Billy Graham at 87: More Humility and Tolerance

The frailty of mind that comes with age often causes questions and cloudy thinking about things that once were very clear. Other adverse circumstances can have similar effects. Even John the baptist, when thrown into jail began to question--'Is this Jesus really the one, or should we look for another?'
Jesus' message back to him reminded him of the miracles proving who He was, and encouraged him not to doubt, but to continue believing.
Billy Graham is certainly no apostate. By his own recent affirmation, he still believes Jesus to be God's only way of salvation. But regardless of the fact that he, in the affliction of old age, would retire from the effort of active debate and trying to answer the loaded questions of those who are not looking for truth anyway--his weakened fight of faith is no threat to those you call the "religious right". Billy Graham is, and has always been, nothing more than one of the millions of sinners who received the Truth and made Jesus his Lord. And though his life has stirred in me, much admiration, he remains an imperfect human being--just a man, indwelt by the Spirit of the perfect God through faith in the Lord Jesus.
Even if he were to completely denounce faith in God's Word, and become what you call a 'progressive Christian' (God forbid), it could not, and would not, be a 'threat' to anyone whose faith is in Jesus.
EH

Should we be glad that one who damned everyone to Hell for decades now, with the candle burning down to the base, discovers the virtue of ecumenism? Should we believe carte blanche as he confesses that literalism is not the way of the Bible...again, after decades of railing, to the contrary? Should we discount his anti-intellectualism as ignorance counterbalanced by admission that he was sorry he never countenanced the door of a seminary? Should we not note the hypocrisy of his accepting an honorary doctorate with an unrepentant literalism & anti-cinematic rails while standing beside Cecil B. DeMille also receiving the honor of academia for his epic movie, The Ten Commandments? Should we forget his call to thousands at a time in stadia with a cheapened grace of "repent, accept, believe" for those then sent adrift without the nurture of Christian education? Should we forget his war-mongering with talk of "last days" non sequitors far from the discomforts of bullets or worse but sure that killing more non-Jews on Palestinian soil would hasten the "end time" made possible as 'scripture fulfulment' & the pre-millinerian backups made possible only by militant literalism? Do we forget-&-forgive his dirty politics of holding out & on to his position of power in the Association that has run his campaigns until he can get his drunken son Franklin sober enough & with the pledge-of-drunks to ascend to his "Empire"? Do we forgive his errant looking another way so as not to see or hear his drunken son still admitting his like for the drink & the fast-lane lifestyle? How can we not remember or hold him accountable for his tirade the morning after 9/11, with daughter aside him on national TV, that our nation was being punished by G-d for its infidelity & sins [read: homosexuals be damned]? When he could not rise above his prejudices in that moment of turmoil not to proselitize via his inadequate bible & his single-focus of literalism, why should we listen to his confessional now, more than a dollar short & a mile or two off base? Is he ANY different than the average "PTL" anti-art denizen of a subchristian group who proliferates his ignorance galore in most ostentatious ways which alienates decent, seeking professionals from looking further into REAL faith exploration? Is son Franklin's EVIL WAYS not given the wet-blanket treatment while pushing another drunken evangelist into another generation for extended mischief? Can you name another with wet-blanket confirmation who has defied sanity AND U.S. State Department sanctions to drop from small planes in alien Palestinian & Israeli airspace arabic copies of literal New Testaments, via his EVIL Samaritan's Purse organization? How many more [this one you can answer with a little thinking of evangelical folly!] hold the purse {pun intended] of TWO incorporated entities for converting those of alien religions with sheer assault on dignity?

I could go on & on into the history of this particular dysfunction, but the point should be made by these remembrances. Obviously, I have been a 'watcher' as this stuff unfolded over decades, much to the consternation of fundamentalists & cultic sectarians in whose face I placed these disgraces. What has been learned by the offender, if only NOW ---5 of 12 Midnight---stands beckoning for his soul? Has he learned anything at all, or like others sobering to Time itself, is he ashamed of his past pronouncements in one breath & holding fast to his power & position even if fundamentalists still experience the ground shake from the first? Is he really sorry for his anti-intellectualism, with the bible & life itself? Would he receive with grace as did an Ethopian eunoch anyone who could help him interpret the mysteries....or is this patent lipservice? I, and many another educated in Literary-Historical Criticism with a stalwart dose of textual transmission, could give him a couple of hours that would make him shed tears of shame for his narrow pronouncements of ignorance, all in the spirit of sharing education without judging the seeker. But I do not believe the contrite level of this offender for one iota: he's just trying to get his fire insurance policy paid up, like the sorry lot of "born agains" going up an aisle for one of the 28 times, on average, that these do these things: a spectacle of transparence par excellence.

