Face book friend posted this. So, how's he wrong?

[hedrick]

This comment seems to imply that traditional Christianity was deliberately created to ensure that 90% of the human race was going to suffer forever. Is that your belief?

No. I was referring (hypothetically ) to God.

 

[martymonster]

Ultimately, like so many other questions, this one is not one important enough to require an answer at the present time.

Actually, it's much more important than you think.

 

[RDKirk]

Actually, it's much more important than you think.

If it were important, it would not be a disputable item.

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them" John 6

Those who have been enabled to accept the Son do not need all the questions answered. They only need the gospel.

Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles -- 1 Corinthians 2

And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. -- 1 Corinthians 2

These questions come from those who are not being drawn, those who have not been enabled. Accepting "Christ and Him crucified" requires neither signs nor Greek "wisdom." People who know Christ believe because they know Christ, not as a result of clever debate. They may still have these questions in the backs of their minds, but they set them aside for the time being because they already know Christ is real.

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"
...
Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them."

From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.

Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God." -- John 6

For those who have not been enabled by the Father, no answer to those questions will engender faith. You can ask them flat out: "If I answer this question, will you believe?" Go ahead...make that challenge.

The answers would make no difference to either those who know Christ or those who have not been enabled either way. So it's not an important question because the answer makes no difference.

 

[martymonster]

If it were important, it would not be a disputable item.

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them" John 6

Those who have been enabled to accept the Son do not need all the questions answered. They only need the gospel.

Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles -- 1 Corinthians 2

And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. -- 1 Corinthians 2

These questions come from those who are not being drawn, those who have not been enabled. Accepting "Christ and Him crucified" requires neither signs nor Greek "wisdom." People who know Christ believe because they know Christ, not as a result of clever debate. They may still have these questions in the backs of their minds, but they set them aside for the time being because they already know Christ is real.

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"
...
Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them."

From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.

Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God." -- John 6

For those who have not been enabled by the Father, no answer to those questions will engender faith. You can ask them flat out: "If I answer this question, will you believe?" Go ahead...make that challenge.

The answers would make no difference to either those who know Christ or those who have not been enabled either way. So it's not an important question because the answer makes no difference.

So, you think it's unimportant, that erroneous blasphemous lies about God, might be the reason people reject Christ?

 

[RDKirk]

So, you think it's unimportant, that erroneous blasphemous lies about God, might be the reason people reject Christ?

Christ has been lied about from the beginning. No, it's not the reason people reject Christ.

The only blemish upon Christ is when His body acts unlike Him.

I you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself?

You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”-- Romans 2

Nobody who has been enabled by the Father to accept Jesus rejects Him because of this question.

 

[CharismaticLady]

There are lots of attempts to make eternal torment seem reasonable. This is one of them. But the passages show God sending them to it. The OT images of fire are fire from heaven, not fires that came from knocking over a lamp and got out of control.

If annihilation is true, it's annihilation done by God.

Personally I think anything other than universalism has severe moral problems, though it's not the obvious reading of much of the NT.

Are all Presbyterians universalists or just you?

 

[hedrick]

Are all Presbyterians universalists or just you?

I'm not quite ready to commit to universalism. I'm inclined to be optimistic about most people eventually being reconciled, but I don't think we can assert it doctrinally. I think some may not survive. I understand many of the NT images as suggesting destruction, not eternal torment.

I believe universalism is common within the PCUSA, but I don't think it'a a majority.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Nowhere does scripture ever speak of us sending ourselves to eternally tormented.

Actually it does.

“Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God. For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭2:4-13‬ ‭NASB‬‬

 

[hedrick]

Actually it does....wrath and indignation. There will be tribulation and distress ‬...‬

This is consistent with pretty much all different concepts of judgement, whether something that eventually involves salvation, e.g. 1 Cor 3:12, destruction, or eternal torment.

Tribulation and distress actually seems a pretty underwhelming description of eternal torture.

