The New Testament Teaches That Everyone Will Be Saved.

Why does God place some in Christian families to be raised with the Christian faith, while others He places in Hindu families to be raised in that religion? I'll tell you whyu. Some He chooses to bring others to bring to Christ. If He didn't explain the parables to the apostels, He wouldn't have anyone to "teach the foolish masses". But, as Judas Iscariot proved, some who have the straight forward word don't always believe it. I've known many people who were raised in a Christian family, with the straight-forward word, who have rejected it.


The apostles didn't have any advantage over the foolish masses, other than the fact that Christ chose them to teach others.

 

Luke 8-10

And his disciples asked him, "What do you speak in parables?"
9. And he said, "Because you are permitted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to others it is said in parables, so that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand."

BUT TO OTHERS it is said in parables.

 

Here's scripture telling that some people will go to hell

Matthew 13 verse 49-50
"So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come forth, separate the wicked from among the just, and cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth"
in this verse the furnace is hell.

And if you want a story (or parable) about a man who went to hell, go to Luke 16 verse 19 - 31 (I'm not typeing up the whole story so read it in your bible) A verse in this parable

Luke 16 verse 23 - 24 says "And being in torments in in Hades he lifted up and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. Then he cried and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame" in here Hades is one name for Hell.
And if you still need more goto

2 Peter 2 verse 4 "For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment."

As far as I'm conserned there is a Hell, it's just as real as Heaven. I know nouthing I can put on here will change your mind But I will pray for you.

 

That verse, Cydonia, does not express a desire that some would not understand, but simply states the sad truth that those who are not willing to receive Jesus's message will find the truth hidden from them.

 

So the apostles were more loved by Jesus? Since he chose them to teach, they got a better chance at heaven than the regular people who got the parables? What if he hadn't spoken plain to the disciples, but in parables? They were ordinary people too, they may have been confused by them and not understand. Then they would be condemned to death. But Jesus wouldn't have that, he made abolutely sure they understood what he was saying. The rest of the world didn't get the same treatment. Their path to heaven was deliberately more difficult.

 

God needed some to teach others. He didn't love them more, He just had to reveal to them what His parables meant, so that they could reveal to others. Much like He did with the prophets of the OT.

 

I think that there were secrets given to the apostles that were not given to us. However, this does not nulllify Christ's sacrifice for our sins. It just means that the path to the Kingdom is narrow and the path to destruction is wide and well traveled.

 

"He didn't love them more, He just had to reveal to them what His parables meant, so that they could reveal to others."

I thought a large part of being christian was witnessing to others. We've already established that parables can be inherantly confusing. How can God expect christians relying on parables to have a better or at least equal success rate than the disciples, who didn't have to rely on parables? What was so special about that one period in history? Clearly Jesus knew that 2000 years later people would still have the same doubts as the original parable listeners.

 

That's why the apostles wrote the explainations of the parables down. The parables are more of a symbol that God reveals things to everyone. Some He reveals more to others, so that they can teach with what has been shown to them. But everyone hears. Some just choose not to accept.


You really think that every person that heard Jesus's parables didn't understand? Why were there other followers of Jesus at His ascension? Because they 'heard' the parables. They didn't need the explaination.

 

So the apostles were more loved by Jesus? Since he chose them to teach, they got a better chance at heaven than the regular people who got the parables? What if he hadn't spoken plain to the disciples, but in parables?


Cydonia, although I do agree with what Jedi_Master201 is saying, there is something he hasn't pointed out that I think might help you appreciate what Jesus was doing with the apostle's and with parables.

The coming of the Messiah was long foretold by God. Some prophecies of it go back as far as Abraham (the first Jew). Over the centuries, the Jews heard that a savior would come, that he'd be of the bloodline of David (their greatest king), and that he would set up a new kingdom. From this, they assumed the Messiah would come, take the thrown, and lead the Jews into a golden new age of prosperity. They believed the Messiah would be a king* (in the literal sense), not a teacher, and that his kingdom would be a political and phyiscal one, not a spiritual one. When Jesus came, he came during a time of Roman occuption, a time when the Jews felt enslaved by the Romans and when their own kings were subservant to Caesar. They wanted to be free of Rome, and when rumor came about that the Messiah had come, it was assumed that whoever he was, he would overthrow Rome, and restore the glory of Israel, thus fulfilling the prophecy.

