全 140 件のコメント

[–]ChristianLiquid_Boss 15ポイント16ポイント  (38子コメント)

Most people are going to Hell. Why? It's what they chose.

It's not a victory for Satan, because God is enforcing His will. Plus, Satan will end up in Hell, too. I'd hardly call that a victory.

[–]fallingtopieces 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Hindus, Muslims and the millions of other people who haven't even heard of Jesus are going to hell, not because they chose to but because they have put in that circumstance by birth.

[–]ChristianLiquid_Boss -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Were missionaries not sent? Is God's existence not evident in nature?

[–]fallingtopieces 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

You can't expect each and every non-christian to have met a missionary. It is literally impossible for the millions of Hindus who have lived and live in India to have met a Christian missionary over the course of their lives.

Even if they did listen to the preachings of a missionary and then chose to not believe because of their own well-indoctrinated non christian religious beliefs why is it then fair that they get sent to hell? If a Muslim missionary came up to you and asked you to believe in Allah I'm pretty certain you wouldn't . Same thing for them.

A Hindu/Muslim will only see the evidence of HIS God in nature. Why should he automatically assume that a beautiful sunset or sunrise is a creation of the Christian god?

Edit: Can't answer this so downvoted eh . That's actually good enough an answer for me :)

[–]awe-snapp[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (16子コメント)

Perhaps it is what they chose, but if most people go to hell than who is fighting harder to influence our choices?

[–]ChristianLiquid_Boss 7ポイント8ポイント  (15子コメント)

Well, God did send His only Son to die for us, so we could reunite with Him. Aside from that He did send missionaries, prophets, and His word across the world, despite His presence being already evident in creation.

So, God. It's just that He allows us to make choices, because He doesn't want us to be mindless robots.

[–]awe-snapp[S] 4ポイント5ポイント  (14子コメント)

Honestly, am I insane for thinking that that's analogous to using a water balloon to put out a house fire if most people still go to hell? Are we just not that important to God? I thought we were supposed to be the pinnacle of his creation. What am I missing here?

[–]ChristianLiquid_Boss 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think you're neglecting the place of man's decisions in God's will.

[–]ChristianDJSpook 3ポイント4ポイント  (10子コメント)

What am I missing here?

The existence of free will, and its place in allowing us to sincerely love and choose God. Once He had a creation in which His captivating presence was enough to make everyone choose Him, but eventually 1/3 of the angels, including Satan, rebelled. Why? Because they were in it for themselves. Real love is to give with none to gain (as we see with Jesus, dying for us and because of us). They were there to gain from the pleasure of His presence, but they had no real love in them. So in this world we do not have the same direct presence of God, but rather it is inconvenient to follow Him. This allows for those who sincerely love Him to choose Him and demonstrate their love for Him and learn from this world so that in the next we won't selfishly quit on Him.

than who is fighting harder to influence our choices?

You are assuming that we are not in the best position possible to either choose God or not. But we are. In our hearts we all have the knowledge of God,(Ecclesiastes 3:11; Romans 1:20) but it is made inaccessible by our wickedness (Romans 1:25; Romans 1:18-23). If His presence were abundant here, choosing Him would be convenient. In fact, it would be irresistible. But eventually we would stray, and without a world of pain brought on by our rebellion we would not know real love that is found with Him. If the prospect of hell and heaven were imminent to all, then we would have to love Him--but then how would it be love if it is forced? So God has two options, it seems: to place us all in His presence such that we choose Him for a short while before disgracing ourselves and leaving Him, or He could place us in a world where the knowledge of our moral inadequacy before Him and His existence come simultaneously, where we could learn from our poor choices the meaning of goodness. What meaning would good and prosperity have if all we knew was goodness? Without a world to love others while it is not always in our best interests to do so, we would not have the capacity for a greater form of love: altruism. So those who do not find Him are hostile towards Him in their hearts. Psalm 14:1 "The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”..." John 15:13 "Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends."

If someone took a bullet for you, would you not have to question why He did this? Now consider, what if you chose to deal drugs and found yourself surrounded by a gang in an ally about to be killed, but then a wealthy Business Man who has responsibly worked all His life ran in and defended you--loosing His own life in the process? Would you not be compelled to know what convicted Him to do this? In the case of Christ,--who every man put on the cross, some directly and all indirectly through our rebellion-- He chose to save us out of love, that our joy might be made complete. Every time you fail your moral standard for yourself, remember "this is why Jesus died." That should make us feel both pathetic and humble, but also that we have worth in Him. I can't tell whether He died for us because we matter, or that we matter because He died for us, but I assume it is the latter.

[–]Child of GodPetililPuff 1ポイント2ポイント  (9子コメント)

free will.

There is no free will. God works all things after the counsel of His own will.

Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

[–]ChristianDJSpook 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

Shoo, calvinists, I've had enough debating for one week. Go watch some debates online if you want to learn my position.

[–]Child of GodPetililPuff 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

I'm not a Calvinist. I've never really even studied Calvinism, so I don't know exactly what it entails.

I just believe what's written in the Bible. If you have scripture to refute this, by all means, please do share. But it seems very clear to me that Eph 1:11 says God works all things after the counsel of His own will. Does it not seem that way to you?

There are plenty of other verses to support this, too. I'm always willing to share them.

[–]Gloria in excelsis DeoPhilomaeus 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

One doesn't have to know that there is a term or a definition of held theological belief, to not be one.

What you are arguing is exactly what Calvinism teaches, which the technical term would be: "Predestination", or the view that God decides the fate of each and every single person, and that Free Will is just an illusion of man.

As opposed to "Arminianism" which places Free Will entirely in the hands of human beings to decide their fate.

[–]Child of GodPetililPuff 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

What you are arguing is exactly what Calvinism teaches, which the technical term would be: "Predestination"

I know that Calvinism teaches predestination. But I haven't read exactly how they teach predestination. I think that, as with every other biblical doctrine, there are false ways of explaining predestination.. That's why I say, I'm not a Calvinist. I haven't studied Calvinism yet. And I don't want to associate myself with it if I don't know exactly what it teaches. The doctrine and interpretation of predestination, like most other doctrines, can go much deeper than such a broad belief of "yeah, I believe in predestination." I think it's false to assume that everybody who believes in predestination believes in the Calvinistic explanation of it. I might not believe in predestination the way Calvinism teaches. It's just not black and white like that. And not only that, but I might not agree with other doctrines that Calvinists believe.

[–]Gloria in excelsis DeoPhilomaeus 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Being a crown jewel in His creation, does not make one bend over backwards to serve His creation as a slave.

I worship God, because I see Him as the absolute Truth.

I couldn't care less, if the Lord wanted to treat me like trash. I'm but a simple, ignorant mortal.

Just hoping for the mercy of God to be given to me. I could be destined to go to Hell by God Almighty, and I would still praise His decision.

He's God, not a man who we whine to, and than get grumpy when we don't understand His plans.

God can, and does as He pleases.

[–]SlowWing 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

What am I missing here?

You are looking for logical reasoning in religion, there is your error.

[–]Universal ReconciliationistTwistedDrum5 -1ポイント0ポイント  (17子コメント)

Do you believe that you chose Heaven?

Wouldn't that mean that you can boast because you chose it?

[–]ChristianDJSpook 2ポイント3ポイント  (12子コメント)

Consider the alternative: do you believe that God chooses for you? That you love God because He made you love Him? How, then, is that love? I cannot boast because I would not have been able to choose Heaven had He not provided the opportunity, given me the good news by dying on the cross, and created heaven.

[–]Reformednottheesecrustycrust 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

as a calvinist (who doesnt deny the possibility of arminiamism we are in the same boat we are just arguing how we got in it lol) i want to address your last statment here.

"But if He chose for us we could boast that we are special in some way--more deserving of salvation than others"

no man at all is deserving of God salvation. we all have sinned we all have corrupt hearts(many verses to back this up) no man does good on his own. its through Gods grace that men can do any good.

so to boast about being chosen by God is foolish as a person chosen is no better than a person not chosen. both are sinners neither deserve Gods grace or salvation. its that God had mercy on the elect to carry out his plan its is by nothing that the elect did or brought to the table to boast about its that God had mercy.

hope that clears a bit of that up.

[–]ChristianDJSpook 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You're right, I'm not quite sure what my point was there. Thanks for pointing that out, I'll fix my comment.

[–]Universal ReconciliationistTwistedDrum5 1ポイント2ポイント  (9子コメント)

Consider the alternative: do you believe that God chooses for you?

Yes, I believe grace is a gift from God. So in a way, he chooses all.

That you love God because He made you love Him? How, then, is that love? I cannot boast because I would not have been able to choose Heaven had He not provided the opportunity, given me the good news by dying on the cross, and created heaven.

He didn't make me love Him, but because I know Him, I love Him.

But if He chose for us we could boast that we are special in some way--more deserving of salvation than others

I believe all will be saved.

[–]ChristianDJSpook 2ポイント3ポイント  (8子コメント)

I believe all will be saved.

This is not theologically sound, I'm afraid, though I get where you're coming from. Read some of my replies on this thread if you want to hear my view.

He didn't make me love Him, but because I know Him, I love Him.

If He directly chose for you, then you cannot sincerely love Him.

[–]Universal ReconciliationistTwistedDrum5 -1ポイント0ポイント  (7子コメント)

This is not theologically sound, I'm afraid, though I get where you're coming from. Read some of my replies on this thread if you want to hear my view.

Yes it is.

If He directly chose for you, then you cannot sincerely love Him.

How so?

[–]ChristianDJSpook 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Because one cannot force another to love them. The act is insincere if it does not arise as a result of free will. If you made a robot to tell you "I love you" would you not agree that it's words are really just your words to yourself....and therefore it is meaningless to assume it is the robot's belief rather than your own? For how can it love you if it lacks the option to not love you?

[–]Universal ReconciliationistTwistedDrum5 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

He didn't force me.

We have the option, but we will always choose Him.

When the Bible says "every knee will bow", do you believe some will be forced?

[–]ChristianDJSpook 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

When the Bible says "every knee will bow", do you believe some will be forced?

They will find it was always true, and that they knew it all along though the wickedness they preferred suppressed that truth so that it was no longer accessible to them. Then we will be subjected to judgment on whether we chose Him earlier. Those who took His grace will be forgiven, but those who did not cannot be forgiven because it is impossible to forgive someone who does not permit it.

So they will force God to judge them on the basis of everything they have ever done in their lives. Anything short of perfection will have them placed in hell, where they will persist in choosing sin rather than Him. What they had been denying all along will become evident to them while they are in God's presence at the end, but that does not mean they will choose to accept His offer of forgiveness.

[–]Christianlonesome_rambler 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Yes it is.

