Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: Obama Is Fat

Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: Obama Is Fat

In Francis Chan’s book, Erasing Hell, chapter three, entitled “What Jesus Actually Said about Hell,” Chan writes, “[…] if Jesus did not agree with the view of hell presented in the last chapter, then He would have had to deliberately and clearly argue against it.”

In order to examine Chan’s argument accurately, it is first important to establish whether Chan’s argument is valid and second, whether Chan’s argument is sound.

Notice the words “if” and “then” in Chan’s claim: “[…] if Jesus did not agree with the view of hell presented in the last chapter, then He would have had to deliberately and clearly argue against it.”  This is a classic example of an argument in formal logic, a conditional statement – if this, then that.

Remember that an argument can be valid even if it is false.  Consider this example:

If all people who eat McDonald’s food are fat, then President Obama is fat.

Anyone can look at Obama and see that he is clearly NOT fat.  The reason this argument is valid is that the “if” part of the conditional statement is the premise for the argument.  It’s the part of the argument that justifies the conclusion of the argument.  The premise doesn’t have to be true in order for the argument to be valid, but the conclusion must agree with the premise.  Let’s use our imaginations and really think about it, just for kicks.  If we suppose (for argument’s sake, no pun intended) that we live in a universe in which one bite of McDonald’s food instantly and unavoidably launches the eater into a bodily state of obesity, then it would make perfect sense for us to assume that Obama must be fat, since he ate McDonald’s food.

We could reword it for clarity and say, “If it is true that all people who eat McDonald’s food are fat…”  The argument is valid, but it isn’t sound.  Why?  Because it is NOT true that all people who eat McDonald’s food are fat.  Furthermore, it is NOT true that Obama is fat.  That’s the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument.

Now, I intend to examine Chan’s argument in the same manner.   First, let’s look at Chan’s premise: “[…] if Jesus did not agree with the view of hell presented in the last chapter…”  This part of the conditional statement doesn’t have to be true in order for Chan’s argument to be valid.  Just like the McDonalds example, let’s use our imaginations and really think about it, just for kicks.  If we suppose that the view of hell presented in chapter two of Francis Chan’s Erasing Hell is inaccurate (by default, because Jesus knows truth) and we suppose that Jesus did not agree with such views…  WAIT!  We actually have two premises here.

1.  The view of hell presented in chapter two of Francis Chan’s Erasing Hell is inaccurate.

2.  Jesus did not agree with such a view.

Unfortunately for Chan, this makes things much easier on me, one who disagrees with not only his conclusion, but the validity of the argument itself.  However, I’m getting ahead of myself here.  Right now, I am examining the argument with a sense of adventure and imagination, supposing that his premises are true.  That means we can move to the conclusion to see whether it jives with the premises.

Therefore, in a universe in which Erasing Hell chapter two was, is, and always will be inaccurate AND in a universe in which Jesus did not, does not, and never will agree with Erasing Hell chapter two, what response might we expect out of Jesus?  According to Chan, “He would have had to deliberately and clearly argue against it.”

Now in examining Chan’s conclusion, the “then” part of the statement, we must establish that it is in agreement with the premises.  So let’s look at Chan’s conclusion:

1.  He would have had to argue against it.

2. He would have had to deliberately argue against it.

3. He would have had to clearly argue against it.

Can we assume all of the above based on the premises?  How can we know what Jesus would have done? or to use Chan’s language, how can we know what Jesus would have had to do?  The words, “had to” are loaded words, and they ought not be taken lightly.  Is it right for us to assume that Jesus would have been constrained to react in a way that is consistent with our own consciences?  Perhaps.  It is not a simple as it seems unless we see the big picture – the Plan of the Ages.  But I digress…

Surely, if Jesus sees everyone (or at least the majority) believing a lie, he would set them straight, right?  He would do it deliberately.  He would do it clearly.  Right?

