Why preach the gospel?

[Oldmantook]

So you do believe in punishment against sin. You just think the sentencing is unfair?

So, like I said before, serial killers, serial raptists, child abusers, pedophiles, you are saying do not deserve to be in prison for life or the death penalty?


If you were a judge what sentence would you render on Hitler?

Your reasoning makes sense only up until a certain point. Since I presume that you would acknowledge that God is just, is punishment the same thing as justice? Presumably, we both agree that being condemned to the lake of fire qualifies as punishment - but does it meet the demands of justice? For example, a rapist could rape a woman. He claims he is innocent and is not repentant for his crime but is found guilty and sentenced to prison. We would agree that the rapist is being punished but the rape victim will have to live with the consequences of what happened for the rest of her life. Is that justice as the victim has life-long consequences through no fault of her own? Suppose yet that a child was conceived and born as a result of the rape and the mother now has the responsibility to raise the child on her own while the perpetrator does nothing but sit in jail. Is that justice? Based on this example, it can be argued that there is a difference between punishment and justice as the former does not always meet the demands of the latter. The germane question to consider then is how can punishment also meet the demands of justice in this case? I submit that the answer demands that the perpetrator of the crime has to willingly agree to make amends and seek reconciliation with his victim. He needs to admit guilt, seek forgiveness and make recompense for his crime - perhaps some sort of ongoing financial obligation/support when he leaves prison and hopefully gets a job. The point is justice is only accomplished when the perpetrator participates in making amends toward the one he is guilty of offending. The penal/punishment model falls short in this regard.

I believe this human scenario approximates the picture of how God deals with us justly for our sins against Him. There is Biblical precedent for this view of punishment/justice throughout the scriptures. For example Ex 22:1 states: "If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall repay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep." In the NT, Zacchaeus promises Jesus that he will restore fourfold those whom he has defrauded. These instances exemplify that justice demands not just the aspect of punishment but also recompense in order to make amends and fully bring about God's justice.

Given this scriptural evidence, we can apply this to the concept of an eternal hell. Being condemned to eternal punishment in the lake of fire certainly constitutes as punishment but it does not bring about God's justice because the inhabitants in the lake of fire have no opportunity to admit their guilt, seek forgiveness and seek to make recompense as it is "already too late." They must suffer the consequence of their sin forever. There is no chance for amends and reconciliation with God and therein lies the weakness with the retributive punishment model of hell. The view of the lake of fire that is most consistent with the scriptures and the character of God is the view where the lake of fire is for the purpose of chastisement where sinners recognize their sin against God, repent and seek forgiveness from the Lamb. Of course they, like all of us cannot repay their debt against God except that they believe in the sacrificial atonement of Jesus to make recompense for their sin. Like the rapist example it requires willing participation on their part as guilty sinners before a holy God. This reconciliation model of the lake of fire requires that the sinners must endure the purifying fires of hell in order that they may seek reconciliation with the Lamb who is also present in the lake of fire (Rev 14:10) so that one day God's ultimate goal of reconciliation is achieved: "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross" (Col 1:19-20).

 

[ladodgers6]

God's dealings, punishments, judgements, wrath, etc, regarding sin & sinners is never unfair. It is always corrective, never sadistic, pointless or endless.

So we agree that God's dealings, punishment, judgments, wrath is never unfair. Thank you for that.

I'm not even addressing the question of human laws or human opinions re crimes. What does that have to do with Scripture & what it says about postmortem consequences?

So then civil law is unfair in sentencing murderers, raptists, pedophiles to; in human terms their WHOLE life in prison or receiving the death penalty? If you think and believe that God does not render life sentences per se; which I would love for you to provide me scripture on this. Why do you not object to civil penalties for life sentences or the death penalty,

What did Saul, the "worst of sinners", the inquisitionist of Christian men & women, who compelled them to blaspheme, & was himself a blasphemer & murderer deserve?

Yes Saul was the persecutor of Christ's church, he executed Christians for not following the law for salvation, and he condemned all who believe in christ through faith alone apart from the law (Roman's 3:28). But Christ struck Saul down on the road to Damascus, and taught him his Gospel, and changed his name to Paul. And Paul became the defender of the Gospel, in which he once condemned.