Just saying that something is theologically sound does not make it so. I can think of no verse which even hints at universal reconciliation, but I can think of scripture which pretty explicitly states that separation is final.

You can look at Revelation 20:15 and Matthew 15:37-42 and find two straight up explicit references to the eternality Hell from a disciple of Jesus and from Jesus himself.

How can universal reconciliation stand theologically sound in the face of these verses and verses like these?

[–]Universal ReconciliationistTwistedDrum5 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

His exact reply was "This is not theologically sound". So I just did the same thing.

Revelation 20:15 makes no mention of time.

I think you posted the wrong verse when it comes to the Matthew scripture.

[–]Christianlonesome_rambler 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm not meaning to criticize you for holding the beliefs you hold, I just wanna know why you hold them. I'll clarify Revelation and address my mistake.

Revelation 20:15 makes no mention of time.

True, this verse specifically does not mention time, but you can check out Revelation 20:10 to see that there is no reconciliation following this judgment--at least not for Satan--but staying in this context, we can look at Revelation 21:27 and see that unless your name is in the Book of Life and you are counted among the righteous, you will never enter into Heaven--in light of this verse, I see no reason to infer that the unrighteous will be reconciled following Judgment.

I think you posted the wrong verse when it comes to the Matthew scripture.

I definitely did...I must have had 15 stuck in my brain after citing the Revelation verse. Check out Matthew 13:37-42. Christ's explanation of the Parable of the Sower.

[–]Universal ReconciliationistTwistedDrum5 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

see that unless your name is in the Book of Life and you are counted among the righteous, you will never enter into Heaven--in light of this verse, I see no reason to infer that the unrighteous will be reconciled following Judgment.

The book of life was written at creation, right? So God knows the people who are going to Hell, and yet chooses to create them anyway. Why?

I definitely did...I must have had 15 stuck in my brain after citing the Revelation verse. Check out Matthew 13:37-42. Christ's explanation of the Parable of the Sower.

the second question is redundant. The parable is told about an obtuse and disobedient generation of Jews which would not escape the catastrophic judgment of the end of the age of second temple Judaism. It does not describe a final judgment, it has nothing to say about hell, and it certainly cannot be cited in support of a doctrine of eternal conscious torment

There are plenty of scholars, and great resources to back up Universal Reconciliation. I understand the hesitance to believe, I prayed and studied for a couple of years before really grasping it as a foundation to my faith.

Can I ask if you believe the belief is detrimental to ones faith, and if so, why?

[–]ChristianLiquid_Boss 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Wouldn't that mean that you can boast because you chose it?

Not at all. It's not by my own works at all that I can attain Heaven, but the works of Christ.

[–]Universal ReconciliationistTwistedDrum5 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

So "choosing" Christ is not because of you, but because of Him?

[–]ChristianLiquid_Boss 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

You have faith because of Him. Choosing to accept that faith is up to the person. Though, I wouldn't call that something a person could boast about.

An example:

A man is drowning in a river. Another comes along, offering a pole for the drowning man to grab onto. All the man has to do to be saved is to grab onto the poll- to accept what has been offered. I wouldn't say that the drowning man could boast in any capacity.

Another analogy:

A man has a huge debt that will ruin him, one that he can't possibly repay. A man comes along and offers to pay the entire debt, to save the first man from ruin. The first man can choose to refuse or accept the offer, but none of the payment or work comes from him.

[–]Universal ReconciliationistTwistedDrum5 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

In both those examples, would any sane person choose the opposite?

Is their sanity because of them, or because of a higher power?

My argument is that no sane person would choose Hell. Only the "insane" would choose Hell. Who's to blame for a person's sanity?

In your first example, what if the person trying to save them was black, and the person drowning had been taught their entire life that you can NEVER trust black people. In their time of need, they resort to the teachings of their fathers, and they do not trust that the black person will save them.

We wouldn't say "what an idiot, why didn't he trust this man?!", unless we were heartless. Our hearts would break for this man, that he had been taught a lie, and given the same circumstance, we would be in the same situation as them.

Praise be to God that we are not in the same situation as that man.

[–]Ganaraska-Rivers 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

If I recall my Sunday school lessons correctly all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. The only way to get into Heaven is to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior and he will get you in, no matter how big of a stinker you were in your life. So, seemingly good people are going to Hell and a lot of big sinners are going to Heaven if they accept Jesus even on their death bed after a life of sin.

[–]_PM_me_your_Gains_ 3ポイント4ポイント  (8子コメント)

What is hell? How does one avoid hell? Is the Bible clear on these things?

[–]ChristianDJSpook 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

[–]_PM_me_your_Gains_ 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

We disagree on what a clear definition is

[–]ChristianDJSpook -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

[–]Gloria in excelsis DeoPhilomaeus 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'm pretty sure he's a Universalist chap. Or an Annihilationist fellow.

You're going to be hard-pressed into convincing him to change his mind.

It's true that Scripture can conform those ideas, if you want them too.

But I trust orthodox Christian traditions. And if our current concept of Hell has been taught for over 2,000 years.

By theologians far more intelligent, and gifted by God than myself.

I'm going to trust it.

[–]ChristianDJSpook 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

It's true that Scripture can conform those ideas, if you want them too.

Idk, I guess...there doesn't seem to be any indication that hell is not eternal, but rather the exact opposite. I'm guessing universalism comes from the assumption that the existence of hell and a loving God is logically incompatible, but I've addressed this elsewhere on the thread.

[–]Gloria in excelsis DeoPhilomaeus -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

That's pretty much where the justification for Universalism or Purgatorial Universeralism comes from.

The biggest defense they will use will be that at the words signifying an eternity, are metaphorical and that's pretty much all they can fall back on.

I mean look at what Arians did to conform their version of Scripture to back up there views?

We know different obviously, but it did not cause them to twist Scripture to conform their views.

Likewise, I've seen other passages in Scripture quoted to try and back up a Universalist view point.

So it's really not hard to see how most heresy's are done by twisting Scripture to how you want it.

Tis why we trust Sacred Tradition to show that our orthodox beliefs have been upheld throughout the ages.

[–]ChristianDJSpook 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

It seems really...apathetic. I mean, I can't help but think universalists are far less likely to attempt to evangelize.

[–]Gloria in excelsis DeoPhilomaeus 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The whole affair is hard to justify in light of Scripture. I believe it's the apocryphal work: "The Apocalypse of Peter" Where one of the later interpolation of the work, includes a passage to Saint Peter, where Lord Jesus tells him not to tell the world that all will be saved from Hell someday.

Because humans would be far more likely to sin at will, knowing they will be saved someday.

It's interesting seeing that in an early Christian extra-canonical work.

But it's no doubt a much later addition to the text.

It kind of shows you how weak it is to uphold it, when Christ commands us to go and be disciples of the world.

And why would we need to do that, if everyone was to be saved regardless of hearing the Gospel or not?

It would also make Christ's sacrifice practically worthless. If there was nothing to be saved from in the first place.

[–]Had a slice of humble pieManOfTheInBetween 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

You're right that most of humanity has and will be going to hell, however:

if only half of everyone went to hell it would seem that in the battle for our souls God was equal to Satan in power

That is untrue because the variable here is complete free will on man's part. Each individual will make the choice whether to receive Christ or not. Sure, the devil and God have influence but ultimately it's one's choice.

The devil's "power" is nothing compared to omnipotent God. The devil cannot create, and his only tactic is lies and whatever acts God permits.

How is this an acceptable loss?

It's acceptable because people going to hell is the just thing. In this life we struggle with that notion but in heaven our perspective will change and we will realize that eternal damnation, even for our loved ones, is the justified outcome for them.

Are my numbers just off?

Who knows the exact percentage but I doubt it's as high as 99.99 percent and not as low as 51 percent. Somewhere in between.

[–]ChristianDJSpook 2ポイント3ポイント  (13子コメント)

How many will go to hell?

As many that choose to go there. The number of people who choose God has nothing to do with His success or performance. Whether we accept HIs forgiveness or not is entirely the result of our choices. God loves us too much to force us into His presence after death if we don't want to meet Him there. Those in hell will be in a constant state of rebellion against God. While no finite number of sins occurring here could be worth an infinite punishment, an infinite number of sins certainly could and that's exactly what happens: the persons in hell continue to rebel against God for eternity, spitting in His face despite His offer to save them. They prefer to work off their sins by themselves. And so we must work to spread the good news, and be useful to the Holy Spirit's work of evangelization.

[–]Child of GodPetililPuff 1ポイント2ポイント  (12子コメント)

As many that choose to go there.

That's not true. It's as many as God chooses to go there. As many as God made to be evil and rebel against Him.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

[–]ChristianDJSpook 0ポイント1ポイント  (11子コメント)

Look up some debates online between molinists, calvinists, and arminians so you can understand where I'm coming from. I don't have time to debate this rn.

[–]Child of GodPetililPuff 1ポイント2ポイント  (10子コメント)

No offense, but... Debates are not the word of God. And as the Bible says, It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man. (Psalm 118:8)

If you don't have time to refute me with scripture, that's fine. But anything else is insufficient.

[–]ChristianDJSpook 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Debates are not the word of God. And as the Bible says, It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man. (Psalm 118:8)

Well, of course, but the purpose of these theological debates it to determine the word of God. So you put your confidence in yourself and your conclusion? What about the spiritually grown up leaders we can learn from and peacefully learn from? There's a lot to learn for us all.

If you don't have time to refute me with scripture, that's fine. But anything else is insufficient.

While this is not entirely relevant to the debate on different views on predestination, I should mention that philosophical extrapolation is necessary for attempting to understand the ways of God--an essential practice for evangelism in particular, since we must be able to defend and communicate the faith well.

[–]Gloria in excelsis DeoPhilomaeus 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

I'd say if the debates are intent on being an intellectually stimulating dialogue free of denigrating your fellow debater, I think it's alright.

Scripture seems to imply that it's a healthy thing to do.

[Proverbs 27:17]

[–]Roman CatholicCatebot 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Proverbs 27:17 | Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)

[17] Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another.


Code | Contact Dev | Usage | Changelog | All texts provided by BibleGateway and Bible Hub.

[–]Child of GodPetililPuff 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

I like that verse. I agree with it, but not in such a broad sense as to listen to debates of men that I don't know, who may not even be saved. There are plenty of self-proclaimed Christians out there who just flat out aren't saved, and I don't believe unsaved people are capable of understanding the truth that is in the Bible. I do believe they are capable of twisting the truth and winning debates, though.

[–]Gloria in excelsis DeoPhilomaeus 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

There's a difference between an argument, and a debate. A debate is used to reasonably present a thought that opposes the other in a debate.

With the full intentions of having a healthy, intelligent discourse. The purpose shouldn't be about "winning" on the behalf of your point of view. Although many do unfortunately let their human bias lead them to that view.

