Can someone help me with the logic?

[Hans Deventer]

Since Francis Chan has a couple of books for free this weekend, I downloaded Erasing Hell. Haven't read it yet but it made me think. Please tell me where I'm going wrong because I hate the conclusion I have reached.

Our church teaches there are two options, we either end up in heaven, or will suffer eternally in hell. It also teaches that children, below a certain age, are not responsible for their actions and hence, if they die, they will surely go to heaven. We also teach that "once saved, always saved" is not true. It is possible, though not necessary, to fall from grace by our own doing, by not using the grace we've been given.

Now the very idea of spending eternity in hell is terrible, to say the least. When people are being punished, a judge will assign punishment according to the crime. The worse the crime, the tougher the punishment. That makes sense. But by definition, an endless punishment is worse than any possible crime that we can conceive of could be! So this is really serious business and by any means, if we love people, we need to avoid them getting into hell for all eternity!

What can we do? Of course we can share about Christ and pray they will come to believe in Him. But even then, we're not certain they will make it.

Would it not be best to kill them when they are still children? That avoids the risk they might not come to believe, or one day, God forbid, forsake of their faith. It sounds awful, disgusting even, but is not the logical conclusion that this is the most merciful thing we can do? Avoiding a risk that is too terrible to consider taking?
Would this reasoning not make the Pharao, king Herod, and in fact even the abortion doctors the most merciful people of all?

You'll understand why I do NOT want to come to such a blasphemous, distorted and evil conclusion. But where is the fault in the logic?

[Jim Chabot]

Since Francis Chan has a couple of books for free this weekend, I downloaded Erasing Hell. Haven't read it yet but it made me think. Please tell me where I'm going wrong because I hate the conclusion I have reached.

Our church teaches there are two options, we either end up in heaven, or will suffer eternally in hell. It also teaches that children, below a certain age, are not responsible for their actions and hence, if they die, they will surely go to heaven. We also teach that "once saved, always saved" is not true. It is possible, though not necessary, to fall from grace by our own doing, by not using the grace we've been given.

Now the very idea of spending eternity in hell is terrible, to say the least. When people are being punished, a judge will assign punishment according to the crime. The worse the crime, the tougher the punishment. That makes sense. But by definition, an endless punishment is worse than any possible crime that we can conceive of could be! So this is really serious business and by any means, if we love people, we need to avoid them getting into hell for all eternity!

What can we do? Of course we can share about Christ and pray they will come to believe in Him. But even then, we're not certain they will make it.

Would it not be best to kill them when they are still children? That avoids the risk they might not come to believe, or one day, God forbid, forsake of their faith. It sounds awful, disgusting even, but is not the logical conclusion that this is the most merciful thing we can do? Avoiding a risk that is too terrible to consider taking?
Would this reasoning not make the Pharao, king Herod, and in fact even the abortion doctors the most merciful people of all?

You'll understand why I do NOT want to come to such a blasphemous, distorted and evil conclusion. But where is the fault in the logic?

I don't see a flaw in your logic, if you are looking at Hell in a penal sense. To take your logic a bit further, those who would mercifully kill folks off to save them from Hell would be murderers and thus spend eternity in Hell themselves. One more step and we would have to conclude that these "murderers" gave their eternal lives to save others. At which point my head starts to spin and I have to say no, the paradox is too wide to comprehend.

I don't see Hell in a penal sense, I don't see it as a punishment but rather as a consequence. We go there willingly, as a moth goes to the fire, or as a child might touch a hot stove. It is Christ who provides a path away from this consequence and the Spirit who guides up on the path where at it's end we will spend eternity with our Father. We cannot kill others on the path without leaving it ourselves, nor do we know what we may have robbed them of by cutting their journey short. I would add that despite our church's teaching on the subject, we have no concrete assurance regarding the fate of children.

