Reevaluation
May 27th, 2009 by Mark Lefers
My posting here is going to be sporadic and maybe a lot less frequent. The last couple of weeks I was convicted (with help from my wife), that I had become obsessed with my searching. This resulted in spending less time with my wife and kids, helping less around the house, and causing additional stress. This battle with unbelief will be long. I need to pace myself and strike a balance between research and the rest of my life.
I’ve had to reevaluate my game plan. I’ve trimmed down the extra distractions and tried to focus on the more beneficial things. So what does this look like for me?
- Trimmed down on the blogs I tried to follow from ~30 to 3.
- Reduced internet research, because any hack can put something up (this blog, case in point).
- Focus more on books, where the experts describe their best arguments.
- Try not to be distracted, but stay focused on the resurrection and the reliability of the NT.
- Set aside specific amounts of time to spend with my family.
- Being willing and ready to set down the books to help out.
- Spending less time on this site.
Balancing research and life will be tough, especially because of the strong desire to resolve my unbelief. But if I’m going to make it through this battle, I’ll have to work at living with my unbelief.
Hi Mark,
I think this is a good move. I recently decided to slow things down and see what happens. Like you, I cut back on the number of blogs and podcasts. I had to just get back to living life and let this doubt thing sit in the background for awhile.
I know what you mean about a “strong desire to resolve my unbelief”. I recently went through at least a six month period where I had an urgent drive to determine if I was still a Christian or not, or if I needed to leave Evangelicalism and find some other type of Christianity. It consumed my every waking thought and negatively affected a lot of areas of my life. It was very stressful. As it went along, I could sense myself moving along the “five stages of grief”, which I believe is a common experience for those that lose their faith.
Like you, I would love to get to a point where I can clearly state what I firmly believe. But honestly, I don’t think that’s ever going to happen. I probably just need to come to peace with being an agnostic. I’m not sure if you are similar in this respect, but I know it’s not very satisfying. I don’t like it, but it’s better than pretending to believe things that just don’t ring true anymore.
Maybe just take a total break for just a week, or a month. Read a novel, watch some movies, play a video game, try a new hobby, train for a race, anything at all to engage your mind in other pursuits. A few months ago, I signed up to be a soccer coach for the first time. The main reason was to enjoy something with my second daughter, but the secondary reason was to get my mind on other things for awhile. It was a great diversion and a lot of fun. Next, I want to read a few novels.
Good luck!
- Jim
Great move Mark, nothing you do should ever distract you from the most important things in your live, which of course are your family members.
Yes, any hack can put something on the internet, but any hack can write a book too.
Jim,
Sorry to hear that we’re in the same boat wandering out at sea. I still hold out hope that one day I’ll see the lighthouse, and be able to have a firm belief in something. This doesn’t mean that I’ll have many of my questions answered. It just means that I’ll have enough to guide my boat through the dark waters and step forward in faith.
Glad to hear that you’re enjoying time with your kids. I’m a soccer coach too. It’s great watching the kids run around, however sometimes after a game my throat is sore from yelling so much.
Mike,
Yeah, unfortunately I’ve seen too many hack books too. However, I must say, books tend to be a bit more reliable. Also the professionals in the fields tend to write books over blogs.
Mark,
Good thoughts; your plan seems a healthy approach.
It’s crazy how obsessed and focused we can get trying to resolve our questions. I pretty much always have some questioning of popular Christianity going on in my head, but when I have serious, nagging doubts or uncertainty about even my own understanding, I tend to try to find the right counterargument or new perspective that will immediately take away the restlessness and anxiety. My mind can be very one-tracked, and until I find some kind of resolution my day-to-day activity is affected. So, I too am trying to learn to live with unresolved questions. Easier said than done. But we expect many years ahead of us, so I suppose we try to keep that in mind and have some perspective on the immediacy of our search. Grace to you in your journey.
Kyle
Mark,
I’ve been following your progress and I understand your reasoning for making this change. I’m curious what blogs have been on your list of 30. I follow several, but it would be interesting to see your list to evaluate if I should add any of them to my list. Thanks, Mark2
Kyle,
What questions have you struggled with in the past?
Mark,
I hesitate to list a bunch of blogs partly because I don’t endorse all of them. Many of them have post that don’t really help (put up straw man arguments, have many rants, etc.) But here they are, the ones for better or worse, have ended up in my google reader (in no particular order): Why Faith, CrossExamined Blog, Goosing the Antithesis, Apologetics 315, Truthbomb Apologetics, Thinkapologetics.com, Strawmen Cometh, The Doubting Christian, Ablogogetics, Earliest Christian History, Reason to doubt, Diary of a doubting believer, Shroud of Turin blog, Atheists and christian community, Life unraveled, A time to rend, Theological Discussions, Defined, Reasonable doubts, This week in evolution, Evolutionblog, Jesus Creed, Exchristian.net, de-conversion, debunking christianity, memoirs of an ex-christian, evangelical realism, doubting even thomas, unreasonable faith, dwindling in unbelief, On leaving fundamentalist christianity, thoughts on apologetics, markroberts, richard carrier, rationally speaking, skeptical christian. . .
But looking at my Google Reader, there are today 462 posts I haven’t even looked at yet. Mark, are there any blogs that you have come across that have been helpful?
Mark,
The concept/doctrine of Hell has been troubling to me to over the years, sometimes to the point of consuming the majority of my waking hours. The violence of God in Scripture, commanding the Hebrews to slaughter all Canaanites, has been troubling to me, but I am coming to an understanding I think I can live with in that area. I have never really doubted the historicity of Jesus life, death, and resurrection based on academic/historical counterarguments. However, I probably have never studied the best of those arguments. The adaptation of Egyptian resurrection myths, etc., has never been very convincing to me.
There was a period a few years back where I seriously doubted the truth of Christianity. I remember telling my wife that if I died the next day and found myself in the presence of Jesus I would be genuinely surprised. This lasted for about six months or so. I attribute these thoughts primarily to personal discontent. I remember reflecting on evangelism and thinking, “why would I invite anyone into the life I am living?” It surely didn’t seem like good news to me. But I stayed with God and eventually found some semblance of rest. Intellectually I knew the truth of Christianity did not depend on my personal happiness, but experientially it was difficult to accept.
Kyle,
The concept of Hell also troubles me, especially when tied with the character of God being all powerful and all knowing. If people are going to go to hell, why let them be born anyway? Or why not just let them die before the age of accountability?
In the past I used to come to grips with hell with the belief that death wasn’t the final point. I would think that after death one would actually be able to see things more clearly (see the reason for evil, actually see the supernatural, etc.) Then with additional knowledge, one could actually make a well informed decision. However, this is just wishful thinking on my part.
Evangelism was a stumbling block for me too. But my questions were more along the lines of “How can I tell other’s that Christianity is true, if I didn’t know why it was true”. There certainly didn’t seem to be much evidence for the supernatural.
Dear All,
I hope I am not stepping on anyone’s toes here (and please forgive my spelling in advance). I would like to first say that I commend the one who even created a site called “Christian Doubt”. It is refreshing to know that someone would be humble enough to voice their doubts in there belief, rather than wear the “cloak of Christianity” without question. I can say, with experience, to anyone who feels such doubts “Do NOT be ashamed”. There are a plethora of denominations within Christianity itself. It would be hard-pressed to find the one with true teaching. I have dabbled with many denominations, only because I had found a hint of truth in each one. I most likely had the same questions you all have had.
Why would a loving Father allow people, albeit most of humanity, to go to hell?
If God is All-Sovereign and All-Knowing, how can I have a “free will” then?
Did this same Perfect God create a Perfect Creation, then it “malfunctioned”?
Did His “plan A” failed, therefore He had to come up with a “plan B”?
Scriptures say that there are those that are “predestined” to be chosen, so are the “rest” predestined for hell?
And many MANY more.
From where I sit now, I don’t blame anyone for doubting their faith or leaving a church. I saw so many contradicting things in the scriptures, that I was about to just give up myself. Then I made a startling discovery. I thought to myself “If the bible is indeed TRUE and “I” see contradictions, then “I” must be understanding these scriptures the “wrong” way, so maybe they don‘t mean what I think they mean. In short, I found that “I” am a “carnal” being, therefore I would think “carnally” with a carnal mind. Scriptures tell us the contrast between the “carnal” mind and the “mind of God”.
Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity (GK: hatred, OPPOSITION, hostility) against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
If I am thinking with an “opposing” mind with the above questions, then maybe what I BELIEVE is wrong. Maybe the answers are:
There is no hell (or at least not Christendom’s definition of it).
Maybe I don’t have a “free will”, which puts God in total control of all things.
Maybe, what ever is happening in this world IS the plan of God (his original plan).
If He is God then, his plan is perfect and cannot fail.
If God “predestined” a person, despite of the persons choices in life, and if there is no Christian hell, then maybe ALL will be with God eventually.
So I studied THOSE THINGS instead of what most, if not all, of Christendom believes in (NO eternal hell, NO free will, Nobody in hell FOREVER, etc). To study these things would blow your mind. And believe it or not, these truths ARE in the bible. Just NOT in most of our English translations. At first I felt like a fool to have believed in such things in the first place. The scriptures state that “I must become a fool to be wise”.
In my opinion, you and others are in this rut, because God planned it that way. You doubt because God plans for you to doubt. I am convinced it is part of your growth TOWARDS God, not away from Him. Jesus states that “those with ears, let them hear”. So you must ask yourselves as I have, “Am I listening and reasoning carnally?” or “Am I understanding this the right way?”. The OLD creature has an OLD mind. The NEW creature thinks with a NEW mind. They do NOT think alike. Most of what I learned, on my journey of these truths, I thoroughly despised at first. I hope I made a little sense in what I have written. So for now, May God Bless you all and again don’t be ashamed.
Joe
Joe,
But how can one ever know what one believes is true or not? This fitting ones view points to fit ones feelings often times feels cultish. If one doesn’t like something, one looks for a verse to support ones view point. This is one of the reason for the many denominations. So Joe, how do you know what you now believe is true?
Mark Lefers,
Your concern is genuine, and your question is all encompassing and straight forward. I have found, with my growth in God and the scriptures, that He is, and always will be, passed finding out. We, as in humanity, are driven by a mind that beckons “proof” of truth, which I cannot blame one soul for doing. But once we find proof, by default, there is no more “faith”. Hope comes first, then “faith” follows. Faith has to do with “trust”.
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Rom 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
Rom 8:25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
Faith WITH proof is NOT faith at all. To put this in a “carnal” mindset, let me give an example. I love my wife very much. She “tells” me that she “knows” that I lover her. The only way she can “know” this is to “trust” that I do. On the other hand, there would be absolutely NO WAY that I can prove to YOU that I love my wife. You would have to “trust” that I love her, or have “faith” that I love her, or “trustingly” take my word for it. I can write things down for you, I can act a certain way towards her, but in that end the only “proof” you have that I actually love my wife would be to “trust” that I do. One cannot measure another person’s love, for it is out of the heart in which it flows. It is interesting that Jesus stated:
Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
“Little children” (Gk: infant, small boy/girl). Why children? What do they have that we don’t? I assume you have children. As an infant, did he/she ever ask for “proof” that a meal would pass its lips in a few hours? No. They just “knew” it would. You and your wife were at his/her beckon call. This “providing” is something that you do for your child, but for them they “know”, it just comes, and they have no worries. It is when we get older with more responsibilities, is when we start loosing, progressively, this kind of faith with our Father in Heaven.
So to ask for “proof” of God existence is a carnal thing to do. And I blame no one for asking. The only answer I can give to someone is “There is NO proof of God or any god”. If there were rock hard proof in your God, you would have NO more faith in Him. There is Faith, Hope and Love. But when we are with Him there will be NO more Faith and NO more Hope, because Faith has brought us to where we had Hoped to be, and Love will remain.
On “This fitting ones view points to fit ones feelings often times feels cultish.” This is what Christendom has been doing for the last 2000 yrs, and you are correct, it is “cultish”. EVERY denomination has bites of truth in it, but you will never find ALL truth in one denomination. If the scriptures say that God is “passed finding out”, then it is trustworthy to know that we will NEVER find all truth in this life. I for one call myself a Christain, but I doubt if ANY Christian would call me one, because of what I believe. You asked me a question “So Joe, how do you know what you now believe is true?” The answer would have to be, based upon what I have stated thus far, that I have “faith” that it is. What was once a contradiction in scriptures, is NOT now. The hell that I used to believe in was an “idol of the heart” that is NOT in the scriptures. No body is going to go to a place of “Torment forever”. ALL are going to be with God at the consummation. God is “all Sovereign”, so man does NOT have a free will. Now if you want “proof” of these things with in scriptures, I would gladly show you.
I have read some of the comments on this site about NOT telling someone the “Good News” of Christianity, because it doesn’t sound like “Good News” at all. I for one don’t blame them one bit, heck I adore them, even you for saying it. I am convinced that most, if not ALL, of Christendom has been LIED to. Most of the doctrines within Christendom are man made and do not exist in the scriptures, and again I can show you if you wish (examples are: Eternal Hell, Eternal Annihilation, Some saved but MOST lost, Free will, Trinity, Blood Doctrine, Lucifer is Satan, Satan fell, Fall of Man, Water Baptism saves, Tithing, and many more…).
Have you ever tried to figure something out, and it just doesn’t make sense until you find out ONE thing and everything else falls perfectly into place like a puzzle. Well that’s what happened to me. And it held more “proof” then I ever realized. It showed me a Perfect Loving God, that I had NEVER known before. I will tell you though, it was a struggle, a fight between the “mind of the spirit” and the “carnal mind”, to give up (above list) all that I was taught. At first I hated knowing this truth, I loathed it, it disgusted me. And “Lo and Behold” the scriptures said I would. Many, many questions arose, but the answers were simply blissful.
Mr. Lefers, you have obviously found things to be hard to swallow from a so called “loving God”. You have most likely found that He can be unfair in some things. You have found that if “you” don’t do certain things, then you will not be saved. Then you read that to know God is to be “free”, but you don’t feel free at all. I can tell you get hurt, scared, and sad about certain things. All I can tell you is I’ve been there and I know where you are coming from. Now I will tell you that you have NOTHING to worry about. You WILL be saved with EVERYBODY else. You are His child and he is raising you for your learning, just like you would raise your own children. He is your Father, He will provide for your needs, He will comfort you, He will spank (or correct) you, He will teach you, and He will ALWAYS love you in all these things. You seem, in some respects and I cannot blame you, that you want to be “De-Christianized”. Well, you DO. The list that I gave you above alone probably makes you think I am a false teacher or maybe a fool. I don’t blame you if you do, I thought the same thing. If you want to look up things that I believe in just search “Christian Universalism”. You have nothing to lose, especially when you are in doubt. Or I can answer any questions you like about the subject. I am not here to fight with anyone or start arguments. I have come to terms that most Christians would not like what I have to say. I am usually labeled a liar, false teacher, cult, Satan, fool, etc. by those who are closed minded to the truth. You on the other hand seem open minded. This site seems to be a very caring, fair, and humble site, everybody seems very kind and I hope it stays that way. I wish you well this evening and God bless.
Joe,
Thanks for the input. I must question your statements in several places – please take my words as good-natured and intended for exploring truth. (Quotes from Joe in italics below)
In my opinion, you and others are in this rut, because God planned it that way. You doubt because God plans for you to doubt. I am convinced it is part of your growth TOWARDS God, not away from Him. Jesus states that “those with ears, let them hear”. So you must ask yourselves as I have, “Am I listening and reasoning carnally?” or “Am I understanding this the right way?”.
If God’s plan is for us to doubt, and we doubt because we do not listen or understand in the right way, then do we have a choice on how we listen and understand? Wouldn’t God be the one who causes us to listen and reason “carnally?”
I have found, with my growth in God and the scriptures, that He is, and always will be, passed finding out. We, as in humanity, are driven by a mind that beckons “proof” of truth, which I cannot blame one soul for doing. But once we find proof, by default, there is no more “faith”.
