People will choose to follow the authority of Jesus once they experience his power. That's happening right now around the world. Someone is being healed or a demon is being cast out by the authority of Jesus and that person can't do anything other than to follow. Whereas in the U.S. it seems like we tend to call out people's sin and insist that they lead a life of righteousness before they ever experience the power of God. This seems backwards to me.

Obviously, this is speculation on my part, but I think an argument could be made that Jesus was the best communicator of all time and that he knew his audience. I think the lesson here is whether or not we imitate how Jesus' communicated. Preaching fire and brimstone is not going to bring many people to Christ in our current culture, but I think there is value in communicating the sense of urgency as was stated earlier.

After all Jesus declared the fulfillment of scripture in Luke 4:18"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, 19to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." I think of how many people are missing out on the freedom that Jesus brings to us right now. We need not wait till heaven. The kingdom of God is at hand. It is now! And people are missing out at this very moment.

It just seems if Jesus' main reason for coming to Earth was to tell people how to be saved (by believing in him, or being "in him" – whatever that means) then that's all he would have done is gone around telling people "without me you are going to hell." Why not make it clear? But it's not clear. In fact, in the book of Mark – probably the first Gospel written after Jesus' life (according to biblical scholars), we don't see Jesus preaching a lot… in fact, most of the time he's healing or performing miracles. There is not a lot of theology, or teaching on judgment for that matter, and to me – that signals that this was not a big part of Jesus' ministry… but being with people, healing them, restoring them, was. Showing them a different way of living (through loving the unlovable, touching the untouchable, bringing back into the circle of life those who had been cast out). It seems like the further you get away (timewise) from Jesus' death, the more is added about Jesus preaching about judgment.

That's the way I see it… from what I've learned thus far in my life… I admit, I am no scholar. I could be very wrong… but at this point in my life, for what I do know, for what I have studied, this is what I think…

And I'm glad your heart is for your family and for others!
I just want to make clear I don't see a contradiction between talking about the possibility of missing out on what Jesus is offering and *love*.
if there IS a possibility of missing it as Jesus seems to warn us ("The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way. But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it."- Matt 7:13-14) the single most loving thing we could ever do is be honest about that- and have within us the same sense of urgency Jesus did.

Thank you for your responses.

Dustin, I agree with a lot of what you said about studying diverse opinions and positions and not just one perspective… I try to do that, but I'd admit to being guilty to only really wanting to read what I agree with most of the time.

You make some good points… and I am well aware that the bible says a bunch of stuff about judgment – and I know this isn't very scholarly – but when it comes down to it… when I look at Jesus' life as a whole, his givingness, acceptance, forgiveness, and his death and ressurrection, and I look at the hope that exists in the gospels for all men to be saved… I think that a lot of the exclusive view points/statements that are made in the new testament, were added at a later time and was not what Jesus intended or taught – but is a result of deeply ingrained jewish beliefs and traditions / human's need for justice/revenge, and human flaw that is transposed onto Jesus and his message of grace and forgiveness. Maybe this is a total heretical statement to make because it goes against a grip of scripture – but in the end I wonder… so what if I believe this? Does it really change anything? I've been there in the "God will judge the wicked" camp, and I'm not sure I was a better person, a better member of the Kingdom of God. In fact, I think, for me, believing that all are saved helps me see all people exactly equal, and it's easier to love them the way Jesus/God must. I can't explain it, and I'm sorry I'm not much of a fighter when it comes to theological arguments (I'm a lover not a fighter)… but in the end, all will be revealed, and I'm just not sure it matters whether I believe some will be judged or some will not. I will still tell people about Jesus because I think there is wisdom in his words, there is love in his actions, and there is a better way of life in his Kingdom… and I want others to know and share in that.

