I swapped books with a new ager and need some help

[Sugar_Ray]

I agreed to swap books with a new ager and he gave me If Grace Is True by Phillip Gulley and James Mulholland. They teach that everyone will be saved. As I am struggling to get through this drivel I am making notes and refuting wherever I can this heretical nonsense.

One point I would like some help with regards Joshua 10:40. The authors use the fact that Joshua claims God told him to kill all the men, women and children of five different towns as evidence that the Bible is not innerent. It is impossible, they claim, that God would command such a thing therefore the Bible cannot be accepted as infallible. They use this logic to justify rejecting all the verses of scripture that mention hell, judgement, etc.

Setting aside what this does to the value of scripture…could I get some feedback on Joshua 10:40 specifically and how to handle the idea that God could never command Joshua to do such a thing and that Joshua was wrong when he claimed God did.

Thanks for your help

 

[gracelife]

Why couldn’t God command such a thing?
He is GOD, the creator of the universe, he can do ANYTHING.

 

[MikeinSD]

take into context that at the time that particular book was written, mass murder of a tribe’s enemies, including women and children, was typical of the mid-east (and everywhere else). And justification was laid at the commands of the tribal god.

 

[Genesis315]

Why do these folks even bother with the Bible?? Why don’t they just write their own about their kumbaya sugar coated god

 

[Liberian]

Sugar Ray:

The authors use the fact that Joshua claims God told him to kill all the men, women and children of five different towns as evidence that the Bible is not innerent. It is impossible, they claim, that God would command such a thing therefore the Bible cannot be accepted as infallible. They use this logic to justify rejecting all the verses of scripture that mention hell, judgement, etc.

Setting aside what this does to the value of scripture…could I get some feedback on Joshua 10:40 specifically and how to handle the idea that God could never command Joshua to do such a thing and that Joshua was wrong when he claimed God did.

Sugar Ray,

OK, there are two or three different issues going on here. First, the New Agers are saying “God is like this, and if you paint Him any different you are just wrong.” That is a prime mistake that many people make, not just New Agers.

The issue in the book of Joshua is that the Israelites needed to destroy the Canaanite culture. Had they left the women and children alive, then those women and children would have continued to practice their pagan culture, and would have led the Israelites into idolatry sooner or later, and probably sooner. (The next book in the Bible shows how often that actually did happen.)

• Liberian

 

[mlchance]

The objection is illogical. Grant just for the sake of argument that Joshua at least exaggerates God’s command about those five towns. Fine. What exactly does that have to do with Jesus Christ’s frequent and unambiguous warnings about the danger and reality of Hell?

Answer: Nothing.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Valz]

They are just like the Deists who find the notions of Hell terrible and say that God would not do such thing. But the question is how do they know this? Did God told them what he actually does? How do these new agers know what God would or would not do? This is a good question.

The new agers want a sugar sky daddy that gives everyone a candy no matter how good or bad they act.

You should try to read the official response to New Age from The Church.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html

Ask them how they know what they do, if they claim to speak for God ask them where their revelation came from so that you can see it.

Valz

 

[Ahimsa]

The book If Grace Is True is not a “New Age” book at all. It was written by two Christians, who argue what many Christians have argued throughout history – that God wants all to be saved, and that what God wants, God will get! In other words, the authors are defending Universalism (which was also defended by a few early Christians, like Origen.)

Universalism is not anti-hell. Universalism simply means that no one will be ultimately denied communion with God. The concept of hell (non-eternal, of course) is compatible with Universalism.

 

[markinohio]

Okay, i’m just a little confused on all this. [that God wants all to be saved, and that what God wants, God will get! In other words, the authors are defending Universalism] So why then, did God give us free will? Besides did’nt God want the israelites to obey him and look what happened to them.
(which was also defended by a few early Christians, like Origen.)
The same Origen that was banished from Alexandria by his own bishop Demetrius. All this sounds to me is the rehashing of a defunct theology. My advice to the original thread, give the book back. God Bless

 

[Ahimsa]

markinohio:

Okay, i’m just a little confused on all this. [that God wants all to be saved, and that what God wants, God will get! In other words, the authors are defending Universalism] So why then, did God give us free will?

I think the idea is that, even in hell, a person still has free-will. If hell were truly eternal, then someone in hell, even if they wanted to repent, would not have the free-will to do so. But if free-will is true regardless of where a person is, a person in hell could (perhaps after spending eons and eons in hell) decide that hell ain’t what he thought it was, and repent.

Origen was a true son of the Church. He never taught anything that the Church of his time condemned as heretical.

 

[mlchance]

Ahimsa:

Origen was a true son of the Church. He never taught anything that the Church of his time condemned as heretical.

Precisely correct, which is why if Origen were writing today he would defend both the reality and the eternity of Hell, just as has been defined by the Church in accordance with Scripture.

– Mark L. Chance.