The standard argument is, “God expects us to forgive our enemies, so wouldn’t He do the same or be accused of being a hypocrite?”
Is it possible that God, being God, has a perfect right to expect one standard from us, while reserving for Himself the right to apply an entirely different standard to us? Thus, an argument frequently used, “I wouldn’t torture my children for all eternity, and if God is a million times better parent than me then He surely wouldn’t either” becomes moot when one considers that that is thinking from a humanistic viewpoint and not from the viewpoint that God can apply any standard of justice He desires, no matter how crazy, or inhumane, or unjust it may sound.
Taken to the extreme, while it may sound cruel and barbarous for us to imagine God condemning every single member of the human race to eternal fire for all eternity, from the perspective of God saying, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy” if God chooses not to have mercy on anyone, while that breaks every conceivable picture of a merciful and loving God we’ve come to believe from the Bible, God still could reserve the right to do just that and be totally morally justified in doing so because He is perfect in everything He does and His ways are so high as to be totally incomprehensible to we who are mere mortals.
Or you COULD interpret that as being “I’ll have mercy on whomever I damn well please.” Meaning that He will have mercy on people toward whom the listener would prefer Him NOT to have mercy.
You’re absolutely right, Cindy. It could be interpreted that way, but then we each have a 50-50 chance of being right, don’t we? You see, that’s the problem when dealing with dieties: they play by a different set of rules and humans are not privy to them, not really. It all boils down to faith with absolutely no concrete evidence to back you. If we had the evidence we wouldn’t be having these debates. The Bible doesn’t conclusively and emphatically state God will have mercy on everyone any more than it states conclusively and emphatically that He will burn them or annihilate them. In fact, it states all three equally emphatically.
The big question for me, Cindy is WHY God has allowed His Word to be so skewered in all three directions at once. I watched that video debate with Talbott and the other two men and they, three of the best scholars out there, got no closer to answering my question than others much smarter than them grappling with the same issue.
No you don’t . As Professor Talbott shows quite unequivocally, in chapter 5 of his book The Inescapable Love of God, Paul puts together a sustained argument in the book of Romans that God’s mercy, while experienced temporarily by some as wrath, or hardening, is ultimately always an expression of His universal love for His creation. From the context it is quite clear that Cindy’s interpretation is correct. (Jan Bonda does much the same thing in his book The One Purpose of God.
Some deities maybe. Not God as revealed in Jesus Christ. God as revealed in Jesus Christ - the “exact representation” of Him - modelled unequivocally a life of love, mercy, forgiveness, kindness, tolerance and inclusion. Unequivocally.
This is simply false. There is a small amount of weak, prima facie scriptural ‘evidence’ that God will either burn or annihilate *some *people - most certainly not everyone as you claim. Further, even this supposed evidence depends heavily on disputed translations and hermeneutics. But in any case, it is vastly outweighed by the overwhelming, and plainly stated, scriptural evidence of God’s saving love and mercy. Combine this with the Biblical meta-narrative, which is patently one of redemption, and the alleged dilemma evaporates into nothing.
I think the difference between God’s idea of good and our idea of good is like the difference between a child’s drawing of a stick man and Leonardo’s drawing of Mona Lisa. God’s idea of good is not different in kind, but different in quality.
If God is bad (by our standards), what does it matter if he calls his behavior “Good”. It’s just a word. Whatever this insane God chooses to call his evils, we humans will hate him and his actions, and we all will be doomed.
No one in their right mind would hope for this God, or seek him, or love him.
Rather, the only God worth seeking, the only God we will find possible to love, must be good, good as we judge goodness, only much, much better.
Cindy is right. a while ago, Jason was talking about Francis Chan’s book Erasing Hell (?)…anyway…there’s that stuff (and nonsense when used by judgementophiles) about the verse where it is said that God’s ways are not our ways, and His thoughts not our thoughts.
this is used by many to justify their tough guy, no-nonsense God who happily damns the baddies.
as i remember Jason saying (i am FAR too lazy to dig this up, mind, but might be in the book reviews bit), the context of that verse is God showing mercy. it’s not at all about judgement…it is, as Cindy reminds us, God saying “screw you…who are you to question me? my ways are not your ways! i will show mercy on anyone i damn well please!”
the Bible is UNEQUIVOCAL on God’s desire to show mercy.
Lamentations chapter 3 is just one wonderful example! Psalms also says God’s wrath does not last forever…just a moment. His favour is for LIFE.
Johnny, you are emphatically wrong. Jesus talked more about the damnation or the destruction of the wicked than anyone else in the NT. Paul was a pussycat compared to Jesus when he said, “They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might”.
Count the number of times Jesus said, “Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord, will enter heaven”, and “Wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction”, and “The Son of Man will send out his angels…and the angels will throw [everyone that does evil] into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” and perishing and weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, and “I say to you, I do not know who you are. Depart from me, ye who do iniquity” to the foolish virgins, and “Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels”, and, "These will go into everlasting punishment, and “Bind him and cast him into the outer darkness”.
