If eternal conscious torment is false, then its "party time"

[steve]

Homer,

You quote Finney:

Who are they who profess to fear the Lord but serve their own gods? Anyone who has not heartily and practically renounced the ownership of his possessions and given them up to the Lord.

and then you comment:

And this is the problem with many teachers. They heap burdens upon men's consciences that the Lord never placed there.

How can you say this, when Finney is simply paraphrasing Jesus' own words in Luke 14:33?

“So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple."

It seems to me that Finney's paraphrase somewhat softens the rigid wording of Jesus. Who is placing burdens on men's consciences?

[Homer]

Steve,

Perhaps you missed my earlier post:

Just my 2 cents, but I think Luke 14:33 is being stretched a bit. Consider the context:

Luke 14:25-33, NKJV
25. Now great multitudes went with Him. And He turned and said to them, 26. “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. 27. And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. 28. For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it— 29. lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, 30. saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish’? 31. Or what king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32. Or else, while the other is still a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks conditions of peace. 33. So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple.

Taking the passage the way some folks do, Jesus has nearly zero disciples.

How many Christians hate their family, and even their own life? And isn't verse 33 a similar statement to verses 25-26? So what did Jesus mean in this passage? I take a literal view of "forsaking all". The Greek word is appotassomai, which literally means to "say adieu by departing" or "dismissing" or "bid farewell". Jesus was an itinerant minister/teacher. Who could possibly have been His disciple (student or apprentice) who didn't physically say goodbye to their family and all their stuff, and additionally put their life at risk? Peter and John were certainly disciples acceptable to Him, yet their stuff they said goodbye to (fishing boats) was still back home waiting for them. And right after the crucifixion they were right back to their boats and fishing.

Apppotassomai is only used about six times in the NT. In addition to the passage under discussion, here are three more instances where you can clearly see what is meant:

Luke 9:61, NKJV
61. And another also said, “Lord, I will follow You, but let me first go and bid them farewell who are at my house.”

Acts 18:18-21, NKJV
18. So Paul still remained a good while. Then he took leave of the brethren and sailed for Syria, and Priscilla and Aquila were with him. He had his hair cut off at Cenchrea, for he had taken a vow. 19. And he came to Ephesus, and left them there; but he himself entered the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. 20. When they asked him to stay a longer time with them, he did not consent, 21. but took leave of them, saying, “I must by all means keep this coming feast in Jerusalem; but I will return again to you, God willing.” And he sailed from Ephesus.

Where am I wrong in my understanding of Luke 14:33? Perhaps I am but it is not obvious from the passage.

As far as what Finney said:

The man who does not make his business a part of his Christianity does not serve God. Sometimes men say that they are engaged all day in business and don't have time to serve God. They think they serve God a little while in the morning and then attend to their worldly business. They are not serving God. It is a shame for them to pretend to serve God. They are willing to give God the time before breakfast or before they go to work, but as soon as that is over, away they go. They fear the Lord enough to pray morning and night, but they serve their own gods.

I do not have a clue what he meant. He seems to be saying that you must somehow serve God simultaneously while serving your employer. Please explain in practical terms what you think this means. If it means acting like a Christian in all you do, I get it. That's not hard. If it means my mind is thinking and working for God simultaneously while thinking and working for my employer who is buying my time, then I am unable to multi-task in that way, and would be defrauding my employer which is hardly a Christian thing to do.

Before I retired I was Maintenance Manager at a pulp and paper mill. At one time responsible for the work of 117 tradesmen, foremen, planners, etc. Production downtime was an enormous cost. Way back in the 80's, a 24 hour outage cost over a million dollars. So the job required hard work and my full attention. Finney makes it sound like I wasn't even a Christian, what with "attending to my worldly business". Perhaps Christians must be like the 50's author/philosopher Eric Hoffer who deliberately chose to work as a longshoreman because he didn't have to think to do his job and his mind was free for philosophy. If we chose simple menial labor we could think Christian thoughts and pray all day long.

[steve]

It seems to me somewhat obvious that Finney is referring to the well-known principle that all that one does must be done for the glory of God. He is not saying all work should be religious in nature, but that it is a mistake to compartmentalize one's life into "sacred" versus "secular" activities. Whether we eat or drink, we do it for the glory of God (1 Cor.10:31). Whatever we do, we do it as Christ's agents (Col.3:17). All day, every day, we are Christ's servants.

When you were at work, the following things were, I imagine, matters taken for granted:

1) that you were working the job at which Christ wished for you to be employed;
2) that you were working for the glory of God, and as a witness for Christ;
3) that the time devoted to your work was a stewardship of God's time entrusted to you;
4) that the money you earned belonged to your Master, and you were a steward of it for His interests.

