The Narrow Path Ministries

Posted: **Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:07 am**

paidion wrote: Perry, I have been wondering how you would view my stance.

I, like Todd, also believe that salvation is essentially salvation from sin, so that our character is purified. But my position is that when were are regenerated, we are changed, so that we will be fitted to live with God. I disbelieve that God will "take in" any rebels. I also disbelieve that there will be an instant change in a person's character in the resurrection because Jesus died for all. The following passage says it all:

For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. Working together with him, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain. (2 Cor. 5:14-6:1)

To become the righteousness of God does not mean God's righteousness being thrust upon us or imputed to us. Rather it means that just as Christ was made the object of sin by the wicked ones who put Him to death, so we will be made the object of righteousness by God — not a pretending righteousness, but a real righteousness, God's righteousness, made available to us by the enabling grace of God (see Titus 2). In attaining righteousness we must "work together with God". We can't attain it by self-effort. But neither will God force it upon us if we do not coöperate with His enabling grace.

He who began a good work in us will bring it to completion in the day of Jesus Christ. We need to be prepared by God, in order to be with God forever. Salvation from sin unto righteousness is a process, but will some day be complete. Those who don't yield to the process of salvation will need to be dealt with by God some day until they repent (have a change of heart and mind) and submit to the authority of Christ. Perhaps even Christians will require the refining fire of God, for "Everyone will be salted with fire."
Christ gave a parable about three slaves who were to take care of the Master's house while he was gone. All three were SLAVES of their master. Each of the three did wrong, but the correction the master gave them was related to their attitudes:

... if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces and put him with the unfaithful. And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more. (Luke 12:45-48)

Many a "Christian" thinks he is completely "off the hook" because Jesus died for him, and he said a prayer asking Jesus into his heart (or he "accepted Him as his personal Saviour, or he "trusted in the finished work of Christ", or ....). The formulae vary. But God doesn't care about any of that. He is interested in RIGHTEOUSNESS, and will settle for nothing less. He has made provision for righteousness, but it's a narrow path, and few find it in this life. But God never gives up on anyone, and ALL of His judgments are remedial! He is not willing that ANY should perish, and will do whatever it takes to bring that about!

Jesus concluded his parable of the three slaves with these words:

I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished! (verses 49 and 50)

Jesus wished with all His heart that the fire of purification were already started — so deep was His love for people. He wanted to see that baptism of fire started! He even had great distress while waiting for it to be accomplished!

Posted: **Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:23 am**

Hello again Paidion,
As I said earlier, there is a lot to consider in your post. I'm going to address it here, and it may appear as though I'm nit-picking it. That's not my intent. It's just that your comments are so densely packed with ideas, I pretty much have to do it this way. Overall, we're in agreement about a great many things. Several things you say I have misgivings about.

paidion wrote:I, like Todd, also believe that salvation is essentially salvation from sin...

Salvation from sin, or salvation from the consequences of sin, or both, and in which life? Normally, when I think of salvation, I think of it as a future event that is occurs at the resurrection. However, I also believe that my salvation is already assured, in so much as Jesus has started a good work in me. It's not that I “will be” saved, it's that I “am” saved. We're getting a bit into “once saved always saved here” though, which is and idea that I'm a little uncomfortable with.

In the first part of John 15, Jesus gives us the analogy of the vine and branches. The branches must abide in Christ, or they will be cast off from Him, wither, and be burned. This seems to echo precisely this passage in Malachi.

Mal 4:1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

This language, to me, seems to be speaking of an utter destruction, “leaving neither root nor branch.”

paidion wrote:...so that our character is purified.

I suppose you could argue, that the verse in Malachi is saying that it's just a “purging” fire or a “purifying” fire, that leaves neither root nor branch of the “pride” or the “wickedness” in those so purged. But that seems a bit of a stretch to me. The “them” that gets cast in seems to be “the proud and all that do wickedly”.