These are not parables, by the way, which are open to interpretation, but actual concrete statements made by Jesus. And I am familiar with the argument about aionion since I’ve used it a number of times myself, but look at what Strong has to say about aionion: ** without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be
without beginning; without end, never to cease, everlasting; eternal, eternity, forever **
Cindy, try to imagine if you came pleading to your husband to be forgiven, saying “Didn’t I help raise our children and cook for you and take care of you when you were sick,” and he said to you, “I don’t know you. Get away from me, you iniquitous woman.” How would you feel?
But elsewhere Jesus talks about the prodigal son. So on the one hand we have these beautiful stories of forgiveness and on the other hand what appears to be this cold, heartless Jesus who can say point blank, “I don’t know you. Get away from me. Go into fiery torment.” If I didn’t know better I’d say such a deity was schizophrenic. That’s why I say, 50-50 chance of being right or wrong.
Sorry, I can’t debate with somebody who’s so determined to call black white that they will quote verbatim from Jesus’ parables and then gainsay their source, or who thinks the idea of a God who’d do something similar is even worth contemplating.
There is just too much here to refute. I’ll start with one thing to keep my post manageable. You and I and nine-tenths of the western world get quite the wrong idea when Jesus says things like:
The Kingdom of Heaven – why do we take that to mean “go to heaven when you die?” First, the Jews (and Jesus followed this tradition) avoid mentioning the name of God so much so that the correct pronunciation is, some say, lost to us today. They do this out of respect and have done for thousands of years. They even avoid the generic “name” (which is more a description than a name), “God.” Rather they say things like “the Power,” “the Majesty,” “Heaven,” and other such descriptors. Now that’s not to say that “heaven” never refers to a “place;” the home of God. Jesus did say, “Our Father who art in heaven,” so sometimes it does refer to a “location” (for lack of a better term), but usually it refers to a state – to living under the governance and authority of God, as opposed to the kingdoms of this world.
This would have been (I’m told – and according to the scholars in this sort of thing whom I’ve read (who are incidentally not UR so far as I’m aware) the interpretation the Jewish listener of Jesus’ day would have automatically defaulted to. They were looking to an earthly ‘this lifetime’ kingdom led by Messiah as the agent of Yahweh. (Say that with a hush of profound respect: Yahweh!) The kingdom of Heaven is the authority and governance of God. When we obey the things the Father desires, we are under His authority and not the authority of this world. The Jews were looking for a kingdom of God on earth. Most missed it though, because it didn’t look the way they expected it to look. The kingdom of God is within you. That is, the rulership of God takes place within a person or a body of believers as we obey Him.
Therefore it is naturally impossible to enter the Kingdom of God when one refuses to obey the King because obeying the King IS the kingdom within and amongst us. In Christ we are set free from the dominance/rulership of this world. We are set free from bondage to sin (sin leads to death). Until we believe on Him whom He hath sent (which is the work the Father requires of us – John 6), we will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Okay, Cindy, you’re onto something here that interests me greatly because this verse has always been a stumbling block to me (and I’m sure you know it is also to a lot of people, Christian and non-, because it is ALWAYS listed as one of the “hard sayings of Jesus” when the topic of difficult-to-comprehend-things-Jesus-said comes up).
Now I get that the Jews were looking for a Messiah that would rule over an earthly kingdom with Israel as it’s “capitol” so to speak, and I get that Jesus had to talk to them in terms that they would understand. What I don’t get is why Jesus would stoop to their level of ignorance in an attempt to get them to understand His mission when 1) He freely and openly admitted to His apostles and to them publicly on numerous occasions that He wouldn’t tolerated their stupidity and hard-headedness on matters such as them not being able to recognize Him as the Messiah spoken of in their scriptures and that He deliberately started using parables after His Sermon on the Mount because their hearts were so hardened, even after He had spoken in such plain English to them during the Sermon (their hearts mostly likely having been hardened by the Father so that prophecy could be fulfilled, nevertheless it did not exonerate them) that they were then given “eyes that would not see” and so it was given only to the apostles to understand the mysteries of the kingdom, and 2) that Jesus’ primary mission on earth was NOT to reach them on their level of expectation of what they thought their Messiah should be, but rather His mission was to save His people from their sins and to bring life to those who were dead in trespasses (all of us). I mean this is the central message of John 3:16–God so loved the world (not just His people, Israel, but everyone) that He sent His Son so that everyone could believe on Him and be delivered from having to perish in their sins. As such, when He talked of the kingdom of heaven it would have likely been more in reference the spiritual place where God dwells rather than the one you are referring to. Stands to reason, doesn’t it, because that’s where Jesus was trying to get us to, knowing we were all going to die some day and our spirits had to end up somewhere, hell if not heaven. So when Jesus says, “Not everyone who says to me, Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven” it’s not in response to people asking Him to let them into a kingdom on earth or a kingdom in their hearts. Their primary interest would have been and still is getting into that place in the sky where God lives—isn’t that what 99% of the debates around here and elsewhere on the topic of UR vs. ET all about----getting into heaven so that we can spend eternity out of hell and in God’s presence? Wasn’t Jesus aware that centuries down the road we Christians would be relying on His words as a roadmap to getting there? So what use would it have been to non-Jews like us reading His words today, 98% of whom would be misinterpreting His point, as you put it, that He wasn’t referring to God’s home in the sky, but rather to a governance or authority here on earth? This just isn’t computing for me. Am I too convoluted or have I gotten my question across? Sometimes I get very wordy.
