Church: What is it good for? (setting the scene)

Recently, when asking this question of people around me, the response has sounded a lot like the Whitfield and Strong song ‘War’ for the answer has been: “Absolutely nothing!”

This is a response that will cause many to shake their heads, sigh, and bemoan the post-Christian age we have apparently entered.

The reality is that people I meet are often more concerned with faith, belief and ‘spiritual’ things now than the Christians I engage with; they’re a bit like the 60s generation who embraced Krishna and other strange gods and danced their way up and down Oxford Street in London and grew their hair long, smoked pot and called everyone ‘man’. These were the hippies who sought peace, love (which generally just meant sex when and wherever it was available) and something spiritual to hang their trousers on!

The problem before them (and me too) is that the ‘Church’ (the universal body of believers) is represented by those who inhabit the local ‘churches’ (meaning the building, not the people) and generally speaking, taking a long, hard look at these building dwellers, there is little to convince people to move from their ‘absolutely nothing’ position to join them!

An additional problem is that the ‘church’, which in this context means the local brands on offer, has been found to be dodgy in its dealings. The press publicise the ‘naughty Vicars’ and their shameful goings on and people like me would say, “Today a priest, pastor, leader (select which you prefer) has fallen into sin. Pray for them and the people they have acted wrongly against. Remember that one person has fallen and rejoice in the many who have not.” 

The problem is not the dodgy person in the photographs spoken of in the many column inches that titillate, ignite the emotions and bring their condemnation to bear on the person in the dock. The press, and their readers, become accuser, jury and judge (even though many, if they were honest, have their own skeletons in cupboards, boxes and under their beds).

But, sadly, the hypocrisy of the press, the public and those who call themselves ‘Christian’ or ‘Church’ is obvious and apparent. To put it into context, let’s read the summing up of the human condition from the Apostle Paul (Romans 3.23):
“... All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God!” (A shuffling of feet and looking the other way moment for us all I fear). So there we have it: We are all sinners but some of us are unlucky enough to have been caught and had our shortcomings made public.

Now a very silly person (quite recently) said to me, “My sins are forgiven because I believe in Jesus. They don’t believe in Jesus and so theirs are not“. Words which bring another problem out into the light, because if we are ‘Christians’ then we struggle to overcome the old sinful nature and feel pain in the sins we commit because we have ‘fallen short’ of that which God calls us be and have wounded Jesus, the Christ, as grievously as those who nailed Him to the cross.

It is true that there is forgiveness on offer - continuing with the Paul passage (Romans 3.24-25):
“And ALL are justified freely by His (God’s) grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith...”. 

Every time we do something wrong ('sin') the truth is that God's love remains, He doesn't turn His back and walk away (although if He did would the scars convince you of His love for you where mere words we ignore?). Every time we sin, have sinned or will sin (or have people sin against us) the love of God remains ever-present and constant. The word 'justified' is an interesting one, because it's a legal term which means: 'found not guilty'.

A friend of mine proclaims the forgiveness of all humanity through the atoning act of Jesus, and it is true, that Jesus died to reconcile all humanity to the Godhead (that's Father, Sin and Holy Spirit). BUT (and there's always a 'but' isn't there - aside from the one writing this ;-) ) there's a little ting I'd like to draw your attention to: To be received by faith!

Forgiveness and reconciliation to God are there for all to receive. All you need to do is have the following:

Belief - accept that Jesus, the Christ, died to reconcile you to God and in that:
Acceptance - of the gift of Grace and acknowledge the things you have done wrong engage in:
Repentance - that turns us away from doing the wrong stuff and seek God's:
Restoration - to start living a new life set apart from the wrong stuff, and become a true:
Disciple - loving God; living and acting as a true believer should.

The old has gone - the new has come.

Hallelujah or what?

The next post in this series (Church. What is it good for - whose sin is greater) might prove to be shorter and yet somehow more messy. There's corporate (meaning the whole body and the leadership) guilt to discuss. A way forward for us all (local and universal) and so much more besides.

