Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > Am I really a Christian?

Forum Quick Jump

37 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 4/25/2003 2:03 PM (GMT -6)

Tom

My friend was, and is, in crisis over this. He no longer identifies himself as a “Christian.” I asked him, “Well, what about the vision of Christ you had that brought you to Christ 30 years ago? Was that just false?” He says no, it wasn’t. Christ did appear to him. “Do you repudiate the Cross? Do you no longer personally trust in Christ? Is that what you’re rejecting?” I asked him. He said, “Oh no. I will never do that.” “What is it then?” I asked. His basic answer was that it’s his Mom. To continue being a Christian, he feels he has to believe that she is now in hell in torment. And he simply can’t do that. The words won’t come out of his mouth. So, he no longer wishes to identify himself with a faith that requires this of him.

Iconoclast

Sounds to me like your friend still has a personal and loving relationship with Christ. Isn't this what salvation is all about? Getting back in union with God?

From your description here it seems to me like he is not rejecting Jesus, he is rejecting "Christianity" as he understands it. Sounds like he understands it as the "legal view". I would say that if it is being told to him as the "legal view" then he is right to reject it (that is, what is being told to him).

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Edited by - Iconoclast on 04/25/2003 7:31:03 PM

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 4/25/2003 2:29 PM (GMT -6)

Tom

If I have doubts about the interpretation of texts which describe what the future holds for the unevangelized or for others who rejected Christ but may not have really understood him (or for whatever reason may have been unable to accept him), I need not have doubts about the God who knows what the truth of those texts really is.

And in the end the truth of the texts in question reflects the God who suffers in love for us on the cross!

Iconoclast

I would like to second this sentiment. To me this is the crux of how we must interpret God's word. By dying on the cross, God proved once and for all that He unconditionally loves us AND that we have unsurpassable worth in His eyes, right here and right now. God loves the real person that we are. Not some behavior that we "should" become. Thus ALL scripture must be viewed through this lens, through this clear and unmmistakeable act of pure love for each and every one of us. This act of love blows away every notion we might want to entertain of the "legal view". Jesus dying on the cross saves us because to really accept this fact into our being changes how we see everything else. We start looking at scripture and the world through the second view.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Edited by - Iconoclast on 04/25/2003 7:31:19 PM

Leila
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 93

Posted 4/27/2003 3:57 PM (GMT -6)

Again, thanks everyone for the responses. I am so appreciative of the time and effort all have made to help me sort through these issues. I have been unable to engage in such discussion through my church or with my family. I know that there will never be an ultimate answer – in this lifetime -- to these questions, but at the least, it is comforting to “talk” to people who struggle like I do, who analyze and question like I do, yet are devoted followers of Christ. Thank you all for your valuable input.

Forgive me if I am not able to respond to all the points made – I value your contribution just the same:

Iconoclast:

Thanks for elaborating on your views. Just one more question. You stated that “Salvation comes when we believe that Jesus unconditionally loves us.” Yet isn’t this also legalistic in a sense – something we must do to achieve salvation? Or am I missing something? I apologize if I’m being thickheaded about this, but I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.

BJS:

Thanks for your welcoming words. I appreciate your explanation of the annihilationist view – a view I very much want to embrace. A few follow-up questions:

You seem to dismiss Revelation’s description of hell as symbolic. But what of Jesus’ description of hell as “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 13:42, 22:13) Would you say that Jesus, too, uses symbolism to describe hell? Even if one takes these statements figuratively, to me they still imply hell as a punishing, physically horrible place.

You cite passages where Jesus repeats the imagery of hell as a consuming fire several times. Yet Jesus also refers to hell as an “eternal fire” (Matthew 25:41) and speaks of the “eternal punishment” of the wicked. (Matthew 25:46). How do you reconcile these differences?

