I primarily use the English Standard Version for both personal study and in my preaching (although I often check several other versions as well if I’m confused about a verse, including the original languages). I use the ESV because:
]With the exception of possibly the NASB, it’s the most literal translation I’ve ever read./:m] ]It’s in the language we speak today, having been released this century./:m] ]It’s a good balance between being a word-for-word translation, and being readable./:m] ]It’s very similar to the KJV in word order, which a lot of people still have, use, and are familiar with, so it makes it easier to follow along (far less important, but still worth noting)/:m]
There are more reasons, but those are the main ones.
Yeah, I see what you mean. I just think it’s unwise to make inferences about things that the Bible doesn’t spell out clearly. And because of that, I fully recognize that sometimes there may seemingly be holes or paradoxes in my understanding of God’s Word. But shouldn’t we expect that, at least to some degree? There should always be things about God’s Word that we look at and say, “Wow, that’s a mystery. An awesome, God-sized mystery!” As soon as we think we have everything figured out in this life, we’re probably wrong.
You’re right. I may wrongly attribute many of Christ’s warnings as referring to eternal warnings. But the alternative would be to understand them as referring to this life. I suppose that’s possible, but it’s just not the vibe we get from Jesus. He’s always talking about eternity. That’s one of the major differences between the Old and New Testaments. The Old discusses judgments and blessings for this life for Israel, while the New discusses judgments and blessings for the next life for all.
I completely agree with you there. I rarely know what I’m talking about.
Presumably this would be for God’s enemies but what did Jesus say we should do toward our enemies? Love them, pray for them, so how could it make sense after what Jesus said (which is from the Father) that God will torture/torment/punish them forever. It’s simply contradictory and makes no sense at all.
It’s not our place to punish (since we’re not omniscient or just), but it is God’s place. “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’” (Romans 12:19)
Been lurking recently and used to be much more active. I remember when BPW originially posted. I’m impressed with your willingness to sift through a drastically different view than your own, and I appreciate your heart!
Here Jesus is showing how we are to treat others the same way God does, not differently.
Just a few things I wish to share that relate to the exchanges of thoughts here.
What did the angel announce to Joseph as the reason he should call Mary’s son “Jesus” (Saviour)? Was it that Jesus would save his people from hell? Or that he would save his people from their sins? Clearly the latter. And there is a great difference between the two. I say this because I once thought to be saved from sin was tantamount to being saved from hell. But now I believe it to mean being saved from sinning.
What is the purpose of Christ’s death for us? Years ago, I searched the New Testament for the answer, and this is what I found ( have underlined the part that gives the purpose):
*I Peter 2:24 He himself endured our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.
II Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.
Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
Titus 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.
Heb 9:26 …he has appeared once for all at the end of the age for the abolition of sin by the sacrifice of himself.*
So Christ died to deliver us from sin and purify us. He died so that we might die to sin and live righteously. He died so that He might be the Lord of our lives. He died that we might live for HIM (and no longer for ourselves). He died to eliminate sin from the universe!
Nowhere could I find that He died to save us from hell. Though I did find that being made righteous by his blood, much more shall we be saved by Christ from the wrath of God (Rom 5:9). So I see being saved from sin itself as the basic reason for Christ’s death, and being saved from God’s wrath is a happy consequence of being saved from sin.
However, I am not sure that any of us will entirely escape post-mortem judgment. Jesus said that EVERYONE will be salted with fire (Mark 9:49). Both salt and fire are purifying agents.
Here is an excerpt from George MacDonald’s essay, “Salvation from Sin”:
MacDonald also wrote the following in the same article:
Yes, just like Pharoah was held accountable for his actions, even though God hardened his heart.
The verse goes on to say "to us in Christ Jesus." God reveals Himself fully to those who are "in Christ Jesus."
But in what sense? Captives are often forced to bow before a king, just before they are executed.
Interesting passage. It points out that not only will all bow, but all will "swear allegiance." This doesn't sound like a forced confession. But the passage also goes on to clarify it's talking about "all the offspring of Israel." Of course, we know from the New Testament that the offspring of Israel are not of the flesh, but of the Spirit. So I could really see this passage going either way.
Does Satan and his demons "know" this? Yet they still rebel.
I know universalists are divided on this issue, but this would seem to say that God is cruel for keeping Satan and his demons in bondage forever. I know some think they will either be annihilated or even reconciled to God, but many don't. So if there's room for God to punishment these forever, how is it any different for God to punish people forever? Oh, because WE'RE people, and we don't like the idea of God punishing one of US. But from God's perspective, it's the same.