On the teaching against "once saved, always saved" I would suggest that we aren't diametrically opposed to it. We do define sin as a conscious disobedience to a known law of God. We do teach that through the Spirit we have the power and the ability to not sin. Given that combination, I would say that to lose one's salvation would be highly improbable, the work of the Spirit is persuasive in our lives. Granted that the Spirit warns us not to harden our hearts, so yes it is possible, I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is probable.

Just thinking out loud, nothing conclusive.

[Jim Chabot]

Oops, my apologies!

I thought I saw this in Traditional Theology? Sorry to have wandered in here by accident.

[Hans Deventer]

No problem, Jim. Initially it was at the general theology forum, but Edwin said it should be here and I figured he was right. Thanks for your reply all the same!

[Kyle Borger]

I'm going to have to think some on this. But my initial reaction is similar to Jim's. God allows us to choose our eternity. A reality with Him or a reality absent of His presence. Those who know and love God would find living without God torture. Perhaps those who do not believe in God or do not wish to obey God would rather be without God and have it their way. After all forcing people into an eternal presence with God when they hate the idea of God would in itself be punishment. My concept of God is that he isn't going to force us one way or another. But there is an eternal choice. There is a path or a way to eternal life with God and it is narrow.

That is why I have been changing my focus from eternal life to living right now with Jesus. I see too many depressed people who are looking to heaven as the ultimate retirement community and they are disappointed that their life isn't like that now and actually feel like God is punishing them now. If my goal, my passion, my joy in life is serving Christ then I can have that regardless of my circumstances or what eternal life ends up being like.

I think our focus is out of whack when we go after people to save them from Hell. I think the focus should be a living relationship with Jesus right now. That is our urgency. So killing off the children to give them heaven would deprive them of their chance to serve Christ now. I think we were created to serve Christ not live on easy street.

[Hans Deventer]

I appreciate the replies so far. Thank you! Just a little explanation to add: when I read our Article of Faith, it sure looks to me like we conceive of hell as the result of judgement and hence, punishment. Is there another way to read this?

XVI. Resurrection, Judgment, and Destiny
20. We believe in the resurrection of the dead, that the
bodies both of the just and of the unjust shall be raised to
life and united with their spirits—“they that have done
good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done
evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”
21. We believe in future judgment in which every person
shall appear before God to be judged according to his or her
deeds in this life.
22. We believe that glorious and everlasting life is assured
to all who savingly believe in, and obediently follow, Jesus
Christ our Lord; and that the finally impenitent shall suffer
eternally in hell.

[Todd Erickson]

The problem with the whole "Children have to have an age before which they aren't held accountable" is that it's not strictly biblical, it's something that we've decided has to be so, or it isn't fair.

If we're going to state that Hell yawns to devour 80% of humanity throughout history and torment them forever in judgement, we can hardly say we are being reasonable or logical and say that the children will not be there with them.

Yes, God loves children. He loves everybody else as well. And He's going to torture them with fire and suffering for His glory forever.

Happy Easter, by the way.

[Billy Cox]

Since Francis Chan has a couple of books for free this weekend, I downloaded Erasing Hell. Haven't read it yet but it made me think. Please tell me where I'm going wrong because I hate the conclusion I have reached.

Our church teaches there are two options, we either end up in heaven, or will suffer eternally in hell. It also teaches that children, below a certain age, are not responsible for their actions and hence, if they die, they will surely go to heaven. We also teach that "once saved, always saved" is not true. It is possible, though not necessary, to fall from grace by our own doing, by not using the grace we've been given.

Now the very idea of spending eternity in hell is terrible, to say the least. When people are being punished, a judge will assign punishment according to the crime. The worse the crime, the tougher the punishment. That makes sense. But by definition, an endless punishment is worse than any possible crime that we can conceive of could be! So this is really serious business and by any means, if we love people, we need to avoid them getting into hell for all eternity!

What can we do? Of course we can share about Christ and pray they will come to believe in Him. But even then, we're not certain they will make it.

Since humanity has a very poor record of correctly ascertaining what God will or will not do, I have no trouble allowing that God is capable of saving even those in Hell. Would he be willing to do so? I think my 'yes' is no less defensible than someone else's 'no'.

