (Hades), and its subsequent confusion of those two names with Gehenna. Another major inconsistency is that it proclaims a God who preaches forgiveness but doesn't practice it.
"You're just confirming how bad things have gotten in Evangelicalism."
Maybe some of its doctrines are to blame.
As for Jonathan Edwards, he's widely extolled but seldom imitated.
Forget broader evangelical practice, how many people who are reading this blog will be talking with their unsaved neighbor about hell today? And tomorrow? And preaching about it on Sunday?
Mike Gantt said:
ReplyDelete"To heed Steve on this point would be to give his words more heed than the Scriptures. I can't do that."
If that's the case, then everyone should apply this to Mike Gantt's words as well.
"I am offering people the only hope I have. If I am wrong then even I am not getting into heaven myself."
I shudder for you when you have to stand before God.
"If you believe that only some of us are going to heaven then you must believe that something in addition to God's grace qualifies us for heaven."
This conclusion doesn't follow from your previous statement: "I believe that my going to heaven is entirely a gift of God's grace. I have done nothing to earn or deserve it. There is no prayer I've prayed, no confession I've made, and no work of righteousness I've done that qualifies me for heaven. God's grace and God's grace alone accounts for my hope."
"Could I be wrong? Sure. Any human being can be wrong. You also must be thinking, 'But, Mike, the preponderance of evangelical Christians are against you.' Yes, but they're all human beings so they could be wrong, too."
It's not a solely numbers game. For instance, some people's arguments carry more weight than other people's arguments. Are you even a biblical scholar or other relevant expert? Not as far as I'm aware. As far as I'm aware, you're just a layperson.
"Forget broader evangelical practice, how many people who are reading this blog will be talking with their unsaved neighbor about hell today? And tomorrow? And preaching about it on Sunday?"
According to the God of Gantt, everyone will end up in heaven. So, ultimately speaking, there's little to worry about. If the God of Gantt is correct, then why should anyone care about things like "heeding Scripture" or "talking with their unsaved neighbor about hell"?
Sure, the God of Gantt thinks people should "heed Scripture" and "talk to their unsaved neighbors about hell" to gain eternal rewards. But many people don't care so much about heavenly treasures as earthly pleasures. Why should a pharaoh who was worshipped as a god or even a Kim Jong-il give up his cushy life as a dictator when he's going to heaven anyway? After all, some people would be willing to make the trade to be first on earth and last in heaven.
"If you believe that only some of us are going to heaven then you must believe that something in addition to God's grace qualifies us for heaven."
ReplyDeleteIn fact, this conclusion doesn't even follow the first part of this sentence.
ANNOYED PINOY,
ReplyDeleteIt's standard Calvinistic teaching that repentance is a daily thing.
I'm glad to hear Calvin favors ongoing repentance, but I think the crippling limitation Calvinists impose on themselves is taking time away from reading the Scriptures to read Calvin.
It does no good to just assert that your position is in the Bible in a disagreement. You have to actually make an argument for it.
If you don't want to read the biblical arguments that I make (i.e. here and at the links I've given), then don't. But is it fair for you to then say I don't make biblical arguments?
Mike Gantt said:
ReplyDelete"I'm glad to hear Calvin favors ongoing repentance, but I think the crippling limitation Calvinists impose on themselves is taking time away from reading the Scriptures to read Calvin."
The same could be said about Mike Gantt's writings then.
"If you don't want to read the biblical arguments that I make (i.e. here and at the links I've given), then don't. But is it fair for you to then say I don't make biblical arguments?"
Yes. One reason is because we've read and understand the Bible enough to understand what you're saying is hogwash. Another reason is because we've read other relevant scholars who would entirely disagree with you. Another reason is because you can't even make a simple logical case in this very thread for your position so why should anyone bother with a lengthier treatment. Et cetera.
rockingwithhawking,
ReplyDelete"If that's the case, then everyone should apply this to Mike Gantt's words as well."
I'm fine with that.
"I shudder for you when you have to stand before God."
I'm standing before Him now.
"This conclusion doesn't follow from your previous statement"
This just means you don't understand the Scripture's narrative of Sheol (Hades) being the destination of the dead in the prior age and heaven being the destination of the dead in this the eternal age.
"It's not a solely numbers game. For instance, some people's arguments carry more weight than other people's arguments. Are you even a biblical scholar or other relevant expert? Not as far as I'm aware. As far as I'm aware, you're just a layperson."
The fishermen and tax collectors who proclaimed Christ weren't credentialed scholars either. You are paying attention to the same sort of academic pecking order that mesmerized the Pharisees and Sadducees.
According to the God of Gantt, everyone will end up in heaven. So, ultimately speaking, there's little to worry about. If the God of Gantt is correct, then why should anyone care about things like "heeding Scripture" or "talking with their unsaved neighbor about hell"?
I'm not asking why you are not acting in accord with my doctrine; I'm asking why you are not acting in accord with your own.
rockingwithhawking,
ReplyDelete"In fact, this conclusion doesn't even follow the first part of this sentence. "
Only if you think His grace is restricted to some.
"The same could be said about Mike Gantt's writings then."
I agree.
