The God of Our Expectations
1 But Jonah was greatly displeased and became angry. 2 He prayed to the LORD, “O LORD, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. 3 Now, O LORD, take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live.” 4 But the LORD replied, “Have you any right to be angry?”
5 Jonah went out and sat down at a place east of the city. There he made himself a shelter, sat in its shade and waited to see what would happen to the city. 6 Then the LORD God provided a vine and made it grow up over Jonah to give shade for his head to ease his discomfort, and Jonah was very happy about the vine. 7 But at dawn the next day God provided a worm, which chewed the vine so that it withered. 8 When the sun rose, God provided a scorching east wind, and the sun blazed on Jonah’s head so that he grew faint. He wanted to die, and said, “It would be better for me to die than to live.”
But God said to Jonah, “Do you have a right to be angry about the vine?” “I do,” he said. “I am angry enough to die.” 10 But the LORD said, “You have been concerned about this vine, though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. 11 But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?”
There is something wrong with this story and it’s not what you think. Well, maybe it is; I don’t know what you are thinking. From where I sit the problem appears to be Jonah, though, again, perhaps not how we think. In an ironic twist, the only person in the story of Jonah to remain unconverted was Jonah. I believe that this story is told from a point of view that means for us to see that Jonah was the real target of God’s advances. Everywhere Jonah goes in the story, someone gets religion. It doesn’t matter if it is men on a ship headed for Tarshish or the 100,000 people living in Ninevah or the animals: God does weird, wild, amazing things in spite of Jonah. Yet Jonah, for all his theological profundity, remains steadfast in his anger.
But there’s a problem with the story. The problem should be obvious, but in case it is not, let me point it out to you. It’s in verse 2 and I think it is worth repeating: “He prayed to the LORD, “O LORD, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity.”
The problem is not this verse per se, but Jonah’s application of it. I think what it demonstrates is that Jonah had a profoundly orthodox view of God. He had dotted all the theological ‘i’s’ and crossed all the theological ‘t’s’. He had it all together and to prove it he quoted from the Torah. Jonah knew his Bible; Jonah knew his God. Look what Jonah says, “I knew this is what you would do…” and it was precisely because Jonah knew that he fled and ran and ran and fled. That is, Jonah’s theological orthodoxy is the very problem of this story. It got in the way of Jonah’s discipleship and it got in the way of Jonah’s vocation. It was precisely because Jonah knew something about God that Jonah refused to be obedient to God or care about the people God cared about.
You see, Jonah did not want God to be gracious, and compassionate, and slow to anger, and abounding in love, and relenting from calamity towards the Ninevites. Jonah wanted God to act in a way contrary to God’s revealed character, the character Jonah knew and believed. He wanted God to, well, not be God or do God things. That is, Jonah wanted God, I think this is clearly the implication, to wipe out the Ninevites because of their wickedness. Clearly, if any one deserved the wrath of God, it was the Ninevites. But Jonah knew what kind of a God he served and prophesied for and so Jonah did what any self-respecting, theologically orthodox Christian would do: He ran and refused to offer that God to the Ninevites. He would rather have been dead than to offer the God of grace to the people of Ninevah (that is why he asked to be thrown overboard; he hoped to die.)
Jonah must have figured if he ran and ran and ran then perhaps the Ninevites would get what was coming to them.
I might go so far as to make this claim: Jonah had reduced God to an idol. That’s right: An idol. You know why? Because Jonah knew God, he knew God’s character, he knew how God would act and he, Jonah, challenged God on this point. Jonah wanted God to act like Jonah wanted God to act which is contrary to what Jonah knew about God. Jonah had no desire for God to demonstrate grace to Ninevah. Ninevah deserved wrath and judgment. When we reduce God to our expectations and demand that he act in accordance with our expectations we have made him an idol. God did not act in accordance with Jonah’s wishes but in accordance with his own character: “I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity.” And that is how God acted: Perfectly orthodox.
What I’m suggesting is that God is not bound to our conceptions of theological orthodoxy even if he is bound to his own revealed character. Here, in Jonah’s short book, I think that is abundantly on display. And I suppose when God does do things that run contrary to our conceptions of theological orthodoxy or our expectations of God, we act just like…Jonah. Theological orthodoxy, while not wrong, can be among the most dangerous weapons wielded by the church because it breeds the sort of pride and privilege we see in Jonah the man. The worst thing we christians can do is try to hold wind in a bottle, but the wind blows where the wind blows and who among us can stop the wind? And if we cannot stop the wind, what makes us think we can stop the Spirit of God?
Let’s see if this economy of grace plays itself out in the New Testament too. We already know that Jesus preferred hanging around with the sinners of the world, but he also taught about these things. Consider this parable of the workers in the field (which is a sad misnomer) in Matthew 20:
1″For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. 2He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.
3″About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5So they went. “He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. 6About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’ 7″ ‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered. “He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’ 8″When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’
9″The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. 10So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12′These men who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’ 13″But he answered one of them, ‘Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’ 16″So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”
Here we see a profound example of God acting contra the expectations of people and doing something no one could explain, even though it is perfectly in keeping with his revealed character: Paying everyone equally for unequal work. Thus this isn’t a parable about workers in a field or about eleventh hour salvations as much as it is a parable about the crazy economy of God’s grace. Someone wisely pointed out to me this morning that those who expected to get more because they ‘bore the labor in the heat of the day’ are, actually, those who are bound up in a system of works righteousness. They believe they deserve more because they worked longer and harder and at the most inconvenient times of the day. They did not recognize that they were being paid according to the owner’s gracious will. At the end of the day, all the workers go away baffled at God’s grace. Grace makes no sense. Grace is the great equalizer. (It is likely, though, that those at the end of the day went away far more thankful than did those who began working at the beginning of the day and this for reasons that should be fairly obvious. The whole ‘those who have been forgiven much…’.)
This parable should turn our conceptions of God upside down because in it we see a great, profound reversal of all our expectations about God: He is not fair. Grace is not fair. We need to get used to it. This is what Jonah could not get in his head, and since the story of Jonah is left open-ended, we have no idea how he answered God. (Just like we have no idea if the older brother went in and joined the party in Luke 15.) Grace makes no sense because it is so wasteful. Grace makes no sense because…well, because it is grace. Who can understand it?
The great thing about Jonah and this parable in Matthew 20 is that they both end with questions the readers are supposed answer. In Jonah, God asks whether or not he has a right, as God, to be concerned about those whom he has created and to demonstrate grace to them as he wills. In the parable, God asks the people if they are envious because he is generous and spreads around his grace freely to all equally. (Another parable that fits well here, and also ends with a question, is Luke 15’s parable of the two lost sons.) All of these stories are pointing in one direction with these questions: Have we so bound God to a theological system that we actually prevent God from being God? Or, negatively, we cannot bind God to, or in, a theological system. Hear it well: We cannot control, bind, predict or anticipate this God and his grace.
Just about the minute we do, he tells us this parable (or the story of Jonah or the story of the two lost sons.)
Have we so demanded God act according to our expectations that we have actually reduced him to a mere idol?
Do we have a right to be angry with God when he acts outside our expectations, outside our theological constructs (no matter how orthodox), and against our will? (And doesn’t it infuriate some of us when he does?)
Are we so bound to a theological orthodoxy about God that we actually hope God sends calamity, that we get angry when he doesn’t, against those whom we deem to be the worst of the worst? What if…what if…those that we think are the worst, the ones most deserving of God’s wrath and judgment in our expectation…what if God actually does care about them more than we do and is in the process of saving them quite apart from our efforts, pride, and prejudice?