I was present at the Texas Baptist Evangelistic Conference for the three-day meeting in a cold 22 degrees [this is Dallas, not Wisconsin!] held at the FBC in January of 1953. Yes, I was miserable with all the malarky afoot, a confirming but hardening experience but for one exception[Carlyle Marney]. Then came the Featured Speaker, touted by all & from afar: pews tightened, balconies opened, outsiders sought the rafters: it was a SHOW alright: Billy Graham had arrived: favorite hand holding his Bible, the other the better for pointing. His body language was frantic yet witholding, his speech as singular as one learned in forensics. Any reticence I held before was confirmed by body & word now. O, Ignorance! O, Transparence! O, Arrogance! Thou hadst visited us in depth today! Only once again would I be in such a situation, but I will let you pick it out from above yourself. I had grown up rejecting fundamentalism for its stupidities. I had learned one thing there: I would spend my life in higher education educating open minds to oppose such folly.

Is there anything for even a straw's grasp to see a means of Grace in Billy Grahsm's loosening up, whether biblical literalism or political tolerance or ecumenism for 'other religions' & religious orientations? I can applaud a growth that includes the end of life too, but can we extend such here? Must we be as "sentimental" as the fundamentalists 28-fall from grace & rededications? Will reason allow....? It's great fun to see the fundie's remonstrating on the "apostasy," particularly with their hubris particularized into political kingmakers as they appropriate to themselves & forgetting to carry thier bibles too: a great trauma to these thumpers. But this is a great embarrassment to America, as the World assesses such folly.

When I baptize an infant, an echo in my head sees me say something like, "May he(she) grow in Grace as he(she) grows in stature," and it's a great hope, maybe moreso in these times, but ALL times have had their traumatic moments. What can I celebrate in one who saved his growth (alleged) for the end of life? I cannot say or applaud anything. This is one who has practiced much Evil, has influenced others with that Evil, has continued to spout forth that Evil (Remember September 12th indeed), has helped superficiality grasp unsuspecting souls, whose tombstone might read, "Spread Evil Throughout the Land." I'll take his conversion, all right, exactly in the spirit in which it was intended: one cheap veneer over a blackened life. No Grace for this huckster: let him get his JUST desert and be damned surprised. John Milton had it right: Every man is a Hell unto himself. And Billy Graham will reap the Hell that he has sown if G-d has any Justice left for this world. Touche, but may he burn in the Hell to which he has condemned so many others. That'd be poetic justice, if we cannot do better.

Oh Eddie, oh Eddie:-) You make me so sad. You wrote:

"Billy Graham is, and has always been, nothing more than one of the millions of sinners who received the Truth and made Jesus his Lord. And though his life has stirred in me, much admiration, he remains an imperfect human being--just a man, indwelt by the Spirit of the perfect God through faith in the Lord Jesus.
Even if he were to completely denounce faith in God's Word, and become what you call a 'progressive Christian' (God forbid), it could not, and would not, be a 'threat' to anyone whose faith is in Jesus."

One can be a progressive Christian without denouncing faith in God's word, although it might not be possible to square progressive christianity with the idolotrous Bible worship that IMO is common among the more fundamentalist of my Christian brothers and sisters.

I agree with you that Billy Graham is just a sinner like the rest of us, and I applaud your unwillingness to simply accept his pronouncements as if they were necessarily God's view on the matter. And I might note this fact: the above article doesn't imply Graham is open to salvation being possible apart from Christ. Graham said we are not competent to speculate about who will end up in heaven. Even for those of us who think Christ is THE ONLY WAY to salvation, our Christian exclusivism doesn't imply our neighbors who are Muslim or Hindu of Buddhist or atheist (or even Christian) won't be saved. It could be that the reason they *will* be saved is that they will EVENTUALLY come to Christ (whether in this life, or at the interface between this life and the next, or in the life after this life). As a Christian I believe that no sincere seeker after the truth and love would reject *Christ*--at most they might reject the sinful distorted way Christ was presented to them. And as Jesus told us: those who seek will find.

your friend
Keith

Eddie seems to see his late spiritual
growth as a sort of senility,
Arden seems to think he is beyond hope--
call me naive, but I'd prefer to take him
at his word and see it as the spirit
working its way toward understanding,
toward God.

FP

FP --- "take him at his word"...? Jeff, what does the lawyer in you do with your hackle involantarily on that one? As the understanding of psychology goes, there is 'credibility' and there is 'gullibility': does this change when one's confession is religious in nature? Rather than a bank robber or murderer [as asocial as these are] who will seldom repeat that folly, when one calculates folly after folly but does so by calling it "God's will," why would we not object to this promiscuous playing with others' hearts? And see it for the magnity of the misery that it inflicted, the souls scarred by it? I have counseled far too many victims of conservatism & fundamentalism --fear & infliction thereof, biblicism & literalism, claims of God's will & assorted mischiefs, et al--not to take these things seriously for the effects on people, which is criminal. The higher up the TV postulant, the hotter the grease I say. If he'd show his contrition by deconstruction of his empire rather than place his drunken son into control, maybe backing off a bit would be appropriate, but since Franklin already has the reigns, is not about to let any slack into the line & has already defamed his father's mentality, the damage will continue and is on-going. Too little, too late: this cheapens all things religious, and further cements Americans as 'kooks' abroad.