That shouldn't be the nature of a debate.

An argument, on the other hand. Is generally a where two sides are fighting each other to overthrow each sides opinions. Generally in a non-intelligent, intellectually dishonest, appeal to emotions kind of way.

This generally leads one to try and "win" an argument, just to spite the other person involved in the dispute.

As an orthodox Christian, we should certainly debate with one another, in order to uphold correct teachings, and to show our brothers and sisters the error in their teachings and thoughts.

Debating is of course, not required. There are plenty of people out there capable of upholding orthodox teaching much better than you or I.

And I am grateful for their contributions! I for one, am not much of a debater outside of the Internet. So I know how hard that can be.

And like always, I agree we need to be careful we are picking our debates wisely.

I've seen too many that devolve into a thinly veiled troll attempt, and that's despicable.

[–]Child of GodPetililPuff 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

The purpose shouldn't be about "winning" on the behalf of your point of view. Although many do unfortunately let their human bias lead them to that view.

By winning, I don't mean it in the vain or selfish sense... What I mean is, ideally, to "win" in a discussion between 2 true saved Christians would mean for both parties, guided by the Holy Spirit, to come to understand and agree on the true interpretation of scripture.. That's what I picture when I think of Proverbs 27:17. We can sharpen each other's dull edges by discussing scripture. That doesn't necessarily mean that to begin with, one person is wrong and the other is right. Sometimes they're both wrong, and then they both discover the true meaning after discussion...

Of course, this is impossible if the people who are debating aren't saved because neither would have the Holy Spirit guiding them into the truth. And it's possible in such a case that one who is touting a false doctrine could, by twisting scripture, present a better case for their interpretation in a debate. Plenty of people are deceived by false prophets touting false doctrines, that we both know. That's how denominations like the Jehovah's witnesses have come about...

I'm not really concerned with what's considered "orthodox," though. To me, orthodox is just traditions of men. First and foremost, I pray for God to give me understanding, because that's what the Bible tells us to do:

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

[–]Gloria in excelsis DeoPhilomaeus 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, we have to unfortunately come to times where we have to confront false teachers and correct them on their false doctrines.

That can only come from two ways.

1: The Holy Spirit convicts their soul, and they leave the error of their ways for the truth.

2: Christians brought up in the correct teachings of Christ debate with the person erred in their ways, and through the spirit of debate, cause them to at least consider and think about what the correct truth is.

May people have been lead to accept Christ through the spirit of debate. C.S. Lewis didn't just sit around and accept Christ. He talked about Christianity, debated over it, and ultimately was won over through all things considered. And here he would become an incredible modern apologist. Talk about wonderful!

As I've said, there's no reason to get into debates with anyone. You alone aren't going to impact the history of Christianity if you don't correct someone on their false perspectives on the Christian faith.

As I've said, there are plenty of other apologists who have done much better than either of us could say.

And last thing I want to clarify. Is the term "orthodox, little 'o' " doesn't imply some sort of sect or denomination within Christianity.

It's just a technical term given to the body of instruction Christ has given us right out of the Holy Scriptures.

It's a Greek word meaning "Correct Opinion" that's all it means.

And you already are living it, when you say that Jehovah Witnesses are false teachers, with false doctrine.

I'm a very scholarly oriented person, so I tend to use a lot of formal, technical terminology in my posts.

So don't worry, I'm not trying to advocate a certain denomination over others.

Anyway, have a great one Brother!

[–]Abram1769 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Hey PetitlilPuff! If you recall my view, I fall more on the "free will" side of the debate so I'll put forward my case.

As you say, I believe everything that happens is within the will of God. However, I believe God's will is somewhat broad. For example, God has willed that all who believe shall be saved, but God did not choose who would be saved. God foreknows who will be saved because he is not constrained by time, but he does not make that choice for us.

My first point is that man has the ability to influence and change the will of God. We see Moses change God's mind in Exodus 32.

And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.

And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slat them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply you seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. (Exodus 32:10-14)

Now you could write it off and say that it was God's will for Moses to make an appeal for the people, but the Bible clearly says that God repented. He changed his mind. His will was to destroy the people and make a great nation of Moses, but he changed to acknowledge the will of Moses. It's a great example of the importance of praying, making requests, and appealing to God for others.

My next point being that while Jesus told us in John 6 that no man can come to him unless the Father draws in, Jesus said in John 12:32 that his crucifixion has drawn all men unto him. 1 Timothy 4:10 tells us that Christ is the savior of all men, especially those that believe. All are called unto the grace of Christ but those that believe are only those who will or want to believe. If God chose from the beginning whether someone would be saved, Christ couldn't be the savior of all men. Only the savior of those that were called.

And the spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. (Revelation 22:17)

If mankind has no free will, then shouldn't God have said "whosoever I have called" rather than "whosoever will"? Somebody there is willing to come to the water of life. We know that God is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9) so God is already pulling for everyone to be saved. If there are then only few that are saved, there must be another factor.

But God does designate some people as reprobate. People that will not be saved. Those that reject God and in turn are rejected by God. Though I believe it is still not God's will for these people to perish, it is just for them to perish. That is why God gives them over to strong delusion so that they might all be damned that love not the truth. Again with this group, God foreknows who is stiffnecked and will never come to the truth. This group and those God foreknows will repent and believe both act out his will according to his pleasure, but who fills the rolls is determined by whether we will to believe on Christ.

[–]Child of GodPetililPuff 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Had to break this one up due to length! Part 1:

I haven't come across anyone that can explain it another way to me that stands up to scripture, or gives a better explanation of all the verses that seem to say otherwise. If anyone can, it would probably be you. So I'll share some of them with you and you tell me what you think.

As you say, I believe everything that happens is within the will of God. However, I believe God's will is somewhat broad. For example, God has willed that all who believe shall be saved, but God did not choose who would be saved. God foreknows who will be saved because he is not constrained by time, but he does not make that choice for us.'

This I have thought of time and time again, but every time I do I go back to remembering that God created us all. He knew from the moment he decided to create us the way that we are that we would either choose to believe on Christ or we wouldn't. And all He would have had to do was change us slightly in order to make us someone who wouldn't come to Christ. Is that free will, if He made us a certain way, knowing what we would become?

Think of the verses about the potter and the clay. It says, does not the potter have power over the clay to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour? And it says the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory:

Romans 9:19-24 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Eph 1 says He chose us before the foundation of the world, according to the good pleasure of His will.

Eph 1:4-5 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

And then also in Romans 9, there's the passage about Jacob and Esau - how Jacob was chosen before either children were born - that the purpose of God according to election might stand of Him that calleth. And also what God said to Moses:

Rom 9:10-18 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

I think it's possible that God doesn't have a will for the miniscule details of our lives, things that don't matter.. But instead His will might only be over the important aspects of our lives - whether we are saved, what we do to labor for Him, when we die, the children that we have, etc. I think man might have what some might call "free will" over his life, that is, a limited "free will" where God can override any of our choices if they conflict with His plans. But like I said, there are so many verses that seem to say that our salvation is chosen by God. To list a few more: Rom 8:28-30, 2 Tim 1:9, Eph 1:11-12, 1 Cor 1:23-27.

Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

I believe that's what it means, when the Bible says that it is by grace.. Because nothing we did saves us, but rather that we were created this way and chosen according to the good pleasure of God's will. Therefore it can only be by grace.

Eph 2:8-10 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Isn't believing itself a work, if we have to do the work of figuring it out and willing ourselves to believe? But if God simply gives us that knowledge, and shines the light of the knowledge of Christ in our hearts, only then is it a gift, and also then it is truly by grace.

2 Cor 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

[–]Child of GodPetililPuff 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Part 2:

Now you could write it off and say that it was God's will for Moses to make an appeal for the people, but the Bible clearly says that God repented. He changed his mind. His will was to destroy the people and make a great nation of Moses, but he changed to acknowledge the will of Moses. It's a great example of the importance of praying, making requests, and appealing to God for others.

It is a good example of praying and appealing to God for others, I agree. I mean, you seem to disagree with 'writing it off' by saying that it was God's will for Moses to make the appeal, but it really does remind me of the verse in Lamentations:

Lam 3:37 Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not?

Not only that, but we know that God promised Abraham that his seed would inherit Israel - his seed being Christ. And in that, God's will was to make a great nation from Abraham's line. God could have made a great nation out of Moses alone or the people He brought out of Egypt. God was capable of either, of course. But with Moses's plea, He chose to show mercy on Israel. His will would have been fulfilled either way, though, with or without those people. Like Jesus said, God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham (Matt 3:9). If Moses's will was completely against God's will, it wouldn't have happened. Moses also appealed to God on another occasion, but God didn't change his mind then because Moses's will truly did conflict with God's will on that occasion:

Exodus 32:31-33 And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.

My next point being that while Jesus told us in John 6 that no man can come to him unless the Father draws in, Jesus said in John 12:32 that his crucifixion has drawn all men unto him. 1 Timothy 4:10 tells us that Christ is the savior of all men, especially those that believe. All are called unto the grace of Christ but those that believe are only those who will or want to believe. If God chose from the beginning whether someone would be saved, Christ couldn't be the savior of all men. Only the savior of those that were called.'

Jesus is the savior of all men. That is to say, He is the only way to salvation for all men, and He offered it to all. There is no other way, we both know this. And I agree, that He did come to offer salvation to all men. However, I don't see this conflicting with the idea that only those who are the called will believe on Him. The reason being that, if Jesus had not come to offer salvation to all men, then the one's who don't believe on Him wouldn't have been made manifest to have been condemned already. And this "condemned already" is important. Notice that it says specifically, God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but those who believed not were condemned already, and those who do believe are not condemned. Why were we not condemned? And why were those who believe not condemned already? Who or what condemned them? Were they condemned before Christ came into the world? Is it not possible that we were not condemned because, as it says throughout the new testament, we were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love (Eph 1:4-5)?

John 3:16-21 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

And also important to note, it says, those who doeth truth cometh to the light (they believe on Christ), that their deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. Wrought (as in carefully formed or worked into shape) in God. That is to say, those who doeth truth (truth that God put in them to do) come to the light.

If mankind has no free will, then shouldn't God have said "whosoever I have called" rather than "whosoever will"? Somebody there is willing to come to the water of life.'

Yes, God said whosoever will, come and take the water of life. But we know, and Christ testified, that not everyone will. We will come to the water of life if God called us and created us to do so. This verse doesn't conflict with God's election.

2 Tim 1:8-9 Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God; Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began

We know that God is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9) so God is already pulling for everyone to be saved. If there are then only few that are saved, there must be another factor.'

But you see, this interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9 conflicts with other parts of scripture.