Thank you to anyone who has managed to read this brain dump scribble.

Pax

After you've got your converts you make them ... (1)

Twice as fit for hell!
As you are yourselves!

I often find the word of the Godspell song, 'Alas for you' resonating in my heart and head as I encounter people who teach error wrapped up as orthodoxy.

Is it any wonder that the Church of England is in such a state when you hear some of the tripe that is peddled as right thinking?

Is it any wonder that some friends who live in other denominations think that we (the Church of England) are a bunch of apostate losers?

When I was 'saved' - something I can put a date and time to - I remember the feeling of gratitude that accompanied the thought that Jesus had loved me so much that He became fully man (meaning put of being God and emptied Himself of all the God bits) and took my place as one sentenced to die and died in my place. I remember thinking that if Jesus died to allow me and God to have a relationship and to give me life where death had been the curse: That I would live this regained life as fully as I could.

But now I hear people teaching that everyone gets into heaven because Jesus died for them - and they are. BUT, like all heresy whilst starting from a true statement they then add some deviation from the true course so that those who hear their words end up some distance from the place they should be. Let me explain what and how of this issue in simple terms:

God sends His Son into the world - not to condemn people but to save them.
Nothing hard here. In fact it is surely quite welcome news! (Jn 3.16)

Jesus comes into the world and brings salvation. This restores a fallen creation with a consistent Creator and promises an end to the result of the separateness that 'sin' created between us and God (the result being 'death' by the way).
This is not a popular concept for some because they think that we mustn't use the naughty 'S' word and certainly must not tell people that they're doing  'sinful things' because (and this is what people tell me, I'm not making this up) - this is regarded as a value judgement on their life choices and actions and will not make Church, them or God popular! 

The problem is that what we should be dealing with is 'being right' and leading people into righteousness not popularity!

Now, Jesus has come and reconciled the created with the Creator and removed the result of 'sin' (death) and opened for us a new life (that's why the terms 'saved' and 'born again' have such merit). This is the reality for everyone, Jesus truly died for ALL (which last time I looked means all of whatever population you're thinking of). All you need to do is to accept that Jesus died for you (we call this 'belief") and that's the seal on the deal - it's done and dusted, all you need to do is live within that knowledge.
'But,' people say, 'I don't want to believe in Jesus. But I'll have the eternal life, thank you very much!'

The problem with this is that what we have is a situation much which reminds me of when I was a kid growing up in North London. There was a marketing fad between the soap powder manufacturers which saw customers being offered a free plastic flower (as a gift) if they bought a packet of washing powder. I remember an advert' which boldly proclaimed that there was one of these (naff) tulips or roses for 'everyone'. (the 'naff' is my assessment by the way - the companies offering them referred to them as if they were something of great value)

All you needed to do was take the time and energy to pop down to the corner shop or supermarket and buy a packet and then return back later with the box top to redeem your plastic flower. The flower was there for you (because there was 'one for everyone') but you only got one if you took the time to go and collect it. If you didn't want it, you didn't go back - and that was, as ever, your choice.

This is pretty much the same with salvation. Jesus dies upon the cross and by doing so ensures that reconciliation between us and God is made ours: All you need to do is to take a ticket from Him. But if you don't recognise Jesus (or don't want to) then of course you won't be saying 'Thank You' to Him or be taking a ticket because that's the choice you have made! If you acknowledge that this is the case then you will also, I am sure, acknowledge the fact that even those the gift has been made available to you, you have chosen not to claim it.

You don't even have to make two trips, for you can collect the ticket straight from the source and, being polite, say, 'Thank You,' at the same time. So what's stopping you?

You see, those who teach that EVERYONE is saved are totally correct, they've just forgotten who the source of this salvation and the ticket is. Sad really because once you've met Him and realised you were dead but now have been given back your life, you would I'm sure make a decision to live differently - something we are required to do if we are to maintain a newly restored life. This is what the 'born again' bit refers to - simple stuff, n rocket science or calculus required here. But let me make it even simpler:

Salvation is a free gift, but like being given an expensive sports car for free, salvation costs everything you have to keep it on the road. 