NO!! It is true that there cannot be 100% proof in these matters, but faith does NOT mean trusting in the face of a complete lack of evidence. Evidence does not preclude faith.
Hope comes first, then “faith” follows. Faith has to do with “trust”.
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Rom 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
Rom 8:25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
Faith WITH proof is NOT faith at all.
That is not what these passages mean. The Hebrews passage is talking about faith that God will fulfill his promises. Each of these “cloud of witness” people experienced God directly and had evidence of his existence. The “things not seen,” that which they had not yet received, was the completion of God’s designs and fulfillment of his promises to them. The Romans passage is talking about hope in the midst of suffering and persecution – not faith without proof. We must insist upon reading Scripture in context.
To put this in a “carnal” mindset, let me give an example. I love my wife very much. She “tells” me that she “knows” that I lover her. The only way she can “know” this is to “trust” that I do. On the other hand, there would be absolutely NO WAY that I can prove to YOU that I love my wife.
But we would have evidence that you love your wife by how we observe you treating her. If we had never met you or your wife, but rather your cousin’s neighbor’s friend’s grand-daughter told us stories about how you love your wife, then it would be entirely different to say that we should believe that you love your wife.
It is interesting that Jesus stated:
Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
“Little children” (Gk: infant, small boy/girl). Why children? What do they have that we don’t? I assume you have children. As an infant, did he/she ever ask for “proof” that a meal would pass its lips in a few hours? No. They just “knew” it would. You and your wife were at his/her beckon call. This “providing” is something that you do for your child, but for them they “know”, it just comes, and they have no worries. It is when we get older with more responsibilities, is when we start loosing, progressively, this kind of faith with our Father in Heaven.
So to ask for “proof” of God existence is a carnal thing to do.
Yes, children trust that they will be taken care of if they are in a loving home that consistently provides for them. This is evidence that their parents are there and that they care and can be trusted (“faithed”, Gk: pisteo). But children who are abandoned, orphaned, left on the street have no such faith.
And I blame no one for asking. The only answer I can give to someone is “There is NO proof of God or any god”. If there were rock hard proof in your God, you would have NO more faith in Him.
It is not about “rock hard proof” but about weighing the evidence. It is not completely an intellectual issue, but this component cannot be dismissed. And again, this is not what faith means. Faith is better translated “trust” (which you point out), in the sense of trusting your life to someone. This does not require mystery and uncertainty about their existence. In fact, Christianity has always claimed that God has gone to great lengths to make himself known, particularly by becoming incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ. He is also said to pursue us and make himself known to us through the Holy Spirit.
You asked me a question “So Joe, how do you know what you now believe is true?” The answer would have to be, based upon what I have stated thus far, that I have “faith” that it is. What was once a contradiction in scriptures, is NOT now. The hell that I used to believe in was an “idol of the heart” that is NOT in the scriptures. No body is going to go to a place of “Torment forever”. ALL are going to be with God at the consummation. God is “all Sovereign”, so man does NOT have a free will. Now if you want “proof” of these things with in scriptures, I would gladly show you.
(Remember, this is good-natured) So you found, by looking at the evidence, that your new interpretation of Scripture was the correct one. You seem to have a lot of confidence in the evidence supporting your conclusions in spite of your “faith without proof” approach
I am not here to fight with anyone or start arguments. I have come to terms that most Christians would not like what I have to say. I am usually labeled a liar, false teacher, cult, Satan, fool, etc. by those who are closed minded to the truth.
Such labels are unfortunate and will not be used here. And I also do not seek to fight or argue. But dialogue and disagreement are part of the search for truth. I hope that we can keep in mind that critique and questioning a person’s ideas are not the same as questioning the person’s character or intentions. We need well-intentioned dialogue in the search for truth. Thanks for your input, Joe.
Joe, I had some thoughts about your other comments, but they did not seem to be your central point, so I separated them out from my first response:
There are a plethora of denominations within Christianity itself. It would be hard-pressed to find the one with true teaching…
The primary question here has become whether God acted decisively in history through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, as opposed to trying to identify a complete system of absolute truth.
Why would a loving Father allow people, albeit most of humanity, to go to hell?
Why would God allow people to reject him and separate themselves from him? That isn’t too hard to grasp if we accept that God does not force anyone to love and accept him. Love that is coerced is not love. It may be that God believes the possibility of rejection to be worth the risk in order to allow the possibility of freely chosen love and acceptance (grace-enabled choice, but choice nonetheless). But why would he need to physically torture them for eternity? That is inconceivable. But even if we view hell as eternal separation without the fire and brimstone and all that, why base it all on a decision made in this short lifespan?
If God is All-Sovereign and All-Knowing, how can I have a “free will” then?
This is a tension that theologians have wrestled with for ages. My view is that all-sovereign and all-knowing are not biblical terms but rather Greek philosophical ideals superimposed upon Christian thought. I tend toward the open theist view which rejects these descriptions of God.
Did this same Perfect God create a Perfect Creation, then it “malfunctioned”?
Nowhere does the Bible speak of a “perfect creation.” Creation is a realm where free moral choices can be made. With this comes the possibility of “malfunction.”
Did His “plan A” failed, therefore He had to come up with a “plan B”?
His “plan A” always allowed for the possibility of this “failure.” Plan B is not separate from plan A.
Scriptures say that there are those that are “predestined” to be chosen, so are the “rest” predestined for hell?
I agree this is a troubling aspect of Calvinist/Reformed theology. However, this dilemma is not present in Wesleyan or even Barthian theology.
I saw so many contradicting things in the scriptures, that I was about to just give up myself. Then I made a startling discovery. I thought to myself “If the bible is indeed TRUE and “I” see contradictions, then “I” must be understanding these scriptures the “wrong” way, so maybe they don‘t mean what I think they mean. In short, I found that “I” am a “carnal” being, therefore I would think “carnally” with a carnal mind. Scriptures tell us the contrast between the “carnal” mind and the “mind of God”.
Or perhaps there are truly contradictions in Scripture yet it is still TRUE. We tend to project our modern categories of truth upon scripture rather than allowing it to speak in its original context and worldview.
If I am thinking with an “opposing” mind with the above questions, then maybe what I BELIEVE is wrong. Maybe the answers are:
There is no hell (or at least not Christendom’s definition of it).
Maybe I don’t have a “free will”, which puts God in total control of all things.
Maybe, what ever is happening in this world IS the plan of God (his original plan).
If He is God then, his plan is perfect and cannot fail.
If God “predestined” a person, despite of the persons choices in life, and if there is no Christian hell, then maybe ALL will be with God eventually.
So I studied THOSE THINGS instead of what most, if not all, of Christendom believes in (NO eternal hell, NO free will, Nobody in hell FOREVER, etc). To study these things would blow your mind. And believe it or not, these truths ARE in the bible. Just NOT in most of our English translations.
Your 2nd, 3rd, and 4th statements are pretty typical Calvinist fare, so they are actually consistent with a large part of “Christendom.” I would disagree with these however. You would need to give support to your first and last claims about hell. Calvin came to this point with his doctrine of predestination: since those predestined cannot reject/resist God’s work of salvation, either everyone is saved because Christ died for all or only the elect are saved because Christ died only for the elect (limited atonement). He opted for the latter. I think Scripture makes it clear that Christ died for all, but to go from this to universalism can only be done by ignoring other texts.
Depending on what you mean by “no hell as Christendom defines it,” we may be in agreement on that one.
I am convinced that most, if not ALL, of Christendom has been LIED to.
Even where Christians have been completely wrong I would rarely categorize it as lying.
Most of the doctrines within Christendom are man made and do not exist in the scriptures, and again I can show you if you wish (examples are: Eternal Hell, Eternal Annihilation, Some saved but MOST lost, Free will, Trinity, Blood Doctrine, Lucifer is Satan, Satan fell, Fall of Man, Water Baptism saves, Tithing, and many more…).
Some of these are far from universally recognized Christian doctrines. Some I would readily dismiss, others are not so easily discarded.
If you want to look up things that I believe in just search “Christian Universalism”.
