Savior of the World, or Eternal Failure?

[FineLinen]

God only gives to those who ask.

"I have been inquired of by those who asked not, I have been found by those who sought Me not, I have said, 'Behold Me, behold Me,' Unto a nation not calling in My name." -YLT-

 

[Saint Steven]

We are saved by Christ's work on the cross. Not by our own works but by Him paying our penalty.

Those the don't hear of this work are still held to this:

Romans 1:18-20 21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness,


19 because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God hath shown it unto them.


20 For from the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

Nobody is without excuse. The knowledge of right and wrong, righteousness and unrighteousness, is written on our hearts..

Even in remote tribes there was knowledge of the wrong of killing and stealing.. and other sins..

God has displayed Himself through the creation of the world.

God will judge those who have not heard the "good news" of the gospel.. on how they accepted or rejected the knowledge that is given to all.

In the end.. they are still saved by Christ's work.. It is His payment for the sins of the world that gives salvation... No human could have been saved if it was not for this work of Christ.

This common claim falls flat when analyzed.

Though creation does in fact reflect the creator, it does not provide a gospel message about Christ to respond to.

Therefore, there is no salvation to be found in nature, only the evidence of a creator.

 

[Josheb]

Jesus was sent with one mission to accomplish. Did he succeed, or did he fail?

This question is addressed in the book
The Savior of the World, by J. Preston Eby
Here's the opening paragraph.

AMONG all the questions that men have asked, there is one that is of supreme interest and importance. Why are we here? What is our destiny? What lies beyond the grave for the Christian, for the unbeliever? For old, for young? For our fellow citizens, and for the teeming masses in far-away lands serving strange gods? These questions were raised by one of the great poets of all times. I am speaking now of that American genius of letters, Edgar Allen Poe - an incomparable genius, and yet a man whose life was destroyed by unbelief. Millions of people have read his masterpiece, "The Raven," but few, I am afraid, have ever grasped the real spiritual significance of the struggle that was going on in the soul of this man. He asked four very significant questions - questions which every living soul, at one, time or another, must raise to God. First, Is there a God who comforts? Is there a God who can assuage the pain of life? (In this case it is the poignant pain of the loss of a loved one, his beloved Lenore.) Is there "some water from the river of paradise, the water of Nephenthe," which can take away the heartache that is driving him insane? Secondly, he asks, Is there really a Christ? Does He live? Is there a balm in Gilead? Is there One who can smoothe the wrinkled brow and soften the hard heart? Thirdly, he asks, Is there some place, some heaven, some distant Eden or future world where we shall be joined again with our loved ones? And, finally, Is there any hope that the darkness and hopelessness and despair of this life will be lifted? But always he directs his questions to his own unbelief which is personified in that grim and ghastly raven, a picture of doubt and unbelief. A few years after writing those chilling words, Poe became insane. Regaining his sanity, he drank himself to death, and this genius was found dead in the gutter.

Source: Kindgdom Bible Studies Savior of the World Series Part 1


Audio version: By J. Preston Eby Audio – Kingdom Resources

Is the purpose of this op to answer and discuss the/those answers to "Is Jesus the Savior of the world or an eternal failure?"

I ask because the opening of the book cited makes a logical error. Not only is there a logical error but related to the question of Jesus' success or failure there are red herrings, or things that are misleading or distracting from the inquiry about Jesus' success/failure. Eby states, "there is one that is of supreme interest and importance..." and he then proceeds to ask over a dozen questions! Many of which may have nothing to do with the question of Jesus' success or failure. For example, why we're here may have nothing to do with the Jesus' success. Alternatively, many of the questions asked would be answered differently based on one's theological perspective; catholics and Universalists are going to answer the question of destiny much differently. Calvinist Protestants and those in the Orthodox (capital "O") perspective might address the nature of sin differently. And why should anyone choose to frame the conversation in answer to these questions from the point of view of Poe? Poe might have been "a genius of letters" but what makes him knowledgeable of Jesus or the theological answers to the questions asked.

