That's what caught your interest? Fascinating.
Am I saved from the Christian point of view?
- Thread starter garyflet
- Start date
If mankind DESERVED to be separated from God, then God would have left that continue.
I think you have problems with understanding the definition of the word "deserved."
And once more you are greatly mistaken. (You have a good track record on that btw.) I preach the gospel that Jesus preached, and none other. (It might not be the gospel you preach, though.)
Remember, when you presume you make a pres out of u and me.
Why would I need to pay a debt that's been forgiven?
You would declare that it is unrighteous for God to forgive sin?
There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both.
(Luke 7:41-42 KJV)( I wonder where JESUS said this.)
I take it then that you realize you won't matter? Okay.
Oh Clete, I remember a time when you were not so consumed with bitter hatred, rage, and anger. What happened?
In that I am a follower of Jesus and not you... (jealous much)?
God bless,
Rhema
Last edited:
LOL!!!Well, here we just have to "agree to disagree". I just cannot accept the idea that stealing a cookie from the cookie jar is worthy of eternal torment. Clete may also say that I'm saying that God is unjust, but no, I'm saying that God would never do such an absurd and unnecessarily cruel thing. But as Clete has pointed out, my opinion doesn't matter, so no discussion is necessary on this subject. Your response I've quoted here, JudgeRightly, sounds like the best argument to be made for your position.
Clete answered the question of whether humans deserved mortality with a "No", in note #135:
But when I said that Clete answered the question with a "No", Clete responded in note #147:
Clete quotes me as saying, "God is in complete control here: He could have punished them with spiritual death alone but not added mortality. In other words, it doesn't seem that God would have given them more punishment than they deserved. God is just." And then says,
So in note #147, Clete is implicitly answering the question with a "Yes".
Judgerightly comes to the rescue to resolve the ambiguity in note #148:
Yes, but do I take the explicit answer "No", of not #135, or the implicit answer "Yes" of note #147? I'll tell you what, I'll take the implicit answer "Yes" of note #147, because that's the later note and because in the next responses in note #148, JudgeRightly is giving a "Yes". He even quotes me as saying, "Yes", and responds with a completely unambiguous, "Supra"!
Also I'll take the final answer to be "Yes", because no one corrected me on the following part of note #146:
Hooray! Finally I understand what you are saying! Pop the champagne!
I genuinely find it amusing to the point of out loud laughter to see someone so twisted into knots by their own inability to think clearly! You see contradiction where there is none - which is intended, by the way.
Gary, whether you admit it or not, the above quoted post is proof positive that you believe yourself to be more just than God! You talk about stealing a cookie! Even coveting the cookie will land you in Hell without Christ.
Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.
You will see the depth of your error - eventually. I strongly recommend making it sooner rather than later but know, even I as write this, that you almost certainly will not do so until it is far too late. I pray that I'm wrong on that!
I've said it over and over again but it will stand to be said at least once more....
You do NOT know what you're talking about. You do not know God, you do not know what justice is, you do not know the most basic stuff you'd need to know to even begin to formulate a coherent opinion about the things you're here pretending to be educated about. You've been lied to, it seems, since childhood about nearly every aspect of biblical Christianity and you've not only bought the lies, you now spend your time perpetuating many of them. You're a blind man arguing over the color red. It's worse even than that, actually, because a blind man can be excused for being ignorant about the color red. You have no such excuse. You're the condemned man who's been offered a pardon who then takes the rope from the hangman's hand and ties it around his own neck.
Clete
How can you make any sense of this at all? Are you some sort of universalist or something?
You're a liar. Not a chance that even you believed this when you wrote it!
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,....32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
Jesus did not preach the gospel that you should be preaching today, so... there's your problem!
Stupidity.
God does not forgive those who reject the gospel. I now have no reason to think you have any good idea of what the gospel even is, much less that you believe it. I will therefore give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that you neither know nor believe that gospel which PAUL (i.e. NOT Jesus) preached by which we are saved.
Yes, it would 100% be unjust for God to forgive sin in an arbitrary manner - by definition!
God DOES NOT do so, nor could He do so, even if He wanted too, which He doesn't!
All forgiveness of sin is predicated upon the shed blood of Christ and nothing else, for without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin and as it is appointed for men once to die (i.e. because of their own sin), so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many (i.e. not just the sin of Adam). (Hebrews 9:22,28 and elsewhere)
That's because you don't bother to read your bible for the sake of understanding it. You just regurgitate whatever you've been taught.
Here's a hint, Jesus didn't say it and the things He did say, you deny are even real. Just who are you trying to fool here?
I never expected to matter to you and don't care if I ever do. What would possess you to think otherwise? I don't know you from Adam! Why would I care about what you think of me?
LOL! I am not the least bit angry. You must really think something of yourself.
I've only ever engaged you in discussion based on your own words. You are the one who's made it personal, not me. You want to be substantive then that's what you'll get from me. You want to be a hypocritical moron then you'll get ridicule and derision. Pretty simple, really.
May God bless you, according to your actions.
What sort of stupid statement is that? I mean, you REALLY do have a big notion of yourself! I'd sooner have myself trampled by wild horses than have anyone be my follower! And followers of Jesus are ready and willing to learn where they've made an error and eager to not just move but to run from that error when it is found. You don't even think it's possible that there could be any such error! If God Himself told you not to preach the gospel that Jesus preached, you'd do it anyway.