Jesus was the Messiah that prophecy spoke of for so long, but he wasn't coming to set up a political/physical government. That was mis-interption on part of the Jews in regards to the prophecies. Jesus had come for something greater, to set up a spiritual kingdom where all may be saved, Jews and gentiles a like.

OK, so I know what you're thinking -- this is all good and fine, but what does it have to do with Him speaking in parables instead of just telling it straight? Simple. As I said, the Jews felt enslaved and wanted freedom. They didn't want to hear about Eternal Salvation or a New Law. They were content with the Old Law. What they wanted was for Jesus to take the thrown away from Caesar. So Jesus had to walk a fine line. He had to get the Jews to understand that he was the Messiah, but that he wasn't coming to be a political king. This fine line ended up getting him crusified. Had he, on the first day of his mission, stood up and told the masses the way it really was, he would have been crusified on the first day of his mission. Then we wouldn't have had all the lessons and teachings that Jesus gave us, and we wouldn't have had the 12. The 12 were critical to his plan. Jesus had to have his missionary work on this Earth last for a few years, so that he could prepare the 12 to do the real soul winning. He gave them all the knowledge they needed, and he made that knowledge available to everyone in his teachings by putting it in parables (for reasons given above), for those who were ready to understand. (And note, some of the time he was cut and dry about certain things.)

Once Jesus was killed and resurrected and returned to Heaven, the prophecy was fulfilled, and so there was no need to be mysterious about Jesus's mission on Earth any longer. As such, you can see in the apostle's teachings, they didn't speak in parables, but just told it out right.



*The Jews were correct in assuming Christ would be King, but his thrown is in Heaven, not in the palace of King David. While he was on Earth, his role was to be a teacher.

 

Angelic_308, Binary_Sunset actually states that he will not, in this thread, deal with Revelation. If you want to discuss the ludicrous rantings contained in that text, head over to the topic dedicated to it.

Revelation is a very doubtful book. I'm personally convinced by the internal evidence indicating that it was originally written as a Jewish text and then 'Christianised', but no-one knows for certain where it came from. There have been loads of weird books written by all sorts of deluded people; why do you believe Revelation just because the early church chose to incorporate it into the Bible?

This is all off-topic, however. Like I said, there is a separate topic dealing with the ins and outs of the Revelation to John (whoever this nebulous 'John' was).

Darth-Stryphe, you're very snooty about the Jews in your promotion of a religion that has no more supporting evidence than theirs.

 

Darth-Stryphe, you're very snooty about the Jews in your promotion of a religion that has no more supporting evidence than theirs.

I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to here, but I'm guessing it is in reference to my mention of the prophecy of the Messiah. Actually, the prophecy of the Messiah is well known. Even the Jews of today still believe in it. Since they do not believe Jesus was the Messiah, they still believe he is to come. What the Jewish faith's current translation of the prophecy is, I am unsure. At the time of Christ, the common believe was that he would be a King.


whoever this nebulous 'John' was

This John was John the apostle, one of the 12.

 

From "Beyond Born Again: Towards Evangelical Maturity" By Robert M. Price

"...I do not think that the "saved-damned" schema is adequate to human experience. It does not survive the test of "empirical fit," as far as I am concerned.