[Meghan Schoonover]

Is the "Age of Accountability" a piece of doctrine or just a generally accepted teaching? I've never seen it anywhere "officially" but it is something people seem to hold on to. (I don't personally believe in that, so that's why it's on my radar...) That influences my answer somewhat. Hmm.

[Hans Deventer]

Is the "Age of Accountability" a piece of doctrine or just a generally accepted teaching? I've never seen it anywhere "officially" but it is something people seem to hold on to. (I don't personally believe in that, so that's why it's on my radar...) That influences my answer somewhat. Hmm.

Meghan, here it is:

VI. Atonement
6. We believe that Jesus Christ, by His sufferings, by the
shedding of His own blood, and by His death on the Cross,
made a full atonement for all human sin, and that this
Atonement is the only ground of salvation, and that it is suf-
ficient for every individual of Adam’s race. The Atonement is
graciously efficacious for the salvation of those incapable of
moral responsibility and for the children
in innocency but is efficacious for the salvation of those who
reach the age of responsibility only when they repent and
believe.

As official as it gets, it's an Article of Faith.

[Todd Erickson]

It's also worth noting that Chan is very reformed... the conclusion of his book on hell is that, since everything is Predestined, we all go where God wants us to go anyway. Since that is a running theme through all of his books, I'm unclear about why so many Nazarene churches are recommending reading them...

[Hans Deventer]

It's also worth noting that Chan is very reformed... the conclusion of his book on hell is that, since everything is Predestined, we all go where God wants us to go anyway. Since that is a running theme through all of his books, I'm unclear about why so many Nazarene churches are recommending reading them...

I'm not recommending him at all. Just checking checking what he is teaching by reading it for myself. If I advise folks not to judge Rob Bell before they read his book, I guess I should follow the same principle regarding Chan. And this time I had no excuse when it comes to the price.

[Meghan Schoonover]

As official as it gets, it's an Article of Faith.

Yep, guess so! I don't remember that at all, even though I've read the AoF several times and looked up all the Bible verses they stuck by them in the manual. It's been years though so apparently it didn't stick.

Well, anyways, I don't have answers to your original question and I disagree with the concept of an AoA so guess I'll just follow along.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Wasn't Erasing Hell Chan's response to Love Wins?

[Sarah Smith]

This may not be helpful at all, but I think of hell much like our woodstove.

Our stove is needed for heat. I think there has to be some place for those souls that stubbornly refuse salvation. Note I did not say those that would have chosen salvation had they heard the gospel, or for those that experienced life circumstances that rendered them unable to choose salvation, or suffered bodily or brain disease or injury that prevented it.

I'm speaking strictly of those that KNOW about the offer of free salvation, that KNOW God would fit them for heaven, and that intentionally and willfuly refuse salvation and cling to their sins. Either they go "somewhere" or they cease to exist. Can't imagine heaven being very heavenly if we had an unrepentant, still clinging to his murderous ways Hitler there.

Ceasing to exist sounds merciful but not just. I see any sin as meriting any degree of hell, not because some don't seem to hurt people as much but because all of them are an affront to an endlessly magnificent God. Not the degree of badness of the sin but who it was bad against is my point there.

So back to the woodstove. We have a lovely little grandchild we took care of while she was quite small as we heated with that large, very hot stove.

We warned her. We watched her. We built a sort of fence to block her from it (and us should we trip and fall.)

Now, if after all that, one of us gets burned, I'd have to say it more than likely is not that we didn't know the stove was hot, or didn't know how to avoid it, or just accidentally got burned. It would take a pretty deliberate choosing to breach the fence.

So I fall out on the side of "yes, there is a hell" but with the understanding it takes some willful, deliberate doing to wind up there.

I don't fall out on the side that sees folks accidentally wandering into that territory, or of God taking delight in sending folks there.

