What Aslan Means to Liam Neeson

From a Daily Mail interview with actor Liam Neeson, the voice of Aslan in the Narnia films:

Aslan symbolises a Christ-like figure but he also symbolises for me Mohammed, Buddha and all the great spiritual leaders and prophets over the centuries.

That’s who Aslan stands for as well as a mentor figure for kids – that’s what he means for me.

Poor Liam Neeson. He can't win. He probably feels like he has to distance himself from the narrow, Christian message of The Chronicles of Narnia by recreating Aslan for himself in a more palatable, relativistic form to avoid upsetting the culture at large. And why not, if all that matters is what a text means to us, rather than what the author intended that text to mean?

But now he has upset Narnia fans, and with good reason. Neeson's image of Aslan as the god (or leader) of many different religions is quite explicitly argued against in The Last Battle when the Calormenes wrongly claim that Aslan and Tash (their god) are the same god, calling him "Tashlan."

I saw one person argue that Neeson is somewhat accurate because at the end of the book, Emeth, a Calormene, "recognizes Aslan as the Calormene god he'd been serving all along." But that isn't quite correct. Emeth doesn't discover that Aslan is Tash—the Calormene god he'd been serving; he discovers he wasn't serving the Calormene god at all, but he was instead serving Aslan, a very different god. While this is a message of inclusivism* that I don't endorse, it's still quite different from saying that Aslan was both of those gods, as Emeth discovered:

[Aslan said,] Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me...[Emeth replied,] Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook…and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him.**

Mohammed did not pay the ransom for another person's sins. Neither did Buddha. Aslan, on the other hand, did this very thing, and this is meant to represent Jesus, plain and simple.

_________________
*You must be logged in to the STR website in order to view this issue of Solid Ground on the subject of inclusivism--the view that you need not explicitly know and trust in Christ in order to be saved by Christ.

**A big reason why I disagree with this inclusivist message is because no service or goodness deserves a reward of salvation from Jesus. Often when people are troubled by the fact that people who have not heard of Jesus will not be saved, they are acting on the hidden assumption that some people are good enough (have truly sought God enough, or have done enough good) that, in order to be fair, God would bring them to heaven, even if they did not know and submit themselves to Jesus' mercy and forgiveness. But this is not the picture the Bible paints of our inability to come to God on our own, our hopeless state without Christ, and our need to hear of Christ to be saved (i.e., we must be called by God to be saved, and hearing the Gospel is the only means by which God calls people to Himself).

Comments

[Daron]

Hi Amy,
Indeed, Malebranche has misled you with this emotive plea for the infants. He does so as well when he laments that most, many, the majority, etc., may go to Hell. When he finally admits the truth Malebranche thinks Hell is a pernicious doctrine, and those who believe it are blasphemers and heretics if even Stalin, unrepentant to the end, goes to Hell.
So your answers don't matter at all to Malebranche.

[Brad B]

I second your recommendation for "The Holiness of God" by Sproul. I've said it before and it bears repeating that Malebranche has too high a view of man and too low a view of God. If he'd only submit to sound teaching instead of reacting on an emotional plane he might then realize how unjust his view is.

Hopefully we all know this story, when the vineyard owner sent his representatives to collect what was owed, they were killed. He finally sent his son and he was killed. He was killed when we all said "crucify him". I know many might miss my point here, so I'll make it plain. WE ALL AT ONE TIME SAID "crucify Him" if not in exact words, in truth".

Now what is the just thing to do here, let the murderers go free? This is actually Malebranche's position with no regard to God, His Son, and righteousness. We murderers *deserve* forgiveness.

Alas, in Adam, we all sinned.

[Malebranche]

Amy,

In these discussions my most fundamental concern is to insist that what God has done on behalf of sinful, wicked humanity really is good news to humanity; it is good news worth celebrating without injecting “hesitation into our prayers, a jar into our praises, and a misery into our love.” What God has done for humanity is a recognizably good and joyous thing; not the ‘inscrutable’ good news of a God exercising his justice (if it even be that) in order to forsake the bulk of mankind to unredeemed and unending wickedness, but the recognizable good news that bears good fruit in our spirits and causes us to love our neighbor without fear that in an important sense God does not.

Now there are certain theologies that cannot make good sense of God’s action towards humanity being good news to humanity. And my response to such theologies is, “So much the worse for that system! Commit it to the flames, for it is a mere invention, an invention that would turn the good news of Jesus Christ into something that, all things considered, we ought to contemplate with heart-crushing sorrow.” I would have thought that a first principle of the Christian faith is that what God has done for sinful, wicked humanity is a good thing for humanity (even for the world!). Far more devastating than proof-texting them into a corner is to convince the exclusivist Calvinist that, on her system, God’s action towards sinful humanity is, on the whole, very close to the worst news one could imagine for sinful, wicked humanity. Let me illustrate. I grant that my family is full of wicked, sinful humans. I grant that they are to blame for their condition. I grant that, if God does not regenerate them and inject life into their spiritual death, that they are without hope. But tell me this. Would it be good news to my family if God informed me that he had, from eternity, chosen to give them their deserts and hand them all over to eternal perdition while saving me only? Of course not! Neither is it good news to the world.

Now there are some who believe that God cannot save all humans because he is constrained by their free will. C.S. Lewis seems to have thought this and so have many Arminians. They would insist that God never gives up on anyone; that God does everything within his power to save his children that is also consistent with respecting their libertarian free will. But the Calvinist does not believe that. The Calvinist believes that God is perfectly able to save us all, but freely chooses not to; God, according to the Calvinist, freely chooses to forsake the bulk of us in order to exercise his justice and display his power. There is nothing recognizably good or joyous about that message. Perhaps that’s good news for God’s inscrutable goodness and glory, but it is close to the worst news I could imagine for humanity.

You ask, Is there something other than your understanding of what "good news" ought to be that leads you to believe that most people go to heaven (or did I misunderstand you)?

Well I would have thought that I wasn’t peculiar in believing that it is not good news to God’s wicked children for God to freely abandon them to eternal horror while only saving a few. I think the burden is on you if you’re going to dispute that. I also do not believe that one can shoulder this burden merely by pointing out that Scripture is on your side, since that may just show that Scripture too is unreasonable.