We don’t have to make assumptions, fortunately, because Jesus consistently taught the majority in a certain way.  In fact, His method of communication to the masses is described to us in the written perspectives of some his closest friends – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Matthew writes,

And the disciples having come near, said to him, “Wherefore in similes dost thou speak to them?” And he answering said to them that “To you it hath been given to know the secrets of the reign of the heavens, and to these it hath not been given…”

All these things spake Jesus in similes to the multitudes, and without a simile he was not speaking to them, that it might be fulfilled that was spoken through the prophet, saying, “I will open in similes my mouth, I will utter things having been hidden from the foundation of the world.”  Then having let away the multitudes, Jesus came to the house, and his disciples came near to him, saying, “Explain to us the simile…”

Mark writes,

And he said to them, “He who is having ears to hear – let him hear.” And when he was alone, those about him, with the twelve [disciples], did ask him of the simile, and he said to them, “To you it hath been given to know the secret of the reign of God, but to those who are without, in similes are all the things done; that seeing they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand, lest they may turn, and the sins may be forgiven them.” And he saith to them, “Have ye not known this simile? and how shall ye know all the similes?”

“…without a simile he was not speaking to them, and by themselves, to his disciples he was expounding all.”

Luke writes,

[Jesus] said unto his disciples, “Lay ye to your ears these words, for the Son of Man is about to be delivered up to the hands of men.” And they were not knowing this saying, and it was veiled from them, that they might not perceive it, and they were afraid to ask him about this saying.

And having taken the twelve aside, [Jesus] said unto them, “Lo, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things shall be completed – that have been written through the prophets – to the Son of Man, for he shall be delivered up to the nations, and shall be mocked, and insulted, and spit upon, and having scourged they shall put him to death, and on the third day he shall rise again.” And they none of these things understood, and this saying was hid from them, and they were not knowing the things said.

 [Jesus] said to them, “These [are] the words that I spake unto you, being yet with you, that it behoveth to be fulfilled all the things that are written in the Law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms, about me.” Then opened he up their understanding to understand the writings, and he said to them – “Thus it hath been written, and thus it was behoving the Christ to suffer, and to rise out of the dead the third day, and reformation and remission of sins to be proclaimed in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem: and ye – ye are witnesses of these things.”

John writes,

This similitude spake Jesus to them, and they knew not what the things were that he was speaking to them…

[…and to the disciples Jesus said] “These things in similitudes I have spoken to you, but there cometh an hour when no more in similitudes will I speak to you, but freely of the Father, will tell you.” […] His disciples say to him, “Lo, now freely thou dost speak, and no similitude speakest thou; now we have known that thou hast known all things, and hast no need that any one do question thee…”

Do you see what I see?  Jesus spoke in similes or parables to the masses.  It was not until a certain time that He spoke plainly, and even then, it was almost exclusively to His disciples.  As to why Jesus would do such a thing, this is another blog for another day (or you can read Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: Croissants Falling from the SkyWhy Chan Can’t Erase Hell: Fumbled Fables, and Would God Do That?).  The point is, if Jesus’s regular practice was to withhold, veil, or hide knowledge, why should we agree with Chan’s assumption that Jesus “would have had to deliberately and clearly” impart knowledge?

This is not to say that Jesus never said anything to contradict chapter two of Chan’s book.  I’ll get to that after we are done examining the validity of Chan’s conditional statement (one more blog) and the soundness of it (likely two blogs) as we slowly but surely make our way through the dark and not-very-hopeful book, Erasing Hell.

Next blog in this series: Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: Invalid Argument

Comments
  • Mary Vanderplas May 3, 2012 at 9:37 pm

    You make a good case against the validity of Chan’s statement. That Jesus did not argue against the view of hell in chapter 2 does not, I agree, necessarily mean that he agreed with it. That the fact that he did not argue against it could mean this can’t be denied, but that it has to mean this, as Chan contends, is not a valid conclusion. In general, one doesn’t have to argue publicly against a view in order to be against it. And the fact that one doesn’t argue against a view could mean, at least theoretically, any number of things. While it makes sense to think that Jesus would argue against a teaching that is false and harmful, the question is whether such a response is necessary – i.e., whether his not doing it proves his tacit agreement – which, I agree, it does not.

    I think you’re right, too, to cite the Gospel portraits of Jesus’ parabolic teaching as evidence against the validity of Chan’s conclusion. That Jesus is pictured as frequently teaching in parables – and that, in Mark’s Gospel, the purpose of his doing so is to generate misunderstanding (Matthew and Luke change the wording to soften the idea of Jesus teaching in order to conceal) – does, I agree, argue against assuming that his not acting in a way that would correct misunderstanding (reveal truth) proves his agreement. I would point out here, though, that in fact Mark pictures Jesus in two different ways: as teaching so as not to be understood by the crowds, on the one hand, and as teaching with the expectation that what he says will be understood, on the other (4:33; 7:14-15; 12:12). And in contrast to the other Gospel writers, John pictures Jesus as for the most part teaching openly about himself. This doesn’t change the validity of your argument about Jesus not always or even mostly teaching in order to reveal the truth, though. Your point is well-taken; and I agree that Chan’s statement assumes what, in view of what the Gospels reveal about Jesus’ method of teaching and about the purpose of his teaching, cannot legitimately be assumed.