What if…what if…at the renewal of all things….what if God raised everyone up and in his grace had mercy on…everyone…without exception paid everyone the same price? I don’t know if he will; I don’t know if he won’t. I do know that if he does, which he could since he is a God who delights to act outside and contrary to our expectations, it will be christians who will complain the loudest and the longest and who will, most likely, bear a grudge against God, sit outside the party, pouting and refusing to join in an celebrate that the lost have been found, the blind have received sight, the lame dance, and the sinners forgiven, or will grumble because others have unfairly received the same as we have. Do you think we will rejoice that the lost have been found?
The God of our expectations is not necessarily the God of the Scripture or the God who saves. The God of our theological orthodoxy, is not necessarily the God who saves and reveals and redeems. The God of grace is.
196 Comments(+Add)
Absolutely invigorating! Thank you, Jerry, I shall sleep well tonight.
-Aaron
Jerry – Your observation about Jonah not being changed is brilliant. It was the first time I have heard it placed in that context. And it surely has application to some of the ODM attitudes.
It would be well to remember that God was prepared to destroy Nineveh if they had not repented. So this story magnifies God’s grace and longsuffering but it does not dissolve the teachings of His judgment.
God did destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. And the principle in the parable of the laborerers was to show us, and Israel, that God’s grace for all believers regardless of when they were grafted in is equal.
Your suggestion of the final event and its possible all inclusiveness in eternity is not supported in Scripture and may give false hope to those who are complacent in their unbelief and will find solace in that when in fact they should be concerned.
And believers may also find some comfort concerning their lost loved ones and in fact be compromised in their view of world missions. Your observation about Jonah was right on, but the notion of universal salvation is a musing with some negative implications.
(If it is true than this blog, all blogs mean and nice, blogs that point out meanness, blogs that hate, blogs that love, the martyrs, and the entire worldwide church mission are all wonderfully involved in something that can never be described as a mission, for that “mission” has already been completed. I wonder what I tell the little girl in Pakistan who watched her father be hacked to death because he was attempting to reach the people with the gospel? Can I suggest to her that her dad’s calling was without any eternal purpose since these sinners will all be savd anyway? See, that thought process has unexpected implications.)
No, you can’t. But that doesn’t mean that God can’t or won’t. And would you begrudge him if he did?
Never said it did.
I don’t think so precisely because there are, in fact, people issuing warnings about judgment. What they should take comfort in is that the God of the story is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love, who relents in sending calamity.
It doesn’t change the fact that, in several places in Scripture, God himself is the one who acts outside of our expectations (consider the parable of the two lost sons).
And at the end of the day, we still don’t know how Jonah answered the question God proposed in the last verse–a question you and I are still meant to answer: Doesn’t God have a right to be God and care for whom he so desires? Or, why do we expect God to act in ways that are not Godlike (which is what Jonah was doing)?
Thanks for the input.
“Doesn’t God have a right to be God and care for whom he so desires?”
Yes, and He did. However repentance was God’s message and prerequisite before His grace became effective. My only point is that God’s grace seems to correspond to repentance/faith.
Laborers – labored
Younger son – repented
Nineveh – repented
God could have just spared Ninevah without Jonah’s message, however there is a principle inherrant in that story.
And no, I would not begrudge God to do anything He desired, including overriding what He has seems to have clearly said before.
Amen, Jerry…great stuff….
But we cannot go the opposite way either, and flee from the revealed word of God contained in the scripture either. Both systems are idolatry; the ones who have an opinion on how God ought to act and respond in fairness (as you describe) and the ones who re-create a god in their image who is all loving, all accepting, and will redeem everyone regardless of what they believe about Jesus or if they have their sins cleansed.
God’s mercy is not getting what we deserve. I know I do not deserve the grace of God. I know I can only have expectations in his keeping His clear promises. I thank God that He is trustworthy. I thank God for His grace. I am glad his mercies are new every morning.
Jerry, great post.
To be honest, I’m surprised that you’re not getting more flak on the next-to-last paragraph. I’ve not run into many people that can distinguish between universalism (what you are not saying) and “God can do whatever He darn well pleases” (what you are saying). Reminds me of the line in Billy: The Early Years, when Graham is rehearsing his preaching, has a bit of an epiphany, and says to God (paraphrasing from memory), “Maybe I’ll let You decide who gets saved.”
I have to wonder if theology isn’t God’s way of letting mere humans try to grasp Him without their heads exploding. Nothing that could be fathomed by the human mind can fully define God.
Brendt – I of course was not saying God cannot do what He wants, I was saying that He has shown us on some level what He will do. Pleasant suggestions do not always align with unpleasant truths.
Rick,
That’s just the point!! What God did was, frankly, unpleasant to Jonah. I’m not making blanket assumptions here or pleasant suggestions that are not in the text itself. I’m looking the plain meaning of the text of Jonah: God did something Jonah found unpleasant, not something God never said he wouldn’t do. This is beside the point of whether Jonah preached ‘judgment’ or the Ninevites ‘repented’ (and the animals too). My point is that Jonah didn’t get God even when God acted in the way that God had declared, long ago, that he would act: Gracious, compassionate, abounding in love…etc.
jerry
Rick, I wasn’t referring to you. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I thought you made the distinction well in comment #5.
I am not being difficult (to me at least), but God did do what He said he would. Jonah did not appreciate it because of his prejudice and selfish theology.
If you think describing God as “all-loving” is idolatry, I suspect you maybe shouldn’t be a pastor. That’s akin to a chemist not knowing the chemical formula for water. God is love, so any of His other attributes fall beneath His very essence as love. I’m suspicious of those who say “God is love, but…”
Of course God is love, Phil.
That is his nature.
But he does not love all things….God hates sin. He does not accept all things, for he cannot accept sin. He would not be just if he accepted sin.
God’s wrath for sin magnifies His love and His grace.
Gods wrath has been dealt with at the cross.that too is rather against our expectations.
And no one is claiming He accepts sin. You were talking about God hating people. God loves people too much to just let them continue being trapped in their sin. That’s why Jesus came – to rescue people from their sin. To claim that God wants to punish people for being trapped in something He wants to rescue them from is making Him out to be schizophrenic.
Rick,
Wouldn’t this make repentance a work that must be done to earn God’s grace? If you say there are prerequisites that must be met before grace is effective than you have just nullified the very definition of grace. Grace is gift – it is free, unmerited, undeserved.
Israel did nothing to warrant God’s choice of them. They did not repent first and then become the chosen. God simply said: I will be your God and you will be my people. Period.
oh, great post, Jerry.
I especially like your last few paragraphs
peace.
Repentance is a change of mind/heart – meta (change) noia (mind). It is an act of faith, and we are saved by faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God. The entire New Testament is calling sinners to repent and believe, or they will die in their sins.
God called Abram from Ur, but Abram followed by faith. If Abram had not followed, God may have chosen someone else. Everyone is God’s chosen on the cross, but as in Israel some did not enter because of unbelief. “I have called but you would not hear”.
My problem with people relishing or over emphasizing God’s punishment at the expense of His love does not alter the fact that there will be an accounting. There are eternal consequences to dying without being in Christ.
The life here on earth that comes with knowing Christ does not diminish the eternal rewards of spending eternity in His dwelling place. If everyone will wind up together with Christ one day, then spending our lives trying to get people to enjoy life here seems moot and shallow.
Our mission is much more serious and the condition of the lost is much more grave than certain lifestyle implications here and now.
PS – I still liked Jerry’s perspective on Jonah a lot.
Rick, think about what you wrote here.
I don’t think you really believe this but if you do than I feel for you and anyone who thinks this way.
Here are a few problems I see in this line of thinking:
1- If God does in fact save everyone because of Christ’s life, death and resurrection, and we are ALL one day singing Hosanna in heaven along with EVERY tongue and EVERY knee bowed, you would complain. The logical conclusion of your comment here would mean your only logical response would be, “What??? So why did we waste all our time loving others?”