I'd also like to mention a word or two about the consequences of sin. It seems to me that these consequences affect not just the here-and-now, but also, the hereafter. For the present, we have to deal with the unpleasant, sometimes horrific, consequences of sin. Repenting of those sins doesn't seem to wipe out those consequences as they apply to this life. For example, if a person commits murder, and then repents, their victim remains dead. That victim's family must continue to deal with the consequences for the remainder of their sojourn in this life. So must the murder himself, in one way or the other, regardless of whether he's convicted and sentenced. The effects of some sins are irrevocable in the here-and now. (That's not to say that no healing can occur at all. The murder victim is still dead though.)

But sin also has its consequence in the hereafter as well. It separates us from God. God can't have murderers, liars, drunkards, etc. living eternally in the hereafter. But Christ redeemed us from that consequence. He atoned for sin in that regard.

In one sense, that happens automatically I suppose. After all, how can there be murderers, when everyone has eternal life? Can our bodies in the hereafter even get drunk? Is it even possible to lie to regenerated saints? Notwithstanding, there is a character related, spiritual element to being a murderer, a liar, and a drunkard. Those spiritual defects can't be allowed to continue imperpetuity.

paidion wrote:But my position is that when were are regenerated, we are changed, so that we will be fitted to live with God. I disbelieve that God will "take in" any rebels.

We are agreed on those points.

paidion wrote:I also disbelieve that there will be an instant change in a person's character in the resurrection because Jesus died for all.

I agree that Jesus died for all. I don't see that it necessarily follows that there is no instantaneous change at the resurrection. I'm not sure how you're relating the fact that Jesus died for all to how instantaneous is the character change that does or does not occur at the resurrection. Those seem to be unrelated concepts.

1Co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
1Co 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

These verses seem to suggest an instantaneous change. It may be that it's speaking of our bodies only, and not saying anything about our character. I've always thought that it was speaking to both. For example, I can imagine a Christian who struggles with substance abuse all their life, and who never, struggle and try as they might, completely eradicates it from their character. Though there attitude is repentant, the flesh is weak and they never fully overcome their substance abuse. I can imagine that. I think I may have even witnessed it. My understanding of these verses in I Corinthians is that, “at the last trump” that struggle, for this Christian, will have ended. They will no longer be corrupted by this character flaw. That seems to happen in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. I'm just using drunkenness as one example. None of us is perfect, and never will be until God's work is fully complete in us. We will, all of us, take some of our own imperfections with us to the grave.

paidion wrote:To become the righteousness of God does not mean God's righteousness being thrust upon us or imputed to us.

At least, not against our will. I don't believe God will “thrust” His righteousness into us without our consent; that He did, in fact, give us a choice in the matter. This is why I have my misgivings about UR. We still have a say in the matter, and it appears, unimaginable though it seems to us, some will choose to not believe. (As an aside, I do not think that anyone will be eternally damned by “accident”. I believe that anyone who is damned, will make an informed decision to remain hostile to God. This seems almost unthinkable, but there seems to be evidence for it in scripture.)

paidion wrote:Rather it means that just as Christ was made the object of sin by the wicked ones who put Him to death, so we will be made the object of righteousness by God — not a pretending righteousness, but a real righteousness, God's righteousness, made available to us by the enabling grace of God (see Titus 2). In attaining righteousness we must "work together with God". We can't attain it by self-effort. But neither will God force it upon us if we do not coöperate with His enabling grace.

Yes, I agree with that. When it says, in John 15, that we must remain in Christ, it says “As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.” (verse 4) We don't get any credit at all for the fruit, that comes as a natural consequence of being tapped into the vine. We don't get any credit for that either, for it is from the vine that the branch springs.

paidion wrote:He who began a good work in us will bring it to completion in the day of Jesus Christ. We need to be prepared by God, in order to be with God forever. Salvation from sin unto righteousness is a process, but will some day be complete.

Again, agreed. Please describe how this happens, if it doesn't happen instantaneously at the last trump.

paidion wrote:Those who don't yield to the process of salvation will need to be dealt with by God some day...

