http://trinityandhumanity.com/

Be Blessed!!!

Is it possible that you have made of the Bible (KJV) an idol, a Baal rather than the LIVING WORD?

I am actually not trying to imply absolute zero value for the OT – just being (partially) sarcastic (as Steve pointed out) when implying an OT book burning event.

Also, I’m trying for the Marcion Award in 2012. Can I count on your vote?

If anyone claims to follow Jesus, then they must, if there is to be any kind of intellectual honesty, say that the Bible is a reliable book- both OT and NT.

Keep in mind, Paul could not have been referring to the NT as “scripture” in this verse- it didn’t exist. Therefore the only possible explanation that exists is that he was directly referring to the OT.

I think that although we are learning MUCH about the unimaginable grace, mercy, love and overwhelming awesomeness and goodness of God, it would not be wise, in any estimation to say that the OT is garbage…or that it was not inspired by God- the Apostle Paul said it was…
Something to think about!

Current Christian Religion is still based a lot on the OT, focusing on rules and generating a fear of the consequences for breaking them. Based on your podcast, I am wondering about the current value of the OT. I am speculating that God might even be surprised that we maintain so many copies of it since it primarily focuses on sin/performance/reward/punishment. Of course there is also the question of how much of it is really God’s actual words. Your podcast stirred this question up in my mind and I was wondering what others thought about this – i.e. the OT is fear/performance focused (opposite of your podcast discussion), so what value is it (other than for a historical perspective on ancient Israel)?

Also, has anyone read “The Bible is a Good Book, But God Didn’t Write It” by Bishop John Shelby Spong – I am thinking of picking it up soon, recommendations anyone?

I don’t for a moment expect to be able to convince you of my view on ultimate reconciliation, but I assure you it has much more support than just one verse! However, there is one very important thing to keep in mind when discussing the various views of eternal destiny: Anyone who is honest about their use of scripture in building a view of eternal destiny has to admit that there are some passages they “prefer” over others, and some that they downright have to almost ignore in order to hold to their view. Eternal conscious torment (often referred to as ECT) has its supporting verses. Annihilation also has its supporting verses. And Ultimate Reconciliation has its supporting verses. Any one of those views can be “proof-texted” from the Bible.

For me, I look at passages such as Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, both of which draw a parallel between “all” dying in Adam and “all” being made alive in Christ. Absolutely no one argues that there are human beings exempt from the curse of Adam, and yet many redefine the second “all” (the “all” that are made alive in Christ) as being a subset of humans. I believe a more literal and a more faithful reading of those passages (especially when you see the many ways Paul keeps driving the point home in Romans 5) sees both “all” groups as truly being all people. Just as all humans died in Adam, so ultimately will all humans be made alive in Christ. These verses combined with such statements in scripture as “It is his will that none should perish, but that all (again there’s that “all”) should come to repentance” and “every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father” form a grid (especially in the teaching of Paul) to see an ultimate reconciliation (not that the full means of that reconciliation or timetable of the same are revealed to us) of all that the Father created.

We actually spent the better part of the first half of 2011 on this podcast discussing Rob Bell’s book “Love Wins”, Francis Chan and Preston Sprinkle’s book “Erasing Hell”, and I even recorded a conversation with Preston Sprinkle (a delightful conversation, actually!) where we discussed our differences with these passages. We have devoted hours upon hours of this podcast to this topic, complete with discussion of various scriptural passages related to it. I would encourage you to take the time to listen to some of those episodes if you want to know why I believe what I believe.

Ironically, you asked me for scripture to back up my beliefs, and yet you typed an entire paragraph stating with certainty things about hell that have absolutely no basis in scripture. I know of no verses at ALL that say any of the following:

Besides, Hell will contain an absence of God’s grace. The people that wind up in Hell will continue to sin and to hate God just as they did here in their earthly bodies. The difference between them from their life on earth vs eternity in Hell will simply be the absence of God’s common grace.

That paragraph that you typed, while common teaching, has no scriptural support whatsoever. In fact, some of it even contradicts some passages, such as Philippians 2 that I mentioned above (“EVERY knee will bow and every tongue confess”). Furthermore, you stated earlier that it is important to maintain a belief in the omnipresence of God. Yet you claim Hell is a place where God’s grace does not exist. Can God be omnipresent, and yet there be a place absent from his grace? By definition, “omnipresent” means that there cannot be such a place.