But yes, I do think there is reason to be hopeful even from Scripture. I believe that “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22). I believe that “as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men” (Romans 5:18). I believe that “God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all” (Romans 11:32). I believe that “no one is cast off by the Lord forever. Though he brings grief, he will show compassion, so great is his unfailing love. For he does not willingly bring affliction or grief to anyone” (Lamentations 3:31-33). I believe that God was pleased “through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross” (Colossians 1:20). And I believe that “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2).

Now I am well aware of how this often goes. We are told to interpret the obscure parts of Scripture by the clear parts. We are told that the best way to do this has as a consequence that God has abandoned most of humanity to eternal death and languishing. We are told that we ought to put our moral sense to one side (why trust your understanding of what “good news” is supposed to be?) and read the Scriptures in such a state of mind. We are told that the passages I have quoted can’t mean what they seem to mean and must be interpreted so as to fit within the system according to which God justly abandons most of sinful humanity to eternal death. Well I disagree. That seems to make a mockery of the good news of Jesus Christ to sinful, wicked humanity. My original argument was and remains this:

(1) If the Classical Reformed Gospel is true, then what God does on behalf of humanity in response to their sin is not good news to humanity.
(2) What God does on behalf of humanity in response to their sin is good news to humanity.
(3) Therefore, the Classical Reformed Gospel is not true (from 1, 2).

[Malebranche]

I think something should be said about the allegation that because I am a univeralist our conversation doesn’t matter much.

I have produced a formally valid argument (it is an instance of modus tollens) with plausible premises. The argument is as follows:

(1) If the Classical Reformed Gospel is true, then what God does on behalf of humanity in response to their sin is not good news to humanity.
(2) What God does on behalf of humanity in response to their sin is good news to humanity.
(3) Therefore, the Classical Reformed Gospel is not true (from 1, 2).

Suppose it is true that I am a universalist. Is that a good reason to believe that (1) is false? No. Is that a good reason to believe that (2) is false? No. Biographical facts about me are just irrelevant to the argument above. Any exclusivist Calvinist ought to care about this argument whether or not I am a universalist. Now perhaps it is a sufficient reply to assert “Build on the firm foundation of the Word of God and lean not on your own understanding!” But that doesn’t very well tell us which premise is false. Is it (1) or (2)? And, of course, merely asserting “Premise (1) is false!” does nothing to motivate rejecting premise (1). In order to motivate rejecting premise (1) (or premise (2)), one must give non-question begging reasons to believe they are false. What are those reasons?

[Arnauld]

On three separate occasions three Samaritans were walking along a road through brigand-infested territory when they each saw a man who had been robbed and beaten lying on the side of the road. The first was the "Good Samaritan" and we are all familiar with his story. The second was a "Minimally Decent Samaritan." He recognized that the man had, by his own free choice, walked alone into brigand-infested country and was now suffering the consequences of his own poor decision. Although the Minimally Decent Samaritan was under no obligation to help the beaten man, he shared a little water with him and moved on, informing the authorities about his plight after he got to where he was going. The third Samaritan we can call the "Just Samaritan". This Samaritan did nothing at all for the beaten man he came across. The Just Samaritan had nothing to do with the beaten man's condition and, furthermore, he recognized that the man was suffering nothing but the consequences of his own bad decision to walk alone through brigand-infested territory. Having absolutely no obligation to interrupt his busy schedule in order to help out the beaten man, the Just Samaritan went along his way and thought not more about it.

I by no means offer this story as a direct analogy to the actions of the Calvinist God. My ONLY point is that what many of you have to say in defense of God's forsaking sinful humanity to eternal hellfire amounts to nothing more than a defense of the Just Samaritan. Greg makes this move quite regularly: God does not treat humanity fairly, but he is under no obligation to, so it doesn't count against his Justice.

Think for just a moment, however, about the Just Samaritan. You might be tempted to say that he is beyond reproach; after all, he has no duty to do anything other than what he does. On the contrary, I think the Just Samaritan is thoroughly wicked, despite the fact that he acts in accordance with "Justice". This is something I think we could all agree to. God has seen fit to furnish us with the capability to render moral judgments about these sort of cases. Is it for us to use this God-given capacity to judge of the character of our Lord? I am with MacDonald in thinking that "this very thing He requires of us."

[Arnauld]

BTW this:

" If he'd[Malebranche] only submit to sound teaching instead of reacting on an emotional plane he might then realize how unjust his view is."

is simply ignorant. Malebranche has issued a well-thought-out challenge supported by a clearly valid argument with VERY plausible premises. He has gone on to support his position with appeals to common-sense, Scripture, and a reduction to absurdity (as far as I'm concerned) of certain positions about the actions/motivations of a perfectly loving God.

You might not like the challenge - it might make you very uncomfortable - but to complain that there is nothing more than an "emotive plea" in his posts is simply irresponsible. My 2 cents.

[Daron]

What 2 cents'll get you these days.
On a previous thread Arnauld assured me that Malebranche has a very high view of Scripture.

But Malebranche has just told us that if Scripture disagrees with his intuition then:
" that may just show that Scripture too is unreasonable."

Lucky enough for Scripture, if Malebranche is careful in what he denies, he has some "reason to be hopeful, even from Scripture".
Whew!

[Daron]

God has seen fit to furnish us with the capability to render moral judgments about these sort of cases.

God made us capable of rendering moral judgments on lots of things. Some people sacrificed their children to Molech. Some visited shrine prostitutes. Some distorted the Word of God. Some prayed "thank you that I am not like this sinner". Some slew their brothers. Some violate the marriage covenant. Some cheat on their taxes. Some withhold mercy when it is within their power to help. Some doubt God's goodness.

And doing so, they think their moral judgments are correct. We all know this because we all do this. But when God is sanctifying you you see where your moral judgments were previously incorrect and learn that, with history as a guide, you are not the ultimate moral arbiter.

[Amy]

Arnaud, the real question in your Samaritan scenario is, what should the authorities of the town do to the man who did the beating? Would they be "thoroughly wicked" if they punished him?

[Amy]

They would insist that God never gives up on anyone; that God does everything within his power to save his children that is also consistent with respecting their libertarian free will. But the Calvinist does not believe that. The Calvinist believes that God is perfectly able to save us all, but freely chooses not to

Can you not see there's no difference between those two things? In both cases, God could save all (He would have to override a greater concern to do so, but He could do it). In both cases, He does not. You think God is choosing not to override His respect for libertarian free will. That means He is freely choosing not to save people, even though He could override their will if He chose to do so.