"Yes. One reason is because we've read and understand the Bible enough to understand what you're saying is hogwash. Another reason is because we've read other relevant scholars who would entirely disagree with you. Another reason is because you can't even make a simple logical case in this very thread for your position so why should anyone bother with a lengthier treatment. Et cetera. "
I've given you many short logical cases in this thread. Here, I'll give you another:
If the writers of this blog believe that some people who die today are going to hell, why is today's post on this blog about U.S. presidential primary politics in the state of Iowa? Is that issue more important than readers' (and readers' friends' and family's) eternal destiny?
But that's just an argument to show that people who proclaim the dangers of hell don't act like they're really concerned about anyone suffering from it. Here's a logical argument against the doctrine itself:
If you couldn't light a match to your disobedient child, what makes you think that God - who is far more moral than you - could light a match to His, and watch the torture indefinitely?
And here's another short scriptural one: Why is it that you think judgment language in the Old Testament (e.g. wrath, indignation, fire, etc.) applies to events in this life but in the New Testament such language applies to the afterlife - yet the destruction of Jerusalem, prophesied in the New Testament, was a "this life" judgment?
Mike Gantt said:
ReplyDelete"This just means you don't understand the Scripture's narrative of Sheol (Hades) being the destination of the dead in the prior age and heaven being the destination of the dead in this the eternal age."
Originally you said: "If you believe that only some of us are going to heaven then you must believe that something in addition to God's grace qualifies us for heaven."
The simple fact of the matter is your conclusion doesn't follow from what you've said. Calvinists believe "some" but not "all" are going to heaven. But this doesn't therefore necessarily imply we "must believe that something in addition to God's grace qualifies us for heaven."
Hence I could just as well reply you don't understand Reformed theology.
Try to keep your eye on the ball next time.
"The fishermen and tax collectors who proclaimed Christ weren't credentialed scholars either. You are paying attention to the same sort of academic pecking order that mesmerized the Pharisees and Sadducees."
You're speaking like a simpleton.
For one thing, Jesus isn't against "scholars" or an "academic pecking order," per se. He's against the Pharisees and Sadducees' hubris, self-righteousness, hypocrisy, legalism, etc.
For another, the Bible itself makes a distinction between lay Christians and teachers. For example, James 3:1 notes: "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness." If the Bible makes a distinction between the laity and teachers, then there exists a "sort of academic [or educational or scholastic] pecking order."
Also, there's a difference between proclaiming the gospel (which, yes, any Christian can do) and making the sorts of claims you're making about universalism, Jesus' second coming having already taken place, non-churchgoing, anti-Trinitarianism, etc.
In any case, what are the facts? First, you're the one making the claim that your positions on universalism, the second coming, church attendance, the Trinity, and so forth are biblical. Second, as anyone can read or re-read in this thread, your position doesn't appear to have good arguments for it (to put it mildly). Third, you're teaching something which cuts against the grain of most evangelicals. And not just modern evangelicals but church history down through the ages. You're teaching something "new." Fourth, you're a layperson. Just like most of us. Fifth, you're a layperson who isn't even part of a church where you can at least learn how to be responsible for the care of others, be accountable to others, learn from others, etc. Sixth, you apparently have no requisite background or knowledge or experience which even qualifies you to be a teacher of the Bible in the first place. Taking all this together, it would appear you're a theological maverick. In fact, this is probably an understatement.
"I'm not asking why you are not acting in accord with my doctrine; I'm asking why you are not acting in accord with your own."
What makes you think we're not? It's not as if you know what we do or don't do offline.
"[Mike Gantt said:] I'm glad to hear Calvin favors ongoing repentance, but I think the crippling limitation Calvinists impose on themselves is taking time away from reading the Scriptures to read Calvin.
"[I said:] The same could be said about Mike Gantt's writings then.
"[Mike Gantt replied:] I agree."
So no one needs to bother reading anything else you write.
"If the writers of this blog believe that some people who die today are going to hell, why is today's post on this blog about U.S. presidential primary politics in the state of Iowa? Is that issue more important than readers' (and readers' friends' and family's) eternal destiny? But that's just an argument to show that people who proclaim the dangers of hell don't act like they're really concerned about anyone suffering from it."
ReplyDeleteI can't tell if you're playing dumb or if you're actually dumb. How does posting about politics imply a lack of concern about others? Is this a zero-sum game?
"If you couldn't light a match to your disobedient child, what makes you think that God - who is far more moral than you - could light a match to His, and watch the torture indefinitely?"
You're asking a loaded question. Related, "torture" is itself a loaded word. Sadly you don't even realize it but you've been committing several logical fallacies throughout this thread.
You're making an argument from analogy minus the argument. Why should hell be analogous to a parent lighting a match to a child?
In addition why do you assume unbelievers or sinners like Hitler or Kim il-Jung are equivalent to "disobedient children"? Why do you even assume they are God's children in the first place? I already referred you to two of D.A. Carson's books on love. I'll do so again. Check out the two books I cited above.
"Why is it that you think judgment language in the Old Testament (e.g. wrath, indignation, fire, etc.) applies to events in this life but in the New Testament such language applies to the afterlife - yet the destruction of Jerusalem, prophesied in the New Testament, was a 'this life' judgment?"
I never said I did.
Biblical word use depends in part on the context. Some of the language could be picturesque or metaphorical, some of it could be literal, some of it could apply to the present, some could apply to the future, etc. Here, too, you should check out D.A. Carson's two books.
Anyway if this is the sort of "logic" you use to make your case, then it's easy to see why you keep floundering and failing to make your case.
rockingwithhawking,
ReplyDeleteI've read your most recent comments, and don't have anything to add to what I've already said.