I do fall out on the side of free will, so if you are really sure you don't want God's offer of justification and cleansing, He will mournfully let you have your way.

But He will literally move heaven and earth to try to woo you from that choice.

[Ryan Pugh]

Wasn't Erasing Hell Chan's response to Love Wins?

Yeah.

[Todd Erickson]

Wasn't Erasing Hell Chan's response to Love Wins?

It's actually a response to the book that Bell didn't write, but that all of the Reformed theologians who wanted a fight with Bell wanted him to have written.

Even the cover of it directly apes the art design of several of Bell's books (though, interestingly, not the actual cover of "love wins").

It could be said that Love Wins is arguing why what we do here and now matters, whereas Erasing Hell is all about why Hell in the afterlife is a necessary and inescapable teaching, and how love is whatever God says it is.

[Kyle Borger]

Meghan, here it is:

VI. Atonement
6. We believe that Jesus Christ, by His sufferings, by the
shedding of His own blood, and by His death on the Cross,
made a full atonement for all human sin, and that this
Atonement is the only ground of salvation, and that it is suf-
ficient for every individual of Adam’s race. The Atonement is
graciously efficacious for the salvation of those incapable of
moral responsibility and for the children
in innocency but is efficacious for the salvation of those who
reach the age of responsibility only when they repent and
believe.

As official as it gets, it's an Article of Faith.

I reviewed each scripture attributed to this Article and I don't really see a clear response to the age of responsibility. Anyone have scripture that supports it? I would say that our basis for it is as a logical assumption that a God who chooses us to all be His children would not deny those who lack the inability to know He exists or you might say is unable to consciously choose to accept or deny God themselves. If you are of the predestination mindset then there is no problem with children. God chooses those He loves and damns those He hates.

[Hans Deventer]

I reviewed each scripture attributed to this Article and I don't really see a clear response to the age of responsibility. Anyone have scripture that supports it? I would say that our basis for it is as a logical assumption that a God who chooses us to all be His children would not deny those who lack the inability to know He exists or you might say is unable to consciously choose to accept or deny God themselves. If you are of the predestination mindset then there is no problem with children. God chooses those He loves and damns those He hates.

Kyle, I agree. It's more a logical outcome than something clearly supported by the Scriptures. It does have solid roots in tradition, though. Already among the Jews there was this idea of the age of accountability.

[Gina Stevenson]

Kyle, I agree. It's more a logical outcome than something clearly supported by the Scriptures. It does have solid roots in tradition, though. Already among the Jews there was this idea of the age of accountability.

Wondering if it might be bar/bat mitzvah-related, tho' we usually figure a child can be aware/accountable long before 12-13, went looking. Found something re accountability which sounds more as if related to legal rather than moral responsibility, their even talking about whether 19/20/21, along w/the bar/bat mitzvah idea of then being responsible thereafter:

http://www.barmitzvahs.org/judaism/Bar.Mitzvah.age.php

[Meghan Schoonover]

It does have solid roots in tradition, though. Already among the Jews there was this idea of the age of accountability.

For what it's worth, my friend who is an ordained Nazarene elder and also Rabbi of a Nazarene-rooted Messianic congregation (Ryan P is probably aware of whom I'm talking, his sister and I are mutual online friends with her) argues in support of an age of accountability of age 21 b/c that is how old a father had to give sin sacrifices for his son. I have always found that an interesting thought.

[Rich Schmidt]

For what it's worth, my friend who is an ordained Nazarene elder and also Rabbi of a Nazarene-rooted Messianic congregation (Ryan P is probably aware of whom I'm talking, his sister and I are mutual online friends with her) argues in support of an age of accountability of age 21 b/c that is how old a father had to give sin sacrifices for his son. I have always found that an interesting thought.

That idea better not spread, or we're going to have a lot of teenagers thinking they can party hard until they turn 21.