And anyone reading Eby's book should have caught this manipulation subterfuge the moment it was attempted. I call it "manipulation" and "subterfuge" because of it inherently fallacious nature. Eby was born in a Mennonite environment but had a Pentecostal Brethren experience at a young age. Aside from the fact these groups are normative and statistical outliers ecclesiastically, we can assume from an early age Eby knows something of Christian theology and Church doctrine (at least from Mennonite and Brethren povs). Beyond that there is little information about Eby's academic, theological, or Christian training available and therefore nothing to inform us about his intelligence and/or intellectual attributes. This is important because someone with the kind of training we look for would not begin his book with fallacy.

There are only three logical explanations for arguing fallaciously: 1) lack of knowledge or ignorance, 2) incompetence, 3) a willful intent to deceive. If there is a fourth or fifth explanation how and why an intelligent, well-informed, and experienced pastor would engage in such practice I would sincerely like to know it. Otherwise, I hope every poster reading this post has the fortitude to accept what I have written no matter how much or little they may like Eby otherwise. I would ask the same question of any other writer no matter who they are or from whence they come.

What we can definitely, firmly, unequivocally say and stand immovably upon is a single simple truth: The Holy Spirit does NOT argue using fallacy. God is a God of reason and even though his reasoning may be extra-rational to us finite humans it is never irrational. All humans make mistakes and one's education is no guarantee of brilliance or articulation but we can hold more responsible those to whom much has been given (or those claiming to have been given much). We also know that those assuming the role of teacher will be held to a much higher standard.
The purpose of this post is to help readers to get into the practice of approaching what we read presuppositionally, no matter who or what is being read.





So I wonder why Eby thinks the opening of his book is noteworthy or worth reading AND how it answers the question "Did Jesus succeed or did he fail?"




Otherwise, there isn't anything particularly controversial in this op. There's much in Eby's theology that might be considered "controversial," but others might use more blunt labels and call it what it is: Dispensational futurist eschatologically-driven theology based on a a unique hermeneutic that has very little to do with the historical position(s) the Church has taken.





Now, Steven, if memory serves me correctly you and I have traded posts over what I have posted above before (might have been earlier in this very op; I didn't check). It doesn't usually go well for either of us because I have challenged the veracity of Eby, not just Eby's theology (which is heavily eschatological in nature). And because I have questioned the veracity of Eby's perspective it is challenging to your allegiance to Eby, even though it is demonstrable Eb'y's view is an historically outlying perspective both normatively and statistically. So it is my hope we can have a discussion about the veracity of what is posted as measured by the Bible when correctly rendered. and keep the conversation as objective as possible and not make it personal. Your personal affinity for Eby is irrelevant to me; either a reasonable and rational case for the success or failure of Christ's success can be made or it can't. That is what matters. If we do that then we should be able to build from consensus - a consensus with scripture, not just among ourselves - and handle disagreement in a godly manner.


I will approach the question, "Did Jesus succeed or fail?" as it should be approached in a separate post.

 

[Saint Steven]

Thanks for confirming what I said. God only gives to those who ask.

That's not true.

Matthew 5:45
... He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good,
and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

 

[Josheb]

Jesus was sent with one mission to accomplish.

Where did you get this assertion? Where did the assertion Jesus has only one mission in his incarnation originate? Do you have something in the Bible that states Jesus had only one mission?

I can think of three places the Bible assigns three different objectives for Jesus' coming in the first century (all of which were accomplished).​

Perhaps more importantly, is this question asked soteriologically or eschatologically? Eby is a futurist so his answer will be divided into the first century incarnation and the Second Coming. Is that what you mean to discuss in this op; a two-part mission or a two-part fulfillment of success? If so please state this plainly so we can understand the purpose of the op?

Did he succeed, or did he fail?

Yes, of course Jesus succeeded. Answering that question in detail requires a correct understanding of the "mission." I would start with the intersection of Genesis 1:1 and 1 Peter 1:20 and work from there.

1 Peter 1 :17-21
"17If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth; 18knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, 19but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. 20For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you 21who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God."​

Before the world was created, before a single atom was created, before a single human ever drew breath, before a single sin ever occurred, before the Law of Moses was ever written, Jesus was foreknown as the perfect, blemish-free sacrifice.

And he accomplished that mission.