The Calvinist says that when people continue to willfully live their lives in rebellion against God, God allows their choice to stand, and does not override their will.

There is no difference. (Except in the case of Calvinism, God will sometimes choose to override people's dreadful decision to rebel by changing their heart so they desire to repent and choose Him, whereas in your system, He will never offer this rescuing mercy.)

What you are saying is, "God, according to me, freely chooses to forsake the bulk of us in order to exercise his respect for libertarian free will." You are saying that libertarian free will is more valued by God than the suffering of people in hell. What is good or joyous about that message for those who are lost, going their own way, who will never want to accept Christ? There is no one willing to rescue them.

You can't get away from your objections, even in your own system. Unless, of course, you chuck hell altogether, which you may be doing. But as you keep trying to tweak your image of God, you're getting farther and farther away from what He's revealed to us.

I also do not believe that one can shoulder this burden merely by pointing out that Scripture is on your side, since that may just show that Scripture too is unreasonable.

Then I'm afraid we're at an impasse.

[Arnauld]

And that's why I added a disclaimer about the 'analogy'. My point is only that meeting the minimal demands of justice is insufficient for avoiding the charge of wickedness. If that point is wrong, then the Just Samaritan is alright by us. But he ain't.

A couple of thoughts in response to your question: I think the authorities would be wicked if they consigned the brigand to an eternity of conscious suffering. If the authority was not merely the town judge but also the brigand's father, then I think he would be wicked if he treated the brigand as though he had no more intimate relationship with him. If the authority had the ability to reform the brigand (and perhaps any reformation program would involve a lot of pain on the brigand's part), but inflicted suffering upon him for no better reason than to make him suffer, I'd think he was wicked.

[Malebranche]

Amy,

Perhaps we are at an impasse. A few remarks, however.

First, I do not hold the view that God would permit someone to ruin themselves for all eternity because he chooses not to override their libertarian free will. That is not my view. I think that view has some advantage over your view, that whether or not that is so is not relevant to my case.

Second, even if I were to hold that view, that would not commit me to the view that God abandons most of humanity to hell. I am not an exclusivist, after all. Furthermore, I could hold that God only created those he foreknew would not freely reject him for all eternity. Were God to do that, he would succeed in not abandoning most of his children to eternal horror and would not have to override anyone’s libertarian freedom.

Third, even if I were to hold a view vulnerable to my own objections, merely pointing that out in no way addresses the argument I gave. It gives us no reason to reject premise (1) or premise (2). Pointing out features of my own beliefs in no way explains how the exclusivist Reformed Gospel is good news to humanity. Perhaps I suffer from the same problems that I say afflict your view (I think this is not the case); even if that were the case, that in no way shows that neither of us has a problem; it in no way shows that we both believe in a Gospel that is good news to humanity. Perhaps we both believe in a Gospel that is terrible news to humanity. Pointing out that my objection works against myself as well as you only shows that both of us may need to look for a better view.

I should be clear, however, that I do not hold the view that God refuses to override our freedom and abandons us to eternal horror. That is not my view. It is not true, therefore, that in my system God never overrides our freedom.

Finally, concerning my remark about Scripture. My point is just this. I posed the following argument:

(1) If the Classical Reformed Gospel is true, then what God does on behalf of humanity in response to their sin is not good news to humanity.
(2) What God does on behalf of humanity in response to their sin is good news to humanity.
(3) Therefore, the Classical Reformed Gospel is not true (from 1, 2).

It in no way addresses this argument to say, “But the Bible says that the classical Reformed Gospel is true.” That would just be to locate the problem in Scripture itself and then declare that it is not a problem because it is in Scripture. Furthermore, rejecting the conclusion of an argument because of Scripture in no way addresses or motivates which premise is false. What we need are non-question begging independently motivated reasons for rejecting the truth of one of the premises. The premises are plausible and together entail that the Classical Reformed Gospel is not true. What good reasons are there for thinking that one of the premises is false?

[Amy]

The problem with your analogy is that we're not the beaten person, we're the beater. All talk of justice and mercy must focus on the one doing the beating if we're to determine how that person ought to be treated.

Justice requires the amount due for the crime--no more, no less. We know how serious our crimes are (which are not merely beating a person) because it took an infinite being to receive the just punishment for us.

We are "by nature objects of God's wrath." The miracle is that God adopts some into a special relationship. Before that happens, He does not have an intimate relationship with any human being.

Justice--not for the sake of suffering, but for the sake of justice--is good, not wicked.

[On another note, please return my email ASAP. Thanks.]

[Sam]

Malebranche, I'll give you my thoughts on the premises.

(1) If the Classical Reformed Gospel is true, then what God does on behalf of humanity in response to their sin is not good news to humanity.

This premise lacks precision because if the reformed gospel is true, then it's very good news to some of humanity, but not for the rest of humanity. It's good news, in a sense, even for the non-elect since IF they would repent (which they won't), THEN they would be saved. It's only bad news to them in the sense that they will not repent and therefore won't be saved.

(2) What God does on behalf of humanity in response to their sin is good news to humanity.

This seems to beg the question against the reformed view since, in the reformed view, God only saves the elect, not all of humanity. Since I'm reformed, I can't agree with this premise without the qualifications I mentioned on the first premise.

(3) Therefore, the Classical Reformed Gospel is not true (from 1, 2).

Your argument is definitely logically valid, but the premises have no persuasive power for me. I don't see any way of settling the issue except by appealing to the authority of the scriptures, but since you've basically already said that if the reformed view is really taught in the scriptures, then you would conclude the scriptures were at fault rather than embracing the reformed view. So I think we're at an impasse.

[Arnauld]

"God adopts some into a special relationship. Before that happens, He does not have an intimate relationship with any human being."

I guess I really don't know what to say in response to this; perhaps we, too, are at an impasse. You must read all the language in scripture about God being a Father or Shepherd as directed only to a small subset of humans. Only a select few of us bear His image; the rest are poop. Jesus was kind and loving to all he interacted with, but only because he only interacted with the Elect.

I say that God is Father to us all; that He loves the WHOLE world; that we all bear His image, and are all intimately related to Him whether we are aware of it or not. I think my position is as well supported by scripture as any position is, but I suppose you'll say the same and I've no wish to get into a proof-text war.

[Amy]

I'm not sure what "proof-text war" means. It's not about playing tricks with words, it's about discovering what God wanted us to know about Him...and about ourselves.

