Hello! the Jesus Manifesto is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.
Community Page
- www.jesusmanifesto.com/ Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- I see what you're saying Paul. As another possible perspective, it could be one of those things that just "creep up on you." Like, all the signs are there but you just don't see...
- No interest in this question? Maybe it would help if I was a little more explicit. Here's a piece from a journal entry on this subject, from several years ago, referring to a Methodist belief...
- I do not use twitter...sorry folks
- I think a few quotations from the ol’ Declaration of Independence may be in order: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator...
- I just put together an evening prayer that we will do here next week (answering the independence day rhetoric of this weekend). I used several Psalters songs, with us singing the "Home,...
the Jesus Manifesto
following the way of Jesus in the land of our captivity
Long ago there lived two Israelite men in the great city of Babylon. They were twins, named Zadok and Zebulun, although the Babylonians gave them strange, dishonorable names that we will not mention here.
Zadok and Zebulun were good men, righteous and blameless. And although they were not ... Continue reading »
Zadok and Zebulun were good men, righteous and blameless. And although they were not ... Continue reading »
1 year ago
I 'm glad you're bringing up questions like this--we really must be prepared to think critically of the implications of our doctrine.
1 year ago
Faith does not save a man. Christ does. The Messiah who "came at last to free them" did so at that time, both retroactively and into the future. All men are ultimatley reconciled to God, in this life or the next, or Christ is not the Savior of the world.
In the end, when the consuming fire of God burns away our dross, we will all know and believe the truth for what it is. Christ fully accomplished the complete rescue of all men at one point in history.
Fret not for the Z-man!
Peace,
Mike
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
I wonder how many people will choose to ignore the universalist comment above? I guess it's worth staying tuned for... ;-)
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
At the same time, I do believe in hell. Hell is biblical. But I'm not sure it is a place of eternal conscious torment for human beings.
I'm in process on this. And I hate the fact that for many many of my evangelical kin, the idea that I'm unsure about this somehow makes me a liberal or unorthodox.
My favorite notion about the nature of hell is the idea that heaven and hell are the same: the are both the unvarnished presence of God...the full weight of God's glory. For those in Christ, this presence is a delight, for those not in Christ, it is a terror. But even in this, there is some hope, I think, that terror may turn to delight.
So, is Z going to hell? I hope not, but don't know. I think there is more to it than a logical affirmation of particular truths. I know that there is no hope apart from Christ, but I can't see things that are hidden to me.
1 year ago
A common early Quaker interpretation was that every person would have one 'day of visitation' in which Christ would be available, but if he missed that, tough luck. Hence much of the fervent concern behind their preaching missions, to prepare everyone for that judgement, that they would be spiritually awake and not lose their chance through carelessness. It's kind of a shame that we've lost that fanatic edge, but I dunno that I'd altogether miss it!
I myself, like many previous Christians, find the very notion of Hell so utterly unChristian that I can't take it seriously except as a metaphor for life as experienced in a state of sin. & following from Fox's idea of Christ enlightening everyone from within, I have to see Christ's influence at work inspiring the good insights of other religions (distorted as it sometimes comes through, in some interpretations of Christianity as well.) This isn't just theoretical for me; there was a long time when I found most available Christian texts repulsive and was finding most of my understanding of God through other religions.
[A Buddhist student asks his teacher, What do you expect to happen when you die?
"I expect I shall go straight to Hell."
"What? A good man like you?"
"Someone has to be there to teach you!" (used by Stephen Mitchell, somewhere in the _Gospel According to Jesus_ ]
1 year ago
One thing we humans often forget, is that while there are dispensations of time, God is above time, outside of our time frame. In Revelation 13:8 it says "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
Before Adam and Eve had sinned, before the earth had formed, God had ordained their Redemption. In God's eyes, the Lamb was already slain. Look in Hebrews at the Hall of Faith. These men and women of faith were justified only because they believed God. The sacrifices of the old covenant were a type, a reminder, but they never saved anyone . (Heb10:1-4)
I think Z was saved the same way as Abraham, Noah and Job. The same way as all of us: faith in the Son of God and His precious atonement for us.