How many more questions like those I posed would you like? I am not a 9/11 'kook', but consider Billy & daughter defaming on one channel on Sept. 12th, Falwell & Robertson doing the same on another channel, and then they play 'musical chairs' and switch venues, each doing the same pronouncements again, ad infinitum. Not only does this show psychosis via the literalism involved but a virulent anti-Americanism to boot. How can that image disappear when it is indelible? What spirit is it at work which starts at 5 of 12 when nothing can be undone? What such confession has legal interest when it has nothing to lose? The loss is permanent, the damage is immutable. All we can say is a liturgical good-bye after a reading has ended: not enough to save the day. Let him live with his sins, which at least he has found out. I cannot overlook, per convenience, the damage inflicted, nor can the victims.

Hi Arden

You asked a lot of questions and I'd like to address some of them.

YOU ASKED: Should we be glad that one who damned everyone to Hell for decades now, with the candle burning down to the base, discovers the virtue of ecumenism?

KEITH:

1. Yes, we should be glad. It is always good when a person discovers a virtue; it is especially good when that person turns away from the *bad* toward the virtue. Christ taught us that.

2. Billy didn't damn anyone to hell, because that's not in his power. When he taught about the dangers of hell he was trying to *warn* people, not condemn them. Even if his previous idea was wrong it was well-intentioned.

3. From what I can tell from the article, Graham *hasn't* rejected Christian exclusivism, he is just refusing to claim the ability to decide just which people are counted among Christ's believers. he seems to be open Jesus' view expressed in Matthew 25 as well as in other places.

ARDEN: Should we believe carte blanche as he confesses that literalism is not the way of the Bible...again, after decades of railing, to the contrary?

KEITH: We should indeed welcome his open minded willingness to challenge his own previously held beliefs. We progressive Christians would do well to follow his example wrt our own views of Christianity. I guess I don't see why you are so suspicious or bitter toward our brother Billy.

your friend
keith

As John Milton so stalwartly proclaimed in his epic Paradise Lost, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." And no one fits this more or better than BillyBoy. If he had ANY virtue in his 5 of 12 belatedism, it is long past speaking even as a shadow-boxing with himself and with NO shame nor guilt for his atrotious behavior to countless individuals, most unnameable. He is the epitome of their being no such thing as a small indignity. Even tho' BillyBoy did NOT have the power to damn anybody to Hell, that did not stop his actions or his illbegotten beliefs, repeated at every altar-call he offered & invoked God in this bad behavior. The latter is blasphemy, and for his sinful behavior he offers no repentance, not even pentitence. His hole is so deep there's no digging out of it, even if his literalism repeated the same things over and over and over again: once won't do it. He suddenly does not have an open mind, just weak knees, and no forgiveness. If he'd embrace Buddhism, maybe he could atone for his sins in another incarnation, but for his christian-like eclusivism with manifold ignorance, forgiveness is phony. He has not renounced anything, just mouthed a platitude with a view to obscure. His sins have been found out, and he is wanting, forever & anon.

HI Arden

What attrocious behavior are you speaking of?

your friend
Keith

HI Arden

What atrocious behavior are you speaking of?

your friend
Keith

I'm glad you're here, Hander. None other could so clearly demonstrate the true spirit of so-called 'progressive Christianity'--which is not Christianity at all. Any one with any sense, not to mention, spiritual discernment, could read your bitter, hate-filled nonsense and want nothing to do with this cult you represent.
You are the closest thing to the personification of the 'accuser of the brethren' anyone could possibly be. You would fit the bill as the antichrist himself, except for the fact he would not be so ignorant as to completely blow his cover before the time.
Unlike you, Professor, I will admit the possibility of being wrong about the following opinion; but I am under the impression that you once--long ago--made some effort at conversion to Christ. But your own intellect got in the way and retained the throne of Lordship instead.
You trampled underfoot, the blood of Jesus, and as the Scripture declares, there remains no other sacrifice sufficient to take away your sins... Thus, your hatred for the gospel and those who proclaim it, i.e., Billy Graham, has only grown. Out of the abundance of your heart, your mouth speaks and displays the fruit of your apostasy, and the fruit of the 'doctrine of demons' referred to as "progressive". That, Sir, is no 'progress'.
EH

Hi Eddie

You wrote: "I'm glad you're here, Hander. None other could so clearly demonstrate the true spirit of so-called 'progressive Christianity'--which is not Christianity at all. Any one with any sense, not to mention, spiritual discernment, could read your bitter, hate-filled nonsense and want nothing to do with this cult you represent."