Clete
Last edited:
I wrote: I just cannot accept the idea that stealing a cookie from the cookie jar is worthy of eternal torment.
Nonsense! Even you admitted that there were Christians who disagreed on eternal torment. There are Christian annihilationists who would agree with my statement, and certainly would not believe themselves more just than God!
This is very clear. You believe that even coveting a cookie is deserving of being thrown into hell and tormented there for eternity.
If I find a biblical supported idea of justice that matches intuitively with common sense about justice, such as the idea that a punishment should be proportional to the misdeed, shouldn't I go with that one? God gave us brains to use them, no?
Last edited:
I feel like a broken record.
WHATEVER IT IS that someone gets from God, it will be justice, whether you agree with it or not, Gary! YOU DO NOT GET A VOTE! It isn't up to you. No one, least of all God, cares at all about your personal opinions about what is and is not just! It is presumption to the point of blasphemy for you to even be talking about it in these terms! Not because you're stupid but because neither you nor anyone who might agree with you have ANY IDEA what you're talking about!
You really ought to read the book of Job. It's likely the oldest book still in existence and for good reason.
How is that "very clear"? I haven't said that. You seem incapable of following what seems to me to be a really simple line of reasoning. Perhaps I haven't been sufficiently clear. I'll try again...
There are sufficiently good arguments on both sides of the eternal torment debate sufficient to cause me not to be dogmatic about my own position and certainly not to engage that subject with unbelievers. That's mostly true because doing so is a counter productive waste of time. The fact of the matter is that it does NOT matter!
Calvinist believe that God can do ANYTHING AT ALL and whatever that happens to be is just by virtue of the fact that God did it. To be clear, they believe and teach that if God were to declare a law that stated women should not be raped during the first six days of the week, then that would mean it was just to rape women on Saturday. That's literally what they believe and if you press them on it, they will NOT deny it. Trust me, I know because I've pressed them myself.
Now, anyone with any common sense at all knows that this idiotic Calvinist teaching is false. God cannot be arbitrary and just at the same time - by definition. God isn't just because justice is defined by God's action but, on the contrary, God is just because God acts justly!
Accepting that fact as true then we can know that, as I've said now it seems a dozen times, WHATEVER IT IS that someone gets from God, it will be justice! If Hell is eternal torture then that will be so, not because God has arbitrarily declared torture virtuous, but because the tortured deserves it. It doesn't matter whether you can accept it or not! The very notion that "you cannot accept it" tacitly places you as God's judge! (Again, you really really ought to read the book of Job!) Instead, you should take the attitude that says that IF that's what Hell is, then there are things about existence and reality that I know nothing about but that will be made clear to me on that Great Day. It's called humilty, Gary. It's called knowing your place in the universe and that that place isn't in a position where you get to judge God.
Of course, but you take it too far by presuming information that is not in evidence. The fact is that you do not know what Hell is going to be like nor do you know what all is at play when a person, like yourself, rejects God! You just do not know what you're talking about to anywhere near the degree that would be required to make such an assessment because, in God's wisdom, He has elected not to give sufficient clarity on the topic.
People who make eternal decisions about their relationship with God based on issues that are sufficiently unclear as to created widespread disputes about it among otherwise completely normal and orthodox Christians, are really silly people who are actually more likely just looking for any excuse they can find to reject the God who created them, which is one really good reason not to engage such people in debates about such contested issues.
Clete
Hi Clete, What a great post! Very clear to me!
I agree totally with that! The question is not whether God is just or not, I never said that God is unjust. God is just. However, it is possible that God doesn't torment people for eternity, if you accept the possibility that the annihilationist interpretation of the Bible is correct or you accept the possibility that there are milder punishments in hell not mentioned in the Bible. I believe you accept the latter as a possibility.
Of course it's not up to me! Also, I'm not talking about my deep philosophical personal opinion of justice. I am talking about the common English definition of the words "just" or "justice". We have to have some understanding of the words to be able to use them in a sentence, otherwise the sentences, "x is just", or "that was not a just decision" have no meaning. If we hear that a judge sentenced someone to prison for 20 years for a misdemeanor, we might say, "that was not just". So for the sentence, "God is just" to have meaning, we have to have a sense of the meaning of the word "just". Of course, your sense of the meaning of the word may be different than mine. But, leaving God aside, I would say, given the common meaning of the word "just", that a punishment of eternal torment would not be a just punishment for coveting a cookie. This is not a complex statement, certainly not deep philosophy, nor necessarily a statement about God. Of course, things may be clearer when you're in heaven, and at that point the punishment will be understood to be just.
All that is a given is what is stated in the Bible. There are quite a few statements on hell, I've quoted many of them in this thread.
I have read the book of Job, a great book. There's the part near the end when God speaks to Job out of a whirlwind, "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?" God is saying, "How can you puny human with your puny mind attempt to determine whether I have been just or not?" We can't do it, we just know that, as you say, whatever God has done or will do is just. Now in the case of the afterlife, we don't know definitely what God will do beyond the descriptions in the Bible. And those descriptions are subject to interpretation. Maybe it wouldn't hurt, when we interpret what the Bible says about the afterlife, that the sentence, "God is just", might be important, might have meaning, no?
