Groups Feed

One example that is offered as a clear contradiction is given as follows.  

…did Jesus say, ‘those who are not with me are against me’ or ‘those who are not against me are for me’? Either one of the evangelists is in error or Jesus said both and so contradicted himself’. (Hell to Pay, page 339).    

The facts are that Jesus said, ‘those who are not with me are against me’ in Matthew 12:30 and Luke 11:23. He said this in response to challenges from the pharisees that He cast out demons by the power of Beelzebub. Jesus replied that a kingdom that is divided cannot stand. He then added the above words, which are identical in Matthew and Luke. Jesus was making the point here that, in relation to Him, there is no divided house or half-way house. People are in either one of two mutually exclusive houses: (A) with Him or (B) against Him.

Jesus did not quite say, ‘those who are not against me, are for me?’  What He actually said in Mark 9:40 was, ‘who is not against us, is for us’., and in Luke 9:50 He said, ‘he is not against you, is for you’.  In the first version Jesus used the word, ‘us’ and in the second He used the pronoun, ‘you’. However, this is not a contradiction. Jesus may have simply reinforced this message by repeating the point, something He often did, in this case to make it clear to the disciples that this principle applied as much to them as group as it did to Him personally.  

In this second passage, Jesus spoke these words to His disciples in relation to a man who was casting out demons in Jesus’s name, but who decided not to join the disciples at that time. Making the point He made to the pharisees in Matthew 12:30 and Luke 11:23, Jesus said that there were only two camps: (A) with Him or (B) against Him. There was no mixing of this position, no divided houses and nothing outside of (A) and (B).

Even if Jesus had said exactly what was quoted above, therefore, no contradiction would arise. If there are only two groups (A) and (B), saying that you are not in (B) must mean you are in (A) and vice versa. Far from being a contradiction, this is actually a logical necessity.  

Thank you for your generous comments and for offering one of the few serious critical reviews of my book I have read. I agree that a 'low' view of Scripture is problematic for my case but I would argue that a 'high' view (inerrancy, infallibility) is even more problematic for those who seek to advocate it because of the reasons I outline - notably the contradictions and apparent errors. I agree also that the lack of a clear position on atonement is also a major weakness - and I personally find it a serious obstacle to traditional faith. Inequality in suffering is indeed a real question but it is not something damnationism has any answer to. With regard to the free will of God - I would say He is free to act according to His nature and that nature would not be compatible with Him being evil - but free will is a topic that has defeated far better thinkers than me!!

Well done Robert. Keep writing!

It is a persuasive book that takes scripture seriously

I still don't have any takers, unfortunately. However, as I've already read it, at some stage before Christmas I'll try to let you have my thoughts on David Favager's wonderfully titled book, 'Hell to Pay: The Blasphemous Absurdity of Damnationism'.

Palestine was previously owned by the Philistines, from where the word ‘Palestine’ comes. God did not promise the land of the Philistines to Abram’s descendants  (Genesis 15:18-20), however, and both Abraham and Isaac had cordial arrangements with the King of the Philistines (Genesis 20 and 26).

During the Exodus, God steered His people away from Philistia (Exodus 23:17), but Numbers 34:1-12 and Joshua 15:1-47 tell us that their land was eventually allotted by God to the Israelites. However, this agreement was rescinded before long, because the chosen people did not keep God’s commandments (Judges 2:20 - 3:4). As a result, Gaza was only overcome for a brief period during the reign of Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:8).

When the Babylonians and Greeks came to power, the Philistines suffered defeats and destructions along with Israel (Zephaniah 2:4 and Zechariah 9:5,6), but these passages do not say the defeats would last for ever or that their land would belong to Israel. Following the Babylonian exile, for example, we know that God refreshed His settlement plan for the Israelites (Ezekiel 47:13-20), but we also know that there were resettlements of Philistia during this Persian period.

The key questions for today are whether the allotment of land in the Ezekiel passage was (a) unconditional and/or (b) applies for all time.  There is nothing in the passage that says that either of these things is true.

It is clear from passages such as Judges 2:20 - 3:4 that God’s gift of the territories in what became the Promised Land was not unconditional, so it is hard to see how it could necessarily last for ever.

Some may argue that Genesis 17:8-10 tells us the covenant gave Abraham and his descendants an ‘everlasting possession’ (verse 8). However, as universalists we know that this Hebrew word frequently does not mean literally ‘for ever’. Moreover, the covenant of circumcision is also said to be ‘everlasting’ (verse 13), but  circumcision no longer applies (Galatians 5:2).  Consequently, as 'there is now neither Jew nor Greek' in the eyes of God (Galatians 3:28), the covenant of land to the Jews must no longer apply either.

This should not be confused with God’s promise of salvation to the Jews. This was neither conditional nor temporary. As Paul explains, 'the gifts and call of God are irrevocable' (Romans 11:29). And, as all men will be saved, it follows that ‘all Israel will be saved’ as well (Romans 11:26).

When Jesus said that the tax collectors and prostitutes would enter the kingdom of heaven ‘before’ the chief priests and elders, He was clearly telling us that they would enter the kingdom of heaven eventually. It’s just that many of the first will be last and many of the last will be first (Matthew 19:30). Alleluia!     

I believe God decrees that it should happen, but it’s clear from Jesus’s teaching that He takes no pleasure in social injustice.

The early Christians lived in a commune, sharing everything and giving according to their ability and taking according to their need.

It’s hard to see how that model could be imposed on everyone, but it is clearly much better than models that encourage self-seeking and reward greed.