*The answer, I think, is this: We love not because we hope for some eventual reward but because we have first been loved. We strive in all our doings and relationships to give peace and hope and love to others because this is what Jesus did. No more, no less. And we worship God because we have come to see no greater joy or fulfillment than giving glory and honor to our King. Not because we fear hell.
2- Your comment assumes far greater power and responsibility than we are called to assume as followers of Christ. We do not save others, only God does. It is not my duty or calling to translate those who I have judged to be “out” into a category I judge to be “in.”
Rick, I should have just asked you this question:
Why do you think life would be “moot and shallow” if there are not clear cut winners and losers in the life to come? Why must people burn eternally in hell for you to feel that life in the here and now is meaningful?
Jerry,
Good article, but I too have problems with Christian universalism.
Your world view of Christian Universalism trumps all conflicting scriptures. You must basically flat out ignore the copious Sriptures regarding **eternal** punishment / destruction.
You yourself pointed out that Jonah knew the Scriptures that God is gracious, kind and forgiving. The problem was not Scripture or Jonah’s understanding of it. The problem was Jonah. God did not violate any Scripture when He spared Ninevah.
If God does not eternally punish some for unbelief in Jesus Christ then He has lied because the Scriptures explicitly and unequivocally state that that is the destiny for some.
My response would include anger at God, not because He showed mercy but that He lied. “Eternal punishment” does not provide much room for iinterpretation.
#20
It is because God is glorified for saving us, not us. When we burn for breaking God’s Law, it glorifies Him. When we get saved from death and Hell, it glorifies Him. Life is not about meaning and purpose, it is about glorifying God.
“Have we so bound God to a theological system that we actually prevent God from being God? Or, negatively, we cannot bind God to, or in, a theological system. Hear it well: We cannot control, bind, predict or anticipate this God and his grace.”
God is bound to a theological system of His own choosing. Deut 29:29. What you are saying is that God acts differently in our time than He does in His word.
You are correct. We cannot control God at all. So what is the point of this “I”segesis ?
Jonah ended up doing exactly what God told him to do, with the outcome being exactly what God had pre-ordained.
This post is so wrong on so many levels I believe I will post on it.
It is truly pathetic to see the lengths you will go to to discredit those dreaded odms.
John H (#21), Jerry is not portraying a “world view of Christian Universalism”. Oh, and Ray Bolger is holding on line 2.
Rick, this is exactly what I was referring to in #7.
What it boils down to is this;
If God calls you to do something, He does not take no for an answer.
You freewill(y) types would rather save the whale.
#21 this is not an essay about Christian universalism and I did not say I was a Christian universalist. If you read what I wrote through either of those prisms you will not understand what I wrote. Sorry.
Brendt – Give me a little credit please. I have studied this issue somewhat, by both comments from Christian Universalists on this site and other studies.
Universalism says that all roads (Muslim, Buddism, Hinduism, Christianity) lead to God.
Christian Universalism (the term its adherants call themselves) states that there is only one way to God – Jesus Christ but that all (hince the term “universal”) mankind will **eventually** be saved through Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary. If I am not mistaken Jerry is in the Christian Universalist’s camp.
Brendt. See the Wikipedia article on Christian Universalism for starters.
I am currently reading “Who Will Be Saved”.
In a nut shell – “Protestant Purgatory”.
You’re mistaken…
Jerry has never taken such a stance, and I suspect if he did, he would not have been asked to be a writer here (I’m not trying to speak for Chris L., but he has made his feelings quite clear on the subject).
By the way, it’s funny to me that it seems that anyone who writes extensively about the love of God inevitably gets accused of being a universalist. I’ve seen the charge laid against the likes of Brennan Manning, Dallas Willard, Henri Nouwen, and Mike Yaconelli to name a few. So I guess Jerry can take comfort in the fact that he’s in good company.
John H (#25):
So long as it isn’t for reading comprehension, because Jerry’s post comes nowhere near your definition of “Christian universalism”.
Ray Bolger is still holding. Shall I take a message?
I never accuses Jerry of being a universalist, I just addressed his “what if”. Ral Bolger has hung up.
What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul?
Translation – Eternal life trumps this life.
ahhhhh….I just love the smell of napalm in the morning.
It never ceases to amaze me how God comes off looking more like Hitler than Jesus.
Uh, you are quite mistaken.
Besides, there is a HUGE difference between saying something like: “All paths lead to God” and something else like, “God saves everyone in spite of themselves.”
I am not saying either one of those things.
Even though all who are saved are saved quite in spite of themselves.
Rick, I would really like to know your thoughts to my questions in #20.
p.s. “gaining the whole world” is not the sort of life Jesus had in mind. And this says nothing about an afterlife, by the way.
John H – I’m the Christian Universalist around here. And I think you picked the wrong words to sum up Willimon’s book.
Jerry,
Then I am mistaken. Thanks for clearing that up. Your last paragraph would indicate you have those leanings.
I am not getting the Bolger reference.
Chad – as we enter this subject you and I read a different book. I would hope you are right but Scripture says you’re wrong.
Nice thoughts, though.
(I did enjoy the napalm quote)
#38 – A clever strawman reference. I love it!
The second to last paragraph is not an admission of universalism. It is a condemnation of making idol of the god of our expectations who is not necessarily the God revealed in Scripture. It is a warning that we cannot control God and it is a warning to those of us who are content to sit back and be unhappy about the ones and ways God chooses to save people. Essentially, it is a letter written to pharisees and sadducees and scribes and ‘teachers of the law’ of whom Jonah was a fine example. Further, it was a warning against the sort of legalism that plagues the church.
Jerry – I understood the nuance and I did not intend to accuse you of being a “Chad wanna be”.
(please notice humor)
Jerry:
Well that would be great and perfectly His right to do so . . . except . . . He has already stated He has chosen to do something else.
Yes we do know. Many Scriptures say exactly what He is going to do. I could just as well state “I don’t think God is going to save anyone in the end. He is going to send us all to Hell and start over again”. Just as easily as some can say “He is going to eventually save all”. Because if He will eventually save all then words have no meaning.
It has nothing to do with human expectations and everything to the verasity of Scripture. What I do know is that God cannot lie, unless of course that Scripture is in itself a lie. And if I can’t believe everything God says is true then why bother; let us eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die, which I guess pretty much sums this position up.
“Further, it was a warning against the sort of legalism that plagues the church.”
Is it too late for me to energetically go off on that? I can provide visceral pomposity about legalism and its proponents!!
But this is the rub. God has revealed His plan in Scripture. “It is appointed to man once to die and then comes the judgement”. No second chances.
God chooses to save people through faith in Jesus Christ and damn those who do not believe. His plan not mine. I do not rejoice in this, nor do I buy into Calvinist theology that the suffering of His creation necessarily brings God glory.
I don’t know if I’m comfortable saying the Scripture say “exactly” what God is going to do as eschaton. If you take the first coming of Christ to be an example, it seems to me that virtually no one expected God to bring about His promises in the way it happened. So it seems we have to be humble enough to admit that we may be just as clueless.
I guess I’ve just gotten to the place where I feel that staying close to God and encouraging others to do so is a good place to be.
Chris P (#23):
John H, I have to apologize to you. Even if I think your interpretation of Jerry’s statements is wrong, at least you managed to tie it to something relevant to the topic.
Chris P, to paraphrase Carly Simon, “You probably think this post is about you”. I won’t bother quoting the next line.
Rick,
Should I assume you are not going to answer my questions in #20? I really am curious to know if you think life is meaningless (or, moot and shallow) if you cannot be certain that some will burn eternally.
And what strawman in #38?
Not really.
The numbering of the posts got off because there were a few comments in moderation. Rick was referring to Brendt’s Ray Bolger reference.
#45–I seriously doubt, after reading this treatise, that you even read the original post. How many times to I have to say to you: It was not, I am not? Seriously?