Not willing to pay that price? That's not a problem. After you you makes your choice and you decide who you want to please; God or yourself. Just make sure you know not to moan about how unfair things are when the final whistle blows.

Simple innit?

Apointed for man to live once . . .

. . . and thenhave the opportunity to change your mind perhaps?

As one who enjoys the naked pastor cartoons I have to say that this one raises a smile with me. After all, it not only sums up the human condition but also raises the question I long to ask regarding those who hold what I can only think of as dodgy theological positions too.

But whatever you think, believe or want to believe: enjoy!

Universalism in a nutshell

Everybody wants to go to heaven and they come up with some amazing theology to ensure that they can rest easy

Well it seems that for some there's no 'but' involved because they are 'Universalists'. One of those whom I know (and love) holds the view that Jesus, having died for everyone, guarantees that all are now destined for heaven. They contend that it whether you have a faith or not, regardless of how you have lived, you are 'in' - Faith in Jesus is not a requirement for us to be 'saved'.

When I point to John 3.16: 'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life,' I am told that I believe this because I have too high a Christology!

The same criticism (too high a Christology) is thrown at me when I come to John 14.5,6: 'Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me'.

I feel that the two passages conspire together to make for a message that says that whilst Jesus did indeed die for everyone, there is an element of recognition and reception required. The ticket to the game is yours but unless you take it and journey towards it, you will never get to see it - the same is true of eternity (as I understand it) for jesus is the turnstile by which we enter.

__________

The second group I encounter tell me that regardless of what we do in this life, we have a second chance - a post-mortem salvation opportunity - once we have left it. It's like Jesus wakes us up, tells us that we've died and asks if we'd like to reconsider our rejection of God and come into heaven. Now, if I was dead and was 'woken' with an offer like that I'd be a bit of a mug to pass it by, wouldn't I?

My struggle here is that the words of Hebrews 9.26-28:
'But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.'

I am of the understanding, thanks to this passage, that we live - die (once)  - and are then judged and to be honest, the wake you up from the dead / second chance bit appears to be a conveniently created accommodation to me. Mind you, like the first option, I can understand it as after all, who wants to think of loved ones not making it? Then again both mean that one of the benchmarks many use when challenging me about faith, grace and forgiveness, namely Hitler, makes it into heaven using them I reckons - so it wouldn't sit well with many inside or outside the Church!

An interesting aside to this is the belief some have that hell is but a temporary condition and that whilst serving our time there the opportunity for parole and release into heaven will be made ours at some time - so all may sin and continue to fall short - but in the end it doesn't matter!

__________

Some tell me that what matters is the moment of death - as long as you call on god with you're last breath then this bringing of god into your life, regardless of how short or even what god is called - the general concept of there being a god is enough or so one of my clergy colleagues tells me! I think that there has to be a little more than this but then again they base their view on the the passage that says (Joel 2.32): 'And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.'

But in doing so are speaking of calling upon god rather than God and when you consider that the word LORD (for the upper case) means 'YAWEH' - it is a specific name not a general name 'elohim' - then we can see that the idea of calling on god as the entry into the afterlife is merely a wistful, fingers crossed, bit of being hopeful!

__________

So at the moment I have to say that that leaves me thinking that that's three strikes and those who pin their hopes on something more for having lived as something less than God calls us to be will now have to sit down.

I think I regard this issue as residing in a place where I have a clue about some people from their professions and attempts to live as the Bible requires but even then I won't be sure until the end - and then I might only know because I'm outside and know who's out there with me and assuming those who aren't have made the cut.

Thankfully we don't have the right, or ability, to say who is in or not and I actually reckon that's the best way - I'm not concerned with judging people but helping them to be the best they can be and to keep God's laws and commandments and live in love and peace with all.