[Dan Henderson]

I reviewed each scripture attributed to this Article and I don't really see a clear response to the age of responsibility. Anyone have scripture that supports it? I would say that our basis for it is as a logical assumption that a God who chooses us to all be His children would not deny those who lack the inability to know He exists or you might say is unable to consciously choose to accept or deny God themselves. If you are of the predestination mindset then there is no problem with children. God chooses those He loves and damns those He hates.

Maybe this more closely aligns with the concept of prevenient grace.

[Doug Ward]

From a certain way of thinking, there is nothing wrong with your logic. Although it seems this line of reasoning is built upon certain presuppositions.
1) Hell and Heaven are real places, and the purpose of this life is to make a decision, so our eternity is selected here, in this life.
2) The focus of God's redeeming work is centered upon each individual. So whatever enables the individual to qualify for heaven, then so be it.
3) God equally spends time in assigning some to blessedness and some to torture for eternity. This is His focus.
-- let me state that I am NOT saying these are Hans' views, but I am responding to Hans' statement.

So here are my problems with the scenario just described. First, there is an undue separation between heaven and this life. The NT is constant and consistent that eternal life, or the kingdom of God, has already been initiated and is ongoing. The idea that we must remove someone from this life in order to hasten their entry into eternal life is inconsistent with the Biblical idea that eternal life is to be experienced and enjoyed here and now. The benefit of following Christ does not begin when we die, but starts now, and continues after we die.

Second, as Paul so eloquently writes in Rom. 8, the idea of God's redemptive work is not that each individual makes it to heaven, but that the entire world is the subject of His redemption. We are to be agents in the redemption of this world. I cannot be an agent in my neighborhood, if I am in the ground! The early church did not walk into the arena because they wanted to die, and somehow be saved from the possibility of later falling away. Rather, they believed that their life, their witness would be redemptive in their world - in that present evil age. We are part of a larger work of redemption and reconciliation. To be sure, we cannot pray for the world to be redeemed without that redemption first starting in our individual lumps of clay, dust, and encased liquid; but we must not stop there either.

Third, we must address the assumption of hell. In much of our language, salvation seems to be more about safety from hell as anything else. So if that is the focus, then kill the baby now. Yet if the focus is redemption and reconciliation, then that child is a part of that great work. Yet I cannot help but think - what if John has it right, "that whoever believes in Him shall not PERISH, but have eternal life." Maybe ending the life of a child will not spare them from a tortuous hell, as much as it takes away the chance to experience His eternal life here, and be a part of God's great redemptive work.

There is more to be said on this, but this is an initial response.

[Dale Cozby]

I appreciate the replies so far. Thank you! Just a little explanation to add: when I read our Article of Faith, it sure looks to me like we conceive of hell as the result of judgement and hence, punishment. Is there another way to read this?

XVI. Resurrection, Judgment, and Destiny
20. We believe in the resurrection of the dead, that the
bodies both of the just and of the unjust shall be raised to
life and united with their spirits—“they that have done
good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done
evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”21. We believe in future judgment in which every person
shall appear before God to be judged according to his or her
deeds in this life.
22. We believe that glorious and everlasting life is assured
to all who savingly believe in, and obediently follow, Jesus
Christ our Lord; and that the finally impenitent shall suffer
eternally in hell.

The Article contains a quote I highlighted and thus I submit this for your review about the quote: http://www.godfire.net/VoiceofSon61.html

What about it?

P.S. sorry if this has been covered already, I haven't the time to read all the posts today.

[Roland Hearn]

The age of accountability is a logical extension of the ideas of free will and grace. It is the only conclusion possible if you hold to both constructs. There are many beliefs that are simply the way it must be if everything else is true - the primary one being the trinity.

I guess ultimately my understandings of hell and judgement rest firmly on the capacity of God to do well, to do love, and to do justice. I am deeply aware that most sin reflects an inadequate understanding of love and so therefore is less than free anyway and I believe that God's ultimate judgement will be shaped by understanding as well as by grace and not simply a reflection of arbitrary principles of law. The only problem with your original logic is that it would make humanity the instruments of salvation on the basis of a loop hole and that cannot possibly be a reflection of the grace of God.