Or, "God desires." The common understanding of this is that God desires some things, but has greater desires of other things, such as Him being glorified in His judgment. For example, we could say today that God desires that we not sin, yet His greater desire is to allow us to sin so that we would glorify Him either by crying out for His grace, or else be judged in His wrath. But I see the author's point that God gets what He desires, and that the word (according to him and others) for desires/wills means that He wants it and will bring it about.
An interesting question, which, of course, no genuine believer would ask God, because it is quite accusatory. An unbeliever might ask it, not to God, of course, but to justify himself in his unbelief. God's response to that person is to repent and believe. The gospel is available to all people. And, anticipating the response that the unbeliever is not able to be saved unless God enables him, I point out that the author just quoted John Wesley, that a person "could be saved without the loss of liberty." We can't blame God if we don't repent. It's our own rebellion that condemns us, and as long as we're alive, God offers salvation in Christ through faith.
Not quite. I do see the rationale for universal reconciliation, but to say that the pillars have crumbled makes it sound like it's not rational for Christians to believe it. It still stands as a valid viewpoint.
This kind of puts a kink in the works for the whole "two wills of God" theory. The LXX even translates "desires" using the same word (forms of thelo) that's found in 1 Tim 2:4. Very interesting. The only difference is the tense (Job 23:13 is aorist, and 1 Tim 2:4 is present).
Also very interesting. Uses the same Hebrew word for "pleases" as "pleasure" in Eze 33:11 (חפץ), except there is a prefix on the one in Eze 33:11, which just makes it a first person verb.
Along the same line of thinking as the above quotes, for me, an important question is “Is God good?”
From some of your comments/questions, it seems like you have some Calvinistic leanings. I held to Calvinism for many years myself.
When the good Samaritan saw a person in need, even his enemy, he did not pass by but did all he could to help.
In Calvinism, God wonderfully and graciously saves the elect, but “passes by” many in need of a Saviour and leaves them in their sin. He has sufficient power to be able to extend his grace to them, grant them repentance, faith, forgiveness and salvation but he instead chooses to pass them by and leave them in misery forever.
In the Calvinist view of God, how is God good and loving, in the way Jesus describes being good and loving, when he passes by those in need rather than helping as he is perfectly capable of doing? I found this troubling as a Calvinist and opened the door for seeing God, as he is revealed in Christ, in a different light.
steve7150 wrote:Presumably this would be for God’s enemies but what did Jesus say we should do toward our enemies? Love them, pray for them, so how could it make sense after what Jesus said (which is from the Father) that God will torture/torment/punish them forever. It’s simply contradictory and makes no sense at all.
It’s not our place to punish (since we’re not omniscient or just), but it is God’s place. “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’” (Romans 12:19)STP,
I’m not arguing that it is our place to punish, I’m trying to say when Jesus tells us how to treat our enemies with compassion this is a law of God, not just a suggestion. So my point is does God act in a manner opposite of his own laws? BTW the word for “vengeance” may be better translated as “justice.”
Well, STP. You know - that’s an interesting abbreviation. It’s also the abbreviation for a brand of engine oil and gas additive. Perhaps you are adding to the vitality of your congregation?
Sometime ago, I did pose the question to universalists: What would happen to the devil and evil angels? One actually thought they would be annihilated. As an inclusivist and Purgatorial Conditionalist - for lack of a better term - the devil and evil angels are annihilated.
To put it in Science Fiction terms: if we can think of humanity as zombies, then the unholy angels are like vampires. You need to drive a stake into their heart, in order to end their evil ways. But the zombies just don’t recognize, they are feasting off the living.
Well, if it comes to a neo-classical view of vampires (e.g. Stokerish vampires), where they act rather like anti-saints, generally the story includes the detail that by staking them (and/or whatever) you’re actually saving their souls. At least if they were good people originally.
Good points. Of course, it’s not quite an exact comparison, since unbelievers are in active rebellion, but I do see your point, since the unbeliever isn’t able to save himself by coming to God completely on his own. Since I don’t necessarily fully hold to Calvinism, though (although you’re probably right that I have leanings in that direction), I also fully hold that each person is responsible to trust in Christ, and that it is a true act of the volition of their will to trust in Christ. One of the problems I have with Calvinism is that it doesn’t mesh with our experience. I haven’t talked with many people who say they trusted in Christ against their will. No, they saw the beauty of Christ, and WANTED to trust in Him. I realize that theologically this is because God opened their eyes to His beauty, but experientially, we can’t discount a person’s acceptance or rebellion as being their own will, or else the Bible wouldn’t be able to truly say that Pharoah hardened his heart at all.