Let me revise the statement: Your exact sentence was "Even coveting the cookie will land you in Hell without Christ."
It matters to me. I'm interested in Christian theology.
Are you objecting to that idea because it would not be just to rape women on the seventh day of the week? If so, you are utilizing your personal sense of justice just like me! That's very good, that means that for you as well as me, the sentence, "God is just" has meaning. At any rate, your description sounds to me as though the Calvinists believe that God creates justice by His actions. If He does an action, that action is defined to be just, and for the Calvinist the sentence, "God is just", has a different meaning of the word "just" than the commonly understood meaning.
Sorry, I see Calvinism as just an alternative theology. I haven't studied it enough to make any judgements.
Yes, what I believe at this point has no bearing on what God will do. I'm just trying to interpret the Bible.
Of course, that would be ridiculous. I'm just looking at interpretations of the Bible, and assuming that the idea that God is just might be a meaningful idea and aid in the interpretation.
I agree with that!
Well, you have to remember that I'm a non-believer. I'm just trying to understand the theology.
I totally agree that every Christian position on the Bible would agree with that.
I understand this to be a part of your theology.
Absolutely. But there's no harm in thinking about it given what the Bible does say...And theologians do!
Of course, I'm not making eternal decisions, I'm just trying to understand Christian theology. I understand that according to your theology, I either accept or reject Jesus Christ as my Savior.
I don't see how it was any more or less clear than all the other posts I've made. It feels to me like I'm just repeating myself. Be that as it may....
I wonder how long we will go before you figure out that you will never get me to take a side. I'm telling you that it DOES NOT MATTER!
The issue here, as you have now tacitly conceded, is not whether or not eternal torment is just. Nor is it whether God Himself is just. It isn't about God, Gary, its about you!
YOU!
And I don't mean "you" in some generic sense, I mean you, personally. The guy named Gary who is posting on TOL. You are the issue here.
Oh, yes you are! You even admit as much in a few more sentences...
If you hold to that premise consistently, you will have no choice but to not only become a believer but a Christian. No other conclusion is rationally possible, although I don't expect you to understand why. The point here being that you've given away the farm here, Gary. You just cut the legs out from under your own worldview.
You see! How many sentences was this wildly hubristic statement away from the claim that "Of course it's not up to me!"
I am honesty amazed at how such contradictions can happen. I do not understand how it is possible for people to so flagrantly contradict themselves in such a manner without noticing it and stopping themselves.
The fact of the matter is that there is simply no possible way for you to know that it would not be just! First of all, it's a fallacy anyway because there isn't any such thing as a human being that is guilty of only the sin of coveting a cookie. Such a person would be so wildly hypothetical as to be meaningless. Secondly, it isn't coveting, per se, that lands someone in Hell to begin with. That is to say that coveting is a result, not a first cause. The real issue is a person's rejection of God and not just of any old god but of THE God, the God Who is Life itself, Who is the very personification of Righteousness and Justice (same thing, by the way). Just because you perceive that as trivial is only a commentary on how far away from righteousness and justice YOU are, not God! To put in words that someone else came up with, "we are more sinful and flawed in ourselves that we ever dared believe...". The situation is bad enough that the only fix was for God Himself to die, so that's pretty much as bad as it gets so there won't be any surprising me with whatever Hell turns out to be.
Well, once again, you just gave away the whole farm here in so far as your position goes, Gary! You want so badly for me to admit that you might be right when it's actually you who are admitting that you might be wrong! Surely, you can see the irony there.
No, that's not what I'm talking about. It's what isn't stated in the bible or anywhere else that you're problem. You want to make dogmatic statements about what is and isn't just based SOLELY on what amounts to an argument from silence, if even that!
It hasn't anything to do with "puny minds", that's you Calvinist upbringing peaking through. However, you have the gist of it. You simply do not have the requisite information or wisdom to make any such judgment. You're at a greater handicap in this area than would a congenitally blind man be in critiquing a laser light show.
Perhaps but the real crux of it is that we need to be careful not to go beyond what the bible actually teaches and accept the fact that our doctrine isn't true BECAUSE we believe it is. There are things we can know with certainty and other things that we cannot and it is our responsibility to keep track of which is which. A skill that almost no pastor in America spends any time at all trying to develop, least of all, it seems, whatever pastor you had as a kid or probably most any other pastor you've exposed yourself to since.
"It matter to me" only means that it interests you. That isn't at all what I'm talking about. Regardless of your personal interest in the topic, God is just regardless of whether your personal preferences are satisfied or not. The point being that the truth is the truth. It flat out does NOT matter whether you're right or wrong about what Hell is going to be. Hell is going to be what it is whether you like, understand or accept it or not and whether you're right or wrong will have no effect on God's righteousness.
NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!!!!!!
Justice IS NOT a matter of opinion! I have NOTHING to do with it and neither do you!
Man! I really thought that you were making progress here and then you go and say something like this!
This sort of statement is why I keep telling you that you don't know what you're talking about. If you understood what justice is you could never had allowed yourself to utter such a statement, never mind commit it to writing.