Fact: there are universal salvation texts in scripture. Fact 2: there are final separation and judgment texts in scripture. There is a tension. It would be easy to ignore fact 2 and take the universal salvation position, because it is easier to reconcile with what we want to be true. But it ignores fact 2. I would recommend Neal Punt’s What’s good about the good news?: the plan of salvation in a new light as a starting point for understanding this tension. I would like to be a universalist, and I do hope that God will end up saving everyone, but Scripture does not allow me to claim that I know this will be the case. (Incidentally, I do completely reject the idea of a fiery hell that exists to physically torture sinners for eternity.)
Kyle,
Thanks for the well written comments. In reading your comments, I would definitely lean more toward your views on things verses universalism.
Kyle,
I will explain my view of your reply as best I can.
You said: If God’s plan is for us to doubt, and we doubt because we do not listen or understand in the right way, then do we have a choice on how we listen and understand? Wouldn’t God be the one who causes us to listen and reason “carnally?”
The answer to your first question, I would have to say “ultimately“ NO, based upon scripture anyways. Man does have a “choice” and a “will”, but it is NOT outside of God’s manipulation. Therefore, man’s will or choice is not “free”. It is impossible to make an “uncaused” choice. He controls, manipulates, guides, etc., all things unto His will.
Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
This is a hard thing to grasp given that we have, for the most part, been taught that we have a “free will”. But the concept is not in the scriptures. A similar situation is in the bible, as pertaining to your question. It pertains to Israel being blinded.
Rom 11:8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. (see also Isa 29:10; Deu 29:4)
Given this passage, it cannot be denied that God has done this. It is interesting that Christ, contrary to some Christendom beliefs, spoke in parables so as to HIDE truth from the hearers. And when his “chosen” (not choosing) disciples asked why he spoke in parables? He says:
Mat 13:11 ……..Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them (the multitudes) it is NOT given.
For when he interpreted the parables to his disciples, it sounded TOTALLY different in each case than the words he spoke to the multitudes. Therefore, he always states…“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” If they do not hear (understand), then it was NOT GIVEN to them to hear (understand). I can write much on the subject of “free will”, but I will try to keep it short. One could read the following scriptures and see if human “free will” is in it. It simply is not.
The story of Joseph’s dreams and his brothers. In the end, all the evil “choices” that were made by his brothers were meant for good (Gen 50:20 ). EVERYTHING (choice, plague, deception, etc.,) that happened from the “giving” of the dream to this very verse, was guided by God to put Joseph where he is and “bring to pass …to save much people alive”.
God used Pharaoh for a purpose so “that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.” (Rom 9:17). And to do this God (not the Pharaoh himself) hardened his heart. (Exo 7:3, 9:12, 14:4, 14:17, 7:13-14, 7:22, 9:12, 9:35, 10:1, 10:20, 10:27, 11:10, 14:8). And BEFORE Moses even does the miracles before Pharaoh, God tells him, beforehand, that he will harden the Pharaoh’s heart (Exo 4:21). And at the end of it all, God even claims that he will harden the heart of ALL OF THE EGYPTIANS to follow after the Israelites (Exo 14:17)? God takes total credit for doing this (Psa 105:25) He does ALL this by the council of HIS own will, to bring it about, NOT the will of others. He also hardened the Canaanites (Joshua 11:20). He also hardens his own people (Isa 63:17). The next story is a doozy, for it shows a man being nothing more then a PUPPET in Gods hand.
The story is of the King of Assyria. First, the king of Assyria doesn’t even know, much less believe in God, but nonetheless, God states that He will USE him. And notice how the King wont even know its coming, “Howbeit HE means not so, neither does HIS heart [his ‘obscured’ heart—Ecc. 3:11] think so;” (Isaiah 10:5-8) Then God states HOW He is going to use him to “perform His whole work [by using the Assyrian king] upon Zion and on Jerusalem” and then punish him for it (Isa 10:10-12). But as for the king, he thinks he accomplishes all these thing of his own free will (I, I, my, my) and doings (Isa 10:13-14). Then God proceeds to tell us what the Assyrian (for that matter, ANYONE) actually IS, compared to God Himself. Shall the ax [king of Assyria] boast itself [ I, Me, My] against him that hews therewith [God]? Or shall the saw [king of Assyria] magnify itself against Him that saws with it [God] as if the rod [king of Assyria] should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff [king of Assyria] should lift up itself, as if it were no wood? (Isa 10:15)
I just don’t see any “free will” in any of these. I can go on an on about the manipulating, guiding, and “bringing to pass” of God’s totally control of ALL things. There is Peter, himself, saying that he will “never be offended”, but the scripture FORETELLS that he “will be offended”. Or Pilate claiming of “his own” power, but Jesus telling him that it was “given from above”. Or how “God moved David” to number the people (2 Samuel 24:1) and used Satan to do it (1 Chronicles 21:1). Or that it was God who caused Sampson to do a unlawful thing and take a Philistine wife (Jdg 14:4) Or ultimately how God moved the hearts of EVERYONE to go against his Son (Act 4:27-28).
I don’t know what else to say, but that “free will” is not in the scriptures. So in light of scripture, the answer to your question is: Yes you have a choice, BUT you will choose what God directs you to choose. Thereby your choice not being “free”. So in answer to your second question. If He wants you to think carnally, you will. Also, if spiritually, you will. God causes everything, right down to the very evil happenings in the world.
You said: NO!! It is true that there cannot be 100% proof in these matters, but faith does NOT mean trusting in the face of a complete lack of evidence. Evidence does not preclude faith.
It is true as you say “Evidence does not preclude faith”, but more to my point that I was trying to make was that “ALL possible evidence (or 100% as you say), or rather its Completion, DOES preclude faith”. That is if “faith” is understood as a trust, belief, or confidence in something that has a lack of or insufficient amount of proof. The point I am trying to make is the moving from a “faith” to a “absolute seeing, touching, etc.” of something that they “before” had faith in. This is why I quoted Heb 11:1, Rom 8:24-25. I did not intend for these verses to be the very definition for my statement of “Faith WITH proof is NOT faith at all.“, but rather show the definition of Faith and Hope. For the former verse gives us the very biblical definition of Faith. Faith = the substance (assurance) of things (promises) that are hoped for (expected). Your reply to me , if I may add some words to it, explains what I mean very well when you say:
“The Hebrews passage is talking about faith (assurance) that God WILL fulfill his promises (that they hoped for).”
But, WHEN the promises are fulfilled, then they will have no need to “hope” for it (Rom 8:24-25). Thereby they will have no more faith in the promise that is HERE now. This is not to say that they will not have maybe “another faith” in maybe “another promise”, but no longer in the one that is now fulfilled. Maybe I should have used a stronger word than “proof” in my statement. Maybe rather Completion, Fulfillment, or Consummation?
On my example of me loving my wife, you state:
But we would have evidence that you love your wife by how we observe you treating her.
Once again, your statement would not constitute “absolute (Complete, Fulfilled, etc.) proof” that I love my wife, would it? I mean, you would still have to “trust” or have “faith” in what you are observing would you not? In turn, if you could literally “read my mind”, you would have NO use for trusting or having “faith” that I do.
You said: Yes, children trust that they will be taken care of if they are in a loving home that consistently provides for them. This is evidence that their parents are there and that they care and can be trusted (“faithed”, Gk: pisteo). But children who are abandoned, orphaned, left on the street have no such faith.
This again was just an example. I was going on faith that Mr. Lefers, actually loved and “fed” his child. An “abandoned“ child will ultimately end up “abandoning“ its faith. We are talking about a child WITH faith here as opposed to a grown man with faith. The “worries or doubt” of a “faithful man” are overshadowed by his “standing” in faith, because he has eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, whereby the worries and doubts presents themselves. The “young infant or small boy/girl” has not eaten of this tree as of yet (Deu 1:39). Therefore, he/she have no worries or doubt. Their faith is, in a way, taken for granted by them, because they are not “weighing evidence“ as of yet. The things (or a meal in the example) just come to the child without it being tainted with worries or doubts. In the example, I was explaining the child’s faith in the meal, NOT the parents (much like Jesus talking of taking care of the sparrow). A hungry child, for the most part, would likely careless who is feeding it. Funny story: My son moved out on his own. He was complaining about having to buy toilet paper. To this I said to him “What! Did you think it just grew on the roll?”. He just laughed and said “I had never thought of buying it, I just took it for granted that it was always there before”.