    So, I agree with your bottom line: that the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises, that Chan’s argument lacks validity.

    • admin May 4, 2012 at 8:52 am

      I have yet to address this topic fully – I hope to demonstrate, further along in this series, that Jesus DID disagree with the view of hell Chan presents in chapter two.

  • Lanny A. Eichert May 4, 2012 at 12:58 am

    Alice, that surely is a deceptively fancy way to dispute Jesus. The truth in the parables is available to the disciples and a “must have” for them only. “Them only” means God’s saints, redeemed ones, as opposed to the unregenerate. You raise suspicions in Satanic fashion, daughter of Satan.

    You’d do better to go to the last half of Romans 1 and demonstrate that God in giving up on them chose not to doctrinally correct their rebellious misunderstanding. Both Romans 1 and Matthew 13 display God deliberately refusing to give people saving knowledge as proof that He never from the foundation of the world elected to save everybody. You, yourself, are disproving your own Amazing Hope and your Plan of the Ages doctrines.

    • admin May 4, 2012 at 8:47 am

      I’m not disputing Jesus, I’m disputing the idea that Jesus openly taught/argued eternal destiny with the masses. He consistently spoke to the masses in parables. That’s my point. Do you agree, that He consistently spoke to the masses in parables?

  • Lanny A. Eichert May 9, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven: Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. {Hebrews 12: 25 – 27}

    Alice, see that ye refuse not him that speaketh, because He is Jesus of Nazareth Who spoke in prayer for our sakes that Judas Iscariot is perished without remedy. This text tells that you will not escape eternal torment if you die refusing Jesus’ word about Judas.

    In addition, Alice, notice there will be a second shaking, but this time it will be both heaven and earth. It “signifieth the REMOVING of those things that are shaken” not the reconciling of what is shaken. What remains, Alice? Only those things which cannot be shaken. What remains is what God has reconciled and will complete their reconciliation. So how does Jesus reconcile all things in heaven and earth to Himself? He does it by first shaking and REMOVING “those things that are shaken.” If you are found still refusing Jesus’ word about Judas, you will be shaken out and removed. You will be removed to the eternal Lake of Fire far from heaven and earth and the exaltation of Jesus and exempt from Philippians 2: 10.

    The shaking of Hebrews 12: 25 – 27 proves you are a liar by your Amazing Hope doctrine, which is disputing Jesus from A to Z, even Genesis to Revelation.

    • Michael May 13, 2012 at 3:35 am

      Right, ‘those things’ = people. Don’t you think it would have been better to call the people people instead of things. For your point to have any validity you would have to show that ‘removing of those things that are shaken’ HAS to mean removing the people, and not removing the sins from the people. And as for your frequent reference to Jesus supposedly saying that Judas is lost forever. You are ignorant beyond comprehension. You load dozens of ideas into the simple word ‘perish’ that were clearly never intended! Perish can mean several different things, one of which is to simply physically die on this earth without any reference to the after life. And that is exactly what Jesus was referring to as Judas had recently hanged himself. Haven’t you ever read the parable about the Lost Sheep. Are you aware that the same Greek word for ‘lost’ is also translated perish/perished or destroy. So there you go Jesus saved the lost sheep who was perished. So perish does not have to mean ‘lost forever’ as you fallaciously assert.

      • Lanny A. Eichert May 13, 2012 at 6:42 pm

        When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which he entered, and his disciples. And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples. Judas then, having received a band [of men] and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. {John 18: 1 – 3} follows Jesus prayer of 17: 12, so you’re incorrect to state “that is exactly what Jesus was referring to as Judas had recently hanged himself” without first reading the text for the chronology.

        Jesus spoke from His omniscience which prohibited Him from adding that He’d eventually reconcile Judas, and so He leaves him lost to perish eternally.

