I just finished Martin Zender's "The Really Bad Thing About Free Will"
(subtitled A Critical Look at the Salvation Doctrine).
I'd like to discuss this idea of free will, give a quick review of the book and encourage you to pick it up.
Continue reading "The Really Bad Thing About Free Will (Book Review)" »
My new reader Arthur has presented some excellent comments over the last few days. This one is response to my post on the execution of Saddam Hussein:
I just ran across a series of talks by Martin Zender a few days ago. I've been working my way through them. As I mentioned, I'm a big fan of Martin's. I disagree with him on several points. In fact, after listening to some of his talks, I'm pretty sure he'd say I believe in a "doctrine of demons" on one or more points. But, I do appreciate his talks and have learned quite a bit by listening to the talks and his books. Martin is a big believer in getting back to the literal translation of the New Testament, which makes a lot of sense and clears up a ton of misunderstandings reached by reading most sloppy translations (and those with specific agendas). I'm working my way through all of his talks. But, I recommend you start with "Why I Teach The Gospel of Grace".
The talks are in Flash so you can't download them. I wish he'd PodCast them. And each is only about 7 minutes long. So, it takes five talks to finish what would be a standard length sermon. The Gospel of Grace talks are in ten installments. But, I suspect you can learn something from Martin, too. So, I thought I'd let you know they're out there. I do recommend them strongly.
synchronicity
Coincidence of events that seem to be meaningfully related, conceived in Jungian theory as an explanatory principle on the same order as causality.
I used to complain that God never talked to me. Well, no more. Sometimes God practically shouts at me. This is what happened through the day yesterday and up until about 4 o'clock this morning. This article came to me then (when I would really have rather been sleeping). Later this morning, as I thought about it, I thought it really should be two articles. But, this is the way this lesson was given to me. So, this is how I'm going to give it to you.
The lesson really started on Sunday (I write this on Wednesday morning). Much to my surprise something from the sermon really leapt out at me. It was concerning a definition of sin. The definition is "anything that obscures the grace of God.". My immediate thought was "What a sin the teaching of ECT is". But, Dave went on to give a couple of examples I thought were excellent. He said sin is that attitude that keeps us from thinking we need grace or forgiveness. But, on the other end of the spectrum, sin is the attitude that won't allow us to accept God's grace because we are "unworthy".
I am always interested in resources that back up my assertion that God is not in the Eternal Torture business. Recently, Andy Pohlman, who has been reading my blog, sent an excellent paper for me to take a look at. I am honored because he asked my opinion about the paper. After reading it, I asked him for permission to post it here.
Andy says the paper is for:
If you fall into any of those categories and still wrestle with the idea of ECT, I highly recommend this paper. If you know someone in one of those categories, share this with her.
It's rather long, as a paper goes (about 44 pages). But, it's shorter than a book. It's titled "The Case Against Eternal Punishment in Hell". If you've read Talbott, Klassen and others, you'll find many of the arguments familiar. But, that is absolutely to be expected. What I was surprised to find was some new perspectives and very good ones at that. The other thing that's really great about this paper is that people who don't really want to commit to reading an entire book on the subject can get through it in a relatively short period of time.
The paper is well thought out and takes the reader through the Biblical and historical reasons not to believe in ECT. It also points out the fruits (or lack thereof) of this belief. But, I think it's strongest case is in the "Objective Truth" category. Andy, then goes on to answer common arguments used to support the belief in Eternal Torment.
The paper does not try to be exhaustive (or it'd be a book). It doesn't address annihilation or even temporary Hell (which many Universalists believe in). But, it's the best short paper I've seen on the subject. It's well worth a read. Thanks Andy for giving me permission to share it with my readers.
As I sat in church this morning, I had some time to gather some thoughts about why I am an universalist. (Yes, I was that bored). I can't recall where I first heard this. But, I've heard it in more than one place. There are four things a Christian should consider when thinking about a spiritual matter or doctrine. Those four are:
As I've examined Universalism and other topics I've wrestled with, I've found this framework to be of great use to me. My background is Christian. That's undeniable. And, I don't really want to deny it. As I've mentioned more than once in my blog, while I am far from one who holds onto things simply because tradition dictates that I do or even because scripture might say so, I think it's just foolish to reject everything I've experienced and been taught and fashion my own "unbiased" view of the world (even if such a thing were possible). Some say that's the price one must pay to be a postmodern. I say "poppycock". But, I'll address that some other time. So, very quickly, I want to drape my view of Universalism over this Christian framework for you. If you are a Christian Universalist, this might help you feel more comfortable with why you are. If you are not, it might give you a tool that you can use to examine the issue and come to your own conclusions.