I don't have the time to go into it here and it would be too lengthy anyway. The nuts and bolts are explained here...
Is God Moral?
The statement would have meaning whether either of us agreed with it or not.
This is a critical thing you need to grasp. Words do not mean things because someone simply decided one day that they have a particular definition. That isn't how language works. It turns out to be quite a complex philosophical subject that, again, I don't have time to get into here but suffice it to say that if God doesn't exist, language couldn't happen - ever. The fact that you can read this is PROOF that God exists and I mean "proof" - not "good evidence" or any other such half step. It's is absolute proof that God exists.
That's quite a humongous rabbit trail so for now.... words mean things and anyone who tries to alter a word's meaning (given a particular context) is a liar. If that isn't so then knowledge itself becomes impossible. Even the most basic axioms of reason, like "A is A" go flying out the window if words do not mean what they mean (again, given a particular context).
Calvinists believe that God is arbitrary and ignore - intentionally - knowingly - ignore the fact that "arbitrary" is the opposite of "just".
That's ironic seeing that, so far as I can tell, every problem you seem to have with Christianity is one aspect of another of Calvinist doctrine.
You are trying to do a lot more than that, Gary! You are pronouncing moral judgments about things you know nothing about. It's evident that you only have a vague, sort of intuitive understanding of what justice is and you want to show up on a Christian website to talk about how unjust Hell is.
Aid in the interpretation?
Do eyes "aid in the interpretation" of the Mona Lisa?
Do ears "aid in the interpretation" of Fur Elise?
Does the ability to read "aid in the interpretation" of "Gone with the Wind"?
You are talking about foundational presuppositions as though they are somehow optional or merely beneficial.
I'm not really sure that you do. You certainly haven't thought it through very thoroughly or you wouldn't be here saying the things you're saying.
As though the two are rationally compatible! The bible is quite impossible for an unbeliever to understand. It is very intentionally written with not only God's existence but His very nature as foundational presuppositions. You're trying to see something with you eyes intentionally closed!
It wasn't a statement of opinion but of fact. It makes no difference who agrees or disagrees.
It is part of my theology but that should not be taken as the equivalent of "my opinion". Aside from your conception of Hell, we are not discussing matters of opinion.
So long as you are talking about it from a position that is rationally consistent. The whole point here has been that you are not. You are simply presuming rational grounds that you have not earned and that you repeatedly undermine by your own words.
Again, how is it even possible for a person to contradict themselves in this manner?
Whether you accept or reject Jesus Christ as your savior has NOTHING AT ALL to do with my theology. You either accept Him as your savior or you do not. Me or my theology has nothing to do with it. My theology could be completely false. Even if Jesus was no more real than Santa Claus, the fact remains that you either accept Him as your savior or you don't. Indeed, this is just a function of the Law of Excluded Middle. A truth claim, given a particular context, is either true or it is false. Thus, the statement "Gary accepts Jesus as his savior." is either true or it false. There is no third option no matter what anyone's theology is.
Clete
Last edited:
Hi Clete,
I think it's time to talk about my purpose here. I am trying the understand the theology here, inasmuch as there is a unified theology at TOL. And I think I have made progress. Some of the revelations have been fascinating. Sometimes I bring up ideas that seem to conflict with the TOL theology, I bring up verses from the Bible, maybe ideas about justice, maybe other part of the theology, etc. I find that if I ask questions, I generally learn more. I understand that these questions may seem offensive. If a question is too offensive, I can just withdraw it. But in the end, my opinion doesn't matter, as you have said. I'm here to pick up information. Once the questions are answered, and if there is any disagreement on my part, it doesn't matter, I must simply understand that that is part of your theology and move on. Maybe if you understand my questions in that light, they might not be so offensive?
I'm not familiar with what is offensive to you. I remember in my experience with Christianity, a lot of Christians (mostly young people) asked, "How can God send little innocent babies who die to hell?" No one seemed to take that question as being offensive, rather they tried to answer it. But for you, it may be offensive, you may have a different standard as to what is an offensive question than I do.
In the current discussion, I'm basically making two points, either which of one can be abandoned without further discussion, if there really is a disagreement. Point (1) is that an aspect of justice is that the punishment should be proportional to the crime. A judge should not give a severe, long sentence to a criminal for a minor crime. Very simple. I doubt that there's disagreement on this.
Point (2) starts with the knowledge that God is just. You may have noticed that in previous posts I have stated many times: "God is just". The problem is with the idea that the bible can be interpreted as God giving an infinite (eternal) punishment for finite misdeeds. So we've talked about two solutions to this: One is the position of annihilationism, that people going to hell simply die, their consciousness ceases, there are no more sensations, emotions, thoughts, etc. Of course, this position would have to be examined like any other position, on its biblical merits and arguments alone, not because it is something someone wants to believe. In one post, I cited a number of Bible verses in support of that position, but I understand that it is not part of your theology, so I won't seriously consider the position here. Another solution is the idea that we cannot possibly understand what God knows and understands, we cannot judge what God does; in any case God is just. What I have understood is that this is your position, so I accept that.
Much of your note seems to assume that I'm arguing things I'm not arguing. I could quote many of your statements and respond, "Of course, I agree!", but that doesn't seem very interesting.