Scott Jorgenson:

Those were really some interesting points you made about why it’s so hard to find like-minded Christians. I never really thought about it like that. I’ve always wondered if most Christians are simply afraid to entertain theological questions, intellectually incapable of doing so, or just plain uninterested. I’ve felt that when I bring up such questions to fellow Christians they seem to be either ignorant and dismissive (“Of course a loving God would never send ‘good’ people to hell.”) or very defensive and callous (“You just need to have faith in God to do what’s right; get over it.”).

It sometimes makes it hard to forge truly meaningful relationships in church when I can’t have honest meaningful dialogue with my fellow Christians – where I fear they either don’t “get” me or judge me because of my questions. I don’t want to paint too dismal a picture; I genuinely like the people I fellowship with and feel that they care about me; I like the pastor and his sermons are often helpful in applying the Bible to real life problems. But I still long for a small group where theological issues are discussed.

This forum does provide an excellent outlet and I am very thankful that I found it. It has already helped to solidify my thinking a bit and has made me at least feel understood. No, you don’t sound like a “guru,” but it’s obvious from your writings that you are articulate, observant, and analytical -- and sharing your thoughts with me have indeed helped my thinking process, even if you don’t have it all figured out yet.

John Earp:

Thanks for your answering my questions and clarifying your response.

TGB:

Thank you for taking the time to respond to me. I’m so sorry to hear about your father. These must be hard times for you and your family. I’m glad to hear that at least he is no longer an atheist – that must give you hope. That was also sad about Jalal. I can really sympathize with him and understand his feelings. At least he has a friend like you to talk to about this. I hope that over time he can be at peace with his concerns about his mother.

You talked about my focus on inclusivism regarding my concern for my father. In one sense, perhaps I am looking for a “legal loophole” for my dad. However, another reason is my concern with the fate of my father’s family -- most of whom were truly “unevangelized.” I am not only concerned for them, but I also would like to provide assurances to my father (should the subject ever arise). I would like to be able to tell him, with Biblical support, that I believe his family is in heaven. (Although whether or not one’s family is saved or not should, intellectually, have no effect on one’s faith, I believe it can create a huge psychological barrier to ever being open to hearing the Gospel.)

You asked on what grounds my dad believes in God when he is against the notion of faith and believes all must be proven. It does seem inconsistent with his need for scientific proof (and I don’t know the real answer since he doesn’t like to talk about this stuff), but I think he has concluded that this world could not have happened by chance, that it was purposely designed, and that therefore there exists a Creator. What is also interesting is that my dad has also been known to pray in times of crisis. This also gives me hope – that perhaps his relationship with God is more significant that it appears to me.

You stated, “Whatever happens to your Dad, you can know that God will do the right thing, the just thing, the most loving thing. If this is not enough for you, then you’re probably trying to do God’s job for him.” On an intellectual level, I know this to be true -- and that my doubts and worries probably reveal a lack of faith in God’s control. But, aside from a lobotomy,

I am not sure how to squash the negative thoughts that often fill my head.

You also stated: “Our inability to come up with final, full-proof answers to these theological questions is what makes holding any one view an impossible source of assurance for us regarding the unevangelized and lost.” That is quite true – and reinforces the notion that it only our faith in God to do what is right that can ever give us true peace. So do you think that our attempts to come up with our own answers to such questions are entirely futile; that we should be able to throw our hands up in the air and simply say, “God, I can’t figure this all out and I don’t need to figure this all out -- I simply trust that you will do what is right and that is enough for me”? Or do you think that studying these hell/salvation issues can actually be helpful and not merely academic?

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 4/27/2003 4:29 PM (GMT -6)

Leila: I also would like to provide assurances to my father (should the subject ever arise). I would like to be able to tell him, with Biblical support, that I believe his family is in heaven.

Tom: Others might disagree with me, but I don’t believe such assurances are to be had. You simply cannot assure your father than his entire family is in heaven. There is no biblical support (outside of whatever arguments universalists use) for assuring him that this is the case. You can of course assure him on biblical grounds that God can be trusted to do what is right, just, and most loving, but only God knows what the state of their hearts was.