Who do I see about this? I want to add a new book to the Bible. It's been approaching 1,700 years since we closed the book on the Bible. Isn't it about time we think about putting a new one in there? Did God stop talking when the last gospel writer sat down his pen? I think not.
I've got the perfect candidate for the book. It's every bit as theologically and philosophically sound as Paul's letters. It discusses the true nature of God and Jesus and their relationship to us. It's Biblically sound in that it doesn't contradict with what is already in the canon. It makes perfect sense of what is can be a confusing issue of how God could be both infinitely merciful and infinitely just. It blasts that damnable doctrine of "penal substitutionary atonement" back to the pit it came from. It makes sense of why and how God could punish us and be merciful, at the same time. It gives us a picture of the true meaning of the word Justice, not the distorted and petty human justice that we've projected onto God- returning the favor of His creating us in His image by creating Him in ours. And, we can read it in its original language. No need for The Message type translations, or even literal translations. It's right there in plain old English.
Continue reading "Justice- A book we need to add to the Bible" »
I was at lunch the other day with some friends who are struggling with the concept of Universalism. I think they'd kind of like to believe. But, their combined 80 plus years of religious training makes them doubt. One of them is reading the book of Ezekiel and he's kind of caught up on this "Old Testament" God of fire and judgement versus the "New Testament" God of love and mercy. He asked us for my take on the whole thing. I could give my answer. But, that's not the point of this very quick post. After answering his question, I asked him one.
Continue reading "Why Didn't God Tell the Israelites About Hell?" »
There are two main schools of thought in Christianity today when it comes to salvation (who gets in and who's left out). Those are Calvinism (largely identified by its predetermination doctrine) and Arminianism (largely known by its free will doctrine). While you might have not heard these terms, many churches fall into one of these two categories. But, I think many individuals tend to mix their beliefs. You'll see later it doesn't have to be an all or nothing proposition. One thing these two camps agree on is that God is going to condemn a significant portion of humanity to eternal torment. Where they differ is the method of how we escape this fate. Frankly, I think both have it right on some very major points and both have it wrong on the most important point there is.
Interestingly enough both views can be backed up by scripture (as we shall see shortly). So, Bible believing Christians can honestly be Calvinists or Arminians and have "proof" to support their views. But, the two views have conflicting beliefs that could not possibly both be true.
Mostly, the two camps get along pretty well because they do agree on one thing. Some of us (those who are Christians) are going to heaven and the rest of us (non-Christians) ain't gonna make it. Ironically, many Calvinists think most Arminians are going to hell because they are not part of the "elect". While Arminians think most Calvinist are going to hell because they don't understand their salvation is conditional and therefore, they are in danger of losing it.
Well, there is a third way. It's called Universalism and it too can make its case, from the Bible. What's fascinating is that even though Universalism can agree with the major tenets from both Calvinism and Arminianism, it's called a heresy by many in both camps. This for the simple reason that Universalism rejects the notion that God is either too weak (the Arminian POV) or not loving enough (the Calvinist POV) to save all of mankind.
What I'd like to do is explore both Calvinism and Arminianism and give scriptural "support" for at least some of the doctrines of both. We'll talk about what Universalism has in common with each and where we differ with both. As I said earlier, prima facie cases can be made for both Calvinism and Arminianism even though both couldn't possibly be true. A very strong case can also be made for Universalism. No matter which camp you're in, there are Bible verses that, when lifted out of context, will conflict with your POV. I believe, careful exegesis of the conflicting passages that we (Universalists) are left with resolves those conflicts better than either Calvinists or Arminians can resolve their conflicting passages. I'll say it again, strict Calvinists and strict Aminians cannot possibly both be right. One or the other may be right. But, both cannot be right.
Earlier in the blog I expressly said I would not engage in "proof texting" and here I go violating that already (well kind of anyway). I'm reposting here 100 Scriptural "Proofs" (I'd call them reasons, not proofs) that the Bible teaches universalism. Frankly, I think some are pretty weak (by themselves)- which happens when one focuses on quantity over quality. I think focusing on quantity also waters down the very strong biblical case for universalism. But, critiques aside, I present them here. I have highlighted (in blue) the reasons that are stronger, in my humble opinion.
Recent Comments