At some point in the note, I said that according to my personal view of justice, raping wives one day of the week would not be just. I thought it was a pretty safe statement! The response was:
? Of course, I know you're not advocating raping wives one day a week, your histrionic reaction refers to the words, "personal view of justice". I have to admit, that my personal sense of justice is unique to me, that there are going to be criminal cases in which people widely disagree on whether the outcome or verdict was just. Different people can and do come up with different evaluations as to whether a judge or jury has decided a case justly. Is there any question about this?
I wrote: "That's very good, that means that for you as well as me, the sentence, "God is just" has meaning."
I wrote: "I'm just looking at interpretations of the Bible, and assuming that the idea that God is just might be a meaningful idea and aid in the interpretation."
Thanks so much,
Gary
I think it's time to talk about my purpose here. I am trying the understand the theology here, inasmuch as there is a unified theology at TOL. And I think I have made progress. Some of the revelations have been fascinating. Sometimes I bring up ideas that seem to conflict with the TOL theology, I bring up verses from the Bible, maybe ideas about justice, maybe other part of the theology, etc. I find that if I ask questions, I generally learn more. I understand that these questions may seem offensive. If a question is too offensive, I can just withdraw it. But in the end, my opinion doesn't matter, as you have said. I'm here to pick up information. Once the questions are answered, and if there is any disagreement on my part, it doesn't matter, I must simply understand that that is part of your theology and move on. Maybe if you understand my questions in that light, they might not be so offensive?
I'm not familiar with what is offensive to you. I remember in my experience with Christianity, a lot of Christians (mostly young people) asked, "How can God send little innocent babies who die to hell?" No one seemed to take that question as being offensive, rather they tried to answer it. But for you, it may be offensive, you may have a different standard as to what is an offensive question than I do.
In the current discussion, I'm basically making two points, either which of one can be abandoned without further discussion, if there really is a disagreement. Point (1) is that an aspect of justice is that the punishment should be proportional to the crime. A judge should not give a severe, long sentence to a criminal for a minor crime. Very simple. I doubt that there's disagreement on this.
Point (2) starts with the knowledge that God is just. You may have noticed that in previous posts I have stated many times: "God is just". The problem is with the idea that the bible can be interpreted as God giving an infinite (eternal) punishment for finite misdeeds. So we've talked about two solutions to this: One is the position of annihilationism, that people going to hell simply die, their consciousness ceases, there are no more sensations, emotions, thoughts, etc. Of course, this position would have to be examined like any other position, on its biblical merits and arguments alone, not because it is something someone wants to believe. In one post, I cited a number of Bible verses in support of that position, but I understand that it is not part of your theology, so I won't seriously consider the position here. Another solution is the idea that we cannot possibly understand what God knows and understands, we cannot judge what God does; in any case God is just. What I have understood is that this is your position, so I accept that.
Much of your note seems to assume that I'm arguing things I'm not arguing. I could quote many of your statements and respond, "Of course, I agree!", but that doesn't seem very interesting.
At some point in the note, I said that according to my personal view of justice, raping wives one day of the week would not be just. I thought it was a pretty safe statement! The response was:
Goodness, do you have enough NO's there? Maybe if you put a few more NO's and exclamation points you could get your point across
? Of course, I know you're not advocating raping wives one day a week, your histrionic reaction refers to the words, "personal view of justice". I have to admit, that my personal sense of justice is unique to me, that there are going to be criminal cases in which people widely disagree on whether the outcome or verdict was just. Different people can and do come up with different evaluations as to whether a judge or jury has decided a case justly. Is there any question about this?And here I thought my statement about how men should not rape their wives once a week was pretty innocuous and even non-controversial! But it seems that you are not outraged by that, you are horrified by my talking about "my personal sense of justice", as though I was creating or affecting justice somehow. I certainly did not think that I was affecting justice by having a sense of it. We can be at opposite ends of a valley and see different things. We each have our own personal view of the valley. That doesn't mean we have any affect on it! The valley doesn't change because we see it! It appears to me that you have misconstrued my simple statement to have some pretty heavy philosophical meaning.
I read this and I don't see anything in it that disagrees with what I'm saying. As I've said many times, "God is just". Of course I agree that whether we see God as just or not makes no difference to the fact that God is just.
I wrote: "That's very good, that means that for you as well as me, the sentence, "God is just" has meaning."
I don't think you understand my meaning (no pun intended) here. As I understood your description of the Calvinist position, God could be cruel, God could violate the ordinary meaning of the word "just", but He would be just because He is God. It's the idea that God can do whatever He wants with his creatures, he doesn't have to be just in the ordinary sense of the word because He made them. So God could create creatures, make them suffer for no reason, and it would be considered by the Calvinist just. Then a Calvinist would agree with us, he would say, "God is just", but his meaning of the word "God" and the word "just" would be different than ours. I would say that his use of the word "just" is incorrect.
I never said that and don't agree with it in general. Are you responding to what I write or what you are imagining I'm writing? Although it is true that there are occasions where words can mean something different, just because a group of people decide it. For example, the word "gay" changed in meaning in the 50's, when a group decided it should change, that there should be a positive word to use for homosexual men. I look at a dictionary now, and it lists the original meaning, happy and carefree, as dated and secondary.
