In Reply to: Corrected and spell-checked--sorry! posted by OldtimerToo on June 15, 2004 at 09:34:42:
found walter martin's insight interesting, but then realised it was "new" and therefore "ain't true". j/k. but seriously, the problem is neither truth nor error is new, nor are opinions as to which is which. which brings us back to the ol' drawing board..
again , i do not doubt that all men are sinners, and all stand deserving of judgement. i do believe that Jesus died to reconcile men to God thru the gift of grace. but what i do not find in scripture is an airtight, no loose ends, formula for exactly how the Lord judges. in one place we see lazarus in abraham's bosom w/ no explanation for why other than he had bad things in this life. in another we see the lord seperating the sheep and the goats based solely on their good works toward the poor and suffering. neither fits the "traditional" evang. formula. what's up w/ that? and these guys jesus is speaking to clearly did not know the four spiritual laws, nor the 4 plus sinlessness after rebirth deal, or any of it. i really do not believe their understanding of heaven and hell nor the fine print on the evangelical fire insurance policy was very much like your typical baptist or lutheran today. but jesus seemed to feel no need to spell out the details very clearly at all, usually speaking in metaphor or parable, and certainly not w/ the consistent precision of a modern systematic theology.
at present, i am starting to approach the story differently. i think that jesus was getting at something else w/ his message of the kingdom being at hand. and his message of "life" and "life of the eternal kind" (as dallas willard often puts it), was speaking of something that is sadly flattened by formulas, and perhaps largely missed if reduced to too neat a little bundle.