martinzender.com/crack_o_daw … _kills.htm
or
youtube.com/watch?v=TDsurwJM8Pc
Not sure that I agree with his insinuation that people who believe in free will are not part of the elect, but it’s an interesting point to ponder.
83 views and NO comments? 
The video was interesting. I disagree with his concept that believers who understand salvation from the Arminian perspective do not really have faith in Christ, some don’t, but I believe most do. I for one had a wonderful relationship with Jesus, was born again, filled with the Holy Spirit, had wonderful faith in Christ long long before I came to accept in faith UR. I had faith in Christ for my salvation, but not for others too. My faith in Christ grew to include all others, not just myself.
Also, his concept of the 5 Eons might be correct, but it seems to me that he’s likely relying on Revelation a lot for that and I just don’t think that Revelation was meant to be interpreted so technically, but rather artistically, not annilitically but artistically, not logically but emotionally. Maybe it does picture these Eons but I don’t know that it does.
OK, I will comment, I sat through the whole video. he had some interesting points. I don’t think I have heard his particular (pun intended) view on election. It is way better than the calvinist un elect being damned forever, but still, I will not let people scare me, who say you have to believe this, or not believe that (pick your favorite doctrine that usually has no consensus in church history) or you are not saved! I don’t even know if I like the term “saved” it creates almost a caste system of the haves and the have nots.
I am agnostic on the concept of free will and how it influences salvation, so am I half saved? I know the concept isn’t explicitly taught in scripture. But it can be inferred.
I agree, when I was a noob believer, I really got into Revelations and dispensationalism, and found out the hard way about basing your beliefs on St. John’s descriptions of his visions! There never has been any consensus on the meanings of the apocalyptic writings. Taking them too literally can make you draw charts and have one thinking he has it all figured out, like this guy on you tube, or you might come to completely opposite conclusions, like our friend Aaron (revival) 
Yeah, that is the biggest beef I have with his stuff. He is uber dispensationalist with his eschatology as well as extremely literal, which is really unusual for UR. Although I do have to say that it is very common for the Concordant Literal crowd of which he is part; even though it’s a great translation, quite a few that have fallen in with that group have had their theology accordingly influenced in this way by the late A.E. Knoch.
I watched about half of it. I used to subscribe to Martin Zender’s site. In fact, I could speculate that he’s at least one reason I was so set against UR (until God changed my mind). People who make dogmatic statements that they can’t genuinely and unambiguously back up in scripture, well, kind of bother me. Sure, say your piece and I can agree and/or disagree, but don’t tell me that if I don’t believe just as you do that God’s gonna get me (or not get me, I guess – at least until later – much later).
Zender strikes me as the Rush Limbaugh of UR. 
He seems so very positive about whatever he says, and anyone who doesn’t think like he does is, well, an idiot – not in so many words, but still . . . .
Martin Zender had something interesting to say in one video I watched, but then I grew rather displeased and distant from him, or anything involving him, when I wasn’t amused by some of his very rough, very constant, and very harsh criticisms of otherwise intelligent, helpful, godly people. And theologically I don’t agree with a great deal of what he believes, and I don’t enjoy the idea that those who disagree with him theologically may be subject to ridicule, or being called stupid in multiple ways.
There is a difference between being outright ignorant, and at least being intelligent though wrong in an area. And one should not be subject to being called “stupid” unless they’re being outright ignorant and refuse to change it - or refuse to change it while being in a position of influence.
I am one of those “unusual” UR folks. 
I am not quite sure if i believe in his theory of 5 Eons tho. I’ve always known it to be that we live on the New Earth forever. He has it so that the New Earth will also end. He has it as an Eon in which i dont believe. The 1000 year Millennium will end by fire, but not the New Earth. That is where we all will live for eternity. I think many Christians tend to mix up the 1000 year millennial reign and the New heavens and Earth. Perhaps because both are referred to as a new earth. But the 1000 year, people will still die. The latter, there will be no more death.
Other then that, what he has to say is very interesting…tho on the other hand, other things i am not too sure, like the free will bits. I’m still a little fuzzy on that. He is also a bit confusing to understand. 
I’m so very thankful that I did not first come across UR through Zender. He’s seems like a funny dude, but, well, his arrogant view of Arminianism (or any other school than his) is pretty repulsive and faulty. Arminians don’t believe we are saved by free will. But what do I know? I’m not saved – I have to be saved through Zender-faith 
[Edit: That said, I just spent the evening watching his reports. The dude cracks me up ]
He is very funny. I frequently laughed out loud reading his book; “how to quit church without quitting God”.
He comes across very dogmatic about certain things, though which as I’ve said does bother me. I do not believe that salvation or election depend on 100% correct theology, and I’m rather surprised that he doesn’t see his error in taking such a hard line on this.
Anyway, His point is not that Arminians consciously believe that; his point is that it is in effect what they do believe if the Arminian line of thinking is followed to its logical conclusion.
I think he comes across a bit less caustic and a bit funnier in his writing than in his speaking.
My summary of him is basically; He makes some good points, but I don’t agree with him on everything.
This is terrific! It is thorough, yet concise; intricate, yet easily comprehensible.
Thanks for sharing the link with us, Melchizedek.