Does this statement refer to TOL theology or something else? I do get the impression that there's an official TOL theology, although clearly different Christian members believe different things. Anyway, doing a little Googling, I see that there's a Southern Baptist professor, Jeremy Lyon, that argues for the idea. But I'm not ready to discuss such a complex idea yet. We're still having problems with the simple idea that God is just! I accept the statement that "God is just", you accept the statement that "God is just", yet you still feel there's some big problem.
I wrote: "I'm just looking at interpretations of the Bible, and assuming that the idea that God is just might be a meaningful idea and aid in the interpretation."
That wasn't my intention. My intention was, once again, very innocuous and simple, that the idea that God is just would be helpful in understanding the punishment of hell. It was not intended to imply that the idea that God is just is optional in your theology. I understand that the idea that "God is just" is an integral and essential part of your theology. You almost seem to be looking for something sinister in everything I write!
Well, I can understand quite a lot about your theology, inasmuch as I understand the English language. I can understand that God is just, for example! I learned that God is not just because He made His creatures, but because justice in inherent in Who He is. I understand that you folks believe in "eternal security", as it was called when I was a child. I learned here that there are different punishments for different offences in hell, and the biblical support for it in Luke. I learned here about the idea of there being spiritual death and physical death and that when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, they died spiritually. You may say the Bible is impossible for me to understand, but that is not my purpose here. My purpose is to learn about your theology, how you make sense of the Bible. And that seems to me to be quite possible, in fact I am making progress and very much appreciate your help.
Thanks so much,
Gary
Last edited:
As far as possibilities go, it is far more likely than not that God does torment some of His creatures for eternity.
Revelation 20:10
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
I'm not "offended" in the way you seem to be meaning it here. I don't even remember your last post so maybe just move on and stop worrying about my state of mind.
When have I ever suggested that God sends babies to Hell? I'm pretty sure I've stated the reverse - repeatedly. Anyone who would try to answer such a question would have to grant the premise and tacitly concede that God is unjust. I would never do such a thing.
No disagreement. It is my contention that your objects about Hell are predicated on an ignorance of BOTH what Hell is going to be and the severity of the "crime" (i.e. sin/evil).
Yes. It is common for people who have bought into Calvinistic doctrine to give lip service to God's justice and so I usually take it with a grain of salt, but, based on the things you've said, it does seem like you actually mean that God is actually just, except when you contradict yourself and suggest that your personal "sense of justice" has something to do with it.
You understand no such thing as I have not said one way or the other and will not do so because it is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what Hell is or isn't because the underlying premise, which you have repeatedly affirmed, is that God is just. Therefore, Hell is and will be precisely what it ought to be.
That would be a contradiction. You cannot in the same sentence say that we cannot judge God and then declare that God is just.
You understand incorrectly.
What would be interesting is for you to find a way to communicate your position so that your audience understands it.
I find it fascinating that you focus on my exclamation and not on the substance of what I said.At some point in the note, I said that according to my personal view of justice, raping wives one day of the week would not be just. I thought it was a pretty safe statement! The response was:
Goodness, do you have enough NO's there? Maybe if you put a few more NO's and exclamation points you could get your point across
If you think that justice is a matter of opinion then you're a fool and haven't any idea what justice is. There is NO SUCH THING as a just jury verdict - by definition. Anything a jury gets correct is in spite of itself and accidental. Justice by committee is a contradiction and has turned our criminal justice system into just-a-system where two separate trials with the same crime with the same judge, the same prosecutor, the same defendant, the same witnesses, the same testimony and the same evidence but with a different jury have opposite outcomes. (Yes, I'm referring to a real occurrence is a real court in America).
You aren't making any sense. The entire point is that "your personal sense of justice" has nothing to do with justice. I stated as much explicitly when I said, "I have NOTHING to do with it and neither do you!"
I respond to what you've written and make very little effort to read into what you actually write. God is either just or He is not. Your personal view either agrees that God is just or your personal view is false - period.
You contradict yourself with each new sentence! I cannot keep track of it!
You are the one talking about justice in terms of opinions and whether people agree with it or not. I didn't bring any of that up, YOU DID! And now, you want to pretend like what I said in response agrees with what you've said! You don't get to have your cake and eat it too, Gary.
Agreed.
In fact, Calvinists do this kind of thing all the time. It isn't limited to the definition of "justice". Every word that can be applied in a description of God's character is fair game. They will readily, instantly and intuitively redefine ANY word, concept or idea that conflicts with any of their foundational doctrines, which turns their doctrine into unfalsifiable nonsense.
First of all, don't make me want to vomit by ever using perverts as examples for anything in normal conversation.
Secondly, I try my best to respond to what you've actually written and not whatever it is I might suppose you mean by it. I'm not perfect. If you agree with me then fine. I won't talk you out of it.
There is no TOL theology. There are several people here that agree with a particular set of doctrines but there isn't any official doctrine of the website. On the contrary, the point of TOL is for anyone to come here and debate their doctrine, whatever it happens to be so long as it isn't blasphemous or otherwise overtly sinful.
Again, you are the one who went from acknowledging that God is really just to talking about justice in terms of personal opinions.