Finally, back to the issue of God’s goodness. You said:

[T]he standard for “good” comes from God. He is the standard by which we measure the word from.

Several problems with this statement. One is an interesting statement by Jesus: “If you being evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give…” Look at what Jesus is saying. God’s goodness is not different from our concept of good. It is better. This is a significant difference! Similarly, in Isaiah when it says, “My ways are higher than your ways, my thoughts are higher than your thoughts” he is talking about mercy. He says, in effect, that the amount of mercy we would show other humans pales in comparison to the amount of mercy God would show! In other words, God is not just “good” in a way totally different from how we understand the word “good”. He is better!!!

When you say that God is the standard by which we measure good, you must then draw the following conclusions (if you accept that God has done the following things):

1. For me to withhold a good gift from my child who asks for it is good.
2. For me to withhold a remedy from my child for some illness or some other problem facing them, especially when they have asked for it, is good.
3. For me to kill my own child is good.
4. For me to pour out afflictions upon my own child is good.

The truth is, we actually have laws against parents doing those very things to their child. Why? Because it’s NOT good. To ascribe things such as that to God and say that means He is good is to redefine “good” as something other than “good”. At that point, words have no meanings, then, and we cannot know anything about God.

In your first comment, you said:

God ordained for the murder of His only begotten Son. Just because God ordains certain things to come to pass does not make Him guilty of the sins that caused what He ordained.

This is simply creating a “loophole”. You didn’t just say that God knew certain things would happen. You said he ordained them to happen. To say that someone can ordain something without being guilty of the deed is splitting hairs at best. I’m not even sure it qualifies as splitting hairs. To me, it is simply contradictory.

Thanks for the dialog. As I said, I don’t have any hopes of convincing you of my viewpoint. I would, however, suggest that it would be better to temper your view with a tad more humility with regard to 1) allowing for the possibility that you have misunderstood or misinterpreted the scripture, or 2) that the scripture is not as clear on some topics as we would like to think it is, and therefore we should more cautiously engage brothers who hold differing views.

In your original comment (and without further clarification or retraction), you have made the following accusations against me:

1. I am not a “true student of God’s Word” (what does that even mean, Caleb?)
2. I “parade…as an angel of light”, yet am really a “ravenous wol[f]”
3. I “never say what [I] truly mean” (in other words, I am a deceiver)
4. My teaching is “heretical and wicked”
5. My teaching is “not in the least…FAITHFUL to what God has clearly revealed”
6. I am an idolater
7. I am in sin and need to repent
8. I do not believe the true Gospel of Jesus Christ (what is the “true Gospel of Jesus Christ”, Caleb?)

These are serious accusations, Caleb, and ones that I take very seriously when they are leveled against me.

I will not return fire with fire by leveling any accusations of the sort against you. But like I said, this is why your original comment saddens me greatly. You don’t have to agree with me, but there is no need to speak in such authoritative terms on matters of honest debate, and in doing so, question the very salvation of someone who loves Jesus and follows him with humility and gentleness, seeking ever to be led by the Spirit and to display the fruit of the same. You may think you know me because you think you know people “like” me. But in reality, your comment shows that you don’t know me at all.

Be blessed, my brother, and follow after truth. But may I encourage you to exercise caution in what charges you bring against other brothers. And above all, exercise humility in your own convictions, acknowledging that maybe there is something you can learn from dialog with other brothers who come to different conclusions as you, yet love and study the very same Bible as you.

I agree fully about the notion of God being absolutely “good”. He is also “great”. Put these two together and we have “holy”. Something that God is apart from His creation. God is altogether holy, holy, holy. The only attribute of God that is mentioned in this manner.

Thank you for clarifying that this podcast was several years old. I should have thought about that. I apologize for ascribing what I said to you to the “here and now”.