1 year ago
I also find it extremely interesting that the Bible can at the same time consistently speak of the redemption of all of the creation and yet also contain passages that imply there are people who will not enter into the fullness of the New Creation.
I don't, at present, really have a way to reconcile the tension between those two different tendencies in the scripture, but I do hope fervently that redemptive love wins out in the end, in all circumstances. Right now I suppose the best I can say is that I believe in the possibility of, and hope for, universal salvation - but I do not believe that salvation can take place unless a person be transformed by love and purified.
Jerry Walls of Asbury Seminary (hardly a "liberal" stronghold!) has written a very interesting article on the subject called "Purgatory for Everyone" that is worth checking out.
1 year ago
The "all" vs. "some" paradox is resolved under two conditions:
1. "All" is hyperbolic, referring to all elements of creation, not every soul. When it is used in reference to humanity, it is referring specifically to "people of every nation, tribe, and tongue"--again, not to all souls.
2. The "reconciliation of all things to Himself" (as we see in Colossians) does not mean "the redemption of all things." It's an accounting metaphor, denoting "setting things right, as they should be." Accordingly, the unregenerate soul is "set right" through eternal damnation. All creation is rightly reconciled in view of both God's wrath and His mercy.
1 year ago
I am not convinced either by the hyperbole or the accounting metaphor arguments. The short version is that if God's status as king of all creation is predicated on his having created the entire cosmos and all that is in it (as it was in ancient Jewish thought, which formed the backdrop for the early church and the New Testament - see Richard Bauckham's God Crucified for an excellent introduction to God's identity in ancient Judaism), then I have a hard time seeing how the language regarding God's/Christ's identity as Lord of all things in the New Creation could have its basis on anything other than the recreation of all things in the redeemed cosmos.
It seems to me that when (for example) Isaiah speaks of "all flesh" seeing the Glory of the Lord together it means exactly that - all flesh. In Revelation it says "from" every tribe and nation, etc. There's no reason to argue that the "all" language is hyperbolic (unless you want to try and make the argument that when John 3:16 says "for God so love the world" that it's only hyperbole). The fact that this tension exists also in Isaiah who speaks of both the salvation of the nations and also the destruction of God's enemies to me only heightens the tension of the whole narrative of Creation, Fall, and New Creation.
Regarding the accounting language, I'm not convinced this is an accounting metaphor, and if it is it doesn't solve anything. I don't think the language in 2 Corinthians 5 allows for "all things reconciled" to really mean "only some things reconciled".
In short, "all things reconciled" seems to me to have the force of "all things reconciled". I see no reason to call the language hyperbole, especially when you consider that Paul (for only one example) is presenting Jesus as the perfection of that to which Caesar can only pretend. Caesar claimed to be lord of the whole cosmos, but he demonstrably wasn't. So I can't believe that Paul would say Jesus is Lord of all the cosmos... if he isn't. And the language related to such seems to me to imply reconciliation... of all things.
1 year ago
I believe you are twisting the meaning of words in favor of your position.
1) God is indeed King of all creation, and that designation is not undermined by the condemnation of some. In fact, God's sovereign right to save some and condemn others actually reveals his authority over the entire universe.
2) God's "re-creation" of all things involves, in part, a clearing away of the chaff. This metaphor is used numerous times throughout scripture to show us that he doesn't take every rotten plant and redeem it willy-nilly. He removes the weeds first, and burns them before his redeeming work begins.
3) You imply that "all flesh seeing the Glory of the Lord" is equivalent to universal salvation... but ignore the fact that God's glory will be rapturous for some (the redeemed) and torturous for others (the condemned). "Seeing the Glory of the Lord" is never expressed in the Scriptures as being necessarily pleasant, or equated to heaven. This seems to be Mark's current thinking, as expressed in his comment above.
4) I don't believe Matt was using an irresponsible metaphor with the word "reconciled". Keep in mind, all talk of salvation and condemnation are metaphors. Everything God communicates to us must be spoken in some sort of comparison to our current life experience. As it is now, things are not reconciled because many godly people suffer, and many godless people go unpunished. We are in a state of injustice... a holding pattern. The "reconciling of all things" will involved a "settling of accounts", as Matt expressed. You are stretching the word "reconcile" far more to equate it with salvation than Matt is to equate it with justice. When a business reconciles its books, some people get paid, and others get their debts called in.