What does this have to do with Scripture & God's judgements? For all i know Hitler could be in heaven now sipping tea with Saul who became the apostle Paul. Do you consider yourself better than either of them?

I bring this up, because I am curious what you would do, if you were the presiding judge. Would you sentence him to life, death, life just some time?

As a Calvinist what made you so lucky to win the lottery of being chosen as one of God's elect? Did Love Omnipotent choose the nonelect for the purpose of frying them alive forever?

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf
http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/unique_proof_for_universalism.html

But what did God save me from, that required sacrificing his only begotten Son?

 

[ClementofA]

If you think and believe that God does not render life sentences per se; which I would love for you to provide me scripture on this.

This sounds like just payback, not endless annihilation or tortures:

Rev.18:6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.

Worthy of death, not endless tortures or endless annihilation:

Rom.1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

10:28 A man that hath set at nought Moses' law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses: 29 of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Generally capital punishment under Moses' law was by stoning. Stoning to death is not a very sore or long lasting punishment. People suffered far worse deaths via the torture methods of the eternal hell believing Medieval Inquisitionists and the German Nazis under Hitler.

Therefore, if the writer of Hebrews believed that wicked, rebellious, Christ rejectors would be punished with something so monstrous as being endlessly annihilated or tormented, he would not have chosen to compare their punishment to something so lame as being stoned to death. Clearly he did not believe Love Omnipotent is an unfeeling terminator machine or sadist who abandons forever the beings He created in His own image & likeness so easily.

Few & many stripes, not endless punishment:

Lk.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. 48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

 

[ladodgers6]

Your reasoning makes sense only up until a certain point. Since I presume that you would acknowledge that God is just, is punishment the same thing as justice? Presumably, we both agree that being condemned to the lake of fire qualifies as punishment - but does it meet the demands of justice? For example, a rapist could rape a woman. He claims he is innocent and is not repentant for his crime but is found guilty and sentenced to prison. We would agree that the rapist is being punished but the rape victim will have to live with the consequences of what happened for the rest of her life. Is that justice as the victim has life-long consequences through no fault of her own?

Well, his concern was not the judgement, or punishment being rendered. But the length of the sentence being rendered. Now, you bring up a interesting point here. If the victim is suffering a life- long sentence, then shouldn't the raptist be given a life sentence?

Suppose yet that a child was conceived and born as a result of the rape and the mother now has the responsibility to raise the child on her own while the perpetrator does nothing but sit in jail. Is that justice?

If this criminal is tried, found guilty and sentenced, then justice of the law has been served. If the perp was found not guilty for lack of evidence or received a short sentence or probation, then justice was not served. Prime example is the OJ case. That was injustice, not justice served.

We are talking about the length of the sentence if it's fair or unfair. He said they all who go to hell will not be there eternally. So I ask you then if serial killer, serial rapist, or a pedophile is caught, do they receive life, death, or just some years for their crimes?

Based on this example, it can be argued that there is a difference between punishment and justice as the former does not always meet the demands of the latter. The germane question to consider then is how can punishment also meet the demands of justice in this case? I submit that the answer demands that the perpetrator of the crime has to willingly agree to make amends and seek reconciliation with his victim. He needs to admit guilt, seek forgiveness and make recompense for his crime - perhaps some sort of ongoing financial obligation/support when he leaves prison and hopefully gets a job. The point is justice is only accomplished when the perpetrator participates in making amends toward the one he is guilty of offending. The penal/punishment model falls short in this regard.

I beg to differ. If your kid was raped, and the perp asked if he could talk to you and apologize for what he did and wants to pay money to make it up. That's justice??? Even though your kid is now traumatized for life and has a kid that now keeps reminding her of what happened to her. Can you find justice because he made recompense for his crime? Sorry, but justice and forgiveness are to separate elements. You said, "I submit that the answer demands that the perpetrator of the crime has to willingly agree to make amends and seek reconciliation with his victim." I had to re-read to make sure I understood it correctly. The perp has to willingly agree??? No sir, the victim had to be willing to agree, not the perp!
A crime has been committed here. The perp has to answer for it. So I ask you if this happened to your kid. What would you do, and want from the court?