2 Pet 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Saying that the "us" in this verse applies to all men conflicts with scripture. Because we know, that if it was God's will that NO MAN perish, Christ would have been wrong when He testified that many WILL PERISH. And we know also from Revelation that all those who worship the beast will perish:

Rev 13:8 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.

Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

If it was God's will that no man perish, no one would perish. As it is said, for who hath resisted His will? (Romans 9:19) So the "us" in this verse applies to all those who are called... Because if it is, as it says, according to the good pleasure of God's will that we were predestined to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself (Eph 1:5), then of course God is not willing that any of us who are called should perish, but that all of us who are called should come to repentance.

But God does designate some people as reprobate. People that will not be saved. Those that reject God and in turn are rejected by God. Though I believe it is still not God's will for these people to perish, it is just for them to perish. That is why God gives them over to strong delusion so that they might all be damned that love not the truth. Again with this group, God foreknows who is stiffnecked and will never come to the truth. This group and those God foreknows will repent and believe both act out his will according to his pleasure, but who fills the rolls is determined by whether we will to believe on Christ.

If you believe some are predestined to perish, how don't you believe the opposite? I can't wrap my head around it. I see it as either both or neither, you know?

[–]Calvary Chapelkadda1212 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

First of all, I am noticing that you have a dualistic worldview that looks as if God and Satan are playing a game of chess with humans as figures against each other. I don't believe this is supported by the Bible at all.

God is much more powerful than Satan. Also, it is not Satan's job to send people to hell, or judge them. God is the judge. Satan is only accusing people. He is jealous and arrogant and takes pleasure in dividing mankind from God it seems. But, in the end he will be thrown into the lake of fire as well. So, whatever will happen, he is not going to win. He will suffer for all eternity.

I don't know how many people will be saved or go to hell. It is our responsibility to bring the gospel to the people. Another thought: Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world. Estimated numbers say that 100,000 - 200,000 Christians die for their faith per year. Martyrs usually have a high chance of being saved. In the end, I think, a lot will be saved. It is God's intention for all to be saved.

[–]ohfeelee 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

This video really helped me understand what hell is. https://youtu.be/AYxKRoONrfY

[–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

[removed]

    [–]Lutheran (LCMS)Philip_Schwartzerdt[M] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Removed for violating rule 1.

    [–]Calvinistjohn-14-6 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I struggle over this question often, not only for my own salvation but also for the salvation of those around me.

    I think we only have the words of our Lord regarding how many people will be saved. Human speculation is just that... speculation. We can certainly come up with our own ideas regarding who will go to hell, but let's focus on Jesus' words, who actually talks about it.

    Our Lord would not make so much mention about hell if it were something that only concerned a miniscule part of the population. If Hell only contains Hitler, Stalin, and Nero then why mention it at all?

    [Luke 13:22-30] says that 'many' will tell Christ on Judgment day of their good works, but because they relied on their own righteousness and merely cared about self-glorification, Jesus will tell them 'I never knew you'.

    In that same response Jesus also remains cryptic about how many people will actually be in Hell, because the point of that passage is that those who care not about their salvation and merely try to give token contributions towards it, without true repentance and faith will be cast out and rejected at the doors of heaven.

    Likewise, [Matthew 24:36-41] indicates that those who remain unconcerned and oblivious as to their salvation and care only about their earthly life will be swept away. This may either be a 50% (two people, one taken away) or a vast majority (Noah and his family vs the rest of the population).

    I personally would not be surprised if there were more people in Heaven than in Hell; but I think what Jesus is telling us in these passages is that we should not assume that we will be saved by simply existing in the flesh and being worldly: only those that repent, care, and live in the Spirit (as Paul talks about at length) are actually saved. Salvation and passivity are incompatible.

    /u/versebot

    [–]ChristianVerseBot 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Luke 13:22-30 | English Standard Version (ESV)

    The Narrow Door
    [22] He went on his way through towns and villages, teaching and journeying toward Jerusalem. [23] And someone said to him, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” And he said to them, [24] “Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. [25] When once the master of the house has risen and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, open to us,’ then he will answer you, ‘I do not know where you come from.’ [26] Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.’ [27] But he will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you come from. Depart from me, all you workers of evil!’ [28] In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves cast out. [29] And people will come from east and west, and from north and south, and recline at table in the kingdom of God. [30] And behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last.”

    Matthew 24:36-41 | English Standard Version (ESV)

    No One Knows That Day and Hour
    [36] “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. [37] For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. [38] For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, [39] and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. [40] Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. [41] Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left.


    Code | /r/VerseBot | Contact Devs | Usage | Changelog | Stats | Set a Default Translation

    All texts provided by BibleGateway and Bible Hub.

    Mistake? john-14-6 can edit or delete this comment.

    [–]Roman Catholicluke-jr 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Most people are going to Hell.

    [–]Child of GodPetililPuff 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Well you're right, because that's what Jesus said. Many will go to hell, few will be saved.

    Matthew 7:13-14 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

    That doesn't at all mean that Satan triumphs over God. The only people that go to hell are the ones that go to hell according to God's will. Nothing happens unless it is God's will for it to happen.

    Lam 3:37 Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not?

    Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

    Romans 9:20-21 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

    John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

    Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

    If I had a penny for every time a Christian said "free will" I'd be rich. But in reality, it's just not biblical.

    [–]studbeefpile 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Billions upon billions. Fun right?

    [–]FearMonstro 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I have some relatives who are non-denominational, born-again Christians -- they've concluded that a vast majority of people go to Hell. It's quite clear in the NT that explicit salvation is a requisite for Heaven -- which automatically excludes most humans. I think their reasoning is consistent with the Scripture.

    [–]Atheisttrue_unbeliever -1ポイント0ポイント  (27子コメント)

    This is a great question and is the main reason that I am no longer a Christian.

    If evangelical Christianity is true then billions upon billions are in hell and every second, another person dies and goes to spend eternity in hell. Actually it's higher than one per second, I'm rounding down. Globally 1.8 persons die per second. 32% of the world's population claims to be Christian. Of that approx 40% percent are born again (a generous figure). So 87 % of the world's population are hell bound, and the rate of entry into hell is 1.8 * .87 = 1.57 per second.

    And God is supposed to be omnipotent and omnibenevolant?

    Free will you say? To that I simply respond that if you were born in Saudi Arabia or Thailand, you would, in all likelihood, be one of those hell bound 87%.

    It is also understandable why so many Christians in r/Christianity are Universalists, Purgatorial Universalists or Annihiliationists. But they too are going to hell!

    Or it is all simply a myth, developed over the years by the Zoroastrians, Plato and other contributors. Alice Turner's The History of Hell is a very interesting read.

    [–]ChristianDJSpook 4ポイント5ポイント  (26子コメント)

    This is a great question and is the main reason that I am no longer a Christian.

    Then I'm afraid you have left unnecessarily! Furthermore, your conclusion does not have to immediately lead to atheism. If there is no Christian God does not mean there is not one at all, so I can't see why you've gone there unless you have some other reason/s.

    And God is supposed to be omnipotent and omnibenevolant?

    You make the assumption that our rebellion represents God's failure to save us rather than our own personal failure. Read some of my replies elsewhere on this thread so you can learn why I think this view is not logical and theologically sound.

    It is also understandable why so many Christians in r/Christianity are Universalists, Purgatorial Universalists or Annihiliationists. But they too are going to hell!

    That is simply not true. One denomination does not outcompete another. These are in house discussions to be had, but as long as we all agree on the basic doctrine of our personal salvation by trust in Jesus we are saved.

    Or it is all simply a myth, developed over the years by the Zoroastrians, Plato and other contributors. Alice Turner's The History of Hell is a very interesting read.

    This is misinformation: That is neither historical nor logically a necessary defeater for Christian theism. Christianity was not derived from another tradition. It arose out of Judaism with the coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. But even if it were true, you have committed a textbook example of the genetic fallacy: that is an attempt to invalidate a belief based on how one came to believe it or your limited understanding of how the belief came about. I could say the same for you, that atheism arose from evolution by natural selection with the traditions of a certain few who made it prominent in the 1800s, but that would make it no less true.

    In fact, widespread belief in hell is in line with scripture since we learn from Ecclesiastes 3:11 "...he has put eternity into man’s heart...". A common awareness of where our sinful actions will take us does little to invalidate Christianity, whether it developed its perception of hell independently or not.

    Free will you say? To that I simply respond that if you were born in Saudi Arabia or Thailand, you would, in all likelihood, be one of those hell bound 87%.

    And this makes the assumption that those who have not heard the word of God would have chosen otherwise had they heard it. But this is simply not knowable, and therefore a needless conclusion. Furthermore, neither you nor I know whether the Holy Spirit/Jesus appears/reveals to those outside the boundaries of Christian evangelism. In Iraq many missionaries have come back with news that numerous Muslim women were having dreams of Jesus and learned His name before they had even come to evangelize them. I do not expect you to just believe that is actually happening, but I do hope it will show you that there are other ways God could be working that you have perhaps not yet considered. So then, it may very well be the case that everyone is responsible for the amount of revelation they have received: some know Jesus, others do not, but all can find themselves passing in God's judgment in the end for reasons we do not yet understand. (For instance, the Bible was written for those who have heard God's word, so why should we expect that it write pertaining to those who will not read it?)

    So this is a needless assumption to make when there is plenty room for other possibilities, and since we can see in the person of Jesus of Nazareth that God is good, it makes sense to assume that His character continues to be consistent with the good Jesus portrayed and thus my assumptions are more consistent with His character while yours directly contradict the Bible's portrayal of God. Consider this: He is more just than we could ever be, so whatever happens--we will have no question as to whether it was fair or not. We'll be sure that it was the best outcome possible.

    Now I assume part of this is an emotional problem, so please consider that while you decided--in the face of how many are opposed to God--to quit on Christianity, Jesus shares your empathy and actually died for those who do not know Him. 1 Timothy 2: "3This is good and pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"

    [–]Atheisttrue_unbeliever 1ポイント2ポイント  (15子コメント)

    These are in house discussions to be had, but as long as we all agree on the basic doctrine of our personal salvation by trust in Jesus we are saved.

    That's too funny. In response I'll give you one example that comes to mind.

    Have you heard John MacArthur's sermon on Strange Fire? Pretty clear that he calls Charismatics heretics. John MacArthur loves the Lord, believes the Bible to be the inerrant, inspired Word of God. And he is completely convinced that he is correct.

    Charismatics say that John MacArthur (and the Cessationalists) are blaspheming the Holy Spirit. They love the Lord, believe the Bible to be the inerrant, inspired Word of God. And they are completely convinced that they are correct.

    And God is supposed to be the author of communication? Far more likely is that the Bible is simply the work of human authors, hence will always be subject to multiple interpretations, even on doctrines that are salvific.