Just finished an essay on a theology of preaching. It touches on some of the stuff we discussed in the last discussion about the gospel and Mary being the first preacher.
A Theology of Preaching: Prophesy, Proclamation, Pentecostal
#23–this post has nothing to do with ‘odms’ and everything to do with Jonah. Not sure what you are getting at, but I hope you do indeed do a post on it and I also hope you have the sack to open up a comment thread.
Jerry,
I’m replying to your comments one to one on many of them. How can you say I am not reading your post?
I will take you at your word that you are not a Christian Universalist but your last paragraph could be written by a CU apologist.
There are “Elder Brother” Christians who become angy at God’s abundant Grace — and I agree that this is not a good thing.
Well, that’s just it. He did have grace and mercy on everyone, but that grace and mercy has to be appropriated. “If you do not believe in Me you will die in your sins”. “Death, then judgement”, “Reward or punishment”.
It’s not a “preference”, just what is written.
“Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done.”–Jesus
I say you didn’t read it because if you did, you would know that what I wrote was not apologia for universalism of any sort. It was an example of how we respond to God’s mercy as Christians; that is, how we respond when God does things WE think he shouldn’t do, or when he doesn’t do things WE think he should do.
If Rick won’t perhaps someone else can help me…
I am curious why God gets less glory if God actually manages in the end to get what God desires: That none should perish but ALL have eternal life.
I am also curious why some Christians would think life meaningless, or moot, if we cannot know for certain that some people will end up on the losing side (while we are on the winning side, of course). Is life meaningless if God saves us all? If yes, how so? And if the answer is yes, what does this say about us? About our natures?
Chad,
I think we believe that some people are so beyond hope, so sinful, so mean so reprobate that the only good thing for them is to ‘get what they deserve.’ Of course, what none of us realize that none of EVER get what we deserve (read that in Job somewhere) because God does not give to us as we deserve.
Yes, I get the whole call on the Name of the Lord and repentance thing and wrath and judgment and all. Frankly, though, I have never understood how anyone can say that God is glorified because someone is in a place we call hell. I just don’t get it.
jerry
Jerry, it is well within the realm of possiblility that I did not read your post “clearly”. It is equally within the realm of possiblility, respectfully, that you did not write as clearly as you think to preclude any mis-understanding.
Again, it is not a matter of what we think God should or should not do. It is a matter of reasonable expectations that God will follow through with what He clearly says He will do. Jonah is a good example of human preferences **superceding** the revealed will and character of God **not** of mis-reading it.
Chad, Jerusalem did not repent, Christ did not get what He desired (i.e., they were not gathered to Him) and that generation did receive the punishment for the death of all the prophets and not one stone was left on top of another.
Historical fact to which their eternal destiny is a moot point. But Christ did not get what He desired.
John H-
All of your dictums presume objective, unfettered and inerrant understanding of what you keep saying is so “clearly” written. Obviously it is not as “clear” as you like to think else we wouldn’t have any disagreements. God is not held captive to our presumptions of what we think scripture says. That is part of the point of Jerry’s excellent post.
I guess, for me, that’s an odd way to frame that question. I guess I don’t see God’s glory as the thing that is guiding everything He does. I see that His love for His creation is, and I think that in order for love to truly be love, both parties have to freely choose the other. So I guess I believe that God designed people so that ultimately they truly do have the freedom to accept or reject Him. If, Lucifer, a being much more powerful than us can choose to reject God, I think we can as well.
I can’t answer that, as I don’t agree with that assumption.
#62- How do you KNOW that, John?
How do you know that while Jesus was down in hell, releasing the captives on Saturday, that he was not getting EXACTLY what he wanted?
It is extremely presumptive of you to declare that God will not get what God desires. It makes you more god than God – as if your desires and will trumps that of God.
Easter Sunday is the answer to any of our most vehement objections and denials. God rejects your rejection by raising Jesus from the dead. The most important decision about you has already been made. The rest is commentary.
Phil – universalism does not negate our choice or nullify our need to repent. What it does insist upon, however, is that in the end God’s love wins out. When the obstacles to grace are removed (and there are many right now) and when we stand before our Creator on judgment day and we see the immensity to which God loves us, despite our own wretchedness, is it inconceivable to think that ALL will fall to their knees? Is it inconceivable to think that when Christ be raised up that ALL will come to him in the end? And that, not by divine fiat or by coercion but because they cannot imagine doing otherwise?
Oh, but Chad…
that confession is one about pure power and the recognition of God’s dominance over all…it’s not a salvific moment, only a retributive moment when people declare Christ is Lord through gritted teeth…
An analogy of the above that might help is marriage. I have witnessed marriages that seemed like one of the parties was completely contrary and even evil. However, the other spouse made the decision to love – to love in spite of the other person and refuse to stop loving, even while the other was “weak, a sinner and even an enemy” (think Romans 5) towards them. I have watched as the one who was obstinate become convinced. And out of that a beautiful resurrection of love took place and they became a mirror of God’s love to the world.
The stories of the shepherd who doesn’t stop searching for the lost one, the woman who won’t stop till she finds the lost coin, the prodigal son, etc., are stories of God’s heart towards a people he has entered into marriage covenant with.
#67 – I missed you, nc.
Chad – you are creating an idol out of a couple misinterpreted scriptures. In effect, you are doing what Jerry’s post demonstrates, though from an opposite angle – you are simply overlapping your concept of God and what you wish overtop of what His word plainly declares.
You actually dismiss, wholesale, hundreds of scriptures and a number of parables, choosing instead to handpick a couple that mesh with what you’ve already concluded.
Your desire – that all be saved – is admirable, but it is not correct.
your desire – that all be saved ….matches God’s desire.
There, fixed it.
Thanks, Paul.
…and of course, Paul C has not misinterpreted any of the scriptures that speak about hell. His interpretation, of course, is of the stuff american idols are made of.
Isn’t it amazing how much gets lost in translation? I mean seriously, if what I as a human have written to other humans, in English to others who also speak English, and what I have written is so profoundly misunderstood–imagine how quickly, easily and often what God has written has been misunderstood and misinterpreted.
I mean, I didn’t even write a post supporting or refuting universalism and somehow I am now an apologist for it. I should think that my main point was summed up nicely in my last paragraph–no matter how unclear the rest of it was or unclear my illustrations were:
I’m getting a sense of deja vu. We’ve been down this road before, and there a number of things I’d say. First is I’ve seen people who’ve had amazing encounters with God now such as being miraculously healed who have turned and walked away from Him for whatever reason. Secondly, I don’t know that there’s a lot of support for a chance to choose after death.
I also think to put that emphasis on a post-death conversion experience sort of falls into the same trap as those who see salvation as “divine fire insurance”. The salvation that God offers us is about us joining Him in the restoration of all things, and so I wonder if at some point there aren’t people who chose to ignore the call for so long a la the foolish virgins, that they will have missed their visitation. I think that there’s ample evidence in Scripture that points to fact that what we do in this life matters. Our choices now have consequences for good or for bad.
Finally, I guess the final thing I would add it that I don’t think that universalism and and exclusivism that says 95%+ of the human race will burn in hell are the only choices. I think there is room for other interpretations.
God cannot lie and God cannot transgress His own nature.
God is love. Is that open for debate? That is an attribute of God as recorded in Scripture. Am I being presumptious in emphatically stating that God is love? Why is that the only absolute in Scripture that you are willing to concede?
It does in this life as one will have the opportunity to repent in purgatory.
I think we’ve already been given a picture that all will come to their knees and declare that Jesus is Lord. This does not imply, though, that all will do so willingly or happily.
Other than that Scripture seems to pretty clearly contradict this, no.
Again, other than seeming to contradict what is pretty clear in scripture, no.
