I don’t consider myself an opponent of you and have generally understood your position quite well, as it was one I held and probably still do in some way. I think the difference between your view and mine currently is that I don’t differentiate between Christians and non-Christians. The Jews wanted to keep God to themselves and Christians were trying to expand the love of God. Is it possible that Christians, like the Jews, are failing to see God working in a greater way than their limited ideas? The Jews had many, many reasons why Jesus couldn’t be the messiah. They had a slam dunk case. Today, Christians don’t see a way to interpret John 14:6 except divisively, though many, like me, propose that Christ wasn’t intending to exclude with John 14:6?
Turning the topic towards imputed righteousness - It dawned on me… Imputed righteousness is, ironically, a very Gnostic message. It supposes that the key to life is “knowledge” and that knowledge that leads to eternal life? “Believe in Jesus, that he died for your sins, in your place, and he covers you like a blanket before God, and God doesn’t see the vile person, but the blanket of Jesus, BUT IN ORDER FOR THIS TO WORK, you MUST believe this as stated” How can no one see this hidden Gnostic message here?
Most people who react negatively (myself, included in the past) react to objections to imputed righteousness are largely operating out of emotional knee-jerk reaction. The mind has a chain of logic that is formed slowly, but once learned is near instantaneous, and often times one needs to go through the entire through process slowly before they can begin to challenge their knee-jerk reactions to criticism. This is especially true where any belief leads to something so important. I can’t imagine getting to heaven or avoiding hell (for eternity) can be any more pressing to our minds. With that, many people are not actually hearing your argument from what it is, but are taking the statement, and then filtering it through the rest of their framework. Let’s give an example.
Everyone Sins -> God Expects Perfection -> Imperfect people deserve Hell. No one can be perfect. Jesus did what you could not do, so you can go to Heaven, despite being imperfect.
Ok, so that statement above is what 99% of Evangelical Christianity believes, in a nut shell. But what happens if you start telling people that “not everyone continues to sin, and Jesus isn’t going to cover your willful sins” they will immediately go into defense mode, because the very idea threatens their safety! They can’t even allow the thought to coexist without first examining this in detail. Most people won’t break it down and that is why people are often entrenched in their political circles. You have such a complicated woven fabric of believes that chain off each other and they fire off so quickly they your emotions get the better of you. You no longer hear with the person says, but hear what you think they are saying.
In a nut shell, someone could read Paidion’s viewpoint and be fearful they are destined for hell, because they are not perfect and sometimes still sin. This can and will conjure feelings of dread. This is very reasonable. However, Paidion doesn’t have this fear (rightly so) because Paidion knows (technically, believes) that in the end, God is just and will be reasonable with everyone! He is the good father and he will be good.
Anyway, long post, rambling, but I’d challenge people to dissect statements and deliberately run them through the chains of their minds and then question whether those chained thoughts might be incorrect? If so, you could find the following:
Maybe God doesn’t demand perfect of me. Or, maybe Hell isn’t eternal. Or maybe Hell has a redemptive purpose. Or maybe Hell doesn’t exist at all. Challenge every chained though that makes you feel uneasy when someone presents an idea that you really don’t like (or rather, it makes you feel sick, dreadful, etc…) and then see how the idea could work, if some of other other linked ideas were changed along with it.