Here's what Jesus said to the Pharisees:

If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires.

So God is the creator, so in that sense you could say He's the father of all, but there is a special sense in which He is not everybody's Father.

Paul said:

God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"

Not only is there a need for adoption, but only those who are sons love the Father through Jesus. This isn't everybody because clearly there are many people who do not love and cry out to God, as His sons do.

But having said all this, God does love the whole world, if not in the same sense that He loves some people in a special, saving way who are in a relationship with Him. You love your family in a special way, but that doesn't mean you think all other people are "poop." God gives a great amount of kindness and mercy to people who don't deserve it. He sends rain on the just and the unjust. And yet people "show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance."

[Brad B]

Thanks Sam, for answering the "well reasoned argument" that Arnauld is infatuated with. As you point out, one major problem with Malebranche's argument is that it is ultimately based soley on the world according to Malebranche. One can formulate a valid argument, that doesn't make it also true though.

"I say that God is Father to us all; that He loves the WHOLE world; that we all bear His image, and are all intimately related to Him whether we are aware of it or not. I think my position is as well supported by scripture as any position is, but I suppose you'll say the same and I've no wish to get into a proof-text war.".

Hey Arnauld, it might help your case if you'd cite some recognized Christian commentary that gives us some reason to consider that this statement of yours is anything but an unsubstantiated opinion. [and I dont mean a link to Amazon for some book]

[Malebranche]

Sam,

Thanks for the thoughts. I appreciate your willingness to address the argument proposed.

I don’t think my first premise lacks precision. It seems to me that the following is the message of the Classical Reformed Gospel to humanity:

In response to your sin, for which you are all to blame and for which you all deserve eternal languishing, God has freely resolved to grant repentance to some of you while withholding repentance from the majority of humanity. All of those who do not repent shall inherit unending, hopeless ruin, because they deserve that anyway. Their spirits shall starve for all eternity. But that doesn’t mean God is wicked, because God has a right to abandon all of his sinful children to such a horrific future. Those who do repent, however, shall avoid this miserable. If all of you would have repented (i.e., if God had granted all of you repentance), then none of you would have inherited unending, hopeless ruin. But most of you shall never repent (i.e., God shall never grant repentance to most of you). Most of you, therefore, shall inherit eternal languishing and horror.

Now the Calvinist might say to those sinners rejected by God, “Isn’t it good news for you that had God granted you repentance, you would have had eternal joy instead of eternal despair? I know that as a matter of fact God will never do that for you; but isn’t it good news that had he done that for you, then things would have gone better for you?”

I doubt very seriously that anyone would respond to that question with a hearty ‘Yes!’ Of course that is not good news. That specific part of the message is not good news to humanity, nor is the message as a whole. It is a story of massive abandonment mitigated by occasional rejection, hardly something to warm our hearts about every Christmas.

I don’t even believe that this message is good news to the elect. Would you consider it good news to you if you were told by God that from all eternity he had elected you for salvation but had abandoned all of those you love to eternal hellfire? Is you’re own welfare so independent of the welfare of those you love that you would consider that good news worth celebrating?

It seems to me that the Classical Reformed Gospel is a dark, heartbreaking, and hopeless message to humanity. It tells us that in a sense God wants us all to be saved, but in the sense that actually works itself out in history, he wants most of us to be damned. It tells us that in a sense God loves us all, but in a very important sense he does not, a sense that shall land many of our sinful friends and loved ones in hellfire. It tells us that in a sense he is our heavenly father, but that in another sense most of us are children of Satan and shall inherit a future of wrath and fury appropriate for objects of wrath prepared for destruction.

You can understand why that would strike me as a dark, heartbreaking, joyless Gospel.

[Malebranche]

Oops. I should have wrote

It is a story of massive abandonment mitigated by occasional REDEMPTION

[Daron]

Now the Calvinist might say to those sinners rejected by God, “Isn’t it good news for you that had God granted you repentance, you would have had eternal joy instead of eternal despair? I know that as a matter of fact God will never do that for you; but isn’t it good news that had he done that for you, then things would have gone better for you?”

No informed Calvinist would say or think anything like this. Only God knows who is not among the elect.

I don’t even believe that this message is good news to the elect. Would you consider it good news to you if you were told by God that from all eternity he had elected you for salvation but had abandoned all of those you love to eternal hellfire? Is you’re own welfare so independent of the welfare of those you love that you would consider that good news worth celebrating?

Good for you; you are almost talking on a real level here. When I was wandering around with my head in the clouds, thinking we all absorbed into the infinite energy of the universe I couldn't care less about what happened to my loved ones after their physical bodies died. When I started to have a small inkling of the beauty and glory of Heaven, of our existence praising God, and when I realized that there was a real fate of torment being separated from Him, then I started to care. My parents are now professing Christians and attending church for the first time in 40 years. Yes, you are absolutely right, I will not celebrate thinking of the reprobation of the lost. But I also see the power of God's election when I think that after 40 years He still comes and gets those He has chosen.

This reminds me of a 4th Samaritan I saw once. He had a booth and a bell and was set up on the outskirts of a brigand-infested territory. "Good News!" he proclaimed. "I have Good News! There are no thieves or murderers in this territory. Only heretics and blasphemers think that there are. Wander in. Have a good time. Look around and enjoy yourself, for all is grand and joyous."

Several were leery, but he insisted that those who had maliciously warned them about the so-called dangers were just evil and rejoice in the fantasy that some, no ....most! ... people would fall prey to such pirates. They don't even care if their own loved ones get robbed or murdered.

The Enlightened Samaritan won many converts who gleefully entered the territory taking no precautions.

[Malebranche]

“Has Christ been sacrificed only for our sins? Has he not, according to 1 John 2:2, been sacrificed for the whole world? Strange Christianity, whose most pressing anxiety seems to be that God’s grace might prove to be all too free on this side, that hell, instead of being populated with so many people, might some day prove to be empty!”

--Karl Barth, “Barth: God Here and Now,” Routledge, pp. 41-42.

[Louis Kuhelj]

Amy

"If I ever am blessed enough to have children, I have no guarantee whatsoever that any of them will be saved, no matter how old they are when they die."