 

[Saint Steven]

It will be a wonderful day for you, dear one, when first your soul becomes enthralled with the revelation that God, before ever the world began or ever the ages were formed, looked forth from His temple of wisdom and omnipotence to chart with resolute care the course and purpose of every age. Your heart will throb as you read the opening proclamation of Scripture, "In the beginning - GOD!” In the beginning of what? Not in the beginning of God, certainly, but in the beginning of His creation of all things, in the beginning of time, in the beginning of the orderly procession of the divinely destined ages. In the beginning stands God, omnipotent and omniscient, creating, sustaining and guiding all things and all people and all the ages of time according to the purpose of His own will. No purpose ordained by God from the beginning can possibly go astray or be hindered by the efforts of devil or man. Oh, for the hour when all creation will grasp the beautiful message, "From Him everything comes, by Him everything exists, and in Him everything ends!" (Rom. 11:36).

Source: The Savior of the World, by J. Preston Eby
Kindgdom Bible Studies Savior of the World Series Part 1

 

[Der Alte]

That's not true.
Matthew 5:45
... He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good,
and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

Doesn't that happen in this life? How does this show that all mankind will be saved righteous and unrighteous alike, even after death.

 

[FineLinen]

Is the purpose of this op to answer and discuss the/those answers to "Is Jesus the Savior of the world or an eternal failure?"

One does not need to read the book by an exquisite gem of Father's grace, J.P. Eby, to answer the question!

"God IS the Saviour of all mankind, especially those who believe (trust in Him). Command this & teach this"

Is God the Saviour of all mankind (the radical all of pas)?

Yes.

Does especially (malista) mean only (monon or monos)?

No.

Will the pas and the malista be saved?

Your scope of the One who is Author & Finisher will determine the answer.

 

[Saint Steven]

One does not need to read the book by an exquisite gem of Father's grace, J.P. Eby, to answer the question!

"God IS the Saviour of all mankind, especially those who believe (trust in Him). Command this & teach this"

Is God the Saviour of all mankind (the radical all of pas)?

Yes.

Does especially (malista) mean only (monon or monos)?

No.

Will the pas and the malista be saved?

Your scope of the One who is Author & Finisher will determine the answer.

Thanks. Yes, a gem!

These bible-thumpers know nothing of the love of God.
A love that should have been poured into their hearts. (Rom.5:5 below)

Instead, they wage war from their library fortresses, and take no prisoners
while they slaughter those whom they should have recognized as allies.

Romans 5:5
... God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us.

 

[Josheb]

One does not need to read the book by an exquisite gem of Father's grace, J.P. Eby, to answer the question!

"God IS the Saviour of all mankind, especially those who believe (trust in Him). Command this & teach this"

Is God the Saviour of all mankind (the radical all of pas)?

Yes.

Does especially (malista) mean only (monon or monos)?

No.

Will the pas and the malista be saved?

Your scope of the One who is Author & Finisher will determine the answer.

Yes, but that may have nothing to do with the op, and the only one who can address the purpose of the op is the author of the op.

The op appears to be an apologetic for Ebyism, yes? Was any time spent investigating Eby or his websites and theology out? There's a reason Saint Steven appealed to Eby and not scripture and not another Christian writer. Only he can answer the question quoted. As can be seen from the response your post received there is an intent to label and criticize those within the body of Christ called, "bible thumpers" and deny them understanding of God's love. It is a curiously, ironic, and hypocritically unloving statement inconsistent with scripture's description of God's love.

I don't need to read Eby to understand that.

 

[renniks]

There you go. Who provided the bad soil?

In the parable it sure wasn't the sower who provided the bad soil.

 

[Saint Steven]

In the parable it sure wasn't the sower who provided the bad soil.

Once again you blame the victims. Did those soils make themselves bad, or were they made bad?

 

[renniks]

Once again you blame the victims. Did those soils make themselves bad, or were they made bad?

If they were made bad by the sower, then the parable is either meaningless or it means God creates people solely for damnation and neither of those is how Jesus interpreted the parable.

 

[Josheb]

According to Eby.

"God's plan is to first establish His dominion in the hearts of His Elect, imbuing them with the glorious MIND OF CHRIST until they become His nature and will in the earth."​

I completely agree!

