Advice Please!

[TK]

I occasionally visit another forum where there is little tolerance to any discussion of the alternate views of hell, both from posters and the moderators. I have not attempted to press any particular view, other than to state that there are viable alternatives to the traditional view that are at least worthy of consideration. Below is a comment that I made, and a response to that comment that someone else made. How would you respond to such a comment?
*************************

I said: "Whenever this topic is discussed, people's interpretations are driven by forgone theological conclusions, particularly their 'a priori' belief that only some will ultimately be saved. This belief may in fact be true, but it is worthwhile to examine whether the scriptures truly teach this to be true, and by trying to avoid interpreting scripture through our foregone conclusions."

---------------------------------------------------
Here is the response:

It is not an "a priori" if the Scriptures actually teach this.

Namely, Matthew 7:13-14: "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are MANY. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are FEW."

Also, Luke 13:23-24: "And someone said to him, "Lord, will those who are saved be few?" And he said to them, "Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able."

So now, the question becomes: "Will you submit to the Word of God and let it correct your wrong ideas, or will you harden your heart against the Word of God and justify yourself?"
**********************************************

The last comment really galled me for some reason. What is the quick response to the point about the narrow path/gate from a UR of conditionalist perspective?

[Roberto]

The UR or conditionalism response that I have seen is that Jesus is speaking about what is happening at the time He spoke it.
Is it true? I recommend asking our Lord.....

[backwoodsman]

The last comment really galled me for some reason.

Don't let it bug you too much. It's just the default response of those who are so thoroughly invested in an idea that they can't objectively evaluate anything different. He really believes he's defending the truth against a heretic. Most of us have been there at some point.

What is the quick response to the point about the narrow path/gate from a UR of conditionalist perspective?

I'd probably point out that the first verse (Mt.7) supports conditionalism rather than his view, and the second (Lk.13) works equally well for any of the 3 views.

[TK]

Thanks guys.

Roberto wrote:

Is it true? I recommend asking our Lord.....

I do not intend to offend, but that is pretty close to that other's guy's statement that galled me, because it presumes that I have not bothered to seek the Lord on this issue, and that if I did, I would get it revealed to me in some conclusive way (most likely way that the person making the comment views the issue).

[steve]

It's a mentality that I once had as well, so I understand it. There is the assumption that the Bible is clear, and that one has already discovered the clear teaching. Now there's nothing left to do but to defend it against challenges.

What helped to open my mind was to learn that the other views had been (and are) held by many evangelical Christians (not just Seventh-Day Adventists and Unitarians)—many of whom I already respected. This made it necessary to reexamine the biblical case, since I knew that men like John R.W. Stott, Clark Pinnock, George MacDonald, William Law, and Hannah Whitall Smith knew the Bible about as well as I did, or better, and yet they had become convinced that the Bible teaches something other than the traditional view.

I also had to get over my prejudice against Origen, which had been based upon:

1) some of his strange beliefs (e.g., pre-existence of the soul);
2) his advocacy of the allegorical method of interpretation; and
3) the fact that he had been branded as a heretic.

When I learned more about him, I realized that he was one of the greatest Christians and one of the greatest theologians of his day (something acknowledged even by those who discount him). As with the modern writers who had abandoned the traditional view, I had to deal with the fact that Origin—whose native tongue was New Testament Greek, who knew the Bible better than most of his generation, who was respected throughout the church in his own day and for at least two or three centuries afterward, and who was a martyr for the faith—could not be so cavalierly dismissed.

[steve7150]

So now, the question becomes: "Will you submit to the Word of God and let it correct your wrong ideas, or will you harden your heart against the Word of God and justify yourself?"
**********************************************

The last comment really galled me for some reason. What is the quick response to the point about the narrow path/gate from a UR of conditionalist perspective?







I think it depends if you really want to debate with him or you kind of just stuck your toe in the water. Either way i would respond that you are aware of these two verses but there are also dozens of other relevant verses that pertain to two other viewpoints.
If he thinks you are a heretic or a lesser kind of believer then i would let it go and move on, it's his problem. If he responds by challenging you to list them then you have to decide if you really want a debate with the risk of being banned from the site. I was banned from Crosswalk and i only had a similar type of tepid response.

[TK]

Thanks to both Steves--

I really don't have any intention to debate anyone-- I am not convinced on any particular view so I would not be a great debater.

One thing I have noticed is that as I grow older and perhaps wiser (I hope!) that dogmatic statements about particular theological issues bother me much more than they used to. Much of that is due to this forum (for which I am extremely grateful) which has opened my eyes to varying viewpoints on all sorts of issues.

[steve7150]

One thing I have noticed is that as I grow older and perhaps wiser (I hope!) that dogmatic statements about particular theological issues bother me much more than they used to. Much of that is due to this forum (for which I am extremely grateful) which has opened my eyes to varying viewpoints on all sorts of issues.




Amen about the dogmatic statements!

About the getting older, let's not get personal!

Just kidding around

Do they still use this expression?

[Homer]

There is the assumption that the Bible is clear, and that one has already discovered the clear teaching. Now there's nothing left to do but to defend it against challenges.

Seems the smarter we get the less we know for sure. If we study enough will we get to the place where we know nothing for sure? So much for the Holy Spirit leading into all truth applying to us - not working out so well.

Having a Pope is looking better and better.

[steve]

Yes, your reasoning is very Roman Catholic.

In fact, the Bible is very unclear about many issues that are not important for us to know. As a result, people form different opinions on those matters. A pope would clear it all up—not because he would know the right answer better than anyone else, but because he would put a stop to all discussion. The Holy Spirit is not at fault for not leading us into truths which He has no interest in our knowing—or at least knowing now.

There are other truths, important enough for us to know, and clear enough in scripture, no doubt, but which our prejudices and ingrained assumptions make difficult for us to see correctly. This is a universal human condition: coming to a subject with prior opinions in place. The Holy Spirit can and does lead us into truth on such matters, but only as quickly as we are willing to change. We often do a lot of feet-dragging.