You said: It is not about “rock hard proof” but about weighing the evidence. It is not completely an intellectual issue, but this component cannot be dismissed. And again, this is not what faith means. Faith is better translated “trust” (which you point out), in the sense of trusting your life to someone. This does not require mystery and uncertainty about their existence.
Again, here I am talking of the “rock hard proof” OF God (again maybe I should have chosen a stronger word) when it comes to its Completion, Fulfillment, Consummation etc. (or 100% as you say), which is contrasting your “about weighing the evidence” while IN faith. Maybe I am misunderstanding you again. For I am talking here of Faith IN Gods existence, and you seem to be talking about trusting (or ‘faithing’ if you wish) your life to someone (or God if you wish) that you ALREADY believe in. The whole of my post was, more or less, centered around these comments by Mr. Lefers:
In the past I used to come to grips with hell with the belief that death wasn’t the final point. I would think that after death one would actually be able to see things more clearly (see the reason for evil, actually see the supernatural, etc.) Then with additional knowledge, one could actually make a well informed decision. However, this is just wishful thinking on my part.
Evangelism was a stumbling block for me too. But my questions were more along the lines of “How can I tell other’s that Christianity is true, if I didn’t know why it was true”. There certainly didn’t seem to be much evidence for the supernatural.
Then later he asked me:
But how can one ever know what one believes is true or not? ……So Joe, how do you know what you now believe is true?
In my posting I was hoping to convey the following answers.
No. Death is not the final point.
Yes. In a nutshell, after death he will see things more clearly, because he will be with God (at the Completion, Fulfillment) .
Yes. With additional knowledge (or evidence, proof, “rock hard proof”, Fulfillment, Completion, 100%, or what ever we are trying to get across in our post here) he will be able to make a well informed decision.
Yes. It is Wishful thinking (Hope?), but he is finding hard to hold any more faith in it.
(Mark, please tell me if I am thinking of this the wrong way).Then he is left with his doubts again. And I am assuming that it has to do with the “evidence he is weighing” (whether it be hell doctrine, free will, trinity, evil, etc., and the contradictions that he may be finding either in the doctrines themselves or in scriptures….I don’t know) that is causing this doubt, which is what leads him to say things such as:
The concept of Hell also troubles me, especially when tied with the character of God being all powerful and all knowing. If people are going to go to hell, why let them be born anyway? Or why not just let them die before the age of accountability? AND
“There certainly didn’t seem to be much evidence for the supernatural.”.
The “evidence” of HIS “concept of Hell” is what he is “weighing”. MY “concept of Hell” is TOTALLY different then his, because I am “weighing evidence” that is TOTALLY different then his. I don’t know, by his use of the word “supernatural”, if he is talking of the “existence of the God” that he was taught of in general or just taking an atheistic view in the matter.
I was just trying to answer his questions the best I can, knowing his situation. I am assuming he, and for that matter you, used to believe (have faith) in God, or a doctrine that had evidence, but now has been shot down buy new evidences found. This would be a gradual falling from a “faith”, but whose to say that loosing faith is BAD? I’m not saying it is. What I am saying is that the Faith I have now is different and has stronger evidence (for me anyways) than the Faith I used to believe, which is most likely along the same lines as he and you still or used to believe. This again is only an assumption given the comments on hell and free will on this site. The Israelites had much more evidence and experiences of God than anyone nowadays (miracles, pillars of smoke or fire, amazing deliverances, clothes and sandels 40 yrs in the desert, sun standing still, etc.), and look at how they turned out. Only a “certain” of every generation was “chosen” by God (they did not choose Him) and were “given” dreams, visions, powers, etc. And most importantly He gave them faith (a different faith that the Israelites had). Yes, God gives faith, we don’t search and find it. If God chooses for one to have the faith of Abraham, David, Joseph, etc., then he will have it. So what of “my” faith that I am now professing? Is it this “special faith”? Heck I don’t know. All I know how to do is “weigh the evidence” as you all are doing. All I know from reading scriptures is that if I have the “right” faith, then it is OF God for me to have it. On the other hand, if I have the “wrong” faith, it is STILL OF God that I have it. But either way, I will still be IN faith, because what ever promises that have “yet to be fulfilled” are not fulfilled YET.
Kyle,
In response to your second post. The questions that I had asked have elicited a response that has given me some of the “evidence” that you, or others here, weigh. Please keep in mind that I am not saying you believe nor disbelieve in the evidences I will be bringing up. I’m just stating the evidences brought up by your responses. For example, with the question I asked about God allowing people to go to hell, you respond:
Why would God allow people to reject him and separate themselves from him? That isn’t too hard to grasp if we accept that God does not force anyone to love and accept him.
Love that is coerced is not love. It may be that God believes the possibility of rejection to be worth the risk in order to allow the possibility of freely chosen love and acceptance (grace-enabled choice, but choice nonetheless).
The following are the evidences and faith (or belief) that I perceive in this response:
On the “Concept of God allowing people to go to Hell”.
The BELIEF: “grasping” that God WILL “allow people to reject him and separate themselves from him”
The EVIDENCE for this belief: the acceptance that “God does not force anyone to love and accept him.”, based upon what has been taught.
What was TAUGHT: “Love that is coerced is not love.”
Thereby the FORMULA being: What was TAUGHT is taken as FACT, which becomes EVIDENCE of what is BELIEVED.
But then your comment holds “added” things (It may be, grace-enabled choice) that add “doubt” to the excepted FACT that “Love that is coerced is not love.”.
So, what needs to be questioned is the FACT. Does God coerce people? If grace is OF God, then the choice is guided by the “grace that was given”, thereby making it a “caused choice”, NOT a “free” or “UN-caused” one. So, do the scriptures show a “different EVIDENCE” that God coerces (force, cause if you will) people??? The answer, YES IT DOES! These, by far, are not all the scriptures pertaining to this.
God blinds to the truth (Rom. 11:7,8, John 12:39,40) God moves (2 Pet 1:21) God works in you to do his good pleasure (2 Pet 1:21, Joh 5:19) God causes (Gk: makes) you follow Him (Eze 36:27, Eph. 2:8-10) God turns the heart to hate or love (Psa 105:25, Pro 21:1) God directs mans steps (Jer 10:23, Proverbs 16:9) God prepairs man‘s heart and what he says(Prov. 16:1) God changes man, man does not change himself (Jer 13:23) God makes one to be wicked (Pro 16:4) God causes one to be deceived (Eze 14:9, 2Th 2:11, II Chron. 18:21-22) Gods goodness causes repentance (2Ti 2:25, Rom 2:4) God made us subject to vanity (Romans 8:20) God drags people to him (Joh 6:44, Joh 12:32).
God either DOES these things or he DOESN’T. To say that He “doesn’t”, one would have to NOT believe these scriptures. People have stated that this means we are “robots”. Truth is we are NOT as sophisticated as a robot. We are CLAY, DIRT, and POTS in the hands of the POTTER Himself. He does whatever He wants. If He makes a vessel of “honor” then it has a purpose. If a vessel of “dishonor”, then it STILL has a purpose. What molds one to believe against these truths is the beliefs in (1) man’s “free will” and (2) Hell as an eternal torture/annihilation for the damned. If we can “grasp”, as you say, the concept that what has been TAUGHT is INCORRECT, in light of “new EVIDENCE“, then the BELIEFS change also. This is not to say that the “illusion” or “idol” of free will/hell does not have its purposes in God’s plan. This brings us to your next comment.
You said: But why would he need to physically torture them for eternity? That is inconceivable. But even if we view hell as eternal separation without the fire and brimstone and all that, why base it all on a decision made in this short lifespan?
The BELIEF: that God will “physically torture … for eternity”
The EVIDENCE: that there is a “torture” in hell for “eternity”, based upon what has been taught.
What has been TAUGHT: the concept of an “eternal hell of torturing”
And logically, you question (Why?…That is inconceivable) this belief. And rightfully so, because the the FORMULA makes no sense to you when you think of mere man. Again we must question what has been taught as FACT. Is there a such EVIDENCE of “eternal hell of torturing” in the bible?