Gee Eddie, that's unfair of you. You decide Arden's hostility toward a decent man like Billy Graham represents progressive Christianity, so apparently people like me who *aren't* hostile toward Billy Graham or even the many other decent Christians who disagree with us on politics and theology cannot be the real progressives. We could do the same thing with the hateful Fred Phelps from Kansas (the God hates fags guy), we could say *he* represents conservative Christians and condemn all conservative Christians because of his behavior--we'd have to include a decent person like *you* in the condemnation.

I suggest we all drop the condemnation althogether.

your friend
Keith

No, Kieth, you have long accepted Arden Hander and his hateful rhetoric as representative of 'progressives'. You are quick to rebuke me and rebut my words, but by your non-response to Hander. you condone the antichrist spirit of his message. And your sanctimonious suggestion that 'we all drop the condemnation' at best evidences your misunderstanding of the word 'condemnation'.
The Scripture says that by your own words, you are condemned--not by the words of someone else, telling you the truth. Hander did not only make ridiculous accusations of Billy Graham, but he denounced Billy's repeated invitation to Christ as "illbegotten beliefs" and "blasphemy".
That invitation, however, was not originated by Billy Graham, but by the Holy Spirit, manifest not only in Billy's 'repeated' invitation, but first in the words of Jesus, Paul, Peter, James, John, etc. And the Bible declares that by refusing to believe those so-called "illbegotten beliefs", one is also condemned.
Neither Graham, nor any of the other objects of Hander's hatred, has ever been known publicly, to express any personal desire for any human being to 'burn in hell' as did Hander, concerning Billy Graham. There is a big difference in warning the sinner of hell, and wishing it on him. Hander's 'may he burn in hell' attitude toward Graham and other gospel preachers is far from godly... It's satanic.
EH

HI Eddie

I *did* challenge Arden's post. I share your revulsion toward the "may you burn in hell" attitude, an atttitude that Billy Graham never exhibited. I defended Graham, pointing out how Arden's accusations toward him were unfair, just as I pointed out that your accusations toward progressives is unfair. In neither case did I intend to condemn any *persons*, I was just arguing for fair and civil discussion.

your friend
Keith

In truth, I am Not glad you're here, Eddie Hughes, since you are one of the expected Trolls now, not something I created but others who understand your misunderstandings. To tolerate one whose ultrarightist "bible preacher" literalism devoids ANY give-&-take is only to take up bandwidth & repeats past tirades, which we have already seen. What in heaven or on earth do proselytizers expect to accomplish in terms of turning anyone's mind, since anti-intellectualism & biblicism are the plague of responsible Christianity & BTW, the focus of what we constantly address THROUGH education, yes GENUINE explanation of knowledge. Talk about attitudes of the "anti-Christ" & mean spiritedness? Eddie & a small number of other regular trolls demonstrate this time & time again, even if their sabotaging is like water on a duck's back. They call it "witnessing", but it's light years from that, which even in its best representations is anti-progressive & offensive.

A correction, too, to the "burn in hell" question. I simply noted that BillyBoy's scare tactics repeated thousands & thousands of times over the years, NOW with his expression toward openness & doubt, fly back into HIS face which he sees in the mirror if only by the advent of age! As he hears the echo of having threatened so many with a "burning Hell" but now for the first time in his almost-spent life with a legitimate facing of DOUBT, a tool of REAL faith rather than its enemy, he sees himself, poetically, in the shoes of the others. Is POETIC JUSTICE sometimes the best kind, even when it is the only kind? You bet your boots! I do not believe in a literal hell & certainly not a burning one or eternal (i.e., without end), but for those whose literalism has insisted this for others, BillyBoy included, it's a soberness he NEVER allowed himself the luxury of having: standard bravado for fundamentalists, sad as it is. For one who with education & soberness might have been a far better vessel for spirituality, I share with him his sadness of the loss, but for his stiffneckedness & putting up a good act that victimized countless others who trusted him, I am damned mad & rightly so. TRUST is a precious commodity, which NOW ---too late--- he seems to comprehend & with some GUILT as well. Do we take that as penitent? Or do we judge him with the same words he mouthed? It's a dilemma, sad but not to be dismissed polyannish. And not being a polyanna, his blasphemy stands unabated, not a one time deal, but repeated as a threat to "sinners" with each altar-call which pursed his lips. That's his "burn in Hell" attitude with snobbish superiority even against other fundamentalists which he DID mouth hundreds of times. Unless Keith has a time-machine with erase qualities, he'll just have to accept also. "I cannot accept the damage inflicted, nor can the victims." That's me, who has counseled hundreds & thousands of spiritual seekers who have been lied to as I see the damage to the souls of the seekers, in word & expressions. Their disdain for "illbegotten beliefs" used on them by bullying speaks to the inflictions.

