I am wondering-- if this thread gets to 100 pages will anyone have changed their view?
If anyone does-- please fess up!
Not that this is not all very interesting-- it is indeed.
TK
Good observation TK but i think views take a lot of time to really change and of course there is only one opinion that really matters.
Barclay was convinced (UR)
Re: Barclay was convinced (UR)
Yes, Brenden's post regarding Manasseh was very interesting. But Manasseh's repentance wasn't a post-mortem conversion. Jesus had a perfect opportunity to make the story of the rich man a Lazarus into a post-mortem conversion but He passed up the opportunity.
Re: Barclay was convinced (UR)
Yes, Brenden's post regarding Manasseh was very interesting. But Manasseh's repentance wasn't a post-mortem conversion. Jesus had a perfect opportunity to make the story of the rich man a Lazarus into a post-mortem conversion but He passed up the opportunity.
Homer
.
Perhaps it was because the folks who had "Moses and the prophets" were the Israelites not hell dwellers
Homer
.
Perhaps it was because the folks who had "Moses and the prophets" were the Israelites not hell dwellers
Re: Barclay was convinced (UR)
Yes Homer, I just made it up. Didn't it convince you?Homer wrote:Where do you find this mission plan? Is it in 3rd Peter somewhere? Or did you just make it up?="Paidion"The motivation to repent and submit to the authority of Christ, as I see it, consists of the ministry of the fully mature sons of God whom God will send to them, the presence of Christ Himself, combined with the reformative nature of their discomfort. Though pain and discomfort are not intrinsically reformative in this life, in combination with the other two influences over a long period of time, it will have this effect.
No? Well, then, I'd better search my bible for it.
Ahhh... Here it is! Hezekiah chapters 3 and 4.
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: Barclay was convinced (UR)
Hi Homer (et al),
I don't think I mentioned anything about "post mortem conversion" in my post, though I do believe it to be a reasonable possibility, and I personally prefer the term Future Probation. That being said, my post was more a reflection on how God has seen fit to use a two-by-four on some people in the past (Manasseh and Saul of Tarsus come to mind) to bring about conversion, yet we look at these actions in hindsight and seem to feel as though the same God would allow an uninformed girl in a third world country, whose family saw fit to sell her into child prostitution, to languish in either eternal punish(ing)--hellfire--or eternal punish(ment)--annihilation--simply because she may have had an "opportunity" to put faith in Christ due to some missionary having left her a John 3:16 tract.
I am not holding God to an arbitrary standard. I merely appeal to a consistent standard, and I feel at liberty to appeal to the same sense of fairness that Abraham did when he said it was "unthinkable for the judge of all the world to sweep away the righteous along with the unrighteous." We all have an innate sense of justice, mercy and fairness. Humans frame laws and devise procedures in keeping with how they’ve come to understand humanity and human development. I sometimes think on science fiction shows like Star Trek, where members of the Federation espouse and endorse "the prime directive"—a regulation that forbids them to interfere with the development of primitive aliens whom they meet. I wonder if God may have some such "prime directives," that govern the way he deals, gets involved, intercedes, interferes or intervenes. For instance, I don’t think God intervenes out of caprice or whim, but when the situation demands for it.--e.g. Gen. 6:11-13; 11:5-8; 15:16.
Since humans are created with moral capacity, it makes sense that an invisible Creator would deal with his creatures in keeping with the way he made them. To my mind, this would include the way and means he might choose to reveal information about himself.
After personally having spent years in an organization that claims with dogmatic cock-sureness to know in detail what God has been accomplishing right down to the moment, I’ve had to rethink many things for myself and am much more reluctant to put a period at the end of my theological sentences—maybe a semi-colon.
It seems reasonable to conclude that the same Jesus who compassionately saw the vast majority of Jews in his day as harassed and helpless sheep without a shepherd, has seen the bulk of humanity in the same way. And are we wrong to think that Jesus has also longed to gather many of these as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, if they were but willing? And what of Jesus’ willingness to heal ten lepers, while probably knowing full well that only one would show gratitude—and he a Samaritan at that? If Jesus’ prayer for his executioners was, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing," then isn’t it reasonable that his attitude would be similar toward those who have stupidly and ignorantly persecuted his genuine followers?