What would become of "Christianity as a message to be proclaimed" in our hypothetical postmodern Evangelicalism? I do not think evangelism would be undermined in the least, though some of the guilt-motivated pressure would be relaxed. The key is to see that "fire insurance" was never supposed to be the only motivation for evangelism and the missionary enterprise. Of course all evangelists and missiologists realize this; they just have a tendency to ignore the fact in arguments about Universalism. "But, if everyone is going to heaven anyway, what is the point of the Great Commission?" They hope to defend belief in damnation by the commonly agreed-upon propriety of evangelism. But there is a logically quite separate reason for evangelism. The evangelist or missionary is concerned to spread faith in, and glorification of, Jesus Christ as Lord. Even if one held with some Barthians that the objective work of Christ avails for the salvation of all people regardless of their subjective response, this motive for evangelism would remain. For the sake of "the glory of his name" (as the Lausanne Covenant puts it), shouldn't all people be invited to confess his Lordship, even if they will not be damned otherwise? To say that apart from the threat of hellfire, no purpose remains for evangelism is surely a sign of man-centered rather than "God-centered evangelism," in the phrase of one Reformed tract.

I would be willing to go farther still. Suppose one wanted to recognize the legitimacy and truth of all the great world religions (and there are theologically coherent ways of doing this-- see for instance Tillich's Christianity and the Encounter of the World Religions, or Raymond Panikkar's The Unknown Christ of Hinduism). Would there still be a place for evangelism? Would Christianity still be "a message to be proclaimed"? Of course it would. One must only realize that evangelistic zeal does not depend on the logical syllogism "If my religion is true, his must be false." Rather, I should think the genuine desire to evangelize arises from the felt benefits derived from one's commitment to Christ, i.e., "Christ has done so much for me that I want to share him with others." This is what the term "witnessing" implies. This motivation should remain untouched even if the witness allows that others to whom he speaks also might have something to which they could bear witness. Again, the two facts are logically independent. If the Jew or humanist is already happily experiencing what you would call the fruits of the Spirit through his own faith, so be it. Picture it like a testimony meeting where two Christians testify to different blessings they have received from God in the past week. To rejoice in your own blessing, do you need to deny the other person's blessing? Conversely, to receive encouragement or admonition from your testimony, must your friend renounce the different blessing God has given him? That doesn't lessen the fact that Jesus Christ has given you, and can give others, abundant life.

And the pressure would be off. No more worrying, "how can I work Christ into this conversation?" Things would now have the freedom to happen naturally and authentically. I realize that many Evangelicals with a conventional belief in hell and damnation do not subject themselves to this kind of guilty agitation anyway. Yet I cannot help but wonder if, with their belief, they should. Alan Watts contends that,


... it is quite obvious to the canny observer that most Christians... do not believe in Christianity. If they did, they would be screaming in the streets, taking daily full-page advertisements in the newspapers, and subscribing for the most hair-raising television programs every night of the week. Even Jehovah's Witnesses are polite and genteel in their door-to-door propaganda. Nobody, save perhaps

 

"fire insurance" was never supposed to be the only motivation for evangelism and the missionary enterprise.

Agreed.


The evangelist or missionary is concerned to spread faith in, and glorification of, Jesus Christ as Lord....

...I should think the genuine desire to evangelize arises from the felt benefits derived from one's commitment to Christ, i.e., "Christ has done so much for me that I want to share him with others." This is what the term "witnessing" implies.

Agreed.

Jesus and the apostles did not use hell-fire as a means of conversion. Sure, they spoke of damnation, but they weren't running around saying "Be baptised or burn in Hell!" Even in Act 2 when they were giving their first sermon, telling Jerusalem how the had killed the Savor, they did not threaten the masses with Hell, but simply informed them of their mistake. If you read through the teachings of Jesus and the 12 (and Paul), they did not make a habit of threatening people with Hell-fire. In the case of the New testiment, threats of "bad things" (death, perhaps damnation) was largely reserved for religious hypocrits (such as many of the Pharisees of that time, and false teachers in the Christain church during the time of the apostles). This was not, however, fear for conversions sake, because these people were already relgious. This was a demonstration of God's intolerence for people misusing his religion. For everyone else whom they sought to convert, you will see many instances of them teaching the Good News of Christ's love. They taught to the world of how they can have a new life and freedom from sin, and they witnessed on the great things God/Jesus had done for them.

Fear was not the means by which God intended his message to be spread. Fear does not a rightous man make.

But it does not change the reality that Jesus and the 12 spoke of the lost, and of damnation. Such a thing, according to their teachings, does exist, for the unbelieving and unrepentant.