Although I respect and admire your stance and many of your views, I have a problem with your above statement. The reason I have an issue is because Greg has spoken quite convincingly on the age of accountability that plays into the issue of salvation. If I a to take this aspect into consideration, then I would say that Greg's explanation does seem to hold a high level of confidence that those who die prior to age of accountability are saved through God's sovereign grace. I do keep in mind that the level of confidence is not at 100%, and that is why I give your argument here some appropriate credit, but I think that the level is high enough to make it much more likely than not that those below the age of accountability are safe in Christ.

[Daron]

2 Peter 2:
9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.
10 This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh and despise authority.

[Malebranche]

“I could not believe that all those who have not known Jesus Christ according to the Gospel preached in the world will be lost without recourse no matter how they have lived. One could not prevent oneself from thinking this unjust, and one could not escape from that view by saying with Mr Arnauld that we should not judge God by the ideas that we have of justice. For when it is said that God is just it must be the case that we have a general idea or notion of justice, otherwise it would be to attribute to him just a word.” Leibniz

[Daron]

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

-
Jesus

[Malebranche]

Oh yes. Matthew 25. It reminds me of Matthew 16:27-28:

For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

I wonder when that happened; because it sounds like it happened in their lifetimes; and it sounds a lot like the way Matthew 25:31-46 begins:

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory.

I wonder what the events in Matthew 24 are about. Heaven and hell? Or the destruction of the Temple? I genuinely do wonder about that. After all, Jesus' remarks about his final coming have been a bit of an embarrassment for some. C.S. Lewis, for instance, writes the following:

the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime.And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.

If you interpret all of these passages to be about the final coming of our Savior (as Lewis did), then it seems like you have to believe that Jesus got the timing wrong (as Lewis did). However, interpreting them as concerning the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 saves Jesus from the timing error, but then the passages no longer are directly about heaven or hell. As of now, therefore, I tentatively incline towards the view that Matthew 25 is not about heaven or hell at all, but about the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70.

You are right, however, in pointing out that this is a difficult passage; but as I have pointed out, it is difficult for all Christians, Lewis included.

[Malebranche]

I would also point out that 'eternal' does not always mean 'unending' in the New Testament.

Here's Thomas Talbott on the issue:

The first point I would make is that on no occasion of its use in the New Testament does ‘aionios’ refer to a temporal process of unending duration. On a few occasions--as when Paul spoke of a ‘mystery that was kept secret for long ages (chronios aioniois) but is now disclosed’ (Rom. 16:25-26)--the adjective does imply a lengthy period of time. But on these occasions, it could not possibly mean ‘eternal’ or ‘everlasting’. On other occasions, its use seems roughly Platonic in this sense: Whether God is eternal (that is, timeless, outside of time) in a purely Platonic sense or everlasting in the sense that he endures throughout all of the ages, nothing other than God is eternal in the primary sense (see the reference to ‘the eternal God’ in Rom. 16:26). The judgements, gifts, and actions of God are eternal in the secondary sense that their causal source lies in the eternal character and purpose God. One common function of an adjective, after all, is to refer back to the causal source of some action or condition. [Endnote: A selfish act, for example, is one that springs from, or has its causal source in, selfish motives.] When Jude thus cited the fire that consumed Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of eternal fire, he was not making a statement about temporal duration at all; in no way was he implying that the fire continues burning today, or even that it continued burning for an age. He was instead giving a theological interpretation in which the fire represented God’s judgement upon the two cities. So the fire was eternal not in the sense that it would burn forever without consuming the cities, but in the sense that, precisely because it was God’s judgement upon these cities and did consume them, it expressed God’s eternal character and eternal purpose in a special way.

[Daron]

""Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”""

Well keep reading if you're curious.

Matthew 17

""""
The Transfiguration

1 After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus."""

It's the very next verse.

As of now, therefore, I tentatively incline towards the view that Matthew 25 is not about heaven or hell at all, but about the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70.

Jesus' coming, in chapter 16 and 17, would most likely refer to His glory on the Mount of Transfiguration, and His coming to the destruction of the Temple. That doesn't save you from chapter 25, though when He says: “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Eternal punishment is eternal punishment, whether it commences in AD 70 or any other time.

Nor does it escape from the next chapter when he says of Judas:
"But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."
Going to Heaven with every last man-jack of creation would not qualify for being worse than never being born.

Temporality is a red herring. I don't know if you can call the torment of being eternally separated from God "temporal" or not. Regardless of its "duration" the punishment, by your own source, will express God's eternal character and eternal purpose in a special way. If God's judgment on people is supposed to be like His judgment on the cities then it is still a far cry from universal salvation. Maybe it gets you to annihilationism, but not universalism.
It still leaves us with all your previous objections.

[Daron]

"28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned."
Jesus.

[Daron]

On "eternal" and against annihilation.

The NT usage of the adjective, on the other hand, is quite consistent in referring to endless or unlimited time, a meaning consonant with the word _εί (aei, “always”) from which it is probably derived.48 In its seventy-four occurrences in the NT, it always has the connotation of something that is unending or without time limitations.49 Seventy-one of the uses look forward to eternity future, and only three refer back to what mortals would call eternity past (Rom 16:25; 2 Tim 1:9; Tit 1:2).

...
Throughout His ministry Jesus taught that the lost would depart into eternal
fire prepared for the devil and his angels and eternal punishment. In other words,
they will suffer endless, conscious agony away from the presence of God and His
Son. None of the other options that confuse the evangelical spectrum are viable in
light of Jesus’ view of eternal punishment.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:NBFvYdlIwnEJ:www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj9g.pdf+jesus+eternal+punishment&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShPECfjdRULVxGTuQjVDvIRf-8lzPaWHJIA8XKZfyIlQ2LsRQp_3IelxKZF1YyxayNUuneEZ7wl1SJdQfa4KRcjVOlya99vni5HY4DnOhUyOX1iH_BGaoHoS98zu15InGUv26Wx&sig=AHIEtbRpYXj6M4hU0v6Ku69-fPYycvShfA&pli=1

[Malebranche]

Well I doubt that Jesus rewarded each man according to what he had done at his transfiguration, which makes me doubt that Matthew 16:27-28 was about the transfiguration. From what I can tell, you've given no reason to think it is about the transfiguration.

[Malebranche]

This is interesting. Jonah says that though he was barred beneath the earth FOREVER, nevertheless God delivered him from the pit. The word we see in verse 2 of chapter 2 is Sheol, which is often translated as 'hell' (e.g. KJV). Here's what Jonah says (2:5-6):

Water encompassed me to the point of death
The great deep engulfed me,
Weeds were wrapped around my head.
I descended to the roots of the mountains
The earth with its bars was around me forever,
But You have brought up my life from the pit, O LORD my God.