<nodding agreement> Yes, yes.

paidion wrote:... until they repent (have a change of heart and mind) and submit to the authority of Christ.

Wait, hold on. This is true for the Christian, yes. But whether this universally true or not, is, to my mind, not yet a settled matter. I would like it to be true. I hope you're right and that it is true. I'm just not certain.

paidion wrote:Perhaps even Christians will require the refining fire of God, for "Everyone will be salted with fire." Christ gave a parable about three slaves who were to take care of the Master's house while he was gone. All three were SLAVES of their master. Each of the three did wrong, but the correction the master gave them was related to their attitudes:

It is, I admit, the scriptures that speak of differing levels of punishment that are most troubling to the viewpoint I have traditionally held, (i.e. annihilationism.) It makes no sense that God would resurrect those from Sodom, Tyre, and Sidon, punish them a little, then annihilate them, and that He would, at the same time, resurrect Chorazin and Bethsadia, punish them more and then annihilate them. (See Luke 10:12-15) That just doesn't make sense to me.

So I allow this as a point in favor of UR. I can see a model in which it takes less punishment to reconcile some than it does to reconcile others. It's recognition of these “competing” scriptures that keeps me on the fence on this issue.

paidion wrote:Many a "Christian" thinks he is completely "off the hook" because Jesus died for him, and he said a prayer asking Jesus into his heart (or he "accepted Him as his personal Saviour, or he "trusted in the finished work of Christ", or ....). The formulae vary. But God doesn't care about any of that. He is interested in RIGHTEOUSNESS, and will settle for nothing less. He has made provision for righteousness, but it's a narrow path, and few find it in this life.

Agreed. I'm not an advocate of “easy believism” or “greasy grace” or whatever you want to call it. John 15 says that we must remain in the vine. There are some consequences of this. Verse 10 says that we abide in Him if we “keep His commandments”. It's not a one-off transaction. It is, as you say, a continuing process.

paidion wrote:But God never gives up on anyone...

When stated that way, it's hard to suggest otherwise. In other words, I cringe at the thought of saying, “You're wrong Paidion. God does give up on some people.” God is extremely patient with us. But there does seem to be evidence from scriptures that His patience has its limits. I have a difficult time seeing the parable in Luke 13:6-9 any other way. Once the tree is cut down, it leaves neither “root nor branch”. We see an oft repeated theme here. What do you think Jesus is trying to communicate to us in that parable, except that His patience is great, but that it does have it's limits? In the verses just preceding this parable, He's suggesting that we will, apart from Him, perish. What else does perish mean besides die, leaving nether “root nor branch”.

paidion wrote:...and ALL of His judgments are remedial!

That statement is nice and emphatic. It doesn't, however, prove anything other than your ability to make nice and emphatic statements. That's okay

I think I have one or two nice emphatic statements in here too.

paidion wrote:He is not willing that ANY should perish...

Agreed. He says as much. He is not willing that any should perish. This doesn't mean that He always gets His will. One might ask, “Can God's will ever be thwarted?” As a practical matter, yes, we see this all the time! For instance, let me change one word of that sentence and see if you still think it is true. “He is not willing that any should SIN...”. Do you think that's true? I think it is. I think it's not God's will for any to sin. Yet, we see it happening all the time. How can this be? Is God's will being thwarted? It is being thwarted in that He has granted us wills of our own and sometimes we exercise those in ways that are contrary to how He would have it.

Ultimately, it might be argued, His will is NOT being thwarted. He wills that we should not sin, but, more than that, He wills that we have wills of our own. There's a hierarchy to God's will (if you will). So, while God is willing that none should perish, He's even more willing that we ourselves have a say in the matter. He has surrendered that choice to us. He won't force Himself upon us.

paidion wrote:...and will do whatever it takes to bring that about!