Over the centuries, do we picture an unseen Jesus demanding a blind acceptance of his claims? Rather, don’t we imagine him welcoming the earnest inquirer and the questions of the sincere challenger? Why would Jesus’ first century appeal to reason, candor and a sense of right be abandoned by him in the centuries that followed? And why wouldn’t genuine disciples continue to be characterized by their interest in what Jesus had to say, and a desire to understand his meaning? And why wouldn’t Christians continue to be made up of those who were slow to understand and believe; of those with both little and great faith; of some who seem to think as God does one moment and as men do the next?
The matter of judgment comes into perspective when we consider that individual judgment is on the basis of what one knows, what one had opportunity to know, and how one lived in harmony with what light he had. Not all would equally know and understand all issues to be known and understood in their walk with God. Thus, however much we might personally come to know and see, it would still be a matter of "partial knowledge" in this lifetime.—Rom. 2:12-16.
"I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God."—1 Cor. 4:3,4.
The "motives of men’s hearts" that Jesus will ultimately "expose" will surely include whatever highly personal and strong motives that led individuals to reject the Bible and its testimony when they were presented with it, and conversely, what impediments there were for those who may have been rightly disposed, but never availed themselves of the invitation. After all, Jesus did say of some Jews who had rejected him when he came to them in the flesh performing miracles: "I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you… it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you." (Matt. 11:22,24) But "bearable" how? Jesus didn’t give all the details, did he? And, I can only assume that just as the Jews were stumbled because they failed to appreciate how the coming of the Messiah was fulfilled in Jesus (due to preconceived notions), that we ourselves may have preconceived notions that may blind us to what is in store for mankind when the Messiah returns and all is revealed, and that which we now know only in part will be known in full.
Regards, Brenden.
I don't think I mentioned anything about "post mortem conversion" in my post, though I do believe it to be a reasonable possibility, and I personally prefer the term Future Probation. That being said, my post was more a reflection on how God has seen fit to use a two-by-four on some people in the past (Manasseh and Saul of Tarsus come to mind) to bring about conversion, yet we look at these actions in hindsight and seem to feel as though the same God would allow an uninformed girl in a third world country, whose family saw fit to sell her into child prostitution, to languish in either eternal punish(ing)--hellfire--or eternal punish(ment)--annihilation--simply because she may have had an "opportunity" to put faith in Christ due to some missionary having left her a John 3:16 tract.
I am not holding God to an arbitrary standard. I merely appeal to a consistent standard, and I feel at liberty to appeal to the same sense of fairness that Abraham did when he said it was "unthinkable for the judge of all the world to sweep away the righteous along with the unrighteous." We all have an innate sense of justice, mercy and fairness. Humans frame laws and devise procedures in keeping with how they’ve come to understand humanity and human development. I sometimes think on science fiction shows like Star Trek, where members of the Federation espouse and endorse "the prime directive"—a regulation that forbids them to interfere with the development of primitive aliens whom they meet. I wonder if God may have some such "prime directives," that govern the way he deals, gets involved, intercedes, interferes or intervenes. For instance, I don’t think God intervenes out of caprice or whim, but when the situation demands for it.--e.g. Gen. 6:11-13; 11:5-8; 15:16.
Since humans are created with moral capacity, it makes sense that an invisible Creator would deal with his creatures in keeping with the way he made them. To my mind, this would include the way and means he might choose to reveal information about himself.
After personally having spent years in an organization that claims with dogmatic cock-sureness to know in detail what God has been accomplishing right down to the moment, I’ve had to rethink many things for myself and am much more reluctant to put a period at the end of my theological sentences—maybe a semi-colon.
It seems reasonable to conclude that the same Jesus who compassionately saw the vast majority of Jews in his day as harassed and helpless sheep without a shepherd, has seen the bulk of humanity in the same way. And are we wrong to think that Jesus has also longed to gather many of these as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, if they were but willing? And what of Jesus’ willingness to heal ten lepers, while probably knowing full well that only one would show gratitude—and he a Samaritan at that? If Jesus’ prayer for his executioners was, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing," then isn’t it reasonable that his attitude would be similar toward those who have stupidly and ignorantly persecuted his genuine followers?