David
I don’t even non-consciously believe that. I hear this a lot from Calvinists, but it’s really not a logical conclusion of anything. If you went to a banquet of a King, could you as a starving bandit (comparatively speaking) claim any credit for the event because you accepted His invitation? Of course not, because it is the event and the invitation which is gracious, not whether you choose to accept it or not. If it were imposed instead, it would cease to be loving. This logic applies to any gift (and salvation is a gift). But if you refused to get dressed and to attend by not obeying nor inclining your ear, but by walking in your own counsel and stubbornness, despite the unquantifiable warmth of the host, the insistence of His High Servant and the empowerment of His messenger, then you have actively made a choice to miss out on that joy. You have resisted the King’s grace.
Yahweh has granted everyone the strength (through prevenient grace) to accept His generous offer. Those who resist the Holy Spirit and refuse to get dressed, will endure aionion punishment.
(I know you’re not arguing against Arminianism, I just wanted to clarify this 
)
Hmm, Interesting points.
It seems that I remember from reading his stuff that his basic argument goes something like this: “If we cannot save ourselves, then we can’t damn ourselves either, and if it’s truly our choice (free will) to accept Christ, then we can at least partly save ourselves by our choice, and that is not what scripture teaches.”
(I’m paraphrasing here, but that’s the gist of it).
Mel, sorry it took so long for me to comment on this.
I agree with your last statment which I agree with regarding the Arminian positions. That is I was told (as a free will defense) that God doesn’t damn anyone to hell, men damn themselves. So I responded with exactly what you said: If man’s free choice to choose his own destruction is the reason man is in hell, then man’s free choice to choose the truth for his own glory is the reason man goes to heaven (God doesn’t send anyone to heaven, man sends himself). I got back a response “huh?”
However, Martin is full of smcak to say if you believe in free will then you’re not saved. He’ll have to do better than just outright claims. People who don’t believe in free will are not saved! There now we’re even.
I’m more inclined to think the Arminian is not shooting straight. I agree with the Calvinists who make these claims but I won’t say I’m right. Smarter men than me think I’m wrong and I’m open to being wrong - I just don’t see Arminians making sense. Sure the king invites you to the banquet but the reason you either are at the table or outside starving is because of the inate goodness in your nature or the internal evil soul you are. It is the heart of their philosophy until it comes time to who gets the glory. Suddenly it’s “I owe it all to God!”…even the free choice you made to do it? Does the sinner say “I blame it all on the devil!”.
I’m good with Free will Universaslits like Talbott and Derose because they don’t see God giving up on people. They see loving kindness for all and God allowing us to make free choices (like Arminians). But if God should torture people forever due to their “free” choice - then for me there’s something wrong with the culpibility of man on the dark end, but the glory which goes to God on the bright side.
Aug
Yes, well… I think what he’s saying is that those who believe in free will are not the elect, (everyone is saved, eventually) which is not quite as bad, but is still a very strong statement; and I believe, in error. The ironic thing is that he’d be the first to point out that it is not correct theology that saves us in the first place, because he’s very anti-gnostic. He’s just being inconsistent here, for some strange reason.
** Edited due to total incoherence BLAH! **
Perhaps I misunderstood him. But I heard him say if you believe in free will it means you are not saved and end up in hell (even if temp). If you do you’ll be in hell with adolph.
Sure he embraces U. But he’s arguing that free will is a pelagian/semi view. Thus he’s speaking exactly like a hard core calvinist. That’s what I understood him to say. If you believe your saved by your free will then you will be in hell with adolph in the lake of fire.
Am I wrong about that?
*** My wife walked by while the video was playing and said, I think he’s right ***
In Zender’s latest video he is debunking the Trinity?
I believe so, yes.
I happened to email Martin a few questions i had regarding the Lake of Fire among other things and he told me this.
He said,
Most Christians who believe in UR do believe that the lake of fire is figurative. This does not affect the fact that they are all wrong. REALLY wrong. The lake of fire purges no human. It is the second death. Did you watch my video on it? Death is never a good thing. The lake of fire is the second death. Death is oblivion. All death is segregated to the lake of fire. There is no more death besides the second death. Fire is not always a reference to the holy spirit. In fact, it rarely is. Read all the references to fire in the book of Revelation. All the fire there kills.
Those not given faith are raised at the great white throne. Those who have done good acts are transferred to the new earth, and those such as Hitler are cast into the lake of fire, which is the second death (they are dead.) There is no immortality granted at this judgment, but those on the new earth continue to live by eating from the fruit of the tree of life.
Yes, everyone will be saved by virtue of the cross. Those cast into the lake of fire DIE, because the lake of fire is the second death (Rev. 20:14). These people are raised out of death when death is eventually abolished (1 Cor. 15:26).
The lake of fire is the second death. Both the fire and the death is literal. When the people are raised at the gwt, they are judged.
Since the lake of fire is clearly called in scripture the second death (Rev. 20:14), and since fire causes death in people, then the fire is literal. (There are other linguistic reasons why the fire is literal, but this is reason enough.) The question is not why God would do something. We don’t need to know why, but only to believe what is written. Having said that, I will tell you why: Those cast into the lake of fire are not appointed to live during the final eon of the new heavens and new earth. They will be raised to immortality AFTER this. I don’t know how long these people stay dead, because I don’t know how long the fifth eon (the new heavens and new earth) is. All I know is that death is abolished (1 Cor. 15:26), and it is at this time that these people have eternal life with God.
I have never heard anything like THAT before. Especially from someone that is a EU.
What do you guys make of that?