This can be broken up into three parts. The concept of “hell”, the concept of “torturing”, and the concept of “eternity”.
HELL
The word hell is used to translate four words in the bible (this is based on KJV). The Hebrew word “sheol” and the Greek words “hades, Gehenna, and tartaroo”. So when the word “hell” is read, it means 4 different concepts. Tartaroo is only once used in scriptures and it has to do with angels and not man. Gehenna is a Proper name and should never had been translated in the first place. It is the name of an actual “place” outside of Jerusalem where they burned garbage, dung, and carcasses of animals and men. Hades is literally translated “unseen” or “unperceived”, and is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word “sheol” which can literally mean “THE ASK, as in asked where”, which fits nicely with the “unseen”. The LXX translators used the Gk hades to translate the Hebrew sheol. In turn, the translators of the KJV translated both “sheol” and “hades” with the Mid English/Anglo-Saxon word “hell”. Well what did the word “hell” mean to them at there time? Here is the definition of the word used in everyday life in the 1600’s.
Webster’s Twentieth Century Dictionary: “hell, n. [ME, helle; AS, hell, hell, from helan, to cover, conceal.]”
At that time, one could claim to be “helling a roof” (covering a roof) or have “helled potatoes” (covered them) or “helled bodies“ (buried/concealed them). Now these are close meanings in all three “Heb: where?, Gk: unseen, and OE: concealed/covered. Not the best translations, but enough to grasp the point being presented. And all can be construed as a “realm” or “abode” of the dead. Well the question is then “where is the Fire, Brimstone, Suffering, etc.?”. Here it is in a 21st Century dictionary.
The American Heritage Collegiate Dictionary: “The abode of condemned souls and devils…the place of eternal punishment for the wicked after death, presided over by Satan…a state of separation from God…a place of evil, misery, discord, or destruction …torment, anguish.”
Where did it change then? The 21st century use traces back to the Greek God Hades (Ruler of the hades, or ruler of the Unseen, or Underworld that the living cannot Perceive). These two “totally different” meanings can mold ones “concept of Hell”, and can, as you say, stem from “Greek philosophical ideals superimposed upon Christian thought”. It is interesting to note that when reading the OT, we find that EVERYBODY who dies goes there, whether good or bad. I don’t believe that Jacob went to a Christianized Hell of torments (Gen 37:35, Gen 42:38, Gen 44:29). It is funny that when the context of the scripts are talking of “bad” people, the translators translated it “hell”, but when “good” people are in view it is translated “grave”. Both are the same Hebrew word “sheol”. Furthermore, in the NT the Greek word “hades” shows up 11 times. In every instance it is translated “hell” in the KJV, except once. For there it is translated “grave”. (1Co 15:55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?). It is simply the “unseen”, and there is no torturing, suffering, fire, or brimstone there. There is simply “A NOTHING” there, if one can imagine such a thing.
Ecc 9:10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave (Heb: sheol), whither thou goest.
We do not THINK, PLAN, LEARN, or GAIN in “sheol”. It is there that we stay until resurrected. Which beckons the explanation of another Christendom concept of “the Triune man” and man‘s “immortal soul“. God himself created man and the formula (Gen 2:7) was simply Dirt (body) + My Breath of Life (spirit) = a living soul (Adam). To take away either would be to take away the equal sign [=] and leave the Breath of Life and the Body “uncombined”. The formula is not 2 things added together = 3 (triune) man, but rather 2 things added together= 1 man. But this is getting off base here. The point is that that “traditionally TAUGHT” concept of hell does not exist in scriptures. I can post much on the concept of hell, but you get the just of the “EVIDENCE” that I weigh for my BELIEF.
TORTURE
I can write equally as much on the word torture, but I will only comment on its connect with “hell”. This concept is believed, for the most part, because of that which is said on the “Lake of Fire” in the scriptures. A few scriptures will show that the “lake of fire” and “hell” are NOT one and the same thing. There is torture in the “lake of fire”.
Rev 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 (tortured) day and night for ever and ever.
And Hell ITSELF is thrown into the “lake of fire”.
Rev 20:14 And death and hell (Gk: hades)were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Therefore, hell cannot BE the lake of fire. And finally, nobody can be IN hell for “eternity” when ALL will be delivered out of it.
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell (hades) delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
ETERNITY
This last part is HUGE. I cannot express enough the importance of understanding this concept when it comes to the translations of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts for which this word “eternity” is used. Translating the Hebrew word “olawm” and the Greek word “aion” as ETERNITY has molded and shaped a plethora of beliefs within Christendom that have stemmed back for centuries. To make an unbiased study on these two words, would be nothing short of eye-opening. They have been translated in the KJV as meaning “forever, eternal, everlasting, ever, perpetual” and other words that have no “eternal” meaning, such as “age, life, world, time, end”. An extensive study of these words would show that they NEVER had the meaning of “eternal” but rather meaning a time period that has a “beginning” and an “end”. More precisely an “indefinite period of time”. For example, we know a certain man will have an “end” to his life, but we don’t know “when” that end will come. The writers of that era did not use the word to denote “eternity”. Neither did the opponents use it in this manner. Look at this certain scripture:
Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting (aionios) punishment: but the righteous into life eternal (aionios).
Now notice this quote from the 6th century:
[Justinian, Emperor of the Greek-speaking Byzantine Empire (527–565 C.E.), in an effort to suppress “Origenism” and the doctrine of universal reconciliation, issued an edict to Mennos, Patriarch of Constantinople. Justinian wrote:
“The holy church of Christ teaches an endless aionios [ateleutetos aionios] life to the righteous, and endless [ateleutetos] punishment to the wicked.”]
Why would Justinian have to add a word [ateleutetos] to denote “endlessness” to describe an “aion” that some say already denotes endlessness?
To avoid having to paste an equivalent of a book here to supply sufficient data for my claim, I will leave the study of these words up to you, if you wish to do so. But I will post some translations that use “eternal” words to describe things that did not last for “eternity“.
Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting (olawm) possession; and I will be their God. [God scattered or led them captive several times through history, they were just recently called a nation again in the mid 1940’s and came from abroad]
Gen 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting (olawm) covenant. [circumcision is no longer required]
Exo 40:15 And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting (olawm) priesthood throughout their generations. [the Levitical priesthood is no more]
Mat 18:8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting (aionian) fire. [the fire of Gehenna, which was probably burning back when he said this, but now I think it is a beautiful park or garden]
Now I am aware that one could post scriptures that are stating such phrases as “everlasting life”, “eternal life”, or “everlasting God” that with the readers eye would be understood as “eternal”, but they to are to be only translated age, eon, eonian, etc,. Olawm and Aion never means any concept of “eternity”. I am just showing translations that say of eternal things, but did not last for eternity. There is also a phrase in scripture translated various ways as “forever and ever”, which have TWO appearances of the Greek word “aion”. Now just by looking at the phrase itself, ask yourself a question. If the first “ever” means Eternity and the second “ever” means Eternity, then is it “eternity AND eternity”? Not to mention some of these phrase have aion in its PLURAL form (plural “eternities”???) as in “aion of the aions” or “aions of the aions”. How in the world can there be plural eternitieS? It makes not sense at all. It makes perfect sense if they are NOT eternities, but rather “age”, “ages”, “eons”. In most cases, the reader has absolutely NO IDEA that they are reading “plural” nouns when they read the phrases “forever and ever” in the bible.
To understand the true meaning of the words “olawm” and “aion” would knock down the stronghold of doctrinal beliefs such as “eternal hell, eternal punishings, and everlasting old covenant”. So if one where to build a faith off of these EVIDENCES presented, then they would believe in a totally different way and have a totally different understanding of the bible.
You said: My view is that all-sovereign and all-knowing are not biblical terms but rather Greek philosophical ideals superimposed upon Christian thought. I tend toward the open theist view which rejects these descriptions of God.
Just because the phrase “all knowing” and “all Sovereign” are not in the scriptures does not mean it is not true. The word “Trinity” is not in the scriptures either, but it is claimed among Christians to be true. Is the phrase “all knowing“ (or its equivalent) found in scriptures though?