        Regarding Hebrews 12: 25 – 27, “those things” are a translation of the verb participles and not from a discrete word meaning “things” and therefore are properly moral creatures. As moral creatures, they are removed in their sins to the Lake of Fire. Those unshakable people who are the remainder enter the New Heaven and the New Earth, the kingdom which cannot be moved, as it is made, never to see sinners any more. Further “those things that are shaken, as of things that are made” are people not sins or else God is the Author of sins.

        God planned the majority of humanity to be perished eternally, so that in the minority which He saved eternally, His grace and wisdom would be manifested and praised eternally by the angels who witnessed the power of the Gospel in the lives of God’s saints on the present earth.

        Get it right, Michael.

  • […] I mentioned in the previous blog, Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: Obama Is Fat, in order to examine Chan’s argument accurately, it is first important to establish whether […]

  • Michael May 13, 2012 at 3:47 am

    Luke 21:18

    ‘And not a hair of your head shall perish.’

    Thank God, the hair did not have to be eternally punished in fire.

    Your foolish ramblings will not be tolerated any longer. Say something contradictory to the scriptures, truth, and logic, and I’ll be here to refute your evil foolishness. So think twice before writing something that will end up embarrassing yourself.

    • Lanny A. Eichert May 13, 2012 at 5:51 pm

      Luke 21:18 addressed whose hair? It is invalid as you think to everybody.

      Perished is the same in John 3: 16 as it is in John 17: 12; so both mean eternal torment.

      • Michael May 14, 2012 at 1:27 am

        I never said that the ‘hair’ referred to everybody. I’m arguing concerning the meaning of the word perish/lose/destroy (greek 622 Apollumi). Read Luke 15:4 in a Greek interlinear http://interlinearbible.org/luke/15-4.htm you will see that when Jesus says ‘having lost’ and ‘has been lost’ in reference to the sheep, the root word is (greek 622 Apollumi). Now what happened to the lost sheep? Read the very next verse Luke 15:5 “having found it he lays it on the shoulders of him rejoicing”. Jesus declared the sheep to be Lost, but that was not a permanent condition.

        • Lanny A. Eichert May 17, 2012 at 2:10 am

          Michael, where are the ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance {Luke 15: 7}? Are they the remaining eleven disciples?

          Is Judas Iscariot a lamb? Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? {John 6: 70}

          Michael, Jesus spoke from His omniscience both times, (#1) that He knew beforehand what Judas was, and (#2) afterward before Judas betrayed Him that he was perished and gave no hope of a remedy in John 17: 12.

          The perishable condition as in John 3: 16 required the giving of the Son of God and the believing of the one who is ready to perish. The first part is assured, but the second part, which was Judas’ didn’t happen, and that we know.

          Over the span of three and a half years not even the Son of God could convert Judas Iscariot, not even keeping him as a disciple in close relationship with Himself; and Michael and the rest of you think Jesus will be able to convert him after he “hanged himself?” Jesus spent the best three and a half years with Judas without success; and you dream rebellious dreams defying the very words of the Son of God, Himself, Who pronounced specifically Judas Iscariot perished without giving any consideration toward a rescue.

          You all believe in your own fables to distort the words of God Himself. Don’y kid yourselves, you’re all a bunch of unbelievers destined to perish if you remain as is. Listen to the radio broadcasts on http://www.unshackled.org and maybe you too might be unshackled and enabled to believe to the saving of your soul.

          • Michael May 18, 2012 at 1:40 am

            If there is anyone that may be unsaved, it is you Lanny for blaspheming God’s character and purpose at every opportunity. May God have mercy on your soul! The bible has been on purposely written in such a way that an evil person can justify there beliefs with it (i.e. you). It is sad that you believe that God is proud of your beliefs, when you are filled with fear and hate, which are the very opposite of the fruits of the spirit. Reread Corinthians 13 some time, or some articles on tentmaker.org

  • Lanny A. Eichert May 17, 2012 at 2:00 pm

    Please see how this works with Judas Iscariot:
    Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? {John 6: 70}
    Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. {Romans 9: 13}
    Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. {Romans 9: 18}
    Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? {Romans 9: 21}
    God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction {Romans 9: 22}

    Only FEW according to God will He save:
    Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved {Romans 9: 27}
    For wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. {Matthew 7: 13, 14}

    He made the vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy: the first fitted to destruction and the second prepared unto glory. {Romans 9: 22, 23} The vessels of wrath cannot attain unto glory because who hath resisted his will? {Romans 9: 19}

    The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night {2 Peter 3: 9, 10} and those not found written in the Lamb’s Book of Life will in that night perish eternally in the Lake of Fire. The Lord is longsuffering to US-WARD who believe, His Elect, not toward the unbeliever. ALL the few Elect do come to repentance, He is not slack toward them, but all the many lovers of the broad way eternally perish, since it is not His will to save them and they get what they deserve. None of those you loved, Alice, who died without confessing Christ get what they don’t deserve.

