Is this a commonly held view within Christianity?

[ohfook]

I appreciate this post shows my ignorance somewhat, but this is something I've been curious about for years.

My parents raised me as a Christian and would describe themselves as very religious. Their belief system could be summarised as they believe that god is love, we don't need to worry about hell because god forgives and that all religions are just different paths to the same destination and it should be possible for them all to coexist.

I was much older when I realised that other Christian's take a far more bookish/learned approach to the religion. In particular an ex of mine had parents who knew the bible to the letter. They said a lot of things that totally contradicted the belief system that I'd been brought up in. One thing they said really stuck in my mind. They believed that the when the Antichrist came, he'd bring seven years of peace to the Middle East first and people would think he was a hero?

I was just wondering if a lot of people believe this? Mainly because if I was a politician, it would really put me off getting involved because I wouldn't want people to think that about me.

The Matthew 25:31-46 parable?

I believe this relates to the time of the second coming of Jesus: "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne." This throne is on Earth and is only occupied when Jesus returns.

There's a judgment that takes place, specifically of the Gentiles. We know where this takes place from Joel 3:1-3, we know where it will happen, and why. An extract of that: "“In those days and at that time, when I restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem, I will gather all nations and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat. There I will put them on trial for what they did to my inheritance, my people Israel, because they scattered my people among the nations and divided up my land." The judgment is about how the Gentiles treated the people of Israel during the Tribulation people.

"All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left." The people gathered here are those left at the end of the 7 year Tribulation period.

Sheep Gentiles = saved Gentiles who refused the AntiChrist, believers in Jesus, refused to be anti-semitic.
Goat Gentiles = not saved Gentiles, anti-semitic, joined AntiChrist, persecuted Jewish people.

The Goats are then sent to eternal punishment, the Sheep enter the Messianic Kingdom.

That's my pastor's take on it!

@AlteredStater & @merryhouse, it always gets me the story of the sheep and the goats. Who hasn't walked past homeless people? I give to homeless charities and sometimes to street beggars but was chilled to the bone when my DS at uni rang us from a railway station where he had literally given all the notes from his wallet to a beggar whose companion then asked for the same so he went to the cash machine to get more. I was pleased at his compassion but scared at the same time! So my own and my DH's advice was to give to the charities and as a student not to bankrupt yourself. (Living on loans essentially) 🥴

"13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
Faith and Deeds
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food." (James 2:13-15 NIV)

It's difficult isn't it? We expect faith to change us and other people. But it still can be scary.

Yes I agree, when I read the words of Jesus I can feel very guilty indeed about that sort of thing!

I believe in the more literal interpretation of the Bible. With the deepest respect, my denomination wouldn't recognise what your parents believe as Christianity but rather some kind of religious spirituality. I think a lot of people use the term 'Christian' to mean some kind of cultural thing or they believe in a God. However, most "practicing" Christians are Christ-ians (followers of Christ as revealed in the Bible). I mix in evangelical and Reformed circles and have Catholic friends if that gives context. FWIW I absolutely believe the Bible 100% about the stuff you're saying and there are plenty of people who do. Probably under 5% of population though, it's a small proportion of those who tick "Christian" on a census.

@anonhop I don't fully get literal. Our language isn't literal. If you look at etymology there is metaphor even in the meanings of individual words. The way they came about and have evolved. Then when you add in narrative, context, tone...My point is there is so much nuance involved in interpretation. And as humans we don't always fully appreciate all of what is the intended message. We interact with language.

So whilst I get your sentiment about believing 100% of The Bible, I think everyone's understanding of what exactly this means will evolve their as faith grows.

So it's not about people being simply too 'cultural' as there is culture everywhere, we are all part of culture as much as we are human. Admitting that I feel is important. It's about people's different interpretations, depths of understanding and faith. And we need to be compassionate concerning that.

I follow a grammatical-literal-historical hermeneutic whenever possible in the Bible unless it indicates an allegorical type of meaning. So yes, mainly literal. I'm Dispensationalist though so that's the usual way to interpret the Bible.

Dispensationalism is part of reformed theology. This is a minority view in England where the C of E and RC are the largest denominations. Neither hold to a literal view of scripture. The official position of both denominations is that hell doesn't exist but if it did it would be empty. I spent time around independent church ministers with a reformed theology so I recognise the views expressed by some on this thread.

It comes down to how you define Christians. In some reformed circles the only true Christians are the ones who go to their church or their denomination. I've been called heretic, apostate and 'not a proper Christian' to my face as I'm Anglican. The same has happened to my male colleagues. To be fair you can come across the same attitude in conservative RC circles as well as Orthodox ones. Defining who God loves always seems to be a bit pointless. Off to preach on the mystery of God now as it is the transfiguration in the lectionary.