Yet I wonder why Eby feels the need to denigrate most of Christ's body. I wonder how and why baseless accusation is thought consistent with God's plan. I wonder why Eby thinks the following is consistent with what he has just stated is God's plan,

"Sadly, most Christians never come to this! They are too busy playing church, waiting for their mansion over the hilltop, or blundering around in the carnal programs, foolishness, and shame of a wretched, fleshly, Babylonian religious system."​

And I wonder if he knows what scripture calls those who unjustly and unnecessarily divide Christ's body has he just did. I wonder how he persuaded you, Steven, to do the same.

 

[Saint Steven]

If they were made bad by the sower, then the parable is either meaningless or it means God creates people solely for damnation and neither of those is how Jesus interpreted the parable.

I didn't say that the sower made the soils bad. But those that the soils represent were made bad according to Damnationism. Does the bad soil represents "the lost" or the saved? Obviously they did not have the CAPACITY to benefit from the gospel. Why did they NOT have the capacity? (I suppose you would blame them)

And yes, according to Damnationism God created countless billions solely for damnation.
Narrow is the way and few that find it. Correct? Few. What then becomes of the majority?

Saint Steven said: ↑
Once again you blame the victims. Did those soils make themselves bad, or were they made bad?

 

[Saint Steven]

According to Eby.

"God's plan is to first establish His dominion in the hearts of His Elect, imbuing them with the glorious MIND OF CHRIST until they become His nature and will in the earth."​

I completely agree!

Yet I wonder why Eby feels the need to denigrate most of Christ's body. I wonder how and why baseless accusation is thought consistent with God's plan. I wonder why Eby thinks the following is consistent with what he has just stated is God's plan,

"Sadly, most Christians never come to this! They are too busy playing church, waiting for their mansion over the hilltop, or blundering around in the carnal programs, foolishness, and shame of a wretched, fleshly, Babylonian religious system."​

And I wonder if he knows what scripture calls those who unjustly and unnecessarily divide Christ's body has he just did. I wonder how he persuaded you, Steven, to do the same.

For the record.

 

[nolidad]

Welcome to the Father's Barnyard. In His Barnyard are His sheep & His goats. You likely have not met them yet, but His Barnyard has en's. Those little critters are the entire creation that ultimately bow in union with His Name & confess in union with His Name "You are Lord." The confession & worship is NOT by perfunctory genuflections but exactly the same as being IN/EN Christ.

Yup! His entire Barnyard reconciled by at-one-ment and the power of ta pante!

The heavens, earth & underworld.

Except those who you were clearly shown suffer torment eternally without end! It may be time for you to clean your stall in teh barn. I think it is clouding your vision with the aroma!

 

[nolidad]

Mat 11:21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
Mat 11:22 But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.

What pray tell, is the significance of sackcloth and ashes? I mean, it's almost as if repentance and sackcloth and ashes, go hand in hand... and ashes have to do with burning.

Luk 12:46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
Luk 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

Can you please explain how some servants are getting few stripes and others are getting many, what it actually means, and how it fits within the eternal torment doctrine?

Also, Christ likes word games ...he likes them very much. If you are not into word games, I'm afraid you have a snowballs chance in the lake of fire, of understanding anything he says.

Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Mat 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Mat 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
Mat 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

If Christ is indeed running around trying to warn people about their impending doom, then wouldn't it be better if he spoke to them in language they could understand?

Seems a little callous, don't you think?

Well He did. But as you rely more on English than looking into the original languages, you are like a marathon runner with no legs!

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

As I showed St. Stephen and Fine Linen everlasting and eternal are the same word! So if the punishment is temporary, then the life is temporary as well.

REv. 14:
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.


But most damning for repentance after death are these two verses:

Hebrews 9:27
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Jesus said that unbelievers shall NOT see life- but you say He is only kidding!

Show me a verse that shows that men can repent in the lake of fire and I will believe you!

Luke 16:

22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

The lost awaiting the lake of fire- cannot pass to paradise! But you say they can! Should we believe the Bible or you?

 

[FineLinen]

Except those who you were clearly shown suffer torment eternally without end!

Search = "eternal torment"

Your search query has yielded no results.

Please modify your query & try again.

Search ="everlasting punishment"

Your search query has yielded 1 result Matt. 25:46

 

[Josheb]

For the record.

For the record in neglect of the questions asked. Would Eby act as avoidantly were I to ask him these things?

Can you not see Eby is guilty of his own indictments?

Can you not see that because Eby is self-indicting some discernment should be applied when reading what he writes?