[Malebranche]

Check out Jude 6-7:

And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

It's not obvious that the bonds are eternal in the sense of lasting forever. One could plausibly read the text as teaching that the bonds will not last forever, but rather will last until the day of judgment. The bonds are eternal in the sense that they came from the eternal God.

Similarly, it's not obvious that the fire that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah is eternal in the sense that it lasts forever. Rather, it is simply the fire from the eternal God, and so is in that sense eternal fire. In fact, Ezekiel 16 speaks of God redeeming Sodom:

"As I live," declares the Lord GOD, "Sodom, your sister and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me Therefore I removed them when I saw it. Furthermore, Samaria did not commit half of your sins, for you have multiplied your abominations more than they. Thus you have made your sisters appear righteous by all your abominations which you have committed. Also bear your disgrace in that you have made judgment favorable for your sisters. Because of your sins in which you acted more abominably than they, they are more in the right than you. Yes, be also ashamed and bear your disgrace, in that you made your sisters appear righteous. Nevertheless, I will restore their captivity, the captivity of Sodom and her daughters, the captivity of Samaria and her daughters, and along with them your own captivity, in order that you may bear your humiliation and feel ashamed for all that you have done when you become a consolation to them. Your sisters, Sodom with her daughters and Samaria with her daughters, will return to their former state, and you with your daughters will also return to your former state... Nevertheless, I will remember My covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you. Then you will remember your ways and be ashamed when you receive your sisters, both your older and your younger; and I will give them to you as daughters, but not because of your covenant. Thus I will establish My covenant with you, and you shall know that I am the LORD, so that you may remember and be ashamed and never open your mouth anymore because of your humiliation, when I have forgiven you for all that you have done," the Lord GOD declares.

[Brad B]

Malebranche's scripture twisting continues by his propensity to pluck verses out of context, or more accurately ignore context completely to hopefully draw men away from the truth of eternal damnation which gives reason to fear the Lord.

Here is the context of the whole of chapter 16 of Ezekiel "Eze 16:1 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, Eze 16:2 "Son of man, make known to Jerusalem her abominations Eze 16:3 and say, 'Thus says the Lord GOD to Jerusalem, "Your origin and your birth are from the land of the Canaanite, your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite. Eze 16:4 "As for your birth, on the day you were born your navel cord was not cut, nor were you washed with water for cleansing; you were not rubbed with salt or even wrapped in cloths. Eze 16:5 "No eye looked with pity on you to do any of these things for you, to have compassion on you. Rather you were thrown out into the open field, for you were abhorred on the day you were born. Eze 16:6 "When I passed by you and saw you squirming in your blood, I said to you while you were in your blood, 'Live!' Yes, I said to you while you were in your blood, 'Live!' Eze 16:7 "I made you numerous like plants of the field. Then you grew up, became tall and reached the age for fine ornaments; your breasts were formed and your hair had grown. Yet you were naked and bare. Eze 16:8 "Then I passed by you and saw you, and behold, you were at the time for love; so I spread My skirt over you and covered your nakedness. I also swore to you and entered into a covenant with you so that you became Mine," declares the Lord GOD. Eze 16:9 "Then I bathed you with water, washed off your blood from you and anointed you with oil.
Eze 16:10 "I also clothed you with embroidered cloth and put sandals of porpoise skin on your feet; and I wrapped you with fine linen and covered you with silk.
Eze 16:11 "I adorned you with ornaments, put bracelets on your hands and a necklace around your neck. Eze 16:12 "I also put a ring in your nostril, earrings in your ears and a beautiful crown on your head. Eze 16:13 "Thus you were adorned with gold and silver, and your dress was of fine linen, silk and embroidered cloth. You ate fine flour, honey and oil; so you were exceedingly beautiful and advanced to royalty. Eze 16:14 "Then your fame went forth among the nations on account of your beauty, for it was perfect because of My splendor which I bestowed on you," declares the Lord GOD. Eze 16:15 "But you trusted in your beauty and played the harlot because of your fame, and you poured out your harlotries on every passer-by who might be willing.

Does it really speak of God remembering a covenant with Sodom? Which covenant would that be Malebranche? Can you point out the scripture where God made a covenant with Sodom? I've never heard of one with Sodom listed as one of the many forms of biblical covenants.

I encourage everyone to question Malebranche's use of scripture.

[Daron]

Well I doubt that Jesus rewarded each man according to what he had done at his transfiguration, which makes me doubt that Matthew 16:27-28 was about the transfiguration.

Ah, but neither did He reward everyone when the Temple was destroyed. About the Transfiguration. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?85429-Matthew-16-28

But that's beside the point. Whether the "coming" was His Transfiguration or the destruction of the Temple, or both, He said He would eternally punish the wicked. And He said it would be better if Judas had never been born. And He said He would raise the dead to their condemnation. And He said the wicked were like the tares, to be separated and burned. And His winnowing fork was in His hand to separate to wheat from the chaff.

And your argument for your wanted rewarding of "eternal" does not carry. See the link in my previous comments.

Oh, and then there's Revelation 20:

Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

[Brad B]

But Daron, there's a well reasoned agrument that says it's not good news to humanity that will not allow for Rev. 20 to stand. After all, scripture cannot be trusted if it disagrees with Malebranche's definition and application of good news.

I guess I'm tiring of this.

[Daron]

I as well, Brad.
Of course, that is likely Malebranche's strategy.

[Malebranche]

I should have put the following in bold:

However, I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them, 54 so that you may bear your disgrace and be ashamed of all you have done in giving them comfort. And your sisters, Sodom with her daughters and Samaria with her daughters, will return to what they were before; and you and your daughters will return to what you were before.

[Malebranche]

N.T. Wright, himself no univeralist, thinks that many of the passages we have traditionally interpreted as about hell are really about the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70:

The sayings of Jesus that have been misinterpreted include ones like Luke 13:3: "unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." These are clearly warnings about a coming military destruction (swords in the Temple, falling stonework, etc.), but are often taken as a description of burning in hell after death. Of course, there may be a further application (what older theologians called a sensus plenior, a "fuller meaning") to a doctrine of hell; but if we don't get the first level of meaning right, it's dangerous to guess at second ones.