    [–]ChristianDJSpook 0ポイント1ポイント  (14子コメント)

    That's too funny.

    I had hoped you would take me seriously.

    So your argument went from:

    It is also understandable why so many Christians in r/Christianity are Universalists, Purgatorial Universalists or Annihiliationists. But they too are going to hell!

    to:

    And God is supposed to be the author of communication? Far more likely is that the Bible is simply the work of human authors, hence will always be subject to multiple interpretations, even on doctrines that are salvific.

    So we've made progress. Now I don't see a logical incompatibility with the existence of varying interpretations of scripture and the existence of the Judeo Christian God for a few reasons:

    1. You make the assumption that the existence of multiple interpretations of scripture reflects the inadequacy of God to communicate to us rather than our failure to listen to and/or comprehend His message. Why assume you know better than God?

    2. The examples you gave show that often poor interpretations of scripture arise for immorality (i.e., selfishness, making Christianity a political view to put others down with, and whether it is apparent from which sin they are derived doesn't quite matter)--and dare I say that Christians do not conform to Christ's understanding of truth any more than they do conform to Christ's lifestyle depending on their humility and sincerity towards Him? If you don't expect man to be perfect--as Jesus is--then how can you expect all men to also grasp His word as well as He does?

    3. I've found that, throughout the years, I've grown closer to God the more I draw close to Him and encounter Him in His word. His word says of itself that it will last forever--besides our souls, that's all that will last according to scripture. So we can grow closer to Him, the Bible provides a mechanism for our spiritual growth. Over the years the more we focus on conforming to Christ's character, gaining a greater knowledge of scripture, and applying it to our lives we accomplish more of Christ's purpose to draw us close to Him, as His sons and daughters, and become who He made us to be.

    So then, misinterpretations arise from: a lack of spiritual maturity or sin (usually selfishness, i.e. the sale of indulgences in the catholic church...somethign Jesus hated...sometimes a mix of hatred, i.e. the WBBC. Though in both cases here as well as those you described there are direct contradictions to the message of Jesus Himself that are obvious when you actually read the Bible without personal influences of selfishness and pride. You should not be surprised at how ignorant fake Christians can be of the scripture they claim to have mastered. They are Pharisees, and power trips, and I don't know how you could miss Jesus's constant commentary on the hypocrisy of Christians who do not follow Him or have any sense of humility. Of all people, Christ is perfect, and yet even he was not arrogant! We are saved by grace through the acceptance of Christ's forgiveness after the acknowledgement of our moral failures before Him, and this is obvious from Jesus's words, and that is the only essential doctrine to salvation. There are far less Christian denominations that stray from this basic doctrine than you think, and your exaggeration won't change that). Those with hearts that do are not hostile towards God, or those saved that still favor the world over Him, are living cruel and bitter lives and do not know the ways of God. Man is hopelessly sinful, and I hope you can tell--we're not perfect. But we're talking about Christianity here, and it is God's initiative to change us, making us a new person each day.

    “Give me all of you!!! I don’t want so much of your time, so much of your talents and money, and so much of your work. I want YOU!!! ALL OF YOU!! I have not come to torment or frustrate the natural man or woman, but to KILL IT! No half measures will do. I don’t want to only prune a branch here and a branch there; rather I want the whole tree out! Hand it over to me, the whole outfit, all of your desires, all of your wants and wishes and dreams. Turn them ALL over to me, give yourself to me and I will make of you a new self---in my image. Give me yourself and in exchange I will give you Myself. My will, shall become your will. My heart, shall become your heart.” ― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

    [–]Atheisttrue_unbeliever 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

    Thanks for the reply. Before we proceed can you please explain the discrepancy between the statement

    I've found that, throughout the years, I've grown closer to God the more I draw close to Him and encounter Him in His word.

    And the fact that you have only been a Christian for approx 2 months according to your post history?

    [–]ChristianDJSpook 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Where in my post history did I indicate that I have been a Christian for two months? Also...you read my post history? I thought you said you were busy, lol. PS how is this even relevant what I've explained? So is this an argument to you--wherein anything can be used against me to invalidate my refutation of your objection? Why do you seek ad hominems? Are you concerned with who's right or what's true? In the interest of pursuing truth I recommend that you use all the resources available to you to comprehend the Christian message and what I am attempting to explain. I'm not here for your sport. If your only source of resolutions to your objections to Christianity come from your habit of online discourse then I think you should consider reading into the Christian faith to learn what Christ is all about.

    [–]Atheisttrue_unbeliever 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

    It takes all of two minutes to scan one's post submissions.

    I do that as a matter of course whenever I engage in discussion because it helps to know where they are coming from.

    The reason I asked the question is because I suspected that you are quoting others without providing a reference.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/theology/comments/4srfpv/dear_legit_jesus_followers_i_am_a_new_christian/

    The relevance is simple. In your zeal to evangelize you have no issues with exaggerating for Jesus.

    [–]ChristianDJSpook 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I suppose I should let you know that my post history on this website will not give you much insight as to who I am or where I'm coming from, though I appreciate the interest! You'll need some context before you assume I am a liar. I had grown up in a Christian home but had never been compelled to submit to Christ before then. I regard that time as Christ's writing of my testimony--feel free to read it! So it's both accurate to say, as I did in the context of illustrating spiritual growth, that I have always been a Christian, and also to say that I recently became what I would consider a "true Christian" at a moment when I grew significantly in that maturity. It is the closest thing to distinguish from approaching Christianity from committed atheism that I have. My "conversion story" per se. I'll be busy for a few days but I'm glad to answer your specific questions when possible! I'm thinking about responding to your deconversion story in the hopes that you will find Christianity an intellectually credible view--not that I don't think you are happy, but rather I hope you'll continue to enjoy life and one day find something even better in Christ.

    [–]Atheisttrue_unbeliever 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Ok thanks for the explanation and I apologize for assuming that you were exaggerating when you said "years".

    No problem on the time line of discussion. I do prefer to stick to a discussion theme or two. It's hard when there are multiple major topics going at the same time.

    [–]Atheisttrue_unbeliever 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

    Ok so the main line of my argument here is that we are not talking about topics like whether to use a guitar in a worship service. I am talking about differences that are salvific.

    Think about it. If you get it wrong you are going to hell. For eternity.

    I chose the Cessationalist example because each camp is clearly calling the other a heretic.

    Tell me, are Oneness Pentecostals saved or unsaved?

    Are Roman Catholics who believe in justification by faith (Romans) and Works (James) saved?

    My contention is that these differences are simply due to religion being man made. Given the eternal consequences of getting it wrong, one would reasonably expect that the message would be communicated in such a way that this would not occur.

    In my opinion, the model that has the greatest explanatory power (sorry WLC doesn't own those words) is that the Bible is simply a collection of writings from superstitious middle easterners, steeped in their culture and religion.

    [–]ChristianDJSpook 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

    Ok so the main line of my argument here is that we are not talking about topics like whether to use a guitar in a worship service.

    I'll clarify that the Bible does not specifically address the use of guitars at all.

    Think about it. If you get it wrong you are going to hell. For eternity.

    Well, no, actually--these radical interpretations may be held by very confused people but that has no bearing on whether they will be saved or not. Their interpretations do not change what it actually says. And it is quite obvious what it says on this basic doctrine, so if you would look to the vast majority of Christians for an understanding of the doctrine of salvation I think you'd find some commonalities and widespread, Biblically justified agreement that they will go to heaven if they simply comply with mere Christianity (the fundamentals, and if we must the only truly important fundamental is salvation).

    Tell me, are Oneness Pentecostals saved or unsaved?

    The only matter that needs to be settled in salvation is the assent that the individual is a sinner and that he requires Christ to forgive him of his sins. I can't help it that some people get this obvious point wrong anymore than I can change the fact that half my English class doesn't understand (or want to understand) any of the books we read.They may behave such that it seems to you they have chosen to add works to salvation (it's more likely they are attempting to distinguish between sincere and insincere Christians and do not see how a Christian that makes little attempt to change his life was ever sincere about his initial acceptance of salvation)--and let's say they truly did-- they would still be saved. There are many who simply cannot grasp the matter of grace, and feel they have to deserve it, so they may add works to salvation but that does not change their initial choice and Christ's redemption.

    In my opinion, the model that has the greatest explanatory power (sorry WLC doesn't own those words) is that the Bible is simply a collection of writings from superstitious middle easterners, steeped in their culture and religion.

    And the only reasoning for this you've provided so far is that:

    My contention is that these differences are simply due to religion being man made. Given the eternal consequences of getting it wrong, one would reasonably expect that the message would be communicated in such a way that this would not occur.

    Again, it simply does not follow from the existence of unwarranted interpretations that some few radical denominations hold that the Judeo-Christian God does not exist. As I recently commented (please read my last reply again) humans do not immediately resemble Christ's perfection in lifestyle any more than they are likely to immediately resemble Jesus's understanding of truth.

    In addition, the varying sincerity of Christians will cause varying degrees of resemblance to Jesus (in both lifestyle and understanding of His word). By reading the Bible, one demonstrates His intention to draw close to God.

    It's not hard to miss the most basic doctrine of Christianity--salvation--but it does happen with the moral and maturity failures of a diminutive population. Some fancy Christianity as no more than a political view, and from pride and a judgmental nature they assume only they could be worthy of heaven. The Bible is more practical than you may think--it actually provides quite a lot of commentary on the tendency for people to be prideful because they have worked (you see, it is not a work based salvation so no man can boast but rather all men must look to Jesus with humility, though some do good works and see others not doing the same and their pride gets involved) and hate to see others not doing the same. Readin to the Bible's portrayal of the Pharisees in the Gospels (accounts of Jesus's life) for exhaustive commentary on this tendency of human nature--Jesus meant to guard against the sanctimonious attitude.

    So again, you have refused to account for the existence of multiple interpretations being due to the failures of man rather than God--assuming that He is not accomplishing His purposes exactly as He would like in light of this (though you are in no position to know that--perhaps the simplest answer to your question). Furthermore, I think you should realize that humans vary greatly, and our interpretations will be made to some extent from our past life experiences--and with the numerous ways the Bible could apply to different individual lives, could God not use this? Is the tendency for man to approach a text with a different interpretation than another supposed to be completely changed once they read the Bible--and a universal and identical understanding of the word should come to them?Even when some never read His word, some read half, some meditate on it all over many years or their whole life? So the Bible is supposed to be different in that God's precise message is to be apparent to anyone that reads it--even if tats just part of it and for a different amount of time with a different intention? That would be straight up magic! And u don't think you'll find many Christians who have a problem with admitting the Bible is a man made book! Only, it is divinely inspired. What do you expect, that the book is going to glow with a gold light and enchant all who read it? Well I have a more realistic view on the doctrine of divine inspiration than that. God wants more progress on our character to come out of the process of reading it.