But again, we come back to the pesky scriptures, which do – rather clearly – indicate that there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (which is not contextually a term of regret, but one of anguish and permanent loss), and that some (which would contradict all) will be cast into the lake of fire with hell and death, which is the second death. It is not up to us to determine who the some are, though – that comes when the angels separate the wheat from the tares (noting again that there are tares present – and it’s not the “separating the wheat from the wheat”).
To Jerry’s point, Jonah was trying to force God’s hand, and had the desire that a specific group of people would be judged and destroyed by God.
COULD God save all? Well, He is God, so He can do what he wants. At the same time, He’s not a liar, either, and in granting free will, He has given men the opportunity to spurn His grace, to their own damnation. He has indicated, through Scripture, that – quite sadly – some will be destroyed. So, it is to our benefit that we should at least take Him at His Word, rather than quibble with how “unloving” it would be for Him to carry it out…
Jonah’s God of his expectations was exactly the God of Scriptures which was why he was upset — i.e., God has mercy and God saves – excactly what Jonah KNEW FULL WELL but did NOT want. Jonah did not have a flawed expectation of God and his expectation was perfectly in line with Scripture. This is not supporting your point. But as I am incapable of comprehending essays I guess this is a moot observation.
No, orthodoxy is not the problem of Jonah’s story. As you admit he had that right. His understanding was spot on. Jonah’s unloving heart is the problem. His heart did not align with God’s.
Not true at all. Any self-respecting theologically orthodox Christian would GO to the mission field or support those who do as theologically orthodox Christians from St. Paul to the GMC missionaires support do. Jonah was denying orthodoxy.
Not sure where you’re going with this or the reference to american idols (???). Anyways.
Chad, you have formulated your own doctrine (of course, derived from all your reading) that is not remotely based on Scripture. You handpick a couple scriptures, taken out of context, to build a point of view that is simply incorrect.
As Paul says, “And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.”
The problem with debating you on this topic is that you refuse to use Scripture as a guide, opting instead for sentiment and little analogies that don’t even seem to line up.
That should read “like the GMC missionaries today that I support do”.
Chad: What is the Second Death in your theology?
KEEP THE LIGHT
We have heard the Macedonian call today! But keep the light, keep the light.
There are souls to rescue there are souls to save, but keep the light, the gospel light.
Keep the light, the blessed gospel light.
Hide it well, lest they might turn.
Keep the light, the blessed gospel light.
Oh let them burn, yes let them burn.
(As sung by orthodox Christians in the mid-20th century).
I do not understand the vilification of orthodoxy, when orthodoxy is not the problem — hipocritical Christians are (myself included).
*jumping to defend Chad*… I’m not a Christian Universalist, I believe there will be judgement and from what I see the Bible stating it will be final and most likely eternal.
But I can understand and sympathize with the hopeful notion that God will reconcile ALL creation in the end without contradicting himself. I believe that this desire for everybody to be saved is deeply biblical and godly because the Bible states that this is what He wants.
But this judgement is not our call as humans. We are to tell the world of the good news that Jesus has saved us from this damnation that is so very real.
Attention!!!
All of us who believe the Scriptures teach an eternal hell in some form, if we defend that doctrine with dry eyes and a clear conscience we are hypocrites.
#84. Good reminder Rick. Add callous and uncaring for starters.
Yikes. Guilty!
I would say if your heart doesn’t break at the thought of sinners eternal punishment you need to rethink that doctrine (again and again and again). God does not rejoice in the punishment of a sinner. He grieves about it. So should we.
By rethink I don’t mean alter its factual meaning but rethink its relational meaning.
There are so many ways I consider myself a hypocrite when I “stand” for truth in such issues. I usually believe that those who more accurately reflect faith in these doctrines are too busy living them to argue.
Where does that place me…
Rick – this is the topic that bores me… (not that that is your fault, just thought you should know).
Neil – I feel that any suggestion of universalism post mortem is very important, however my doctrine is embarrassingly more substantive than my expressions of that doctrine.
Speaking of the God of our expectations, it seems that John Piper has once again wandered off the reservation. This post tickles me since I take a carnal pleasure in seeing the growing confusion among the Calvinist camp.
First Piper had Driscoll speak, and now some pastor named now Chandler. With Piper’s son up to his neck in emerging thought, I imagine soone we’ll see John MacArthur speaking at Mars Hill. Which Mars Hill you ask?
Both!!
This post.
Rick (#91):
Funny, and I get your point, but not the best of examples (of late, anyway). J-Mac seems to have taken a page from his assistant’s book on how to defecate on Driscoll — interestingly after Driscoll wrote admirably of him.
Rick, I understand – it just gets repetative between Chad and just about everyone else…
Has anyone else notices that Ken Silva has a beautiful what of using a lot of words to say… nothing meaningful?
Just read Rick’s link to Ken’s post and well… it said a whole lot of nothing… but sure accused people of horrible things like… reading people who “think”…
I guess the point was… “I, Ken Silva hate people who think for themselves and will say a whole lot of stuff that sounds impressive but means nothing to impress the weak minded.”
It did remind me of a scripture:
iggy
John,
I was being ironic.
John,
Now let’s quote jerry in context:
Jonah refused to go precisely because of what he knew about God.
John H-
The one that follows the first
I just finished a semester studying interpretations of Revelation with Dr. Michael Gorman, a great exegete/biblical scholar. To pluck a phrase or verse from this great book and assume it means one thing is a mistake.
room2blog – thanks for your comment.
I didn’t mean for the above to sound snotty. I was in the middle of 24 with an adrenaline rush and hurrying to get back before commercials ended
I just posted an essay I wrote in this Revelation class about universalism. I talk about the second death and the other problematic texts in Revelation (the one’s Chris L back in the day kept throwing at me, for instance). Some of you might find it worth reading.
peace.
Universalism in Revelation?
I believe Charles Dickens already covered this.
Wow! Jerry is a Christian universalist (oxymoron, really) AND Rob Bell denies the virgin birth!
It really just depends on what the meaning of “if” is…..
Sometimes I wonder how people who all speak English cannot get the point of a question/post if their life depended on it!
If we are speaking of false expectations, when will the colossal strawmen like this one be addressed as the mendacious theologies they are? There are numerous inconsistencies in this post, which I will admit, continue a pattern on this particular blog.
1. The writer addresses “Americans” as a singular species which of course reveals a broad brush carelessness used for a tortured nationalistic effect.
2. The writer speaks of socialism, which as a governmental financial construct, should not be of concern for Christians.
3. Isn’t it God alone who “grants” repentance according to some theologies and in that vein God is witholding repentance and that must be the reason Americans have not issued “hardly a whimper” against this “God ordained” government?
It seems doctrinal consistency can be ignored when it becomes an obstruction to a particular rant. I can indure “hardly a whimper” from the lost, but I what I find especially unbearable is a “brawling woman in a large room.
Zan,
Why do you call Christian Universalist an “oxymoron”? Surely you are not suggesting that one cannot be a Christian if they believe God will save everyone, are you?
Rick,
I don’t know why anyone would even read her site (or the others). It’s nothing but hate speech. There is absolutely nothing redeeming about what she does. It’s a waste of anyone’s time to even read it.
You and I are in universal agreement concerning SoL.
I am not sure whether to laugh or cry about the number of people that rush to Jerry’s side to defend him against being called a christian universalist. Jerry either is or he isn’t – no big deal – and either way he is a brother in Christ. What I find laughable or cry worthy is that some feel the need to defend the quality if Jerry’s faith by insisting that he does indeed believe some people will burn in hell for eternity (as if this is the litmus test for whether or not you are a real Christian these days or just an “oxymoron). It’s like a bunch of people running around saying, “There’s nothing to see here, nothing at all. Really. No, no, no, Jerry is still one of us – he still thinks like all of us. Nothing to see here, move along.”
Yes, he still is, however he is now on probation.