No, not whatever it takes. He won't cram His will down our throats. Indeed, He has done everything it takes already! Christ died for us. What more is necessary beyond that infinite sacrifice? From God, nothing? From us, we have to accept it. We have to embrace it. We can't remain hostile to it. Strange as it may seem, scripture seems to indicate that some will remain hostile to it, right up to the bitter end, and a bitter end it will be, but an end none the less. (Perry said rather emphatically

)

paidion wrote:Jesus wished with all His heart that the fire of purification were already started — so deep was His love for people. He wanted to see that baptism of fire started!

I have to ponder and study and pray about that one a bit more. I've never really noticed that, or what it implies.

Posted: **Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:34 pm**

Perry,

Good post!

You wrote:

Repenting of those sins doesn't seem to wipe out those consequences as they apply to this life. For example, if a person commits murder, and then repents, their victim remains dead. That victim's family must continue to deal with the consequences for the remainder of their sojourn in this life. So must the murder himself, in one way or the other, regardless of whether he's convicted and sentenced. The effects of some sins are irrevocable in the here-and now. (That's not to say that no healing can occur at all. The murder victim is still dead though.)

Which reminded me of something I posted some years back:

Last night I was thinking about Andy. Andy, a friend of our two sons, has just lost his battle with brain cancer. Life seems so unfair. Andy was a good Christian, someone that everyone who knew him said what a nice person he was. And I thought of Andy's parents. Although they are Christians, their loss must be immense.

Then somehow an old tragedy came to mind. My wife and I grew up in central California, east of Fresno. We lived not far from the "river bottom" where the Kings River poured out of the Sierras. "God's country" as the people in Fresno said. A place of rivers, streams, and ponds within a few miles, where I spent many happy days fishing.

It was not a happy place for one family. My wife knew them all well, was in their home. They were Christians. Their little girl, Esther Lee Lewis, was waiting near a bridge for her school bus. A wicked man abducted her and she was raped and murdered. You can imagine what else she suffered.

Our universalist friends inform us that it is unjust to suffer unending punishment for "finite" sin. When I think of this little girl and her family, and this idea of her murder being a "finite sin", it almost makes me sick!
How do you measure the suffering of the child? How do you measure the suffering of her parents? Is there a way to determine the height, width, depth, or weight of it? What scale or measuring instrument would you use? I am unable to imagine how bad they must have felt. I can think of nothing more painful than the death of an innocent child, especially one horribly murdered.

In the case of Esther's family, the mother was never the same again. The father turned bitterly against God for years. My wife says there was a pall of sadness over the whole family as long as she knew them. And you speak of "finite" sin.

And it is posited that even Hitler will be rehabilitated and brought into the heavenly fold. Hitler has outdone the wickedness of Esther Lee's murderer by the millions. Let us measure his "finite" wickedness!

paidion wrote:
But God never gives up on anyone...

When stated that way, it's hard to suggest otherwise. In other words, I cringe at the thought of saying, “You're wrong Paidion. God does give up on some people.” God is extremely patient with us. But there does seem to be evidence from scriptures that His patience has its limits. I have a difficult time seeing the parable in Luke 13:6-9 any other way. Once the tree is cut down, it leaves neither “root nor branch”. We see an oft repeated theme here. What do you think Jesus is trying to communicate to us in that parable, except that His patience is great, but that it does have it's limits? In the verses just preceding this parable, He's suggesting that we will, apart from Him, perish. What else does perish mean besides die, leaving nether “root nor branch”.

I do not contend for CI or the traditional view; I think the scriptures are about even regarding the two. I do believe the is a final judgement and see not even a hint in the scriptures of being saved after judgement. In fact, it seems to me that God gives up on some before their life on earth is done. He certainly has a history of doing that, destroying many down through the ages because of their sin. Why do that if He is intent on running them through purgatory right after He destroys them?

Posted: **Sat Apr 21, 2012 7:41 pm**

Thank you Perry, for discussing my words in such detail. I hope to be able to devote further time to this discussion. It seems we think alike in many ways. Where it seems we differ, I think it's because we are looking at particular root matters somewhat differently.