As for your “universal reconcilationist” view though. Could you please provide Scriptural support for this? And I do not want to here the single “God is creating all things new” verse from Revelation. That is a singular verse that is taken and separated from its contextual intention and then misused by the Rob Bell crowd to justify the possibility of post-mortem salvation. It’s just another brand of heresy being re-hashed…

What needs to be considered is “what does the full counsel of God’s Word say?” We CAN NOT take one or two choice verses that we can twist and make to say what we want and then create a whole system of thought that ascribes realities to God that He never intended for us to come up with. Make sense?

Besides, Hell will contain an absence of God’s grace. The people that wind up in Hell will continue to sin and to hate God just as they did here in their earthly bodies. The difference between them from their life on earth vs eternity in Hell will simply be the absence of God’s common grace.

Again. I thank you for your ability to respond in a kind and mature way. I can confess I did not initially come across to you in the same manner. I am still growing in my walk with Christ. I am less sanctified in this area of my life.

Oh. And the standard for “good” comes from God. He is the standard by which we measure the word from.

This is why Romans 3:10-16 says what it does. Compared to God, NO ONE does good. No one is Righteous. No not one. This is why we need the imputed Righteousness of Christ that comes to us by faith alone.

Take care!

First of all, I’m saddened by your comment because your accusation that Raborn and I don’t really say what we mean is simply not true. We are completely open (no pun intended!) with our listeners about the questions we are asking, where we are in the process, and what we think about the topics we discuss. There’s no “bait and switch” here, and there’s no disguising our feelings about certain theological points.

In reality, this episode on which you’ve commented is several years old, and so without going back and listening, I am uncertain exactly where I was on my journey at the point of this podcast. However, I have clearly admitted on the podcast to being an Ultimate Reconciliationist (not the same as Universalism) and have not hidden that fact from our listeners at all!

As to Open Theism, I’m simply unable to reveal anything about my position on that because I’m not entirely sure. As Raborn said in the comments above, I’m sympathetic to some of the teaching of Open Theism, but I have not done enough study of 1) what it fully teaches, and 2) what all the ramifications are, in order to be able to say with conviction, “Yes, I believe in Open Theism.” I simply don’t know at this point. I’m actually more sympathetic to the notion that man misunderstood much of what God revealed for a very long time, and that it is more of a problem with man misunderstanding and accusing God than it is a question of whether or not God actually knows/determines the future.

The bottom line, Caleb, is that you are mixing together whether or not one believes in salvation through Jesus Christ with details about how all of that came about. If I were to claim that there were salvation through some means other than the death of Jesus on the cross, you would have plenty of justification (again, no pun intended!) to question my integrity as a believer. But questioning the details of what the Father knew about it, how the Father knew it, and what all that means is a completely different topic that is worth discussing.

Even more bluntly, to the point of this podcast, you seem to be saying that we are saying God is not good enough. In reality, it’s quite the opposite! We think God is better…way better…than we were ever taught.

I do remember this much clearly about the podcast: We believe that the definition many ascribe to the word “good” when it comes to God is not a definition of the word “good” at all. That much is also quite suitable for discussion, if you care to interact with it at all.

Read Lamentations 3:37-45. God is sovereign. He has ordained all things to come to pass. Acts 2:23. God ordained for the murder of His only begotten Son. Just because God ordains certain things to come to pass does not make Him guilty of the sins that caused what He ordained. This is the stumbling blocks for these people.

Steve and Raborn. You guys really need to let go of this ear-tickling philosophy you guys are espousing. It is heretical and wicked. Just because you baptize your teachings with the words God, Jesus, Bible, and other various Biblical words, DOES NOT QUALIFY what you say in the least as being FAITHFUL to what God has clearly revealed.

May I suggest you repent and believe the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, because if you believe in a god that is like anything you have said in your podcast and then supported in your words above in these replies, then it is plain and clear that you have an IDOL for your god.

If you are truly part of the covenant of grace, then know that your sins, past, present, and future, were atoned for by Jesus’ sacrifice before the foundation of the world was ever created. The open-theistic view of God teaches that God is not only NOT sovereign, but also not omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent. This of course describes man. Which is exactly what kind of “god” this is. A man-created one that fits well into man’s understanding.

RC Sproul said one time (paraphrased): A God who does not have anything to do with the suffering people go through in this life is a God that provides no meaning for much of life at all.

LOVE YOUR PODCASTS!