P.S. In response to the debate about John 3:16, God certainly does love the entire world, and everyone in it. And that is why his saving blood is made available to every single person. The gift is offered without favoritism. The fact that it is rejected by some does not diminish or undermine the love behind the gift.
1 year ago
You've clarified my case at least as well as I could have. It's all in the definition of reconcile.
I think the concept of God loving the world, and yet condemning much of that world to hell (whatever that is), begs exploration... not deconstruction, but significant effort to grasp and embrace. The way I have always understood it is that the concept of God's love would be meaningless except contrasted with wrath. Love isn't some neutral force--it's one side of a dichotomy. So in order for God's love to be available to all, all must also be faced with the consequence of His wrath if they do not embrace that love. Romans 9:22-23 nearly explicates this.
1 year ago
1 year ago
BTW, in my understanding, Jesus was deconstructing not Torah, but Torachic interpretation which had (wrongly) come to be synonymous with Torah. He does this throughout the Gospels when he says, "You have heard it said..."--by the religious teachers, that is, not the word of God.
1 year ago
Deconstruction isn't something that one does to false things and not true things. It is something we should do to all ideas. It doesn't need to be understood destructively. It is a way of taking things apart to look at the inner workings. So, hell is definitely worth deconstructing: to understand my own assumption, to understand the biblical assumptions, to peel back the layers of the doctrine to get at the dynamic truth of what hell is...and is not.
Jesus' treatment of the Torah goes way deeper than simply challenging the popular ways of reading the Torah...he changes everything without destroying the Torah...he deconstructs the Torah. He does away with violence, he does away with eye-for-eye. This is more than just "you don't understand the words of the Torah." Jesus is reclaiming the Torah and reinterpreting it in new and frightening ways. Because the Torah was written to those that are hard of haearts and now, Jesus will write the Law on those hearts and there is no longer any need to bow to stipulations. That is deconstruction at its most profound.
1 year ago
n. A philosophical movement and theory of literary criticism that questions traditional assumptions about certainty, identity, and truth; asserts that words can only refer to other words; and attempts to demonstrate how statements about any text subvert their own meanings (from dictionary.com)
So the idea of deconstruction is borrowed from literary theory. How has it been applied to Christianity and the Bible?
I think the key verb in this definition is "questions". Some people claim we have no right to question the Bible, but look at how gracious Jesus was to "doubting" Thomas. I think God honors those who humbly approach him with questions, or even doubts, prepared to forsake the comfortable answers, and to accept troubling answers, mysterious answers, or no answers, so long as they come from God.
The reason I named our church plant "The Core" is because I believe each generation is called to deconstruct the work of its forebears, and understand the heart of the gospel for themselves. But Matt is right, it's all about motives. If your goal is to deconstruct what man has made, to get closer to God, and the re-construct on his own foundation, then you are pleasing him. However, if your goal is to deconstruct God's own message, and build your own foundation in place of his, then you are guilty of pride and idolatry.
1 year ago
1 year ago
I did not twist the meanings of words to fit my interpretation - I am not exactly sure what my interpretation is so how could I be twisting the meanings of words? I am trying to apply different heuristics in order to try and get a fuller picture of what the scriptures say. If you think that means I am twisting the meanings of words then I ask that you take what I'm saying in good faith, as I am primarily trying to clarify my own thoughts - not trying to convince anyone of a doctrine.
I do not see the concept of God as king of all creation as discontinuous with the idea of God judging creation and judging it to be corrupt and unworthy of entering the kingdom. That he has the right to do so is attested in various passages, perhaps most notably the "wheat and chaff" example you cite.
What I see as discontinuous is the notion that if God is king of all creation, and God is the redeemer of all creation, then arguing that all of creation is not redeemed. I have a problem, in other words, with the kind of word games that assume "all" language is meant in its full sense in one place and only in a hyperbolic sense in another when there aren't strong literary cues to indicate the difference from one passage to the next. I'm afraid that what drives us to make the assumption that it's used in one way in one passage and another in another often has more to do with our own theological preconceptions than the actual text itself.