Anyway… thanks for the thoughts on this. I really do appreciate it… and Dustin and Bob, all your verses and examples and scholars are food for thought and I will consider reading some of them… but at this point in my life, most of my time and energy is spent on my family… and the rest on our community…and the rest on our town and the least of these. This may be the wrong thing… but it's a decision I've made… to focus on people first, and in-so-doing focus on God and his love. There are too many things I will never understand/comprehend about God and his mysteries… BUT, with all that said… I appreciate your time and energy in responding, in teaching and preaching, and helping the rest of us take time to consider theology… so that we don't go off and drink the koolade.

Love you guys…

“Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he went, always pressing on toward Jerusalem. 23 Someone asked him, “Lord, will only a few be saved?”
He replied, 24 “Work hard to enter the narrow door to God’s Kingdom, for many will try to enter but will fail. 25 When the master of the house has locked the door, it will be too late. You will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Lord, open the door for us!’ But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’ 26 Then you will say, ‘But we ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’ 27 And he will reply, ‘I tell you, I don’t know you or where you come from. Get away from me, all you who do evil.’

28 “There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, for you will see Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets in the Kingdom of God, but you will be thrown out. 29 And people will come from all over the world—from east and west, north and south—to take their places in the Kingdom of God. 30 And note this: Some who seem least important now will be the greatest then, and some who are the greatest now will be least important then.”

Seems like Jesus Himself puts the kibosh on the idea of post-mortem conversion.

I like CS Lewis’ take on it in The Great DIvorce, a book that was immensely helpful for me in thinking thru this- and in seeing how even if God did offer a chance after death, most of us wouldn’t want it, because of what we would have to give up (our centeredness on ourselves)

Here are the options with this one Jim.

A. You read it as everyone is saved and then in essence you have the Bible saying, “Everyone is saved and some are not saved.” Two very apparent contradictory claims.

B. You read it as everyone is saved and then try to discount the hundreds of times the Bible speaks of those who will not be saved and find a way to prioritize the two verses that you think hint at universal salvation to be the ultimate authority.

C. Or you read it as “everyone in Christ is saved and some are not saved.” (which grammatically and contextually makes the most sense in every one of those passages.) There’s really not much tension here. The only tension is that God desires everyone to be saved, He loves everyone, but sadly some will not choose him.

I honestly think there are legitimate tensions in scripture that some would call “contradictions” and I don’t feel the need to have to resolve all of those. But I honestly don’t see the rub here. It seems like it resolves itself fairly easily. And I agree that there is meaning to be found in the wrestling, no doubt about it. There are things we will be grappling with forever and that grappling is a very healthy thing.

“But I feel like this also means we have to hold loosely to our convictions and beliefs… because, well, we could be wrong. A change in belief / understanding over time, for me, does not signal a problem or a wishy-washy faith… it just means that God is transforming our minds, and we are no longer conforming to the patterns of this world… right?”

I agree that there are definitely things that either of us could be wrong about. And I feel like I hold several things loosely. “I don’t know” can be a great theological answer and I use it often. But there are some beliefs that I hold closer and with more conviction than others, things of which I wouldn’t say, “I could be wrong.” Let’s take the resurrection of Jesus. When you look at 1 Cor. 15, Paul didn’t just say, “well, I think the resurrection happened, but I could be wrong.” No, in fact, he said in essence, about this, “I CAN’T be wrong.” So there are differing levels of what is important and what is not so important. And with those things I will say, “I think”, or “where I’m at right now,” or “it appears that”, etc. And that’s great!

I can definitely see how my beliefs and thought has changed in the past ten years. I have had to rethink and wrestle with almost everything after coming out of a Christian Church/Restoration Movement background and then spending three years at a Reformed/Conservative Seminary. But that’s why I choose to go there, because I knew it was be an incredible challenge and I’d be forced to rethink what comes easily for me to believe.

“2. I’m not going to make a broad statement about you, because I am still getting to know you… but I will mention something that worried me in your last response. It felt like, with your final paragraph of your last response, that your mind has been made up on these matters and there is no way you can be convinced otherwise.”