I would like to hear some more thoughts on missions. As a full time “out of the box” missionary, I’d like to hear others take on this.

We actually do raise support and work full time on orphan-care and other relief efforts to the impoverished and sick folks in the community. Without the financial help of folks back in the U.S. there is no way we could do this.

Personally I can’t imagine actually doing what we do now and holding a full time job as well, or running a business. There’s simply not enough time in the day nor energy in me to handle that.

Though it could work out well for a short term mission/project.

On a second note, it seems that humans have been created with a certain level of in-built love, like that of a parent for their children (generally applicable only until they become teenagers). I am speculating however that we can’t attain the I Cor 13 level (i.e. God level) by our own effort. Thus, the idea that we have received God’s love so we should pass it on just isn’t in us. I’m guessing that the I Cor 13 love is only attainable by the work of the Holy Spirit in a person.

Some may argue that Jesus stopped the progression of violence by forgiving those who killed Him (and that’s true) and so we should emulate Him. But He is God and IS love. I am not totally convinced that we can consciously emulate anything close this level of love by our own choice. In my opinion, only the Holy Spirit in us can guide us to both will it and do it.

Apologize for being the “sphincter recti” at the Christmas Party.

http://www.whatthehellbook.com/the-book/

I think that even you would pursue a form of tough love if it came to either shoving her hastily and locking her in her room or risk getting shot by an armed intruder.

it should say:

I think that even you would pursue a form of tough love if it came to either shoving your daughter hastily and locking her in her room or risk her getting shot by an armed intruder.

Steve, on the issue of tough love, I just wanted to push back a little. I’m sure there are self-serving manipulations invalidly called “tough love”, but I simply cannot adopt the concept of complete mush love, either. Discipline itself is tough love, and Scripture is fairly consistent in saying that the Lord chastens those He loves (which is all of us, I believe). Besides the fact that I think this is a possible theodicy (what loving Father would stand by and allow meaningless suffering when He could prevent it, unless He intended good to come of it?), I think that even you would pursue a form of tough love if it came to either shoving her hastily and locking her in her room or risk getting shot by an armed intruder. Protecting is tough love; teaching can be tough love, and often must be tough indeed.

This reminds me of something I’ve often though when listening to your show. I think you guys are perhaps a bit off the mark when it comes to using “non-violent” to mean “loving”, and implying that anything that smacks of violence (no pun intended) is not pure love. Even passive discipline in helping to shape their character is “violent” in that violates the subject’s disposition, expectations, etc. Any violation is violence. Even the act of expressing your dissenting opinion, loving and carefully as can be, is undertaken specifically to do violence to what you perceive to be a harmful or otherwise inaccurate opinion. I want the doctor to do violence to me when he gives me a shot to numb me and takes up a knife to slice me up so that he can fix me. We simply must remember that the Lord does violence not to us personally but to the tumors that are eating away at us, even if it means cutting us in the process. (By the way, penal substitution is not at all this kind of love: Jesus did not benefit from this at all. Punitive tough love is oxymoronic.)

I understand that there is a danger in fooling ourselves into giving tough love for the person’s benefit when we’re actually being selfish in some way, but I think this is best resolved by examining our motives and developing wisdom rather than by swearing off discipline.

I hope I’m not coming off as too “violent” in my critique, and I don’t want to misrepresent you. Please clarify where I’m wrong, either about my position or my understanding of your position. Thanks for your wonderful show.

The only thing I can’t quite fit in is 2 Tim 3:16… I don’t buy into the inerrancy stand but still, if the Old Testament is “God Breathed”, how does it fit with what is essentially progressive revelation. Of course if that revelation is based upon what the people can handle at the time, maybe. But then how could it be used for teaching, reproof, etc. And, on top of that, the scripture being talked about is from Genesis to Malachi, not Matthew to Revelation

I do, however, agree that what Moses got and what God originally wanted to provide is quite different. Three times, it’s recorded that the people rejected a personal relationship in lieu of Moses telling them what to do (sound familiar — hmm many churches today?).

I’ve loved listening to you guys banter.. It just opens so many questions.

You can order The Jesus Driven Life at http://www.thejesusdrivenlife.com. We ship to the UK frequently. We will also be in the UK May 8-21 2012 in/near London, Glasgow and then Wales.