The questions posed were not rhetorical but arose from events noted & reported: sorry the truth is a little too hard, but it always is. But let me add one thing that Graham took on ALONE & accomplished at least a tentative victory. That was to push for & GET an agreement among TV preachers or representatives thereof for an "ethics draft" that would cover the solicitation of money, with accounting measures. This was an "Enron" & still is, but addressing it was never attempted before. It makes for accountability, even if it is "toothless" to a certain degree. To Graham's credit, he did not try to backoff when its very first application was son Franklin & Samaratain's Purse: guilty as charged. Misapplication or Misuse of funds has not reached a Grand Jury except in Jim Bakker's fraud, but there's a certain 'in house' birdie on the shoulder now at least. Not strangely, the one pushing this reform...er, necessity!...had always had a static salary & published an 'annual report' much like a corporation, unlike the others who were filling their pockets everytime they came or went, worse since $5 or $20 mailins accounted for the proceeds gotten from poor people. Beyond this, I have no other good to report, but this is a good first step.

Others besides myself have asked here & directly with this site's administration for some editorial oversight to control 'trolls' for their actions, which could be done easily by blocking email. It's necessary. That wouldn't stop someone being declared "our brother" when it's just not so: the tent ain't that big. Don't look for so direct an answer again, since I haven't the time. I have an intolerance for fundamentalists & cultic sectarians from a lifetime of work, & I am not sentimental about it. You can't put a smile on s***, as much as you might like.

This site needs editorial oversight.

Hi Arden

This might be relevant to my point, so let me tell you a bit about my personal leanings. I lean toward what is called "universal reconciliation", or UR. We URists typically believe that salvation comes by Christ alone, that just as gthe Bible says, Jesus is THE way, THE life and THE truth, no one gets to the Father but through him. But we think that eventually everyone will receive him. Hell? Maybe so, but nobody will end up forever damned, in the end Christ will be successful in reconciling all things to God. Thus I disagree with the (previous?) Billy Graham view about hell.

But Graham did indeed believe it, and given his belief he acted entirely in *love* by warning people of the danger. Scare *tactics*? It isn't a tactic when you believe that someone is heading for a horrible disaster and you offer them a heads up before they suffer the tragedy. You quote Milton, saying the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I don't believe that one bit. The road to hell is paved with anger and hatred and the desire for vengeance. When all is added up, good intentions lead only to good. If you believe otherwise then your belief is an expression of a negative form of faith. There cannot be any evidence for that kind of Miltonian pessisism.

your friend
Keith

"Universal Reconciliation" doctrine is not only your chosen belief, Keith, it is undoubtedly the basic doctrine of 'progressives' in general. "URists", as you call yourselves, claim to believe Jesus is 'the way, the truth, and the life', and even refer to Him as 'Lord'. But Jesus Himself asked, "Why do you call me Lord, and do not do what I say?".
His commission to His disciples is to 'preach the gospel'--'make disciples' regardless of their prior religion. He also clearly said, along with His apostles after Him, that 'those who believe will be saved--those who do not believe will be damned'.
It is that part, repeated throughout the New Testament, that "URists" reject. The 'reconciliation to God' of ALL humanity DID take place in Christ at Calvary. The redemptive work of becoming the 'Savior of the world' was completed through the cross and resurrection. There was nothing left for Jesus to do. Through His suffering and obedience to the Father, He became the Redeemer of all mankind.
That said... Salvation comes into effect, only to those who believe and purposely rely on Christ's redemptive sacrifice. To those who do not believe, there remains the obligation to stand before God on their own merit. By receiving Jesus as Lord, by faith; His righteousness becomes yours. But this justification can only come by faith.
There is not even the slightest hint in Scripture that the repeated exhortation to the sinner to 'repent' and 'believe' ever became null and void. The great commission was never cancelled. And the warnings (which began with Jesus' words to the Jews)--'if you do not believe, you will die in your sins, and be cast into outer darkness where there is weeping and wailing--unquenchable fire--the 'lake of fire'--where the smoke of torment arises forever; never ceased to be part and parcel of the gospel message.
What Jesus commanded us to preach to 'every human being'; and that for which He set the example--"Urists" refer to, as 'hate speech'. Hander refers to obedient followers of Jesus as 'proselytizers', with their 'anti-intellectualism' and 'biblicism' and calls us the 'plague of responsible Christianity'. Jesus, however, was the Champion of 'proselytizers' and sent His disciples out to win souls and make converts (proselytize) just as He did. He was certainly a 'biblicist' (He knew and quoted Scripture better than anyone), and He despised 'intellectualism', even to the point of dancing for joy over the fact that His Father was not allowing the 'intellectuals' to get it... His wisdom was only being revealed to the 'simple'--not the 'wise'.
The first apostles, and thousands of disciples since, have suffered severe persecution, torture, and murder over nothing but the fact they would not cease telling people that only by faith in Jesus, can they be saved... That only those who, by faith 'receive' Him, can be called 'children of God'.
These people did not suffer because they 'believed', they suffered because they told others, and offered them the ONLY way of salvation. Hander says they are a "plague"... God honors them above all others, saying in Hebrews 11, the world is 'not worthy' of them. And "URists" in general, though usually in less hateful speech, also make a mockery of them and the Lord they serve.
Billy Graham will get his "Well done, thou good and faithful servant" in heaven. The Universalist, who like the Hindu, might decide to add Jesus to his list of gods, will never see heaven, but will be among those who hear the most tragic of all words, "Depart from me... I never knew you".
"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." --John 3:36
That's the deal.
EH