At the end of the day, as I understand it,  it all comes down to being:

i. Reconciled to God by the atoning death of Jesus, the Christ,

ii. Living a life that keeps the commandments and lives in peace with all, and

iii. Recognising that we are all fallen and sinful and not regarding ourselves as better than those around us but as brothers and sisters with them.

There are some who seem to take joy in those whom they consider to be 'out' whilst of course they are (or so they think) 'in' and this is wrong on so many levels. And for those who want to see God as a Father Christmas figure who have presents for everyone, even when they've actively kept away from His presence - good luck with that. As much as I would like to agree I'm afraid that my theology doesn't fit in with that - sorry, I think you're wrong too!

So here we are - a very simplistic explanation of some of the thinking around eternity - hopefully it will provide a basis for some deeper dialogue and thinking.

Pax

Making our message popular . .

Even if it's at the expense of Scripture, Tradition and reason!

People tell me how such a stance appears to be very much in vogue now and I'd have to answer that it was ever so (for indeed there truly is !nothing new under the sun).

having been listening to some of the popular personalities in the post-evangelical and emerging church world I have to say that as much as I enjoy reading many of them, the message they bring is peddling a brand of universalist faith which doesn't quite match up to, or perhaps even warrant the name of, Christianity!

I have always struggled with the word of Hebrews 9: 27 -28 for many years because it appears that we get one go on the ride that is life and then have to face the judgement, but lets look at what is written (ESV):

'And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgement, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.'

I don't see anything about secondary probation (which  [oversimply] is where you die, get 'woken up' and asked if you'd like to change your mind, and then go back in the freezer until the judgement - a sort of postmortem evangelical opportunity).

I don't see anything that reconstitutes aeons such that the end of the world comes with the fall of the Temple; neither do I see Jesus coming and changing God's mind (for previously being a Jew and circumcised [as a man] was what brought you into some sort of relationship with God but Jesus changes God's mind) so ALL are acceptable!

I don't see credibility in the argument that a twenty-year old who rejects the Gospel and chooses to act contrary to it and dies because of it must be accepted into heaven because this is what a god of love would do! I say this because the God I have come to understand is also a God who keeps the rules; He doesn't bend or corrupt the rules because He likes someone - for He loves us all but  . . .  have a think on this . .  .

If you were driving down a road which had a thirty miles per hour speed limit and were caught by a member of the local constabulary doing sixty, would you expect to be prosecuted?

I would have to suggest that you would.

Now, if the police officer who stopped you was a member of your family, would you expect to be let off even though this would mean that both of you were now breaking the law? Perhaps you'd justify it by saying that no one got hurt?

Take it up a notch: You're speeding and this causes a death, would you still expect to get off because of the family connection?

Now imagine you live down the road where the people are doing the speeding, would your views about being caught and let off be different? You hear of the driver who has killed and vanished - what do you want? I'll warrant that you want them found and dealt with by the law!

Remembering that you don't know that in either of the situations there has been part of a cover up by a family member who is also an officer - But when you find out will you want them both arrested? (silly question - of course you do!!)

This is the dilemma before a loving God, for to not apply the rules would be to make Him act against that which was in place (called 'God's laws) and would render Him and the focus of the act wrong and if this was to be, then God wouldn't be (logically or theologically). To 'let them off' or 'turn a blind eye' is to be as guilty as the person who broke the law and in the latter case would make them an accessory to a murder (or manslaughter at the very least)!

God can do one thing and that is be inside the law (even though you'd think He might be above it being God!).

SO

I am becoming rather tired with those who seek to create a popular faith where what is required is a consistent faith.

I struggle with those who want us to have a faith which congratulates and applauds us for our choices, regardless of whether they are right or wrong (using the 'old Christianity'), ignoring the outcome and attitudes relating to them.

I am afraid that Christianity does ask us to make choices and to act differently from that which our own hearts and desires might lead us towards. It does ask us to make a commitment and to live, think and act differently from the world (which is generally full of nice people who want to do their own stuff and please themselves).