It may be that there are no overseas postal options chosen, in which case you may have to write to him…

-Bryce

To me this book is pretty much like a scrambled egg. Don’t get me wrong, it’s an excellent literary work and a great source material for death metal lyrics. Revelation was included in the antilegomena and in the fourth century when the canon was finalized, it was one of the last books to be accepted universally. Jerome (347-420), commissioned by Constantine to assemble together the accepted Christian writings, relegated it to second class.

On a rabbit trail note, in the letters to the churches, references are made to unknown groups (Jezabels/Balaams/Nicolaitans) whose doctrines Jesus will come to fight against if not repented of. We have no record of what these diabolical doctrines were (i.e. wearing Nikes?). It doesn’t seem that some of the brothers/sisters in Rev 2/3 even recognized what it meant to be led by the Spirit. What is even more confusing is that Christ’s answers seem ungraceful and are more like an OT response (for example Rev 3:5). Jesus, the personification of love (1 Cor 13) and the finisher of our faith (Heb 12:2), blotting out their names from the book of life – ouch.

Anyway, does anyone have any ideas on how to rank the Book of Revelation on the Mimetic Theory meter? This book was supposedly written by the same dude who wrote the “God is love” line. The Book of Revelation – like Tina would have said 30 years ago; “what’s love got to do with it” and this book doesn’t seem to stream the Jesus lens to me.

Violently yours,
Jim

The Day and Hour Unknown
36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

You should be warning people about false prophets and not agreeing with them. You guys should simply look at your bible and you will see the false hood of all these things and then you will consider idle talk on this subject. No one knows the hour or the day that Jesus will come back. All we can do is be ready so that He finds us ready.

Perhaps you’d consider doing a show on “Hellbound?”, the feature length documentary I’m making about the hell debate. We will be releasing a trailer in the first quarter of 2012, so perhaps that would be an opportune time to chat.

Kevin

cont… So, if we have a hard time accepting that Jesus and the Father are in agreement, what happens when Holy Spirit comes to guide us into all truth?

The trinity. Our understanding of the Trinity seems to have suffered a blow. Which is why, I think, we have such a difficult time accepting and living out the teachings of Jesus today. Somewhere along the road, we began to think and behave as though Jesus and the Father don’t actually agree.

An example might be: ” Jesus loves me so much, He’s standing before the Father (who would much rather kill me) reminding Him that He promised not to. ”

Failure to see the absolute unity between Father and Son,has made us ‘orphans’ in our minds. And so we act like orphans- always unsure and powerless to be the light that we are.

Just a thought.

“Eternity is not perpetual future but perpetual presence.” Eugene Peterson

Rather than think of a physical place or realm, It helps me to think of being in God’s presence (at all times), and how that will be incremental after my flesh, as I know it now, diminishes. I want to grow in my awareness of His presence…in me, in others, in His handiwork, etc. ….

The present evil age is a spiritual reality in which people exist dying Until they are saved. We are born into this present evil age through no choice of our own and need someone to save us. This is what Jesus delivers, saves us from.

In those testimonies, I was amazed at how many experienced unbelievers salvation while dead, only to be resurrected changed by God. And others who did not get saved while dead, were saved shortly after coming back to life. In each testimony I’ve studied of unbelievers experiencing the full reality of this present evil age, the result was salvation. It’s as if the blinders were removed and they were freed from deception, coming to realize their need of God, only to cry out to God and be saved.

Of course, for believers who either had a vision or dream of “hell”, the result was them being inspired to give their lives in sharing the love of God with people who do not know the Lord, resulting in many people being saved and many other believers being inspired to share their faith in Christ, resulting in even more being saved!

So in both cases the results of these experiences is salvation, not damnation, liberation not ECT! Frankly, I’ve come to believe that our physical bodies, our flesh is like space suits that keep us from experiencing the full reality of either the present reality of the kingdom of God or the present reality of the kingdom of darkness. When a person dies without Christ he comes into the full reality of the kingdom of darkness and is there until he is saved. I just trust that ultimately Jesus is the savior of all humanity (1 Tim. 4.10) in Deed, in Reality, and not in Title alone!

I enjoyed the interview. Thanks for doing it!