Over the centuries, do we picture an unseen Jesus demanding a blind acceptance of his claims? Rather, don’t we imagine him welcoming the earnest inquirer and the questions of the sincere challenger? Why would Jesus’ first century appeal to reason, candor and a sense of right be abandoned by him in the centuries that followed? And why wouldn’t genuine disciples continue to be characterized by their interest in what Jesus had to say, and a desire to understand his meaning? And why wouldn’t Christians continue to be made up of those who were slow to understand and believe; of those with both little and great faith; of some who seem to think as God does one moment and as men do the next?
The matter of judgment comes into perspective when we consider that individual judgment is on the basis of what one knows, what one had opportunity to know, and how one lived in harmony with what light he had. Not all would equally know and understand all issues to be known and understood in their walk with God. Thus, however much we might personally come to know and see, it would still be a matter of "partial knowledge" in this lifetime.—Rom. 2:12-16.
"I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God."—1 Cor. 4:3,4.
The "motives of men’s hearts" that Jesus will ultimately "expose" will surely include whatever highly personal and strong motives that led individuals to reject the Bible and its testimony when they were presented with it, and conversely, what impediments there were for those who may have been rightly disposed, but never availed themselves of the invitation. After all, Jesus did say of some Jews who had rejected him when he came to them in the flesh performing miracles: "I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you… it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you." (Matt. 11:22,24) But "bearable" how? Jesus didn’t give all the details, did he? And, I can only assume that just as the Jews were stumbled because they failed to appreciate how the coming of the Messiah was fulfilled in Jesus (due to preconceived notions), that we ourselves may have preconceived notions that may blind us to what is in store for mankind when the Messiah returns and all is revealed, and that which we now know only in part will be known in full.
Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]
Re: Barclay was convinced (UR)
Hi Brenden,
If those who are lost are merely ignorant and or weak, how can He send any to hell even for a minute? And if there is a post-mortem plan of salvation the scriptures are strangely silent about it.
I have no disagreement with you here. But all have sinned and deserve death. If God sets conditions where not all will be saved, who can object? Does He have no right to do as pleases? We have no "right" to eternal life; there are conditions, and the sovereign of all has declared clearly what they are.The matter of judgment comes into perspective when we consider that individual judgment is on the basis of what one knows, what one had opportunity to know, and how one lived in harmony with what light he had. Not all would equally know and understand all issues to be known and understood in their walk with God. Thus, however much we might personally come to know and see, it would still be a matter of "partial knowledge" in this lifetime.—Rom. 2:12-16.
If those who are lost are merely ignorant and or weak, how can He send any to hell even for a minute? And if there is a post-mortem plan of salvation the scriptures are strangely silent about it.
Re: Barclay was convinced (UR)
I never understand why people's view aren't, if not changing, developing. When we study are we not to grow in knowledge?TK wrote:I am wondering-- if this thread gets to 100 pages will anyone have changed their view?
If anyone does-- please fess up!
Not that this is not all very interesting-- it is indeed.
TK
-
jriccitelli
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
Re: Barclay was convinced (UR)
Roberto; Knowledge may grow but if the will is not changed, neither is the mind. No?
TK wrote: I am wondering-- if this thread gets to 100 pages will anyone have changed their view?
I find that in most open discussions it is generally the observers that are affected and not the ones talking, like in the political debates on TV. The debater rarely backs down, but the audience makes their notes. I find this true also when discussions on religion happen among a crowd. I have a Universalist Family member and a Mormon friend who I have interested in this forum.
Steve ‘7’ wrote; Good observation TK but i think views take a lot of time to really change and of course there is only one opinion that really matters.
I agree Steve, if my wife doesn’t like it, I might as well forget what I was thinking.
Brenden; I have no disagreement with you either. I agree that some’ may hear the Gospel in heaven and have a chance to respond, but future probation or purgatory and post punishment UR go way beyond the Bibles words. Homer stated that it is true God can do what He chooses but we have no evidence that ‘all’ will repent, or will want to.
I have told people myself that there could ‘possibly’ be a chance for someone to hear the Gospel post mortem, but I warn them rejecting it now, and taking that chance to do it later is a tad risky. I never heard it from a (Evangelical) pulpit before but I was shocked to hear a regular preacher speak of our 'second chance' once, I thought “Well that’s a great relief I now feel no pressure or urgency to do missions or evangelism, I can focus on my grandkids and not worry about everyone’s salvation”
But I never found a scripture to support U or UR, and I have not heard a good argument to support it either, although it seems loving to think it’s true, I find the conclusions and motives harmful, dangerous, and necessitate a cloud of soft symbolism of placed over all of Gods words. What if the Israelites had this ‘soft post mortem symbolism thinking’ when they heard Moses speak?