We need to realise that our efforts to create communities which accept anything and everything regardless of whether or not God might consider it to be wrong is to encourage people to act wrongly; to tell them heaven is theirs, regardless of what they think, do or believe is to take people and, like the false prophets of old, make them 'twice as fit for hell as they are themselves!'

Yep - tough words, but without them there are no moral absolutes, not correctives and no rules to live by and that is my idea of hell (on earth and later).

Pax

Out the window at the wedding feast

Yesterday we had the parable of the Wedding feast (Matt 22) and the story touched me greatly in the parallels and instructions contained within it.

First the Father invites the guests to His Son's wedding feast - but they don't come.

Then He send out messengers and they are abused and killed.

So, He invites the rest of the people 'Good and bad' to the feast.

Then, arriving at the feast, seeing someone incorrectly dressed, the King has the man bound and thrown out the window into the darkness where there is a weeping and wailing and a gnashing of teeth!

Now the parallels between the Jews and the Gentiles, the former being invited first and failing to arrive and the later being invited as substitutes, is obvious and much like the vineyard owner story last week, must have caused som angst amongst the religious at the time.

BUT

1. EVERYONE is invited to the banquet. This is because Jesus died for EVERYONE!

2. The person who turns up and is improperly dressed is ejected from the party into the outer darkness.

Now point the first seems to say that we need to adopt universalist thinking, because ALL are invited. But the second says that unless we turn up properly dressed, wearing the garments of righteousness, then we are not going to get in! It seems to me that this passage tells us that we need to respond (getting clothed properly is a response, isn't it?) in the right way to live within the salvation that was won on the cross (the invitation is the Cross isn't it?).

So, my previous thinking which was:

Jesus dies for ALL and ALL are therefore given access to heaven - we just need to walk up to Him, look Him in the eyes and take our ticket from Him seems to have yet another confirmation in the Matt 22 parable.

So here's today's big question:

Are we sowing seeds of righteousness today, seeking to clothe ourselves with righteousness or are we going to live our own way trusting in a God who, father Christmas-like, will just open the doors to all?

Mmmmmm!

Happy Monday

“The Kingdom of Heaven can be illustrated by the story of a king who prepared a great wedding feast for his son. 3 When the banquet was ready, he sent his servants to notify those who were invited. But they all refused to come!
4 “So he sent other servants to tell them, ‘The feast has been prepared. The bulls and fattened cattle have been killed, and everything is ready. Come to the banquet!’ 5 But the guests he had invited ignored them and went their own way, one to his farm, another to his business. 6 Others seized his messengers and insulted them and killed them.
7 “The king was furious, and he sent out his army to destroy the murderers and burn their town. 8 And he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, and the guests I invited aren’t worthy of the honour. 9 Now go out to the street corners and invite everyone you see.’ 10 So the servants brought in everyone they could find, good and bad alike, and the banquet hall was filled with guests.
11 “But when the king came in to meet the guests, he noticed a man who wasn’t wearing the proper clothes for a wedding. 12 ‘Friend,’ he asked, ‘how is it that you are here without wedding clothes?’ But the man had no reply. 13 Then the king said to his aides, ‘Bind his hands and feet and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
14 “For many are called, but few are chosen.”

God - respecting choice

Following my thoughts about grace I have been asked how I could worship a God who chooses to let more than half of the people perish and still consider this God to be a God of love. Jesus isn't the 'Saviour of the world', He's merely the saviour of some and condemns the rest! How can a God of love exclude Ghandi, the Dali Lama and others whose lives have touched nations and changed the path of history?

Let's try and look at this logically. God is a God of love and is, through the one atoning act of the cross, the Saviour of all. This is the reality and just as some choose to ignore the reality of their birthright by walking away from their family, some choose to walk away from this salvation. Both family and salvation remain as realities but the choice is made to live outside of them and so whilst it (family and salvation) continues to exist, it is not the day-to-day reality for them.