    I think you're forgetting/confusing the nature of man, and that of God, and also assuming you are in a position to know better than Him.

    [–]Atheisttrue_unbeliever 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

    So again, you have refused to account for the existence of multiple interpretations being due to the failures of man

    Well actually that is what I am saying, but I would add that it is also due to the source being man.

    I do think that you are being naive in your assessment of the degree of difference within Christianity, but I'll not press that. I lived it for 17 years. Maybe things have gotten more ecumenical since I left in the mid 90's but somehow I doubt it.

    I would extend the argument as well to the non-Trinitarian groups. Mormons love Jesus, but in the evangelical view, they are going to hell.

    Then we have this problem of the 68% of the non-Christians, all supposedly hell bound for eternity because of great, great, great, .... great grandpa Adam & grandma Eve. And because of free will.

    Like that really works if you are born into a Muslim or Buddhist family. Only a very small percent convert to Christianity, and roughly the same percent convert the other way, so conversion statistics pretty well cancel each other out.

    Lots of people who are genuine seekers of truth end up not Christian, like Cat Stevens became a Muslim. Too bad Cat, you're going to hell.

    Sorry I just don't buy the story. It's simple mythology.

    I do not fear Christian hell in the same way that you do not fear Muslim hell.

    Edit: I should add that we also know from genetics and evolutionary biology that great grandpa Adam could not have been a literal person. There never was a first human.

    [–]ChristianDJSpook 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

    I do think that you are being naive in your assessment of the degree of difference within Christianity, but I'll not press that. I lived it for 17 years. Maybe things have gotten more ecumenical since I left in the mid 90's but somehow I doubt it.

    I'm fine with you pressing it: we are talking about a fundamental, basic doctrine of Christianity.

    Well actually that is what I am saying, but I would add that it is also due to the source being man.

    So the failure of all men to grasp the word of God--which He's made accessible to those cultivating morally and spiritually maturity--reflects that it is a fabrication? This seems like a cop-out to resist researching its historicity and actual message. How the best preserved document of antiquity (NT) times is interpreted does not relate to its being divinely inspired. What criteria do you even have to determine whether the Bible is or is not divinely inspired? For what reasons should a book--obviously written by men--be deemed as not special due to the existence of multiple interpretations for that book? At what point can you say that divine inspiration is lacking?

    You're making the assumption that a divinely inspired book would be interpreted (approximately) universally. And from there you assume that any book that does not fit that description can be ruled out. That's so out there, man, that I've never heard anyone bring this up.

    It is indeed sourced by men, as I said, though inspired by God. The failure of men to understand it does not reflect poorly on the truth it contains anymore than your failure to understand the constitution, or my reddit response, reflects poorly on its truth value. I don't expect the truths at God's disposal to be easily understood, so I'm quite glad He used men to write it. And it being the case that men wrote it, when you say "it must have been written by men due to the existence of multiple interpretations" I say "I agree that it was written by men...though I'm not sure what point you're trying to make on there being multiple interpretations of it...how does that determine whether it is divinely inspired or not?"

    Mormons love Jesus, but in the evangelical view, they are going to hell.

    Where did you hear that?

    Then we have this problem of the 68% of the non-Christians, all supposedly hell bound for eternity because of great, great, great, .... great grandpa Adam & grandma Eve. And because of free will.

    So we're moving on then? To the problem of evil we shall go, but I'd like to discuss that after we arrive at some sort of agreement on the current subject, even if that is to disagree.

    Like that really works if you are born into a Muslim or Buddhist family. Only a very small percent convert to Christianity, and roughly the same percent convert the other way, so conversion statistics pretty well cancel each other out.

    I am repeating myself: I have assumed that those with hostile hearts towards God will not find Him, and I took this objection and explained that it makes three unfounded assumptions:

    1. That God cannot reach those who are outside the span of the evangelistic work of Christians (for example, in dreams or some other way of revealing Himself to them),

    2. That they would have accepted God had they heard the news of the gospel.

    3. That people are not only responsible for the amount of revelation given to them (we don't know if this is the case, and the Bible need not explain this point because those it primarily concerns will not read the Bible)

    Lots of people who are genuine seekers of truth end up not Christian, like Cat Stevens became a Muslim. Too bad Cat, you're going to hell.

    I'd prefer to use you as an example: you seem to think that it is simply the belief in Jesus that determines one's eternal destination. Have you not considered what brings about that belief, or the quality of one's sincerity in assent to a belief? Perhaps, in order to not end up Christian, one must be hostile towards God, preferring this world over His forgiveness. Though if God were to make it imminent knowledge to us that hell and heaven exist, we would be coerced by this knowledge into loving Him--but how then is that love? So God could saturate us with His presence, causing us to simply not choose against Him--though He did precisely that and 1/3 of the angels rebelled, including Satan. Why? Because true love is to give with none to gain, and they were in it for themselves to gain from His presence. So God has the option here--an imperfect world He may use--to bring on a perfect world: by causing the knowledge of His existence (thereby, Hell and Heaven) to correspond to man's heart towards His forgiveness of their sins. Thus we may come to love Him while it is inconvenient for us to do so, so that when we are with Him in His immediate presence we will gain from His love while not loving Him merely because He loves us as well (aka we have something to gain). Thus our free will remains while we simply do not choose against Him in the next life, and in this life we may learn to truly love in this sacrificial way while deriving our self-worth from something that does not change: Christ's love, rather than looks, money, relationships (which change). In man He has set the existential questions that all produce the same anxious feeling: that of identity, self worth, ultimate meaning, and hope. In our lives we may find them all answered in Him, properly. This post was meant to illustrate that

    Sorry I just don't buy the story. It's simple mythology.

    I'm afraid you've underestimated Christianity.

    Edit: I should add that we also know from genetics and evolutionary biology that great grandpa Adam could not have been a literal person. There never was a first human.

    Shall I provide reasons why I comply with St. Augustine's view that these stories are to be taken figuratively? The literal interpretation is actually a new invention.

    I lived it for 17 years

    Well you're not anymore, so dare I say it may have meant little more to you than emotion? Or perhaps that you never fully realized its truth? The objections to Christianity you have raised have their answers--a google search away. Why have you sent so much time researching the opposite and made my job so easy? Perhaps you do not want to know the truth in it? Perhaps because it would entail a change of lifestyle?

    [–]Atheisttrue_unbeliever 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I'll get back to you later.

    A Google search away also gives you strong and equally valid arguments from Jews for Judaism and Muslim apologists.

    Lifestyle change? Oh right I would have to repent of my meth fueled bisexual orgies./s

    Honestly there is not much different that I do now than what I did as a Christian. Back then I evangelized for Christ. Today I evangelize for reason. I have a software business. I compete in powerlifting. I am happily married. I turn 60 this year. My life is quite boring but I am very content. I admit that I drink too much espresso, so probably would have to repent of that.

    [–]Atheisttrue_unbeliever 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    On Mormonism, are you saying that they are Christians and are saved?

    Between that and your non literal view of Adam, you are starting to sound like a hell bound liberal :) /s

    [–]Atheisttrue_unbeliever 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    On the Moreland article, you really should read Bart Ehrman "How Jesus Became God".

    On eye witness testimony you better convert to Catholicism. 1000 people saw the Virgin Mary. Therefore Catholicism is true? /s

    [–]Atheisttrue_unbeliever 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Yes I am making some assumptions about what one would reasonably expect from a supposed omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolant God.

    You are making an assumption that God exists, Christianity is true and the Bible is the Word of God.

    You are making a claim that if people don't accept this, they will spend eternity in the torments of hell. That's an extraordinary claim that should be backed by extraordinary evidence.

    I don't see any extraordinary evidence.

    [–]ChristianDJSpook 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I'll have to get back 2 u l8r this weekend or something. Thx for the conversation so far tho!

    [–]Atheisttrue_unbeliever 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

    Thank you for your reply. Sorry for the confusing opening statement. The doctrine of eternal hell was the key reason I walked away, but here is the rest of the story:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/thegreatproject/comments/42mze0/my_deconversion_evangelical_christianity_to/

    tl/dr: That ship has sailed.

    [–]ChristianDJSpook 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

    You didn't read it!? Ughhhhhhh. How can you expect me to read your post?😫

    [–]Atheisttrue_unbeliever 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I did read all of it, but did not respond to all of it.

    [–]Atheisttrue_unbeliever 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Sorry for limiting the scope of discussion, I have a very busy week. I would be happy to discuss any of your arguments with you, but there is a lot there. Which one would you be most interested in a response to?

    [–]ChristianDJSpook 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Whichever one you do not accept. Unless you've presupposed that everything I say is invalid, then we'll be here for weeks.

    [–]Gloria in excelsis DeoPhilomaeus 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    For me, the philosophical "Problem of Evil". Is one of the weakest arguments to be made on stepping away from Christianity.

    It presupposes we put our own human morals and logic over God's. If we are little human creatures, with no infinite cosmic power.

    And God does indeed hold all the cards. Why would that bother you? I serve God, because I find truth entirely in His plans for this world.

    Just because I don't understand them, does not mean I will object and put myself above Him.

    He has every right to destroy us outright, for our idiocy.

    I follow God, not because it allows me to fill morally superior. But because it just simply is. The truth, and that's all there ever is to it.

    Salvation is a nice touch, but it's not the reason why I follow God, I follow because I love him, even if He were to tell me I will be going to Hell despite following his every command perfectly.

    I would rejoice in His decision, because I love Him.

    I actually find any other argument for atheism so much more compelling to grasp for it, than the paltry "Problem of Evil".

    [–]fallingtopieces 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

    You wrote a huge reply but failed to actually address the most important point in OP's comment. People who are born in the Muslim heartland of Saudi Arabia or the many Islamic countries along with the many Hindus born in the Hindu heartlands of India are going to hell.

    [–]ChristianDJSpook 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

    I did, please read it again. I have assumed that those with hostile hearts towards God will not find Him, and I took this objection and explained that it makes three unfounded assumptions:

    1. That God cannot reach those who are outside the span of the evangelistic work of Christians (for example, in dreams or some other way of revealing Himself to them),

    2. That they would have accepted God had they heard the news of the gospel.

    3. That people are not responsible for the amount of revelation given to them (we don't know if this is the case, and the Bible need not explain this point because those it primarily concerns will not read the Bible)

    [–]fallingtopieces 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Do you honestly think that the Christian god/Jesus is going to appear in all the dreams (or some other way) of Hindus and Muslims? When I was a staunch Christian the Christian god never showed himself to me, what makes you think God will show himself to non-Christians?

    And this is counting only the people of those two religions, think about the millions of people who have lived and who will live their lives in the past present future.