So...the bible thumper, literalist, proselytizer, morally bankrupt, "Eveready Bunny" of extreme fundamentalism [i.e., cultic sectarian] is back for another repeat trying to salve his conscience [only bad verses therein] while advertising his inadequacies the more. As much as Billy Graham lacked & is lacking, at least belatedly the value of DOUBT to 'faith' he discovered, much more than Eddie-the-Thumper will ever know or allow himself the luxury of knowing. A MIRROR would be a very good investment if he only saw his feflection but once, but....... Milton is correct, which is a large reason why his work is called EPIC. Even in a literal bible, there's a story about a hill and one crying on it while surveying: too bad those of a certain substrata never get it, then or now.

Hi Eddie

I need to comment on one part of your post (I'll try to look at the rest of it later).

YOU WROTE: Universal Reconciliation" doctrine is not only your chosen belief, Keith, it is undoubtedly the basic doctrine of 'progressives' in general. "URists", as you call yourselves, claim to believe Jesus is 'the way, the truth, and the life', and even refer to Him as 'Lord'. But Jesus Himself asked, "Why do you call me Lord, and do not do what I say?".
His commission to His disciples is to 'preach the gospel'--'make disciples' regardless of their prior religion. He also clearly said, along with His apostles after Him, that 'those who believe will be saved--those who do not believe will be damned'.
It is that part, repeated throughout the New Testament, that "URists" reject.

KEITH: You are wrong--we don't reject what you just said we do. What we reject is that there will *be* any unbelievers at the end. BTW, it is false that Jesus or his disciples "clealy said" that any person would end up tormented forever in hell, the usual conservative view doesn't come from the Bible at all.

your friend
Keith

On the contrary--all my references came from the Bible.

"He that believeth and is baptized whall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" --Jesus (Mark 16:16)

And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same whall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night..."
--Rev. 14:9-11

Again, I will say, what you misquoted... Jesus and the apostles "clearly said", throughout the NT, that those who "believe" will be saved--those who do not believe will be damned.
It's your belief that those who have already died will have an opportunity to come to the saving knowledge of Christ, that is totally unfounded in Scripture. And that part I charge you with 'rejecting' and disregarding is that part of the great commission which commands us to preach the whole counsel of God to the sinner. He that believes in, and receives Jesus as Lord will receive eternal life--he that does not believe will not see life.
Your attempt to feel justified by convincing yourself that everyone will be okay someday, makes a mockery of God's warnings and the great commission.

"When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand." -- Ezek. 33:8

Hellfire and Brimstone have driven far more people from Christ than TO Christ.

I'd like to tell you a story.

Many years ago, a new proctor came to take over a trading post in the north. One of the rules the old proctor shared with him was this:

As long as an Indian followed the "old ways", you could lend to him and extend credit, and know that you would be paid in full. If that Indian, however, professed to have converted to Christianity, immediately call all of his accounts in and get your money, or you will never be paid.

This IS A RECORDED INCIDENCE- it actually happened, and this sort of thing was the norm.

What so many "Christians" are doing when they think they are witnessing is proselytizing- NOT witnessing. Witnessing is relating what you personally have experienced, like you do in a trial. Witnessing, when done with wisdom and kindness, is VERY effective. Proselytizing brings about the sort of thing that happened to some of my ancestors. Proselytizing does NOT serve God, as it is far more effective at turning people away.

I have seen little true witnessing on this sig, and NONE of it has come from the, shall we say, more conservative individuals.

Hellfire and brimstone is proselytizing.

So, EH, what has Jesus done for you today?

Hi Ediie

YOU WROTE: ""He that believeth and is baptized whall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" --Jesus (Mark 16:16)"

KEITH: Exactly. But this doesn't say that (a) anyone will *end up* not believing nor does it say that the damnation will be everlasting torment.