[Ian Gentles]

I reviewed each scripture attributed to this Article and I don't really see a clear response to the age of responsibility. Anyone have scripture that supports it? I would say that our basis for it is as a logical assumption that a God who chooses us to all be His children would not deny those who lack the inability to know He exists or you might say is unable to consciously choose to accept or deny God themselves. If you are of the predestination mindset then there is no problem with children. God chooses those He loves and damns those He hates.

Mmmm sounds a bit Calvanistic?

[Kevin Jackson]

I think infants may indeed have a choice as to whether or not to be in relationship with God. It's speculation, but since this is the post traditional forum that's ok right? Perhaps when infants die they go to some sort of purgatory where they are given a choice as to whether or not to follow God.

Sort of a side bar here, but Chan was one of the speakers at NYC 2011. My daughter attended, and Chan was her favorite speaker. His reformed theology is a concern, but I appreciate that he takes holiness very seriously. He's definitely not one of those folks who separates grace from holiness.

[Wilson Deaton]

I reviewed each scripture attributed to this Article and I don't really see a clear response to the age of responsibility. Anyone have scripture that supports it? I

Certainly not "proof" but there is a Biblical PRECEDENCE for the principle:

Numbers 32:11 "Because they have not followed me wholeheartedly, not one of those who were twenty years old or more when they came up out of Egypt will see the land I promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—"

In this case, God didn't hold those under age 20 accountable for the rebellion in the wilderness.

Wilson

[Meghan Schoonover]

Oh, that's true. <thinking> That goes along with my friend's support of age 21...

[Martijn van Beveren]

Since Francis Chan has a couple of books for free this weekend, I downloaded Erasing Hell. Haven't read it yet but it made me think. Please tell me where I'm going wrong because I hate the conclusion I have reached.

Our church teaches there are two options, we either end up in heaven, or will suffer eternally in hell. It also teaches that children, below a certain age, are not responsible for their actions and hence, if they die, they will surely go to heaven. We also teach that "once saved, always saved" is not true. It is possible, though not necessary, to fall from grace by our own doing, by not using the grace we've been given.

Now the very idea of spending eternity in hell is terrible, to say the least. When people are being punished, a judge will assign punishment according to the crime. The worse the crime, the tougher the punishment. That makes sense. But by definition, an endless punishment is worse than any possible crime that we can conceive of could be! So this is really serious business and by any means, if we love people, we need to avoid them getting into hell for all eternity!

What can we do? Of course we can share about Christ and pray they will come to believe in Him. But even then, we're not certain they will make it.

Would it not be best to kill them when they are still children? That avoids the risk they might not come to believe, or one day, God forbid, forsake of their faith. It sounds awful, disgusting even, but is not the logical conclusion that this is the most merciful thing we can do? Avoiding a risk that is too terrible to consider taking?
Would this reasoning not make the Pharao, king Herod, and in fact even the abortion doctors the most merciful people of all?

You'll understand why I do NOT want to come to such a blasphemous, distorted and evil conclusion. But where is the fault in the logic?

What I find disturbing is that a certain theological logic supercedes reality. It seems to me that with trying to comprehend something like God's judgement (by which He said that He will be the one to Judge and thereby surpasses our flawed capacity to call any judgement card nor reason our way to comprihend it) is a oneway trip down the rabbithole. In everyones life there is a moment where your sinful nature gets the better of you. What if you were cought at the wrong time? To me the AoA seems like a sort of excuse theology because we could not find a better alternative for it... I understand the reasoning behind this construction but I think it falls short and it does not do justce to the character of God.

[Randy Wise]

What I find disturbing is that a certain theological logic supercedes reality. It seems to me that with trying to comprehend something like God's judgement (by which He said that He will be the one to Judge and thereby surpasses our flawed capacity to call any judgement card nor reason our way to comprihend it) is a oneway trip down the rabbithole. In everyones life there is a moment where your sinful nature gets the better of you. What if you were cought at the wrong time? To me the AoA seems like a sort of excuse theology because we could not find a better alternative for it... I understand the reasoning behind this construction but I think it falls short and it does not do justce to the character of God.

