If a person lives a so called good life but rejects the good news of Christ and His cross they have no part of Christ. If a persons says they believe in Christ and His cross but continue to live a life of sin they have no part in Christ. It is only those who turn from sin and live a life of holiness because of trust in, hope in and love for Christ that will be saved from His just punishment on sin and His wrath.
1 Like
The repentant thief on the cross was not saved in any meaningful way.
Really? He was saved from hopelessness as he died and witnessed to hope, to dignity, honesty. It doesn’t get better than that.
2 Likes
You have changed your tune.
In what way?
He didn’t have any life to live.
Is that that you are witnessing to?
On the contrary. He knew He had eternal life. As his mate was just about to find out.
You are merely projecting your opinion about the unrepentant thief, the one to whom the repentant one said,
The former is also the one to whom Jesus did not say,
Yeah, I’m projecting Love on the guy. God knows what God projects.
I know universalism or annihilationism is popular around here, but that makes neither true.
Damnation is a lot more popular and therefore must be.
I will defend God’s justice and fairness. He is not a Santa Claus with only lollipops and no coal.
If everything is sweet and lovely for all, then ‘The Great Commission’ is hardly an imperative, is it.
You do that mate. He’ll love you regardless of that blasphemy.
How you doing with that?
…says the blasphemer.
Aye, one undeconstructed man’s ceiling is another man’s reconstructed floor.
He was saved the same way all under the old testament was. The only difference is that while Jesus was on earth he had the authority to forgive sins. Matthew 9:6. The thief was one of the very last Jewish men saved under the old covenant before it was replaced with a new one.
I find it interesting that between “universalism” and whatever its opposites may be … “Calvinism?” … “damnationism?” … or more likely … just everything else; but between the two “universalism” and “not universalism”, it is instructive to compare the implications (if any) they have for a life of faith. If there are no implications for either one regarding how I should live, then one may fairly ask … “so what then?” Have fun arguing about all that stuff in your ivory towers … we’re going to go on living real life in the real world. But assuming my choice of belief does have implications for how I live (and I think it does!) then what might those implications be? Of what possible use to me, who is charged with the great commission, is the presumption that some are permanently beyond the reach of Christ’s grace? How should that influence any outreach I engage in - other than to tempt me toward early judgment against others? To presume that a great number (even vast majority?) of everyone is not among the chosen or elect carries the implication that I can excuse myself from having to follow Christ’s great commission to all of us to reach out to all nations - everyone.
On the other hand, the implication of universalism reminds me that even those I would count as my enemies (which by amazing coincidence for nearly all of us seems to be a description of God’s enemies as well) … that even those are God’s eventual children even if they are turning their backs on God now. And the Great Commission is in full force to reach out to these future brothers and sisters with a new urgency. “Why?” you ask … “what is all this urgency if they will be inexorably saved no matter what you do?” That is like seeing a stranger starving in the street while you with plenty pass by and thinking to yourself … “Yeah - I know he’s not in my family, but I also know my dad will eventually invite him in and he’ll be okay then, so I won’t inconvenience myself for his sake here.” And thus begins your relationship with your future brother, having left him out in the cold to wait … maybe a few more years before somebody more compassionate comes along … or maybe even all the way to the end of his suffering life till finally he goes on to finally be welcomed into rest by Christ himself. And perhaps it is we, who will find ourselves finally welcomed in out of the spiritually cold places and into the family by this very one we passed by, and imagined forsaken! “I tell you the truth; prostitutes and tax collectors … the reprobates, the supposedly not chosen by God are entering the Kingdom ahead of you.”
So between the two … do I want to embrace a doctrine which at best is irrelevant to how I live a life of faith, or if it does have relevance, can only tempt me to be unfaithful to God’s Word? Or instead, a doctrine of hope that is not only relevant, but has a relevancy that urges me on toward faithfulness - towards looking forward to that time when every knee will bow and every tongue will confess Jesus Christ as Lord?
1 Like
But not necessarily willingly.