I believe this human scenario approximates the picture of how God deals with us justly for our sins against Him. There is Biblical precedent for this view of punishment/justice throughout the scriptures. For example Ex 22:1 states: "If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall repay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep." In the NT, Zacchaeus promises Jesus that he will restore fourfold those whom he has defrauded. These instances exemplify that justice demands not just the aspect of punishment but also recompense in order to make amends and fully bring about God's justice.

How about capital crimes? If someone kills one of your family members, can they kill one of their own and call it 'even steven'? They both canceled each other out, so we are good, now. Your analogy of the perp trying to make amends and recompense for his crime, falls way short. It's not apples for apples. Oh, I raped you, I'm really very sorry. Here's some money to make up for it. That's great I'll forget it ever happened! C'mon man, really?

Given this scriptural evidence, we can apply this to the concept of an eternal hell. Being condemned to eternal punishment in the lake of fire certainly constitutes as punishment but it does not bring about God's justice because the inhabitants in the lake of fire have no opportunity to admit their guilt, seek forgiveness and seek to make recompense as it is "already too late."

Why is it to late? Did they have a chance to believe and repent?

They must suffer the consequence of their sin forever. There is no chance for amends and reconciliation with God and therein lies the weakness with the retributive punishment model of hell.

Nobody forces people to sin. People sin willingly. Paul said in Romans 2:15They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. So they are without excuse! There is no get out of jail free card!

The view of the lake of fire that is most consistent with the scriptures and the character of God is the view where the lake of fire is for the purpose of chastisement where sinners recognize their sin against God, repent and seek forgiveness from the Lamb. Of course they, like all of us cannot repay their debt against God except that they believe in the sacrificial atonement of Jesus to make recompense for their sin. Like the rapist example it requires willing participation on their part as guilty sinners before a holy God. This reconciliation model of the lake of fire requires that the sinners must endure the purifying fires of hell in order that they may seek reconciliation with the Lamb who is also present in the lake of fire (Rev 14:10) so that one day God's ultimate goal of reconciliation is achieved: "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross" (Col 1:19-20).

This part is all over the place, I'll address it tomorrow.

 

[Oldmantook]

Well, his concern was not the judgement, or punishment being rendered. But the length of the sentence being rendered. Now, you bring up a interesting point here. If the victim is suffering a life- long sentence, then shouldn't the raptist be given a life sentence?

No, because, based on my argument the rapist should be given a sentence as long as it takes him to acknowledge his offense, make restitution of some kind, and reconcile with the person whom he offended or trespassed against. He could be given a life sentence but so what? This does not guarantee that reconciliation would take place. Therein lies the difference between the retributive model and the rehabilitative model.

If this criminal is tried, found guilty and sentenced, then justice of the law has been served. If the perp was found not guilty for lack of evidence or received a short sentence or probation, then justice was not served. Prime example is the OJ case. That was injustice, not justice served

OJ case is irrelevant so I don't know why you cite it. If justice is served, then why do BOTH the OT and NT consistently evidence that restitution must be made as well?? Jail time alone does not constitute justice according to Scripture.

We are talking about the length of the sentence if it's fair or unfair. He said they all who go to hell will not be there eternally. So I ask you then if serial killer, serial rapist, or a pedophile is caught, do they receive life, death, or just some years for their crimes?

Does it not depend on the seriousness of their crime? Do you expect someone who goes to prison for petty theft to serve the same sentence as someone who is a serial murderer? I doubt it. A just sentence is commensurate to the seriousness of the crime committed. Not hard to understand at all is it?

I beg to differ. If your kid was raped, and the perp asked if he could talk to you and apologize for what he did and wants to pay money to make it up. That's justice??? Even though your kid is now traumatized for life and has a kid that now keeps reminding her of what happened to her. Can you find justice because he made recompense for his crime? Sorry, but justice and forgiveness are to separate elements. You said, "I submit that the answer demands that the perpetrator of the crime has to willingly agree to make amends and seek reconciliation with his victim." I had to re-read to make sure I understood it correctly. The perp has to willingly agree??? No sir, the victim had to be willing to agree, not the perp!
A crime has been committed here. The perp has to answer for it. So I ask you if this happened to your kid. What would you do, and want from the court?

Apparently you did not read what I wrote carefully. No where did I write that the rapist does not have to serve any time. Justice demands that he serve time in prison. But Scripture also demands that he ALSO acknowledge his wrongdoing and make restitution for his offense. Remember Zacheus- the perp? What did he do?
If it were my kid, then I would want exactly what I wrote: jail time, a letter of apology, and restitution.