My point was that is isn't merely integral nor merely essential. It is both of those things but not because I like it nor because I want it to be that way nor because I've chosen to believe it nor any other similar consideration. The justice of God is a logically necessary foundational precept in any discussion about the nature of Hell. There can be no meaningful discourse on the topic if God's justice is not presupposed because if God is not just then who gives a damn what Hell is like?
In other words, if someone shows up complaining about the injustice of Hell then they are tacitly conceding that justice is a real thing, which could not be true if the Creator of the Universe was unjust. Their complaint only makes sense if God both exists and is just and they presuppose those facts by merely making the accusation that Hell is unjust. They contradict themselves by making the accusation. Therefore, their accusation is false. QED
Close. You are correct that it was called "eternal security" when you were a child but that isn't because the title of the doctrine has changed or because we call it something different but because you were raised in a Calvinist church. "Eternal security" is a very specific doctrine that has basically nothing at all to do with what I or several of the other here on TOL believe. We do not believe that one can lose their salvation this side of the Day of Redemption but for an entirely different reason than the doctrine of "Eternal Security" teaches. No need to go into the details. The point here being just that the term "eternal security" has a more specific meaning than you were aware of and that it would not be accurately applied to my doctrine.
I think I've said something to you similar to this already but depending upon how honestly and how far you pursue this line of thought, you will not only become a believer in God but you will become a Christian and not just a Christian but one that agrees, not only with me but with the several others here on TOL who hold to the only rationally consistent worldview that exists. That, by the way, refers to the big picture issues, not necessarily every detail. There's always room for deeper understanding and tweaking of details but if one's goal is to have a worldview that is rational, there is one and only one of them.
The alternative for you is to not understand the thing you claim you're attempting to understand. You'll hit a wall where certain people just cannot be made to fit into your mind because the rational and the irrational are fundamentally incompatible. If your premise is that God does not exist, there are major aspects of the Christian worldview that you simply will not be able to process. It'll just jam up the gears between your ears.
There is no such thing as an irrational truth.
Clete
Last edited:
It's been some time (not on purpose), so let's get a recap here:
You had stated that Mankind deserved to be separated from God. God obviously disagreed with you, or else he would have not made provision to remove that separation. If Mankind deserved to be separated from God, then he ought to have stayed separated from God. It is wonderful that God thought otherwise.
So since you've stated that "Jesus did not preach the gospel" that I "should be preaching today"... then there seems to be two things to draw from your statement.
The second has two options
Before going on, I find this rather important to resolve.
1) If Jesus did not preach the Gospel that SHOULD be preached today.
3) Why did the Father have Jesus preach the wrong gospel?
Until this is resolved, it would be irrelevant to address the rest of your posts.
Thanks,
Rhema
Those with any cognitive ability can make great sense of what I said. And as far as universalism goes, you are a universal condemnation-ist (but I know you learned this from Paul, not Jesus).
You had stated that Mankind deserved to be separated from God. God obviously disagreed with you, or else he would have not made provision to remove that separation. If Mankind deserved to be separated from God, then he ought to have stayed separated from God. It is wonderful that God thought otherwise.
Simple projection is not worth objection.
You had said that Mankind is deserving of death. But even the verse you quoted from Paul disagrees with you. Read it again.
One can see (if you bother to read) that Paul did not write (here) that ALL MANKIND is deserving of death. I've highlighted the part you seem to have ignored.
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,....32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
As I've said before, it's likely that you and I greatly differ on what composes the Gospel that Jesus taught (but maybe not). I find it rather bizarre, though, that when I ask Christians "What Gospel did Jesus teach?" they then quote from what Paul wrote. A bit obtuse, don't you think?
So since you've stated that "Jesus did not preach the gospel" that I "should be preaching today"... then there seems to be two things to draw from your statement.
1) YOU (today) are not preaching the Gospel that Jesus did.
2) Jesus preached the wrong Gospel.
The second has two options
a) Jesus purposefully preached a gospel that was not sufficient unto salvation.
b) Jesus didn't know what the True Gospel was.
Before going on, I find this rather important to resolve.
1) If Jesus did not preach the Gospel that SHOULD be preached today.
Why not? Should someone else be our Messiah and Teacher?
2) What do you believe was the Gospel that Jesus Himself preached?3) Why did the Father have Jesus preach the wrong gospel?
Until this is resolved, it would be irrelevant to address the rest of your posts.
Thanks,
Rhema
Hmm...
So you have supplanted the Gospel message preached by Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God with a different Gospel message? One that was preached by, and I quote... "PAUL (i.e. NOT Jesus)"? From your above statement, the only sane answer would be yes.
So then you are not a follower of Jesus, but a follower of Paul, rejecting (for some reason) the Gospel that Jesus preached??
I will readily admit that I don't understand this in light of Jesus' command:
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
(Mark 16:15 KJV)But you have told me that this is not the gospel that I should be preaching. (Anyone would think that to be very confusing.)
So am I to think that in Mark 16:15 Jesus meant a different Gospel than the one he taught the Twelve and the one he preached throughout Judea?
Yes, I do indeed readily agree that there is a problem here.
Rhema
Right Divider
Body part
@Rhema If you cannot understand that there is a difference between the gospel of the kingdom (which is what Jesus preached while on earth) and the gospel of the grace of God (which Jesus gave to Paul after His ascension), then you are in the majority of Churchianity that is lacking proper knowledge of God's plans.