Homer you wrote:He certainly has a history of doing that, destroying many down through the ages because of their sin. Why do that if He is intent on running them through purgatory right after He destroys them?

Well, I think they will have to be raised from the dead first. If that is the case, then the question for annihilationists would be, "Why do that, if they are just going to be annihilated afterward?" Does God just want them to see that they have done wrong? But why? What difference does it make since they won't be corrected anyway. Or is His purpose to be able to tell their victims, "See I am paying them back for what they did to you!" Do you think the victims will feel satisfied to see their abusers "paid back"? It doesn't seem to make them feel satisfied even in this life when "justice" is done. Why do you suppose those Amish people asked that the murderer of their girls not be punished? Surely God is at least as "forgiving" as the Amish.

I'll also ask you the question of the ages. If God is so willing to annihilate those who commit atrocities, why doesn't He wipe them out physically in this life BEFORE they get a chance to do these evils? Why did He allow that horrible suffering and death for little Esther, when He could have zapped the one who raped and murdered her?

God's action and inaction have long been questioned. All thinking Christians try to reconcile what God is said to have done and not done with their understanding of His character of LOVE. They do it in various ways. I do it, too. But one thing I will not tolerate is the denigration of the character of God, by one who says, "Oh yes, God is loving, but He is also just," where "just" means giving people what their evil actions "deserve" whether anyone is helped by it or not. That's the way of legalism. God's ways are the ways of love. Man conquers his enemies by wiping them out. God conquers His enemies by winning them to His side! Which of the two is a greater victory?

Please understand, I'm just rambling on — as one thought tumbles after another. I am not suggesting that you, Homer, or anyone else on this forum, is denigrating God's character. I'm sure you have an explanation for the matters which I have just brought up.

Posted: **Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:55 pm**

Perry, here is the first installment of many in response to your thoughts about my statements. I am quite grateful for your input, as it helped me to think more deeply. It never occurred to me that you were "nitpicking". I have always found you very respectful, and I consider you as one of my sincere fellow-seekers after truth and reality.

Perry wrote:
Paidion wrote: I, like Todd, also believe that salvation is essentially salvation from sin...
Salvation from sin, or salvation from the consequences of sin, or both, and in which life? Normally, when I think of salvation, I think of it as a future event that is occurs at the resurrection. However, I also believe that my salvation is already assured, in so much as Jesus has started a good work in me. It's not that I “will be” saved, it's that I “am” saved. We're getting a bit into “once saved always saved here” though, which is and idea that I'm a little uncomfortable with.

Here is the way I have been thinking: Salvation is a process. It's not that I “am” saved, but that I “am being” saved. But there's a “will be saved” in the NT as well. So I am in the process of being saved from sin in this life and I “will be saved” in the next. It is when I am engaged in this process by the grace of God, that I am on the narrow path which leads to righteousness. It is possible that if I am on the narrow path, and have been progressing toward righteousness, that Jesus will put the finishing touches on me and I will be complete or "perfect" and share in the first resurrection (when He comes), and thus I "will be saved" from hell, since I won't need further correction. On the other hand, if Christ doesn't put the finishing touches on me, I may still need some correction in the next life. If my progress in this life is extremely slow or nil, I may have to await the second resurrection (at the end of the millenium). It seems that only the “overcomers” will be in the first resurrection.

Just now, I have looked up all NT instances of salvation where the reference is to the salvation which Christ provided by his death. Here are the verses I found which indicate a process, and which many translations render as “are being saved” :
I Cor 1:18 (present passive participle) … to us who are being saved, it is the power of God
I Cor 15:2 (present passive indicative) … by which you are being saved...
2 Cor 2:15 (present passive indicative) … among those who are being saved and those who are perishing.

The present tense in Greek usually indicates a continuing or continuous action.
1 Peter 4:15 (present passive indicative) If the righteous is scarcely being saved …
1 Peter 3:21 (present active indicative) … baptism which now is saving you.