How about capital crimes? If someone kills one of your family members, can they kill one of their own and call it 'even steven'? They both canceled each other out, so we are good, now. Your analogy of the perp trying to make amends and recompense for his crime, falls way short. It's not apples for apples. Oh, I raped you, I'm really very sorry. Here's some money to make up for it. That's great I'll forget it ever happened! C'mon man, really?

Why do you propose a ridiculous solution? Do you really think someone who kills another then goes and kills his own family member to make up for it constitutes justice? Do two wrongs make a right??
Jail time is of course required which is something that you conveniently forgot to include.

Why is it to late? Did they have a chance to believe and repent?

It is too late for those in the lake of fire according to those who espouse the eternal, retributive model of hell.

Nobody forces people to sin. People sin willingly. Paul said in Romans 2:15They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. So they are without excuse! There is no get out of jail free card!

Of course it is not free. It cost God's only begotten Son his life and blood. So your point is??

This part is all over the place, I'll address it tomorrow.

Please do so.

 

[ladodgers6]

No, because, based on my argument the rapist should be given a sentence as long as it takes him to acknowledge his offense, make restitution of some kind, and reconcile with the person whom he offended or trespassed against. He could be given a life sentence but so what? This does not guarantee that reconciliation would take place. Therein lies the difference between the retributive model and the rehabilitative model.

Wait let me bet this straight. I can kill, rape, steal as much as I want; not believe in the gospel; in fact reject the gospel and God. But as long as I am willingly agree to make amends, and feel sorry, make recompense for my crimes in hell, I'll be saved or forgiven?

Please show me anywhere in Scripture that teaches this?

 

[Oldmantook]

Wait let me bet this straight. I can kill, rape, steal as much as I want; not believe in the gospel; in fact reject the gospel and God. But as long as I am willingly agree to make amends, and feel sorry, make recompense for my crimes in hell, I'll be saved or forgiven?

Please show me anywhere in Scripture that teaches this?

If you take the time to study church history you will find that the retributive model of hell was popularized by Augustine who happened to be a crappy student of the Greek language. Rather than developing his theological views from the Greek, he had to fall back upon his reliance of Latin; thus his mistranslation of aion and its adjectival forms such as aionion, aionios, etc. Aionion and aionios cannot mean eternal/forever. I'll leave it to you to pursue this further.

I ended my previous post by citing Col 1:19-20 where this passage states that God's intention is to RECONCILE ALL THINGS to himself through the shed blood of Jesus. How is it possible then for sinners in the lake of fire who supposedly spend eternity there to be reconciled to God? According to Augustine and our popular but misguided thinking today, unsaved sinners are forever tormented in the LOF. Does that even remotely sound like reconciliation has or ever will take place to you? Eternal punishment by definition rules out any semblance of reconciliation. Thus we have a big problem since we know that Scripture cannot contradict itself.

On the other hand, we have numerous scriptures which state that God will save all. This negates the notion that most people end up forever in hell/LOF. One such scripture is 1 Tim 4:10:
"For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers."
One way to read this verse is that God is the Savior of all men but only to those who believe. Thus ”all” men is limited by the subset of those who are believers. Thus all cannot mean all, as all only refers to believers. However the verse reads ”especially” and not ”only.” For example, I could say I enjoy eating all ice cream; especially chocolate ice cream. In this sense, I don’t mean I only enjoy eating chocolate ice cream but rather I mean that I enjoy eating all ice cream including chocolate ice cream in particular. So does this verse mean ”only” or ”including.” To determine this, it is incumbent upon us to examine Paul’s usage of the word ”especially” translated from the Greek ”malista” (Strong’s 3122).
In Gal 6:10 and elsewhere Paul does not use malista to mean only. ”So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith.” Obviously, Paul does not mean that we should do good only to those in the faith. He means that we should do good to ALL people INCLUDING those in the faith. Paul employs malista in the exact same fashion in 1 Tim 5:8;17; 2 Tim 4:13; Phil 4:22; Titus 1:10. Based upon Paul’s use of malista, I conclude that God is the Savior of ALL men INCLUDING believers – not only believers.

 

[ladodgers6]

If you take the time to study church history you will find that the retributive model of hell was popularized by Augustine who happened to be a crappy student of the Greek language. Rather than developing his theological views from the Greek, he had to fall back upon his reliance of Latin; thus his mistranslation of aion and its adjectival forms such as aionion, aionios, etc. Aionion and aionios cannot mean eternal/forever. I'll leave it to you to pursue this further.

I ended my previous post by citing Col 1:19-20 where this passage states that God's intention is to RECONCILE ALL THINGS to himself through the shed blood of Jesus. How is it possible then for sinners in the lake of fire who supposedly spend eternity there to be reconciled to God? According to Augustine and our popular but misguided thinking today, unsaved sinners are forever tormented in the LOF. Does that even remotely sound like reconciliation has or ever will take place to you? Eternal punishment by definition rules out any semblance of reconciliation. Thus we have a big problem since we know that Scripture cannot contradict itself.

On the other hand, we have numerous scriptures which state that God will save all. This negates the notion that most people end up forever in hell/LOF. One such scripture is 1 Tim 4:10:
"For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers."
One way to read this verse is that God is the Savior of all men but only to those who believe. Thus ”all” men is limited by the subset of those who are believers. Thus all cannot mean all, as all only refers to believers. However the verse reads ”especially” and not ”only.” For example, I could say I enjoy eating all ice cream; especially chocolate ice cream. In this sense, I don’t mean I only enjoy eating chocolate ice cream but rather I mean that I enjoy eating all ice cream including chocolate ice cream in particular. So does this verse mean ”only” or ”including.” To determine this, it is incumbent upon us to examine Paul’s usage of the word ”especially” translated from the Greek ”malista” (Strong’s 3122).
In Gal 6:10 and elsewhere Paul does not use malista to mean only. ”So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith.” Obviously, Paul does not mean that we should do good only to those in the faith. He means that we should do good to ALL people INCLUDING those in the faith. Paul employs malista in the exact same fashion in 1 Tim 5:8;17; 2 Tim 4:13; Phil 4:22; Titus 1:10. Based upon Paul’s use of malista, I conclude that God is the Savior of ALL men INCLUDING believers – not only believers.

First of all, I want to commend you on your respectful and courtesy attitude. Yes, I have dealt with your premise many times. My time is very limited right now, as I am about to have total knee replacement surgery. I will reply to this in full, when I am feeling better. Give me a couple of days. I am not avoiding the discussion. I love discussing theology.

 

[Oldmantook]

First of all, I want to commend you on your respectful and courtesy attitude. Yes, I have dealt with your premise many times. My time is very limited right now, as I am about to have total knee replacement surgery. I will reply to this in full, when I am feeling better. Give me a couple of days. I am not avoiding the discussion. I love discussing theology.

I pray you have a successful surgery and speedy recovery. No rush.

 

[mkgal1]

The gift of forgiveness is given upon repentance.

I don't believe so......

Romans 5:8 ~ But God proves His love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.​

 

[Oldmantook]

I don't believe so......

Romans 5:8 ~ But God proves His love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.​

I think so. Reread the context of my sentence. I was referring to forgiveness upon an unsaved person becoming a believer. Is not forgiveness bestowed when an unsaved sinner believes and repents?

Even for believers, when we sin do we not repent, or in your opinion there is no need to do so? Because we're already forgiven? Can you show me just one scripture where it states that we are automatically forgiven for any sins that we may commit in the present or the future without repentance? You will not find it.

 

[mkgal1]

I think so. Reread the context of my sentence. I was referring to forgiveness upon an unsaved person becoming a believer. Is not forgiveness bestowed when an unsaved sinner believes and repents?

Even for believers, when we sin do we not repent, or in your opinion there is no need to do so? Because we're already forgiven? Can you show me just one scripture where it states that we are automatically forgiven for any sins that we may commit in the present or the future without repentance? You will not find it.

I believe forgiveness/His love came first - we resond to it.