I've been told I'm not a real Christian too, or that I can't possibly have been a Christian my whole life. I guess, technically I didn't have my own faith as a small child, I went to church because my parents took me. But I've always identified as a Christian.

Yes Dispensationalism is very much a minority view in the UK.

I'm surprised you say that the RC Church holds there's no Hell? My understanding is that yes they do believe in Hell. Why did Jesus speak of it, then? Whether it's actual flames or separation from God, neither sounds particularly good! It can't be empty either, even if you believe all people will ultimately be saved, what about Satan and the fallen angels? Also, if there's not a literal view of Scripture then that could negate the Crucifixion or indeed the coming of Jesus. In fact that view could reduce the whole Bible to a fictional tale. What about Noah and the flood? Is that just an allegory as well, instead of God actuallly wiping out the entire population of the Earth and just saving Noah's family?

I feel like some of the harder aspects of the bible (like the 'lake of fire') get dismissed as allegory because people don't want to face such unpleasant ideas. Far easier to just say it doesn't exist at all. I just don't get it, I suppose.

In my view any one who calls themselves a Christian may not in fact be a saved Christian (dislike the expression 'proper Christian'), aka the visible versus the invisible Church, where the visible Church is those who go to Church and seem to be pious people, but don't actually believe Christ died for them, do not have an indwelling Holy Spirit, and so are not actually saved. Anyone, from any denomination, could be unsaved, they may not even realise it. But it's not about which Church you attend - it's about what's in your heart, because that's what God sees.

Also, if there's not a literal view of Scripture then that could negate the Crucifixion or indeed the coming of Jesus. In fact that view could reduce the whole Bible to a fictional tale. What about Noah and the flood? Is that just an allegory as well, instead of God actuallly wiping out the entire population of the Earth and just saving Noah's family?

@AlteredStater, I just think we need not to be too polarised regarding literalism.

As I said upthread, our language is not particularly literal. We don't expect people to literally be plucking out their eyes if they see something which offends them, we hope they would instead question their own feelings of outrage.

Saying that, I certainly don't regard the whole Bible as fictional. It's narrative told by people inspired by God and their relationship with Him. I've said in other threads I truly believe that God is at work in people which means we need to treat them and what they say with respect. However because they are people their frailty also comes through in their expression and retelling of experiences which we need to treat with compassion and understanding.

So my perspective is that there needs to be balance. We need to recognise, as people, our understanding is limited. Our imaginations cannot even imagine everything which God encompasses.

So how do we find understanding? Pray in faith for understanding according to God's will. It is His will that we understand according to His will so we can have faith He will grant this request. And take opportunities to discuss the possibilities of interpretations with others. 😉

Good advice there! My poor pastor gets pestered by me on a regular basis about various Scriptures' meanings! Not just me, either, but it's good, makes for lively discussions!

Anyone, from any denomination, could be unsaved, they may not even realise it.

@AlteredStater, it's a heartbreaking thing to imagine. The only way to find peace from this, I find, is to have hope over people. And not to stop hoping.

"26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”" (Matthew 19:26 NIV

"Hope deferred makes the heart sick,
 but a longing fulfilled is a tree of life." (Proverbs 13:12)

Yes, I’m a bit puzzled by what the OP means by the ‘if I were a politician’ remark - put her off getting involved in what? Politics? Biblical literalist Christianity?

And, OP, most Biblical literalists, whatever their faith background, are the reverse of ‘bookish/learned’. They’re generally more likely to be poorly-educated, credulous and socially conservative.

They’re generally more likely to be poorly-educated, credulous and socially conservative.

@Crichel, I don't think we need to be bandying around insults towards those with a differing understanding and different backgrounds. It's somewhat exclusionary. Shouldn't Christians show compassion towards people who lack full understanding? And humility! As we all lack full understanding!

I was deeply involved with the church - Sunday school, youth groups attending and as I got older leading. Married to someone who is a vicar. Worked in a Church of England organisation.

However, I can now see this all far more on the level as a clut. When I stopped going to church people shunned me, didn't return my calls, vicar ignored me in the street. (not the one I was married to).

People who I had helped with their problems, spent hours with as a pastoral assistant were simply not there for me.

When you are making the teas, being on the rota etc the church will love you. When you stop it will stop. Be careful how involved you get.

@AlteredStater why not read theology outside of your denomination rather than rely just on your pastor. Good training for pastors, vicars or whatever means reading widely so perhaps he (and I'm assuming he) can recommend somewhere to start. My tutors at degree level were academic Anglicans, Methodists and RC. At masters level they were mostly reformed and Orthadox. That was a really helpful experience to read outside of my comfort zone.