    [–]ChristianDJSpook 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Do you honestly think that the Christian god/Jesus is going to appear in all the dreams (or some other way) of Hindus and Muslims?

    I had hoped that this point, among the others I gave, would open you up to the realm of possibilities we have not considered (many of which we could not consider because of the limitations of our minds) that are at God's disposal. That was an example, but what I said specifically was that it is an unfounded assumption to think, "That God cannot reach those who are outside the span of the evangelistic work of Christians (for example, in dreams or some other way of revealing Himself to them),"

    When I was a staunch Christian the Christian god never showed himself to me, what makes you think God will show himself to non-Christians?

    I was speaking on evangelism--since you were a Christian, I'm not sure why you expect to have seen Jesus during that time. Further, I was speaking specifically on the evangelism of those outside the range the Christian message has thus far been spread. You, on the other hand, have experienced it personally.

    And this is counting only the people of those two religions, think about the millions of people who have lived and who will live their lives in the past present future.

    All that I said still applies to them as well. You seem to be conflating this with an objection that has been addressed in detail by myself and others on this thread: since the lack of salvation it is due in whole part to the moral failure (and rejection of Christ's forgiveness) of man, the number of men who go to hell is irrelevant to God's character and existence. If we read what the Bible has to say, we find that: 1 Timothy 2: "3This is good and pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,…" so Hell is a necessary punishment to bring about justice, and a last resort after He provides them a life (which they may spend sinfully and in neglect/rejection of Christ due to the hostility of their hearts) to come to a saving knowledge of Christ. As a purely intellectual question, the prospect of men going to heaven is just as absurd, initially, until we realize that He has offered to forgive us of our sins via the vicarious redemption of Jesus's sacrifice.

    [–]wesleychang2005 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    There will be many, including most "Christians"... Who will not enter kingdom of heaven.

    Matthew 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord!' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of My Father in heaven. [22] On that day many will say to Me, 'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in Your name, drive out demons in Your name, and do many miracles in Your name?' [23] Then I will announce to them, 'I never knew you! Depart from Me, you lawbreakers!'

    Just because you can shout Jesus name loudly, claim to have holy spirit, make miracle healing... Doesn't mean you belong to God.

    Most Christians don't obey God's will.. Let alone know them.

    These Christians broke God's law. Thus, law breakers.

    These are Jesus's words. Pay attention, and becareful not to use your own interpretation to justify yourself (ie. if I believe in Jesus, then my salvation is guaranteed)

    1 Corinthians 6:9-10 HCSB Don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be deceived: No sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or anyone practicing homosexuality, [10] no thieves, greedy people, drunkards, verbally abusive people, or swindlers will inherit God's kingdom.

    1 Corinthians is a letter written to church of God in Corinth (meaning, written for Christians, not unbelievers)

    Pay attention to the 10 commandments.

    Matthew 5:17, 19-20 HCSB "Don't assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. [19] Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches people to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

    Matthew 7:13-14 HCSB "Enter through the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the road is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who go through it. [14] How narrow is the gate and difficult the road that leads to life, and few find it.

    [–]Lutheran (LCMS)StaffSummarySheet -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

    More than half.

    [–]ChristianLiteralHeadCannon -2ポイント-1ポイント  (20子コメント)

    Purgatorial universalism is the only sane resolution to this problem. A whole lot of people are going to Hell, but no one is going there forever. God will never give up on convincing any sinner to be saved. He cares about everyone. A lot of "Christians" hate this idea, because they think that there's some deadline they need to accept their salvation by, and that people who come in after this deadline will be unworthy. But they're no more unworthy than all of us. It's imperative that we accept our salvation as soon as possible, but if you forget that you didn't deserve your own salvation, and try to withhold it from others because you think they don't deserve it like you did, you yourself still have a lot to learn about the workings of God.

    Accepting salvation is not something to be proud of. It's something to be relieved about. You are offering nothing to God by being saved; you are merely accepting a free gift. We do not "glorify" God in the sense that we make Him more glorious than He already was; that's impossible and it's absurdly prideful to think you could do it. We glorify God in the sense that we reveal how glorious He already was.

    [–]ChristianDJSpook 2ポイント3ポイント  (19子コメント)

    Purgatorial universalism is the only sane resolution to this problem.

    This is not Biblical. Before we go there I recommend you read my replies on this thread.

    [–]Universal ReconciliationistTwistedDrum5 0ポイント1ポイント  (14子コメント)

    Early church fathers would disagree with your claim.

    [–]ChristianDJSpook 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

    For example? And why could they not be mistaken? Do you have any support for purgatory, or any objections to the article I linked?

    [–]Universal ReconciliationistTwistedDrum5 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

    For one, when Origen was deemed a heretic, his views on Universalism didn't make it on the long list.

    There's other examples too. I'll get back to you on the counter arguments. Got a busy day ahead of me :).

    [–]ChristianDJSpook 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

    I am under the impression that belief in purgatory came from the assumption that there is a logical incompatibility between God's grace and the outcome of Hell. This misunderstanding seems to have also caused many to sugar-coat the reality of hell. But theologians today have found this is not necessarily the case, so we can get back to what the Bible actually said on the matter. For example, advocates of purgatory tend to assume that we are not in a sufficient position to choose God, but that does not have to be the case! Consider that God could provide each the means--including that of time--to choose Him.

    Personally, I find a logical incompatibility with with presuming the opposite: that he would not provide us enough time here, since if it is not only here that we have the ability to choose Him or not without knowledge of Hell or Heaven be imminent to us until we realize our moral inadequacy before Him then we would have to go on to the next life in purgatory in order to be forced into loving Him while this knowledge is imminent to us regardless of our state of acceptance towards His offer of grace. But love nor loyalty can result from coercion. Those who choose to rebel will continue to choose to resist God's mercy in hell forever. He loves us too much to force us into heaven where His presence makes the choice of evil easily avoided. To allow so many to persist in a sinful lifestyle so that they might choose to no longer reject Him is an act of grace, as well as His choice to not force people into following Him.

    [–]Anglican Communionmatchead09 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I am not an expert, but my understanding of the Roman doctrine of purgatory is that everyone in purgatory is already "saved" in the sense of being destined for heaven, ie the choice for God has already been made, but the person needs purification before be admitted to His presence. I have heard of another idea, not purgatory, but a "confrontation with reality" where a non-believer might repent after death... but I think this is basically wishful thinking.

    [–]Gloria in excelsis DeoPhilomaeus 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The first part is correct, those in Purgatory are already saved. And virtually every Christian, according to Catholic teachings, will be headed to.

    Where the individuals are to undergo a sort of "Cleansing by fire" not like the fires of Hell, but I would put it as a kind of "loving fire".

    To burn the dross off, as in refining gold, to be made blemish free, before the Throne of God.

    The only exception to the rule, are those who are 100% taken to be already in full Communion with God, while here on Earth.

    People like Saint John the Baptist, the Holy Prophets of the Old Testaments, the Lord's Holy Disciples, etc.

    The last part is not something I've heard taught in any Catholic doctrine.

    It's wishful, thinking just as Universalism is. I hope and would love that non-believers faced with the truth, will turn their love to the Lord and accept him.

    But I don't know, and will not espouse that as dogma.

    [–]Gloria in excelsis DeoPhilomaeus 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I want you to realize that TwistedDrum5 isn't talking about Purgatory. He's talking about Universalism, which is the idea that all people will be saved by God, and no-one will taste the fires of Hell, besides Satan and his demons.

    Unless you subscribe to Purgatorial Univeraslism, where people will be in a short stay in Hell for their sins, and than brought into full communion with Christ.

    Kind of like Buddhist perceptions of hell Naraka

    Please note, that while they use the term "Purgatorial" that doesn't make it the same as the Catholic doctrine on Purgatory.

    Because it's not a stay in Hell, it's already for people who are saved, and going to Heaven.

    Hell is still Hell for sinners who reject Christ and His teachings.

    [–]Gloria in excelsis DeoPhilomaeus 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Ummm, his views on Universalism did come under fire in his day. There where other Christians that called him out on it.

    Early Christianity held all sorts of views, so yeah. Something as controversial as Universalism wasn't 100% condemned as heresy just yet.

    Just as Arianism wasn't fully condemned in the burgeoning years of it's formation.

    Remember, old heresies were new back than, where as today they are ancient.

    So of course it would take time for people to create rebuttals to them. But do not assume every Christian just blindly clung to Universalism back than.

    We had congregations teaching everything back than. Including what we know as orthodox Christianity.

    [–]Gloria in excelsis DeoPhilomaeus -1ポイント0ポイント  (6子コメント)

    You do realize that some, over the "Majority" is what we count on, right?

    Just because a very few of them (And I can only think of two off the top of my head; Clement of Alexandria, and Origen of Alexandria, his pupil so it makes sense he would hold the same views as Clement, and those are the only ones I can recall.) held some sort of heretical, or heterodox positions, doesn't make them correct in their teachings.

    Early Christianity was chaotic, we have factions all over the place. So not every single Christian held the same teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ to an absolute tee.

    That's even seen in the modern age all around us.

    Orthodox Christianity has always held through all the confusion, and you can verifiable trace it down to the current age.

    Why? Because I do not believe that God would deceive His followers on the Truth for over 2,000 years, if that was the case.

    I don't follow, nor believe in a lying, trickster God. Gnosticism, this is not.

    With that being said, hold onto your heterodox beliefs all you want. That's between you and God.

    But do not EVER teach things contrary to what orthodox Christianity teaches.

    It's one thing to think God will be merciful towards you for holding beliefs contrary to what He has allowed to be taught.

    It's entirely another thing for you teach something as truth, when God said His wrath will not be restrained upon those who causes His little ones to slip up and fall into a road of destruction.

    Be leery that you don't become one of the false teachers, that have to give an account on why you chose that path. On Judgment Day, my friend.

    [–]Universal ReconciliationistTwistedDrum5 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

    You should head your own warning.

    [–]Gloria in excelsis DeoPhilomaeus 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

    Oh, I'm pretty sure I'm doing alright. I have faith I'll be corrected by the Lord if I am heading down a path destruction.

    I'm also not saying that you, as an individual are going to be rebuked by the Lord persay.

    But since Scripture makes it very clear that correct teachings are absolutely important to God.

    Going so far as to say false teachers who lead his people astray, are better off with a great millstone about his neck, and tossed into the sea.

    I feel the need to warn you about being careful about the doctrines you are to preach to the learned and the unlearned alike.

    I wonder if in my postings here on /r/TrueChristian have ever espoused beliefs that are contrary to orthodox Christian teachings?

    I do not believe so.

    If so, certainly link me to a comment of mine that went against what's taught in orthodox Christianity, and where in it I said it's okay to teach that to the little children of God?