I already provided one passage that demonstrates that....but here's another one:

Luke 23:34 - Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”​

 

[ClementofA]

I think the context of this verse refers to sinning believers only. Notice that in v.1 Paul refers to his audience as "brethren/brothers" although they are fleshly, marked by strife and jealousy (v.3). This is further confirmed later on in v.9 where Paul refers to them as God's field/building and v.16 where he refers to them as the temple of God - terms never descriptive of the unsaved. For these reasons I believe v.15 refers to sinning believers. However having said that, I as a Christian Universalist also believe that the unsaved in the LOF are also eventually saved. 1 Cor 3 though is a passage that deals specifically with the saved believer.

Oldmantook, thank you for your detailed response. Perhaps you are on to something here. I have a few more questions, if you will indulge me.

If 1 Cor 3 "deals specifically with the saved believer", including "sinning believers", how is it these saved sinners go to the lake of fire in order to become saved? In what sense is anyone who is sent to the lake of fire saved while he spends time in the lake of fire?

I tend to think so. The Greek word for "destroy" can also mean "corrupt." Believers are the temple of God and we can corrupt our temples in which the Holy Spirit dwells through continued sin and disobedience. The penalty for unrepentant sin is spiritual death/destruction in the lake of fire which at some future age results in their restoration.

These building materials in v.12 are the believer's works in v.13. The foundation is Jesus Christ (v.11). Our works built upon the foundation of Jesus Christ who is the cornerstone of our faith, will either be worthy using quality building materials such as gold, silver & precious stones which last; or will be unworthy made of wood, hay & stubble and burned up. I believe that this judgment takes place when Jesus returns at his 2nd Coming. Isaiah 66:15 refers to this: “For behold, the LORD will come in fire, and his chariots like the whirlwind, to render his anger in fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire." In that "Day" (v.13) of the Lord's return, He will test the quality of each man's works and will rebuke with flames of fire those whose works of wood, hay & stubble are judged to be unworthy.

Will every believer's life's works be either entirely perfect or imperfect, either entirely "gold, silver & previous stones" or "entirely "wood, hay & stubble"? What will divide the believer who goes to the lake of fire from the believer who doesn't?

The "reward" is not one's salvation as he shall suffer loss but still be saved through fire. If he is eventually saved, how can it be said that he suffered the loss of his salvation? That does not make any sense. If one's work is burned up he shall suffer loss (v.15). What loss is that? The loss of his "reward" in v.14. I believe this references a singular reward that Paul elsewhere refers to in Phil 3:11 - the "exanastasis" or out-resurrection. The word exanastasis only occurs this one time in the NT. In Phil 3:12 Paul clearly states that he has not yet attained to the out-resurrection and that it is a goal and prize to be reached (v.14). As a prize to be attained to, I don't think Paul was referring to the gift of salvation. And at this point in his life, I don't think that Paul was doubting his salvation either. I think that the reward spoken of in 1 Cor 3:14 is the same prize that Paul describes in Phil 3:11,14. What is the out-resurrection? It is the first resurrection described in Rev 20:4-6.
4Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. 6Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.
Paul's goal was to attain to the first resurrection in order to reign with Christ for a thousand years. That is why it is the "better resurrection" spoken of in Heb 11:35. To summarize, the "reward" is the "better resurrection," which is the exanastasis, which is the first resurrection - in order that those who have figuratively and literally sacrificed their lives to follow Christ will get to co-reign with Him during the Millennium as their reward. It is a prize that not all Christians attain to.

IYO are there then only two classes of believers (1) those who attain to the "reward" of the "better ressurrection" and (2) those who go to the lake of fire?

If the sinning believers are not saved, but are sent to the lake of fire in order that they may become saved, then is not 1 Cor. 3:15 referring to the salvation of the unsaved who go to the lake of fire? How are these unsaved sinning believers any better than the rest of the unsaved who will go to the lake of fire? Or are they worse, since they knew the truth & willfully sinned, like those in Heb 6 & 10? And, if they are worse, yet shall be saved, how much more so should unsaved unbelievers become saved.

Is there some reason to think of the fire of v.13 as any different from that of v.15:

13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

 

[Oldmantook]

I believe forgiveness/His love came first - we resond to it.

I already provided one passage that demonstrates that....but here's another one:

Luke 23:34 - Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”​

Ironically, your verse citation undermines your belief. Didn't Jesus himself command us to forgive others?So it should not be surprising when Jesus asks the Father to forgive those who crucified him. But you neglect to note that Jesus also warned us about NOT FORGIVING others: "But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." Matt 6:15
Contrary to your claim, forgiveness is not automatic is it?