Did Isaiah, Jeremiah and Amos hold to UR, seems that their audience would not have been so upset with them if that was so.
TK wrote: I am wondering-- if this thread gets to 100 pages will anyone have changed their view?
I find that in most open discussions it is generally the observers that are affected and not the ones talking, like in the political debates on TV. The debater rarely backs down, but the audience makes their notes. I find this true also when discussions on religion happen among a crowd. I have a Universalist Family member and a Mormon friend who I have interested in this forum.
Steve ‘7’ wrote; Good observation TK but i think views take a lot of time to really change and of course there is only one opinion that really matters.
I agree Steve, if my wife doesn’t like it, I might as well forget what I was thinking.
Brenden; I have no disagreement with you either. I agree that some’ may hear the Gospel in heaven and have a chance to respond, but future probation or purgatory and post punishment UR go way beyond the Bibles words. Homer stated that it is true God can do what He chooses but we have no evidence that ‘all’ will repent, or will want to.
I have told people myself that there could ‘possibly’ be a chance for someone to hear the Gospel post mortem, but I warn them rejecting it now, and taking that chance to do it later is a tad risky. I never heard it from a (Evangelical) pulpit before but I was shocked to hear a regular preacher speak of our 'second chance' once, I thought “Well that’s a great relief I now feel no pressure or urgency to do missions or evangelism, I can focus on my grandkids and not worry about everyone’s salvation”
But I never found a scripture to support U or UR, and I have not heard a good argument to support it either, although it seems loving to think it’s true, I find the conclusions and motives harmful, dangerous, and necessitate a cloud of soft symbolism of placed over all of Gods words. What if the Israelites had this ‘soft post mortem symbolism thinking’ when they heard Moses speak?
Did Isaiah, Jeremiah and Amos hold to UR, seems that their audience would not have been so upset with them if that was so.
-
jriccitelli
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
Re: Barclay was convinced (UR)
Speaking of Isaiah and Manasseh, Manasseh may have been reflecting on the words of Isaiah when in prison,
but if Manasseh held to UR he may not have been so motivated to repent either.
Although it is apocryphal the ‘Martyrdom of Isaiah’ is interesting (And ‘parts’ of it may possibly be from 1st century Jewish lit.);
“And it came to pass in the twenty-sixth year of the reign of Hezekiah king of Judah that he 2 called Manasseh his son. Now he was his only one. And he called him into the presence of Isaiah the son of Amoz the prophet; and into the presence of Josab the son of Isaiah... 7 And whilst he (Hezekiah) gave commands, Josab the son of Isaiah standing by, Isaiah said to Hezekiah the king, but not in the presence of Manasseh only did he say unto him: 'As the Lord liveth, whose name has not been sent into this world, [and as the Beloved of my Lord liveth], and as the Spirit which speaketh in me liveth, all these commands and these words shall be made of none effect by Manasseh thy son, and through the agency of his hands I shall depart mid the torture of 8 my body... And when Hezekiah heard these words he wept very bitterly, and rent his garments”
(Martyrdom of Isaiah Chap.1:1-10)
Manasseh did repent but I think it was because he finally feared the words that Isaiah’s blood rang in his ears. Isaiah’s torture may have had an effect on Manesseh, I don’t know, but Isaiah’s torture certainly wasn’t restorative to Isaiah.
Did Manasseh’s son repent? We have no evidence that ‘every’ human will repent. And I cannot impose this demand of ‘complete human restoration’ on God before I see Him as ‘Just’ in judgment and punishment.
God said the soul that sins will die, even if it’s two deaths.
I noticed that Manasseh’s salvation didn’t inspire his son, and wasn’t of much effect until Hilikiah “…found the book of the Law in the house of the Lord”;
When the king heard the words of the book of the law, he tore his clothes.12 Then the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam the son of Shaphan, Achbor the son of Micaiah, Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah the king's servant saying,13 "Go, inquire of the LORD for me and the people and all Judah concerning the words of this book that has been found, for great is the wrath of the LORD that burns against us, because our fathers have not listened to the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us.” (2 Kings 22:11-13)
I don’t think finding the book of UR would have caused them to tear their clothes. I think Gods argument against UR stands pretty firm.