1Jn 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
And if one would want to bind this to just His knowledge of man’s heart, then I challenge any who has a computer based concordance to search phrases such as “God knoweth, Lord knoweth, Thou knoweth” or any equivalent and find out all the things that God knows. Sufficient evidence would be found for just about all things that can be thought of. I would also point to such verses as….
Ecc 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.
Or…..
Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
….and have one name a certain thing that cannot fit within the bounds of “beginning and end“. And all the same can be said of His ultimate rule and authority (sovereignty).
You said: Nowhere does the Bible speak of a “perfect creation.” Creation is a realm where free moral choices can be made. With this comes the possibility of “malfunction.”
True, but the reason I stated the phrase “perfect creation” is because some in Christendom state that God made man “perfect” and THEN he, by his own choice, FELL. They don’t think that maybe God MEANT for this to happen. The fact we learn in scripture is that ALL are sinners and He had to guide ALL of His creation’s choices, will, situations, etc. so that he could concluded “…..them ALL in unbelief, THAT he might have mercy upon ALL” (Rom 11:32 ). So that “All must die so that they can be made alive” (1 Cor 15:22). That All fall under condemnation so that All will be justified (Rom 5:18). Think about how hard it would be to control the race of humanity if He created half of them sinners and half of them non-sinners. If they are ALL sinners then you can expect them ALL to do the SAME thing, which is sin. This is an ongoing study for me, for I believe that God created them in their “fallen“ state, but as for “free-uncaused-choices” being made, it is not found in the bible.
You said: His “plan A” always allowed for the possibility of this “failure.” Plan B is not separate from plan A.
The point I was trying to get across here is that there is NO plan B. Whatever happens from the beginning to the end is going the way He planned it. But what you stated is basically the same thing (He “always allowed” it)
You said: I agree this [ on predestination] is a troubling aspect of Calvinist/Reformed theology. However, this dilemma is not present in Wesleyan or even Barthian theology.
Though it is somewhat claimed that Methodists/Protestants don’t believe in the predestination. It doesn’t change that fact that it IS indeed taught in the bible (Jer 1:5, Psa 139:16, Romans 8:29-30, Act 17:26, Eph 1:5+11, Eph 2:10). As for it being a “troubling aspect”, I don’t know if you are saying it is the for the believers of it or the nonbelievers of it.
You said: We tend to project our modern categories of truth upon scripture rather than allowing it to speak in its original context and worldview.
I couldn’t explain this better than you just did. This is a true statement. And I have found myself constantly reminding myself NOT to do this in my studies. It is an easy thing to slip back into if one is not careful.
You said: Some of these [list of doctrines/practices] are far from universally recognized Christian doctrines. Some I would readily dismiss, others are not so easily discarded.
The list is very broad indeed, but I was trying to list denominations that would, in most respects, call themselves “Christians or Followers of Christ” (like Jehovah Witnesses, LDS, etc.)
You said: [On Universalism] Fact: there are universal salvation texts in scripture. Fact 2: there are final separation and judgment texts in scripture. There is a tension. It would be easy to ignore fact 2 and take the universal salvation position, because it is easier to reconcile with what we want to be true. But it ignores fact 2. I would recommend Neal Punt’s What’s good about the good news?: the plan of salvation in a new light.
And I will couple this with a previous statement of yours.
I think Scripture makes it clear that Christ died for all, but to go from this to universalism can only be done by ignoring other texts.
First off, I would like to tell you that I applaud that you “completely reject the idea of a fiery hell that exists to physically torture sinners for eternity”. Secondly, I did try to find an Ebook or an equivalent online so as to read his book, but to no avail. But I did find a website of his though (biblicaluniversalism.com). I read quite a bit of his site. He believes in what is called “Evangelical Inclusivism”. Which states that salvation is for “all persons except those who willfully and finally refuse to acknowledge God’s will for their lives” or “all persons are elect in Christ except those who the Bible declares will be lost
“ (his quotes). Mr. Punt uses this word “exception” a lot. His concept is a good on. He states that when we read the bible and come across a statement that is true, it must be weighed with the rest of the scriptures. Well what a novel idea! I have not one problem with this. Then he goes on to write example after example of such words as “every, all, all men” that have “limitations”, as in “all in Jerusalem” or “every men in the city” to limit the ALL. And he is true in all accounts of this. But when he starts examining what he calls the “so-called universalist texts”, he does NOT list the “exceptions or the limitations” to them. I only found sentences like “the general context of Scripture as a whole says that all persons are elect in Christ except those who the Bible declares will be lost” or “If it were not for the exceptions found elsewhere in Scripture, verse 19 would teach absolute universalism:”. So I read and read to find these “exceptions” or “limitations” he is talking about. It was like he was holding them like a golden egg to spring it upon the reader. Then I finally found them. This is a quote from his site.
The result of the first Adam’s sin is described as “condemnation for all men,” even though there is an exception, the Son of Man, as revealed in the broader context of the Scriptures. Completely parallel to this the result of the second Adam’s righteousness is described in the Scriptures as “justification that brings life for all men” (Rom. 5:18) even though there are exceptions as revealed in the broader context of the Scriptures. There are those who “will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power on the day he comes” (2 Thess. 1:9).
He uses II Thess. 1:9 as one of his exceptions. A closer look at the Greek shows that the word translated “everlasting” here is none other than the Greek word “aion” that I had explained on before. It is NOT an “everlasting destruction”, rather it is an “eonian destruction”. It will not last “forever”. Him using this passage only shows me that he has not studied the word “aion”. So he would likely use just about every verse in the bible that uses and “eternal tone” translation of this word to add weight to his argument (ex: Mat 25:41, Mat 25:46, Mar 3:29). Just like others use translations of an “eternal tone” to prove “eternal life” (Mar 10:17, Luk 10:25, Joh 3:15). This is the same word “aion”, but it is rather translated “eonian” life. It is only life for the “aion” or “aions”, because when the “aions” END (1Co 10:11, Mat 13:39-40 the word “world” is “aion”, it is PLURAL in 1Co 10:11), then there are NO MORE aions. It is THEN that we “put on immortality”. Incidentally, in the light of the scriptures there are “aions” in the PAST (Col 1:26 “ages”) FUTURE (Eph 2:7 “ages“), even a time BEFORE aions (1Co 2:7 “world“). God even made the aions (Heb 1:2 “worlds” PLURAL). I also read on a forum where Mr. Punt was posting and someone told him of this, but he ignored it. Because if the word doesn’t have an “eternal tone” to it, then he couldn’t use it as a supporting scripture to his doctrine.
So I gave him the benefit of the doubt, that maybe he had more supporting scriptures for his claim. Then I read a chapter on his site labeled “THE CHRISTIAN REFORMED CHURCH’S VIEW OF THOSE WHO WILL BE LOST” and under it in brackets was the claim “[In this chapter we present the concluding evidence for Biblical Fact # 2]. Fact 2 being basically the same as your posted Fact 2 above. Here I read a short article by Dr. Leroy Garrett titled “Who Will Be In Heaven?”, so as to find the “concluding evidence” as it were. He refers to them as “lists of those who will be lost”. First he refers to a list in Rev. 22: 15 “For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.” and then we read and I will quote:
There are other lists of those who will be lost. Jude has his list that includes “all the ungodly who commit ungodly deeds” (Jude 15). Paul has his list: sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, homosexual offenders, thieves, greedy, drunkards, slanderers, swindlers (1 Cor 6:9-11). Jesus has his: sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly (Mark 7;21-22).
I have no idea why Mr. Punt or Mr. Garrett would imply that these people would not be saved, they are sinners are they not? And did not Christ die for all sinners. I think they are assuming this because of phrases such as “the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God” or “they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God”. Well who is saying that this is the END, or that this is the Consummation, or the final ALL IN ALL? It is said in scripture that Jesus will be reigning during and over this Kingdom, but he wont be reigning for “eternity”. He will only be reigning for the “aions (plural) of the aions (plural)” (Rev 11:15). He only reigns UNTIL all things are under his feet, then he delivers everything up to the Father so that God can be all in all (1Co 15:24-28). At that time everything will been brought to subjection to the Father, even Christ himself. In the book of Revelations Jesus is STILL ruling at the end of the book and the All in All has not happened yet.