What I find laughable is that too is bit of a straw man. Not everyone who’s not a universalist would characterize the fate of those who don’t know God as “burning in hell for eternity”. I think there is room for discussion about what happens, and I don’t know that most people here would say you’re not a Christian. Maybe some of the more conservative commenters do, but I don’t. Just because I disagree with someone doesn’t mean the issue I disagree about is some sort of litmus test.
Phil,
Thus the reason I said in my opening line, “some.” Not all.
Zan called christian universalism an “oxymoron.” Others have made similar comments in their attempt to distance Jerry from any hint of christian universalism, as if his being one would infect the entire site like swine flu and bring into question his very salvation.
As for there being room for discussion about what happens after death, I agree. But again, “some” if not most of the commenters and writers here have espoused their belief that it includes eternal torment for some and eternal paradise for the others. For instance, John H asked about the “second death.” I wonder if he would interpret that to mean the wicked just die and do not go to “hell”? Probably not. Yet many do.
Phil, I need to add that I do appreciate your willingness to be open and discuss. As it pertains to this topic and a few others, there seems to be a severe lack of that posture even among several of the writers here. I find it problematic when people think they can quote a verse here and there and consider themselves experts on the mind of God or on what happens after death or on the day of Judgment. And then to think their so-called “expertise” grants them the privilege and even duty to tell those who come to a different conclusion that they are wrong, not a Christian or they do not take scripture seriously (as opposed to themselves, of course).
If I can quote Neil, that’s boring.
Chad,
The reason for “defending” Jerry is because he is not a Christian Universalist – and as we have seen ADM’s (e.g. Pastorboy and Chris R. are recent examples) twist and distort to create caricatures to attack.
You may advocate all will be saved through Christ, and it may even be a position that is increasingly popular – but you cannot deny that it goes against the historical Christian understanding of the Scriptures.
Help me out here……in essence, aren’t you doing the same thing? Also, in this whole thread I don’t recall anyone saying you were not a Christian……
That is not exactly correct, Neil. From as early as Origen there have been people who interpreted scripture as pointing to universal salvation.
Besides, that is not a very tenable position, I would argue. Throughout history people have used scripture to justify wars, crusades, the subjugation of women, racism and slavery. If you believe as I do, that the Holy Spirit is leading her Church into truth, and this leading is not about an “arrival” but about a journey, than you wouldn’t care if only a handful of Christians in the past have believed God will save all.
Scotty, I have said it before and I will say it again that I could very well be wrong on this and everything. I will never say to you or anyone else that they don’t care about scripture because they come to a different conclusion as I. You will never hear me question your salvation or your zeal to love and know God.
We can have honest disagreements, meaningful ones even. They do not need to spiral into accusations that question another person’s love of Jesus or the measure to which they adhere to scripture. Just because I disagree with Chris L, for instance, is no reason for him to assume I do not take scripture seriously. It just means I come to a different conclusion when reading the texts we both love.
As for no one yet saying I am not a Christian, hold on
One thing I can say for sure, Chad has never accused anyone of being unsaved.
Thank you, Rick
Pointing out the existence of exceptions does not negate the rule.
Again, a list of examples does not negate the point. I do believe that the Holy Spirit is leading his Church, and I believe this leading is both arrival and journey – but this as well bears little on the point.
Yea, we can have those, however I much prefer the invective laden, salvation questioning, manhood attacking, dog kicking pomposity that in the end verbalizes a visceral hatred for your mother.
I am edified by those.
Rick!
You piece of crap, “pastor” of “christians”, who needs to stand up like a man, who is so full of sin that I’m so glad to not be like, aligning yourself with the neo-liberal cult of emergent rebellion against the inspired, authoritative, infallible, inerrant, VERY WORD OF GAAAAWD, you are under judgement and a shame to your mother…who is also under judgement for bearing a goat herder like you.
Did I do it?
Invective:
Check
Salvation questioning:
Check
Manhood attack:
Check
Dog-kicking Pomposity:
Check
**Pomposity bonus
(Silvanian rhetoric):
Check
Hatred of Mom:
Check
Yay!
What’s the prize?
Yes, nc, you coverd all bases except you hace left out infering that I am gay. I would have responded earlier except I was a my local bath house.
I went back reread every post(Chris P. doesn’t count!!) I didn’t see any of what you mention here it the block quote. I DID see people disagree with you though……
I’m not demeaning here but, often I see you put words in peoples mouths that are not there…..
Disagreement isn’t questioning someone’s salvation nor is it the other things you mentioned.
And then you said:
That’s a low shot!
Why does Jerry speak of Jerry in the 3rd person?
George likes his chicken spicey!
To quote John Hughes: to ignore copious verses in the Bible that refer to judgement, eternal punishment, hell, lake of fire, etc. and assume they don’t mean what they mean is a mistake.
John:
Better.
Jerry, I had taken a couple week’s break from commenting because I can get “snippy”. If I have with you I apologize. Attacks on “orthodoxy” are a flash point for me. Like for me Jonah’s problem was not orthodoxy, but just the opposite – he did not live up to what he knew about God the father or put orthodoxy (orthopraxy) into practice.
Ingrid, for example, tithes the mint and cummin but does put the weightier portions of the law, justice and the love of God, into practice. Again, the problem is not orthodoxy but orthopraxy.
“Again, the problem is not orthodoxy but orthopraxy.”
Good point, John, but when one is so obviously self righteous, loveless, and without gracious respect (Ingrid) does it not reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of what Biblical orthodoxy is?
Chad, why do you think the Holy Spirit had Paul put that little parenthetical “do not be deceived” in the middle of this warning?
Could it be that some were saying that these things were of no import in the eternal scheme of things?
And here is my own vexation of spirit:
How do I feel in my heart/spirit when someone like Ingrid is so profoundly unchristian in her attidtude but yet “orthodox” and Chad is generally gracious and yet “unorthodox” in his “eventual soteriology”?
This is not an easy question for me and in my own heart are many nuances that are difficult to piece together. I wrestle with my own attitudes and sometimes feel I am harsh and sometimes feel I am compromising. (That applies to men like Chad, not women like Ingrid about whom I have little confusion)
I liked it much better when I was an independent Baptist and I knew how to feel about everything.
I would say Ingrid is aware of these but obviously does not practice them. Also, as I hope we all know, orthodoxy does not save. Four or five years ago SOL was my first stop of the day. Ingrid has changed over the years and is not the same lady she was just a few years ago. Perhaps she has forgotten that love never fails. Perhaps she has forgotten that as she judges she will be judged, as she forgives she will be forgiven and and as she shows mercy she will be shown mercy.
Who has more hope? A painted whore of Sodom or whitewashed tomb?
There is a time and purpose for everything under heaven. The rub is getting the timing right!
independent Baptist = oxymoron. Oh wait that word has been used today.
Who has more hope?
Answer: both. With God all things are possible!
I guess my question would be more in line with what does Paul mean by the terms “Kingdom of God” and what did the words interpreted as “eternal” mean to the original audience. I feel like so much of the conversation regarding universalism is framed around the assumption that being a Christian equals “going to heaven when you die” that it’s far removed from the original Jewish roots of Scripture. In doing that, I wonder if the conversations we are having wouldn’t make the Biblical authors scratch their head and say, “what exactly are you talking about”?
When it comes down to it, I think the question “who will go to heaven” is a secondary question at best, especially when we’re using the Americanized version of heaven. Now if by heaven, we’re talking about wherever God is, then it seems to me that heaven really isn’t that far from earth. The question is do we choose to live in a way that God’s will is done here now. The Kingdom is wherever His will is done, and one day it will be completely realized on earth as it is in heaven.
119
Rick, I just fell out of my chair.
That’s hilarious.
I think this video of N.T. Wright is a worthwhile addition to this conversation.