I cannot be satisfied until I have confidence that I know my friends and acquaintances know and trust in Christ, I cannot see how offering 'hope' to repent post mortem is biblical, or beneficial for them.
I have been to too many funerals of the unsaved not to wish the funerals were as reassuring as those whom died trusting Jesus.
Those funerals have had a tremendous effect on me, Wise is the refrain 'Where scripture is silent I am silent, but where scripture speaks so I must speak.'
but if Manasseh held to UR he may not have been so motivated to repent either.
Although it is apocryphal the ‘Martyrdom of Isaiah’ is interesting (And ‘parts’ of it may possibly be from 1st century Jewish lit.);
“And it came to pass in the twenty-sixth year of the reign of Hezekiah king of Judah that he 2 called Manasseh his son. Now he was his only one. And he called him into the presence of Isaiah the son of Amoz the prophet; and into the presence of Josab the son of Isaiah... 7 And whilst he (Hezekiah) gave commands, Josab the son of Isaiah standing by, Isaiah said to Hezekiah the king, but not in the presence of Manasseh only did he say unto him: 'As the Lord liveth, whose name has not been sent into this world, [and as the Beloved of my Lord liveth], and as the Spirit which speaketh in me liveth, all these commands and these words shall be made of none effect by Manasseh thy son, and through the agency of his hands I shall depart mid the torture of 8 my body... And when Hezekiah heard these words he wept very bitterly, and rent his garments”
(Martyrdom of Isaiah Chap.1:1-10)
Manasseh did repent but I think it was because he finally feared the words that Isaiah’s blood rang in his ears. Isaiah’s torture may have had an effect on Manesseh, I don’t know, but Isaiah’s torture certainly wasn’t restorative to Isaiah.
Did Manasseh’s son repent? We have no evidence that ‘every’ human will repent. And I cannot impose this demand of ‘complete human restoration’ on God before I see Him as ‘Just’ in judgment and punishment.
God said the soul that sins will die, even if it’s two deaths.
I noticed that Manasseh’s salvation didn’t inspire his son, and wasn’t of much effect until Hilikiah “…found the book of the Law in the house of the Lord”;
When the king heard the words of the book of the law, he tore his clothes.12 Then the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam the son of Shaphan, Achbor the son of Micaiah, Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah the king's servant saying,13 "Go, inquire of the LORD for me and the people and all Judah concerning the words of this book that has been found, for great is the wrath of the LORD that burns against us, because our fathers have not listened to the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us.” (2 Kings 22:11-13)
I don’t think finding the book of UR would have caused them to tear their clothes. I think Gods argument against UR stands pretty firm.
I cannot be satisfied until I have confidence that I know my friends and acquaintances know and trust in Christ, I cannot see how offering 'hope' to repent post mortem is biblical, or beneficial for them.
I have been to too many funerals of the unsaved not to wish the funerals were as reassuring as those whom died trusting Jesus.
Those funerals have had a tremendous effect on me, Wise is the refrain 'Where scripture is silent I am silent, but where scripture speaks so I must speak.'
Re: Barclay was convinced (UR)
This question sounds like the mentality of the Calvinist, though I know you are not one.If God sets conditions where not all will be saved, who can object? Does He have no right to do as pleases? We have no "right" to eternal life; there are conditions, and the sovereign of all has declared clearly what they are.
Calvinists always want to talk about God's "rights."
Do I have the right to bite the head off the banana slugs* in my garden? Probably! But what has that to do with predicting anything about my actual behavior? Wouldn't my character be a better predictor of my decisions?
Arminians prefer to talk about God's "character"—chiefly His love and desire to save all people—but with the caveat that He only wants to do so before they die. After that, it is as if He never had loved them at all. After death, He hates them and treats them worse than any man every treated his most hated foe. This, despite the fact that He has every right to extend their opportunity to repent for as long after death as He may wish.
Universal Reconciliation takes the Arminian emphasis further, and says, "What God wants to do (i.e., save everyone), He also has the right to do." Nobody has the power to deprive God of His right to show mercy. If He had not already the right to show infinite mercy to as many as He wished, certainly He obtained that right when Jesus died to redeem the whole world.
Is there something wrong with my thinking here?
* picture of banana slug here: http://images.google.com/imgres?q=banan ... 9,r:0,s:26