 

[Oldmantook]

If 1 Cor 3 "deals specifically with the saved believer", including "sinning believers", how is it these saved sinners go to the lake of fire in order to become saved? In what sense is anyone who is sent to the lake of fire saved while he spends time in the lake of fire?

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you a Christian Universalist? Sinning believers are no longer saved, (I don't believe in eternal security/OSAS) therefore they go to the lake of fire to become saved again. If one protests claiming that it is not possible to be saved again and made spiritually alive again, then study the parable of the prodigal son. In that passage, Jesus twice repeats that the prodigal was dead but is ALIVE AGAIN. How can someone be made alive AGAIN. It certainly does not refer to physical death as the prodigal did not physically die. The only way to become spiritually alive AGAIN is for someone to become saved, then like the prodigal engage in a lifestyle of unrepentant sin. However upon repentance and returning to the Father, that spiritually dead person is made ALIVE AGAIN. In the same way, a believer whose life is marked by disobedience is sent to the LOF for an unknown age of time but eventually will be reconciled to God. Those who were never saved in this life are also relegated to the LOF where they too will eventually be reconciled to God after chastisement.

Will every believer's life's works be either entirely perfect or imperfect, either entirely "gold, silver & previous stones" or "entirely "wood, hay & stubble"? What will divide the believer who goes to the lake of fire from the believer who doesn't?

No believer's works will be entirely perfect. The only perfect life and works on the earth was Jesus'. Obedience is the dividing line between those who go to the LOF and those who don't. Heb 5:9 states: "and having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all those obeying Him," Thus believers who chronically and habitually disobey God do not have eternal life.

IYO are there then only two classes of believers (1) those who attain to the "reward" of the "better ressurrection" and (2) those who go to the lake of fire?

The reward is the "better resurrection." However if a believer does not gain the prize of the better resurrection, it does not automatically mean that that believer goes to the lake of fire. A believer who does not attain to the first/better resurrection is judged at the second resurrection or great white throne judgment.
It is commonly taught that only the unsaved dead are resurrected at this great white throne judgment however a couple of scriptures reveals that this is likely not the case as the saved dead also stand in judgment at that same time. Jn 5:28-29 Jesus himself stated: 28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming in which all those in the tombs will hear His voice, 29and will come forth—those having done good to the resurrection of life, and those having done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

Jesus cites a specific hour (singular) in which ALL those in the tombs will be resurrected - both the "good" and the "evil." The Apostle Paul confirms the same thing when he stated: "and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked" (Acts 24:15). Paul referred to a [singular] resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked which parallels Jesus' statement. At the GWT judgment the dead are judged according to "what they had done" (their works). This includes those believers who did not qualify for the exanastasis/first resurrection. At this time their works - or lack of works - determine whether their names are written in the book of life.

If the sinning believers are not saved, but are sent to the lake of fire in order that they may become saved, then is not 1 Cor. 3:15 referring to the salvation of the unsaved who go to the lake of fire? How are these unsaved sinning believers any better than the rest of the unsaved who will go to the lake of fire? Or are they worse, since they knew the truth & willfully sinned, like those in Heb 6 & 10? And, if they are worse, yet shall be saved, how much more so should unsaved unbelievers become saved.

Yes, to your first question. A believer who loses his salvation is by definition someone who is now unsaved. Essentially, not only are they no better than those who were never saved, they are worse off. Hebrews 10:29 states "How much worse punishment do you think will he deserve, the one having trampled upon the Son of God, and having esteemed ordinary the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and having insulted the Spirit of grace?" The Greek word for "worse punishment" is timoria which is only used this one-time in all of the NT. This is is diffent from the word "kolasis" which is also translated as punishment which lends me to believe that timoria for the unsaved former believer is worse than kolasis for the unbeliever.

Is there some reason to think of the fire of v.13 as any different from that of v.15:

I believe they are different for the following reasons. The fire referred to in v.13 shall reveal every man's work on the day in which every man's work is tested to determine if he shall receive a reward in v.14. The purpose of this fire is reveal whether the believer receives his/her reward (v.14). However notice in v.15 that the fire referred to in this verse is not for reward but in order to be saved/salvation. He shall suffer loss (of reward/first resurrection) but himself shall be saved, yet so by fire (in the LOF). One fire to test for reward. The other fire for the purpose of chatisement/punishment in the LOF yet he shall be saved.