Passages in the future tense which have been rendered as “will be saved” are too numerous to mention.
But then I found verses which indicate personal salvation as a completed fact:
Romans 8:24 (aorist passive indicative) … in this hope we were saved
2 Tim 1:9 (aorist active participle) … who saved us and called us to a holy calling
Titus 3:5 (aorist active indicative) … in keeping with his mercy, he saved us.

Finally there are two verses which say that we “have been saved” as a completed fact:
Ephesians 2:5 (perfect passive participle) … by grace you have been saved.
Ephesians 2:8 (perfect passive participle) … by grace you have been saved.
A Greek teacher of mine, an Anglican (Episcopalian) priest at St. John's Anglican College in Winnipeg stated that, based upon these two verses in Ephesians, he did not believe that the apostle Paul wrote Ephesians.

The subjunctive mode is also used as in "that you should be saved", etc.

So it seems that neither your thesis ("It's not that I “will be” saved, it's that I “am” saved) nor my thesis (It's not that I “am” saved, but that I “am being” saved) has salvation nailed down. It appears that we must go with a thesis which I have heard repeated a number of times throughout the years, "I was saved, I am being saved, and I will be saved." To which aspect of salvation each of these tenses apply, is worthy of discussion.

Posted: **Thu Apr 26, 2012 12:28 am**

Paidion wrote:... If God is so willing to annihilate those who commit atrocities, why doesn't He wipe them out physically in this life BEFORE they get a chance to do these evils? Why did He allow that horrible suffering and death for little Esther, when He could have zapped the one who raped and murdered her?...

hello paidion,
respectfully, couldn't one ask a similar question: if God's ultimate intent is to restore those who commit atrocities and never repent in their life, why doesn't He make them repent before they get a chance to do these evils? why did he allow such horrible suffering and death for that poor little girl, when he could have distilled compassion causing that man to shudder in horror the moment such an atrocious thought invaded his mind?

this isn't in the least meant to mock your question, i appreciate (and am often edified by) your perspective on many things, and wondered what you might think.

grace and peace...

Posted: **Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:31 am**

My post looked a lot better in my text editor. The neat outline didn't copy over very well.

paidion wrote:Perry, here is the first installment of many in response to your thoughts about my statements.

Oh boy! I'm looking forward to your future installments.

paidion wrote: I consider you as one of my sincere fellow-seekers after truth and reality.

Thank you for saying that Paidion. I appreciate it. It's hard to judge how I come across sometimes. I fear I sometimes come across a bit more caustic than I should.

paidion wrote:It appears that we must go with a thesis which I have heard repeated a number of times throughout the years, "I was saved, I am being saved, and I will be saved." To which aspect of salvation each of these tenses apply, is worthy of discussion.

Well, in the spirit of what I hope is a worthy discussion, I will use this framework for addressing my current view on these things. I will also bring in some of the difficulties I see in some of the things you have mentioned.

I. I was saved.
1. Christ performed a saving work for my benefit on the cross. That is a completed work to which my efforts cannot add. Thus I was saved by Christ's actions on the cross.

2. There was a point in my life when I repented and was baptized. At that time I entered into relationship with Christ that made it possible for His saving work to be applied to me. We colloquially use expressions like, “I was saved when I was a teenager.”

3. I don't see how, from an ER standpoint, you could agree with 2 (immediately above), since, if ER is true, then, ultimately, (say billions of years from now) it really wouldn't matter if I repented or not. Everyone will enjoy ER anyway. If that's so then all that my repentance really accomplished was to avoid some of the negative consequences of sin in this life. This seems to be Todd's position, as best as I can understand it. (See II.2 below). I suppose you could possibly say that my repentance at least gives me a leg up on whatever finishing work must be completed in the next life, but I have problems with that idea too. (See III.2 below.)

4. By the way, I don't see that this terminology implies that salvation is a done-deal. I might say that by Christ's sacrifice I was saved, in the same way I might say, by falling in the river I got wet. That doesn't mean my wetness is a permanent condition. I must remain in the river to stay wet. I must remain in Christ to stay saved.