There is a level on which Jesus “asks to be let in,” though not so much during His earthly lifetime as later . . . “Behold I stand at the door and knock . . . .” in Revelation. Of course in that case He was talking to the church/ekklesia and not to those outside the Kingdom. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I can’t think of anywhere in the gospels where Jesus asks to be let in – aside from offering Himself as meat and drink in John 6 and at the Last Supper. In this verse too, He’s talking about those outside entering the Kingdom of Heaven.
The Jews were looking forward to this “Kingdom of Heaven” in which they would be co-rulers with Messiah. That is the kingdom that would have been on their minds. There are scholars here who talk extensively on ancient Judaism and if I’m mistaken they’ll correct me, but it’s my understanding that the Jews of Jesus’ day didn’t have an expectation of going to a spiritual realm ‘up in the sky’ (or wherever) but of participating in a Kingdom of Heaven in the Messianic age (which they believed to be very near indeed) here on the earth – or rather, there on the earth, in which people marry and are given in marriage, continue the feast days, rule over other kingdoms, live, die, have babies and pay taxes (or probably in their case, receive taxes, for a welcome change).
The Pharisees did believe in a resurrection (though the Sadducees did not), but I’m not clear as to where they believed the resurrected would live or when and how they would be raised, etc.
I believe that when Jesus warned that they couldn’t enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, what His listeners heard was a danger of not participating in the rulership of God through His chosen people on the earth during the Messianic age. I think that was precisely what He intended them to hear. I don’t think that, at that time, He was thinking directly about you and I at all. He was thinking about the people to whom He was speaking.
As to why God would allow His scriptures to be so misunderstood down through the ages, you may as well ask why He allowed misunderstanding and twisting of scripture to result in/be used to ‘justify’ things like witch trials and inquisitions, the murder of Anabaptists by Catholics and Lutherans (and I don’t know – likely a few Calvinists as well), the murder of these groups by one another, and the killing and hatred toward Jews that ultimately culminated (so far) in the holocaust of WW2. Scripture has ALWAYS been twisted and used by selfish people. The Pharisees were doing it in Jesus’ day and modern Pharisees continue doing it today. How can the promises of God be twisted into the 'health and wealth prosperity gospel today? Why does He allow that?
It’s easy to single out EU and say, “Why would God allow this misunderstanding of His word to have been perpetuated for so long in a church that has sought Him for the truth?” The truth is, He’s allowed all sorts of fallacies in the church and in your life and mine to stand for a time until He moved in to correct them. God works with us gradually. From glory to glory He transforms us into the image of His Son. I did a study on the word ‘glory.’ Its original meaning was primarily the true story about a person – his/her reputation. It might be a good or an evil story depending on the person. With God, it is always good. So in a very real sense, ‘glory’ can often be translated as ‘revelation’ (that is, a clearer picture of God and who He is.) From glory to glory . . . from one level of the knowledge of God to another. As we see Him, we become as He is.
He develops us gradually as an artist paints a painting. Here a little; there a little, working now in this place, now in that, over the whole of the support, developing the picture from one degree of completion to another. Why was the eye not complete from the beginning so we could see what that eye truly looks like? Why were we allowed to believe it would be red when it finally turned out to be clear and blue? Because that’s the way you PAINT a painting. You never get the full picture until it’s finished. If some inexperienced person walks up while you’re in the midst of it, they’re going to think you aren’t very good at what you do. But then in the end it all comes together. Why did you deceive this person into thinking the shed would be orange? Well, you didn’t. It was just that you wanted an orange underpainting for the shed to lend some sparks of excitement to the final bluey brown color of the barn wood siding. (I just painted a picture of our shed, and that’s exactly what I did.)
God works with each of us and He works with all of us collectively . . . a little at a time . . . bringing it all together. He allows some things that might mislead us to stand because those things are a necessary step (or real estate that must be crossed) to get to the goal of many brethren to Jesus, children of the Father, a bride for the Son, a temple for the Holy Spirit. That’s just the way it has to be done. (IMO & FWIW)
you could note that Johnny said “prima facie”, PF. so actually, he’s not wrong. he’s totally correct. you’ve just dredged up loads of things that have been debated on here ad infinitum/nauseum as if they were new points nobody here has considered.
i don’t think that’s a fair way to address/dismiss his post, do you?
why would Strong carry more weight with its definition of “aionios” compared to resident scholars that have posted huge amounts of data on the topic?
. As Professor Talbott shows quite unequivocally, in chapter 5 of his book The Inescapable Love of God, Paul puts together a sustained argument in the book of Romans that God’s mercy, while experienced temporarily by some as wrath, or hardening, is ultimately always an expression of His universal love for His creation. From the context it is quite clear that Cindy’s interpretation is correct. (Jan Bonda does much the same thing in his book The One Purpose of God.