Leila: So do you think that our attempts to come up with our own answers to such questions are entirely futile; that we should be able to throw our hands up in the air and simply say, “God, I can’t figure this all out and I don’t need to figure this all out -- I simply trust that you will do what is right and that is enough for me”? Or do you think that studying these hell/salvation issues can actually be helpful and not merely academic?

Tom: Our attempts to find answers to important questions is never futile. How could we say “I can’t figure this out; I simply trust you” unless we first attempted to find an answer? Sometimes the lack of an answer means there is no answer for us and we should trust God. Other times the lack of an answer means we’re asking the wrong questions. We have to search to find out which is which. I totally obsess with finding the answer to some things! So yeah, let’s keep looking, and that includes the question of “hell.” It especially is important regarding questions about salvation. It makes a huge difference if salvation is by grace through faith or whether it’s a reward for being good.

Tom

Edited by - TGB on 04/27/2003 9:30:00 PM

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 4/28/2003 7:25 PM (GMT -6)

Leila

You stated that “Salvation comes when we believe that Jesus unconditionally loves us.” Yet isn’t this also legalistic in a sense – something we must do to achieve salvation?

Iconoclast

If the “legal view” is true then yes this would just be a legalistic hoop we would need to jump through. In fact, if the “legal view” is true there is no escaping the need to jump through some hoop. One reason Jesus dying on the cross is such a powerful way for God to reach us “dyed in the wool legal viewers” is that when we look at it from our “legal view” presuppositions we see that God has set up a very simple hoop for us to jump through in order to be saved. All we have to do is believe that Jesus is the son of God and that He died in order to save us from our sins and be baptized. When we do this and grow in it, the “legal view” starts to lose its grip and we see everything through the eyes of God’s unconditional love for us.

The “legal view” is not true. My understanding and my experience is that Jesus wants to have an intimate and loving relationship with everybody and the only issue is whether WE want to enter into this relationship with Him. Thus there is only the free choice of the individual. It is not a question of DOING the right things in order to “merit” this relationship. It is a free and loving gift that is there for the choosing. The choice is do WE want to accept Jesus’ love for us and therefore love Him back? There is nothing legalistic in the choice or the choosing.

Luke 13:34
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen [doth gather] her brood under [her] wings, and ye would not!

Here Jesus is expressing his desire to gather together his children to him as any loving mother would do but the children keep rejecting Him. They, in fact, end up killing Him. And who exactly were these children who killed their loving mother? Was it the prostitutes or the tax collectors? No, it was the religious leaders who were steeped in the “legal view”. The prostitutes and tax collectors experienced Jesus’ incredible unconditional love for them and they CHOSE to accept Jesus’ love and love Him back. The Pharisees could only see Jesus through the “lens” of the “legal view” and thus wanted to know if He was good or evil. They saw Him healing people and loving people unconditionally and they REJECTED Him BECAUSE they decided that He was evil (“casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub”). Why did they decide that He was evil and reject Him? Because Jesus loved people unconditionally. Jesus loved the prostitute who came and shed tears on His feet to clean them because Jesus had shown love and compassion to her. Jesus shamed the Pharisees into NOT stoning the woman caught in adultery and refused to condemn her Himself. Jesus unconditionally loved the woman at the well who had had five husbands and wasn’t currently married to the man she was living with. Jesus didn’t even breathe a word of judgment toward her and actually used her to evangelize the whole city.

Leila, you are absolutely warranted in telling your father that God unconditionally loves him and his entire family – no different, only much, much more so – than a father loves his daughter or a mother loves her son. Whether they are right now united with God in an intimate loving relationship is totally dependent on their free choice to accept God’s unconditional love and therefore choose to love Him back. We will all come before God one day and experience His unconditional love for us. Some will accept God’s love with great joy. Others will reject God’s love and seek to kill Him – they won’t be successful this time either. But the continued attempt will cause them great torment.