Elsewhere he remarks:

Alongside Jesus’ announcement of the (paradoxical) inauguration of God’s kingdom we find a constant warning: If the nation refuses to turn from its collision course with God’s purposes, the inevitable result will be terrible national devastation. Jesus couches these warnings in the standard language of apocalyptic prophecy. Just as Jeremiah had prophesied that the ‘Day of the Lord’ would consist not in the salvation of Jerusalem from Babylon but in her destruction at Babylon’s hands, so Jesus warns that the coming of the kingdom will mean, within a generation, destruction for the nation, the city and the temple that have turned their back on the true purposes for which they had been called and chosen (e.g. Lk. 13:1-9, 22-30, 34-35). These warnings come to a head in the great discourse (Mt. 24; Mk. 13; Lk. 21) in which the imminent destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is predicted... All these elements in Jesus’ ministry come together in the events which, in the synoptic gospels at least, cluster together in the last week of his ministry. He enters Jerusalem in apparently deliberate fulfilment of messianic prophecy. He acts out in symbolic form God’s judgment on the temple which has become the focal point of spurious national ambition. He engages in controversy with Pharisees and Sadducees, pointing to their impending final rejection of him as the climax of Israel’s renunciation of God’s call (Lk. 20:9-19) and hinting that the Messiah might be more than a mere nationalist leader (Lk. 20:41-44). He makes his final predictions of God’s impending judgment on the nation (in characteristically apocalyptic language, often misread as referring to the end of the entire world). He celebrates the Passover with his disciples, investing the occasion with new meaning by pointing forward to his own death, not backward to the exodus, as the true redemption of God’s people. After betrayal by one of the twelve, he is tried on a charge which, like everything else in his life and work, defies separation into ‘religious’ and ‘political’ elements: his words against the temple, his claims to Messiahship, were reemphasized in his final answer to the high priest (Mk. 14:62), claiming that Israel’s destiny, and her long-awaited vindication by God after suffering, was about to be fulfilled in him and, apparently, him alone. He would carry out Israel’s task: and, having pronounced Israel’s impending judgment in the form of the wrath of Rome which would turn out to be the wrath of God, he would go ahead of her and take that judgment on himself, drinking the cup of God’s wrath so that his people might not drink it (Mk. 14:36; 10:45, etc.).

[Daron]

Looks like you're arguing now with phantoms, Malbranche.
Glad you think the Bishop is such a quote-worthy scholar. Of course, you are right about his not being an universalist.
http://www.outofur.com/archives/2010/01/ur_video_nt_wri_1.html

[Daron]

Speaking of Malebranche's openness to words not always having unequivocal meanings, his interest in Matthew 24, and his proof texts that say "all will be saved" ....

9 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of m

Were the disciples really hated by nations before Jesus' coming to judge Jerusalem?
Seems the answer would be an easy "no". So "all" (like "eternal") can have different meanings.

[Daron]

And, continuing in Matthew 24, and pre-destruction of the Temple:

14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

and, at the time of the judgment:

And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.

Was the Word preached to ALL the nations, and did ALL the people of the Earth mourn? Seems not.

[Malebranche]

Daron,

Right. "All" does not always mean "without exception." But sometimes it does. I suppose the meaning is determined by the context.

I take Matthew 24-25 to be addressing God's judgment against Israel in A.D. 70, not heaven and hell. Rome's wrath against Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was God's wrath against the city. I therefore interpret the parable of the sheep and the goats as a parable about that historical incident, not as a parable about heaven and hell.

[Daron]

Hi Malebranche,

Right. "All" does not always mean "without exception." But sometimes it does. I suppose the meaning is determined by the context.

That's right, and sometimes the context is found in the entire message. God so loved the world, but those He saves are those who believe. Those who believe in Him are not condemned, but those who refuse are condemned already. Whoever believes in Him has eternal life and whoever doesn't will not see life. John 3.
Always that condition is given. Why would it be said even once that that it is those who believe in Christ who are saved if, in fact, it is everyone who is saved? Why is it the Father's will that those who look and believe in Jesus will have eternal life and will be raised the third day if all are raised? John 6
In John 10 he tells the Pharisees that He knows His sheep, and they Him, and they shall have eternal life. They shall not perish, but those who do not believe in Him are not His sheep. Thus, they are perishing.
These, of course, are given years before His prophecy of the destruction of the Temple.
In Matthew 16 why would He say that those who lose their lives for HIm will find life, but that there are others who will lose their souls if all will see Heaven? Why would He pray not for "the world" but for those given to Him if everyone is given to Him?
And why would He say that there are those whose sins will not be forgiven? John 20

I take Matthew 24-25 to be addressing God's judgment against Israel in A.D. 70, not heaven and hell.

This is a fair point. Then again, it creates a false dichotomy as well. Very seldom does Biblical prophecy and teaching sit only at one level.

I therefore interpret the parable of the sheep and the goats as a parable about that historical incident, not as a parable about heaven and hell.

But God uses historical facts to teach doctrinal truths.

And what makes this a parable? Jesus didn't say it was a parable. He didn't even make it a simile for something else.

And how is this a parable? To what other truth does it point?

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Why does He say that few are chosen and the others are thrown out where there is gnashing of teeth? What does this have to do with the Temple, and why doesn't this add context to the word "all"? When the rich young man asked Him what he had to do to get eternal life why didn't Jesus say "why, nothing! Everyone gets to go to Heaven"?

When Jesus was on trial He told the Sanhedrin that from now on they would see Him coming in the clouds. He will always now be in judgment and in His kingdom - not merely when He comes to judge Jerusalem. These are the same men of whom He asked "how will you escape being condemned to Hell?" and whose father was the Devil.
Was He talking about the destruction of the Temple in chapter 18 when He talked about going to Hell and the eternal fire? In the same chapter when the Father treats the unforgiving servant like the master did in the parable, handing him over to the prison, what does this teach us?

etc.

[Daron]

By the way, Maebranche,
I've asked several times and you haven't answered: why did Jesus commission Apostles, why did He send us to tell the good news, why did Paul spend His life preaching, why did God bother writing a Bible, and why do you haunt Calvinist blogs if your view is the correct one?
If you are right, then so what? Why should we care since we will all end in eternal bliss, anyway?
Why does God bother to tell us anything if it doesn't matter what we believe or what we do?