If I make a rule (law) that my kids to go to bed at 8 pm, but I stay up to 11 pm, am I a hypocrite?
steve7150 wrote:when Jesus tells us how to treat our enemies with compassion this is a law of God, not just a suggestion. So my point is does God act in a manner opposite of his own laws?
If I make a rule (law) that my kids to go to bed at 8 pm, but I stay up to 11 pm, am I a hypocrite?smalltownpastor Posts: 69Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:08 pm
Top
Print view this post
STP,
The way I understand it God made 2 kinds of laws which were moral and ritual. Jesus didn’t really observe the Sabbath IMHO because he was Lord of the Sabbath and the Sabbath was/is a ritual law. In other words if God decided the Sabbath was on Tuesday instead of Sat it wouldn’t violate his morals. But when Jesus says to be kind & merciful and even love your enemies IMHO that is a moral law and if God tortures his enemies forever then he is violating his own moral laws and that violates his own character again IMHO.
Therefore the response that God can tell us one set of morals but keep a different set for himself is not the God of the bible IMHO.
It depends. If you are watching an episode of the Walking Dead…a super hero movie… some horror, science fiction or fantasy piece… or some old vaudeville comics - I’ll let it slide
Good points. Of course, it’s not quite an exact comparison, since unbelievers are in active rebellion
But most people are more ignorant then in active rebellion. I was not brought up in a Christian family so had no idea Jesus was much different then Moses. In 2002 for the first time in my life I had the gospel preached to me and it struck a cord. What if I would have died before 2002? Would I spend eternity in hell? Would I be annihilated?
You know in Rev 20 when the unbelievers are tossed into the LOF and the books are opened? Have you ever considered that those books are not books of their works but the gospels being preached?
Hmm, well, how bad is hell in your opinion? Even if it’s time-limited, is it torment? And if so, wouldn’t that itself kind of go against your argument (unless you think it’s acceptable to torment our enemies for short periods of time)?
Elaborate on that a bit for me.
Revelation 20:12 says, “And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.”
It seems fairly straightforward that the books contain “what they had done.” But I’m interested in another viewpoint is there is one. (I did a quick search for it, but couldn’t find anything about it online.)
And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done."
Clearly we are judged by what they had done or to put it another way “by our works.” That is a biblical principal but does God need books to keep records on us or can “what was written in the books” mean it tells the story of Jesus and him dying for our sins. It is an assumption that the books contain our works but I think the gospels or the bible is read to those in the LOF.
They will know, but will they trust? Or will their knowledge be more like that of the demons?
For His own glory.
I'm not sure that can be proven from Scripture. But I guess that's what this whole book is seeking to prove.
Every Calvinist that I've personally known did in fact believe that God loves every person. There does exist a brand of hyper-Calvinism in which they believe God does not love every person, but that is not the majority of Calvinists, and it is even spoken of as unbiblical by most Calvinists.
Jeremiah 3:8, "that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce."
I don't know, but I've been told (haven't delved into it too much in my own study yet), that the Bible never calls anyone except believers "the children of God." This seems to agree with all the Scripture that I can think ofb, but, like I said, I haven't done an extensive study on the topic.
This is a good list of verses to be begin that study with! Some are quite compelling (especially Ps 82:6, Acts 17:28-29, and Mal 2:10).
"Give me your heart" could be a call to sanctification in this context rather than initial repentance.
And yet, the passage does specifically say that they must ask in order to receive those good gifts.
So why not do that now, before allowing them to experience the agony of an age of chastisement?
All of creation testifies to His existence (Romans 1:20). No one is condemned for not hearing, but for rejecting even the truth plainly available to them.
steve7150 wrote:if God tortures his enemies forever then he is violating his own moral laws and that violates his own character again IMHO.
Therefore the response that God can tell us one set of morals but keep a different set for himself is not the God of the bible IMHO.
Hmm, well, how bad is hell in your opinion? Even if it’s time-limited, is it torment? And if so, wouldn’t that itself kind of go against your argument (unless you think it’s acceptable to torment our enemies for short periods of time)?
We know God destroys from the OT and maybe 70AD Jerusalem but destruction is one thing yet torture/torment is quite another don’t you think?
I don’t know what hell or really the lake of Fire is. It could be a spiritual fire that burns away sin, do you think that’s possible? The greek word for fire is “pur” , it could mean purify?
