If everyone's saved, what's the point of being a Christian?

[bling]

I don't know. These aren't qualities that I particularly admire in people. Are they yours?

We are called upon to be wimps, those who give up and surrenders to our enemy. There are often memorials build on old battle fields, in honor of the soldiers who died on both sides of the conflict, but there are no monuments built commemorating the surrendered itself. Yes, they fought hard and surrendered, but it is for their hard fighting we memorialize.

 

[Hmm]

We are called upon to be wimps, those who give up and surrenders to our enemy. There are often memorials build on old battle fields, in honor of the soldiers who died on both sides of the conflict, but there are no monuments built commemorating the surrendered itself. Yes, they fought hard and surrendered, but it is for their hard fighting we memorialize.

If by this you're saying that that the preferred alternative of being a "wimp" is being "macho" then I very much disagree with you. The experience of war is that an attitude of being "macho" is not of much help on the battlefield because it is unsustainable and makes a mental breakdown more likely.

With respect, memorials are not built to commemorate those who fought hard but rather those who died in battle. Increasingly, the names of those who were shot for "cowardice", IOW who suffered from PTSD, in world war 1 are being added to the commemorative list and the medals stripped from them are being returned to their families and their dishonorable discharges are being overturned, in my country at least.

It's very easy for those of us who have not fought in a war to glorify "courage" as you appear to do. The reality is, it is not about "courage" vs "cowardice" in this black and white way. The spiritual battle is no different. Many of us are traumatised by life but get labelled as "cowards". These labels mean nothing.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

... the number of times the question "What's the point of being a Christian if everyone's saved?" is asked. Exclusivity seems to be an essential part of their faith...

"Jesus dying for our sins" Has ever made sense to me.
I cannot see how God's wrath is satisfied with Jesus's death. He also should not be punishing the wrong person - If He says "we" deserve the penalty, He shouldn't be satisfied that some other innocent takes the penalty - He would be going back on His word. It also doesn't speak much for the character or power of God. So I always had these thing in my mind, and so never really understood it.

Then it dawned on me, that the first christians might have been speaking to lots of people who had a sacrifice system in their religion, they might not have been ready to give it up yet.
I guess they just said "You need a sacrific?? Sure!! It's there - Jesus. There is your sacrifice, settling all debts you have with God"

?????

 

[HSong]

The point of being a Christian is to help the Lord fulfill His Plan. His Plan, set out since the beginning, is to save all of creation.

Ephesians 1:9-10: God's purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time

1 John 2:2: He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

By understanding Christian Universalism, we can tell people a more accurate picture of the full extent of God's love, leading them more likely to become Christians themselves and thus spread the faith.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The point of being a Christian is to help the Lord fulfill His Plan. His Plan, set out since the beginning, is to save all of creation.

Ephesians 1:9-10: God's purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time

1 John 2:2: He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

By understanding Christian Universalism, we can tell people a more accurate picture of the full extent of God's love, leading them more likely to become Christians themselves and thus spread the faith.

Quite frankly, I was raised with this message and did not find in it any motivation to become a Christian. I could have been just as satisfied engaging in various forms of Bhuddism.

 

[Ligurian]

In the Parable of the Prodigal Son, the older brother was annoyed that his younger brother was welcomed back by his father. This seems to make some sense because after all he had been the dutiful son and it must have seemed that his loyalty meant nothing to his dad.

But it also feels that this bitterness must be wrong somehow. Can bitterness and envy ever be right? So is not the meaning that the older brother's reaction was wrong and that he should have wanted what his father wanted? His human wanted his son back no matter he had done so isn't the lesson for us that we should try to see salvation as God does, that He wants to save all His children and He does not have favourites? Kim Jong Un may favour his acolytes but God doesn't. He wants us all to live life in all it's fullness and so you'd think the last thing He wants is that we become envious and bitter like the older brother.

Team Hell seems to get a warm and fuzzy feeling from the thought "I'm special and that's why God is saving me". This is shown here on CF by the number of times the question "What's the point of being a Christian if everyone's saved?" is asked. Exclusivity seems to be an essential part of their faith.

But if we see things as God sees them, we are all His children and as the Good Shepherd He doesn't give up on any one of His lost sheep and acts eternally until they are found.

Instead of resenting our Father's feelings for the prodigals amongst us and feeling under-appreciated and sorry for ourselves should we not want what makes Him happy, rather than what makes us happy? We may be happy if our father kicks the prodigal into touch and disinherits him but shouldn't we try to get out of God's way and let Him be a loving Father to all His children? And stop trying to redefine Him as someone who would rather torture a prodigal rather than rescuing them. It's not about what we want but about what God wants.

Matthew 21:28-32 But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.[29] He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.[30] And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.[31] Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the Kingdom of God before you.[32] For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

 

[Strong in Him]

I was asking why the prodigal's brother resented his brother's full acceptance by this father. How does "He didn't understand that everything his father had, was his" explain this

The older brother doesn't sound very secure, so he was jealous. He worked on the farm, or whatever it was, and was possibly co owner of the livestock and crops. If he'd wanted to have a party with his friends, he would surely have known his father well enough to know that he would have agreed, and sacrificed a goat, or whatever.
I just feel that if he had felt secure, knowing that he had his father's love and respect - and if he had loved his father - he would have felt grieved at his brother running off and hurting him, and happy when he returned.

Isn't the point that he didn't understand that everything his father had, was not his - it was also his brothers, much as he didn't like that?

His brother had said "give me my share of the inheritance", and then left home.
He was, in fact, saying to his father "I wish you were dead then I would have half of everything; I want that now."
He wasn't returning to claim what was his - he had nothing. He was returning to ask his dad if he would take him on as a servant because they, at least, were well fed.

By Team Hell I mean someone who passionately defends the idea of eternal torture of non-believers by God.

Does anyone believe that God tortures non believers for eternity? Has anyone been defending it?

This is in response to me saying that if God wants us all to be saved and if we don't want that too then we don't want what God wants. I don't see what you're questioning here. Can you elaborate?

No, it was in response to the statement:

Instead of resenting our Father's feelings for the prodigals amongst us and feeling under-appreciated and sorry for ourselves should we not want what makes Him happy, rather than what makes us happy?

How do you know that we don't want what makes God happy?

 

[Hmm]

"Jesus dying for our sins" Has ever made sense to me.
I cannot see how God's wrath is satisfied with Jesus's death. He also should not be punishing the wrong person - If He says "we" deserve the penalty, He shouldn't be satisfied that some other innocent takes the penalty - He would be going back on His word. It also doesn't speak much for the character or power of God. So I always had these thing in my mind, and so never really understood it.

Then it dawned on me, that the first christians might have been speaking to lots of people who had a sacrifice system in their religion, they might not have been ready to give it up yet.
I guess they just said "You need a sacrific?? Sure!! It's there - Jesus. There is your sacrifice, settling all debts you have with God"

?????

I agree, I think! God isn't in punishing business full stop.

 

[Hmm]

Matthew 21:28-32 But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.[29] He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.[30] And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.[31] Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the Kingdom of God before you.[32] For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

If you want a response, I suggest you first offer a thought of your own. This is a forum.

 

[Hmm]

He was returning to ask his dad if he would take him on as a servant because they, at least, were well fed.

And is there something reprehensible in that? It's easy to judge the homeless and desperate as being "grabbing" if we've never been in that situation ourselves.

Does anyone believe that God tortures non believers for eternity? Has anyone been defending it?

Well, what is your view about what happens to unbelievers when they die? What is the view of your church on this question?

How do you know that we don't want what makes God happy?

Again, what's your issue with what I'm saying? I'm arguing that scripture says that God wills and desires that all are saved. So anyone who argues for eternal conscious torment (ECT) is arguing for what He doesn't want, for that which will make Him unhappy, just as unhappy as the prodigal's father was before his son returned or the good shepherd was before he rescued his last lost sheep.

I don't understand why you say that anyone believing in ECT is not believing in something that will make God unhappy. Can you explain to me how they're not, because I just can't see it?

 

[bling]

If by this you're saying that that the preferred alternative of being a "wimp" is being "macho" then I very much disagree with you. The experience of war is that an attitude of being "macho" is not of much help on the battlefield because it is unsustainable and makes a mental breakdown more likely.

With respect, memorials are not built to commemorate those who fought hard but rather those who died in battle. Increasingly, the names of those who were shot for "cowardice", IOW who suffered from PTSD, in world war 1 are being added to the commemorative list and the medals stripped from them are being returned to their families and their dishonorable discharges are being overturned, in my country at least.

It's very easy for those of us who have not fought in a war to glorify "courage" as you appear to do. The reality is, it is not about "courage" vs "cowardice" in this black and white way. The spiritual battle is no different. Many of us are traumatised by life but get labelled as "cowards". These labels mean nothing.

This thief impressed me, but does he impress you: 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”?

I could not be so macho in such a situation, but that is not what saved the thief, the thief humbled himself before whom all the leaders were insulting and belittling, he believed Jesus was the Messiah. He realized, like we all need to realize; we are not deserving of mercy, “we are getting what our deeds deserve”, but would accept a remembrance from Jesus.

It was not the thought-out free will choice, but more a forced decision of those in world wars to surrender. What I am talking about is while we were rebellious sinners and God was our enemy, we make a thought-out free will choice to surrender to Him while we still hate Him, for the possibility of obtaining undeserved charity.

The prodigal son of his own free will chose to return to his father, but he did nothing deserving of wonderful gifts.

 

[Saint Steven]

Actually, Jesus' beliefs lined up fairly well with those of the Pharisees...

Right. That explains the crucifixion.

 

[Der Alte]

I agree, I think! God isn't in punishing business full stop.

According to your position, Jesus is a liar[full stop]

EOB Matthew:25:46 When he will answer them, saying: ‘Amen, I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 These [ones on the left] will go away into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] punishment, [κόλασις/kolasis] but the righteous into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life.”[EOB p. 96]​

…..Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church since its inception, 2000 years ago +/-. Note, the native Greek speaking Eastern Orthodox Greek scholars, translators of the EOB, translated “aionios,” in Matt 25:46, as “eternal,” NOT “age.”
…..Who is better qualified than the team of native Greek speaking scholars, translators of the Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible [EOB], quoted above and below, to know the correct translation of the Greek in the N.T.?
Link to EOB online:
The New Testament ( The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
…..The Greek word “kolasis” occurs only twice in the N.T., 1st occurrence Matt 25:46, above, and 2nd occurrence 1 John 4:18., below.

EOB 1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear, because fear is connected with punishment.[κόλασις/kolasis] But the one who fears is not yet perfect in love.[EOB p. 518]​

In the EOB the Greek word “kolasis” is translated “punishment” in both Matt 25:46 and 1 John 4:18.
…..Some badly informed folks claim “kolasis” really means “prune” or “correction.”
Sorry, that is impossible, both “prune” and “correction” are verbs. “Kolasis” is a noun. One cannot translate a noun as a verb.
Also according to the EOB Greek scholars “kolasis” means “punishment.”
Note: in 1 John 4:18 there is no correction, the one with “kolasis” is not made perfect. Thus “kolasis” does not/cannot mean “correction.”
…..It is understood that modern Greek differs from koine Greek but I am confident that the native Greek speaking EOB scholars, supported by 2000 years +/- of uninterrupted Greek scholarship, are competent enough to know the correct translation of obsolete Greek words which may have changed in meaning or are no longer in use and to translate them correctly. Just as scholars today know the meaning of obsolete English words which occur in the 1611 KJV and can define them correctly.

 

[Hmm]

According to your position, Jesus is a liar[full stop]

EOB Matthew:25:46 When he will answer them, saying: ‘Amen, I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 These [ones on the left] will go away into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] punishment, [κόλασις/kolasis] but the righteous into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life.”[EOB p. 96]​

…..Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church since its inception, 2000 years ago +/-. Note, the native Greek speaking Eastern Orthodox Greek scholars, translators of the EOB, translated “aionios,” in Matt 25:46, as “eternal,” NOT “age.”
…..Who is better qualified than the team of native Greek speaking scholars, translators of the Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible [EOB], quoted above and below, to know the correct translation of the Greek in the N.T.?
Link to EOB online:
The New Testament ( The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
…..The Greek word “kolasis” occurs only twice in the N.T., 1st occurrence Matt 25:46, above, and 2nd occurrence 1 John 4:18., below.

EOB 1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear, because fear is connected with punishment.[κόλασις/kolasis] But the one who fears is not yet perfect in love.[EOB p. 518]​

In the EOB the Greek word “kolasis” is translated “punishment” in both Matt 25:46 and 1 John 4:18.
…..Some badly informed folks claim “kolasis” really means “prune” or “correction.”
Sorry, that is impossible, both “prune” and “correction” are verbs. “Kolasis” is a noun. One cannot translate a noun as a verb.
Also according to the EOB Greek scholars “kolasis” means “punishment.”
Note: in 1 John 4:18 there is no correction, the one with “kolasis” is not made perfect. Thus “kolasis” does not/cannot mean “correction.”
…..It is understood that modern Greek differs from koine Greek but I am confident that the native Greek speaking EOB scholars, supported by 2000 years +/- of uninterrupted Greek scholarship, are competent enough to know the correct translation of obsolete Greek words which may have changed in meaning or are no longer in use and to translate them correctly. Just as scholars today know the meaning of obsolete English words which occur in the 1611 KJV and can define them correctly.

I honestly hope you enjoy your punitive God and please don't let anything I say intrude on your self-evidently joyous relationship.

 

[Der Alte]

I honestly hope you enjoy your punitive God and please don't let anything I say intrude on your self-evidently joyous relationship.

In another post one of you UR guys accused me of rationilizing when I only quote scripture and here you accuse me "joyous relationship." when I quote scripture. Which OBTW does not seem to be in UR Bibles. Tsk, tsk.

 

[Hmm]

In another post one of you UR guys accused me of rationilizing when I only quote scripture and here you accuse me "joyous relationship." when I quote scripture. Which OBTW does not seem to be in UR Bibles. Tsk, tsk.

Perhaps I should have added /s to my last post. I don't usually like to spell things out so much. Sigh of sadness.




.

 

[Ligurian]

In the Parable of the Prodigal Son, the older brother was annoyed that his younger brother was welcomed back by his father.

Matthew 21:28-32 But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.[29] He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.[30] And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.[31] Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the Kingdom of God before you.[32] For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

Matthew 20:10-16 But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny.[11] And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house,[12] Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.[13] But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?[14] Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.[15] Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?[16] So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

 

[Der Alte]

Matthew 20:10-16 But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny.[11] And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house,[12] Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.[13] But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?[14] Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.[15] Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?[16] So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

Now this can't be right "So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen." According to the UR-ites Jesus is supposed to say, "All will be chosen."

 

[Ligurian]

Now this can't be right "So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen." According to the UR-ites Jesus is supposed to say, "All will be chosen."

Revelation 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb and the Lamb shall overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and they that are with Him are called and chosen and faithful.KJV

 

[bbbbbbb]

Right. That explains the crucifixion.

The Pharisees definitely believed in the resurrection of the body, as did Jesus. If orthodox Judaism rejects that view (which it does not) then a case might be made that Jesus was not in the mainstream Judaism of His day. Also, He fully subscribed to the sacrificial system of the Temple and its various holidays, including the extra-biblical Holiday of the Feast of Lights.