II. I am being saved.
1. Christ is working with me now and leading me, as I submit, into a life of greater righteousness. So I agree that Christ is saving me (i.e. I am being saved) from sin in the here-and-now. At least in so much as I successfully engage with Him in this effort. I'm not sure I feel comfortable applying the label “salvation” to this process. Some of the scriptures you listed did indeed seem to be applying the term “saved” to this. I certainly agree with you that it is happening.

2. I still have the to deal with the consequences of sin, both my own sin, and the sin of others, in the here-and-now. My worldly observation suggests to me that there is no direct correlation between the consequences of sin that many people must endure in this life, and their own personal sinfulness. Some seem to be dealing with more consequence than they deserve, while others, who appear to be sinning willfully and blatantly, seem to be getting off pretty easy. If in this life only we have hope, we are screwed.

3. I still have free choice. I could (unimaginable as it seems) choose to reject salvation. At least it certainly feels this way. I'm not a believer in once-saved-always-saved. Ultimately, I would say that the relationship entered into in I.2 above is, indeed, a relationship, and that I can therefor remain in the relationship, or abandon it. This would, in my opinion, require a knowing rejection from the heart. I'm not talking about lapsing under pressure or temporary backsliding.

4. The idea that “I am being saved” means that my efforts with Christ in this life are helping me avoid bad things in this life only, sounds uncomfortably close to a health-wealth type doctrine to me. That loops me right back to my observations in II.2 above.

III. I will be saved.
1. An eschatological event. This occurs at the resurrection when Christ returns. This mortal must put on immortality. Once death is dead, all are saved or have ceased to exist.
2. I haven't yet seen Biblical evidence that this is a continuance of II.1 above. I do see biblical evidence that seems to suggest the contrary. Metaphorically, I don't expect there to be mustard stains on my robe at the wedding feast. At that point the corruptible will have put on incorruption and the robes provided (i.e. righteousness) will be white as snow. No finishing touches necessary.

3. I see from your post that you mention two resurrections. I'm familiar with this concept and have held this view. Some of Steve's lectures have me questioning this idea. I'm assuming you would say that those involved in the second resurrection would not be participants in the feast mentioned in III.2 above. In the version I'm familiar with, the second resurrection would be a time for those who never had an opportunity to know of Jesus, (e.g. the Australian bushman who never heard of him). This second resurrection comes at the beginning of a one hundred year period (Isa 65:20), after which, everyone who ever lived will have had a fair shake at knowing Christ, but some will still choose to be sinners. (as the verse suggests).

4. From your perspective, will those involved in the second resurrection, be resurrected to immortal bodies, or to mortal ones? If mortal, then how does that work? Mortal implies that they can die. That doesn't make sense from an ER perspective. How many times must one die and be resurrected before they can finally be transformed? On the other hand, if the second resurrection is a resurrection in an immortal condition, yet there are still “finishing touches” that need to be applied, then we have the situation of a post-resurrection immortal being who is still struggling with sin. That doesn't seem right either.

Posted: **Thu Apr 26, 2012 10:09 am**

Paidion wrote: ... If God is so willing to annihilate those who commit atrocities, why doesn't He wipe them out physically in this life BEFORE they get a chance to do these evils? Why did He allow that horrible suffering and death for little Esther, when He could have zapped the one who raped and murdered her?...

Jeremiah wrote:Respectfully, couldn't one ask a similar question: if God's ultimate intent is to restore those who commit atrocities and never repent in their life, why doesn't He make them repent before they get a chance to do these evils? why did he allow such horrible suffering and death for that poor little girl, when he could have distilled compassion causing that man to shudder in horror the moment such an atrocious thought invaded his mind?

To my mind this "similar" question is essentially different in that, in the scenarios you describe, God would need to intervene with man's free will, whereas in mine, He would merely need to annihilate them just prior to their actions, as some claim that He will do some day, anyway.