If these things were true, then your work was a part of your service to Christ. If they were not true, then you were apportioning some of your time to Christ, and some to others, which would be, it seems to me, an attempt to serve two masters.

[thrombomodulin]

I am not intending to make any judgment about you or your motives.

No where along the way had it been my perception that you were attempting to do so. I do, however, seek to judge myself.

I have never suggested that the Christian life contains no enjoyment, or fulfills no desire in the participant.

This is a true statement as well. The actual experience of a Christian is not the topic under discussion, rather the discussion is about what choices a Christian would make in hypothetical situations. How a person would act in the hypothetical situation of austerity is what you have been communicating the true test to be of whether or not a person is accepted by Christ.

When I mention forsaking all for Christ, you seem to be picturing a burdensome life of austerity.

Correct. Everyone not willing to endure the burdensome life of austerity is motivated in part or whole by selfish desires. Such a person is like the man in the OP and is not a true Christian - right?

I have raised the point a number of times about people who will gladly die for their country or their loved ones, whether or not they believe in future rewards or punishments. I don't think anyone responding to me here has addressed this point. Can a Christian love God less than an unbeliever loves his country? I find this inconceivable.

It might indeed be inconceivable. Am I deducing correctly that this implies ones salvation depends, in part, upon their feelings?

“So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple."

I have to admit I don't understand how one can keep things, and still claim that he has forsaken them. If I eat sherbet ice cream, I haven't forsaken it, rather I have kept it. There is a saying something like "you can't eat your cake and have it too" which seems applicable here (or should I say "you can't forsake your cake and eat it too"). I do wonder if "all" doesn't really mean absolutely everything as is the case in many other passages of scripture.

[steve]

Steve wrote:
When I mention forsaking all for Christ, you seem to be picturing a burdensome life of austerity.

Correct. Everyone not willing to endure the burdensome life of austerity is motivated in part or whole by selfish desires. Such a person is like the man in the OP and is not a true Christian - right?

Do you picture the disciples in the first century (e.g., those who left their nets and fishing trade) to have lived in burdensome austerity? I don't. However, Paul said he would be content with having only food and raiment. But then, contentment is no burden. Jesus said His yoke is easy, and His burden is light.

Steve wrote:
I have raised the point a number of times about people who will gladly die for their country or their loved ones, whether or not they believe in future rewards or punishments. I don't think anyone responding to me here has addressed this point. Can a Christian love God less than an unbeliever loves his country? I find this inconceivable.

It might indeed be inconceivable. Am I deducing correctly that this implies ones salvation depends, in part, upon their feelings?

I think salvation has an affect on the feelings (Gal.5:22). I don't think it depends on feelings. I think it depends upon surrender.

I have to admit I don't understand how one can keep things, and still claim that he has forsaken them. If I eat sherbet ice cream, I haven't forsaken it, rather I have kept it. There is a saying something like "you can't eat your cake and have it too" which seems applicable here (or should I say "you can't forsake your cake and eat it too"). I do wonder if "all" doesn't really mean absolutely everything as is the case in many other passages of scripture.

Peter had left all to follow Christ, but he still owned his house, his boat, his tackle, and who-knows-what-else? To surrender everything to Christ does not mean that He deprives you of them. It would appear from scripture that it is more common for Him to entrust them with the management of them (Matt.25:14-19).

[Breckmin]

Doesn't seem possible God can be served by my having a cat.

Perhaps you are taking care of God's cat? My family has a cat...and I think I am the one who mostly
feeds it, but if I was single I would have no animals. We also have chickens, a hamster (my 13 yr old),
and a horse. God created all these creatures so I am not certain we could say that God is neutral on
how we feed and provide for them when we are able. Are there priorities over these? Yes. But
prioritizing humans over animals still doesn't seem like God wants us to neglect the feeding of
animals He has allowed us to care for. I'm not certain God is neutral on the feeding of animals,
so I'm not certain God can't be served in some way (say you feed your neighbor's cat and it opened
a door to share Christ? or hired the neighbor girl to feed yours?) by interacting with animals that
God has placed in our care.

If we were in full-time ministry, I would ask my wife not to have animals....perhaps that is
one reason why we are not currently in full-time ministry....I don't see her giving up horses
any time soon (unfortunately). Perhaps the Lord has a ministry that my wife could be apart
of that rescues horses and pairs them with children who are in need or abused (like the "Hope
Rising" book). I don't know for certain, but I do think that would be a dream job for her.

I would say to you, however, if you don't think God can be served by having a cat, then why
do you have one? Maybe it is time to let the little cat go so you can do all things to the glory
of God? Take the money and feed a hungry child here or over seas. I don't think God is
neutral on that. Our time and resources belong to the Lord...if I were not married with
children, I would live my life quite differently with respect to these things.

[thrombomodulin]

Do you picture the disciples in the first century (e.g., those who left their nets and fishing trade) to have lived in burdensome austerity? I don't.

I also do not picture the disciple this way.

Peter had left all to follow Christ, but he still owned his house, his boat, his tackle, and who-knows-what-else? To surrender everything to Christ does not mean that He deprives you of them. It would appear from scripture that it is more common for Him to entrust them with the management of them (Matt.25:14-19).

Beyond what has been communicated in the scripture, I cannot claim to have received any instructions from God about how I ought to manage the resources which God has entrusted to me. Is it not true that God has chosen to grant me the liberty of exercising my own discretion about how to dispose of these resources? Of course, most of the resources we possess are scarce - whatever I choose to allocate towards one end necessarily involves forgoing the possibility of using that resource for all other alternative uses. Thus, it is the case, that each day there are countless either-or choices before me concerning how to allocate and dispose of those resources.

In a previous post, I cited an example of an either-or choice:

[A] Eating a certain amount of ice cream.
Providing a certain amount of support for compassion international.

Since first century Peter retained ownership of some goods, it may very well be that God indeed prefers that I consume a certain amount of ice cream, rather than support compassion international - but how would I know this to be true? If I am truly lacking any selfishness whatsoever, how can the first choice ever be arrived at? Is it not always true that it is less selfish to chose B over A. Does it not follow that the man who chose B over A, demonstrates by his actions that he is less selfish than the man who chose A over B?

I would like to ask if it is your opinion that a person can affirm these two propositions as being true without being involved in a contradiction:

[1] A man is completely, and absolutely lacking in selfishness.
[2] The same man is able to chose "A" over "B", sans extra-biblical revelation that he should act in this way.

Thanks
Peter

P.S. In this post, I'm not wishing to ask about whether a man might find such a choice burdensome, but rather whether the notion of being completely selfless requires complete austerity.

[backwoodsman]

Does it not follow that the man who chose B over A, demonstrates by his actions that he is less selfish than the man who chose A over B?

Maybe; or maybe he demonstrates only that he's more driven by legalism and/or fear than the second guy.

whether the notion of being completely selfless requires complete austerity.

Austerity isn't explicitly taught by Jesus or elsewhere in scripture; good stewardship is. Austerity frequently (maybe usually) doesn't result in the best stewardship of our resources. In particular, if our physical, mental, and/or emotional well-being are compromised because of our choices, then our ability to effectively serve God in whatever capacity He desires is compromised as well.

Hudson Taylor in his youth wanted to save every possible penny for mission work, but in so doing he got a little too austere with his diet, and compromised his health in ways from which he never recovered. When he got a little older & wiser he realized that wasn't good stewardship, and he should've spent more money on taking better care of himself.

I think the balance you're looking for would be better described as frugality, rather than austerity.

[thrombomodulin]

It has been my understanding that God appeals to men to follow him on both the basis of the threat of punishment and also the promise of future rewards.

... that fear might 'have been' a motivating factor in becoming saved ...

The topic under discussion is whether such a salvation would be genuine. If a person was motivated in part by fear, then they retain enough selfishness that they are arguably not saved. On the other hand, maybe all people invariably retain a finite amount of selfishness, and we are saved only if we succeed in reaching a certain threshold of "how little" selfishness remains.

What passages of scripture would you cite to demonstrate that motivations, not just a persons actual choices and course of action, matter?

Intentionality is important. 1 Samuel 16:7, Gen. 50: 20, James 4: 17, 1 Cor. 10:31, Col. 3:17, Matt. 6:3 are some

I agree that these passage do reference motivations. Maybe I didn't express the question quite right. I was looking for a passage where a person acts righteously, but is nevertheless condemned on account of having selfish motivations that are not otherwise specifically sinful.

[thrombomodulin]

Does it not follow that the man who chose B over A, demonstrates by his actions that he is less selfish than the man who chose A over B?

Maybe; or maybe he demonstrates only that he's more driven by legalism and/or fear than the second guy.

I had in mind the type of man who out of genuine lack of selfishness chooses B over A. I think we can probably all agree there would be certain exceptions.

whether the notion of being completely selfless requires complete austerity.

Austerity isn't explicitly taught by Jesus or elsewhere in scripture; good stewardship is...
I think the balance you're looking for would be better described as frugality, rather than austerity.

Is eating ice cream an example of good stewardship?