You might consider asking your father what he thinks the individuals in his family chose.

thanks,
Iconoclast

p.s. Greg Boyd's book Satan and the Problem of Evil shows very clearly why love must be chosen and what that implies.

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Edited by - Iconoclast on 04/29/2003 12:32:00 AM

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 4/29/2003 4:47 AM (GMT -6)

Leila:

quote:
You seem to dismiss Revelation’s description of hell as symbolic. But what of Jesus’ description of hell as “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 13:42, 22:13) Would you say that Jesus, too, uses symbolism to describe hell? Even if one takes these statements figuratively, to me they still imply hell as a punishing, physically horrible place.

Hey, Leila. Glad you found this stuff somewhat helpful. With regard to your above question, remember that the annihilationist position does not contend that hell is not a punishing, physically horrible place. It merely contends that those there will ultimately be annihilated. Therefore, all the scriptural references to suffering regarding hell, such as those you have mentioned above, are consistent with annihilationism. You may have missed this point in my outline, because it was brief. Here it is again:

quote:
· There is a period of suffering for the damned prior to their annihilation, depending on the severity of their wickedness. This accounts for the various passages that seem to ascribe conscious suffering to those who are judged (Lk 16:19-31; Rom 2:8; 2 Thess 1:6).

Does that make sense?

Leila also said:

quote:
You cite passages where Jesus repeats the imagery of hell as a consuming fire several times. Yet Jesus also refers to hell as an “eternal fire” (Matthew 25:41) and speaks of the “eternal punishment” of the wicked. (Matthew 25:46). How do you reconcile these differences?

Again, the outline was brief, so you might have missed my points on this. Certainly let me know if this doesn't make sense, or you want to flesh it out a bit more:

quote:
· Hell is not suffered eternally; its consequences are eternal. The damned suffer “eternal punishment” (Mt. 25:46), “eternal judgment” (Heb. 6:2) and “eternal destruction” (2 Thess 1:9) the same way the saved experience “eternal redemption” (Heb 9:12, cf. 5:9). The saved do not undergo an eternal process of redemption. Their redemption is eternal in the sense that once the saved are redeemed, it is forever. Likewise, the damned do not undergo an eternal process of punishment or destruction, but once they are punished and destroyed, it is forever.

So, essentially, Leila, the annihilationist position does not ignore those passages that use the word "eternal." However, annihilationism holds that in the light of all Scripture, the word "eternal" is best understood to refer to the fact that the consequences of rejecting God are "eternal." That is, annihilation will last forever, not the conscious pain and suffering.

Make sense?

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/29/2003 5:36 AM (GMT -6)

Here's something.

www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm

Ever read C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce? In it the "place" is the same, yet the experience is different depending on the person. One image he gives us is where the new arrivals to heaven (you walk from the flying bus towards the city) are in pain because their souls do not have enough weight yet to bend the tips of the grass blades over as they walk--leaving their soft feet-bottoms vulnerable to the sharp tops of the grass blades. Ouch.

The article LINKED above is called, "THE RIVER OF FIRE". (I've posted it on CVM several times.) It conveys the Eastern Christian view that GOD'S LOVE is experienced one way by those that love Him, but as another by those who don't. Far from an "anihilationalist" view, this view BOTH affirms (1) God's unchanging love (for the "whole world"--even for those who don't love Him) and (2) also the awefulness of being outside of communion with God.

Give it a read, Leila.

Here it is again:

www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm

"THE RIVER OF FIRE".

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/29/2003 10:39:32 AM

Leila
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 93

Posted 5/3/2003 8:25 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks again for all the responses. (Thanks BJS for clearing up the annihilation question -- I stand guilty of not reading very carefully -- sorry!)