OK Phil, what potential deception was Paul warning against in this passage?
Based on the context of the letter, I’d say he’s telling the Corinthian Christians to actually start living like Christians – stop suing each other, stop sleeping with your father’s wife, etc. Now, yes, these things can have consequences in the near in far term, but more importantly, they do not honor God, and they aren’t what the Kingdom looks like.
The Kingdom of God is primarily defined by whatever situation wherein God rules irrespective of physical territory. The Kindgom of God is the rule of God. Hince the Kingdom of God starts “within” as Jesus stated “the Kingdom of God is among you”. The reign of god in the human heart is the first place the Kindgom is established. It also can refer to territory or place, i.e, heaven (or Earth during the reign of Christ) as in the restoration of Israel or the Millenial Kingdom. It will ultimately be expressed as Heaven.
So therefore Paul’s list of malfactors neither experience the presence of God or the benefits of the God’s rule internally in their hearts at present nor will they ultimately experience His presence and rule in the physical Kingdom of Heaven.
If this is an inadequate definition feel free to elaborate.
John,
#125. A couple of things (or three).
First, you don’t owe me anything, least of an apology.
Second, I wasn’t ‘attacking’ orthodoxy. You still seem to be missing that point.
Third, you wrote:
Now, consider what I wrote in the OP:
Then again, for me, I think that one’s orthodoxy leads to one’s orthopraxy. In other words, I don’t see much difference between the two (even though Jonah was very orthodox; well, at least he could quote it. Not unlike some others I know.)
Phil, what you state is true, but not the whole story. “Will not inherit” is a reference to a future event. The malfactors listed had not **yet** received the inheritance of the Kingdom with the danger they might not. To me it is a warning (don’t be deceived) to those who think they are “OK”, but actually are not.
I would say the Kingdom of God will ultimately be expressed as heaven and earth coming together. The veil separating the two will be gone, and God’s will will be done here as it is in heaven. Ultimately, I guess I see the Kingdom of God as something that comes “down” rather than something we ascend to, if we’re going to use spatial terminology. I am pretty much amillennial in my eschatology, so I don’t see a distinction between the millennial reign and the eternal state of things.
I don’t necessarily disagree with that, although I think that Paul’s letters were mainly written with redemptive purposes in mind, so it’s not so much “turn or burn”, but rather “shape up and don’t live below what God has called you to do”. It may be just a slight difference, I guess. I just don’t think that Paul was using the threat of hell the way traveling evangelists do today.
On second read I guess we are pretty much in agreement on what the Kingdom is.
John-
Of course they are important for all manner of things, one of them even being eternal.
Why do you assume that inheriting the Kingdom of God is about where you will spend eternity?
Just reading through these.. Phil’s post #133 was excellent – I agree 100%
Another good post in 141.
Does that mean I should be worried?
Chad,
One of the frustrations I have with CU’s is that they seemingly will never address **head on** the verses that are problematic to their world view. You don’t even attempt to explain them, but instead just (1) ignore them, (2) claim traditionalists are ripping them out of context (without explaining what the true context is), or (3) passively attack by saying “don’t you belive God will ultimately get what He desires.” If these verses were isolated you might have a cogent argument, but they are not isolated. They are prolific and endemic to the Scriptures.
Neil, I’m not sure what you are trying to say in 116.
You said that universalism goes against the historical understanding of the scriptures and that I cannot deny that. I do deny that, contrary to your assertions that I cannot
Yes, it is not the most vocal voice in history but it was more dominant in the early church than you might have considered. In fact, Augustine wrote about a “mass of men who take scripture seriously yet do not believe in eternal torments.”
You said that my pointing out exceptions does “not negate the rule.” What rule? Whose rule?
Again, I have to ask: If the majority of historical biblical thought said that women are inferior to men or that slavery is OK would you still toe the line? (or, perhaps you are inclined as I am to point out the few exceptions to that line of thought in the past and then comment how much more “free” and in line with Christ’s message we are today because people listened to the Holy Spirit’s leading).
I don’t. See #138. The point being “don’t be decieved . . . will not (future) inherit”, i.e, do not already posess now or will inherit in the future.
Yes. I heard on Fox News that CU is contagious.
But curable.
Chad, Chad, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.
John on 147:
I can understand your frustration. Unfortunately it is not one I can easily resolve. The reason I do not get into “verse wars” is because in my experience they are pointless and do little to further dialog. I am not saying this is what you want to engage in, but it is obvious that you and I see scripture as serving different purposes.
My essay on universalism in revelation (on my blog) highlights some different ways of interpreting the verses you seem to think are open and shut cases for limited atonement. Perhaps that would help in seeing where I am coming from.
Furthermore, to do a verse by verse refutation does violence to the Bible, IMO. Unless you (or others) are willing to engage in more canonical, holistic approach to studying scripture than I am not interested in isolating a single verse and debating over its meaning. You will just respond with, “nope, that is not what that means. It means this…” And where will we be then? Same place we started.
Here are just a few guiding principles to consider, principles that I suspect you will wholly reject:
1- Talk of judgment and doom is a form of strident language the Hebrew people and Jesus’ contemporaries were used to – it dates back to the age of the prophets. It must be seen in the context of a family quarrel or argument. The Bible is a Jewish story and we Gentiles are lucky to be allowed to overhear it.
2- This strident language and judgment is most often prescriptive rather than predictive. That is to say, it is warning language with hyperbole thrown in to say, “this is how it COULD be for you” but not necessarily how it WILL be.
3- The overarching theme of God’s story to us is how God intends to restore creation – ALL of it (even the animals and people will sing for God – see Revelation 5). The awesome thing in this is that while God could certainly do it alone God has invited human beings, part of God’s creation, to share in this redemptive process. We who have been given much much will be expected.
4- Our task is to “make disciples” not “converts.” Already Jesus has ALL authority in heaven and on earth given to him. The work of reconciliation “is finished” on the cross. You are saved, therefore repent, is the theme of the Gospel. We who have seen this light are called to lead others into discipleship. We are to be ministers of reconciliation in the world. This is NOT a translation from hell to heaven but a process of coming out of darkness into light. Eternal destination is not the point of Christ’s sacrifice.
5- The biggest and most important decision about you has already been made in Jesus Christ. We flatter ourselves to think we can add or subtract from God’s intentions and desires based on our choice alone.
6- NOTHING unclean will enter God’s eternal kingdom. Today is the day of your salvation. We can start becoming more like Christ even now.
(see, Rick, how can any of this sound “moot” or “shallow”)?
John, 152: Case in point.
That has nothing to do with whether one is damned to hell or going to heaven. I can see why you might think it does, but when I read that I hear something completely different (and hopeful!)
Let’s not get into a “Who knows more, or has what advanced degrees in Historical Theology…” That some (even many) have believed in Christian Universalism in not the point, that there may have been more at one time than now is also not the point. The point is, it has never been the accepted view of the church.
I suppose you can… and I could deny the earth is spherical as well. ;
Theology is not created in a vacuum either, culture plays a major factor as well. I could easily say that you are being effected by our culture and unwilling to be exclusive, just like previous generations were effected by there cultures and were racist.
What I find someone arrogant is your ascertain that we are more attuned to the Spirit than those that came before us…
And I would not call the abolitionist movement a few exceptions.
It’s a figure of speech, Chad – that’s all.
Funny, I keep thinking of specific Scriptures to bring up in response… but they all contain images of judgment and judges and sorting and references to wrath and… well they are also particular verses, but we are not allowed to discuss particular verses in detail… so I should just give up.
No, Chad, using the Bible (as opposed to misled authors) simply does not support your view, and is therefore inconvenient. It is much more preferable to select authors, however off the mark, that support your view. I remember months ago (before your hiatus) you gave me a list of ALL the scriptures that support your view of Universalism. I think there was about 10 or so. When each verse was looked at, it became apparent that something like 6 or 7 made not even the slightest reference to your concept when taken in context.