While I agree that we shouldn't be bandying around insults, I also don't think it's ok for people from more evangelical/bible literal denominations to say that others aren't 'Saved'

I agree with people calling themselves Christian who clearly aren't, like my ex for example who puts that he's Christian on the census, even though he has no belief at all. He thinks that being Christened as a baby means he is Christian. Technically I guess it does. But I think the fact he doesn't believe means he shouldn't put it on forms

While I agree that we shouldn't be bandying around insults, I also don't think it's ok for people from more evangelical/bible literal denominations to say that others aren't 'Saved'

@HaddyAbrams, indeed. As I said earlier, that would be a heartbreaking thought and my solution for that is hope.

I’m an atheist. I’m simply giving my experience of Biblical literalist evangelicals in several different countries, which is that they are very often people of small understanding, little life experience and unusual credulity. For people who claim to base their lives on the Bible, they appear very often to be without the most basic understanding of the dating, development, authorship, changing canonicity etc of it, and instead think of it as a sort of timeless magic book.

Your parents have a pretty normal UK Christian, non-evangelical view.

I was a regular church goer for 20 years and in all that time nobody ever mentioned the rapture, the anti-christ or did a sermon based on Revelations - generally viewed as that weird book at the end which we don't read.

The person you have come across is definitely evangelical, but also from a USA-influenced branch of evangelical Christianity. They have whole movies about the rapture, and are massively interested in Israel because they think their influence there will cause the rapture - see the whole Christian backing for Trump.

Even when I went to UK evangelical churches who thought the bible was the literal word of God, women should submit to men and gays would burn in hell, they still weren't into the anti-Christ and the rapture.

@shrewdasserpentsinnocentasdoves you are incorrect to say that a more Liberal definition of Christianity spirals down into TWAW-type meaningless tautological definitions. A simple definition that a Christian is anyone who is trying to live in accordance with their understanding of the teachings of Jesus Christ spirals nowhere, and has no chance of inadvertently spiralling to include Buddhists, Jews etc. We do know from the teachings of Jesus that He is very much opposed to the idea of humans defining an "in" crowd and an "out" crowd and when they do, He places Himself with the latter. We also know from Matthew 25:37-40, and beautifully expanded by C S Lewis in The Last Battle (see below) that only He is qualified to judge who is in or out.

Neither is it the case that one has to believe that non-Christians are damned because of the teaching that "No One comes to the Father except by Me". Certainly that could be taken to mean that there is only one Way to the Father, but it could also be taken to mean that there are an infinity of Ways to the Father and that Jesus is there within each of those paths whether acknowledged or unacknowledged.

“Alas Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reasons of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted.”

For people who claim to base their lives on the Bible, they appear very often to be without the most basic understanding of the dating, development, authorship, changing canonicity etc of it, and instead think of it as a sort of timeless magic book.

@Crichel, you make it sound as if you think to be a 'true' Christian you need to be very academic, learned and well studied. Whilst I believe there is value in that type of learning, I feel it is too elitist to have this as an absolute requirement. Jesus said,

"14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15 When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there." (Matthew 19:14-15)

We all have to start somewhere! And He did not hold back regarding what He felt about some of the scribes and Pharisees.

I don't think you need to be hugely academic to know that God did not write the bible with a big golden pencil in the sky. It is written by men.

In the way that we know look more deeply into how history is written - I think we need to consider this religious text in the same way.

The word homosexual, which appears in current editions of the bible did not exist in biblical times, for instance.

I am doing so, actually! But I'm fairly recently returned to the faith so I have a LOT of catching up to do. I used to be CoE but on returning to that have found it very different from what I recall from years ago. I am attending 2 online churches both of whom have different perspectives (neither is CoE). One has a Hebrew speaker/scholar and that's been amazing. It all takes time though, I'm not in the best of health so have to take it slowly, but every week I learn more. I do agree, going outside the comfort zone is good!

Absolutely. A quick read of a couple of Wikipedia entries will give people a rough context for things as simple as what a heterogenous set of texts it is, how disparate in space and time, how multi-authored, how multi-genre (laws, poems, letters, biography, histories of specific groups etc) how different faith groups have different Biblical canons, in-fighting over what was included in various Bibles etc.

To combat, as you say, the ‘God with a golden pencil in the sky’ approach, or the idea that Jesus magically fulfilled OT prophecies, rather than the gospel writers being careful to construct Jesus in terms specifically referencing the OT (‘so it must be true!’) Lots of Paul’s epistles make a lot more sense when you think of them in terms of first-century Christianity beginning to single itself out from Second Temple Judaism.

I mean, if you’re going to build your entire belief system around a set of texts, you should know as much as possible about those texts and how you came to be reading the version you’re reading. So no, @eyestosee I don’t think it requires any ‘academic’ strengths, just a basic curiosity and access to the internet.