Bill Clinton once famously said "It all depends on what your definition of 'is' is." I think he was more right than people gave him credit for - but probably chose the wrong forum to make a philosophical point. In this case, it all depends on what 'all' is.
I did not use "all flesh shall see [the glory of the Lord] together" as an equivalent of universal salvation. I used it as an illustration of "all" language being used to mean exactly what it says.
I also don't see how, from the scriptures, the term "reconciled" (especially as in "in Christ God was reconciling all things to himself") can be used to refer to anything other than all of creation being restored to right relationship with God, nor do I think your (rightly) pointing out the fact that salvation and condemnation are metaphors that connect an out-of-this-world truth to our experience in this world. I do think it would be useful to explore the meanings of the word "justice" in scripture (particularly the Hebrew mishpat, which is the word most often translated "justice"). I think the word "justice" itself in scripture implies a paradigm of restorative, not punitive, justice (one of my professors used to say it more fully means "all things made right between God and people") and so we should seriously consider at least the possibility that the language of reconciliation in the New Testament legitimately refers to all of creation being restored to right relation, to what it was originally intended to be.
I also think the idea of God's wrath as expressed over the course of the whole of scripture best fits into the restorative paradigm. I don't think wrath can be construed as the opposite side of the coin from God's love, but that the two work together synergistically.
Theologically speaking, I also have a hard time seeing how God's image can be obliterated to the point where a person who is created in it can be reduced to 100% chaff, with no wheat remaining - but I will allow for the possibility, while also allowing that possibility to stand in tension with Paul's statement that "God is the savior of all people, but especially of those who believe" (and no, there's no hint in that passage that Paul really means God is the POTENTIAL savior of all people).
I like a couple of comments that have been made in the thread to the effect of "God's presence would be heaven to some and hell to others". I think there's wisdom there, but I have a hard time pinning it down into a formula. ;-)
I also think that the vast majority (if not all) the references to reward and punishment and life and afterlife have more to do with encouraging people to live according to a certain paradigm in this life than with communicating doctrinal truths about the next life.
Regarding John 3:16, that's all good and well for those who reject the gift (though I am honestly unable to understand how anyone who really has the capacity to understand the gift could reject it) - but what about those who are not able to reject the gift? There's a slippery slope that runs between "you have to consciously accept Christ to be saved" and "everyone will be saved regardless of what they believe or accept", and I don't feel adequate to stake out a hard-and-fast position - I really think the evidence from scripture requires us to live in the tension of not knowing the exact destination of people in the afterlife, but praying and working for the kingdom to advance to its fullest in this life - and letting God be God as creator, Lord, judge, and redeemer.
So I'm still at the stage of "I believe in believing in the possibility of universal salvation, and of hoping for its eventuality, but in allowing God the freedom to do as he will, trusting that it will be right."
1 year ago
And so I believe in the possibility of universal salvation and hope for its eventuality, and at the same time believe God has the freedom to do what he will do as an expression of his righteousness and justice, trusting God to complete the New Creation in the way that fulfills his purpose for all time and space.
And I hope I'm not just hedging my bets. ;-)
1 year ago
1 year ago
You are building a very large structure on a weak assumption--that "savior" necessarily means "one who places souls into the eternal kingdom of heaven". In some contexts it does, and in others it doesn't. This is true of all language, including both English and Koine Greek. People use the same words to communicate radically different messages.
If we take Scripture to be coherent and entirely uncontradictory (despite being paradoxical), then it follows that we can't accept interpretations that do injustice to some statements in Scripture. Universal salvation does astronomical injustice to massive swaths of Scripture. At the very least, there are multiple passages that preclude it.
Venture out of the New Testament if you want a vivid picture of God's wrath. Repeatedly mandating mass slaughter is a good place to start.
[This will be my final comment related to universalism, because I do not have the time to fully develop the case against it. Suffice it to say that throughout the 2000+ years of the Christian Church's existence, this view has come nowhere close to being seriously entertained, much less adopted. It is not orthodox by any measure of history or imagination. It is not Christianity. Call it universalism, but don't call it Christianity.]