    Alice, and your crowd, are none of the “us” in 2 Peter 3: 9 since you cannot believe Judas is perished without remedy. This is no promise to you and yours, but it is to me and mine. It is a fundamentalist’s promise,and you liberals be damned. Or else be converted to the literal Holy Bible unto salvation.

    • admin May 19, 2012 at 9:47 pm

      Lanny’s version of salvation: If you confess with your mouth “Jesus is Lord”, believe that God raised him from the dead, and believe that Judas Iscariot is damned to burn in Hell for eternity, you shall be saved.

      • Lanny A. Eichert May 19, 2012 at 11:11 pm

        Come off your high horse, Alice, you spiritual slut, and believe the Word of God literally instead of playing the harlot with the devil and corrupting God into a maniac that dispenses saving grace to an elect minority and brings them into bliss, while He tortures the majority of humanity in the Lake of Fire by withholding that same saving grace until His sadistic pleasures are satisfied and He at last wills their salvation to protect His name. See: Well, if Mary cannot Lanny A. Eichert says May 19, 2012 at 12:54 pm Top 10 Blog Posts.

        Alice, you ought to know there are many people who speak of the Lord Jesus Christ as risen from the dead who are not believers. Saying words like these and thinking you believe them gets no one anywhere. That’s where you all are and the proof is your Judas Iscariot whom you think Jesus will save when He said no such thing, but just the opposite: he is perished. If you cannot believe the omniscient Jesus pronounced Judas eternally perished before he even died, then whatever you confess and believe in your heart is NOT an expression of saving faith, because it argues with Jesus’ clear and plain statement. People like you who call Jesus a Liar are nowhere near salvation, but are closer to the Lake of Fire than they realize.

        • admin May 20, 2012 at 1:33 am

          Let me get this straight. If someone does not believe that Judas Iscariot will burn in Hell forever, then they are not a believer? Is that what you are saying? If it’s not, then what are you saying. If it is, then please show me the chapter and verse that says in order for one to believe Jesus is Savior and Lord, one must also believe Judas will burn in Hell forever. What about all the people who never heard the name of Judas?

          Also, I am considering editing your derogatory comments – not toward me, but toward others. You can call me names all day long. I know who I am in Him, and your opinion of me means nothing compared to His. But others may not be as secure in their worth in Him. Most moderators would have booted you off their comments section a long time ago. Spiritual slut. Seriously?

          • Lanny A. Eichert May 20, 2012 at 10:14 am

            For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. … He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. … He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. {from John 3} … He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. {from John 1}

            He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. {John 8: 47}

            To believe is to trust each and every word of God. {Matthew 4: 4} But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

            When you promote Jesus saves everybody, you contradict Jesus’ clear and simple statement {John 17: 12} that the son of perdition is perished, namely Judas Iscariot. You also contradict Jesus’ clear statement {Matthew 7: 14} that only few enter the strait gate. Contradicting Jesus amounts to calling Him a Liar and that doesn’t amount to believing in His name. Your actions speak louder than your words: meaning you contradict your own self and prove you don’t believe at all. To believe Jesus is to trust Him for everything, every word of God, the whole Holy Bible. Your fancy interpretation of the rich man and Lazarus proves you cannot believe Jesus. Alice, stop deceiving yourself. You practice spiritual adultery, a subject of the Holy Bible in both testaments concerning the unregenerate of Israel who pride themselves that they are God’s chosen people.

            Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. {1 John 2: 22} This is you, Alice: you make an issue of universalism just as in the first century the deity of Christ was denied. Don’t think just because you are not denying His deity you don’t fit the verse. Any unorthodox doctrine fits this verse, Alice. All old and modern corruptions qualify.

            What does it mean to believe Jesus, Alice?