Now, as to the question,"How can a God of love not include Ghandi?" the answer is simple, God didn't exclude Ghandi, but Ghandi choose not to be in the family photograph but choose for himself a different existence. One that was separate from God and having done so made the choice. If God was then to force him to be part of the family later then He would neither be respecting that choice or leaving us to the wonderful reality that is freewill.

A friend of mine had a child who decided to leave home and live their life their own way. They told the family that they wanted nothing to do with them and whenever they were approached by either of the parents, complained that they didn't respect the child's choices. Whenever this happened, people would agree that the parents were being unreasonable and mutter against them.

That said, every now and again the same child would present demands for money or representation to settle debts or keep them from prison. Whenever they did this other people would point out how they (the parents) were being used and how they were being stupid. Eventually the situation arose when, after an expensive episode with the, now quite adult, child the parents asked whether they would come to a family celebration. The child responded by reiterating their contempt for the family and sadly these were their final words on the matter as, very sadly, they died a few weeks later.

They never stopped being loved but chose to live their own life outside of that love, even though they used it to their own advantage on a number of occasions, but in the end they died outside of that reality. The love never went away but they lived outside it and the family had to respect that choice. Ghandi made the same choices and God, being a God of love and giving freewill, respected that then and continues to even when the final day arrives! To drag Ghandi into the family he chose not to be part of when alive would be to deny his choices and would remove any respect got his choices and deny freewill.

As for the Dali Lama, think he has a god of his own making and a philosophy of his own that says his choices are elsewhere.

Pax

Amazing (or selective) Grace

An American psychologist tried an experiment which saw him standing in a prominent place handing out money as a proclaimed 'free gift'. As people passed by they were offered a crisp new banknote with the message that it was free. Interestingly, few took the proffered offering!

Now whilst some were surprised by the response and the low take up of the money, I have to say that I wasn't and for a number of reasons:

1. Distrust - our natural cynicism leads us to doubt things on the grounds that it 'looks too good to be true'.

2. Distrust - who would offer something of value for free?

3. Distrust - who is this person giving out money? An unknown person with unknown motives - sounds like an invitation to a time share presentation or a starring role on 'Candid Camera'.

4. Distrust - if I grab the money it will make a statement about me. It will say I am needy, or greedy, or one of a number of things that present me in a negative light.

Although I could go on I'll stop at just four reasons, although of course there are many more, and parallel this with salvation and grace.

I am repeatedly on the end of a discussion which ends up with me being told that how it is so very wrong that anyone could have a God, especially a 'God of love', who would deliberately create everyone knowing in advance that more than half of us would end up in eternal punishment.

To this point I would like to respond by taking the example of the psychologist with which we began as a parallel with this salvation issue. The money was offered to all and yet only some chose to take it. The reasons for not taking the offer differed but the results fell into a number of distinct groups, the two main classifications being:

a. They accepted the gift, and
b. They rejected the gift.

There were subsets, those who wanted to see if it was still on offer the next day or wanted to think about it, some wanted to see what happened to others who took the banknote and perhaps dialogue with them to see what they had and why they had it.

The parallels are obvious and so I will let you dialogue internally (and hopefully externally too) on this concept of amazing grace and selective acceptance and leave you with some questions to ponder;

Where are you with this - is the gift yours?

Where are those you love - accepted or caught in distrust or lost in self?

What about those in your workplace, on the bus, train or tube?

The offer of the gift will last but being finite we won't!

Pax

An everyday story of Divine folk

Hello children, are you sitting comfortably?

Got a cup of something hot and some dippy biscuits?

Good, then we'll begin:

Having got out of bed in a good mood one morning and having had a good breakfast (always sets you up, doesn't it?) God decided to act and restore the relationship between him and those he had created (for he is the Father of all). "Time for a bit of salvation," he thought and so Jesus came to earth as one of them (human that is, but still God - confusing or what? But God understood and that's all that matters - isn't it children?).

A simple plan, Jesus would tell them all about how God wanted them to live and then he'd play the master card by destroying the thing that both caused the separation and maintained it. Yep, sin was about to be destroyed. Death, it's penalty was going to be broken and by doing so the people would be free. And so Jesus did exactly that, he died for everyone and when he got home the father threw him a big party with a 'Welcome home Saviour of the world' banner, balloons and Turkish delight (must surely be God's favouritest food)!