One thing I think we agree on is that Heaven/avoiding Hell are not the reasons for Christainity, they are not the lessons which Christ came to share (though he did speak of them). (Here I think is where we differ They are not the reasons, they are a result. The reasons for Christainity are love, patients, kindness, gentleness, and self-controls. The reason for Christainity is to be freed from sin and to be close to God our Father. Find a church who teaches this, and you know you have found God's word.


If they did, they would be screaming in the streets.

And would it do any good? I have seen Christains screaming in the streets, warning of death and judgement, and I have seen how our society responds to it. Not favorably. But, you are right. Too often too many Christains become comfortable just being who they are, and assuming lost souls will come to them, feeling no need to entact on the Great Commission. I'll admit, I struggle with this one. It's not easy to do, unless you have a gift for it.

 

I'm with you, Binary_Sunset.

I just don't have time to post right now.

 

You know Binary_Sunset, I think I might be changing my mind about your argument. I'll have to do some more research into the subject (I have a few books to read on the subject)...but I might just be coming back here and posting why.

We'll have to wait and see.

 

Haven't seen this thread in awhile. Didn't realize that it has been this long, though.

 

Wylding, I look forward with great interest to your possible future posts in this thread.

 

Yep that does it. I've done some of my own studying into the subject and I'm conviced that BinarySunset is essentially correct. If nothing else, it makes sense from the perspective of this: If all humanity can be damned by one mans actions (Adam), then all humanity can be saved by one mans actions (Christ). I've also spoken with several people who I respect very much and they seem to concur that BinarySunset makes a valid argument.

So here's one internet argument that actually did change an opinion.

 

Historic occasion, eh?

I don't really believe in this stuff anymore, but i think Binary's version of the NT is one of the nicest and inspirational i've seen. Glad it's being supported by someone who disagreed with it previously. Warm Fuzzies.

 

I think it's healthy to examine a belief system from a new perspective from time to time. For me, it's given me new insight into quite a few things...

 

"Whosoever beleiveth in me shall have eternal life."

Those who believe in Jesus go to Heaven...those who don't, do not go to Paradise.

TRUE, God is all-loving and forgiving, but He is also a fair judge. Whatever He says is His law, and He cannot go against it. However, He CAN change the law instead of going against it....kind of like how slavery was legal and is now illegal. This is what He did when Jesus was sent to Earth - He changed Moses' law of "eye for an eye" to the Christian law "turn the other cheek."

God is not evil, but he is the Last Judgement.

Would you call a judge EVIL if he punished someone for disobeying the law? No. This is the same with God.

Whatever God says is His law, and people who break His laws SIN. As the Final Judge, He MUST do what He says He would - He cannot lie.

"He is all loving and merciful"
Imagine God extending His hands to humanity. In one hand is Love, in the other is Mercy. His hands are extended at all times, offering these to us. All WE have to do to recieve them is reach out for them by repenting. We can do the most horrible of ALL SINS, including , , massacre.....and God still extends His hands to us. The only thing that He cannot forgive is blaspheming the Holy Spirit (attributing God's works to Satan).

As for the people in, say, the Indonesian Islands who never hear God's message: God is the Final Judge and He is merciful - He will judge them according to their works and how they lived their lives.

God "loves the sinner but hates the sin."

Imagine sin as being attached to our bodies spiritually - God cannot accept us into Eternity with the sin still on us, but it can be "washed off" by just asking for forgiveness.

So:
-God is all loving and all merciful
-We recieve these freely when we ask for them by repentance.
-God is the Final Judgement
-His Words are His Law.
-He cannot lie.
-He can change the law (which has happened once and will never happen again)
-He loves the sinner but hates the sin


No one is perfect, no matter their religious followings. I am a sinner too, and I still sin. Everyone can recieve God's forgiveness just by asking for it.

 

Fat_Fett, if you had bothered to read the whole thread, you would know that I was exactly where you are several months back. Good luck in your searching.

 

OK.

Just let me print this out so I can read the whole thing on the crapper.

 

So now you're a flamer? Perfect.