 

[mkgal1]

Ironically, your verse citation undermines your belief. Didn't Jesus himself command us to forgive others?So it should not be surprising when Jesus asks the Father to forgive those who crucified him. But you neglect to note that Jesus also warned us about NOT FORGIVING others: "But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." Matt 6:15
Contrary to your claim, forgiveness is not automatic is it?

I have to tell you....this post tangles my brain a bit.

The verse I cited (Luke 23:34 - Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”) doesn't undermine my belief. You may have a different interpretation than I do....but it goes along with my belief that we are to forgive others as we have been forgiven (with grace...not a closed heart).

What you seem to be suggesting with this post (and your argument that forgiveness begins with repentance) is that God is expecting us to be more forgiving than He is (as if He's waiting for us to forgive before He's willing to extend forgiveness to us). Wouldn't that be putting the power on US (not Him)? IOW.....if the whole forgiveness process is to be dependent upon our repentance.....the whole power would be within our control (not God's). Also -something that complicates this even more- is what if everyone we need to forgive isn't acknowledging or repenting their tresspasses against us? It all gets clogged up, doesn't it?

My whole faith was deconstructed and re-constructed a few years ago.....and part of what was left in the rubble (and not used for reconstruction) was the whole "say a prayer of forgiveness in order to be saved". I believe now that we were "saved" when Christ demonstrated His love for us.....it's a process for us to then respond to that -as we absorb what that means- in how we live (as we learn to love others as God loves them).

 

[RDKirk]

So why evangelize? Because Christ commanded it. Which is the same answer a Calvinist gave me.

I'm not a Calvinist, but in my military mind, "Because Christ commanded it" is good enough for me.

I had military commanders who didn't give me all their reasons, and yet I obeyed them.

Why should I be any less willing to obey Christ?

 

[ClementofA]

I believe now that we were "saved" when Christ demonstrated His love for us.....it's a process for us to then respond to that -as we absorb what that means- in how we live (as we learn to love others as God loves them).

That interpretation is one i have seen from Martin Zender & others. Based on passages like 1 Tim.4:10; 2 Cor.5:19, Rom.5:10, etc. Verses referring to conditions for salvation are understood as regarding entering into the subjective experience of the salvation that was already accomplished on the cross for all. And verses with conditions before the cross may not be taking the accomplishment of the cross into consideration. BTW, as you may already be very well aware, the views that sin was dealt with & taken away on the cross & mankind reconciled to God are quite common, even among non universalists.

A search of "martin zender 1 tim 4 10" will lead to some youtube videos on this topic.

 

[mkgal1]

That interpretation is one i have seen from Martin Zender & others.

Interesting. I'm only recently reading about him (from you and others in the thread with Fine Linen). Before then.....I'd never heard or read of Zender.

My understanding goes back to the different at-one-ment theories....and the Franciscan theory seems to line up better with Scripture to me.
https://www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2015/03/love-not-atonement/

Verses referring to conditions for salvation are understood as regarding entering into the subjective experience of the salvation that was already accomplished on the cross for all. And verses with conditions before the cross may not be taking the accomplishment of the cross into consideration.

That's what I've concluded as well.

BTW, as you may already be very well aware, the views that sin was dealt with & taken away on the cross & mankind reconciled to God are quite common, even among non universalists.

Actually.....no, I wasn't really aware of that (these days....I have given up presuming to know what's quite common anymore. Things I'd thought would be "mainstream" in Christianity don't seem to be so much so in reality -at least not here on CF).

A search of "martin zender 1 tim 4 10" will lead to some youtube videos on this topic.

Thank you. I'll look into that

 

[mkgal1]

A search of "martin zender 1 tim 4 10" will lead to some youtube videos on this topic.

I'm watching The Special Salvation of Believers -he's kind of funny Thanks for sharing (so far, I'm in agreement with him). If THIS were the gospel that was shared (and lived out).....think of how much better this world would be right now (eventually......people will get there, I believe....there's a lot of ego to be shed).

ETA: I got to the part where he began speaking of the millennial reign. I'm of the amillennial belief (so I disagree with him there).