Jesus has been appointed by God as the Judge of the living and the dead. His words have been published in the NT for a very long time. So in matters of judgments made consider that it will be the Lords words that prevail.

The character of God has been stated as "Love" God has provided a wonderful salvation available to all. But if one rejects those words or is to busy with other things that are more important to them to seek that Kingdom and that rightouesness (for all haved sined and are a slave to sin unless the Son sets you free.) they are in a dangerous condition if something happens to them as below suggests.



Repent or Perish? The way a person dies isn't how one enters the Kingdom Of God.


1 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

[Martijn van Beveren]

Jesus has been appointed by God as the Judge of the living and the dead. His words have been published in the NT for a very long time. So in matters of judgments made consider that it will be the Lords words that prevail.

Yes, true. But the question remains wether we understand them, because a lot of our concepts about contextualization have changed over the years. and are we in right to make such a construction? Since we are not the judge and by making such a construction are we not trying to reason from a human perspective that what remains with God? That would be in line with Mat 7:1-2
We will never have a full and clear answer, until His Kingdom has arrived here. And by then we will not be bothered by those questions anymore, at least that's my perspective on it.

The character of God has been stated as "Love" God has provided a wonderful salvation available to all. But if one rejects those words or is to busy with other things that are more important to them to seek that Kingdom and that rightouesness (for all haved sined and are a slave to sin unless the Son sets you free.) they are in a dangerous condition if something happens to them as below suggests.

Repent or Perish? The way a person dies isn't how one enters the Kingdom Of God.

1 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

Randy, yes, repentence is very important in the Jewish-Christian faith.
In this case it is clear that Jesus warns the people that they should not be worried about the depurified galileans that were sacrificed and thereby, by their reasoning most likely casted out from the 'people of God' but, more about their walk and lifestyle. So, yes it is about lifestyle and living holy lives. But I don't know how I could ever reason this straight in one line, black/white. Sure we can mark the field, sort of, but it is better to be busy where we are heading than the who is in the field and who is out. It is a relational thing between creator and creation. Every person is unique, every person hears different things, every person has a different herritage. So to try and draw a line is impossible unles you know a person from the inside. And that, only God truly knows besides him/herself. And then I almost forgot limited intelligence, disorders, genome/chromosone defects or errors.

So yes reasoning is good until a point, but sometimes you get to a point where reason meets faith.

“If we submit everything to reason our religion will be left with nothing mysterious or supernatural. If we offend the principles of reason our religion will be absurd and ridiculous . . . There are two equally dangerous extremes: to exclude reason, to admit nothing but reason.”
― Blaise Pascal, Pensées

[Randy Wise]

“If we submit everything to reason our religion will be left with nothing mysterious or supernatural. If we offend the principles of reason our religion will be absurd and ridiculous . . . There are two equally dangerous extremes: to exclude reason, to admit nothing but reason.”
― Blaise Pascal, Pensées

Reason is good to use with the living that have some form of excuse or excuses to reject Jesus and such reasoning with the written testimony would be for their good that they may see and believe Jesus is Lord and seek eternal life. One who does listen to God's Holy Spirit and learns from the Father will go to the Son and the Son will raise them up on the last day as that is the Father's Will. There is another spirit in this world (a enemy of God) that denies Jesus as Lord and Christ and that one leads the world astray.

Randy

[Martijn van Beveren]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here...

Reason is good to use with the living that have some form of excuse or excuses to reject Jesus and such reasoning with the written testimony would be for their good that they may see and believe Jesus is Lord and seek eternal life.

Are you saying that reasoning is bad? Not to go into the offencive or something like that, but your sentence is already based on a whole set of reasoning. It's part of who we are as humans.