Also, given that he states such phrases as “Christ has purchased on the cross for all persons except those who willfully and finally refuse to acknowledge God’s will for their lives.”, it is obvious that he also holds that man has “free will” as well.
I will tell you though, I would definitely use his explanations of that which he calls the “so-called universalistic text”. For he explains that you can’t take the “all”, “all men”, “everyone” in the passages to mean anything other then the WHOLE OF HUMANITY, then he goes on to add his “exceptions” to them. Other than this, it was a great site. I am still willing to look at all his view though, maybe, since you have read his book, can post some more of these “exceptions” he is talking about.
In all that I have posted, I can admit that these things would be hard for most Christians to except. For it raises many questions if one where to study it, but in study for the answers more things come to light that weren’t seen before.
In closing here, I would like to thank you for your kind attitude in you posts. It is far different then being all out attacked, which is what mostly happens. And sorry that my explanations became this long. GB
Kyle,
If it is at all possible, can you show me how you make some of your postings in italics? I cant figure it out and posting “You said:” sounds alittle mean. Thank You. GB
Joe,
Italics are indicated using html tags, which are enclosed in .
To begin italics, use without the quotes.
To end italics, use without the quotes.
begin
end
with no spaces
darnit
begin italics <i>
end italics </i>
WordPress apparently hates me.
Here: http://www.tizag.com/htmlT/htmlitalic.php
Just saw how my post came out. Not so helpful! Apparently quotation marks are ignored.
I saw it Kyle2, and tried to fix it, but oh well.
Joe,
I haven’t read your responses in their entirety, but enough to get your point. As far as proof, faith, certainty and all that, we may not actually differ in our views all that much. I have heard skeptics caricature faith as “belief in the complete absence of proof” and even believers defining faith in such terms. They think that God wants us to trust in him with zero “evidence” of his existence; that if there were any evidence then faith would somehow be too easy and worthless. I reacted against this view, but I don’t think you are supporting it either. (Although Christians who doubt and/or de-convert seem to do so primarily because they perceive zero evidence of God’s existence. But of course this is perception, not necessarily reality.)
As far as free will and determinism, our beliefs are polar opposites. I mentioned that I tend toward open theism. This is the position that the future is partially determined and partially open, and the specific course the future takes depends open the contingent actions of humans in genuine give-and-take relationship with God. That summary is very basic and there is a lot more to it than that, but no time to go into every detail. I do think that Scripture makes the most sense when read within the open theism framework, and that scripture supports open theism. Again, could go into more detail but won’t. If you are interested, the leading proponents are John Sanders, Clark Pinnock, Terrance Fretheim, and Greg Boyd. I’m not sure that the web resources are that great – but John Sanders The God Who Risks, 2nd ed is the most complete and well-written presentation of open theism. These proponents are constantly called out as heretical by the self-appointed protectors of orthodoxy. So even if you completely disagree, you should appreciate their willingness to stay with what they believe to be the truth even in the face of derision and name-calling.
I really would like Christian universalism to be true. I am obviously not a staunch defender of eternal punishment: But why would he need to physically torture them for eternity? That is inconceivable. But even if we view hell as eternal separation without the fire and brimstone and all that, why base it all on a decision made in this short lifespan?. Here I was not questioning your view but posing difficult questions to myself and/or to the doctrine of everlasting separation (or punishment). I will read and pray more on this matter. Does the fact that I want it to be true distort my ability to interpret scripture correctly? Or perhaps I hold (tentatively) to beliefs that I do not want to be true in order to think that I have not developed my beliefs based on personal wishes?
Peace,
Kyle
Kyle,
I would like to express my apologies to you for not making my view of “faith” and evidence clear. I understand now how you could think I thought in such an extreme view of faith by my comment “Faith with proof is not faith at all”. I should have made it more clear. I myself am, in most respects, a self-taught learner of the bible. This is probably why I don’t understand most of faith’s titles. It is also why I don’t think like most would when it comes to studies of the texts. There are many professing christians that wrap up their thinking and book-end it within the scriptures only without going outside them to look for maybe further evidences that may help there understanding. It is hard for such ones to accept anything on the outside of “their understanding” of the scriptures themselves. I have found much of my evidence through going outside my traditional belief at the time, whether it be Calvs, Arms, Caths, etc. To be locked into just one faith only brings, what I would call, a stalemate of beliefs. Reading the same proof texts, projecting the same arguments, defending the same cause only because it is the root of their “characterized” belief.
Now I am not bringing this up to cause someone to grind teeth here, but look at what is called “Evolution”. If one that proclaims a religion does not go outside their views to look at what evolution proclaims, how is one to understand another view, or even better their own view? I myself have wandered how, with all the evidences within evolution, one would not believe or, at the very least, have some belief of it. I mean, just because some theologian states that the earth is only thousands of yrs old, created in 6 days, and was totally flooded, does not make it true, especially in the light of further evidences outside their box. To be close minded to such a view stunts the growth of one’s mind and causes enmity between it and most other views. This is just the closed mindedness that the Jews had in accepting Gentiles into the promises without their traditions being followed. They just couldn’t fathom doing so. I can’t say that I would believe in all forms of evolution, but my goodness, to deny some of the data that evolution provides would be like denying my own hand in front of my face. I don’t want to be close minded as to be brain washed into a belief only to see myself as a fool 30 yrs later, and then holding to it, despite the evidences, just so others with the same belief would not see me as one. Ponder to the end is what I say!
I know that some on this site doubt. I have my doubts also within my own beliefs. For instance: I am contemplating whether what I belief ’speaking in tongues’ is could be true or not. Or that maybe the book of Revelations events ended in the first century instead of being at the end times. Or maybe Adam and Eve were personified names of “groups” of people rather than individuals. Or whether Jesus could actually be construed as God. These things can be called “heretical” in mainstream christianity, but it will not keep me from my pondering. As for my current belief in “universalism”, although it has blown away many of the contradictions in my thinking and has made many things straight for me, but to call it absolute truth would again be “closing my mind” in a box. There are certain things they believe that I don’t. Skepticism can be healthy in its own way. I can be pegged as what one would call a “ponderer”, which tends to keep me outside the box at times and on the edge at others, and at other between two or three, but to just jump in and seal the lid would block light to my learning.
Once again, I applaud the skepticism in one’s beliefs in Christianity. Growth in truth is a good thing within Gods plan, but I say “who says that skepticism cannot promote Growth in His children”. Kyle, once again, I thank you for you words and kind attitude. I leave you with a tid-bit of words from a “ponderers” mind. Peace be with you sir.
You ask, ”what does this mean?”
Did not God created the heavens AND the earth? If He is Wonderful, He shall create AND destroy Wonderfully.
Did He not tell you that He would be making you in His own image? Was Adam likened to his Creator? For I say he was not. Was it before or after the serpent beguiled the flesh of your flesh and the bone or your bones, that He said “man has become as one of us”?
Was Adam not created by His Word? Is His Word still sounding? Are you not Flesh?
And by His Word did He not create the One to be Flesh and Spirit?
Did He not do All Things First? Did Adam till the ground first? If God had not tilled, you would not be. Neither did Adam breath First. Again, If God had not Breathed, you would not be. One is His Work, the other His Life, but the creation is One.
So it is with His Word. He uttered but Once, but it was Heard Twain, by the Work and by the Life, who are One. It went forth by the Flesh and will return by the Spirit. This is It’s order. It will return! Even now His Head is out of the Womb, but His body remains. But Rejoice, a Son is Coming!
Flesh shall die by what It has Heard and the Spirit shall Live by what It has Heard, but the Sword in One. Until all have Learned, this Edge and Edge shall Rule.
Flesh has glorified the birth of its sons, but the Father beholds only the Head and with anticipation awaits his Son who is ALL.
The Word Lives! Now is Love. It will no more go forth by Flesh, for now It has returned. What did you think would dwell in rest? The Going Out or the Returning? ………………Home!
I say this unto you Adam, you are not finished.