            • admin May 21, 2012 at 2:21 am

              You base your judgment upon this: “He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. {John 8: 47}

              To believe is to trust each and every word of God. {Matthew 4: 4} ” But what you are not considering is that your idea of “hearing the words of God” or “trust each word of God” may not be accurate. What if the words of God are in conflict with your interpretation of those words? How do you know that you are correctly interpreting the words of God?

              Consequently, the basis for your judgment is on your own interpretation of God’s words, which may or may not be accurate. And since you are a fallible human being, don’t you think it would be best to leave the judgment of one who could, in fact, be counted among the “sons of God”? Aren’t you at least a little bit concerned about having to answer to God for condemning one of His own?

              I’m trying to help you understand that it isn’t your place to go around declaring who is “in” and who is “out”, if there is even such thing as “in” and “out” in the first place.

              You say that contradicting Jesus amounts to calling Him a liar, yet you contradict Jesus, since He said that He would “draw all men” to Himself. I don’t call you a liar for that, because a liar is by definition: “a person who deliberately gives false testimony”. To deliberately give false testimony means that I know truth, but replace it with false testimony. It is intentional. But who are you to know the intentions of my heart? Are you God, Who can see the innermost part of a person? That is why I don’t call you a liar. Instead, I call you ignorant. And I don’t mean ignorant as an insult implying you are stupid, because you aren’t stupid. I mean ignorant as in the definition of ignorant: “Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.” I assume that you say what you say, because you do not have the knowledge, information, or awareness of the meaning of Jesus’s promise to draw all men to Himself. Your knowledge, information, and awareness of what He said is formed in and perpetuated through the tradition with which you identify.

              Do you see the difference between my judgment and yours? Mine relinquishes judgment of the intentions of your heart to God Who never misjudges, because He has all knowledge, information, and awareness. You claim for yourself what belongs to God, even though you are fully aware that you are a fallible human being. It is a poor decision on your part to play God in the way you relate to (and alienate) others.

              • Lanny A. Eichert May 21, 2012 at 5:28 am

                If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed {2 John 10}

                Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. {1 John 4: 1}

                God’s saints are commanded to judge gainsayers and heretics and to dispute and expose them for what they are.

                Your 2:21 am speech is pretty, but you imply nobody finite can know for sure, so don’t judge. Yet YOU know, don’t you?

                It amazes me that YOU know, yet you cannot even tell if there’s an “in” and “out.” You ought to know by your falsehood of Amazing Hope there is only “in” but you seem not to be sure of it. What kind of double talk is this?

                You even dispute the plain literal sense of Jesus’ words in Matthew 4: 4. Don’t you see yourself for what you are? You don’t even know anything. You only think you know, because you have deceived yourself. Especially regarding the word all and ages.

                I repeat their names were deliberately never written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world and that is also true of every single person who dies without confessing Jesus.

                You knew the orthodox position of eternal torment and are deliberately denying it, so that proves you a liar.

                • admin May 21, 2012 at 8:09 am

                  Knowing because of faith that a doctrine is true is not the same as “knowing” because of opinion that a person’s intentions are this or that.

                • admin May 21, 2012 at 8:12 am

                  In response to your comment: It amazes me that YOU know, yet you cannot even tell if there’s an “in” and “out.”

                  In my heart, I have assurance that “in” and “out” are temporary conditions. In my writing a response to you and your beliefs, I allow for the possibility that I am wrong, as a courtesy and acknowledgement that I am a fallible human being. I would bet my life that your more permanent view of “in” and “out” is not accurate, though.

                • admin May 21, 2012 at 8:21 am

                  My youngest childhood memories of the doctrine of eternal torment (crying and being terrified and angry with God, not wanting to believe it, rejecting it with my heart even though with my head I was “supposed” to believe it) demonstrate that although I “knew the orthodox position”, I did not claim it as truth. Therefore, my later denial of it cannot be considered a lie. The only way it could be rightly labeled as a lie (instead of being labeled ignorance) is if I deliberately denied the doctrine, while simultaneously accepting it as truth in my private thoughts. I don’t deliberately deny something I believe to be true, I deliberately deny something I believe is false. Instead of proving me a liar, this proves the opposite: that I speak according to my convictions, a characteristic also known as “honesty”.

  • Hell in Revelation « www.whatgoddoes.com December 7, 2012 at 3:23 am

    […] of Distance, Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: Abomination, Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: Fear Not, Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: Obama Is Fat, Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: Invalid Argument, Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: Everlasting […]

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.