PotOnWheel -- The River of Fire was quite an interesting read. Thanks for recommending it. I think I will have to re-read it a few times before I respond further. I would like to ask one question though: are the views presented in the River of Fire well accepted in the American Orthodox church, or any other denomination? And if not, why do you think that is?

I am also in the midst of reading The Great Divorce. I am sure I will have more questions when I am through.

Thanks again everyone for your help.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 5/3/2003 10:15 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Leila

PotOnWheel -- The River of Fire was quite an interesting read. Thanks for recommending it. I think I will have to re-read it a few times before I respond further. I would like to ask one question though: are the views presented in the River of Fire well accepted in the American Orthodox church, or any other denomination? And if not, why do you think that is?

Good question, Leila!

I think that the answer deserves a little developing. I'm of the impression that it represents the core of what can be identified with Orthodoxy (I worded that carefully). But it must also be said that there are a lot of ideas out there throughout the Christian world, and quite a bit of "cross-fertilization" has occurred--not all good. The "Orthodox world" includes all of the influences by Latin Scholasticism and Papal miliatry imperializm, and Peter the Great's Westernization of Russia. (including some really "sappy" romanticized icons--reminding one of the rather effeminate Salamon's "Head of Christ" I grew up with as a Baptist.) So, whether Russian, Polish, Greek, etc., there is often both accutriments that "feel" or sound more RCC than Byzantine.

Which leads, or should, to something else. Why "Byzantine." Orthodoxy is true-teaching, not an ethnic group. Orthodoxy has been followed by translation of Scriptures and Worship-Liturgy into the Language of the people. The Alaskan Inuit got John 3:16 in THEIR language right away. (The neighborhood RCC church, by you, got English only with Vatican II.) Orthodox Liturgy comes directly from the Jewish Synagog and Temple liturgies--contining both and in that order. But the truth of Christianity was, perhaps, uniquely developed as something communicatable in the setting of the Greek world: how the docrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity were defended. And it was not GREEK philosophy that affected Christian teaching. Rather, it was Christian, Biblical truth that when cast with the tools of Greek academia actually RE-CAST a whole civilization, baptizing it and Christifying it. Christianity with Basil and Athanasias was no less offensive to Greeks of their day than it was when Paul spoke of that.

Then, through the centuries, issues came up as they always do. Often more willing to say what was "not" true than to attempt exhaustively to define truth beyond what Scripture and Christian experience revealed Orthodox Christian theology maintained that which "represents the core of what can be identified with Orthodoxy" (as I carefully said above.)

Notice, please, that I avoided words like "mainline" or "traditional" or "majority." Those are appropriate for situations where opinion (for mainline) and trend (for traditional) and polity (for majority) are the issue. Orthodoxy is different. Notice what's in this quote (from Christianity Today Inc's Chrisitian History Magazine, "We Do Not Wish To Blue The Faith", an interview with with Bartholomew I, 270th Ecumenmical Patriarch of Constatinoplewww.christianitytoday.com/ch/54h/54h042.html ) :

quote:
BARTHOLOMEW I: We do not hold that exclusivity means judgment or exclusion. The idea that membership in a visible Church organization is requisite for membership in heaven is based on a false paradigm—that we somehow parallel the kingdom of God in this world. The kingdom is not an exterior reality, rather it is interior, at least until the end of time.

In identifying the Orthodox Church as the Church founded by the Lord Jesus Christ through His Holy Apostles, we by no means circumscribe or limit the kingdom of God. We know well the words of the Lord, that the Spirit blows where he will, and we acknowledge that the power, mercy and love of God are well beyond our comprehension.

While affirming that "He that is not with Me is against Me" (St. Luke 11:23), we also affirm that "He that is not against us is for us" (St. Luke 9:50). This historical antinomy is ever present in the life of the Church. But it nevertheless does not blur the definition of the faith, the canonical boundaries of the good order of the Church, or our desire to call all mankind to the knowledge of the truth. We prefer the spirit of genuine love and concern and avoid the kind of triumphalism that has caused so much alienation and division throughout the ages.