About Revelation: this book is filled to the brim with symbolic language. It is a huge mistake to derive a literal picture of heaven/hell from this book.

your friend
Keith

Hi Eddie:

You also wrote (I forgot to comment before:):

"It's your belief that those who have already died will have an opportunity to come to the saving knowledge of Christ, that is totally unfounded in Scripture"

KEITH: To be fair, I have not said that there will be any post mortem repentance. What URists believe is that eventually everyone will repent and be saved. When will the repentance occur? That's any open question--maybe before death, maybe at the interface between death and life. It wouldn't have to be after death. I agree the Bible doesn't say that there'll be post mortem repentance, but it doesn't preclude it either. It gives no reason to think post mortem repentance isn't possible. And your biblical quotes notwithstanding, there isn't any biblical support for the idea that people will suffer everlasting torment. You can offer whatever quotes you want, but you have to read everlasting torment *into* the passages, it't not there by itself.

Now I have an argument that says the Bible *does* implicitly teach post mortem repentance. Want to see it? here goes:

1. Some people will not repent prior to death, nor at the interface between death and life (premise)

2. God is love (premise, supported by 1 John)

3. Anyone who doesn't repent will be damned. (premise, one that you probably agree with).

4. God wouldn't allow a person he loved to suffer everlasting torment; that would make God a monster instead of the perfect Loving One (premise).

From (4) no one ends up damned forever, therefore from (3) there is no one who in the end won't repent. But since from (2) there are those who fail to repent in this life (or at the interface between life and death), therefore there have to be some who will repent *after* death.

your friend
Keith

Keith...

A person could CHOOSE damnation and eternal torment over God.

My experiences with fundamentalism and fundamentalists gives me an insight into how a person could do so (having their souls wrecked so severely that they are hostile to any idea of God).

I just pray that nobody ever does.

Hi Bob

You commented on my argument. Let me quote from my argument then quote you.

KEITH'S ARGUMENT:

Some people will not repent prior to death, nor at the interface between death and life (premise)

2. God is love (premise, supported by 1 John)

3. Anyone who doesn't repent will be damned. (premise, one that you probably agree with).

4. God wouldn't allow a person he loved to suffer everlasting torment; that would make God a monster instead of the perfect Loving One (premise)...

I want to focus on premise (4). You wrote...

BOB: A person could CHOOSE damnation and eternal torment over God.

My experiences with fundamentalism and fundamentalists gives me an insight into how a person could do so (having their souls wrecked so severely that they are hostile to any idea of God).

KEITH: That seems like a good counter to my argument, although I might respond that no SANE person would choose permanent torment over the only hope he has for happiness, and that consequently a person who were to choose that would not be making a free decision, slave as he is to his mental illness. But...

Even if it is possible that a person could choose such, I would argue that a loving God would never permit the person to choose that kind of unredeemable tragedy. Why would a loving God maintain the person in existence if the person's condition was hopeless? And if a person *were* able to refuse God's grace forever, wouldn't that be a terrible *defeat* for God's loving intention toward that person? The Bible describes God as *winning* in the end, but if anyone ends up forever damned then God lost.

your friend
Keith

Good point, Keith. I also wonder a bit about people like Hitler... but I tend to figure that is God's business, not ours.

I also wonder about the effects of realizing the evil people have done when they confront the truth.

There are issues of Justice that are not really met as well, although I can possibly think of ways that these issues could be met.

I am not sure I agree with the idea, but I do not disagree either. This is a question that will require thought, meditation, and study.

I'd rather leave it at that- I don't have the time for the study and so on.

Hi Bob

About the Hitler thing. Hitler had a pretty harsh upbringing if I remember correctly, with a harsh, authoritarian father and a mother who didn't protect him. Now that doesn't excuse Hitler, but when I compare to *my* being brought up in a home where I knew both of my parents lived me and supported me, and taught me to be loving and compassionate, well I guess I can't say that I'd have behaved better than Hitler did if I had had his life instead of my own. IMO that's the genius of Jesus' admonition against judging others. Wre are not in a position to imagine we are better than those we judge, all things considered.

your friend
Keith

Man what a crazy blog with aspects of all lines of faith coming into play...makes for a great discussion though.

As far as Billy Graham goes, I never was much of a big fan of any preacher and why should I start now? As much as Arden rails on Billy he invokes judgment about the issue, some of it quite valid and I agree with him. Maybe the Graham family could become more prolific in their ministry and start envoking something I call 'total salvation'. They could very possbily take their big 'spot-lighted' ministry and start doing real things with the money they have (ex: building homes for the single-mothers, programs, etc). I think preaching is one aspect but that preaching should also reflect a love (in action) for the people you minister to.

Eddie is a little harsh in judging the other 2 people's outlooks on life and calling 'progessive Christianity' weak (more or less). He throws some bible verses in the mix but they only help to be-fuddle the argument more than help it (since the context of verses is strung together to make an arguement). Even if the argument holds water it doesn't, since we are called to love and anyone claiming Christ and the teachings of Christ can 'hardly be against Christ'. Still, he does bring up some valid points on scriptural integrity.