[Malebranche]

why did Jesus commission Apostles?

Because God has seen fit to allow us to participate with him in saving the world from sin, hell, and the grave.

why did He send us to tell the good news?

See above.

Why did Paul spend his life preaching?

See above.

Why did God bother writing a Bible?

Because he wanted us to have a record of salvation history; a record of God, by means of interacting with the world, saving the world.

Why do you haunt Calvinist blogs if your view is the correct one?

If my view is correct, then classical Calvinism is false, and classical Calvinists have false beliefs. It's bad to have false beliefs. So, there's at least one reason.

Also, many people reject Christianity because they believe it makes a tyrant out of God. I think Calvinists contribute to this by teaching that God is a tyrant. By opposing them it becomes easier for people to believe that God really loves them and is good to all.

Why should we care since we will all end in eternal bliss, anyway?

Because it matters even here and now whether we love God and love our neighbors. Insofar as someone fails to do those things here and now, he is miserable here and now.

This is like asking, "If your child is going to get better in a week without the medicine, why give him medicine that would cure him in an hour?" Why bring my child to health sooner rather than later? Because I love my child, of course.

Why does God bother to tell us anything if it doesn't matter what we believe or what we do?

Because it matters greatly what we believe and do.

[Malebranche]

Daron, you seem to believe that preaching the Gospel to all people is worthwhile only if not all of those people accept your message. Why would you think that?

On my view, there are good reasons to have faith in God even here and now. Our teleology as rational creatures is to worship God. Insofar as we fail to do that, even here and now, we languish.

Furthermore, the wicked shall not enter into heaven until all of the sin in their hearts is destroyed; until every last bit of selfishness and pride has disappeared as chaff in the flame, they shall not inherit the kingdom; they shall be cast out into darkness where there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth until they pay the last farthing.

Surely the universalist can be motivated by such prospects to train his children in righteousness.

[Daron]

Hi Malebranche,
Thanks for your thoughts. To most of your first comment all I can say is "so?" so I will start with your second.

Daron, you seem to believe that preaching the Gospel to all people is worthwhile only if not all of those people accept your message. Why would you think that?

I wouldn't think that and I don't think it actually seems like I do. More than that, it seems an indisputable fact that not all of those will accept the message. An that many more never hear it at all. And yet , you claim they are saved anyway, so that in and of itself, despite your protestations, makes the preaching seem irrelevant. Although Jesus seemed to think it very relevant.

On my view, there are good reasons to have faith in God even here and now. Our teleology as rational creatures is to worship God. Insofar as we fail to do that, even here and now, we languish.

Ahhh, all on our own we languish. And somehow you've decided that even though we might languish here in this plane everyone will turn around and worship God eventually. How can you guarantee that? Especially since we are told to seek God while He yet may be found.

Furthermore, the wicked shall not enter into heaven until all of the sin in their hearts is destroyed; until every last bit of selfishness and pride has disappeared as chaff in the flame, they shall not inherit the kingdom; they shall be cast out into darkness where there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth until they pay the last farthing.

And do you not know from Jesus' parable that we cannot pay back every last farthing? We haven't the ability nor the resources. Also, you act as though as soon as one is cast to his jailer he will start paying back rather than incurring more debt. Why do you think this is the case?

Thus, the beauty of the Biblical truth: Jesus paid it all! Every farthing is paid and that payment is given us a free gift. Luther, Augustine, and Anselm knew that they only accumulated more debt and never paid any off. This is why "Calvinism" is so beautiful and hopeful - exclamations by you and Arnauld to the contrary notwithstanding.

Surely the universalist can be motivated by such prospects to train his children in righteousness.

I guess you can invent any metric you want by which you can measure a better life, and all is well. Surely, some think they can eat drink and be merry as their motivation. And their you are to tell them that is just fine.

To your first:

Because God has seen fit to allow us to participate with him in saving the world from sin, hell, and the grave.

This contradicts your claims. If Hell is not really a live destination you cannot really save anyone from it. And, regardless of your participation, many will not accept the message and many will never hear of it. And yet you say they are saved from sin, hell and the grave anyway. This exposes the contradiction in your answer.

Because he wanted us to have a record of salvation history; a record of God, by means of interacting with the world, saving the world.

That's weird. Since He's going to save us all anyway why doesn't He just give us the record in the afterlife?

It's bad to have false beliefs. So, there's at least one reason.

How can it be bad to have false beliefs if there is not ultimate difference?

Also, many people reject Christianity because they believe it makes a tyrant out of God. I think Calvinists contribute to this by teaching that God is a tyrant. By opposing them it becomes easier for people to believe that God really loves them and is good to all.

Your emotional accusations are very irritating. Calvinists do not teach that God is a tyrant. On the real point, so what? It doesn't matter if people reject Christianity because they are all saved - according to you. It doesn't matter because, ultimately, they will know that God loves them and they will be fine. And this will last for eternity. Eternity dwarfs and makes insignificant any duration fo suffering, whether here or while paying off farthings. When all the tears are washed away the past pain is past. So there is no ultimate difference in belief versus non-belief.

Because it matters even here and now whether we love God and love our neighbors. Insofar as someone fails to do those things here and now, he is miserable here and now

A woman forgets the pain of labour after the child is born. These answers are toothless and irrelevant.

Because it matters greatly what we believe and do.

I don't see that at all, not on your universalist claims.

[Brad B]

Surely the Father erred when Jesus asked the Father for any other way to redeem, and was then committed to the cross. According to Malebranche, here's the alternative. "Furthermore, the wicked shall not enter into heaven until all of the sin in their hearts is destroyed; until every last bit of selfishness and pride has disappeared as chaff in the flame, they shall not inherit the kingdom; they shall be cast out into darkness where there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth until they pay the last farthing.

This is preaching a righteousness of our own as entry into God's presence, there would be no present benefit for anyone in this scheme, there'd be none in Christ, no justification, no right to call "abba Father", and no ending of the enmity between God and Man. And this is good news?

2 Cor 2: 14-17
But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. 15 For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, 16 to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things? 17 For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God's word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ.

[Brad B]

Hey Malbranche, bolding a section of the scripture we've already seen the context of doesn't rescue you in any way. Cite for us a respected commentary that gives us your view expounded so that we can take you seriously--as of now, you are rambling incoherently from scripture to scripture picking out pet words and expecting us to see universalism behind every bush like you do. It's a big waste of time.