One who does listen to God's Holy Spirit and learns from the Father will go to the Son and the Son will raise them up on the last day as that is the Father's Will. There is another spirit in this world (a enemy of God) that denies Jesus as Lord and Christ and that one leads the world astray.

Randy

Reason is not the one, that's a tool, the hearts intention and willingness are the the key.

[Randy Wise]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here...



Are you saying that reasoning is bad? Not to go into the offencive or something like that, but your sentence is already based on a whole set of reasoning. It's part of who we are as humans.



Reason is not the one, that's a tool, the hearts intention and willingness are the the key.

i am saying that i am convinced by scripture and the Spirit of Christ in me that apart from Christ (with few exceptions) one will perish. My reasoning is settled on that matter. Therefore any attempted reasoning along those lines (sanctified by faith in Christ) will be with the excuses of those that reject Christ for their good and in such reasoning I use scripture.



Keep in mind Jesus speaks the very words of God. (The Father is in Him) We read those words in this day and age.

People did reject the message even when Jesus was preaching. Jesus never changed that message as below. We need Jesus for eternal life and the forgiveness of sin is found in Him. Otherwise one's guilt would remain.

Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Many Disciples Desert Jesus

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.

68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

[Martijn van Beveren]

i am saying that i am convinced by scripture and the Spirit of Christ in me that apart from Christ (with few exceptions) one will perish.

My reasoning is settled on that matter.

Therefore any attempted reasoning along those lines (sanctified by faith in Christ) will be with the excuses of those that reject Christ for their good and in such reasoning I use scripture.

Well, in that case you may have put that to a settled and sound doctrine in which you are entitled to have. I'm just having difficulty with such riggid way of thinking. So for me that is a sign that this is a 'dead end' to have any discussion. And for me IMHO that leaves little room for Gods Grace, which goes beyond me. And it suggests that you think that reasoning is bad (unbiblical) when it comes to salvation. For me reason is part of the quadrilateral and therefore part if my identity in th CotN. It is poorly to think that reason is another way of talking yourself 'fake' safe.

[Randy Wise]

Well, in that case you may have put that to a settled and sound doctrine in which you are entitled to have. I'm just having difficulty with such riggid way of thinking. So for me that is a sign that this is a 'dead end' to have any discussion. And for me IMHO that leaves little room for Gods Grace, which goes beyond me. And it suggests that you think that reasoning is bad (unbiblical) when it comes to salvation. For me reason is part of the quadrilateral and therefore part if my identity in th CotN. It is poorly to think that reason is another way of talking yourself 'fake' safe.

People are offered mercy and God is patient with us. But I am of the mind that we have freewill and many choose the wide road.

How is this for reason to one of another religion who perhaps thinks they don't need Jesus because of a false hope from Christians? Does this NT teach that one may reject Jesus for any reason and live? Why then would you listen to one who proclaims faith in Jesus but states you may do so and live?

Randy

[Martijn van Beveren]

People are offered mercy and God is patient with us. But I am of the mind that we have freewill and many choose the wide road.

Okay this is soon going to be a talking in circles, but how wide is this road? And how narrow is the narrow one? When Jesus tells the story of a hundred sheep, and one gets lost, the shepperd searches for it and doesn't give upt till he finds it. That might imply a very wide narrow road to some. Very well reasoned and very biblical.

How is this for reason to one of another religion who perhaps thinks they don't need Jesus because of a false hope from Christians? Does this NT teach that one may reject Jesus for any reason and live? Why then would you listen to one who proclaims faith in Jesus but states you may do so and live?
Randy

I never said that nor am I a campaigner for that. It's just that I am not fond of laying the measure on people. Who's in and who's out is not up to me.

[Todd Erickson]

Interestingly, they've come out with a Study Guide for Love Wins. It's prefaced by Bell, but edited by somebody else, and has stuff by Rollins and Wright in it. Very good for people who like questions and considering their hermenuetic, but it's probably already on the concerned watchlist of books that need to be burned.

But Bell states in the outset of the book what the book is about, and it's not about debating where we go when we die.