On this matter, I feel like I’ve come to a reasonable conclusion based on my study of Scripture. I am happy to read other things, and I do! I read books that I know will challenge my beliefs on things that I’ve come to conclusions on. And honestly, I would gladly entertain universal salvation if I heard a good argument for it. But even in doing research on the idea, I simply haven’t found anything that is compelling.

“What it sounds like to me is “I’ve already researched this and studied way more than you and if you just read so and so you’ll see it the way I do. Now, I don’t think that’s how you were trying to come across… but man it sure sounded like that. I would love to say I am nearly as educated in scripture and christian commentary and… well.. theology… as you are, but I’m not. Does that make my perspectives / ideas / beliefs invalid?”

I’m sorry if I came off this way, it certainly wasn’t my intention and I can definitely see how it would sound like that. This is one of the disadvantages of written responses, no way to read tone or inference. What I am recommending is that you have a good balance in your reading. It’s something that I challenge myself to do. I don’t want to read just things that I will already agree with but have a wide range of stuff. I apologize for inferring that you don’t do that, because I obviously wouldn’t know. Maybe you have. I simply want to suggest as you think through biblical criticism that you read a balanced number of things from a variety of perspectives. That’s all!

Quite honestly, I’m not saying this because I know everything, or I’ve studied everything, but I am quite familiar with the Jesus Seminar and the method they have used in “deciding” what they think Jesus “would have said” and “would not have said” (by the casting of colored marbles) and I think it’s flawed to the core mainly due to its utmost devotion to the modernistic worldview. But I’m not saying to not study it for yourself. Go nuts! But just make sure you’re reading both sides of the argument. I love Prov. 18:17 which says: “The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.” This is a Proverb I never forget because anytime I read an argument for whatever I think, “Wow, that sounds pretty good” until I read someones critique of it and then realize, “Oh, that wasn’t as good as I initially thought.” Happens all the time. But my fear is when people only take the time to read what they already think they agree with. Does that make sense? I’m not saying that you do that, but I would caution you against it.

[And as far as the gospel of John goes, I would highly recommend Richard Bauckham’s book “Testimony of the Beloved Disciple” or “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses”. Both make a very compelling case for the authenticity of John and the historicity of the other gospels so it would be a good balance to Spong, Ehrman, or Borg.]

“That’s a serious question. Does the amount of scholarship / reading and studying of the bible equal the validity of claims people make? And will people with less education / reading of the bible always be wrong, in your eyes, about their interpretation/reading of scripture? Because… that’s what I got from your last paragraph.”

Definitely not! Obviously you’ve got brilliant scholars on both side of every debate making opposite points! So I definitely don’t think scholarship equals validity, but I am quick to give a listen to people who have spent decades studying the scriptures (on both sides) and trying to draw a conclusion from there. And personally, I can see where some of my beliefs have changed through the process of education and reading and studying, so I think it’s a valuable thing. And I know that over the next decade in the process of reading and studying I will realize where I have missed it on certain things and will change. Even through both series that I’ve preached at Evergreen, 1 Corinthians and most of John, in the process of studying for Sunday, I’ve made discoveries I’ve never seen before and have had to adjust and change what I previously thought about at least three or four things (probably more)!

That link to that paper must have changed… here it is: http://pantheon.yale.edu/~kd47/univ.htm

That verse in John definitely gives merit to the post-mortem conversion beliefs… that even after death people will be given a chance at salvation.

The thing with this verse, and all verses in the book of John… is… well… the book of John.

Obviously this is the greatly abbreviated version of something I want to blog on in the future, but it is hard for me to believe that much of the theology that flows out of the book of John in red text (from the mouth of Jesus) actually came from the mouth of Jesus, and is instead, an interpretation by John after thinking for many many years about the life and teachings of Jesus, and it can not be taken with the same merit as, say, the death and Resurrection of Christ, which is found in all four gospels.

I haven’t read enough on the Jesus Seminar to make a final judgment on them and what they believe… but I think there is some validity to biblical criticism and the fact that some things in the gospel probably are more likely to have happened / been said than others. But it is something I would love to study more about…