Then it struck some of the people that although Jesus was the 'Saviour of the World', not everyone wanted to live the way jesus had taught and before long there were two groups, those who took the bit of paper that told them they were justified (which means in simple language that sin no longer has a hold on us) and those who didn't want to take the paper and live it their way! "We know," they said revelling in their own intelligence, Let's abandon the ticket thing and just tell everyone that they are in regardless of what they believe. That way Jesus will really be the 'Saviour of the world' because everyone will be saved, not just those who take the ticket."

How pleased they were because now everyone was 'in' this meant that everyone was saved and they'd made jesus the 'Saviour of the World' for real. But of course, this meant that they had to removed the 'whosoever believes in Him' bit from the Bible and whilst now there was no hint of being a co-redeemer with jesus, because some said that unless the person said 'yes' salvation ceased to exist then they had a part in the salvific act, there was also no coherent faith life either.

God laughed at that because the people weren't partners in the salvation but were recipients (how they made him laugh at times and cry even more he thought).

Reaching for the kettle he thought to himself, "Oh my, can it get any worse?"

And you know what? It quite probably could.

Universalism - Where I am

Regarding my comment in the last post about how, "You pays your money and makes your choice – don’t say no one told you!" I received the response, "Doesn't sound like very good news to me...!"

The person went on to explain how they'd been led to universalism and that really nicely moves me on from annihilation rather nicely. Those who adhere to universalist views tell me that I have a high Christology and that my views limit God. So what are my views:

God made man to have a relationship with him, walking and conversing with him in the garden in the cool of the day (Gen 3) but man (generic) sinned by disobeying God and thus came separation from God, expulsion from the garden and all the other stuff.

Disobedience brought separation, a finitude to life and so sin (missing the target) became our lot and it marked us out, and led us into despair, from thence onwards. So God engaged in floods, covenants, prophets, miraculous signs (including deliverances) and still man was separate. Whatever humanity did, it never lasted and always fell short of the target (sin again).

So God realising that without the shedding of blood there could be no forgiveness decided to pay the price for sin Himself, with Himself! Enter God incarnate, Jesus (the Christ) who taking upon Himself our sin, personally and individually identifiably, dies on the cross for us so that the debt (tetelestai) is cancelled - paid upon the nail!

Those who accept that Jesus paid this price for them may come and take from His hands the certificate of divorce between us and sin, for we are no longer bound and no longer in relationship. The tie has been broken and we live in that freedom with the father as author, the Son ans the means and the Spirit as enabler. Simples isn't it?

And best of all, this offer is open to all, for in dying Christ secured that freedom for all (see I am a universalist), we just need to recognise, accept and gratefully take the ticket from His hands.

The first response to my views was that the person I was talking to, "Wouldn't want to have a god like that, I don't imagine my god doesn't do that!"

Well, to be honest I have to say that I thought then, and still do, that 'their god' was a god of their own making. They decide that they want a faith where everyone gets into heaven (what's the point of spending eternity with someone you didn't want to spend a temporal life with? Now that's illogical!).

"It doesn't matter what you've believed, what you've done or how you live, God opens the door to all!"

In that case I don't need to engage in evangelism, after all I'm not plundering hell to populate heaven, I'm just moving the markers around a bit. I don't need to live as Christ would have us live, because there's no goats at the end (said he sheepishly!) and eternal punishment was just a typo! Mind you the people I was dialoguing with claim that the Bible was subject to the editor's pen, additions and changes to make religious and political views and never contained half of what it now does and has lost all the bits we'd disagree with!!!

"You have far too high a Christology. Jesus isn't that powerful and doesn't have the ability to pick and choose - everyone ends up in heaven regardless!"

Funny that but my Bible tells me, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world mto condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."

So that's the position I occupy on this (in a nutshell)

Pax