God created man in His image. Surely this would not be in His physical image since He is not physical but spirit. So He must have created man in his mental image, and a very basic part of that image is the ability to choose. This ability implies that man is autonomous and can make choices for good or for evil. God wants people to freely choose to submit to Him. He isn't interested in a race of robots who will carry out His will, or He would have created robots instead of free-will agents. Thus God normally doesn't interfere in any way with man's free will. So he would never "make" a person repent or "distill compassion" in a man who doesn't have it. Rather He uses His servants to help prevent atrocities or to influence the hard-hearted person.

However, if He will annihilate evil people some day, I see no reason for Him not doing so now, and prevent all that suffering. On the other hand, if He will bring all to repentance some day by various means (not "making" them repent, but influencing them to do so), then He will continue to be patient with them, hoping that they will repent even now. This seems to be consistent with the statement in 2 Peter 3:9.

The Lord is ... patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

Posted: **Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:40 pm**

paidion,
i fully agree with your explanation of God not making robots. where i thought both were similar was that if God wished, he could prevent suffering for the innocent regardless of the ultimate fate of the wicked. maybe "make" was too broad a word to use. if we replace "make them repent" with "influence them to repent", i see no difference. not that i think influence is also infringing free will, but that i didn't mean "force them despite their will" by that. sure, God zapping someone before he could commit some horrifying act against another would prevent that act, but so would God influencing the same man unto repentance and faith towards Him prevent the same act. either way, both persuasions have to admit, God chooses not to prevent an immense amount of suffering perpetrated on innocent humans. therefore i don't think either of these questions or their answers say much to what happens after we all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

you said God would never distill compassion in a man who doesn't have it. i would never say all grown people have an inclination or propensity for compassion, and more broadly, love. but neither would i say some people don't have compassion or love at all. i think these are part and parcel to us bearing God's image. it seems to me that people develop through sin, and so a once tender heart hardens, and any residue of God's character becomes overshadowed in darkness. i was thinking of distilling water, which (in theory anyway) takes dirty water and boils away all the impurities and distills the purified water vapor back into liquid. i thought you might appreciate the allusion, but maybe that depends on whether you think people are born morally good/bad/neutral. i think humans are born good, we learn to do evil (some much more than others), so then we must learn to do good. and like you, i think it's only by the enabling grace of God that we learn to do that good.

grace and peace...

Posted: **Thu Apr 26, 2012 4:01 pm**

Paidion,

You wrote:

To my mind this "similar" question is essentially different in that, in the scenarios you describe, God would need to intervene with man's free will, .......

This ability implies that man is autonomous and can make choices for good or for evil. God wants people to freely choose to submit to Him. He isn't interested in a race of robots who will carry out His will, or He would have created robots instead of free-will agents. Thus God normally doesn't interfere in any way with man's free will. So he would never "make" a person repent or "distill compassion" in a man who doesn't have it.

I find your reasoning very difficult and surprisingly inconsistent. In your previously expressed scenario of conversion in hell, you have pictured an agonizing correction by fire which will take a very long time. I have never seen you admit that it might be very brief, or take place immediately when people realize what they have missed, who Jesus is, and what they face. The picture you have presented is one of pumishment which is certainly more severe than "water-boarding" which, though terrifying, actually causes no physical harm. No thinking person would say people who are water-boarded are not coerced. So how can your universalism be any less determinitive than Calvinism? It would seem to be more determinative since in Calvinism God only has to do nothing to determine the fate of the lost. Your universalism is Calvinism writ large, and contradictory of what you said above.

The Narrow Path Ministries

Paidion & Perry on EE and ER

Paidion & Perry on EE and ER

Re: Paidion & Perry on EE and ER

Re: Paidion & Perry on EE and ER

Re: Paidion & Perry on EE and ER

Re: Paidion & Perry on EE and ER

Re: Paidion & Perry on EE and ER

Re: Paidion & Perry on EE and ER

Re: Paidion & Perry on EE and ER

Re: Paidion & Perry on EE and ER

Re: Paidion & Perry on EE and ER