    I really don't care if you hold heterodox beliefs about anything, so long as they are private.

    But it's not okay to claim you have true teachings that have always been passed down as fact for generations and generations, when for the record these views were not widely accepted for very good reasons.

    [–]Universal ReconciliationistTwistedDrum5 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

    I spent a long time in prayer over this.

    I appreciate your concern, but I'm good.

    Do you believe the orthodox church could be wrong about anything?

    [–]Gloria in excelsis DeoPhilomaeus 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Hey, I'm only puttin' warnings out there. Because I hope to see my fellow Brothers and Sisters in Christ someday.

    If you are content in your position, than so be it. I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

    We have free will for a reason.

    I'm not going to deny the possibility that anyone can be incorrect in their teachings and doctrines.

    I can only hope that the grace of the Lord is sufficient to lead me finding the correct path to salvation.

    I want you to know I'm not against Universalism, on a personal level. I admire many of the religions of the world.

    And I would love to be proven wrong if I am allowed to witness the full Beatific Vision of God Almighty.

    I would be absolutely delighted.

    But I can't with a good heart, preach that doctrine to anyone publicly. Because I refuse to lead someone down a path destruction.

    Since Universalism is such a small view, amongst the grand majority of the Early Church.

    And since it is not accepted into the ranks of Sacred Tradition, for orthodox Christianity.

    I cannot preach it as fact. Do I abhor the idea of Universalism in any of its forms?

    Not at all. But I won't take my chances by falling into the Hands of an Angry God if I am mistaken.

    I love you a lot Brother. I don't view you as less of a Christian because of your beliefs.

    And don't intend to sound rude to you. But Christ has entrust us with upholding sound doctrine, and so I will defend orthodoxy to my last breath.

    [–]Universal ReconciliationistTwistedDrum5 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I appreciate your words.

    But I can't with a good heart, preach that doctrine to anyone publicly. Because I refuse to lead someone down a path destruction.

    Why do you believe that my belief that God saves all would lead someone to destruction?

    [–]Gloria in excelsis DeoPhilomaeus 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I'm not saying that the belief per-say is heretical and will lead you down the path of damnation.

    In fact, I consider it a "heterodox" position to hold. If you aren't familiar with the theological terms.

    "Heterodoxy" is a belief that's not explicitly condemned as an damnable offense in the light of Scripture, or the teachings of the Early Church.

    It's more of a "grey" area, where it's not approved or disapproved outright.

    But the evidence for it's support is so little, that it's safer to just not teach it at all.

    So you could hold these views, and only the grace God will determine if it's something He will let slide essentially.

    Since Scripture doesn't say it's an outright abhorrent thing before the Lord's eyes.

    I see these kinds of beliefs to be acceptable to hold privately, to yourself alone.

    Or even discuss the possibilities of that these thoughts could be really acceptable as an orthodox way of thinking.

    But the tricky thing is teaching it as absolute dogma, unchanging, and a view so valid, that you could teach it in a Church to lead people into viewing your beliefs as valid, without the approval of 2,000 years of sound teaching.

    I'm not making it up, that sound doctrine is something that the Lord delights in.

    It's stated numerous times throughout the Old and New Testaments, and even Lord Jesus' own words. That these are very important to Him.

    Important enough to warrant his wrath upon them. For the Apostles wouldn't have fought so hard against heresy in their very own letters, if teaching sound doctrine was of little interests to them.

    Now, I'm not going to string you up, and burn you at the stake for holding opinions contrary to what's been taught for a very long time in Christianity.

    It's mainly done to try and protect a person from spreading unverifiable doctrines, and to protect the promulgator from falling onto a path that will cause the Lord to tell them to begone from His sight, since He never knew them.

    Now, I want to re-verify my previous statement. I love the idea of Universalism.

    I really do! But since it's not taught as a valid teaching, and it's very hard to work that framework into the New Testament narratives.

    I cannot with good conscience teach it. Do I hold the belief? I really do, I love the religions of the world.

    I find Islam to be freakin' beautiful! It's wishful thinking on my part, and I hope the Lord forgives me if this thought is a lie of my own human construct from respect of the world religions.

    But I cannot with a good conscience teach it as an absolute fact. When it has never had a large place in orthodox Christianity from the get go.

    With all that being said, heck man! I see you as my fellow Brother in Christ!

    I don't care that you hold a belief like that personally! But I just want you to be aware that the Holy Bible does speak strongly against false teachers.

    Does that imply Universalism? I really don't know. But I don't want to take my chances on a concept that's so vague, in the grand scheme of things.

    And I'll be honest, there are some ancient heresy's that I admire, because the are super logical! And it tickles my human brain, heh.

    Things like Arianism and Pelagianism are really logically sound! But I trust the Councils and the Church Father's that God put on this Earth, to teach me that what they believe is what the Apostles have always taught, and in my study of these things, and the history of them.

    I'm quite alright to leave it at that.

    Have a great day!

    : )

    [–]ChristianLiteralHeadCannon -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

    We agree that the crucifixion is both sufficient and necessary to redeem of us of all of our sins. And we agree that salvation needs to be accepted to be received.

    The purpose of Hell isn't payment. Only Jesus can adequately pay for our sins. The purpose of Hell is persuasion. If you were trying to guide people to a specific place, you might try making the alternative unpleasant so that when people refuse your guidance, they'll think "oh, this is terrible", and go where they're supposed to.

    In life, God breaks us and shows us the need for our salvation. In Hell, the people who didn't get it the first time are broken again and again until they do. If you disagree, then what do you think - that God doesn't care about people who fail His first test - that is, that you've passed a test and not merely lucked into a free gift from God? Or do you think that some people are simply too stubborn for God, in His infinite power and wisdom, to change? Don't tell me that this is a violation of free will. Nothing good you've ever done in your entire life has truly been your doing; God knows exactly how you operate and saw everything you'd ever do before He even created you. Your good works are not yours, but blessings from God that you've stumbled upon. God knows exactly what will move any person to do good, or bad. He created this world with sin in it only to lead us ultimately to redemption.

    [–]ChristianDJSpook 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

    The purpose of Hell is persuasion.

    If that were true, it would not be love, for one cannot be forced to love. I prefer God's method, which I described in a reply elsewhere on this thread.

    He created this world with sin in it only to lead us ultimately to redemption.

    He does not create sin, nor does He cause us to choose otherwise.

    [–]ChristianLiteralHeadCannon 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    You aren't forced to love in the sense that God will push you into it, you're "forced" to love in the sense that you cannot live without it - and that's not an arbitrary mandate of God, it's a logical impossibility. You possess the intelligence to realize this and act on it in due time. They're really quite beautiful, these beings that God created - I should know; I am one and I'm talking to another one. Not nearly as beautiful as God Himself, mind you.

    Of course God does not create sin in the sense that God does not sin, but Got created sinners knowing that they would sin. Therefore we know that God incorporated sin into his plan for the world in some way. Do not confuse this for a contradiction. God is good and God is not evil, but God is the origin of evil because God is the origin of everything. You and I are evil creatures, but God still created us, knowing every evil that would result. To deny this is to diminish Him and to reduce monotheism to dualism, making the war between God and Satan an actual two-sided conflict and not just the stupid rebellion of something lesser that doesn't know what it's talking about. It's sin that cannot understand God, not the other way around.

    Do you believe that you're ultimately responsible for accepting your own salvation? That sounds like "Good Works" soteriology to me; it's just that the only action you've chosen to define as a good work is accepting God.

    Elsewhere in the thread, you accuse Christian universalists (and anything approaching them) of working against evangelism and quibbling with their brothers over minor philosophical points. These two points are actually related. I am evangelizing to you right now, because it doesn't strike me as a minor philosophical point at all. I think I might see an opportunity to fix your broken conception of God's character, which would make your salvation more secure - the entire point of evangelism. Unfortunately, most of Christendom these days has the same misconception - but all the more reason to fix it. And of course, all of our salvations are ultimately secure, because God desires that we all be saved, God is infinitely competent, and God has as much time as He needs to convince us we were wrong. But the sooner anyone gets with the program, the better, because the program is true joy. I cannot see how you understand God's love if you sincerely believe that He is the cosmic equivalent of a father allowing his child to have a gun and allowing them to commit suicide out of respect for their independence. We have free will, but we did not choose to be created and we cannot choose to be uncreated (and, indeed, the argument between proponents of eternal damnation and proponents of annihilation is indeed a semantic quibble; they are both the hypothetical end of a being's ability to live a Godly life).

    [–]ChristianDJSpook 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Do you believe that you're ultimately responsible for accepting your own salvation? That sounds like "Good Works" soteriology to me; it's just that the only action you've chosen to define as a good work is accepting God

    I believe that God has offered salvation, so there is no works there. Our acceptance of it is also made possible by Him, though I do not believe He forces us to accept it. Our choice to accept it is not work, it is assent to being forgiven. This is necessary in forgiveness. It is an intentional choice that is entirely made on our own power, but the choice exists because of God and the Holy Spirit's work of permeating the world with it--but that does not mean it is the same as an attempt to work towards perfection. It is the one choice that is the exact opposite. You are boarding on fatalism, a theological belief that has been refuted. If God made the choice for us it would not be a choice, and love would be insincere.

    God has as much time as He needs to convince us we were wrong.

    God gives us each sufficient time and other means to choose Him, though I've found that the Bible works in opposition to the idea that this extends to life after death and do not find it logically necessary. See the article I recently linked you too, as well as my position on the Hell which I described elsewhere on this thread: The reality of hell becomes progressively more real to us the more we pursue God, as does His existence. Those hostile to Him, preferring an unrepentant lifestyle of sin, will not know Him because they cannot know Him.

    [–][削除されました]  (6子コメント)

    [removed]

      [–]Lutheran (LCMS)Philip_Schwartzerdt[M] 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

      Removed for violating rule 4. But I admit that this is slightly more sophisticated trolling than we usually get - I doubt most trolls know what Gnosticism actually is.

      [–]Gloria in excelsis DeoPhilomaeus 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Let alone, actually able to even post a correct title of a Gnostic work.

      Now that's going above the EDGE!

      [–]Baptistbumblyjack 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

      This is Gnosticism, not biblical Christianity.

      [–]Gloria in excelsis DeoPhilomaeus 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Sophia of Jesus Christ

      LOL! You almost had me there! Until I read that line right there.

      Yeah, no I'm sorry fam.

      Gnosticism was one of the earliest heresies, right up there with Judaizing Christians.

      To be heavily debated within Scripture itself. Not to mention which sect of Gnosticism do you ascribe too?

      Are you aware that there were numerous sects, and denominations within Gnosticism that expounded various doctrines on salvation?

      Gnosticism was not one, monolithic belief system.