Someone who has broken one law has effectively broken all of them. (James 2:10)
No?
The gospel Jesus taught was not meant for anyone but the nation of Israel and those who would become proselytes.
It's not odd if what Paul wrote explains what Jesus taught, and that it was not what Paul was teaching.
Correct.
Incorrect.
Jesus preached the correct Gospel for the people He was sent to.
False dichotomy. Neither of these are correct.
The third option, that you left out (or perhaps were not aware of), is the correct one:
c) Jesus preached a gospel that was sufficient for the people He preached it to, which is a different group than the people He sent Paul to preach to.
Because what Jesus taught was specifically for the nation of Israel.
The Body of Christ is not Israel. Period.
"Messiah and Teacher" go hand in hand with Israel, not the Body of Christ.
Note that not once does Paul refer to Christ as "the Messiah" or "the Teacher."
Note 1 Timothy 2:7...
The gospel of the Kingdom of Israel.
You know, the one He promised Abraham way back in Genesis 17?
Jesus didn't preach the wrong gospel.
Rather, He preached a DIFFERENT gospel than the one He gave to Paul.
It's now been resolved.
Rather, God put the dispensation of the gospel of the Kingdom of Israel on hold, and cut Israel off, and started working with the Gentiles, because Israel had rejected Her Messiah.
God is the one who "switched gears," so to speak.
False.
1 Corinthians 1:10-17
Because your paradigm prevents you from understanding.
Shift your paradigm.
Jesus Command in Mark 16:15 was directed SPECIFICALLY at His Twelve Apostles.
Did you ever notice that the 12 (11 at the time, since Matthias hadn't been chosen yet) never actually did what He directly commanded them to do?
Nope. He meant EXACTLY what He said.
The problem is your paradigm of beliefs.
So then it would seem that you believe that there are two gospels, yes?
Which one did Jesus mean in this verse?
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
(Mark 16:15 KJV)And why after the Resurrection would Jesus have NOT said something like, "Wait until another, whom I will appoint, comes to explain to you the Gospel of Grace that you should be preaching"?
I don't care about any "majority" nor "Churchianity." These insults are rather wasted on me. But I am interested in having a clear answer given to my above question... "Which Gospel did Jesus mean in Mark 16:15?"
Kindly,
Rhema
The same question still stands...
Which gospel did Jesus mean in this verse?
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
(Mark 16:15 KJV)(See above.)
Rhema
Right Divider
Body part
No, there are many gospels in the Bible.
The gospel of the kingdom, of course.
Because you are making up silly stories based on silly ideas.
Supra
I understand that in his early ministry, Paul was preaching exactly what Jesus had preached (and Peter in Acts 2).
Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
(Acts 13:38 KJV)That the Forgiveness of sins is preached to you through what Jesus preached. I would ask (as I think I did) what then did Jesus preach about the Forgiveness of sins?
I think one might ask it this way, "How can you forgive a debt that's been paid?"
Thanks,
Rhema
So then when you hear the word "gospel" you don't think 'the Gospel of Salvation that the Father sent his Son, Jesus the Messiah, to preach'?
What might these "many" gospels be? (And obviously such would refer to "message," not the four books.) From your posts I gather that you believe there are at least two - 1) the Gospel of the Kingdom and 2) the Gospel of Grace. Might you list the labels (titles?) of these other gospels? I've not run across this "many gospels" teaching before.
Why wouldn't Jesus teach your "Gospel of Grace" to his disciples after the resurrection then? And command that that one be preached? And if He did, why would none of the gospel books have recorded this?
Did Jesus just not know the "True" gospel? ( I have run into a church in Virginia that preaches this.)
How is a question a "silly story"? It's a question, and a rather reasonable one at that.
I think offering up the blood of a human sacrifice to the gods (okay, just one God) in order to pay for sins might be thought of as a silly idea. It certainly seems that this theme is rather prevalent in demonic religions such as the Aztecs and the Pagan Romans, is it not?
Here's another rather reasonable (i.e. not silly) question.
It seems a big waste of time for Matthew, Mark, and above all Luke, to record the teachings of Jesus IF AT THE TIME of their writing and publication, they (the teachings of Jesus) were null and void. Why would no one, Matthew, Mark, John, and especially Luke NOT clearly state that Jesus was teaching a Gospel that was no longer valid?
And Peter, right before his sermon in Acts 2, was just baptized by (in) the Holy Spirit, was he not? Why did Peter mention nothing about this "Gospel of Grace" having supplanted what you are calling the "Gospel of the Kingdom"?
And there they preached the gospel.
(Acts 14:7 KJV)Why did Luke not write "gospel of Grace" to clearly differentiate this from your "Gospel of the Kingdom"? As a matter of fact, Luke never used this phrase "Gospel of the Kingdom," nor did he ever differentiate the two.
for the law through Moses was given, the grace and the truth through Jesus Christ did come;
(John 1:17 YLT)From what I have read, the Gospel of the Kingdom of God is replete with God's Grace and Mercy to forgive.
But we are not to preach the Forgiveness of the Father? (That sounds rather backwards...)
Kind regards,
Rhema