Read through a little of it (sorry lack of time). But essays that simply say, “It could mean this, but then again it could mean that. Or it could mean something else altogether – we’ll never know” don’t really serve much purpose, except to confuse the reader. In fact, in sales there’s a motto: “If you can’t convince’em, confuse’em” and they’ll buy.
To claim that other people believed “such and such” is not a good defense. We are not built on what people have surmised or philosophized. We are to be built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ as the chief cornerstone. Easier said than done, I know, but you wholeheartedly reject what everyone else is saying on this particular issue while pleading that others come around to your viewpoint.
But not you, right? That just goes for others.
So do I.
I think there needs to be a recognition of the fact that there has always been a minority report tradition within Christianity about an ultimate universal salvation…
the mechanics are different…some of the voices more astute than others…
the reasons for coming to a universalist position abound…I think we just need to listen better to all the reasons why a fellow believer has come to it.
Are there biblical texts that seem to raise objections to the position? Yes.
There are also biblical texts that raise questions about the contrarian position…(witness the debates about OSAS, and if ‘ALL’ really means “all” in certain passages, etc. etc. etc. etc. on and on…)
I don’t know if a series of comment threads really is the best place to do listening.
I agree.
Chad: I do not believe in limited atonement and for the record and I am ardently anti-Calvinist.
nc,
I suppose I agree, but to point to areas like slavery and then how much more “free” and in line with Christ’s message we are today because people listened to the Holy Spirit’s leading.
I remember as essay that C. S. Lewis wrote warning about the arrogance of modern man thinking everyone who came before was less intelligent.
I did read the whole thing and you are generally correct… though I doubt the motive is to confuse (even if that is the result). One of the quoted author’s summed his position by saying “It’s up to God not us.” – well duh!
Chad, when the Prophets spoke of judgement and doom it was . . . well . . . prophetic. Most of it came to pass, literally, unless there was repentance or it was a far future prophecy. They were not idle threats or family admonishments. The remainder, I believe, are still awaiting their literal fulfillment in God’s timing. But be that as it may, most of these judgements came to pass literally.
Any child will test a parent’s follow-though and hollow threats quickly become totally useless.
Neil – I agree, the intent and motive is not what’s at issue here. I stated above I think Chad’s concept is admirable from a humanitarian standpoint. Who wouldn’t want to believe we’ll all be OK? I’d also like to throw in the tooth fairy and Puff the Magic Dragon. The point is that his argument is completely false.
#3 – Agreed.
Ah, the crux of the issue. CU’s equate reconciliation with salvation. Not so. Reconciliation is the removal of emnity between former enemies. I do believe in universal reconciliation but not universal salvation. Salvation is by the washing and renewing of the Holy Spirit, i.e., being born from above, the second birth. “He who has Christ has the Life. He who does not have Christ does not have the life.” Reconciliation makes it possible to approach God. It is the new birth and indwelling of Christ that saves.
An orphan can be at emnity with and an enemy of the one who want to adopt him. There can be true forgiveness and reconciliation, but he is still not a part of the family until he is adopted. Reconciliation and adoption are part and parcel of salvation but they are not the same event. You cannot have salvation without reconciliation, but you can have reconciliation without salvation.
However, it is a translation from the Kingdom of Darkness into the Kingdom of Light. It is a transfer of allegiance. I agree that the “eternal destination” is just a side benefit and not the central point of salvation.
Paul C: Puff the Magic Dragon is a marajuana roll.
Chad: The “sifting quote” was my attempt at some humor. (Ref: smiley emoticon)
Perhaps that is what it’ll take to see CU clearly.
Paul C.,
RE: #169 – I agree.
I did a quick search for “repent” in the NIV. Here are a bunch of them (though I omitted everything from Revelation). I see a bunch of “so that” and “for” and other such things, but not “because of.”
Since we should not look at individual verses, can we just take the weight of the whole?
While it has been overly reduced to that by modernist evangelism, you error in the opposite direction.
These two statements, the first of which is false and the second overly simplified; pretty much sums the differences between us – and the (I would say) serve as the foundation of your error.
I see it as you are shown the kindness of God through Jesus who gave us forgiveness through His obedience through suffering even unto death on a cross… in response to that we repent unto redemption and when Jesus returns salvation is completed…
Still the point of salvation is not our eternal destiny, but what we do with Jesus… and what Jesus does in and through us. If it is not lived out NOW, eternity will not matter.
As far as eternity… or the age to come, there is not much given to us about it… so though it is of some importance, I think our focus is now, for Today is the day of salvation, not in the age to come… soon there will be a time that many will not be able to repent… they will have to face eternity judged on their own works…
To those that believe judgment is a time of sorry and great joy… it is a two edged sword…. to the unbeliever it will only be a time of great sorry without ever being able to repent though they will have their sorry…
That is why I say “feeling sorry” for sins and even confessing them is not true repentance… repentance is the complete turnaround of a person… from death to life…from darkness to light… it is the completion and fullness of Christ in us our Hope of Glory…
iggy
Every commenter here is wrong on some level and you all have hardened your heart to my correction.
All I can say is, even though Chad seems a likeable guy, He is dead wrong on the issue of CU
Many false prophets are going to lead people astray in these last days. It appears Chad must take his place among them.
The only think about that is that based on the comments on this thread, he doesn’t have a whole lot of followers… d’oh! Back to end times drawing board, I suppose…
Actually, I’m pretty sure that verse was talking about John Calvin anyway.
Ok, Scotty, maybe not the exact words, “You’re not a Christian” but will false prophet be acceptable?
Paul C – I think you have summed up in this statement the core of the misunderstanding around CU.
This is emphatically NOT what CU is about. And the allusions to Puff the Magic Dragon and so forth only serve to further illustrate the ignorance about CU.
Take nc’s advice and do some reading on this issue. The book he recommended is a great place to start.
peace.
Thurstin,
Let’s try to keep name calling out of this. I strongly disagree with Chad on this issue, but he is ever the gentlemen and willing to discuss the issue. As far as I can see his Christology is orthodox. It is with his sertology that I see a problem. I could say “Chad I think certain of your views are heretical”, but I definately would not say “Chad you are a heretic”. That’s just not the case from what I can see.
You are correct, John. Chad is a pastor, a husband, a father who has adopted children from overseas, and seems moderately intelligent (
)
On the future soteriological construct? He’s goofy – or slippery, whichever you prefer. I sometimes use “slippery goofball”.
Thank you, John.
Rick – I like goofy.
I also prefer that if anyone calls me a heretic or false prophet that they do it in Latin. It feels so much more official.
You are an haeresis.
I still contend that the author of the post was not thinking about CU at all but something much bigger and better.
Somewhere there is a conversation in the OP about Gods grace. I think.
Jerry – what in the world do you know about the author of the post?
“Somewhere there is a conversation in the OP about Gods grace.”
If only one sinner was eternally saved through the cross it would still provide enough evidence given a divine perspective that God’s grace is without measure.
The discussion must always be quality, not quantity, and it obscures the redemptive essence of God’s grace to suggest that the more sinners that are saved the greater the measurement of God’s grace. If that was the case, then the more sinners God creates to save, the more God’s grace is authenticated.
In fact, if every sinner rejected the grace of God through Christ it would not diminish the absolute quintessence of the grace of God. It’s object is its display, not its substance.
Jerry, consisently refering to yourself in the 3rd person is starting to scare the children.
# 192 Infected with Bob Dole syndrome.
Jerry has no idea what you are talking about nor why you happen to care.
Rick thinks Jerry is medicated.
I think a Christian can also be a false prophet, there’s plenty of examples on God TV….
Albeit it’s getting close, but sorry NO cigar…..;)