1 year ago
Would you say that the doctrine of the damnation of those who do not accept Christ is an intrinsic part of what can be called Christian doctrine? There have been an awful lot of people within the church over the past 2000 years who disagree with that statement - so don't tell me what can and can't be called Christian.
I am done with this topic. Feel free to rebut everything I just said, knowing that I will not reply.
1 year ago
Great story! It really got readers engaged. Maybe we need a little of Daniel's grace here to cool things down a bit? I thought it was interesting that the question of whether or not someone was going to hell became a discussion of whether or not there was a hell. I liked Mark's idea of everyone's in the presence of God, but some people hate it, while other's loved it. Maybe this hell topic could become a forum?
I guess in answer to the question of going to hell, it seems to me that most people base their afterlife judgments on Jesus statement of being the way, the truth, and the life and no one can go to the Father (or heaven) except through him. I interpret Jesus as being a graphic, living symbol of a larger concept of love and forgiveness. That way to God is only through living in the truth of love and forgiveness. Those truths didn't start 2000 years ago. And they're true for any culture, even if they haven't heard of Christ. And yes we still need the symbol, just like we still need words. Without the Word, the concept is kind of fuzzy like, and can be easily misinterpreted.
1 year ago
It would take some pretty elaborate hermeneutical gymnastics to explain John 3 in any terms but exclusive. I'll let God's word speak for itself...
"16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil."
Some would extract verse 17 from its context and say, "See, Jesus didn't come to condemn. In fact, he came to save the world... the whole thing!" But context won't allow this interpretation. Verse 16 makes reference to perishing, stating the means by which one avoids perishing. And verse 18 makes explicit that everyone who does not believe in the name of Jesus will be condemned... to hell, that is. The contextual evidence conclusively points to the equation of condemnation with hell, contrasting as it does "eternal life" with "perishing" and "condemn".
It's important to note that we can extract a verse or two from the Bible in order to argue whatever we want. Good hermeneutics works from the standpoint of "the verse within its passage within its book in its place in the Canon". So we ought to analyze each verse within its contexts progressively in this manner. Otherwise we are guilty of prooftexting.
1 year ago
All I was respond to is actually something very minor. You said good hermeneutics considers a verse in its place in the passage, in the book, in its place in the Canon. However, I don't consider a book's place within the Canon as inspired in the same way the actual text is. We are definitely to take the entire Canon into account when we interpret scripture, as well as the chronology of events. But the order of the books, I believe is merely helpful, not authoritative.
1 year ago
Let's see now... God changes his ways at The Judgement, suddenly tired of being Mr Nice Guy? Or he doesn't really love everybody? Or he doesn't have the power to save everyone he loves from the hell he allegedly created to harm some of us?
Or does this passage simply tell us a truth about God that generations of theological bookkeepers have labored in vain to obscure?
1 year ago
So the loving, merciful Jesus we see in the New Testament is not at all at odds with the God of the Old, who acts with great patience toward those who have spurned Him. But his mercy does not last forever for those who refuse to repent of their sin, and it is limited. All people receive the love of God with every breath of air they breathe, with every ray of sunshine, every drop of rain. It is called common grace. But common grace is not saving grace.
1 year ago
I would like to point out that in Luke and Matthew Jesus claims that eternal life is rewarded to those who follow the two most important commandments. And I don't think he was giving some sort of affirmative nod to the pharasies' rules. Nor do I think he was just setting us up for failure. But I do think following those commands is only possible through the power of His love and forgiveness. I don't think God limits his love and forgiveness only to those who have some sort of head knowledge of who Jesus was/is. Otherwise why would he let it rain on the just and the unjust or why would he call people into account that had never heard of him?
The exclusive claims bother me for another reason. I don't think God wins against evil just because he can cause those who don't repent more pain. It seems to me that part of good winning over evil is that there is more good in the end than evil. So if we are so exclusive in our claims about who is eligible to go to heaven, then we are imaging a situation in which the number who go to heaven is smaller than the number who go to hell. That doesn't seem like a situation where God wins.