SO... when I weasel with words and say "...core of what can be identified with..." it is out of respect for what they are saying.

As to the ongoing-ness of truth from the apostles through the period of what is called Byzantine theology, through the monstics, and into the present, what can be said? Is there differences....YES. But is there continuity that can be seen, that is a clear witness...ALSO YES.

As I said above, often more willingness is found in saying what is "not" than in defining too far what is true, beyond revelation and experience within the Body. But in those things that are key, the same witness is found in the Apostles, in the Early Fathers, in Byzantine Theologians such as Maximus and Gregory Palamas and Symeion the New Thologian, and in the Byzantine Revival underway now. Faces with different outside threats the diversity is to be expected. The tools available vary. But the witness is the same. The witness is centered on the Canonical witness of Scripture and the Life of the Church in the Spirit centered on the Eucharistic participation in the Lord's Body and Blood.

quote:
According to this vision, which is based on some of the earliest patristic writings, including those of Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyons, the Church is fully realized, is incarnate as the Body of Christ, precisely when she gathers around the altar to celebrate the eucharist. The eucharist, therefore, is both locus and source of the Church's life. (Meyendorff)

As to the relationship between theology and the Church's experience in the Spirit, Irenaeus said that our whole life ought to conform to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist should confirm our whole life. And amidst all the diversity is a Holy continuity, sometimes requiring digging.

quote:
And in the eyes of Irenaeus, the Tradition was associated
with that "genuine anointing of truth" (Against Heresies, Book 4,
Chapter XXVI, paragraph 2), passed on from the Apostles, through
the succession, to the bishops of the Church and through them to
the presbyters. He did not see the teaching of the Apostles as
unchanging examples, to be repeated over and over again word for
word or even paraphrased, but as a living source of both life and
inspiration. Tradition is to be found in the ongoing presence of
the Holy Spirit in the Church, not just in the repeating and
remembering of words. Thus, we see that the Tradition and its
use in the Church is a charismatic, not an historical, matter.
www.antiochian.org/theology/what_is_the_basis_for_certainty_.htm

John Behr writes:

quote:
As St Irenaeus put it, at the end of the second century:

If anyone reads the Scriptures [that is, the "Old Testament"] in this way, he will find in them the Word concerning Christ, and a foreshadowing of the new calling. For Christ is the 'treasure which was hidden in the field' (Mt 13:44), that is, in this world -- for 'the field is the world' (Mt 13:38) -- [a treasure] hidden in the Scriptures, for He was indicated by means of types and parables, which could not be understood by men prior to the consummation of those things which had been predicted, that is, the advent of Christ. ... And for this reason, when at the present time the Law is read to the Jews, it is like a fable; for they do not possess the explanation (tên exêgêsin) of all things which pertain to the human advent of the Son of God, but when it is read by Christians, it is a treasure, hid in a field, but brought to light by the Cross of Christ (Against the Heresies, 4.26.1).

www.svots.edu/Faculty/John-Behr/Articles/Orthodoxy.html
(Orthodoxy: A Talk given at the University of North Carolina / March 23, 1998)

WELL, THAT WAS NOT SHORT ANSWER. SORRY.

You asked, simply: "are the views presented in the River of Fire well accepted in the American Orthodox church, or any other denomination"

I answered, pretty much, that Orthodoxy is NOT a denomination. And I answered that to the degree that such things can be known, that the article could probably be well eccepted in the Orthodox world. I hinted that there might be variations of how it is considered -- but it is definitly not out on a limb. I'll comment that it srikes me that he is a little bit "hot under the colar" at the outside influences (from the Augustinian tradition) that threaten those he loves. So, speaking from one generation to another, he took up arma against a real and present danger.

I've seen such a view picked up by contemporary theologians. But expecially in theology, one should expect continuity and not innovation!!!!! I'll regard the import into the Evangelical world as something good. Something resonant with John 3:16. But not as a first-ever discovery.