 

[CharismaticLady]

I'm not quite ready to commit to universalism. I'm inclined to be optimistic about most people eventually being reconciled, but I don't think we can assert it doctrinally. I think some may not survive. I understand many of the NT images as suggesting destruction, not eternal torment.

I believe universalism is common within the PCUSA, but I don't think it'a a majority.

I always believed in all the parables of destruction and that only Satan and his angels would suffer forever, but then I read Revelation 14:11

Revelation 14:11
And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”

 

[hedrick]

I always believed in all the parables of destruction and that only Satan and his angels would suffer forever, but then I read Revelation 14:11

Revelation 14:11
And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”

First, I think it’s risky to base doctrine on the Rev, since much of it is obviously symbolic. Much of the symbolism has an OT background, in this case Is 34:9-10. But in the OT, the smoke is from burning either dead bodies (Is 66:4) or a dead country (Edom, in this case). And it’s not literally eternal, since the people and locations described by Is and others aren’t still burning.

My reading of Rev 20-21 is that by the end, there’s no punishment left. There’s a new world. The old has passed away. Hence the pit is called the second death. So despite the use of forever and ever in Rev 14:11, you can reasonably understand it as having an end.

But not everyone agrees with what I see in the ending of the Revelation. There is Jewish background for actual eternal punishment, in Jubilees and 4 Maccabees. If that’s what the Rev actually intends, then I see it as an understandable reaction to Roman persecution, but not as something consistent with Jesus’ teachings about God.

I don’t accept Biblical inerrancy. I think there are sometimes difference between the Biblical authors. E.g. the Rev appears to call Paul Jezebel (Rev 2:20, which seems to be a condemnation of 1 Cor 8). While Paul is clear in 1 Cor 15, I do think it’s possible that the Rev allows for a torture pit to remain forever.

I will say that commentaries on the Rev, even by liberal scholars, read it as teaching eternal torment. It seems that in the 1st Cent, and in fact until fairly recently, no one thought there was anything inconsistent about a God who told us to forgive our enemies because he treated his kindly then torturing people forever. It seemed self-evident in traditional cultures that offenses required punishment, and that eternal torment was a perfectly reasonable reaction to rejecting God. Today, we’re starting to see that there are often more effective alternatives to punishment, and people see the lurid visions of the Rev as contrary to Jesus’ ideas of God.

If you think that being Christian commits you to traditional beliefs, then it’s going to be hard to avoid a literal reading of the Rev. If you think following the implications of Jesus is more consistent with Paul’s idea of everyone ending up in Christ, then you may have to reject the opinions of some fo the NT authors.

Annihilation makes logical sense. The NT images of judgement are based on OT passages that talk about dead bodies. But actual advocacy of annihilation seems to come from people interested in the moral implications. NT scholars who understand the 1st Cent background don't, as far as I know, think the NT teaches annihilation. The commentaries I read understand Paul as teaching universal reconciliation and the Rev as teaching eternal punishment, and leave it to the theologians to suggest something that makes sense to believe.

 

[martymonster]

Actually it does.

“Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God. For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭2:4-13‬ ‭NASB‬‬

I'm sorry, but I don't see a single word in there talking about dooming the majority of humanity for all of eternity.

 

[CharismaticLady]

I don’t accept Biblical inerrancy. I think there are sometimes difference between the Biblical authors. E.g. the Rev appears to call Paul Jezebel (Rev 2:20, which seems to be a condemnation of 1 Cor 8). While Paul is clear in 1 Cor 15, I do think it’s possible that the Rev allows for a torture pit to remain forever.

Paul??? Why Paul? I don't see any correlation between 1 Cor. 8 and Rev. 2 about Jezebel.

Rev. 2 and 3 letters to the seven churches, I believe are church ages until the second coming. Thyatira is the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox churches.

 

[hedrick]

Paul??? Why Paul? I don't see any correlation between 1 Cor. 8 and Rev. 2 about Jezebel.

Rev. 2 and 3 letters to the seven churches, I believe are church ages until the second coming. Thyatira is the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox churches.

In 1 Cor 8, Paul said it's OK to eat meat sacrificed to idols. Rev 2 calls someone Jezebel for saying that. Rev seemed to be referring to someone specific. Of course it doesn't have to be Paul, but he's the one we know that said that. (Actually the Jezebel reference is to a woman. The previous paragraph makes a similar statement about Barak, which would fit better.)

 

[CharismaticLady]

In 1 Cor 8, Paul said it's OK to eat meat sacrificed to idols. Rev 2 calls some saying that Jezebel. Rev seemed to be referring to someone specific. Ot course it doesn't have to be Paul, but he's the one we know that said that.

It is talking about a person, the actual Jezebel, but more importantly what she represented. She just happened to be the most famous of all the high priestesses of the ancient Babylonian mystery religion that began about 400 years after the flood. They sacrificed their own children to Moloch, passing them through the fire, and it is believed they were possibly eaten. Thus "eating things offered to idols." These temples also had temple prostitutes, thus "sexual immorality." It is not that the RCC or Oth Christian churches practiced these horrors, but when Christianity became the state religion in Rome and paganism was officially outlawed, to make the transition less painful they superimposed Mary and Jesus onto that country's goddess and child pairing. Every country had a pairing by different names. Isis and Horus, Venus and Cupid, Ishtar and Tammuz, also Ashtaroth and Tammuz. These were also associated with Baal worship. These goddesses are referred to as the queen of heaven. Sound familiar?

Google Moloch:
Child sacrifice is the ritualistic killing of children in order to please or appease a deity, ... The Tanakh also implies that the Ammonites offered child sacrifices to Moloch. ... the available evidence so far points to an argument that the children were slaughtered and their flesh cooked and possibly eaten in a sacrifice ritual made ...

It is only later on in history that these church ages are recognized, and in order. The last four church ages, starting with Thyatira represent denominations, doctrines, and theology types till the end. These four start and overlap the next, and the next.

 

[CharismaticLady]

In 1 Cor 8, Paul said it's OK to eat meat sacrificed to idols. Rev 2 calls someone Jezebel for saying that. Rev seemed to be referring to someone specific. Of course it doesn't have to be Paul, but he's the one we know that said that. (Actually the Jezebel reference is to a woman. The previous paragraph makes a similar statement about Barak, which would fit better.)

Barak??? What are you reading? I don't see that name in the Bible.

 

[hedrick]

Barak??? What are you reading? I don't see that name in the Bible.

Sorry. Balak.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Sorry. Balak.

Oh, that was a different church age. Pergamos. Balak was a pagan Moab king, and Balaam was a prophet. This had to do with the sin of the Nicolaitans. IOW Gnostic teachings regarding committing sexual sin so grace may abound. Balaam told the King he could bring down Israel by tempting the Israelite men with Moab women. They were also idol worshipers.

 

[BNR32FAN]

This is consistent with pretty much all different concepts of judgement, whether something that eventually involves salvation, e.g. 1 Cor 3:12, destruction, or eternal torment.

Tribulation and distress actually seems a pretty underwhelming description of eternal torture.

But only those who are unrepentant

This is consistent with pretty much all different concepts of judgement, whether something that eventually involves salvation, e.g. 1 Cor 3:12, destruction, or eternal torment.

Tribulation and distress actually seems a pretty underwhelming description of eternal torture.

I think this verse does make the point that we are the ones responsible for our own fate considering the contrast between eternal life and receiving God’s wrath.

 

[hedrick]

Oh, that was a different church age. Pergamos. Balak was a pagan Moab king, and Balaam was a prophet. This had to do with the sin of the Nicolaitans. IOW Gnostic teachings regarding committing sexual sin so grace may abound. Balaam told the King he could bring down Israel by tempting the Israelite men with Moab women. They were also idol worshipers.

Right. But Rev uses these names as insults for people who said just what Paul said.