Now Keith is proporting the universalist position, which I actually like for their focus on the love and grace of God (kudos), but I am no universalist. I have read a lot of their teachings and I am friends with many who claim this ideology but I don't neccesarily agree with them 100%. They bring to the argument the same problem I see in Eddie's justification (stringing together bible verses for the cause to support this mere idea). I always say 'context' please.

I read those gospels and I see what Eddie mentions about judgment but I also see the higher values of love and grace (mercy is the predecessor of good judgment). I ask for one simple thing, contextual clarity on the issues. I read a Jesus who is defined in the beatitudes as to who and what he taught. Picking up those values actually defines the basis for what He taught. I read whole books and not one scripture here and another there, string them together and you can make any point of view work. In the end, the letters and the OT have to stand up to what the disciples say Jesus said (or taught)...Matt 5:17-20. Thusly, so do our interpretations.

To be fair the universalist has a better persepctive of Jesus than the religious right, for the universalist doesn't let judgment define their lines for them, they love and promote grace irregardless. They lack in that they throw out parts of scripture for their benefit (as does any group claiming an ideal based on stringing together bible verses for ideology). I say why can't their be a judgment at the end? Cause God doesn't love us if there is? "God wouldn't allow a person he loved to suffer everlasting torment; that would make God a monster instead of the perfect Loving One" (Keith). This is made up jargon and not found in a single place in biblical literature. It's good for sympathy votes but not predicated on anything that the disciples taught. I guess if a universalist doesn't believe this than it destroy's their faith? I am not sure.

Also about this line 'A person could CHOOSE damnation and eternal torment over God' (Bob). I agree with the premise. A person makes choices to do things that are contrary to Jesus' teachings burning their bridges to God (ex: living a life that is so far gone as to never accept responsibility for their crimes against humanity). If you 'love your neighbor you love God' and if you 'hate your neighbor...then what?'. That is the answer to the riddle. A person can choose to hate their neighbor and we can find many examples of the such. Yet I am to believe that we will sit together in heaven each recieving the same reward for one 'loving their neighbor' while the other 'hated their neighbor'. That is absolutely 'non-gospel' and contrary to Jesus' teachings (matt 25). To say it lines up one has to juggle scriptures to make them fit.

The context of scripture places the blame solely on the individual and this in ethics taught by Jesus (ex: tree, fruit, braches, and every other parable describes living by Jesus' teachings as proof you 'love others'). Now living ain't just saying a prayer and preaching to others, that's too simple. No, living for Jesus reflects a nature of love and grace that accepts and supports the people around you (no matter who they are). It is helping the poor/needy in ways that is useful to them. It's taking the teachings on money, community, acceptance, love, faith, etc and actually 'baring fruit'. Now this may come off as 'doing to attain your salvation' but it's actually 'doing because of salvation'. It's the not doing part that really bothers me.

Hi Societyvs

I agree with you about Bible interpretation: it's all about context, and a person can often string together out of context verses to "prove" his pet theology. But IMO the case for universal reconciliation (UR) doesn't depend on such. I'd say there some rather good in-context biblical arguments for UR. The basic argument is that the Bible describes God as (a) wanting everyone to be saved and (b) being victorious in the end. My argument would be that salvation is such an important purpose that IF in the end anyone successfully resists salvation and is forever damned THEN God was a loser. Now if there were strong biblical evidence that some people would be forever damned, that evidence might outweigh the conclusion I've drawn, but the bible verses marshalled in favor of "everlasting damnation" do NOT clearly support ED. Combine that with the various verses (see a couple of those verses below) that suggest that everyone will end up saved, and the weight of the evidence supports UR. UR is consistent with our greatest hopes and there is no reason to think it less likely than ED.

your friend
Keith

A COUPLE OF VERSES SUPPORTING UR:

"Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man THE many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man THE many will be made righteous." Romans 5:18

"I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in...Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[h] receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you. 32For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all" (Romans 11:25,32)

So Christ's obedience brought it about that the same group that was made sinful by Adam's sin (i.e. everyone) will; eventually be made righteous. And God imprisons each of us in our own disobedience so that in the end he can be MERCIFUL to all of us. yeah, these are verses quoted without context, but there is nothing in the context of those verses that demands a different interpretation.

I think i would rather err on the side of many people going to hell for their incorrect beliefs. Those who relax in the ease of universalism... if they are wrong...

there is a grindstone i believe for them.

there are verses on both sides folks... deny the hell side.. and you are being REALLY EFFING STUPID>

[URL=http://eautyqrt.com]jifrbspb[/URL] vrhdgbqn http://tagxdnvk.com lfiukdjb hdrehgpq jtjcbuxi

ubrcsbrn hjpxzvyn http://hyufkqbp.com auyyotor kmpoedvb [URL=http://dgqstrld.com]ifhzatex[/URL]

[URL=http://hqpucuea.com]wbodengf[/URL] kyjjeagl http://nqtwpnyv.com swmyfypi smxwhdex koajjnrz