You also ask: "And if not, why do you think that is?"

I don't have a big picture; so all that I can do is wonder too. The entrenched arguements over lines drawn "Calvinist/Armenian" and "Augustinian?Pelagian" are well known. But I don't think that they control everything! Even within all camps there is, I've seen, "postoral" nuancing going on. People wresstle with their own tradition. I attend a Dutch Reformed denomination Church. I see it. (Which is why I hold the Reformed theology and worldview higher in my regard than its island cousin, Presbyterianism.)

I don't think that there is anything against looking hard at what the author of "The River of Fire" has to say. But also give it some time for you to discover what you "already know" about it. John 3:16 is pretty ubiquitous (all over the place).

God is Love. Christ is the terrible judge. Christ offered himself to the reality of our sindetermined death and redeems humanity and the cosmos. He is the offering, the offerer, and the judge.

We have "friends in high places!"

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 05/03/2003 3:26:46 PM

Leila
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 93

Posted 5/5/2003 5:57 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks for your response PoW. I have some more questions for you on this topic that I think might best be put into a new post. I would appreciate hearing from you again. Thanks!

(BTW, I am puzzled by your comment "Christ is the terrible judge." What exactly do you mean?)

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655

Posted 5/5/2003 6:24 AM (GMT -6)

Hi Leila,

I think you raise many good questions-
First, none of us have been to heaven or hell and back, so none of us know from experience what those states are.

If we truly believe in a heaven - there will be no more tears, nothing will upset us, b/c if there's the possibility of distress and sadness, then what's the difference between heaven and earth? It seems to me that the afterlife must be a spiritual state - and who knows whether it's even possible for us to have a memory of our lives on earth. After all, presumably we won't have a physical brain. Anyway, my point is, once you are in heaven enjoying fellowship with God, by definition you will not be upset about people who you think have not made it to heaven. Of course, I have no way of describing this.

Secondly, we can't presume to know God. If he is anything, he is a perfect judge. I think we have to trust that he knows best and is not going to sadistically torture someone for eternity b/c they happened to be born in a country with no meaningful way of reading and apprehending the bible and "accepting " Christ.

I've struggled with this myself, b/c if we say that those who are actively seeking God will be saved no matter what the religious persuasion, then we are becoming pluralistic, and a Muslim, Hindu, basically anyone who lives an honorable life would be saved. And then it boils down to a legalistic act, of being saved by your work of seeking God.

This has nothing to do with grace. Grace means that God did the "work" on the cross. Christ gave the sacrifice for all. Perhaps this sounds Calvinistic but if we're saying that we must consciously choose Christ- isn't that a work?

The truth is, these are very important questions and there are no definitive answers, simply b/c none of us are GOd. Only He knows. You just must be responsible for yourself and trust that God, as a loving father, is not going to do anything that goes outside those bounds.

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true."
- James Branch Cabell

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 5/5/2003 5:52 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Leila

Thanks for your response PoW. (BTW, I am puzzled by your comment "Christ is the terrible judge." What exactly do you mean?)

Christ is the judge of the Last Judgement. I've posted that article. Now I feel obligated to balance it a bit...to make sure people are thinking too. Scriptures say: "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him." (Psalm 2:12) And scriptures also show that there is not a one-size-fits-all reward in heaven. Do you know a verse that shows that? There is, of course, the parable I heard preached on Sunday, about the laborers who all received a days wages even though working different amounts. Know that one. But I also remember the parable where some who were forgiven much loved more. The little-working and much-forgiven seem to fit together. But the "great is your reward in heaven" part, and the Parable of the Talents are vivid pictures -- also the "many mansions" part. No one-size-fits-all reward.

Even a terrible judge is relief to the justified. But OUR justification is only in His Resurrection, Paul says. He paid the reality of our sin and death, in His body. We can either embrace life or death.

37 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:12 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual