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

[Breckmin]

I don't believe in eternal conscious torment...

but I DO indeed have an understanding of eternal hell, eternal separation (from heaven), and perfect justice
being God's exact consequences for exact sins/works...

but somehow labeling this "eternal conscious torment" is not only over-simplistic... it is also misleading.

[Paidion]

Jesus said:

So ... whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple. (Luke 14:33)

When you became a disciple of Christ, you gave your life into His hands, and began to live your life thereafter for Him. If at some point your attitude is "To heck with this stuff!" and take your life back into your own hands, and live it for yourself again, you have undone your discipleship.

Is the proposition that "any living person can become less selfish than they already are." true or false?

If it is true, then does it not follow that no one is able to affirm that they accomplished the denial of "all"? Who then can be his disciple?

Throm, if we so conclude that no one can be Christ's disciple, then what did Jesus mean by his words as quoted above? Was He simply affirming that it is impossible to become his disciple?

But He couldn't have been affirming that since Jesus had many disciples while He walked this earth. After Christ's resurrection, when Peter got up to address the disciples, there were 120 (Acts 1:15). So in those days it must have been possible to be a disciple who had forsaken all to follow Christ. I see no reason why it should be any less possible at any time since then, including the present.

Perhaps your understanding of forsaking all is more stringent than what Christ had in mind. It may be that in general, one is either living for Christ or for self. I have noticed that even among non-Christians, there seems to be two distinct classes of people—the self-serving and the other-serving.

I'm sure that if you have a heart for needy, starving people, for widows and orphans who need help, and you take measures to do something about these needs, God will not consider that you have failed to forsake all because you had a bowl of ice-cream.

[thrombomodulin]

Paidion,

Perhaps your understanding of forsaking all is more stringent than what Christ had in mind.

Perhaps so. One could, of course, take the position that the word "all" doesn't mean "all" this passage (This is true for many other passages). I think, however, Mr. Gregg has set the bar for being a disciple quite high. In fact, it is so high in Mr. Gregg's example of his former wife's death that absolutely no allowance for selfishness whatsoever seems to be permissible. Is Mr. Gregg advocating a more stringent requirement for discipleship than Jesus did? Or should we say we must "mostly" or "generally" deny ourselves?

Peter

[Michelle]

If Mr. Gregg has set the bar high, what about Jesus? If we're supposed to be righteous, and Jesus is perfectly righteous, how can God accept anything less than perfect righteousness from us? Or if God makes allowances for our frailty, when have we dipped below God's leniency?

[Homer]

Peter,

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.

[Homer]

Michelle wrote:

Or if God makes allowances for our frailty, when have we dipped below God's leniency?

The bible never tells us. If we knew where the line was, there would probably be a great number with only two toes on the right side of the line. But, thankfully, grace comes in there somewhere.

If the failure to keep the two greatest commandments constituted the two greatest sins, which would seem to be true, then who can say they are sinless? Who can say they fully comply every day, or even one day? As Peter said, you ate the ice cream, you didn't quite make it.

As the man once said "Lord have mercy on me, the sinner".

[thrombomodulin]

Peter,
Just my 2 cents, but I think Luke 14:33 is being stretched a bit. ... Taking the passage the way some folks do, Jesus has nearly zero disciples.

A few weeks ago, in the preceding text, I argued that a complete abolition of selfishness is impossible. If this is so, then your interpretation must necessarily be correct. I think your view is correct. I, however, understand Mr. Gregg's opinion to differ from mine and yours. His argument seems to be that one's love for God must be greater than his former wife's demonstrated love for her step-daughter (Matthew 10:37). His wife gave her life for virtually nothing in return. I am not sure exactly where Paidion stands, for he has affirmed some selfish actions (eating ice cream) are OK, but otherwise has said that he affirms Mr. Gregg's position.

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.

I don't think my argument applies to capital goods. The boat is a capital good, because it serves the purpose of increasing the amount of production yielded by a certain amount of labour. Namely, they catch more fish with less effort, by making nets and building boats, than they would if they walked about on the beach trying to catch fish with their bare hands.

[Singalphile]

I have failed the "ice cream test". But I'm pretty sure that no one in here would conclude that our supposedly Christian friends, family members, or pastors aren't actually disciples of Christ if we happen to see them out eating ice cream (or a nice meal, or watching a movie, or buying a big TV, or air conditioning for their home, etc.).

Last year, 2012, I determined to spend no more than $500 on food for myself for the entire year (though I did eat whatever I could get for free). I came in at about $490. It was surprisingly easy. (I have not done it this year, and I don't keep track of what I spend on food.)

I think it's good to recognize that we've got far more comforts and pleasures than we really need that could be much better spent, but I wouldn't judge others about this. I agree with what everyone else has written.

[thrombomodulin]

But I'm pretty sure that no one in here would conclude that our supposedly Christian friends, family members, or pastors aren't actually disciples of Christ if we happen to see them out eating ice cream (or a nice meal, or watching a movie, or buying a big TV, or air conditioning for their home, etc.).

If I understand Mr. Gregg correctly, I would agree that he would not make such a judgement about anyone else. Rather, he would affirm the merely the criterion by which each man must judge himself. That criterion is complete selflessness. It is exemplified by his deceased wife's selflessness plus Matthew 10:37. Like you, when I apply his criterion to me, I realize that I fail to pass it because I fail the ice cream test.

[steve]

Hmmmm. I am surprised that my statements (and Jesus') would cause so much confusion. To "bid farewell" to all that you have is exactly what the disciples had done, yet they still had in their possession most of the things they had owned before becoming disciples. Peter could honestly say, "See, we have left all and followed you" (Matt.19:27).

To forsake all, as I have understood the term, means to transfer the title of all that you have to Jesus. Thus, none of the early Christians would "say that any of the things he possessed was his own" (Acts 4:32). This does not describe how much any one of them spent on food, ice cream, or any other commodity. They were totally sold-out to Christ, had renounced their ownership of their possessions, their relatives and their own lives also (Luke 14:26).

The disciple (and his stuff) are not his own. Having been bought with a price (1 Cor.6:20), he is a slave, and a steward of that which belongs to his Master. To believe that the Master would begrudge His servants ice cream on a hot day would seem to impute to Him a severity unworthy of His reputation.